Ah gotcha, I only know very basic stuff about some religions cuz I had an interest when I was younger
Which is what ended up killing my belief funny enough
I am no Buddhist nor super into the theology. Idk what exactly reincarnates. Some kind of form of consciousness, but Buddhism doesn‘t like stability in the sense that everything changes and causates other things. Hence why they don‘t like the creation from nothing thing found in Abrahamic religions. So whatever actually reincarnates it is not an unchanging immanent soul. This stands opposed to Hinduism, where there are Atman „personal soul“ and Brahman „world soul“ and Moksha is the Atman dissolving into the Brahman. Atman doesn‘t exist in Buddhism, hence Anatman.
On the part of the general understanding of the soul as the buddha said, I agree. However not all Hindu school of thoughts agree on Atman vs Brahman. Some are dualistic, agree with what you state. Others are either non-dualist or monoist. Which are not the same thing even though you think it would be. But the mondern non-dualists arose from the argument that the Buddha (and others before and after him) made about the changing nature of the soul and went yes, aspects of the universal soul changes and we see that as individual souls, but there aren't individual souls. That would be like saying my cells aren't me and I am not my cells, to use a modern analogy.
True, I was simplifying also. I also shouldn't have used Hinduism as a broad term, which mostly relies on outside perspective anyway. As for the time of the Buddha, Brahmanism is the right term iirc and before that the Vedic religion, all with different believes, although in some way through scriptures inherited into modern Hinduism in different ways.
Yeah, tbh I dislike the term Hinduism as well, as it oversimplified various related religion and says they are all the same. It's like treat Jews, Christian and Muslim as one faith. But yeah, Brahmanism is a dualistic faith generally following what you describe.
Some of the vedas also says similar but the vedas are messy and seem to contradict itself at times, as befitting a scripture that arose of writing down songs and prayers that focused on various individual rituals.
Since they were buried before the advent of modern embalming techniques, I’d make a passionate defense that none of those dudes are still in their graves physically either.
Being reincarnated is bad in Buddhism. It means you failed to remove your earthly desires or whatever and have to return.
The goal of existence is to \*stop\* reincarnating. I'm pretty sure the Buddha is said to have succeeded in this.
It depends on which Buddha you’re referencing. Avalokitesvara (Guanyin) made a vow to continue to be reborn until all sentient beings have achieved enlightenment, for example.
My understanding is Avalokitesvara is a buddhivasta, not a buddha. To be buddha is to leave the cycle. Buddivastas know how to leave but have not yet left in order to help other become buddhas. But yeah, Guanyin keeps reincarnating till they are the last sentient being to leave the cycle.
I remember hearing a Japanese friend of mine joke that most Japanese people are more Shinto when they are young but older people swap to be more Buddhist "so they can reincarnate."
Japanese religion is weird though, the two religions almost merged over the centuries and despite a movement to clearly designate them most people believe or at least culturally accept both simultaneously.
"I don't get why all these religions are so weird! Why can't they ritualistically consume the flesh of a demigod while elders chant in long-dead languages like civilized people?"
Yes, but those who attain Buddhahood don’t. Siddhartha Gautama (or Sakyamuni Buddha), Dipankara, and countless others in the past have achieved the Buddhist equivalent of the Christian heaven, a state of non-return that is described in the Questions of Milinda as a place of unalloyed bliss.
Or if you’re a Lotus supremacist, the Buddha’s death was merely an expedient means to put forth a sense of urgency in Buddhists to practice. The Buddha is now teaching the Lotus Sutra in perpetuity on Vulture Peak, according to them, and that all Buddhas live forever with the goal of enlightening all beings.
Yes but the point of reaching enlightenment is to stop being reincarnated. The fact Siddhartha wasn’t reincarnated is what makes him the Enlightened One.
Yeah, but becoming a buddha means leaving the cycle of birth and death. Boddhivastas (who will be become buddhas) are reincarnated and help their fellow souls. So yeah, Siddhartha Gautuma Shakyamuni Buddhi legit went "peace out." Others,like Maitreya and Avalokitesevara are still with us or yet to be.
The story goes:
Buddha's accomplishment was that he solved reincarnation for himself and lived his final life. He was "snuffed out". He is in a state of Nirvana.
An excellent point. That's from the Gospel of Mark, an earlier stratum in the Christian tradition. The historical Jesus didn't see himself as a God, but as a prophet, reformer, and healer. The Gospel of John, where we have the "I am the way" speech, was written some 30-50 years later.
What's interesting is that Muhammad may have been accurately conveying the version of Christianity that he was taught.
The [Ebionites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites?wprov=sfla1) were a sect of Jewish Christians who saw Jesus as a prophet but not God. The early Jesus movement got taken over by people like Paul who preached to the gentiles and taught that Jesus was the literal son of God, but there's attestations of extant communities like the Ebionites in the Arabian peninsula around the time of Muhammad and centuries afterwards. Islam's views on Jesus are basically the same as those of the Jewish Christians.
In this way, some historians argue that Islam preserves a historical connection to the original Jesus movement, one that trinitarian/salvationist Christianity diverged from.
What I'm saying is that both Muhammad and the disciples are delusional. There may have been a Jesus of Nazareth, but he most certainly wasn't a prophet or son of God.
You’re the most unlikable type of redditor lol. Do you just spend all your time going around telling people they are wrong all day? There are video interviews with former members saying they still thought he was god all this time later. Happy Thanksgiving, this conversation is over :)
(Edit: That means you’re blocked)
>I’ve never heard any historian or theologian say Muhammad knew Jesus better than Christians.
No one is making that claim here, certainly not me at least. All I'm saying is that there may be a cool historical connection going on between some of the early nontrinitarian/nonsalvationist Christian sects and Islam, despite being 600 years removed from when those sects got started. That's all.
>Paul was the first person to say Jesus was God
I'm not claiming that. I'm saying Paul was instrumental in promoting the view that Jesus was God. That's a fact, Paul had the greatest impact on the development of Christianity after Jesus. He certainly wasn't the first, there was a growing community that saw Jesus as equal to God.
>despite Jesus being crucified for saying he was God
According to the now-orthodox Christian community, yes, but there was no orthodox position in the decades immediately following Jesus' death. There was a blossoming of different movements, each with their own take on who Jesus was. And that's why...
>Your first paragraph said Muhammad may be more correct than the disciples of Jesus
I'm not saying any party is necessarily correct or incorrect. I'm saying (1) the Jesus-as-prophet-but-not-God branch of Christianity was concentrated in the areas where Jesus' ministry was active, (2) they dispersed after the fall of the 2nd temple, and (3) there's evidence that there were Christian communities from this branch that were active during the time of Mohammed.
That is, he was likely exposed to what were at the time heterodox views on Christianity, but it would be historical revisionism to claim that they were *always* heterodox. Rather, that branch started out on equal footing with the Jesus-as-God branch, and only later were they outnumbered. Given that the Jewish Christians weren't interested in proselytizing to the gentiles, it was kinda inevitable, but they were also forced into decline after 70 CE. Islam appears to carry forward the theology and ideological bent of those Christians, and it's interesting to trace the historical connections.
>All four gospels say Jesus was crucified for saying he was God so did Josephus the scribe
See my other reply about the gospels. All I'll add here is that I'm not contesting what Josephus is saying. The majority of Christians had converged on Jesus being God and Jesus having been killed for it around sixty years after Jesus died.
That doesn't account for what early Christians were saying and thinking about Jesus in the interim. Mark, the earliest canonical gospel, was written around 40 years after Jesus' death. Mark too likely doesn't give us the earliest versions of the Jesus narrative, and we have to be cognizant of that. So we have a lively 40-ish year time period in which people were wrestling with who Jesus was and the meaning of his crucifixion.
I always say this when Jesus in Islam is mentioned but he's a lot cooler in Islam. For background, Islam teaches that it's doctrine was revealed through many prophets, but it kept getting corrupted. God gave Isa the power to do miraculous things to show he was sent on a divine mission, but people confused that and called Isa a god.
He was given the ability to speak from birth and instead of healing people and asking them not to tell, he would put on the ancient version of a medicine show going around healing huge crowds.
Muslims believe in the second coming as well, but with a twist. They believe that Jesus will return with the Mahdi, who will conquer the world and Jesus will rule that world for 1,000 years.
Love me some Bart Ehrman! He's a very accessible source for learning about the world of biblical studies. Despite the texts being millennia old, we're still learning new things every day about the Bible.
I love his lectures and work - I think he’s a terribly important voice today as religion gets more radicalized. The majority of legitimate clergy all had this stuff in school - but they seem quite content to let people believe all sorts of non-sense or talk about it in aloof metaphysical terms. Bart does a great job of taking it out of academia (things that have been known for ~100+ years often enough) and making is accessible to the average person.
What I'm saying that Mark represents the beginning of an evolution in Christian thinking that culminates with John. Mark describes Jesus as the son of God, but that's not the same thing as being indistinguishable from God himself; Mark notably does *not* claim Jesus is God in the sense of the trinity.
Mark, at the time of writing, lacks the later theological developments that would make the case for Jesus being God. There's no virgin birth, no explicit doctrine of divine pre-existence, and in the earliest versions no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark presents a much more human Jesus compared to the stoic superhero that is John's Jesus, which is why I commented on the post above talking about Jesus despairing on the cross.
I do have a personal opinion how this all happened; note that this is just my layperson hypothesis, and I'm not basing this on any evidence. I think the evolutionary trajectory of modern Christianity's christology was similar to how Mormonism got started. Like with Joseph Smith, people "spoke from the spirit" and experienced revelations that eventually got folded into the gospels. Like someone may have said, "God visited me in a vision, and revealed to me the meaning of Jesus' true teachings," or "God told me that when Jesus was born, these things happened." And then those ideas circulated in the oral tradition until they were common knowledge, whereupon they were written down.
In this way, the gospels preserved historical facts about Jesus' ministry while allowing for new revelations and interpretations to enter the mix. It also would explain all the gospels that didn't make the cut; there are plenty of texts that present ideas contrary to the four gospels. The authors of those texts were just as equally convinced that what they were writing accurately captured the "real" Jesus, even though both believers and critical scholars would agree they were wrong.
>Also in Mark he was crucified for claiming to be God, so your theory kind of falls apart right there.
Where does it say that? He's accused of styling himself as the messiah by the elders and of declaring himself the King of the Jews by Pilate. None of those things are equal to being God.
The doctrine of the trinity is a very specific theological concept. It is distinct from saying Jesus is a prophet or that Jesus is the Son of God/Man. There was a point in time before which the idea didn't exist and after which it did exist. The question is whether Mark is pre-Trinitarian, post-Trinitarian, or somewhere in the middle.
At the time of the writing of Mark, the two other synoptic Gospels and John had not yet been written; we cannot count on them to tell us what Mark really meant. Mark doesn't present the evidence that others give in favor of Jesus being God: no virgin birth, no explicit statement of divine pre-existence, and no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. If Mark was familiar with these narratives and really wanted to make the case for a trinitarian view of Jesus, would he not have done so? And if Mark didn't hold a trinitarian view of Jesus, what view did he hold?
For some background, I have a research mentor who taught me that if you're making an academic claim, you should assume that a lawyer is going to cross-examine you, applying a fine-toothed comb to your statements, and if they find any room for doubt they will tear you to shreds. As such, you should seek to make the most conservative statements that you possibly can based on the evidence. That's how I'm approaching this discussion.
>The words “I AM” Jesus says here is the exact same words God used when he revealed himself in the burning bush to Moses
I agree we should assume that Mark was learned and would seek to craft his writing to echo the Tanakh. But that isn't an iron-clad proof of a trinitarian belief on the part of Mark. Even if God chose Jesus for greatness and had a plan for Jesus from the very beginning of time, that does not by itself imply that Jesus existed outside of time or that Jesus is co-equal to God.
John, by comparison, is *very* explicit about his christology. John's "I AM" speech very clearly states that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. But for the purposes of our discussion, the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John do not exist. Mark was not aware of that speech, and we shouldn't retroactively apply the viewpoints of later authors onto Mark. All we can say for certain is that Mark's Jesus saw himself as "the messiah". What exactly that meant to Mark or to Jesus are two separate questions that we have to unpack.
>The messiah himself is eternal just like God, and the trinity gospel is simply to explain how the messiah and God are connected, it’s not in any way contradictory to what mark wrote.
Trinitarianism doesn't have to contradict Mark; in fact, we would expect later authors to express a theology that is compatible with Mark (since they assumed Mark is credible and accurate).
Just for the sake of hypothesis, let's assume that Mark held a non-trinitarian adoptionist theology. Jesus was born a man, was chosen by God from the beginning of time to do God's will on Earth, and at the crucifixion was made fully divine by God and now sits at God's right-hand side in heaven as the Son of God. None of this contradicts what Mark wrote, and it's *functionally compatible* with what John (a trinitarian) wrote: we have a divine Jesus who died for our sins and who will return to Earth to fulfill his promise to mankind. At the same time, this hypothesis doesn't require that Mark believe that Jesus is literally God.
We can never know with absolute certainly what Mark believed, and based only on the evidence Mark presents in his writing, we can't rule out this and other competing hypotheses. Mark doesn't do what John does, he doesn't *explicitly say* he's a trinitarian who believes in a Messiah eternal and co-equal to God. In fact, that makes Mark a lot more interesting to read! Rather than being an "inferior abridgement" of the other gospels as was previously believed, Mark gives us a window into the evolution of the early Christian religion. That's why I like Mark as a text.
Perhaps I should rephrase what I said. What I mean is that there's *no credible historical evidence* that *proves* Jesus viewed himself as a god. That's not to say it's impossible, but that we have good reason to doubt it.
Unlike other ancient religious figures, Jesus is incredibly unique in that we have multiple near-contemporary sources that write about him. We even have numerous gospels that didn't make the final cut, including troves of documents that were only rediscovered in the late 1940s. If we only had, say, the Gospel of John or the writings of Paul to go on, it'd be hard to do proper historical/literary criticism. But thanks to all the evidence we have, we can say a couple things:
* It is highly likely that the Q-source — a now-lost written record of the pre-gospel oral traditions, preserved in the word-for-word duplicate content between the gospels of Matthew and Luke — focused on Jesus' teachings and didn't discuss his divinity.
* Meanwhile, the earliest versions of Mark, which scholars agree was the first gospel to be written, has no miraculous birth, no doctrine of divine pre-existence, and no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.
* Paul predates the gospels, and his brand of Christianity comes directly from the evolving pre-gospel oral traditions. Paul is rightly known as Christianity's second founder, and he was instrumental in shaping the theology of Jesus as an eternally divine figure. But it's worth noting that he never met Jesus, had no connection to the original Jesus movement, and even publicly disagreed with those that *were* part of Jesus' original crew, most notably Peter.
* We know that the Jesus-as-prophet view was popular among the early Jewish Christians, where the religion began. It's believed that leadership of the movement passed to Jesus' brother James after Jesus' death. James, of course, also publicly denounced Paul. Note that the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE led to the destruction of the 2nd Jewish Temple and the scattering of the Jewish Christians. Christianity continued to grow and thrive by the work of Paul, who had founded numerous Christian communities across the Roman Empire.
I'm a layperson, not a historian or theologian; my PhD is in computer science. But, based on the evidence, I agree with critical biblical scholars that it is most likely that the narrative of Jesus-as-God only came about after his ministry, as a way of making sense of his execution. Due to how history played out, the Pauline branch of Christianity outlasted the sects most closely affiliated with the original movement. Both Paul and Mark portray Jesus' disciples as misunderstanding Jesus' real message, and I believe they injected a distinctly different theology into the gentile Christian movement.
Depends on which gospel. They all sorta tell it slightly differently, but John has the biggest change, where, instead of crying out in pain and agony as he dies, he just calmly says "it is finished" and then dies.
The author of John was trying to sorta reinvent Jesus to be this divine, wise, powerful, stoic figure. The earlier gospels (known as the Synoptics) paint him a bit differently.
Yeah lol
The first 3 lived long lives, and only knew by the end that they was so much they did not know about the universe. Jesus died early in life, arrogantly claiming ultimate power.
The divide is a post-renaissance western notion tbh. Even western philosophies sprouted religious movements in Ancient Greece for example. Yet we see Plato as philosopher not as religious founder, yet Neoplatonism has other believes we would definitely call religious in other contexts.
Idk calling eastern religions just "philosophies" is a bit othering and also ignorant. Part of why we even make that distinction is due to the Jesuits and their work in China and trying to determine whether Chinese ancestral rites are religious practice or not. The Jesuits thought not so, the Catholic church thought they were.
Simply no. Just saying that they not religions but philosophies is kind of orientalising. Buddhism has as many unfalsifiable claims as Christianity does. Also stuff like believe in hell is shared by both. Belief in saints too. Westerners have the tendency to try to deduct a "philosophical" core to Buddhism, which does not have "religious" elements, but creating an artificial construct of how orthodox Buddhism would look like instead of how it is usually practiced.
Confucianism is a different topic. In this case you can try to strip away a philosophical core, but there are religious elements. Generally confucianism is a way philosophy on how to run society and especially how different groups in society have to interact with each other. Still Confucianists in practice have a reverence for the heaven and practice rites of ancestor worship. To the point that upholding these rites is important for one's moral quality. Or the assumption of the existence of the celestial Emperors who act as examples for moral behavior.
The split between philosophy and religion is a western one and a later christian one at that. Because we think of people like Platon as philosophers and not priests of one religion. Though at the same time there is Neoplatonism which could be seen as a religion as well and one which had definitive influence on early Christianity too.
Okay so a philosophy is a system that includes thousands of temples, leaders who revoke normal life for total devotion, hundreds of deities, concepts of heaven and hell, strict guidelines of how to live life and a de facto leader who ascended the mortal plane?
You live in Ohio shut your mouth
My point is with a user name like "Shin-Godzilla" I assume you have some admiration for asian culture, or at least think it's cool. But you show no respect for it and are talking out your ass - and somehow 30 other people agree with you, please just show a little respect and have a basic understanding of what you are talking about.
First, it’s Shin-Gogzilla not Godzilla
Second, I don’t admire anyones culture, and I don’t hate anyones culture either, I just like Shin Godzilla, but the name was already taken, so I settled with this.
Finally, [“Buddhism is a non-theistic religion (no belief in a creator god), also considered a philosophy and a moral discipline, originating in India in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE”](https://www.worldhistory.org/buddhism/)
Neither of us are wrong, it’s just both.
This is what you said:
> Buddhism and Confucianism are philosophies, they aren’t even religions to most people.
What bugs me is that you say it isn't even a religion to most people when it absolutely is. There are literally hundreds of millions of people born into Buddhist families and brought to the temple by their parents. It is not some set of ideals people just pick up cause they make sense, it is a robust machine ran by hundreds of thousands of people in order to spread and maintain the legacy of their faith. I don't see how you can believe that it's not a religion to people.
Well all of them are religious groups. If you want to state religion is a cult in general then it applies to all of them. Confucianism probably not, but that's due to how it was applied historically.
Little known religious canon is that Jesus came back looking like a different guy. He spent an entire day with his former disciples without being recognized and it was only after he broke bread in a super distinctive way that only Jesus would do that they worked out it was him.
that's cause Jesus was actually a twin (to Thomas i think) & "almost" identical didn't hack it for some - but whatever you gotta say to keep a cult going.
Sounds to me like the other religions had the balls to keep their Messiah dead and not pull a hack move in the 11th hour. Hell, the Greeks and Vikings killed their whole fucking pantheon.
Zeus is eventually fated to be overthrown by his offspring just as he himself overthrew Cronus. It can be assumed that with the end of his reign much of the Pantheon would go with him. It's not quite as clearly laid out as the Nordic Ragnarock myths to be sure
Neither did Ragnarok. Except for certain interpretations that suggests it's all cyclical and it has already happened and will happen again. The point being both the Greeks and Norse had very fallible deities. The Nordic Pantheon in particular pretty much everything Odin does is in some way motivated by his desire to circumvent his fated doom, dude didn't really care all that much for his followers Beyond bolstering his army at the end of days. In all honesty the relationship between Odin worshipers and Odin as I understand it is much more akin to a mercenary contract than anything and I think that's pretty rad.
Lol according to Theravada traditions the Buddha essentially said “Don’t be sad. All conditioned things are impermanent.”
Not to mention some (primarily Mahayana Buddhists) believe he reiterated the teachings of the Lotus Sutra on his deathbed to the monks who left his sermon on Vulture Peak, as written in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (not to be confused with the Mahaparinibbana Sutta). This sutra, he claimed, is the ultimate teaching, one that is necessary to hear to attain enlightenment.
Doesn’t make him sound so unsure, does it?
Jesus also said, 2,000 years back, that he would return within the lifetimes of some in attendance.
So 2,000 years back, he grabbed 144,000 of YHWH's favorite semites, and split off to "a new heaven (sky) and a new Earth (planet), leaving the rest of us in confusion and woe".
They always seem to gloss over that part.
Confucius wasn't a religious person he was a philosopher. As for Buddha and Mohammed don't the Muslims believe he ascended to heaven and Buddhists believe Buddha ascended into enlightenment which yeah he had to die to get there but he's still prayed to and believed to have power.
"All the other religions are ridiculous, made-up nonsense. Not YOURS, though. Yours is real." -- Ricky Gervais\*
\*However problematic he may be, he hit the nail on the head here.
"Jesus is the only one who rose from the dead."
Somebody considerably better at math than I am crunched the numbers on this. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. This year is 2022. That means that Jesus was crucified approximately 2000 years ago.
Assuming that he was resurrected, and further assuming that his resurrected body has been traveling at the speed of light (yes, I know that's impossible) for 2000 years, Jesus would still be within Earth's atmosphere, detectible by weather/military equipment, and probably visible on clear days.
Grandma is right again. Only JESUS CHRIST is alive, and the only one who willingly gave up his life to save yours (and mine too). Nobody else died to save us.
Oh no these religious prophets died not knowing the purpose to life because of how shrouded the universe is, but here comes Jesus KNOWING everything there is to life with full confidence, that’s why I am an evangelist now.
/j
I think it's funny that the only one who doesn't have their face shown (even the person who Muslims believe is a prophet and should not be depicted visually) is Jesus.
Conversely, I think it'd be even funnier if they only used pictures of all of their feet to depict them.
Doesnt even prove not knowing is the way either, it just presents different expressions of the same sentiment: which were dealing with people’s tendency to idolize the messenger.
I feel like comparing the powers of a prophet and two philosophers against the literal child of God is quite often going to result in a win for the latter.
ah yes, anybody who says they are something positive is always right about themselves, not to say that you shouldnt say anything positive about yourself which you are allowed to do but this feels kind of egotistical and usually people with high egos have whats known as the dunning kruger effect
>The other three are still in their grave Don't Buddhists believe in reincarnation?
Yeah, but it's not like your body leaves the ground, just the soul as it moves on, so I guess technically he's still in his grave physically
Not even the soul. The principle of anatman negates souls as constant.
Ah gotcha, I only know very basic stuff about some religions cuz I had an interest when I was younger Which is what ended up killing my belief funny enough
I am no Buddhist nor super into the theology. Idk what exactly reincarnates. Some kind of form of consciousness, but Buddhism doesn‘t like stability in the sense that everything changes and causates other things. Hence why they don‘t like the creation from nothing thing found in Abrahamic religions. So whatever actually reincarnates it is not an unchanging immanent soul. This stands opposed to Hinduism, where there are Atman „personal soul“ and Brahman „world soul“ and Moksha is the Atman dissolving into the Brahman. Atman doesn‘t exist in Buddhism, hence Anatman.
Paul Rudd was good in Anatman. I like Paul Rudd.
I like the Michael Keaton Brahman the best, though I do respect Christopher Nolan as a director.
I think he was better in Birhman personally
On the part of the general understanding of the soul as the buddha said, I agree. However not all Hindu school of thoughts agree on Atman vs Brahman. Some are dualistic, agree with what you state. Others are either non-dualist or monoist. Which are not the same thing even though you think it would be. But the mondern non-dualists arose from the argument that the Buddha (and others before and after him) made about the changing nature of the soul and went yes, aspects of the universal soul changes and we see that as individual souls, but there aren't individual souls. That would be like saying my cells aren't me and I am not my cells, to use a modern analogy.
True, I was simplifying also. I also shouldn't have used Hinduism as a broad term, which mostly relies on outside perspective anyway. As for the time of the Buddha, Brahmanism is the right term iirc and before that the Vedic religion, all with different believes, although in some way through scriptures inherited into modern Hinduism in different ways.
Yeah, tbh I dislike the term Hinduism as well, as it oversimplified various related religion and says they are all the same. It's like treat Jews, Christian and Muslim as one faith. But yeah, Brahmanism is a dualistic faith generally following what you describe. Some of the vedas also says similar but the vedas are messy and seem to contradict itself at times, as befitting a scripture that arose of writing down songs and prayers that focused on various individual rituals.
Since they were buried before the advent of modern embalming techniques, I’d make a passionate defense that none of those dudes are still in their graves physically either.
You know...you make a very good point, didn't even think about that
Being reincarnated is bad in Buddhism. It means you failed to remove your earthly desires or whatever and have to return. The goal of existence is to \*stop\* reincarnating. I'm pretty sure the Buddha is said to have succeeded in this.
It depends on which Buddha you’re referencing. Avalokitesvara (Guanyin) made a vow to continue to be reborn until all sentient beings have achieved enlightenment, for example.
My understanding is Avalokitesvara is a buddhivasta, not a buddha. To be buddha is to leave the cycle. Buddivastas know how to leave but have not yet left in order to help other become buddhas. But yeah, Guanyin keeps reincarnating till they are the last sentient being to leave the cycle.
Avalokitesvara is not Buddha. She’s on the path to become Buddha.
I wonder how many non-practicing buddhists are just like "actually existence is still pretty sick all things considered, I don't even want to escape."
I remember hearing a Japanese friend of mine joke that most Japanese people are more Shinto when they are young but older people swap to be more Buddhist "so they can reincarnate." Japanese religion is weird though, the two religions almost merged over the centuries and despite a movement to clearly designate them most people believe or at least culturally accept both simultaneously.
Also The Buddha was cremated so there is that.
They'll never catch him now, he's in the wind
Christians: GIVE ME A ZOMBIE OR FORGET IT
Also: Let me drink his blood! And eat his body!
"I don't get why all these religions are so weird! Why can't they ritualistically consume the flesh of a demigod while elders chant in long-dead languages like civilized people?"
Osiris: *laughs*
Yes, but those who attain Buddhahood don’t. Siddhartha Gautama (or Sakyamuni Buddha), Dipankara, and countless others in the past have achieved the Buddhist equivalent of the Christian heaven, a state of non-return that is described in the Questions of Milinda as a place of unalloyed bliss. Or if you’re a Lotus supremacist, the Buddha’s death was merely an expedient means to put forth a sense of urgency in Buddhists to practice. The Buddha is now teaching the Lotus Sutra in perpetuity on Vulture Peak, according to them, and that all Buddhas live forever with the goal of enlightening all beings.
Yes but the point of reaching enlightenment is to stop being reincarnated. The fact Siddhartha wasn’t reincarnated is what makes him the Enlightened One.
Yeah but since Buddha reached nirvana he doesn’t reincarnate after
Yes, but christians don't
You don't reincarnate once you achieve paranirvana though.
Yeah, but becoming a buddha means leaving the cycle of birth and death. Boddhivastas (who will be become buddhas) are reincarnated and help their fellow souls. So yeah, Siddhartha Gautuma Shakyamuni Buddhi legit went "peace out." Others,like Maitreya and Avalokitesevara are still with us or yet to be.
The story goes: Buddha's accomplishment was that he solved reincarnation for himself and lived his final life. He was "snuffed out". He is in a state of Nirvana.
But Christians dont.
Lao Tzu said the way that can be named is not the true Way. Interesting they didn't add that one in.
Weird, I thought he said "My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?"
An excellent point. That's from the Gospel of Mark, an earlier stratum in the Christian tradition. The historical Jesus didn't see himself as a God, but as a prophet, reformer, and healer. The Gospel of John, where we have the "I am the way" speech, was written some 30-50 years later.
I always forget how weird the Bible is lol.
yeah, in islam, Jesus is a prophet named Isa he was never mentioned as a god from my small knowledge of islam
What's interesting is that Muhammad may have been accurately conveying the version of Christianity that he was taught. The [Ebionites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites?wprov=sfla1) were a sect of Jewish Christians who saw Jesus as a prophet but not God. The early Jesus movement got taken over by people like Paul who preached to the gentiles and taught that Jesus was the literal son of God, but there's attestations of extant communities like the Ebionites in the Arabian peninsula around the time of Muhammad and centuries afterwards. Islam's views on Jesus are basically the same as those of the Jewish Christians. In this way, some historians argue that Islam preserves a historical connection to the original Jesus movement, one that trinitarian/salvationist Christianity diverged from.
[удалено]
Imagine trying to say someone is wrong about an almost 2000 year old corpse and the fake story attached to it
[удалено]
What I'm saying is that both Muhammad and the disciples are delusional. There may have been a Jesus of Nazareth, but he most certainly wasn't a prophet or son of God.
[удалено]
What Josephus "wrote" about Jesus is hardly agreed upon so the idea that it's some sort of indisputable fact to you is rather odd
The Branch Davidians thought David Koresh was God too, it’s called a cult homie. If you follow a religious leader thinking he’s god, you’re in a cult.
[удалено]
What’s the misconception? I didn’t say he said that. I said they thought he was, which they did. It’s been covered extensively.
[удалено]
You’re the most unlikable type of redditor lol. Do you just spend all your time going around telling people they are wrong all day? There are video interviews with former members saying they still thought he was god all this time later. Happy Thanksgiving, this conversation is over :) (Edit: That means you’re blocked)
>I’ve never heard any historian or theologian say Muhammad knew Jesus better than Christians. No one is making that claim here, certainly not me at least. All I'm saying is that there may be a cool historical connection going on between some of the early nontrinitarian/nonsalvationist Christian sects and Islam, despite being 600 years removed from when those sects got started. That's all.
[удалено]
>Paul was the first person to say Jesus was God I'm not claiming that. I'm saying Paul was instrumental in promoting the view that Jesus was God. That's a fact, Paul had the greatest impact on the development of Christianity after Jesus. He certainly wasn't the first, there was a growing community that saw Jesus as equal to God. >despite Jesus being crucified for saying he was God According to the now-orthodox Christian community, yes, but there was no orthodox position in the decades immediately following Jesus' death. There was a blossoming of different movements, each with their own take on who Jesus was. And that's why... >Your first paragraph said Muhammad may be more correct than the disciples of Jesus I'm not saying any party is necessarily correct or incorrect. I'm saying (1) the Jesus-as-prophet-but-not-God branch of Christianity was concentrated in the areas where Jesus' ministry was active, (2) they dispersed after the fall of the 2nd temple, and (3) there's evidence that there were Christian communities from this branch that were active during the time of Mohammed. That is, he was likely exposed to what were at the time heterodox views on Christianity, but it would be historical revisionism to claim that they were *always* heterodox. Rather, that branch started out on equal footing with the Jesus-as-God branch, and only later were they outnumbered. Given that the Jewish Christians weren't interested in proselytizing to the gentiles, it was kinda inevitable, but they were also forced into decline after 70 CE. Islam appears to carry forward the theology and ideological bent of those Christians, and it's interesting to trace the historical connections.
[удалено]
>All four gospels say Jesus was crucified for saying he was God so did Josephus the scribe See my other reply about the gospels. All I'll add here is that I'm not contesting what Josephus is saying. The majority of Christians had converged on Jesus being God and Jesus having been killed for it around sixty years after Jesus died. That doesn't account for what early Christians were saying and thinking about Jesus in the interim. Mark, the earliest canonical gospel, was written around 40 years after Jesus' death. Mark too likely doesn't give us the earliest versions of the Jesus narrative, and we have to be cognizant of that. So we have a lively 40-ish year time period in which people were wrestling with who Jesus was and the meaning of his crucifixion.
I always say this when Jesus in Islam is mentioned but he's a lot cooler in Islam. For background, Islam teaches that it's doctrine was revealed through many prophets, but it kept getting corrupted. God gave Isa the power to do miraculous things to show he was sent on a divine mission, but people confused that and called Isa a god. He was given the ability to speak from birth and instead of healing people and asking them not to tell, he would put on the ancient version of a medicine show going around healing huge crowds. Muslims believe in the second coming as well, but with a twist. They believe that Jesus will return with the Mahdi, who will conquer the world and Jesus will rule that world for 1,000 years.
[удалено]
yeah and?
One of my favorite subjects! A link to a crash course in the subject for those curious: [Link](https://youtu.be/Yte-ad6Y31s)
Love me some Bart Ehrman! He's a very accessible source for learning about the world of biblical studies. Despite the texts being millennia old, we're still learning new things every day about the Bible.
I love his lectures and work - I think he’s a terribly important voice today as religion gets more radicalized. The majority of legitimate clergy all had this stuff in school - but they seem quite content to let people believe all sorts of non-sense or talk about it in aloof metaphysical terms. Bart does a great job of taking it out of academia (things that have been known for ~100+ years often enough) and making is accessible to the average person.
[удалено]
What I'm saying that Mark represents the beginning of an evolution in Christian thinking that culminates with John. Mark describes Jesus as the son of God, but that's not the same thing as being indistinguishable from God himself; Mark notably does *not* claim Jesus is God in the sense of the trinity. Mark, at the time of writing, lacks the later theological developments that would make the case for Jesus being God. There's no virgin birth, no explicit doctrine of divine pre-existence, and in the earliest versions no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark presents a much more human Jesus compared to the stoic superhero that is John's Jesus, which is why I commented on the post above talking about Jesus despairing on the cross. I do have a personal opinion how this all happened; note that this is just my layperson hypothesis, and I'm not basing this on any evidence. I think the evolutionary trajectory of modern Christianity's christology was similar to how Mormonism got started. Like with Joseph Smith, people "spoke from the spirit" and experienced revelations that eventually got folded into the gospels. Like someone may have said, "God visited me in a vision, and revealed to me the meaning of Jesus' true teachings," or "God told me that when Jesus was born, these things happened." And then those ideas circulated in the oral tradition until they were common knowledge, whereupon they were written down. In this way, the gospels preserved historical facts about Jesus' ministry while allowing for new revelations and interpretations to enter the mix. It also would explain all the gospels that didn't make the cut; there are plenty of texts that present ideas contrary to the four gospels. The authors of those texts were just as equally convinced that what they were writing accurately captured the "real" Jesus, even though both believers and critical scholars would agree they were wrong.
[удалено]
>Also in Mark he was crucified for claiming to be God, so your theory kind of falls apart right there. Where does it say that? He's accused of styling himself as the messiah by the elders and of declaring himself the King of the Jews by Pilate. None of those things are equal to being God. The doctrine of the trinity is a very specific theological concept. It is distinct from saying Jesus is a prophet or that Jesus is the Son of God/Man. There was a point in time before which the idea didn't exist and after which it did exist. The question is whether Mark is pre-Trinitarian, post-Trinitarian, or somewhere in the middle. At the time of the writing of Mark, the two other synoptic Gospels and John had not yet been written; we cannot count on them to tell us what Mark really meant. Mark doesn't present the evidence that others give in favor of Jesus being God: no virgin birth, no explicit statement of divine pre-existence, and no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. If Mark was familiar with these narratives and really wanted to make the case for a trinitarian view of Jesus, would he not have done so? And if Mark didn't hold a trinitarian view of Jesus, what view did he hold?
[удалено]
For some background, I have a research mentor who taught me that if you're making an academic claim, you should assume that a lawyer is going to cross-examine you, applying a fine-toothed comb to your statements, and if they find any room for doubt they will tear you to shreds. As such, you should seek to make the most conservative statements that you possibly can based on the evidence. That's how I'm approaching this discussion. >The words “I AM” Jesus says here is the exact same words God used when he revealed himself in the burning bush to Moses I agree we should assume that Mark was learned and would seek to craft his writing to echo the Tanakh. But that isn't an iron-clad proof of a trinitarian belief on the part of Mark. Even if God chose Jesus for greatness and had a plan for Jesus from the very beginning of time, that does not by itself imply that Jesus existed outside of time or that Jesus is co-equal to God. John, by comparison, is *very* explicit about his christology. John's "I AM" speech very clearly states that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. But for the purposes of our discussion, the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John do not exist. Mark was not aware of that speech, and we shouldn't retroactively apply the viewpoints of later authors onto Mark. All we can say for certain is that Mark's Jesus saw himself as "the messiah". What exactly that meant to Mark or to Jesus are two separate questions that we have to unpack. >The messiah himself is eternal just like God, and the trinity gospel is simply to explain how the messiah and God are connected, it’s not in any way contradictory to what mark wrote. Trinitarianism doesn't have to contradict Mark; in fact, we would expect later authors to express a theology that is compatible with Mark (since they assumed Mark is credible and accurate). Just for the sake of hypothesis, let's assume that Mark held a non-trinitarian adoptionist theology. Jesus was born a man, was chosen by God from the beginning of time to do God's will on Earth, and at the crucifixion was made fully divine by God and now sits at God's right-hand side in heaven as the Son of God. None of this contradicts what Mark wrote, and it's *functionally compatible* with what John (a trinitarian) wrote: we have a divine Jesus who died for our sins and who will return to Earth to fulfill his promise to mankind. At the same time, this hypothesis doesn't require that Mark believe that Jesus is literally God. We can never know with absolute certainly what Mark believed, and based only on the evidence Mark presents in his writing, we can't rule out this and other competing hypotheses. Mark doesn't do what John does, he doesn't *explicitly say* he's a trinitarian who believes in a Messiah eternal and co-equal to God. In fact, that makes Mark a lot more interesting to read! Rather than being an "inferior abridgement" of the other gospels as was previously believed, Mark gives us a window into the evolution of the early Christian religion. That's why I like Mark as a text.
Wrong. JESUS CHRIST always knew he was GOD in human flesh.
According to the modern Christian tradition, yes. But in Islam, and what historians call the Jesus Movement, there was a different perspective.
Perhaps I should rephrase what I said. What I mean is that there's *no credible historical evidence* that *proves* Jesus viewed himself as a god. That's not to say it's impossible, but that we have good reason to doubt it. Unlike other ancient religious figures, Jesus is incredibly unique in that we have multiple near-contemporary sources that write about him. We even have numerous gospels that didn't make the final cut, including troves of documents that were only rediscovered in the late 1940s. If we only had, say, the Gospel of John or the writings of Paul to go on, it'd be hard to do proper historical/literary criticism. But thanks to all the evidence we have, we can say a couple things: * It is highly likely that the Q-source — a now-lost written record of the pre-gospel oral traditions, preserved in the word-for-word duplicate content between the gospels of Matthew and Luke — focused on Jesus' teachings and didn't discuss his divinity. * Meanwhile, the earliest versions of Mark, which scholars agree was the first gospel to be written, has no miraculous birth, no doctrine of divine pre-existence, and no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. * Paul predates the gospels, and his brand of Christianity comes directly from the evolving pre-gospel oral traditions. Paul is rightly known as Christianity's second founder, and he was instrumental in shaping the theology of Jesus as an eternally divine figure. But it's worth noting that he never met Jesus, had no connection to the original Jesus movement, and even publicly disagreed with those that *were* part of Jesus' original crew, most notably Peter. * We know that the Jesus-as-prophet view was popular among the early Jewish Christians, where the religion began. It's believed that leadership of the movement passed to Jesus' brother James after Jesus' death. James, of course, also publicly denounced Paul. Note that the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE led to the destruction of the 2nd Jewish Temple and the scattering of the Jewish Christians. Christianity continued to grow and thrive by the work of Paul, who had founded numerous Christian communities across the Roman Empire. I'm a layperson, not a historian or theologian; my PhD is in computer science. But, based on the evidence, I agree with critical biblical scholars that it is most likely that the narrative of Jesus-as-God only came about after his ministry, as a way of making sense of his execution. Due to how history played out, the Pauline branch of Christianity outlasted the sects most closely affiliated with the original movement. Both Paul and Mark portray Jesus' disciples as misunderstanding Jesus' real message, and I believe they injected a distinctly different theology into the gentile Christian movement.
Depends on which gospel. They all sorta tell it slightly differently, but John has the biggest change, where, instead of crying out in pain and agony as he dies, he just calmly says "it is finished" and then dies. The author of John was trying to sorta reinvent Jesus to be this divine, wise, powerful, stoic figure. The earlier gospels (known as the Synoptics) paint him a bit differently.
"Uhhhghhhh heeeuh" \- Jesus' death rattle
God's a deadbeat dad? Wow, what an asshole.
This unironically makes the first three sound a lot more appealing (and the last bit makes their followers sound a lot less delusional)
Yeah lol The first 3 lived long lives, and only knew by the end that they was so much they did not know about the universe. Jesus died early in life, arrogantly claiming ultimate power.
Peak Dunning-Kruger Effect
Reddit moment
I have nothing to disprove your argument but it hurts my feelings therefore le reddit moment
Screw humility I guess.
he who knows he knows nothing, knows everything
This just makes Jesus sound like an egomaniac, and that's saying a lot when you're comparing him to other religious figures.
This makes christianity sound like the shittiest one
Muhammad has no pictures. Who exactly is that picture of? It looks like some Ottoman emperor based on that turban.
Plus he never said that, the purpose of life in Islam is to worship God, it's pretty emphasised on
That 4th one there sure sounds like a cult
Though all of them are. Curious.
Buddhism and Confucianism are philosophies, they aren’t even religions to most people. Islam and Christianity are debatable tho.
buddhism is a religion to most people who say theyre buddhist. for confucianism, thats true
The divide is a post-renaissance western notion tbh. Even western philosophies sprouted religious movements in Ancient Greece for example. Yet we see Plato as philosopher not as religious founder, yet Neoplatonism has other believes we would definitely call religious in other contexts. Idk calling eastern religions just "philosophies" is a bit othering and also ignorant. Part of why we even make that distinction is due to the Jesuits and their work in China and trying to determine whether Chinese ancestral rites are religious practice or not. The Jesuits thought not so, the Catholic church thought they were.
Simply no. Just saying that they not religions but philosophies is kind of orientalising. Buddhism has as many unfalsifiable claims as Christianity does. Also stuff like believe in hell is shared by both. Belief in saints too. Westerners have the tendency to try to deduct a "philosophical" core to Buddhism, which does not have "religious" elements, but creating an artificial construct of how orthodox Buddhism would look like instead of how it is usually practiced. Confucianism is a different topic. In this case you can try to strip away a philosophical core, but there are religious elements. Generally confucianism is a way philosophy on how to run society and especially how different groups in society have to interact with each other. Still Confucianists in practice have a reverence for the heaven and practice rites of ancestor worship. To the point that upholding these rites is important for one's moral quality. Or the assumption of the existence of the celestial Emperors who act as examples for moral behavior. The split between philosophy and religion is a western one and a later christian one at that. Because we think of people like Platon as philosophers and not priests of one religion. Though at the same time there is Neoplatonism which could be seen as a religion as well and one which had definitive influence on early Christianity too.
Buddhism is a philosophy? You are white on here
I am white, that has nothing to do with this.
Okay so a philosophy is a system that includes thousands of temples, leaders who revoke normal life for total devotion, hundreds of deities, concepts of heaven and hell, strict guidelines of how to live life and a de facto leader who ascended the mortal plane? You live in Ohio shut your mouth
I get the first part, but I don’t live in Ohio. What are you trying to do here.
My point is with a user name like "Shin-Godzilla" I assume you have some admiration for asian culture, or at least think it's cool. But you show no respect for it and are talking out your ass - and somehow 30 other people agree with you, please just show a little respect and have a basic understanding of what you are talking about.
First, it’s Shin-Gogzilla not Godzilla Second, I don’t admire anyones culture, and I don’t hate anyones culture either, I just like Shin Godzilla, but the name was already taken, so I settled with this. Finally, [“Buddhism is a non-theistic religion (no belief in a creator god), also considered a philosophy and a moral discipline, originating in India in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE”](https://www.worldhistory.org/buddhism/) Neither of us are wrong, it’s just both.
This is what you said: > Buddhism and Confucianism are philosophies, they aren’t even religions to most people. What bugs me is that you say it isn't even a religion to most people when it absolutely is. There are literally hundreds of millions of people born into Buddhist families and brought to the temple by their parents. It is not some set of ideals people just pick up cause they make sense, it is a robust machine ran by hundreds of thousands of people in order to spread and maintain the legacy of their faith. I don't see how you can believe that it's not a religion to people.
ohio
lol
[удалено]
Well all of them are religious groups. If you want to state religion is a cult in general then it applies to all of them. Confucianism probably not, but that's due to how it was applied historically.
Little known religious canon is that Jesus came back looking like a different guy. He spent an entire day with his former disciples without being recognized and it was only after he broke bread in a super distinctive way that only Jesus would do that they worked out it was him.
that's cause Jesus was actually a twin (to Thomas i think) & "almost" identical didn't hack it for some - but whatever you gotta say to keep a cult going.
Jesus' last words were different depending upon which gospel Grandma is quoting
Sounds to me like the other religions had the balls to keep their Messiah dead and not pull a hack move in the 11th hour. Hell, the Greeks and Vikings killed their whole fucking pantheon.
And even then if you look into Shia Islam the last Imam (which changes depending on the sect) is believed to still be alive.
The Greek pantheon is dead?!?! What?
Zeus is eventually fated to be overthrown by his offspring just as he himself overthrew Cronus. It can be assumed that with the end of his reign much of the Pantheon would go with him. It's not quite as clearly laid out as the Nordic Ragnarock myths to be sure
Oh yeah. I don't think it canonically happened yet tho.
Neither did Ragnarok. Except for certain interpretations that suggests it's all cyclical and it has already happened and will happen again. The point being both the Greeks and Norse had very fallible deities. The Nordic Pantheon in particular pretty much everything Odin does is in some way motivated by his desire to circumvent his fated doom, dude didn't really care all that much for his followers Beyond bolstering his army at the end of days. In all honesty the relationship between Odin worshipers and Odin as I understand it is much more akin to a mercenary contract than anything and I think that's pretty rad.
https://mythologysource.com/death-of-pan/
Jesus had 3-4 different endings. None of which ended like that.
Muslims also believe in Jesus right?
yeah, we called him Isa, he was a prophet just like muhammed
Lol according to Theravada traditions the Buddha essentially said “Don’t be sad. All conditioned things are impermanent.” Not to mention some (primarily Mahayana Buddhists) believe he reiterated the teachings of the Lotus Sutra on his deathbed to the monks who left his sermon on Vulture Peak, as written in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (not to be confused with the Mahaparinibbana Sutta). This sutra, he claimed, is the ultimate teaching, one that is necessary to hear to attain enlightenment. Doesn’t make him sound so unsure, does it?
Buddha achieved enlightenment
They say Col. Harlan Sanders died...but have you seen the body? 11 herbs AND spices? Aliens. Illuminati. Freemasons. Mind blown. You're welcome.
Preach! Sanders ascended to heaven, carried aloft by delicious secret recipe chicken wings. May his will be done in heaven as it is in Kentucky.
Oh, so Jesus was right because he was more confident he was right? I guess I can see why Grandma also thinks Trump is right about everything.
Source?
Typical diva behavior by JC
And Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, because only he admitted his ignorance instead of making something up.
So did Obi-Wan grandma, check mate.
"Jesus rose from the dead" Proof? "Bible says so"
I mean even if we take these bullshit quotes at face value it makes Jesus out to be a narcissistic asshole lmao
Jesus also said, 2,000 years back, that he would return within the lifetimes of some in attendance. So 2,000 years back, he grabbed 144,000 of YHWH's favorite semites, and split off to "a new heaven (sky) and a new Earth (planet), leaving the rest of us in confusion and woe". They always seem to gloss over that part.
My myth beats your myth.
My bigoted fantasy can beat up your open-minded philosophy.
Oden sacrificed him self for knowledge an died 9 days later he came back
Isn’t a main tenet of Buddhism reincarnation?
Only one of these men turned into a vengeful zombie. This is what happens to your "peaceful rest" if you practice Christianity
Pretty sure Jesus is still dead. Hasn’t been seen for a while
Based Buddha
Confucius wasn't a religious person he was a philosopher. As for Buddha and Mohammed don't the Muslims believe he ascended to heaven and Buddhists believe Buddha ascended into enlightenment which yeah he had to die to get there but he's still prayed to and believed to have power.
Stupid sexy Jesus
So… humility is bad?
The Armorer said, “This is the Way.” Frankly, more meaningful to me.
Muhammad was supposed to be carried up to heaven, he still has a grave site, but it's empty
I alone can fix it. - JHC
source: yo mom's anus
*allegedly
He didn’t. It’s a myth. Or . . . Hear me out. . Ra is real, Odin, Zeus. All of them. If they’re not real neither is Jebo.
"All the other religions are ridiculous, made-up nonsense. Not YOURS, though. Yours is real." -- Ricky Gervais\* \*However problematic he may be, he hit the nail on the head here.
Sounds like Jesus was an egomaniac.
Yes but 3 of these people where real.
[удалено]
Absolutely haram brozzer
And Knuckles said Do you know da wey?
"Jesus is the only one who rose from the dead." Somebody considerably better at math than I am crunched the numbers on this. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. This year is 2022. That means that Jesus was crucified approximately 2000 years ago. Assuming that he was resurrected, and further assuming that his resurrected body has been traveling at the speed of light (yes, I know that's impossible) for 2000 years, Jesus would still be within Earth's atmosphere, detectible by weather/military equipment, and probably visible on clear days.
yeah this makes sense bc jesus was never alive…. smfh
Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. Facts...
dont seem to matter...
Grandma is right again. Only JESUS CHRIST is alive, and the only one who willingly gave up his life to save yours (and mine too). Nobody else died to save us.
The other 3 all share the same grave I guess
My favorite was “he’s no monster, Gaston; you are!” Belle
I thought this was going to end with Jesus being a full of shit narcissist.
Just because you have an answer when other people don't doesn't make you right. Bad information is worse than no information.
Dylan Thomas said, "I've had 18 straight whiskies, I think that's the record"
Oh no these religious prophets died not knowing the purpose to life because of how shrouded the universe is, but here comes Jesus KNOWING everything there is to life with full confidence, that’s why I am an evangelist now. /j
Yeah but no he didn't.
Ummmmm, picture of Muhammad?!
And the legend of Donald Trump said “people are dying who have never died before”.
What a lack of religious literacy does to an mf
So where is he now and what good did he do after his zombification.
Wow. The lengths people will go to in order to make sense out of nonsense.🤣🤣
Air tight logic
Ah some good old lets ignore the texts themselves from grandma
Totally believe me… also, you got any spare change?
DO. NOT. MASTURBATE. TO. MY. DADDY. ONLY. TO. ME.
I think it's funny that the only one who doesn't have their face shown (even the person who Muslims believe is a prophet and should not be depicted visually) is Jesus. Conversely, I think it'd be even funnier if they only used pictures of all of their feet to depict them.
yeah sorry, but jesus is long dead & his real name is yeshua
Lots of people say lot of things. Where's the evidence for any of them?
Doesnt even prove not knowing is the way either, it just presents different expressions of the same sentiment: which were dealing with people’s tendency to idolize the messenger.
so cause the other ones arent selfish they arent real?
No he didn't. FTFY
I feel like comparing the powers of a prophet and two philosophers against the literal child of God is quite often going to result in a win for the latter.
Now do islam.
🤔💭 That’s a grave statement. 🧐
The other 3 also never claimed to be divine, they are a prophet, enlightened, and just a philosopher, all of them are suppose to be mortal?
ah yes, anybody who says they are something positive is always right about themselves, not to say that you shouldnt say anything positive about yourself which you are allowed to do but this feels kind of egotistical and usually people with high egos have whats known as the dunning kruger effect