[MapleLeaf]

#7 is definitely a big one. I haven’t come to terms with it at this point – at least not to the extent that I can believe the church is “true” while still acknowledging that major doctrinal errors exist. If it’s a matter of human error, I can forgive it and move on much easier. But if it’s a claim to divinely inspired doctrine, it’s much harder to get around.

[MapleLeaf]

As was mentioned, the idea goes back very far – right to Abraham, from what we can tell. Abram became Abraham after he made a covenant with God (Genesis 17:4-5). Even Peter received his name from Jesus himself (John 1:42) after being known as Simon.

It is meant to be a beautiful symbolism, marking a significant change in a person’s life (Saul to Paul is a really good example of this drastic change). I wonder if we have lost some of the significance of this symbolism by assigning “mass produced” new names, so to speak. Does it seem less special knowing that everyone else received the same new name that day?

Also, the secrecy of it may go against the original intention. Abraham was known to all as Abraham, Peter known to all as Peter (or Cephas, in Greek), and Paul known to all as Paul. They were open about this radical change in their lives. I wonder if the secrecy of it takes away from what may have been meant to be a radical outward change?

[MapleLeaf]

“[In Egypt] he was known as Osiris, in Greece as Dionysus, in Asia Minor as Attis, in Syria as Adonis, in Italy as Bacchus, in Persia as Mithras.”

It would take a while, but we could go through each of the above deities, describe the stories told about them, and compare them with the Jesus story to clarify whether the theory is correct or not.

Let’s take Osiris as an example… point by point.

-“His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin”? … Not at all. Osiris’ mother was Nut, the sky goddess (not a mortal). And there was no indication that she was a virgin, or that the birth was miraculous.

-“He is born in a cave or humble cow shed on the 25th of December before three shepherds”? … I could find nothing of the sort associated with Osiris. Perhaps you can?

-“He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism”? … From what I’ve read, Osiris taught his followers agriculture, proper diet, proper worship of the gods, laws, arts and sciences, and civilized behaviour, but I have found nothing about instructing baptism or “born again” teachings.

“He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony. He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honour him”? … I found nothing about this. Please do point out a version of the story that has this in it.

“He dies at Easter time as a sacrifice for the sins of the world”? … Osiris was killed by his brother Set who locked him into a box, poured molten led over it, and threw it into the Nile. No indication that he died for anyone’s “sins”.

After his death he descends to Hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory”? … After his death, Osiris’ body was found by Isis and others, however, Set came back and tore Osiris’ body up into 14 pieces, scattering them throughout Egypt. Osiris did descend into “hell”, but there is no indication of a resurrection the third day. In one version, Isis collects all the pieces of Osiris’ body in order to resurrect him long enough to impregnate her. Otherwise, Osiris stayed in “hell” and became the god of the underworld.

“His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days. His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood”? … I found no indication of any of this. My assumption is that it is a complete fabrication. If there is some truth to it, I would be happy to hear it!

I used three randomly selected websites about Osiris for this information: http://www.jimloy.com/egypt/osiris.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.jimloy.com/egypt/osiris.htm, http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm, http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk/articles/osiris.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk/articles/osiris.html.

I encourage you to do the same with the other gods that supposedly have so much in common with Jesus! Trust me, this idea is not new to me. When I first heard it, I was intrigued at the possibility! But when I tried to prove it I simply couldn’t find any data to support it – and worse, I found plenty that contradicted the theory. Maybe Freke and Gandy have access to information that is not readily available to the rest of us?

[MapleLeaf]

Old-Timer wrote:

MapleLeaf, you are setting up a straw man argument. Nobody here is claiming “the Jesus story” is ripped off of pagan stories.

It’s not a straw man, Ray, it’s what has been argued in this thread repeatedly. Here are two examples:

Swimordie, on 24 Nov 2009, said, “And, NT writers (not Paul) of the four gospels gave Jesus many known mythological attributes like virgin birth, star in the east, wise men bringing gifts, feeding the multitudes, 3 temptations, 40 days of fasting, etc, etc. All of these concepts pre-date Christ. So, obviously the gospel writers were influenced by external mythologies and several of these happen to parallel some buddhist mythology while not paralleling OT, greek, roman mythology.”

Rix, on 25 Nov 2009, said, “[Ehrlman] illuminates the agenda of the Constantinians in establishing a consistent mythology for the people of the time. He talks much about how the Pagans were more accepting of “Christianity” if their God-man had a similar “story” to what they had been accustomed to believing.”

Old-Timer wrote:

All that has been claimed is that important elements of the record we have concerning Jesus (especially those that go beyond the historical into the theological) also exist in other mythologies – and, frankly, that isn’t disputable. Perhaps the story of Jesus we have now was broadened to make it more mythologically similar to what existed within Paganism; perhaps Paganism had its own prophets who taught of someone to come, and perhaps those things were turned into mythologies minus the prophetic core. We can’t know, really, but the similarities certainly exist.

This is an assertion that you have yet to back up, Ray. This thread began by pointing out similarities between Jesus and the Buddha, and I have pointed out why I feel they are unfounded claims. Until I see further evidence, I will assume that similarities between pagan traditions and “the Jesus story” are likewise unfounded – humans trying to find patterns in unrelated material.

Old-Timer wrote:

Also, please cite a contemporary, non-Christian source that gives us clear evidence that the details of the Gospels and Pauline epistles are historical and accurate. I’m not saying they aren’t; I’ve never said they aren’t reasonably accurate. I’m just asking you to provide the type of evidence you are asking of us.

Here is the contemporary, non-Christian source that I cited earlier today: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm. It says that even the most liberal scholars date the Pauline epistles from 55-150 AD. I don’t have any more sources readily available, but if that won’t suffice I can certainly look.

About the source: “We are a multi-faith group. As of 2009-NOV, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.”

I am NOT saying that we have to believe the Jesus story based on the fact that the documents existed. I only brought up the documents’ existence in response to Rix’s suggestion that Constantine put the virgin birth and death/resurrection into the Jesus story in order to make it more acceptable to his pagan citizens. The fact that Christians believed these things early on (as can be understood by a reading of Paul’s epistles) seems to disprove the idea of a pagan-influenced Jesus story.

[MapleLeaf]

Old-Timer wrote:

isn’t relying on evangelical scholars to discuss Biblical historicity a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy? If someone here cited Mormon authors as the foundation of their claims, others would be justified in questioning the conclusions drawn – since there is an inherent bias built into analyses that come from one particular area of belief.

I absolutely agree that we must always be aware of any given writer’s biases, and I certainly do not claim to stand by everything these scholars have said. But, as we previously discussed, “it’s either truly historical or it’s not”, regardless of who the messenger is.

Old-Timer wrote:

The point is that Dr. McRay overlooks entirely the possibility that Luke had a personal bias in his writing, since that fits his evangelical world-view.

I’m not sure if he’s overlooking that possibility at all. I certainly acknowledge that Luke had opinions and biases as we all do. However, can you acknowledge that several non-Christian sources confirm the dating of Paul’s writings, Luke’s writings, and the gospels themselves and thus affirm that the “Jesus Story” (regardless of whether you believe it’s true or not) existed prior to pagan influence.

Old-Timer wrote:

Please understand, I’m not using this to say the people you list and what you claim are wrong; I just think we need to be fair and even-handed in these discussions. If we can’t rely on Mormon apologists exclusively to ascertain Truth, we can’t rely on evangelical apologists exclusively, either.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I have relied “exclusively” on evangelical apologists. In the course of our discussion I have also point out primary pagan sources as well as secular scholars which confirm the points I’m trying to convey. Check it out!

If a Mormon scholar could point to verifiable historical evidence, then it wouldn’t matter what their faith commitment was. I would suggest that the same goes for New Age, Evangelical, or secular scholars. The bias comes in when we read their interpretation of the evidence – which can still be useful in discerning truth, but should be taken with a grain of salt.

Rix wrote:

Again, thanks for the discussion!

Anytime! Now that we have discussed my evidence, I hope we can discuss yours! My previous request still stands, if interested:

MapleLeaf wrote:

I’m fairly confident that there isn’t convincing pre-Christian evidence to suggest that the Jesus story was ripped off of pagan ones. If you have any other examples [that the Jesus story was a pagan rip-off] though, I’d love to hear them!

[MapleLeaf]

Rix wrote:

Yes, I admit they are “widely held beliefs.” That doesn’t mean much to me, considering how they became “widely held.”

The point I was trying to convey was that they were wideley held before Constantine.

Rix wrote:

I’d be interested in a reputable source that says otherwise

I was first introduced to these ideas in “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. While not a NT scholar himself, Strobel compiles the work of several scholars in a clear and concise way. Dr Craig Blomberg, Dr Bruce Metzger, Dr Edwin Yamaguchi, Dr John McRay, and others, each with their own area of expertise, are interviewed concerning how their studies relate to the questions about Jesus’ existence, the validity of the gospels, etc.

If you need a source for the dating of the gospels and the Pauline epistles, here’s one: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm. A google search will no doubt fetch more.

[MapleLeaf]

Rix wrote:

He chronicles many Christian “churches” in the first few centuries after Jesus’ life. But there definitely was not “one Christian church.” There was the range from Gnostic Christians to Pauline Christians. And yes, quite a few Pagans.

There was one dominant “Christian church” (and I use the term loosely) seemingly based on the early testimony of the apostles and supported by Paul. We can prove this because we can actually date Paul’s epistles back to the 50s AD. Gnostic beliefs did arise, possibly even early on, but the fact is that the Gnostic gospels were written from 200-400 AD. Based on chronology, the Pauline “version” of Christianity seems to have history on its side as the “correct” or more original view of Jesus.

Rix wrote:

There was a fusion of Pagan traditions and rituals…Ehrlman talks of how the culture at the time really liked their holidays, so they were incorporated into the Christian story. Of course this was the beginning of the crusades where those that would not conform were imprisoned and murdered. “Heretical” books that were found were burned.

I’m not disputing Constantine’s hijacking of Christianity in the 300s AD. But the fact is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels (that outline the Jesus story that we’re familiar with) are dated back to before pagan Rome could influence them. If you can point to a pre-Christian source that indicates the Christian story was a rip-off, I would be more convinced. But the non-pagan non-gnostic version was well-established before Constantine got ahold of it. As bad as Constantine was, we can’t credit him for inventing Jesus or the traditional beliefs about Jesus – he just took over the Jesus movement.

What we specifically CAN blame Constantine for doing were, as you said, beginning the brutal suppression of “heretics” (whereas previously church leaders just warned followers about them, see Paul’s letters), bringing pagan practices into Christianity, and other such things. But the fact is that all of these things are NOT consistent with the widely held beliefs recorded in the gospels and Pauline epistles.

[MapleLeaf]

Rix wrote:

Yes, I’m sure, as there are MANY versions of the Jesus story too. Bart Ehrlman (NT scholar) has written volumes of books about this…I’ve read only two of his…quite meticulous and, IMO, boring! But it helped me get past the idea that the current NT is unchallengable, and even close to historical, as he illuminates the agenda of the Constantinians in establishing a consistent mythology for the people of the time. He talks much about how the Pagans were more accepting of “Christianity” if their God-man had a similar “story” to what they had been accustomed to believing. Joseph Campbell (one of my favorite religious historians) spent most of his writing career comparing the similarities between the religious mythologies and goes into detail about the many virgin births, death/resurrections, relationships to astrology, etc.

I agree that Constantine influenced Christianity quite a bit – for example, he set Christian holidays in accordance with Pagan ones (December 25th was previously Saturnalia, not Christmas). But the crucial point to note is that Constantine made changes in the 300s AD, while we can date the gospels back to 100-150 AD. We can date the Pauline Epistles back to the 50s AD! So we know a Christian church was well established in that time without the influence of the Roman Empire. The Jesus story was thus already in circulation looooong before Constantine got his hands on it.

Rix wrote:

Anyway, yes, I’m sure they are “New Age,” since the comparisons are coming together in our modern age of historical evidence. I’m serious about really being interested in good sources that refute all this…sources that don’t have a Judeo-Christian agenda.

I don’t have a particular scholar to refer you to at this point. But I think we can refute many of the pagan-christian connections through pagan sources (or lack thereof). For example, we can take the claim that Jesus’ virgin birth was copied from Dionysus’, look at pre-Christian pagan sources to see what pagans believed about Dionysus, and conclude that Dionysus did not have a virgin birth. The connection simply isn’t there. (No Judeo-Christian bias necessary, don’t worry!)

I’ll try to see if there is a good scholar that talks about this stuff. In the mean time, let me know if there’s a pagan-christian connection that you’re particularly convinced of!

[MapleLeaf]

Rix wrote:

Maybe it is all “New Age Movement,” but in my mind it’s either truly historical or not. It certainly doesn’t seem any more agenda-pushing than the Christian movement.

Yes, I agree that “it’s either truly historical or it’s not”. I wasn’t suggesting that just because the New Age Movement pushes for it that it automatically makes it false. Just pointing out that it’s an idea that largely originates from the New Age.

Rix wrote:

Wow, my source reading results have been very different than yours, ML…not to say “mine” are correct ! ( I learned long ago not to debate sources in a field I’m not an expert in), but my studies of Joseph Campbell, Bart Ehrlmann, Elaine Pagals, the Wasatch Gnostic Society, and good ole Wikipedia 😆 all seem to concur in a few “virgin births” pre-Jesus (Dionysus for one…). Here’s one statement: “Author William Harwood has written that Jesus’ “equation in Greek eyes with the resurrected savior-god Dionysos led an interpolator to insert a virgin-birth myth into the gospel now known

as Matthew.” From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm

Dionysus did not have a virgin-birth in any account I have read. He is said to have been conceived by Zeus and a mortal woman named Semele – with some complication to the story in that Semele dies before giving birth, so Zeus has to birth the child himself by sewing the fetus into his thigh. It seems a bit different from Matthew’s account of Jesus, lol. The main point being that neither Semele nor Zeus (who I guess was eventually the one who birthed him…) were virgins.

Another thing to note is that there are several versions of many pagan stories. We have to note when the story originated and whether or not it came before Christianity. The version where Semele dies is found in “Metamorphoses” by Ovid in about 8 AD. It is Pre-Christian, and it is not surprising that it has no Christian elements. If you see a pagan story that appears to have Christian elements, chances are the version of the story is Post-Christian. That has been my experience so far.

Rix wrote:

But I could be wrong, and would love to be led to more accurate sources.

I hope that “Metamorphoses” is a good source for that one. I was directed to it through a web search on Dionysus.

I’m fairly confident that there isn’t convincing pre-Christian evidence to suggest that the Jesus story was ripped off of pagan ones. If you have any other examples though, I’d love to hear them!

[MapleLeaf]

I’m curious what your opinions are about MWallace’s “secret combination” verses. Is this an example of evil mimmicking righteousness? Or is the Church mimmicking the evil it once renounced? Both seem farfetched, but there appears to be some copycatting going on.

[MapleLeaf]

Old-Timer wrote:

I also want to note that it’s one thing to say that the Bible and early Christian leaders interpreted the words of Jesus a particular way, but it’s another altogether to say that Jesus actually said what is attributed to him or that he meant XYZ when he said it. We really have NO idea what words he actually said or what he actually meant – and that transmission issue is part of the “as far as it is translated correctly” disclaimer that gets over-looked regularly.

Coming out of the closet a little bit – I don’t share the same mistrust of the New Testament that a lot of TBM’s have. Scholars believe that the gospels were all written under the guidance of direct eye witnesses or by eye witnesses themselves, and all within the first century AD. The gnostic gospels have no such credentials and were written over a century after Jesus.

How else can we know what Jesus said or meant if not through direct eye witness and the understanding of the first century Church? Anything beyond that is subject to corruption and human invention.

swimordie wrote:

I was not insinuating that any of those buddhist ideas are Jesus Christ’s. Rather, that those buddhist philosophies seem to have great influence on those who wrote the NT. And, NT writers (not Paul) of the four gospels gave Jesus many known mythological attributes like virgin birth, star in the east, wise men bringing gifts, feeding the multitudes, 3 temptations, 40 days of fasting, etc, etc. All of these concepts pre-date Christ. So, obviously the gospel writers were influenced by external mythologies and several of these happen to parallel some buddhist mythology while not paralleling OT, greek, roman mythology.

I hope I don’t seem stubbourn, but I gotta disagree! The idea that the Jesus story includes recycled elements from paganism is something that the New Age Movement has been pushing for a while now, and from what I can tell, it doesn’t appear to have any real basis. Perhaps you could give me some specific pagan examples of those Christian elements (virgin birth, etc.)? The only two I can pick out with any remote similarity are 3 temptations (Buddha had 2 temptations – lust and fear, quite different from Jesus’s 3 – hunger, worship, and testing God) and fasting (Buddha was an ascetic monk prior to discovering the “Middle Way” which led to enlightenment – no 40 days or anything like that. Buddha then renounced the idea of intense fasting).

I think as humans we try to find patterns in our environment, even when they do not exist. It’s like throwing a hundred darts randomly at a barn wall, circling the spot where most darts are concentrated, then saying that you aimed for that circle. In hindsight, some of the darts landed in a similar area, but it clearly wasn’t intended, nor is there any real correlation. Same goes for the remote religious similarities.

swimordie wrote:

And, by adopting concepts of buddhist mythology or philosophy, the gospel writers would certainly put their own spin on it, take what they feel is useful or powerful and adapt it to their own inspired ideas. I’m sure that many of the philosophies of any religious code or theology or whatever you want to call it, will have a great many parallels. Humans are not as unique as they like to think they are. But, it seems likely, to me, that the gospel writers were influenced by a great many philosophical and mythological constructs, drawing heavily on buddhism, for example.

In the sense that we all have the “human experience” in common, there are going to be similarities. But I gotta be adament on the point that these remote similarities do not denote common religious origins or religious influence upon each other.

[MapleLeaf]

swimordie wrote:

I can’t help but wonder why not? Why couldn’t the early (original) writers of the NT have used eastern mythology? They didn’t seem to care about paralleling OT mythology, greek mythology, etc.

The NT writers paralleled OT mythology because they believed in the same deity, and in the same cosmology. The Jesus movement was basically a Jewish Messianic movement based in the teachings of Judaism. NT writers (like Paul) paralleled greek mythology only when he was using it as a teaching point. Paul did not believe in greek mythology (their gods, their cosmology, etc.), but he used some themes that were familiar to them in order to teach Christian doctrine. Paul says, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law” (1 Corinthians 9:20-21).

swimordie wrote:

It just seems way too coincidental, the parallels. And, many of these buddhist philosophies pre-dated Christ by hundreds of years. Those three wise men came from somewhere. Is it irreverent or blasphemous to just say it: Jesus’ teachings were heavily influenced by eastern philosophy. At least, what we have in the NT.

First, I don’t think the parallels are that convincing (see my analysis in my previous post above).

Second, the wise men – Your comment correlates the wise men’s visit to eastern influence on Jesus. Let’s be clear – they didn’t stay long enough to have any influence on Jesus. Even if they were Buddhists (which I don’t think they were), they only stayed to give gifts, worship Jesus, and leave.

I don’t think it’s irreverent or blasphemous – it’s a good idea to explore – but I don’t think it has any real basis. It’s a pet theory for many, especially in the New Age movement and Buddhism, to claim Jesus for their belief system. But if you spend some time trying to understand Jesus’ overall message, it’s fundamentally different from Buddhism. I’ve talked about the reasons before, but here’s a quick summary:

-Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, claimed to forgive sins, claimed that he would one day judge the world, and claimed that he was the exclusive “way”.

-IN CONTRAST: Buddha had no monotheistic concept of God, had no concept of “sin” (much less claimed the ability to forgive them. The only thing close would be bad karma, which could not be ‘forgiven’ but worked off through many lifetimes of goodness), had no concept of a final judgement or even of end of the world, and taught that there are multiple “ways”.

Morzen wrote:

Jump in some more. I have a theory about this. It has to do with going back to the very beginning of humankind. Who or what started it if indeed there was a “singularity” event of humankind (the “Adam and Eve” symbology). And if there was a “who” or “what,” it is conceivable that this “god(s)” also dispensed truths that over time became not only crystallized (and corrupted) in subsequent dispersions or diaspora (the Tower of Babel symbology) of various emerging cultures, beliefs and their systems, and races.

Definitely an interesting theory, however, I would argue that the two worldviews of Buddhism and Christianity simply do not appear to have any kind of common origin. Their respective doctrines are mutually exclusive and opposing.

[MapleLeaf]

I’m going to comment on Swimordie’s post later, but first I just wanted to give a quick analysis of Hawkgrrrl’s comparisons. I am of the opinion that they are not as similar as we are making them out to be. Here’s why:

Quote:

Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.

– Buddha

Matthew 6: 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.

A similar concept, but within completely different contexts. Jesus is teaching people to rely on God instead of worrying – the verse directly before this one reads: “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” Buddha had no such concept of God, or trusting God for one’s needs.

Quote:

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Buddha

Matt 13: 9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Two completely different concepts: Buddha is teaching skepticism. Jesus is encouraging people to interpret the meaning behind his parables. (This verse takes place right after the Parable of the Sower and before he gave the meaning of the parable).

Quote:

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others. He who envies others does not obtain peace of mind.

Buddha

Matt 23: 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant

Again, completely different concepts. Buddha is preaching against envy, Jesus is teaching people to serve their fellowman.

Quote:

Every human being is the author of his own health or disease.

Buddha

3 Ne 17:8 I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you

.

In Buddha’s way of thinking we cause and cure our own diseases through our frame of mind. In Jesus’ way of thinking we go to God for healing. Notice who’s doing the healing in each passage. “Your faith is sufficient that I should heal you.”

Quote:

Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.

Buddha

Matt 18: 27 – 33 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him aan hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

Both good teachings of caring for others. But two different concepts: Buddha is talking about the Buddhist concept of Dukkha (Suffering). Jesus is teaching more specifically about forgiveness of sins, and it is really an analogy for the radical grace which he bestows in his personal forgiveness of man. Buddha did not make any effort to forgive sins – he had no concept of that.

Quote:

He is able who thinks he is able.

Buddha

Matt 21: 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

Both messages of empowerment. However, in Jesus’ case it is not a matter of the individual’s inner power, but God’s. The following verse says, “if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” Again Jesus is requiring his servants to go to God with their requests, not to seek the solutions through their inner potential, as Buddha taught.

Quote:

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.

Buddha

D&C 38:27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

Both leave people with the same goal of seeing others as your brother, but each had a different understanding of what this meant. Buddha literally believed we were all of one substance and that our individuality was an illusion that we had to break free from. Jesus seemed to teach that we were individuals by nature, but that we were to treat each other as if we were one, and metaphorically become one (as is represented in the Church being the body of Christ, etc.).

Quote:

He who loves 50 people has 50 woes; he who loves no one has no woes.

Buddha

Mosiah 18:9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort

2 Cor 7:13 Therefore we were comforted in your comfort: yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all.

Mark 3: 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

I actually do not understand the comparison that is being made. Perhaps someone could clarify? It seems to me that Buddha is saying the more people you love, the more problems you will have. The Jesus verses seem to be saying the opposite.

Quote:

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.

Buddha

3 Ne 12: 22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Both discourage anger, yes. But Jesus throws in the concept of an end-of-the-world judgment in which someone’s anger will be punished. Buddha had no such concept.

Quote:

However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?

Buddha

Matt 7: 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matt 7: 24-27 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

These do sound similar, but it’s not uncanny. They’re both teachers who want their students to apply what they’ve learned! My grade 5 teacher was the same way – that doesn’t mean she was a Buddhist, lol.

Quote:

In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Buddha

James 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

2 Cor 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults.

3 Ne 32: 2 2 Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.

Both are against anger, but for different reasons. Buddha speaks against anger because it gets in the way of truth. The Jesus verses speak against anger because it opens people up to evil influences – more of a matter of righteousness.

Quote:

It is a man’s own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.

Buddha

Matt 16: 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

2 Tim 1: 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

I don’t see the comparison. Perhaps someone could clarify this one as well?

Quote:

No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.

Buddha

Philip 2: 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

“No one saves us”? Surely you can see how that is the opposite of Jesus’ message. The whole purpose of Jesus’ life was to “save us”. We have to “walk the path” and “work out our salvation”, but it’s clear that Jesus repeatedly refers to himself as the exclusive source of salvation.

[MapleLeaf]

phaseIII wrote:

I thought about the apostles in the time of Christ and their shortcomings. I always got the feeling, and I wish I was better able to quote specific scripture 😳 that their shortcomings where not glossed over? I feel very uncomfortable that it is never mentioned that some of the LDS prophets had sketchy pasts. I think that is why I feel that I am being deceived?

My experience with this issue is fresh for me, as I just had a discussion with a TBM (True Blue Mormon) about imperfections in church leaders. I think we should make it clear that none of us expect perfection in any human being, Joseph Smith included. It is clear that the apostles had flaws as well (quick examples: Peter denied Jesus three times, Paul admitted that he did things that he did not want to do, and did not do things that he wanted to do). The difference is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young made their “errors” doctrine. JS was caught in adultery with Fanny Alger – but it’s not the fact that he was a sinner that bothers me, it’s the fact that he didn’t turn from his sin, renounce it and repent. Instead he claimed revelation from God to take additional wives. (People have different opinions about this, but it’s clear what it looks like and why people would be upset by it).

This type of attitude would be like if Peter was caught denying Jesus, then claimed revelation from God that Jesus wasn’t the Christ, so he was right to deny him. OR if Paul sinned (I don’t think he was ever specific about what sins plagued him) and declared his sinful action to be a commandment from God. See the difference? There’s imperfection and then there’s trying to justify your sins.

The worst part is when a TBM will defend JS or BY with the “nobody’s perfect” argument, then turn around and accuse a doubting mormon (or ex-mormon) of having sin in their life to lead to personal apostacy. It’s backwards thinking, and simply not fair.

That said, an organization is not going to be completely forthright with information that undermines its cause. We certainly cannot expect the missionaries to say “In this lesson we’ll be talking about Joseph Smith, our founder. By the way, just so you know, he had an extra-marital affair with a minor.” It doesn’t make sense, and we don’t expect it. But at the same time, when someone asks about it the church should be open and honest – don’t give a contrary view of JS as this saintly figure who did no wrong – and most of all do not blame a person’s doubts upon their supposed “unworthiness”. There are clearly legitimate reasons to doubt without there being agregious sin in a person’s life. Put down the finger of blame and examine your own church’s faults. Or, as Jesus said, before you can take out the speck in your brother’s eye, remove the plank from your own.

Also, Phase III, I’m sorry to hear about the situation with your husband. I can relate to a smaller degree, as I have had family members threaten to disown me when I came forward with my doubts. The good news is that they have since come to understand my views after a rough patch of not seeing eye-to-eye. It takes a lot of patience and humility. I hope things improve for you two!

[MapleLeaf]

Good points everyone. Growing up on the religious side of things, I naturally looked at non-believers as less moral. I think that’s one of the big mistakes we make when dealing with non-religious people. Not only can non-religious people be just as moral as religious people, but I think many people can even leave their religions because they see religion as immoral.

Lately the question I’m asking myself, though, is “can any human be truly moral?” All of us are so imperfect, religious or non. Swimordie, I liked what you said about group mentality. Just wanted to comment on this quote:

swimordie wrote:

So, inasmuch as 😳 religion is a human community, “looking righteous” will always trump actually “being righteous”. Therefore, it’s not so much that religion is the cause of immorality, rather the human need to “appear” “fair”, “good”, “righteous”, etc. will invariably lead one to being vulnerable to immoral action where that immoral action is necessary to maintain the “image” of morality.

This is very true for most of us – and it’s something that Jesus repeatedly called out. To me it’s one of Jesus’ most beautiful teachings, advocating for truly sincere morality – regardless of whether someone is watching or not. He said that when you pray, pray in secret. When you give, give in secret. When you fast, fast in secret. Don’t do any of these things to get attention from your fellow man. When you are “righteous” for appearance sake, that’s the only reward you get – you get to look good, congratulations. (Matthew 6:2) Those who do it sincerely, however, are rewarded by heaven, according to Jesus. It’s a tough thing to think about. Am I just doing this to look good or am I really sincere?

Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when he said “None is good but God.”

[Author]

Posts