Is it possible to practice both Buddhism and Christianity?

[smaneck]

All the opinions I've ever seen (discounting ones that are basically "nothing will happen!" which isn't really Judaism) are basically the same but with slightly different shades.

Okay, so how do you see the coming of the Messiah playing out?

 

[LoAmmi]

Okay, so how do you see the coming of the Messiah playing out?

For what we're talking about:

Israel is recognized for having been right all along and people come to Israel to learn. Non-Jews do not take up the Torah, but they learn from the Torah both Oral and Written. They wouldn't be bound to it but would gather wisdom from it and learn to live.

 

[smaneck]

For what we're talking about:

Israel is recognized for having been right all along and people come to Israel to learn. Non-Jews do not take up the Torah, but they learn from the Torah both Oral and Written. They wouldn't be bound to it but would gather wisdom from it and learn to live.

In that case the Messiah has already come. Two thirds of the world's people follow a religion which learned a great deal from the Torah.

 

[LoAmmi]

But that has already happened.

No it really hasn't.

 

[gord44]

But that has already happened.

I must have missed the world peace, universal knowledge of G-d, resurrection of the dead, in-gathering of Israel and the third temple being built. dang!

 

[LoAmmi]

I must have missed the world peace, universal knowledge of G-d, resurrection of the dead, in-gathering of Israel and the third temple being built. dang!

Yeah. I was just giving a brief description based upon the exact conversation we were having. You have the more complete picture of how we'll know messiah has come.

 

[smaneck]

I must have missed the world peace, universal knowledge of G-d, resurrection of the dead, in-gathering of Israel and the third temple being built. dang!

Loammi didn't mention any of those things.

As far as world peace, that is what the Baha'i Faith is about. The in-gathering of Israel is occurring. As for the resurrection of dead, I believe in Ezekial that refers to the rebirth of Israel? Most of the world now believes in the God of Israel.

 

[LoAmmi]

Loammi didn't mention any of those things.

The context was the Torah in relation to others in our discussion. What he listed is the "full picture" so to speak.

As far as world peace, that is what the Baha'i Faith is about.

Hasn't happened yet.

The in-gathering of Israel is occurring.

The Exiles have returned?! When did this happen?! I thought that would've been in my synagogue's newsletter at least.

As for the resurrection of dead, I believe in Ezekial that refers to the rebirth of Israel?

Daniel has explicit references to the dead.

Most of the world now believes in the God of Israel.

How many of them think that is Jesus, for example? A Jewish sage actually believed that all these "offshoots" are necessary because the offshoots will recognize the real messiah more than someone from a completely different religion.

 

[gord44]

As far as world peace, that is what the Baha'i Faith is about.

It doesn't appear to be working. Or it's taking a very long time with minimal results so far.

The in-gathering of Israel is occurring.

Just because of the secular Jewish state? I doubt it.

As for the resurrection of dead, I believe in Ezekial that refers to the rebirth of Israel?

Perhaps. I think most see it as a literal resurrection.

Most of the world now believes in the God of Israel.

Universal knowledge of G-d I imagine would not be idolatry. A religion that says they believe in the G-d of Israel yet followed idols, would not have universal knowledge of G-d. If anything, knowledge of G-d is more confused now then ever.

my 2 cents anyways. i am just babbling

 

[smaneck]

Hasn't happened yet.

Work-in-progress.

The Exiles have returned?! When did this happen?!

Isn't this what the establishment of the state of Israel was all about?

Daniel has explicit references to the dead.

True. By the time we get to the Book of Daniel the Zoroastrian influence is there. But I think Ezekial's understanding was perhaps the better one.

How many of them think that is Jesus, for example? A Jewish sage actually believed that all these "offshoots" are necessary because the offshoots will recognize the real messiah more than someone from a completely different religion.

Indeed, but not if it means rejecting the 'messiahs' of the past.

 

[smaneck]

It doesn't appear to be working. Or it's taking a very long time with minimal results so far.

We are still very young.

Just because of the secular Jewish state? I doubt it.

Granted that Judah and Israel are not the same thing, but in my opinion the descendants of Israel are not far away. They are mostly in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in fact.

Universal knowledge of G-d I imagine would not be idolatry. A religion that says they believe in the G-d of Israel yet followed idols, would not have universal knowledge of G-d. If anything, knowledge of G-d is more confused now then ever.

Not many idols around these days, at least not those of clay and wood.

 

[LoAmmi]

Work-in-progress.

Just like I tell Christians with regards to Jesus, we can talk when the prophecies are actually fulfilled.

Isn't this what the establishment of the state of Israel was all about?

Not really.

True. By the time we get to the Book of Daniel the Zoroastrian influence is there. But I think Ezekial's understanding was perhaps the better one.

I don't like reading into the text of the Tanakh to speculate on influences and such. I find this type of pseudoscience to be more frustrating than enlightening.

Indeed, but not if it means rejecting the 'messiahs' of the past.

I reject no messiahs mentioned in the Tanakh.

 

[smaneck]

J
I don't like reading into the text of the Tanakh to speculate on influences and such. I find this type of pseudoscience to be more frustrating than enlightening.

Textual criticism is hardly a pseudoscience.

 

[LoAmmi]

Textual criticism is hardly a pseudoscience.

I've read a lot of it. Much of it is based off of any number of unproven assumptions. Science requires things that can be falsified. These things cannot be falsified, generally speaking. It's "oh, this text kind of says this so it must mean"...

 

[smaneck]

I've read a lot of it. Much of it is based off of any number of unproven assumptions. Science requires things that can be falsified. These things cannot be falsified, generally speaking. It's "oh, this text kind of says this so it must mean"...

Sure it can. It can be done by establishing that a text was not written where and when there could be any such influence.

 

[UKChristian]

Wow I never expected this to take off as it has. I would like to thank you all for your replies. I am still reading through them. Pretty much the day I posted this I then started having issues getting online which have(hopefully) now been resolved.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Calling textual criticism a pseudo-science betrays either ignorance or active denial on the part of the critic.

Even if the English language has narrowed the meaning of science to refer pretty much exclusively to the natural sciences (in sharp contrast to the German "Wissenschaft" - literally "Knowledge-creation" -, which applies to ALL genuine academic disciplines), the accusation of "pseudo-science" is a slap in the face of the whole field of humanities, whether we're talking archaeology, history, philology or just about any other area of expertise.

Let's keep this simple and use a very accessible example:

If the Bible claims that Abraham (who is supposed to have lived in the 2nd millennium BCE) heralded from Ur Kasdim and possessed domesticated camels, that's basically the equivalent to claiming that Shakespeare came from New York and drove a Mercedes Benz: in short, there are some very obvious and basically undeniable anachronisms at work here.

 

[Godisgood12]

Calling textual criticism a pseudo-science betrays either ignorance or active denial on the part of the critic.

Even if the English language has narrowed the meaning of science to refer pretty much exclusively to the natural sciences (in sharp contrast to the German "Wissenschaft" - literally "Knowledge-creation" -, which applies to ALL genuine academic disciplines), the accusation of "pseudo-science" is a slap in the face of the whole field of humanities, whether we're talking archaeology, history, philology or just about any other area of expertise.

Let's keep this simple and use a very accessible example:

If the Bible claims that Abraham (who is supposed to have lived in the 2nd millennium BCE) heralded from Ur Kasdim and possessed domesticated camels, that's basically the equivalent to claiming that Shakespeare came from New York and drove a Mercedes Benz: in short, there are some very obvious and basically undeniable anachronisms at work here.

Wow, reading that post is perhaps like ripping a finger nail out from its root. I have never done either and God forbid I do.

 

[LoAmmi]

Calling textual criticism a pseudo-science betrays either ignorance or active denial on the part of the critic.

I've never liked the type of criticism which is based upon a bunch of assumptions presented as fact. If you want to present it as an option, I have no problem. But I don't like people parading out educated guesses as facts.

 

[Godisgood12]

I've never liked the type of criticism which is based upon a bunch of assumptions presented as fact. If you want to present it as an option, I have no problem. But I don't like people parading out educated guesses as facts.

Practicing buddhism and christianity isn't possible, but practiing buddhism and judaism is. Maybe.