If Reincarnation is true then Jesus was sacrificed for no good

[ananda]

yes

Therefore you claim the office of prophet?

Prophet defined: "person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed."

 

[miknik5]

Therefore you claim the office of prophet?

Prophet defined: "person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed."

No I "claim the office" of witness just as HE said

You're a human being
HE is THE SON of GOD who came forth from GOD into the world

Nope
I'm not a prophet

I have nothing new to say but only to point (as a herald and voice) all men to the TRUTH of THE GOSPEL

 

[ananda]

No I "claim the office" of witness just as HE said

You're a human being
HE is THE SON of GOD who came forth from GOD into the world

Nope
I'm not a prophet

I have nothing new to say but only to point (as a herald and voice) all men to the TRUTH of THE GOSPEL

OK, well I guess my point is, either you're claiming that your message is 100% true (which makes you essentially a prophet for all practical purposes in my eyes), or your message isn't 100% true.

 

[miknik5]

OK, well I guess my point is, either you're claiming that your message is 100% true (which makes you essentially a prophet for all practical purposes in my eyes), or your message isn't 100% true.

The message hasn't changed

And any so called "prophet" bringing another "message" is a

L. I. A. R.

 

[ananda]

The message hasn't changed

And any so called "prophet" bringing another "message" is a

L. I. A. R.

The original texts cannot be identified, copies have decayed, the book choices in the canon has changed, languages change, denominations differ, translations differ even within the same language. How has the message not changed?

 

[Robban]

The original texts cannot be identified, copies have decayed, the book choices in the canon has changed, languages change, denominations differ, translations differ even within the same language. How has the message not changed?

Enter reincarnation?

 

[ananda]

Enter reincarnation?

Rebirth.

 

[Robban]

Rebirth.

I do not know, but a witness witnesses on what they have seen,

So to claim, to have seen something that happened almost 2000 years ago,

Well, IDK.

 

[miknik5]

The original texts cannot be identified, copies have decayed, the book choices in the canon has changed, languages change, denominations differ, translations differ even within the same language. How has the message not changed?

It still doesnt change the TRUTH that the same outpouring upon the disciples then

Is the same outpouring on the disciples today

 

[miknik5]

I do not know, but a witness witnesses on what they have seen,

So to claim, to have seen something that happened almost 2000 years ago,

Well, IDK.

A witness testifies

And will


And just as the law states

Two or three are needed to validate a truth


There will be much more than three

 

[Robban]

A witness testifies

And will


And just as the law states

Two or three are needed to validate a truth




It is not so simple, you don,t go out on the street and grab any Tom, Dick or Harry.

They have to have a resåectable reputation to start with.

 

[ananda]

It still doesnt change the TRUTH that the same outpouring upon the disciples then

Is the same outpouring on the disciples today

What are you able to witness to because of that "outpouring"?

 

[miknik5]

It's very simple
The message is preached
And the messenger is preaching not only the message but THE MESSENGER

 

[ananda]

It's very simple
The message is preached
And the messenger is preaching not only the message but THE MESSENGER

What if the real message Jesus was preaching was about the Buddha?

 

[miknik5]

What if the real message Jesus was preaching was about the Buddha?

It wasn't

 

[ananda]

It wasn't

Maybe he was .. some suggest that he went to Egypt to learn the mysteries there, including Buddhism.

 

[miknik5]

Maybe he was .. some suggest that he went to Egypt to learn the mysteries there, including Buddhism.

You have no idea what you are saying

You do not understand that CHRIST IS THE DOOR and that there was no other way for a man to enter back into the presence of GOD if not by, in, because and through JESUS CHRIST

 

[miknik5]

This has nothing to do with men

One can't be baptized into Buddha


Buddha has nothing to do with CHRIST

 

[ananda]

You have no idea what you are saying

You do not understand that CHRIST IS THE DOOR and that there was no other way for a man to enter back into the presence of GOD if not by, in, because and through JESUS CHRIST

What if Jesus' God & his realm are not the highest goal?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

It's not an appeal to authority, besides my own direct experience with Reality. Therefore, since my statement was a assertion regarding my own experiences, I suppose I am my own authority.

Hello. Back again

So it is an appeal to your authority and more so your personal experiences.

You did not learn the term 'suffering is the motivation for all action' through your own personal experiences, you were taught it.

Someone before you devised the process to reach nirvana. However, personal experiences are an authority to the person who has one or many.

What experience(s) have you had that make you certain what you are taught is correct - Ie spiritual experience?

Well, the statement was meant to point out that the basic nature regarding Reality (as I see it) involves suffering, at every point.

Lets look more at that statement you made previous. If hunger were suffering, i eat - action. Nirvana goal - no desire, no attachments and no sction.

All action is suffering. Eating is action. Does one have to die to reach nirvana?
One day will you be content not to eat?

Action is not always motivated by suffering. Sexual attraction is motivated by physical attraction. Arousal is motivated by sexual attraction. Non perverse or questionable sexual intercourse doe not cause the man to suffer - women also enjoy sex. The consequence of sex - labour - does not cause suffering to the man.

If sex were suffering it would not be so popular.

Buying a present for someone is not motivated by suffering - acts of love.

Singing and dancing - not always motivated by suffering.

These 3 examples show a different motivation for action with positive outcomes.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "accept"

In relation to this statement 'The gods came to the Buddha to request instruction and clarification, to support his Sasana'.

Do you believe Hindu Gods are real or exist?

The basic Law governing Reality as seen in Buddhism is the Law of Kamma-Vipaka: cause and effect. A derived Law is thus the process of dependent origination - one thing causes another which serves as the cause for another effect, etc. The process of unbinding is guided by intention (kamma), to the state of nibbana (no suffering) - not to "nothing".

A state of no action is caused by a state of no suffering.

So you would not help someome out who is suffering if it were to cause you suffering.

You cannot have a desire to do so. You cannot have an attachment to that person and you cannot perform the action.

Does that worry you?

The basic Law governing Reality as seen in Buddhism is the Law of Kamma-Vipaka: cause and effect. A derived Law is thus the process of dependent origination - one thing causes another which serves as the cause for another effect, etc. The process of unbinding is guided by intention (kamma), to the state of nibbana (no suffering) - not to "nothing".

The unbinding (on a fundamental level of reality) causes the flame to appear to extinguish (on a less fundamental level of reality).

So nirvana is the unbinding of a flame that appears to extinguish but in reality it is there?

The flame does not vanish?
What is the purpose of the illusion?
Why do i need to think it vanishes?


What is the benefit for you to loose your self, loose all desire and loose all action?

Ps
Please give me a different answer than suffering. I would like to know your own reasons.

Thank you