Unpacking Christian Doctrine

[Michel]

...The story of Sándor Csoma de Kőrös also shows that it is not so very unlikely that Jesus may have traveled to India; however, I see no reason why he would have to go to India, because Indic religions are just as corrupt as western religions.  If Jesus was enlightened, then he would have figured that out, which may have brought him back to Judea, and martyrdom.

This YouTube video is a BBC documentary titled "Jesus Was A Buddhist Monk" It's about the possibility that Jesus traveled near to the northwestern part of India in Kashmir. It also theorises that he went Spain. An interesting possibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0Ib3aPG6Y

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Michel for posting the link to the interesting BBC special on Jesus.  The video provided interesting questions; however, the Tibetan Buddhist claim has some deep flaws, as Tibet had not embraced Buddhism until about AD 500.  So, sticking to the origins of Indian Christianity with Thomas, in Kashmir, works better.  I agree, It is unreasonable to believe that Jesus succumbed to crucifixion after only a few hours on the cross.

While we are discussing Jesus, I think the following link would be interesting to add into the discussion

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'
Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.

the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.

There is simply no reason for first century Roman aristocrats to invent the Jesus story; however, I would accept that Constantine had very good reasons to hijack Christianity in the 4th century, and subvert it for his own purposes; and the Christianity of today is more like Constantine wanted it, than it represents the truth of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."

This is worth keeping in mind for anyone who is interested in becoming a mystic.  All religions are the product of heavy "engineering" by the hegemony.  This does not mean that the contemplative life, and the religious experience is fiction.  However, the future mystic must be willing to unpack his or her religion to expose the lies and find the truths.

[Michel]

Jhananda:

  The video provided interesting questions; however, the Tibetan Buddhist claim has some deep flaws, as Tibet had not embraced Buddhism until about AD 500.  So, sticking to the origins of Indian Christianity with Thomas, in Kashmir, works better.

I noticed that as well - Tibetan Buddhism arose several centuries after Jesus. How could they make such an enormous mistake. It doesn't give one confidence in the BBC. However there were other interesting points.

What they said about Thomas was of interest. He may have been influenced by Buddhist ideas. I first came across the Thomas Gospel, which was discovered back in the 1940's in Egypt, through the work of Joseph Campbell, the American scholar and professor in the field of comparative mythology and religion.

There are a couple of lines in the gospel  - attributed to what Jesus  may have said - that are strikingly similar to Buddhist views:

1) "He who drinks from my mouth shall become as I am, and I shall become as he."
2) "The kingdom of heaven is spread upon the earth, yet men do not see it."

Now that's Buddhist stuff! I interpret this to mean almost anyone can become a messiah by following the mystic's path. And the kingdom of heaven is the liberation of enlightenment achievable through the practice of samadhi. Now it's not to hard to understand why the Romans might want to cut out the Thomas Gospel if they wanted to establish their authority in the hearts and minds of the people.

Was it Constantine who cut out the Thomas gospel in the 3rd century, when he established Roman Catholicism?

There is simply no reason for first century Roman aristocrats to invent the Jesus story; however, I would accept that Constantine had very good reasons to hijack Christianity in the 4th century, and subvert it for his own purposes; and the Christianity of today is more like Constantine wanted it, than it represents the truth of the life and teachings of Jesus.
Quote from: Atwill Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."

This is worth keeping in mind for anyone who is interested in becoming a mystic.  All religions are the product of heavy "engineering" by the hegemony.  This does not mean that the contemplative life, and the religious experience is fiction.  However, they future mystic must be willing to unpack his or religion to expose the lies and find the truths.

I will follow Atwill's debate with great interest. Thank-you for pointing it out.

I am just beginning my studies of the history of all religions. I know almost nothing. I am so glad to have someone like you, with your scholastic background, and as a guiding influence, to help unpack it all.

Of all the religious traditions based on of the various mystics, there does not seem to be a complete body of teachings other than the Pali Canon. If this is the case - then it is the Pali Canon that one should putting all one's energies; so, this is the one that I'm interested in completely unpacking. As for all the other stuff , if it is incomplete and totally corrupted, one should lean the basics, and not worry about the details - let the scholars argue out the nitty-gritty until they're blue in the face, going on lecture tours selling their latest book. I'm getting old fast, and time is so very precious; I'm going to have to make shortcuts in my studies, I can't cover it all.

[Jhanananda]

I noticed that as well - Tibetan Buddhism arose several centuries after Jesus. How could they make such an enormous mistake. It doesn't give one confidence in the BBC. However there were other interesting points.

This is a problem I have in general with science and scholarly work being presented in a public TV format.  It is almost always heavily laundered and dumbed down to the point that there are numerous errors. On the other hand, they could rescue their obvious faux pas by simply pointing out that the Tibetan Buddhist practice of searching for the next Dalai Lama, and other rulling class figures in Tibetan Buddhism, have antecedents, especially in Indian, or Persian culture; which would be a closer match to the Magi (Matthew 2:1-12) visit to the child Jesus, than Tibetan Buddhism would offer.

What they said about Thomas was of interest. He may have been influenced by Buddhist ideas. I first came across the Thomas Gospel, discovered back in the 1940's in Egypt, through the work of Joseph Campbell, the American scholar and professor in the field of comparative mythology and religion.

I find the link to Thomas in Kashmir has the strongest evidence in support of it.  I would like to read more about it, but I am not aware of any literature on the subject.  The Wiki on Christianity in India offers some insights.

Christianity is India's third-largest religion, with approximately 24 million followers, constituting 2.3 per cent of India's population.[2] The works of scholars and Eastern Christian writings state that Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 AD to spread the gospel amongst Kerala's Jewish settlements.

There are a couple of lines in the gospel  - attributed to what Jesus  may have said - that are strikingly similar to Buddhist views:

1) "He who drinks from my mouth shall become as I am, and I shall become as he."
2) "The kingdom of heaven is spread upon the earth, yet men do not see it."

Read the Gospel of Thomas many years ago, and I still have a copy of it. I take the Gospel of Thomas as more influenced by Taoism, than Buddhism, but how that link would occur in India I have no explanation for.

Nonetheless, the first quote that you provided from the Gospel of Thomas I find very intriguing.  I provided the whole line, because I think the sentence becomes more significant.

(108) Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

This line is particularly significant when we take it into the context of 2 stanzas in the Gospel of Philip.

And had the word gone out from that place, it would be nourished from the mouth and it would become perfect. For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace which is in one another...

As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness." 

Here I believe the references of Jesus kissing, or placing his mouth on an others mouth, is not a sexual reference, but a mystic right, or possibly a metaphor; especially when we consider that open sexuality of any kind would not have been condoned in any Middle Eastern culture at the time, or the present.  We also have to add in to this premise that in most Eurasian cultures for at least 1,000 years on either side of the life of Jesus there was a world view that involved the 4-5 elements, one of which was the breath, which was associated with the spirit; therefore, I believe it is far more reasonable to say Jesus was breathing his breath of life into others as an initiation right.

Now that's Buddhist stuff! I interpret this to mean almost anyone can become a messiah by following the mystic's path. And the kingdom of heaven is the liberation of enlightenment achievable through the practice of samadhi.

That is certainly one of my central premises; and I believe it was both Siddhartha Gautama's and Jesus.'  If that is true, then Jesus' "way truth and life" (John 14:6) was leading a lifestyle that produced the religious experience, which is called 'samadhi' in Sanskrit.

I will follow Atwill's debate with great interest. Thank-you for pointing it out.

I am just beginning my studies of the history of all religions. I know almost nothing. I am so glad to have someone like you, with your scholastic background, and as a guiding influence, to help unpack it all.

As long as I have the breath of life within me, and the energy (virtue/virya) to express myself, then I will be happy to help you and others unpack your belief systems.

[Michel]

Thank-you for your interesting reply, Jhananda:

Of all the religious traditions based on of the various mystics, there does not seem to be a complete body of teachings other than the Pali Canon. If this is the case - then it is the Pali Canon that one should putting all one's energies - so, this is the one that I'm interested in completely unpacking. As for all the other stuff , if it is incomplete and totally corrupted, then one should learn only the basics, and not worry about the details - let the scholars argue out the nitty-gritty until they're blue in the face, going on lecture tours selling their latest book. I'm getting old fast, and time is so very precious; I'm going to have to make shortcuts in my studies, I can't cover it all.

Please comment.

[Jhanananda]

Please Note that I moved this topic, because we had strayed so far off the original topic.

I agree, Michel, that the core of all religions is the work of one or more mystics.  However, the priesthood of every religion has hijacked that mystical/contemplative message. 

I also agree that the Pali Canon represents the earliest and most lucid account of the contemplative life and the mysticism that it can lead to.  However, the traditional ways in translating and interpreting the Pali Canon have totally hijacked the enlightened message of Siddhartha Gauatama.  If they had not, then I believe Jesus and John the Baptist would most probably have gone to Persia or India and settled into being Buddhist monks, but I think they found Buddhism was dead by then, as it is now.

I also agree that we could fritter our precious time away on this planet arguing fine scholarly points, so we should stop wasting time, and just focus upon the truth and lead a contemplative life.  On the other hand there are future generations of contemplatives and mystics who would benefit from our unpacking, our meditation practice, and our attainments (phala).

[Michel]

Getting back to the topic...

A number of scholars like Joseph Campbell, for example, have pointed out that the New Testament is a mess, that the gospels - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are contradictory to one and other. If this is the case, how can one be enthusiastic about going into the New Testament in any great detail? What should we be learning about the history of Christianity? I can only think that if we come to an understanding of it, we might arrive at the conclusion that it's not worth our attention, and that then we can point that out to others who are in the dark.

However, let's look at the other side of the coin, here are an number of interesting points: I looked at the Thomas Gospel some time ago. There wasn't that much to it. I also have the impression that even all of the New Testament gospels put together do not provide a complete teaching for a contemplative to follow, they especially pale when put up against the Pali Canon. However, if there are cases of Christian mystics achieving enlightenment, as you point out often, such as Teresa of Avela and John of the Cross, they may have followed the teachings of the New Testament.  Therefore, it is possible the idea of the New Testament being a incomplete body of teachings might be wrong. Another possibility is that these mystics discovered the path to enlightenment by themselves, probably because they were contemplatives in a monastic community, or because of being confined under house arrest, or in prison - these could provide the ideal conditions for a practicing mystic to thrive; just imagine being in solitary confinement in a decent, humane, modern prison of some sort, where there's shelter, quietude, good simple food, internet access, etc. Sounds better than dumpster diving for survival.

So, this leaves one with a lot of questions. I am currently reading E. Allison Peers' translation of Teresa of Avila's "the Interior Castle". This might answer some of my questions.

Was it Constantine who cut out the Thomas Gospel in the 3rd century, when he established Roman Catholicism?

[Jhanananda]

Getting back to the topic...

A number of scholars like Joseph Campbell, for example, have pointed out that the New Testament is a mess, that the gospels - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are contradictory to one and other. If this is the case, how can one be enthusiastic about going into the New Testament in any great detail? What should we be learning about the history of Christianity? I can only think that if we come to an understanding of it, we might arrive at the conclusion that it's not worth our attention, and that then we can point that out to others who are in the dark.

While I am not at all interested in supporting the Greco-Roman Church, nonetheless, as a mystic, I have no support by any religion.  So, while the Greco-Roman Church has had a long history marginalizing its mystics; and history shows Buddhism and Hinduism have done the same thing; then, as a mystic, I need to support my premises with the literature of all major religions, while pointing out that they are all flawed at the same time.

So, Biblical scholarship shows that the Gospels do not have many errors in them, because there are pre-Constantine copies of it, which agree to current versions, and it was Constantine, who hijacked it.  However, there are gross errors in its translation that can all too easily be fixed by a scholar, if he or she does not have an agenda to market, such as Joseph Atwill, the guy you sent me the link for.  He has a book to sell, and making a scholar who makes a wild claim gets lots of press.

So, here are the major corrections for the Gospels:

I
John 3:16 does not say “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son”

It really says, “God so loved the world that he gave his chosen son”

Chosen is significant for several reasons: 
1) First of all, if we are going to stick with the epistemology of the Abrhammic religions, then god does not beget, god creates.
2) Through Adam and Eve, who were creations of god, we are thus ALL children of god.
3) Which make Jesus chosen among the chosen, for some reason, which we have to figure out by retranslating the Gospels.
4) Jesus’ choseness is expressed in his being a Messiah, which means to be chosen.  He was thus not chosen by people, but by god.

II
Nazareth
1) Next problem with the translation of the Gospels, is historic records show that there was no city, town or hamlet in Judea that was called “Nazareth” at the time of Jesus.
2) Archaeology of the town that is called “Nazareth” today shows that it was a Roman Garrison town, not a Jewish village.
3) So, then what was all of that in the Gospels about Nazareth? 
4) It turns out that the term Nazareth has been mis-interpreted for 1700 years.  The term is correctly used as ‘Nazarite.’  A Nazarite is a type of person. It not a place.  A Nazarite is a person who took on a religious commitment, which is not unlike what we would today call a monk, or nun.  Therefore Jesus was a monk.
5) It just so happens that he earliest Christians did not call themselves “Christians.”  They called themselves Nazarite. 
6) It also so happens that the Arabic term for a Christian that appears in the Koran is not ‘Christian’ but Nazarite.

III
“I am the way, truth and life” (John 14:6)
So, when Jesus said, “I am the way, truth and life” he was not speaking of blind faith in a belief system about him being god, or the only begotten son of god, but suggesting that people embrace his lifestyle.

IV
Trinitarianism
The central philosophical point of view that is presented in the Greco-Roman version of Christianity is Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism is the belief in a Trinity, which is the Father, the Holy Spirit and the son, who was Jesus, who Greco-Roman Christianity believes was god, or the son of god.

Trinitarianism poses a serious epistemological error in logic and critical thinking, because the Abrahammic religions are based upon monotheism.  Therefore Trinitarianism is a fraud.

So, if we add up all of the gross errors in translation of the Gospels that are used to bolster the deeply flawed epistemology of Greco-Roman Christianity, then we would end up with a radically different translation of the Gospels than any branch of Greco-Roman Christianity accepts.

Thus, we do not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or dump Jesus, because all branch of Greco-Roman Christianity resort to gross errors in translation and epistemological error in logic and critical thinking.  We just need to seek and support the truth, as well as live the Nazarite lifestyle, if we so chose.

However, let's look at the other side of the coin, here is an interesting point: I looked at the Thomas Gospel some time ago. There wasn't that much to it. I also have the impression that even all of the New Testament gospels put together do not provide a complete teaching for a contemplative to follow, especially when put up against the Pali Canon.

I agree, the Pali Canon without a doubt has the clearest description of the contemplative life, and the fruit (phala) there of in any religious text, bar none.  However, as we have been in discussion in the GWV for its entire 10 years, is every branch of Buddhism has gotten the all-to-simple writing of the Pali canon grossly wrong, which goes in support of my premises above.

However, if there are cases of Christian mystics achieving enlightenment, as you point out often, such as Teresa of Avela and John of the Cross, they may have followed the teachings of the New Testament - it maybe that they could have used the teachings of Christianity to attain enlightenment. Therefore, it is possible the idea of the New Testament being a incomplete body of teachings might be wrong. Another possibility is that these mystics discovered the path to enlightenment by themselves probably because they were contemplatives in a monastic community, or even being confined under house arrest, or in prisoner - these my be ideal conditions for a practicing mystic.

So, this leaves one with a lot of questions. I am currently reading E. Allison Peers' translation of Teresa of Avila's "the Interior Castle". This might answer some of my questions.

As far as I know no one who is a scholar of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross understands how they got where they are, except myself.  How I got to my understanding, aside from being a contemplative who has also become a mystic, is I have also studied, not only Hindu and Buddhist mysticism, but Christian mysticism, Jewish mysticism, and Islamic mysticism. 

In my study I found out that it turns out that Teresa of Avila was a Jewish convert to Christianity.  John of the Cross, on the other hand, was a Muslim convert to Christianity.  What they had in common was they came from per-Christian Spain, where there had been several renaissances of contemplative and mystical movements, in which Jews, Christians and Muslim where sharing contemplative and mystical concepts. 

Islam conquered Persia around AD 700, 650 something like.  Just prior to the conquest of Persia Hinduism and Buddhism flourished in Persia for more than 1000 years.  Islam then conquered India around AD 1000.  In all of that conquering there was an undercurrent of Jewish, Christian and Muslim mystics who were very eclectic in their acquisition of philosophies.  Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross may very well have either read, or heard about key passages in the Pali Canon, and understood them as prescriptive and descriptive of the contemplative life and its fruit (phala).

Was it Constantine who cut out the Thomas Gospel in the 3rd century, when he established Roman Catholicism?

The Gospel of Thomas comes to us from the Nag Hammadi texts. It is noteworthy that they were found in a cave near the town of Nag Hammadi.  The nearest structure is an ancient Christian monastery, which I do not believe is a coincidence. 

In his "Introduction" to The Nag Hammadi Library in English, James Robinson suggests that these codices may have belonged to a nearby Pachomian monastery, and were buried after Bishop Athanasius condemned the use of non-canonical books in his Festal Letter of 367 AD.

Constantine (27 February c. 272 – 22 May 337) predates Bishop Athanasius condemnation of non-canonical books.  However, Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the Nicene Creed was professed by Christians, which essentially states that the Jesus is God.

So, we cannot blame Constantine for the destruction of the Christian non-canonical books; however, I believe that he setup the environment that lead to their destruction in requiring that their be a commonly held set of beliefs that defined Christianity.

Fundamentalist Christians tend to reject the Nag Hammadi codices because they carbon date to the third and fourth centuries; however...

The contents of the codices were written in the Coptic language, though the works were probably all translations from Greek.[4] The best-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. After the discovery, scholars recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1898 (P. Oxy. 1), and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources. Subsequently, a 1st or 2nd century date of composition circa 80 AD has been proposed for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas. The buried manuscripts date from the third and fourth centuries.

I believe it is thus reasonable that one or more individuals at the Pachomian monastery could very well have copied them, then buried them, prior to handing over the originals for destruction.  The copiests of the codices very possibly had planned on exhuming them at a safe time; however, that safe time may not have arrived prior to their death, so they were lost until recently found.

[Michel]

Jhananda:

While I am not at all interested in supporting the Greco-Roman Church, nonetheless, as a mystic, I have no support by any religion.  So, while the Greco-Roman Church has had a long history marginalizing its mystics; and history shows Buddhism and Hinduism have done the same thing; then, as a mystic, I need to support my premises with the literature off all major religions, while pointing out that they are all flawed at the same time.

By your questioning of all religious traditions, it's is not hard to understand why you have so many enemies; you are a threat to them. But I am awed by the depth of knowledge that you demonstrate. I'm not in any a position to debate the finer points in our discussion; I have much to learn. But I am very happy to be your student; you have much to offer, and should be taken very seriously; your arguments are very fascinating and compelling. You force people to think and broaden their knowledge. I consider you to be a rare and precious jewel.

Jhananda:

) It turns out that the term Nazareth has been mis-interpreted for 1700 years.  The term is correctly used as ‘Nazarite.’  A Nazarite is a type of person. It not a place.  A Nazarite is a person who took on a religious commitment, which is not unlike what we would today call a monk, or nun.  Therefore Jesus was a monk. 

So what religious tradition did Jesus follow as a Nazarite monk? This is getting interesting to say the least.

Jhananda:

As far as I know no one who is a scholar of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross understands how they got where they are, except myself.  How I got to my understanding, aside from being a contemplative who has also become a mystic, is I have also studied, not only Hindu and Buddhist mysticism, but Christian mysticism, Jewish mysticism, and Islamic mysticism.
In my study I found out that it turns out that Teresa of Avila was a Jewish convert to Christianity.  John of the Cross, on the other hand, was a Muslim convert to Christianity.  What they had in common was they came from per-Christian Spain, where there had been several renaissances of contemplative and mystical movements, in which Jews, Christians and Muslim where sharing contemplative and mystical concepts.

Islam conquered Persia around AD 700, 650 something like.  Just prior to the conquest of Persia Hinduism and Buddhism flourished in Persia for more than 1000 years.  Islam then conquered India around AD 1000.  In all of that conquering there was an undercurrent of Jewish, Christian and Muslim mystics who were very eclectic in their acquisition of philosophies.  Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross may very well have either read, or heard about key passages in the Pali Canon, and understood them as prescriptive and descriptive of the contemplative life and its fruit (phala).

This makes a lot of sense. If this is the case, it would explain how they may have became enlightened. It's easy to imagine that there were many exchanges of ideas, and all kinds of influences as as a result of the silk road and the spice trail, as well as through the conquest of foreign lands, as you point out.

Jhananda:

John 3:16 does not say “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” It really says, “God so loved the world that he gave his chosen son”

What source documents did you translate from?
 

[Jhanananda]

By your questioning of all religious traditions, it's is not hard to understand why you have so many enemies; you are a threat to them. But I am awed by the depth of knowledge that you demonstrate. I'm not in any a position to debate the finer points in our discussion; I have much to learn. But I am very happy to be your student; you have much to offer, and should be taken very seriously; your arguments are very fascinating and compelling. You force people to think and broaden their knowledge. I consider you to be a rare and precious jewel.

I can only hope to inspire a few people to meditate deeply before this all-too short life comes to an end.

So what religious tradition did Jesus follow as a monk? This is getting interesting to say the least.

We can only go on what little was written about the life and teachings of Jesus.  But, there are clues.  The Magi, who came to visit Jesus when he was a child, and the fact that his father, Joseph, as a Nazarite as well, who raised Jesus to be a Nazarite, suggests strongly of a Persian influence.  Persian Judaism existed then as a remnant of the Babylonian invasion, which connects him directly to Zoroastrianism, which was saved by Danial, the biblical patriarch; however, while the term 'magi' specifically refers to a Zoroastrian priest, the use of the term in Judea at the time might have been more generally used to refer to any priest of any religion in Persia, and we know that Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Janism all existed in Persia at that time.

Since Jesus' father, Joseph, called himself a Nazarite, then I believe that he was essentially a wandering mendicant who very probably wandered from Egypt to Persia, and possibly India, on a regular basis.  How he provided for Mary and the child Jesus, and his brother, James, as a Nazarite/mendicant, is hard to say.  Perhaps he was a well respected Nazarite/mendicant?

There are numerous problems with the Jesus story.  Most notably, what happened to Joseph?  He just drops out of the story.  Why?  Good writing always resolves questions like this, and surely everyone who embraced Christianity in the early days wanted to know about Mary and Joseph.

Another indication of what religion Jesus followed as a monk, is, if it is true, then after he survived his crucifixion, then he moved with Thomas to Kashmir.  So, why Kashmir?  Well, it was not part of the Roman Empire, and there was a large Jewish community there, which he and Thomas apparently became part of.  Did Jesus' father, Joseph, prepare the way for them?  According to the Gospels, Jesus promised to come back, but he never did.  Why?

Another curious factoid is 'Thomas' is not a personal name.  It means 'twin.'  In the Gospels James, Jesus's brother, was said to be a twin.  Was Thomas his twin, or was Jesus his twin?

This makes a lot of sense. If this is the case, it would explain how they may have became enlightened. There was a great deal of exchange of ideas as as a result of the silk road and the spice trail, as well as through the conquest of foreign lands, as you point out.

I agree.  In fact the whole reason why Jerusalem was an important town is because it was at the north end of trade routs through the Arabian peninsula.  Mecca just happens to be in the middle of that trade rout.  Both cities were ancient trade centers, and that is why they also hosted pilgrimage sites as additional incentive for trade.

What source documents did you translate from?

The Bible and Gospels have common Greek original texts, which can be translated from.  I did not translate the whole stanza.  Instead I just examined key terms, and fortunately in the case of John 3:16 there has been a major debate over its translation for at least 1,000 years; and that debate is well documented online.

It is not my work.  Just Google "john 3:16 controversy," as I did, or check this link What does 'monogenes' (‘μονογενης υιος’) mean?.  I do not buy his irrational conclusion, but he nonetheless discusses the debate with reasonable depth, and he provides sources.

[Michel]

Jhananda:

We can only go on what little was written about the life and teachings of Jesus.  But, there are clues...

This leaves us with many unanswered questions - and probably many are unanswerable.  As I've said before, Christianity does not provide a complete body of  teachings for a contemplative to follow; but it seems that the Pali suttas do. I think Christianity is a dead end, and is not worth considering in any great detail.
I think the only thing of value in the Christian teachings is that they fulfill some of three virtue factors found in the eightfold path - that's all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Though unpacking Christianity is interesting, and to some degree useful, for someone such as myself, I reason that I should be placing most of my energies into leading a contemplative life, practicing meditation, and understanding the Pali suttas. I understand why you are interested in unpacking all religious traditions showing how they have marginalized all mystics, their motives, and how deeply flawed they are - your work saves others from having to do so themselves. So, I will continue to read everything you say on the matter - because there maybe something of value to learn.

Jhananda:

The Bible and Gospels have common Greek original texts, which can be translated from.  I did not translate the whole stanza.  Instead I just examined key terms, and fortunately in the case of John 3:16 there has been a major debate over its translation for at least 1,000 years; and that debate is well documented online.

It is not my work.  Just Google "john 3:16 controversy," as I did, or check this link What does 'monogenes' (‘μονογενης υιος’) mean?.  I do not buy his irrational conclusion, but he nonetheless discusses the debate with reasonable depth, and he provides sources.

There are many interpretations on the meaning of various translations of scripture. I find your interpretations to be highly interesting and indispensable due to the fact that you are a mystic (I'll go along with that until proven otherwise) and all of the others are not. That is why you should be taken very seriously. As for the non-mystics, they might have some valid points to contribute, so they shouldn't be ignored - but we must be cautious, they have all kinds of hidden agendas.

I live my life as if I may die at any moment; therefore I'm in a perpetual state of spiritual crisis - it's a heavy duty emergency. So one has to be very careful how one spends one time.

[Jhanananda]

I live my life as if I may die at any moment; therefore I'm in a perpetual state of spiritual crisis - it's a heavy duty emergency. So one has to be very careful how one spends one time.

This sums it all up.  No need to waste time with any other occupation, until one is fully liberated and enlightened.  After that, then one can occupy one's self constructively in any endeavor one chooses.

[Michel]

I came across this interesting passage in the Anupada Sutta, MN 111, where the Buddha  is descibing Sariputta's attainments. The metaphors in section 22 below are very similar to what we find in the Christian gospels about Jesus being the son of God, etc. Could it be that these metaphors of Sariputta are what inspired some of the authors of the Christian gospel? Could we say that Jesus was the son of the Dhamma as well? That God in Christianity could be a metaphor for the Dhamma, or what some would call universal truths? The problem with Christianity could be that their metaphors are simply misinterpreted.

21. "Bhikkhus, rightly speaking, were it to be said of anyone:
'He has attained mastery and perfection1055 in noble virtue, [29]
attained mastery and perfection in noble concentration, attained
mastery and perfection in noble wisdom, attained mastery and
perfection in noble deliverance,' it is of Sariputta indeed that
rightly speaking this should be said.

22. "Bhikkhus, rightly speaking, were it to be said of anyone:
'He is the son of the Blessed One, born of his breast, born of his
mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, an heir in
the Dhamma, not an heir in material things/ it is of Sariputta
indeed that rightly speaking this should be said.

23. "Bhikkhus, the matchless Wheel of the Dhamma set rolling
by the Tathagata is kept rolling rightly by Sariputta."

[Jhanananda]

Interesting sutta quote Michel.  I find many parallels between Christian doctrine and Buddhist doctrine.  In fact I also find many translation errors in both doctrines, and know that if both doctrines were properly translated we would find compelling evidence of a much closer relationship between Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama.

For instance:

Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I believe was intended not for people to blindly believe that Jesus was the son of god, but that his life style, of being a nazarite was his way truth and life.

Also, the phrase "way and the truth and the life" would be a reasonable translation of the Sanskrit term "dharma," and the Chinese term "dao."

Also, in your quote of MN 111 note that the terms 'concentration' and 'deliverance' are used.  In this case the translator botched the translation of 'samadhi' as 'concentration' and the translation of 'vimokha' as 'deliverance'.  It should be 'religious experience' and 'liberation' respectively.

[Alexander]

In this case the translator botched the translation of 'vimokha' as 'deliverance'.  It should be 'liberation.' [...]

I saw this translation as well, and thought that it was very interesting. I find it is worthwhile to exchange Christian words with Indian equivalents. If we do this, it gives us a very different (and in my opinion more correct) understanding of Christianity.

Since we are 2,000 years-removed from Jesus, it is fair to say that our modern understandings of Christian words are incorrect. Further, we are ignorant of what Jesus directly taught the apostles. If we knew, it would allow us to correct ourselves.

Jesus had two teachings. He had a public teaching (the parables), and a direct teaching (for the apostles).

"He spoke to [the public] at length in parables. [...] The apostles approached him and said, 'Why do you speak to them in parables?' He said to them in reply, 'Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.'" (Mt 13:3-11)

"Peter said [after Christ told a parable to the crowd], 'Master, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?'" (Lk 12:41)

It is unfortunate there is no record of Jesus' direct teachings. Although, I would argue that there are fragments of it here and there: mostly, preserved in the Eastern Church, for example in the writings of the desert fathers.

We can only go on what little was written about the life and teachings of Jesus.  But, there are clues.  The Magi, who came to visit Jesus when he was a child [...] suggests strongly of a Persian influence.

I agree with Jhananda about the Persian influence on Jesus. It is encouraging to me that we have come to the same conclusion. Ironically, there is only one hint about it in the Gospels: the visit of the "magicians" in Matthew.

In antiquity, Persia was a land of magic and mystery. It was at the crossroads between Rome and India, and it had a large, scholarly class who studied disciplines that are very obscurely known to us today.

Obviously, the story in Matthew is an allegory. The magi did not actually visit Jesus. But, they demonstrate that he is a successor of the Persian magicians, and that he is empowered with profane authority (the gold) and spiritual authority (the incense).