What if everybody's Jesus?

@dharma bum,

It seems to me that in most Christian theologies, the primary idea is to be as Christ-like as possible.

Now, different groups have different opinions of Jesus - most think of Jesus as the "only begotten Son of God", so for them, we could not all be Jesus. But even for them, we most certainly should strive to be as Christ like as possible.

Personally, I am of the view that we are all, as you say, the children of God, and that we all have the potential to reach Heaven, or enlightenment in the Buddhist terminology.

@dharma bum,

As far as I understand it, in terms of Christian doctrine no one can be as holy or enlightened as Jesus. The fundamental reason is that God is Jesus and Jesus is God and that was a onetime event. Literally. The God who made the heavens and the earth became human, born as a child, grew into a man, taught the ways of God, and shared in the human fate of suffering and death. The dynamic of Christ's suffering is inextricably connected to the fact that God acknowledges human imperfection (sins) and via Jesus Christ we reconcile with God. It is still God in one way or another. But personally, I am Catholic so I that's just the version I am acquainted with. There are other versions, but that's just what I have right off the bat.

Now as far as I understand Mahayana Buddhism, it is much like Theravada Buddhism (four noble truths, etc.), but beyond that, there is a distinction between the private Buddha and the perfect Buddha. The private Buddha concerns himself with personal attainment of Nirvana while the perfect Buddha concerns himself with the salvation of others. The perfect Buddha is paramount, and in so many words, Mahayana Buddhism emphases compassion and the betterment of others. Siddhartha could have attained his own personal nirvana, but chose to spread the good word instead because of his compassion for others.

With all of that said, there are definitely a lot of similarities here. I think that compassion in particular is a unifying theme in both Mahayana Buddhism and Christianity. God for humanity and the Bodhisattva with others. Another interesting point I have thought about is that, when I said that God is Jesus and Jesus is God, there is an almost identical principal in Theravada Buddhism, which is the Nirvana paradox (by rejecting nirvana, Bodhisattva attains it), which I think is a wonderful lesson. Nirvana is Samsara and Samsara is Nirvana. There are a few other good similarities, but that just goes to show the common theme.

However, I think the fundamental differences also have equal weight. There are not many Gods in Christianity, just one like there is just one Jesus. Buddhism by contrast has a wide array of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. A fundamental caveat exists in Christian doctrine assumes that there are and ought not to be any other Gods except God himself(monotheism). Saying there are many versions of God in the form of many Jessi is taboo. So in that sense it does go against some teachings of Christianity (some).

But this has been an abstract concept that philosophy has tried to reconcile. Take Spinoza for example, who supposed that there is one primary substance, and that one substance is God. Everything by contrast is like God and shares in the abstract nature of God, including Jesus and other Jessi. Under that framework, there could definitely be other versions of Jesus. But definitely, both Christ and Siddhartha Gautama were enlightened and spread mutual compassion and salvation. Now could we all be potential Christ's? Fundamentally no, but ideally it would be great.

@VideCorSpoon,

While we on the course of comparison, the Dalai Lama has said that Jesus was a Bodhisattva, and there is this interesting tale which, although probably not historically accurate, seems to be an example of the common Buddhist thought that good teaching is good teaching, regardless of the source:
Gasan J?seki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For anyone interested in the Buddhist-Christian connection, Thich Nhat Hahn's book, Living Buddha, Living Christ discusses similarities in beliefs and aims of Buddhism and Christianity without getting into the quagmires of theological debate and historical speculation. In the typical Buddhist method, his aims are clear and pragmatic.

Although, Vide, I'm not sure that the existence of many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is a contrast between Christianity as a monotheism and the Buddhist tradition. If we take Jesus to be in a literal Trinitarian sense, the only begotten Son of God, then the whole idea of Jesus is no longer even analogous to the idea of a Buddha.

So, the whole question of multiple Jessi, or people of the same level of spiritual attainment, depends upon how we take John's Gospel, the only Gospel to call Jesus the "only begotten Son", and how we take the Trinity teachings. I think I've given my speculation on all of that elsewhere, so I'll let it alone for the moment. But, as Vide says, by and large Christian theology does not allow for another Jesus like figure, though there have been and are minorities who certainly accept something of that nature. Typically, they are evil, liberal Christians who refuse to call Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and Baha'i devotees the AntiChrist.

@dharma bum,

VideCorSpoon;82814 wrote:

As far as I understand it, in terms of Christian doctrine no one can be as holy or enlightened as Jesus. .

Hello vide. That is the implication.

VideCorSpoon;82814 wrote:

The fundamental reason is that God is Jesus and Jesus is God and that was a onetime event. Literally..

When one is perceived as God, and not of God, anything that is said must be understood as if God is "speaking Himself". To a degree, I do believe, there is an accuracy to that in much of what is espoused that Jesus said is profound in it's truth, but he was "preaching to the choir", so to speak. He was saying things they sincerely wanted to hear. A lot of good that did considering the "signs of he times", of which those are hazy. I think we need to ask, "why was there a need for there to be a "Jesus" to iterate what most of the oppressed already knew? Sure, it shows "compassion", but it did nothing to alleviate the pain other than to offer hope for better times to come? If he were truly THE GOD, don't you think he would have known how to circumvent the powers that took his life? After all, he, being God, created them too?

VideCorSpoon;82814 wrote:

The God who made the heavens and the earth became human, born as a child, grew into a man, taught the ways of God, and shared in the human fate of suffering and death.

Wow! That explains it, huh? That justifies his murder, and excuses all suffering in it's depiction of his willingness to die for us? "I will sacrifice myself for you, for there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it, not even me, being God and all"! It'll get better "someday". How so very convenient that was and brilliantly put together, I might add. The only thing I do believe is his death, though even that could be a fabrication warning others who talked of "this God thing",to beware. Hmmm? We don't even know what the man looked like! Did he exist? If so why, in that godforsaken land we call the Holy Land which has been anything but Godly, IMO. If there ever was a hell on Earth, that's were Satan would have his throne, again IMO. Of course, unless he were shrewd enough to manipulate others who truly live in the Eden's of this Earth to allow him admittance. Hmmm?

VideCorSpoon;82814 wrote:

The dynamic of Christ's suffering is inextricably connected to the fact that God acknowledges human imperfection (sins) and via Jesus Christ we reconcile with God.

Now that very statement ties the old testament to the new testament in that man was seduced to sin. It backs it up perfectly and gives it validity. How could a "perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent anything" be capable of creating anything "imperfect". You just have to ask that question! Which leads to the next question, why are we so "flawed"? Just in any perfect creation, we don't like being told what to do! Why would God need "to command us" when he created us perfect? Unless it was a part of our growth as human beings and the overwhelming nature of life itself and our greed "not to give it up" which was exhibited in our death. It had to be this way, is the only logical answer to that question. Vide, you have to understand that which we constitute "evil" is extremely intelligent and is very capable of manipulating the mind of those of lesser knowledge. It was done then and it is being done today.

VideCorSpoon;82814 wrote:

It is still God in one way or another.

It is still an "interpretation" of God, IMO, nothing more. Just as we created god, we created satan, to relieve mankind of culpability! What about woman in all of this religious talk that "mankind" is responsible for, Huh? Where was Jesus in all that? They were washing his feet! Just like they did Moses. Hmmm? Where was he for the 18 years of his life we know nothing about; if we know so much about the last three, it seems we would know that too?

VideCorSpoon;82814 wrote:

But this has been an abstract concept that philosophy has tried to reconcile. Take Spinoza for example, who supposed that there is one primary substance, and that one substance is God. Everything by contrast is like God and shares in the abstract nature of God, including Jesus and other Jessi. Under that framework, there could definitely be other versions of Jesus. But definitely, both Christ and Siddhartha Gautama were enlightened and spread mutual compassion and salvation. Now could we all be potential Christ's? Fundamentally no, but ideally it would be great.

D'harma and Vide in answer to the OP is IMO Yes. We are all of that God, but not that God. In my personal opinion in that it has the most power, the most money, the most influence, the most control, and IMO created the most fear, the bible is the most contaminated of all religious dogmas along with it's brother, the Koran. They were both cut from the same manmade cloth. As long as we, the human race, are at odds and divided as we are, there will never be peace.

All of our philosophers, writers of religious text and all manners of communication have be edited by the powers of the time and all lived in fear of espousing a truth for it would fall out of favor for the presiding god on the throne at the time, just as it is today.

William

@dharma bum,

From the East the divine that dwells within.
From the West the kingdom lies within you.
Jesus a manifestation of the divine and emmantion of spirit as are all the great spiritual leaders of history. Each person is a unique and individual manifestation of spirit and therefore deserving of respect.
The dispute about the divine versus the human nature of Jesus continues to the current day. He was both as we all are.

@dharma bum,

Quote:

In Christian theology, particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholic theology, theosis (written also: theiosis, theopoiesis, theōsis; Greek: Θέωσις, meaning divinization, deification, or making divine) is the process of transformation of a believer who is putting into practise (called praxis) the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. In particular, theosis refers to the attainment of likeness to or union with God, that is the final stage of this process of transformation and is as such the goal of the spiritual life. Theosis is the third of three stages; the first being purification (katharsis) and the second illumination (theoria). By means of purification a person comes to illumination and then sainthood. Sainthood is the participation of the person in the life of God. According to this doctrine, the holy life of God, given in Jesus Christ to the believer through the Holy Spirit, is expressed through the three stages of theosis, beginning in the struggles of this life, which increases in the experience of the believer through the knowledge of God, and is later consummated in the resurrection of the believer, when the power of sin and death, having been fully overcome by the atonement of Jesus, will lose hold over the believer forever.[1] This conception of salvation is historical and foundational for Christian understanding in both the East and the West.

From Wikipedia.

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;82802 wrote:

Has anybody ever pondered the thought of what if anybody has the potential to be just as holy and enlightened as Jesus Christ?

In Mahayana Buddhism, we believe that all people can be Buddha's and that Siddhartha Gautama was the first one to become enlightened and teach others about it. Many Buddhists also believe that Jesus Christ was one of these enlightened Buddhas.

Has any Christian Theologian entertained the idea that, since we are all the children of God, we all have the potential to be Christs?

I know that this goes against some Biblical teachings, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

In Christianity, the main difference is that one cannot be an equal to the one 'Jesus of Nazareth'. In Buddhism, from what I understand, it is believed that anyone can become a Buddha equal to Siddhartha Gautama. Of course it is taught that Jesus was God in flesh, while Buddha was not God in that sense.

The sharp distinction I see is that Christian teaching leads to giving oneself over as much as possible to God, as Paul said, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in (or through) me"... while Buddhism is about waking up to one's true self, and becoming whole.

At their core, the teachings about Christ and Buddha reveal a great rift in the nature of the two 'Great Teachers', and what we, as followers, can and/or are supposed to do or be...

@dharma bum,

Yea, I think we all have the potential to emulate the best of qualities discussed. But I also think there exists the very distinct possibility that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't nearly as holy or christ-like as we believe he was.

@Khethil,

Khethil;87448 wrote:

Yea, I think we all have the potential to emulate the best of qualities discussed. But I also think there exists the very distinct possibility that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't nearly as holy or christ-like as we believe he was.

Here's an interesting take on this type of idea:

Amazon.com: The Sins of Jesus (9780967276519): Richard A. Muller: Books

Quote:

"An historical novel of a human Jesus who uses illusion and deception to persuade his followers that he teaches truth. Convinced that he delivers the word of God, given to him by his father Joseph and through "little whispers", Jesus discovers that the Jews ignore his preaching. They have been warned to beware false prophets, and that true ones can be recognized only by their miracles and fulfillment of prophecies. To get them to accept the truth of his revelations, he allows his followers to give him credit for miracles he did not perform. But as he relies more and more on deception, he slowly slips deeper and deeper into sin. . . . The author blends historical facts with the Biblical account to make a vivid and compelling portrayal of Jesus, not as God, but as a man -- a prophet -- who is desperately trying to teach others the importance of his revelations."

Jesus' miracles could have just been clever magic tricks, deception used to spread his important message. But does this more realistic view tarnish the traditional image of Christ, or is the message what counts?

On the original topic, there are certainly many people out there who think that they are enlightened. The type of enlightenment found in religious stories though I think is myth, something that certain imaginative seekers dream of achieving. Someone who claims to be Jesus or Buddha I would probably refer to a psychologist...there are people out there with the "messiah complex" who think they are enlightened/godlike, though they are anything but.

@dharma bum,

I think it is an inaccurate assessment of Buddhism to say that it carries the same message as Christianity. Christians believe Jesus's sacrifice removed the sin of man yet the Buddha is specifically noted as saying no other being can remove or suffer for your actions. These are completely opposing views.

Heaven and enlightenment are not the same thing. Otherwise the Buddha would have said to obtain enlightenment all you need to do is die. He never said such a thing. It is a perverse to make the claim that Christianity and Buddhism have the same message.

@Krumple,

dharma_bum;82802 wrote:

Has any Christian Theologian entertained the idea that, since we are all the children of God, we all have the potential to be Christs?

Wasn't that the entire underlying message of Christ? That we too are sons of the living God, that he is the vine and that we are the branches?

I believe that Christ will arise within the consciousness of man, not fall from the sky. That there's a dormant flame within each and every one of us and it's the light of God/Christ or whatever one wants to call it yet it often goes unnoticed.

dharma_bum;82802 wrote:

I know that this goes against some Biblical teachings, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

Not really. Biblical teachings are all over the board. Christ was claimed to have said one thing and the bible tells us another. Christ had a message yet Christianity has twisted it. The message of the carries with it many questions but at it's core it's very simple. What you do to another you do to Christ. What you do to another you do to yourself.

Phredderikk;87447 wrote:

In Christianity, the main difference is that one cannot be an equal to the one 'Jesus of Nazareth'. In Buddhism, from what I understand, it is believed that anyone can become a Buddha equal to Siddhartha Gautama. Of course it is taught that Jesus was God in flesh, while Buddha was not God in that sense.

Yes, Christianity separates humankind from divinity. Most Christians will say it's blasphemy if you feel that you can be equal to Christ... funny thing is, they are saying that to Christ, IMHO and of course missed the entire teachings of Christ. If in fact Christ came with a new message that wiped away the old, why is it they still place so much stock in the 'Old' message of man. I'm not as familiar with Buddha but there have been many great messengers and their stories are alike in the sense of connection to each other and connection to divinity... Not separation.

Phredderikk;87447 wrote:

The sharp distinction I see is that Christian teaching leads to giving oneself over as much as possible to God, as Paul said, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in (or through) me"... while Buddhism is about waking up to one's true self, and becoming whole.

At their core, the teachings about Christ and Buddha reveal a great rift in the nature of the two 'Great Teachers', and what we, as followers, can and/or are supposed to do or be...

That was just Paul talking out the side of his head. He never met Christ so how was it, at that time he could say such a thing based on stories he had heard. Let's not dissect that though.

I don't believe Buddha nor Christ wanted followers. People tend to follow, or like bugs, they tend to swarm around the light in an attempt to get as much in as possible. The light shone through both and people saw the light and they liked it and they swarmed. The message behind it all was not to follow but to lead. To discover Christ or God or the consciousness of the divine through self and through others. The message of separation was not something either of these figures of the past put forward.

There are more of those in this world today that are closer to discovering the 'Christ' within themselves than there has ever been in history. I believe there is a major shift in understanding that will lead us to discovering that all these things are within us and the only separation there is, is the separation we perceive.

Imagine humankind running a race with hurdles to jump over. Our conscious self or our thinking mind is one of us and our best friend and dear pal is our physical body. Our physical body in an effort to help us, runs ahead placing more hurdles in our path. Sometimes our pal slides a mountain in front of us or a ravine. Sometimes the race seems it cannot be won. Our mind self and our physical self are two selves and the physical is working against us constantly to place more hurdles in our way. I think that once the two selves are knowingly 'one' and knowingly connected to all others, hurdles and running will be a thing of the past because we can fly. Sounds silly... but does it?

@Justin,

Krumple;87553 wrote:

I think it is an inaccurate assessment of Buddhism to say that it carries the same message as Christianity.

And you would be incorrect.

While there are a great many differences between Buddhist and Christian religious thought, especially depending upon which denominations we are talking about, the core of the vast majority of Buddhist and Christian teaching is the same - love other people, be kind, be compassionate, be peaceful yet upright.

And this is important. Most religion has these things in common; the vast majority of religious teachings share the underlying concept of compassion for all. However different the expressions of that teaching might be, that essential teaching is the same. Love.

Krumple;87553 wrote:

Christians believe Jesus's sacrifice removed the sin of man yet the Buddha is specifically noted as saying no other being can remove or suffer for your actions. These are completely opposing views.

Not quite. First, there have been and are Christians who do not refer to the works which contain the story of Christ's crucifixion.

Second, Christ's death on the cross did not "remove the sin of man". This is not Christian teaching - at least, this is not common Christian teaching. No major school of theology believes that because Christ died on the cross, that mankind is free from sin.

Instead, the idea typically runs something like this: Christ died on the cross for our sins; his death is an example to us all not only of Jesus' spiritual honestly and dedication, but also as an example for how we should live our own lives - that is, that if we must sacrifice our own lives for a greater good, that we should. The long history of Christian martyrs is the history of emulating Christ on the cross.

Krumple;87553 wrote:

Heaven and enlightenment are not the same thing. Otherwise the Buddha would have said to obtain enlightenment all you need to do is die. He never said such a thing. It is a perverse to make the claim that Christianity and Buddhism have the same message.

It is not Christian teaching that to die is to reach Heaven.

Again, there are many differences in Christian and Buddhist thought, however the message is ultimately the same: love. That was the message of Jesus Christ, and that was the message of the Buddha.

What you say is absolutely untrue. And I know this as a matter of fact because I have bothered to read the opinions of Buddhist monks and Christian monks on the matter. In the book I mentioned previously, Thich Nhat Hahn says in no uncertain terms that Christianity and Buddhism have the same essential message. Given that Thay is one of the great Buddhist teachers of our era, I am inclined to believe the man.

@dharma bum,

If Christianity's message is love then why do you see so much hate speech? Protests against gay rights? Where is the love? I have rarely ever seen a christian who used any message with love. It's always believe or else damnation be upon you.

If love was the christian message it wouldn't have taken so much to get there but obviously it is so convoluted that very few Christians would agree with what you said.

Oh by the way, the Buddha never said to try to love, he said that compassion is a naturally by product of the path. It is not something that need be obtained or forced. In fact love is not mentioned at all in the sutras unless he is specifically teaching on the shortcomings of the emotions.

@Krumple,

Krumple;87619 wrote:

If Christianity's message is love then why do you see so much hate speech?

Because people are conflating their own prejudices with the tradition they come from. The Bible has its prejudices too, but there are plenty of Christians who choose to ignore them and be tolerant.

Messages can be much different than real life practice -- and that impugns the interpretation and not the message.

@dharma bum,

Then I would say either the message is not clear or clearly there is another message.

@Krumple,

Krumple;87624 wrote:

Then I would say either the message is not clear or clearly there is another message.

Or how about humans are humans and not simply echoes of their religious background?

@Aedes,

Krumple;87619 wrote:

If Christianity's message is love then why do you see so much hate speech? Protests against gay rights? Where is the love?

As Aedes says, these very real and serious problems are personal issues of the individual practitioner, which includes those who publicly preach lines of hate.

Krumple;87619 wrote:

I have rarely ever seen a christian who used any message with love. It's always believe or else damnation be upon you.

Then I encourage you to look around a little more. One of my favorite books on Christian practice is Father Thomas Merton'sFaith and Violence. The subtitle is "Christian Teaching and Christian Practice". Along with discussing the Vietnam War and casting it as a senseless, violent movement supported by deep ills in American spiritual understand, Merton also specifically highlights the problem of the American Christian right as "a mystique of violence, of apocalyptic threats, of hatred, and of judgment". Of course, when we look at the life and teachings of Jesus we see a man who is never violent and preaches against violence, a man who refrains from condemnation in favor of giving people moral challenges through which they can become better people, a man who welcomes and teaches the most disreputable of society, and a man who gives many poignant examples of refraining from judging fellow human beings (let he who is without sin...).

Krumple;87619 wrote:

If love was the christian message it wouldn't have taken so much to get there but obviously it is so convoluted that very few Christians would agree with what you said.

I'm not so sure. Even quite hateful Christians will tell you, straight faced and with honest conviction, that the Christian message is of peace.

Krumple;87619 wrote:

Oh by the way, the Buddha never said to try to love, he said that compassion is a naturally by product of the path. It is not something that need be obtained or forced. In fact love is not mentioned at all in the sutras unless he is specifically teaching on the shortcomings of the emotions.

That's quite a quibble given the variety of definitions of love.

Also, love is not limited to the shortcomings of emotions in Buddhist scripture. Surely you recall the phrase "loving kindness"?

@Justin,

Justin;87598 wrote:

Wasn't that the entire underlying message of Christ? That we too are sons of the living God, that he is the vine and that we are the branches?

I believe that Christ will arise within the consciousness of man, not fall from the sky. That there's a dormant flame within each and every one of us and it's the light of God/Christ or whatever one wants to call it yet it often goes unnoticed.

This to me is the closest to the correct answer. While I'm not sure about what the Matthean or Markan writer thought of this, the evangelists highlighted a shift from the objective to the subjective experience of God. The Jewish then held firmly to YHWH as existing objectively, separate from nature, and outside of experience. This viewpoint greatly respects the bounds of reason, but mankind finds it wanting due to a desire to know God more although He is directly inempirical. A little light was allowed (to one man) in the temple cultus and also broke through now and then through appointed prophets to whom they resorted in dire need.

A fact that cannot be stressed enough is that the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. when the evangelists were especially active. The center of objective experience of YHWH being taken away, Christians moved this experience to within the subject. As YHWH fills the temple in the form of a cloud, the Holy Spirit fills believers and guides from within one. Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4 most directly communicates this shift, I think.

So while the statement that "we become Jesus" may sound at first inaccurate, it isn't much of a stretch upon closer investigation. A strong theme is a Christian's partaking (if I had to choose a term to replace becoming) in Christ through the NT. The initiation rite of baptism is interpreted by Paul in Romans 6 as being baptized into Christ's death thus cleansing one from sin and being baptized into his resurrection to emerge from the water as a new creation (it's why the denominational Baptists were sticklers for full immersion).

@dharma bum,

John 10:30-34 NIV wrote:

30 "...I [Jesus] and the Father are one." 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?

Jesus's good news is that we are all sons of God. Remember, he told his disciples to call God 'father' also.

The Eastern Orthodox church preserves this idea in their doctrine of Theosis.

Philosophy Forum

What if everybody's Jesus?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know