Incomplete Bible? (Buddhism and Christianity etc)

[Tolworth John]

That is all interpretation, not explicit statement.

What else can one understand by how someone acts.

a number of his statements were understood by the Jews to be him identifing as being one with God.

 

[St_Worm2]

The Holy Spirit guiding their reflections on the meaning of his life, teachings, death and resurrection.

Hello again Akita, of course, that necessity is just as true for believers today as it was for the very first ECF, Ignatius of Antioch. He was born at the beginning of the Lord's public ministry, and died in the early part of the 2nd Century, and we believe that he had at least two of the Apostles, St. John and St. Paul, as teachers.

That said, it's clear that when he speaks of the Trinity/the Deity of Christ in his letters, he is quoting the Bible as part of his argument, just like the church still does today, be it RC, EO or Protestant. The Holy Spirit did not guide the EFC ~apart~ from His written word, but into a deeper understanding ~of~ His written word (just like He does for us today*)

Granted, the Canon had not been assembled by the time that Ignatius died, but we know that at least 22 of the 27 Books/Epistles of the NT were in regular use by that time.

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - Ignatius, as you'll see in the teachings of his below, quoted portions of the Gospel of John (Chapters 14-16 + from the Lord's High Priestly Prayer in Chpt 17) in the first quote, and from 1 Corinthians in the second.

Ignatius a.d. 30–107
The Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.” And says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.” And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,” says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men.” And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.” ~The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter IX

For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;” and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;” and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; ~The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians Chapter I
​

*(take note, for instance, of the seemingly exhaustive number of both Scriptural quotes and Scriptural references that the RCC uses in the CCC)

 

[com7fy8]

There is something else > in this article by PBS a secular public education organization, not Buddhist >

Basics of Buddhism >

We have this which I have quoted >

"Those with favorable, positive karma are reborn into one of the fortunate realms: the realm of demigods, the realm of gods, and the realm of men. While the demigods and gods enjoy gratification unknown to men, they also suffer unceasing jealousy and envy. The realm of man is considered the highest realm of rebirth. Humanity lacks some of the extravagances of the demigods and gods, but is also free from their relentless conflict."

This was a surprise to me, that Buddhists would believe that deities are jealous and conflicting with each other; if this is what Buddha was perceiving, this could mean he was seeing how things work in Satan's kingdom . . . not in God's! But I found this in PBS, which is not Buddhist.

So, I tried to find something like this in a Buddhist website, but I did not find something like this . . . if it is part of Buddhist belief. What I am seeing is how the article says that Buddhists believe there are gods who can be at odds with each other. And, like I say, this would be how things are in Satan's kingdom, I would think. So, I see it is possible that Buddha was seeing how Satan's kingdom is, and not seeing the best of reality . . . of how things are by means of God through Jesus.

Let me try again to find a Buddhist site which talks about how deities relate.

Well, here is a site >

What Are the Six Realms?

This apparently Buddhist site speaks of the "GOD REALM" >

"A blissful, ethereal state in which one is supremely contented but oblivious to the suffering of others."

But God through Jesus is not oblivious about people's suffering; Jesus actually left Heaven itself in order to reach us and save us and personally share with us. So, Jesus is not at all conceited and unfeeling, to say the least > also, Jesus calls to "all" >

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)

So, the "God realm" Buddhism would be talking about is how things are for "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4) who is Satan!

And this Buddhist site claims that there is the "JEALOUS GOD REALM" >

"Fueled by ego and aggression, jealous or warring gods (asuras) are always striving to rise in power and position."

Where I have been in the United States, it seems there have been both church members and politicians who are like this . . . not only in some "god" realm. But this is because they are functioning in Satan's spiritual kingdom. This is why Jesus sent our Apostle Paul to turn people "from the power of Satan to God" > in Acts 26:18. This requires the working of God's power, not only changing our thoughts and ways.

Jealousy and competition are not how things work in God's kingdom with Jesus and His holy angels. So, it seems Buddha became quite aware of how there is such human suffering because of sin - - which is in Satan's realm, not in God's. Plus he is presenting self-help remediation, which is inadequate and therefore can keep people so busy . . . away from all which is possible in submission to God.

Ones can change their thinking and where their attention is going, but still be in the same kingdom. We need how God alone is able to change us into His spiritual realm so we are sharing with Him and Jesus Christ His own Son so pleasing to Him. Plus, Jesus is not at all conceited > in the Lord's prayer of John chapter 17, Jesus claims for us how You our Father "have loved them as you have loved Me." (in John 17:23)

There seems to be talk about how a Buddhist gets his or her own mind to change. And then comes the relief from suffering, at least in the person's own mind. But this seems like self-help. A person might feel better and act differently, but deep-down inside how strong is the person against cruel and Satanic stuff?

But God is almighty; so His peace is almighty, not only a state of reformed thinking and feeling and perspective. And His almighty peace is easily able to defend us against any and all cruel and evil emotions and feelings and drives > if we pray the way God's word says, in Philippians 4:4-7 . . . "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

This works in any situation >

"You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;" (in Psalm 23:5)

But our Father does have us helping one another with this, as family. And Buddhists do spend time with one another, not totally depending on each one's own self, if I understand correctly.

So > @Tellyontellyon > is this relevant to what you are asking about?

It might solve a lot of disputes in Christianity if it were true that the Bible is not complete....
... (even if you don't go do far as to think he was a Buddhist too)

But if things I have offered above are true about Buddhism, the problem is how Buddhism is incomplete. Plus, there are church culture people claiming to be Christians, but while they are disputing endlessly instead of discovering how Jesus shares His own rest with us in His own almighty peace > Jesus Himself does say, "My peace I give to you," > this also is in the Gospel of John, in John 14:27. No human can do this, and this is so we can share with God Himself in His own realm.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What else can one understand by how someone acts.

a number of his statements were understood by the Jews to be him identifing as being one with God.

Yes, he was explicit about being one with the Father. But we know from reflection on the Trinity that being one with is not the same as being identical to. He calls us all to be one with him and the Father. He never said, "I am God". the closest we get is Thomas saying, "My lord, and my God." And Jesus affirms rather than corrects..

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;” and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;” and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; ~The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians Chapter I
​

And Ignatius is a voice of the early church making that interpretation of the scripture available. No argument there. I am interested in the explicit claims of Jesus. The Gospel of John, I think gives us the most as it is probably the latest Gospel reflecting later thought than the synoptics. For example, "Before Abraham was, I am." In John but not synoptics.

 

[com7fy8]

He never said, "I am God".

There are people who go with how Jesus said, "I AM," in certain verses. And they say this is meant to be a direct statement > for example >

"Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (in John 8:58)

The capitalism, of "I AM", here, does not appear in all Bible translations, but ones believe Jesus means He is "I AM" who is God who revealed Himself to Moses, as testified in the earlier scriptures > Exodus 3:14.

But I say it is easy to see that Jesus did not make an ongoing point of directly saying He is God. So, if He is God, why didn't He keep making a point of saying this? My opinion > Jesus knows how a number of people can have a very bad way of seeing God. So, if He were to just tell everyone He is "God", that could result in some number of people seeing Jesus as badly as they see God. Ones might say Jesus is God, but who . . . how . . . do they consider "God" to be??

So, therefore, Jesus is more concerned, possibly, with us discovering how God is. And Jesus is how God is >

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father," He says in John 14:9.

 

[archer75]

These claims are pretty flimsy. There are general things common to many religions. There is no substantial reason to think Buddhism as practiced in the Near East at this time had anything to do with Christianity.

 

[Tolworth John]

Yes, he was explicit about being one with the Father. But we know from reflection on the Trinity that being one with is not the same as being identical to. He calls us all to be one with him and the Father. He never said, "I am God". the closest we get is Thomas saying, "My lord, and my God." And Jesus affirms rather than corrects..

this is a very similar view to that held by muslims who deny that Jesus is God because he didn't repeatedly say he was God.

Yet as the disciples asked when he stopped dead the storm on the lake. " Who is this that even the winds and waves obey?"
When called 'Good teacher' replied there is none good but God, yet did not reject the title.

question for you. Why or how was Jesus convicted of blasphemy in his trial?
Do you under stand what he was ask under oath to confirm and how he replied?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So, therefore, Jesus is more concerned, possibly, with us discovering how God is. And Jesus is how God is >

I like that. I think though also that Jesus was not more explicit because Jews at that time yelled, "Blasphemy" for even healing on the Sabbath. it would have all been over before he started.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

question for you. Why or how was Jesus convicted of blasphemy in his trial?
Do you under stand what he was ask under oath to confirm and how he replied?

In the Synoptics as well as John he was asked if he was King of the Jews.
“Are You the King of the Jews?”
And Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”

closer is Luke:
70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” 71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

and in Mark Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
14:62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.

The only thing is that "Son of God" really was not identical to God.
"While to the common mind "the Son of man" is a title designating the human side of our Lord's person, "the Son of God" seems as obviously to indicate the divine side. But scholarship cannot take this for granted; and, indeed, it requires only a hasty glance at the facts to bring this home even to the general reader, because in Scripture the title is bestowed on a variety of persons for a variety of reasons."

Son Of God, The Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm guessing that the early church existed for quite some time before the scriptures that make up the current Bible were written and selected from all the various scriptures that were circulating during those first centuries... I also suspect that there was more than one 'early church', or that those who were following 'the way' had a range of views over which there was some dispute.. well, until Constantine was able to put his Imperial stamp on things.

Historically speaking, those churches which descended from the apostles, and whose bishops traced themselves to the apostles were fairly uniform in a lot of their beliefs and practices; they kept in regular contact with one another using Rome's system of roads and water ways to facilitate ease of communication and contact. Were there other groups? Yes, but these groups generally did not claim--or have a claim--to apostolic succession. The one exception I can think of is that Valentinus is said to have claimed to have learned his doctrines from a man named Theudas, and that this Theudas--by the claim of Valentinus--had studied under Paul. The response of the churches to claims such as this was that the apostolic teaching was that such claims depended upon some "secret teaching" that was private; rather than the public teaching of the apostles which had come down to the churches.

That is, the churches and their bishops were preaching what they themselves had received, and these things weren't a secret, they weren't private teachings learned in secret; but it was the public, open preaching of the apostles and those who learned under the apostles. Such as Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Clement of Rome. People who had learned directly from the apostles of Jesus, who had been appointed to their pastoral position by the apostles or the immediate successors of the apostles directly.

And as far as these churches were concerned, for the most part the books that were to be read as part of the Christian liturgy was largely uniform.

The Bible isn't the result of "picking and choosing which books to put in it", as though there were hundreds of books which could have been selected from. Rather the core of the New Testament was pretty well set in stone very early on, consisting of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the first Epistle of St. John, and the first Epistle of St. Peter. Together these books are called Homolegoumena, literally meaning something like "writings which are the same [everywhere]". That is, these are the undisputed books, the books that were accepted in all the apostolic churches. These are the books that one would have heard read at Christian worship gatherings from Carthage in the West to Edessa in the East.

Now there were books which were disputed, and as such there were differences of opinion across the ancient Christian world, among the various churches. These disputed books were called Antilegomena, the writings which were not universally agreed upon, or the disputed writings. The list of Antilegomena isn't particularly long though, consisting of the remaining books which we find in our modern New Testaments: the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of John, 2 Peter, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse (Revelation) of John. Additionally it also includes the following: The Didache, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd. Some lists of Antilegomena also include the Apocalypse of Peter, and possibly the Acts of Paul and the Gospel of the Hebrews (a now generally lost work which was probably an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew).

There are not, and never have been, "missing books" of the Bible. That language tends to get used in modern circles because it sounds exciting and sensational. The Christian Bible doesn't have missing books.

Even if we discovered a long lost epistle from St. Paul, for example, it wouldn't belong in the Bible. Because the books of the Bible aren't arbitrary--it is the result of Christians living, praying, and worshiping together for the last two thousand years: These are the books which are read as part of the Christian liturgy.

There are a lot of ancient books, some are heretical from the historic Christian point of view; and some are just fine, good even, but they aren't Scripture (e.g. the writings of the ancient Fathers). And some are basically just Christian fan-fiction.

For example the Protoevangelium of James (aka the Infancy Gospel of James) is a work that purports to be about the life of the Virgin Mary, specifically her young life. The traditional names for Mary's parents, Joachim and Hanna (Anne) are taken from this text. And so the Protoevangelium of James has contributed to part of the Christian tradition, even though the work itself is viewed as primarily a work of pure fiction.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

I came across a documentary from the BBC about Jesus being a Buddhist monk...

Is it possible that these stories, or other important stories are left out of the Bible...?

I think at the end of John's gospel he talks about there being many many stories about Jesus that were not included in the Bible.. so is the Bible itself telling us that it is not complete..?

It might solve a lot of disputes in Christianity if it were true that the Bible is not complete....
... (even if you don't go do far as to think he was a Buddhist too)

like the parable of the talents (bags of gold) tells us... We are only responsible for what the master entrusts us with. if you've been given 20 out of 1000 stories of jesus, then you need only worry about the 20 and how they are meant to shape your life.
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25:14-30 - English Standard Version

 

[ViaCrucis]

Interestingly, the main objection to Brahmanism voiced by Siddhartha Gautama is that they kept their rituals private and secret, profiting from the supposed knowledge they had hoarded. He made all of his own work completely transparent and open to everyone, encouraging it to be spread. Jesus' clear desire to spread his word to all people without asking anything in return is very much the same as this. Again, that isn't evidence for anything other than that the generalities of the two philosophies are very compatible.

As far as Buddhism's moral philosophy goes, there is much in common between it and Christianity. Once one starts talking, say, theology (and the equivalent in Buddhism) I'm not sure there is too much in common. For example it is my understanding that in Buddhism the phenomenal world is fundamentally maya, illusion or pretense, and there is nothing of permanence, all is transient; whereas the Christian view is that this tangible, visible, phenomenal universe is really real, and that persons, things, and the very matter of the cosmos itself has real permanence. Buddhism speaks of enlightenment, whereas Christianity speaks of resurrection.

Theologically Christianity, therefore, shares more in common with the other Abrahamic religions, which shouldn't be at all surprising.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Buddhism speaks of enlightenment, whereas Christianity speaks of resurrection.

Resurrection and loving communion. Also some illumination.

The big deal with Buddhism is Nirvana, literally, "blown out". It seems quite a contrast from eternal life.

 

[Tolworth John]

You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Jesus answered a question truthfully and was condemned for blasphemy. He claimed as the Jewish leaders understood it, to be God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Jesus answered a question truthfully and was condemned for blasphemy. He claimed as the Jewish leaders understood it, to be God.

The Jewish leaders were looking for to convict him. The question was: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

That is not necessarily the same as God.

14:62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

He continues to call himself Son of Man, a very human title. And who the is the Mighty one but God?
There is room of other interpretation here. It took a while for the early church to formulate its understanding of the Trinity and nature of the Christ.

 

[Albion]

I came across a documentary from the BBC about Jesus being a Buddhist monk...

Jesus could not possibly have been a Buddhist monk and the rest of the Bible be correct when referring to him. However, he may well have been influenced by ascetic communities in the area of today's Israel. There are some Scriptural hints that people feel suggest that this did happen.

 

[Tolworth John]

The Jewish leaders were looking for to convict him. The question was: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

That is not necessarily the same as God.

14:62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

He continues to call himself Son of Man, a very human title. And who the is the Mighty one but God?
There is room of other interpretation here. It took a while for the early church to formulate its understanding of the Trinity and nature of the Christ.

To be the Son of God is to be equal with God.
At a very simple level God will have offspring that are God.

There has always been confusion over what the title Son of Man means, yet the disciples knew what it meant see Matt 16:16.

 

[Benjamin413]

Of course there missing stories. We are missing years of Christ’s early life. Between when he stayed at the synagogue as a child to when he came to John the Baptist, we have nothing.

no stories, nothing.

there are also possible time gaps in his ministry.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

To be the Son of God is to be equal with God.
At a very simple level God will have offspring that are God.

Not necessarily.

First, it is applied to angels, as when in Job 2:1 it is said that "the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh"; they may be so called because they are the creatures of God's hands or because, as spiritual beings, they resemble God, who is a spirit. Secondly, in Luke 3:38 it is applied to the first man; and from the parable of the Prodigal Son it may be argued that it is applicable to all men. Thirdly, it is applied to the Hebrew nation, as when, in Exodus 4:22, Yahweh says to Pharaoh, "Israel is my son, my first-born," the reason being that Israel was the object of Yahweh's special love and gracious choice. Fourthly, it is applied to the kings of Israel, as representatives of the chosen nation. Thus, in 2 Samuel 7:14, Yahweh says of Solomon, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son"; and, in Psalms 2:7, the coronation of a king is announced in an oracle from heaven, which says, "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." Finally, in the New Testament, the title is applied to all saints, as in John 1:12, "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name." When the title has such a range of application, it is obvious that the Divinity of Christ cannot be inferred from the mere fact that it is applied to Him.


Son Of God, The Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary