Historical Jesus and Historical Buddha

[sidthesquish]

Ive heard many things about the gap in the life of jesus that no records state where he went. I saw a special report on the history channel along time ago, that said perhaps he went east and studied with buddhists, or even with buddha himself. Any Ideas?

rob

[romepunk]

Well "The Buddha" (Sidartha Guatama (and I'm sure that's misspelled) would have been dead for about 500 years by the time Jesus hit the scene. This theory is advanced by a lot of people who think that Christ's pacifist teachings are somehow out of step with his Jewish roots, so he must have gone east for his ideas. A little study will show that all that Jesus said and did is firmly rooted in Old Testament Judaism.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Buddha may have gotten many of his ideas indirectly from the early Greek philosophers via Hindu Brahmins who had contact with the Greeks for centuries. Greek thought was directly introduced to India by the armies of Alexander the Great and mutual exchanges of ideas and philosophies continued for centuries after that. As Buddhism, like Hinduism and Greek philosophy did not "canonize" its beliefs but absorbed new ideas that it found appealing into its own, it is more than likely - almost a certainty in fact - that Buddhism, Hinduism and Hellenistic thought adopted elements of each philosophy as their own.

Jesus' language was the product of His time, place and culture. That the Greeks influenced this culture is established fact. That the Greeks influenced and were in turn influenced by the Hindus and Buddhist can be credited as most likely. Therefore, by the time of Jesus, that there would be some similarity in language, expression and illustration between Buddhism, Hinduism and Hellenistic Judaism is not surprising.

As to the theory that Jesus studied in China or Northern India with Buddhists prior to His ministry, this is less likely as the Parthian Empire stood between Palestine and India. Parthia was not on the best terms with Rome at this time; indeed for the previous 100 years they had fought off at least three attempted invasions from Rome. In order to get to India, Jesus would have had to find a way across this empire. He was not a merchant trader, He did not have the funds to bribe or buy His way across - carpentry being menial labor - nor did He have the credentials of being a famous philosopher. A poor Jew laborer from a Roman province would have more likely been thought a spy than a seeker of wisdom.

Finally, for Jesus to abandon His family, to live among non-Jews, to eat non-kosher food, to not to be able to go to Temple as required - to basically have to abandon His religion entirely, in order to go to India makes His later ministry contradictory.

The theory does not hold up well under the established facts of the day.

[kofh2u]

Buddha may have gotten many of his ideas indirectly from the early Greek philosophers via Hindu Brahmins who had contact with the Greeks for centuries. Greek thought was directly introduced to India by the armies of Alexander the Great and mutual exchanges of ideas and philosophies continued for centuries after that. As Buddhism, like Hinduism and Greek philosophy did not "canonize" its beliefs but absorbed new ideas that it found appealing into its own, it is more than likely - almost a certainty in fact - that Buddhism, Hinduism and Hellenistic thought adopted elements of each philosophy as their own.
Greeks influenced and were in turn influenced by the Hindus and Buddhist can be credited as most likely. Therefore, by the time of Jesus, that there would be some similarity in language, expression and illustration between Buddhism, Hinduism and Hellenistic Judaism is not surprising.

As to the theory that Jesus studied in China or Northern India with Buddhists prior to His ministry, this is less likely as the Parthian Empire stood between Palestine and India. Parthia was not on the best terms with Rome at this time; indeed for the previous 100 years they had fought off at least three attempted invasions from Rome. In order to get to India, Jesus would have had to find a way across this empire. He was not a merchant trader, He did not have the funds to bribe or buy His way across - carpentry being menial labor - nor did He have the credentials of being a famous philosopher. A poor Jew laborer from a Roman province would have more likely been thought a spy than a seeker of wisdom.

Finally, for Jesus to abandon His family, to live among non-Jews, to eat non-kosher food, to not to be able to go to Temple as required - to basically have to abandon His religion entirely, in order to go to India makes His later ministry contradictory.

The theory does not hold up well under the established facts of the day.

I agree with you for another reason, but I am informed by what you add to my own understanding.

The bible tells us that Jesus was well recognize as the son of his carpentar father, Joseph. And, with the hint of distain, apparently, he had been held as no one all so special in his little village, certainly not a world traveller most recently returned.

This would be supportive of the idea of a rather common and uneventful life in his native home. Because, as all will remember, he gave a sermon to his "church" which almost got him tarred and feathered. His familarity with the members of his synagogue was evidenced by the increduality at his arrogance to proclaim himself as a prophet.

He said in this regard, "A prophet is without renown in his own home."


Certainly, if he had not been there, and it had not been his home for 18 years, neither of these two events would have followed, the verse nor the attack upon him.

[Alien]

Certainly, if he had not been there, and it had not been his home for 18 years, neither of these two events would have followed, the verse nor the attack upon him.

Of course, it would not have been necessary for him to have been away for 18 years. A year going, a couple of years studying maybe and a year coming back might suffice. Your point still stands though I think. If he had been off studying in some foreign land he would have had some enhanced reputation, surely, not just "Joseph the carpenter's son".

[kofh2u]

Of course, it would not have been necessary for him to have been away for 18 years. A year going, a couple of years studying maybe and a year coming back might suffice. Your point still stands though I think. If he had been off studying in some foreign land he would have had some enhanced reputation, surely, not just "Joseph the carpenter's son".

Your rational approach to the question and common sense instinct concerning my most likely assumption encourages me to go a step further: hypothesizing just what it was that Jesus WAS doing those many years.

I am convinced that he was a lay student of Torah, an independent rabbi, studying on his own and contemplating the Old Testament.

We know he was considered by many to be a rabbi after his ministry began, but I believe we have a hint in his earliest studies at age 12.

You wll remember that his mother and father went searching for him, thinking he was lost and missing, only to find him speaking with rabbi at the Temple. They complimented his alrady astute knowledge of the scriptures. This convinces me that he had access to written scriptures, perhaps through John the Baptist's father.

This all seems so clear that a reasonable person, such as yourself, would find it agreeable, I am sure.

However, I am just as sure that you will doubt me in adding that Jesus discovered something consequental to his study. At first, apparently only in Genesis, but upon further investigation, he found a "hidden manna" that permeated the entire writing, a priestly secret that could not be denied.

It was this, his discovery, which the Devil tempted him to turn in "bread," i.e., money. It was this which informed him that he was the messiah. But, even so, he knew better than to assume he might have the beneficient protection needed in a fall from the temple towers. He was still just a man. He gradually came to understand what it all meant, and that the devil's offer of power was too small. For he, in fact, had found a pearl of great value in the field of religion that was of everso much more value. And then, his ministery to the sick began.

Now, a reasonable man would find this too unreasonable to consider, because the only proof of such a hypothesis would require the evidence of the hidden manna, would it not?

[Alien]

Your rational approach to the question and common sense instinct concerning my most likely assumption encourages me to go a step further: hypothesizing just what it was that Jesus WAS doing those many years.

I am convinced that he was a lay student of Torah, an independent rabbi, studying on his own and contemplating the Old Testament.

We know he was considered by many to be a rabbi after his ministry began, but I believe we have a hint in his earliest studies at age 12.

You wll remember that his mother and father went searching for him, thinking he was lost and missing, only to find him speaking with rabbi at the Temple. They complimented his alrady astute knowledge of the scriptures. This convinces me that he had access to written scriptures, perhaps through John the Baptist's father.

Yes, he was certainly very well educated in Jewish scripture as evidenced by the passage you mention. How that came about I cannot say, as the Bible is silent on that subject and I have no knowledge of what a carpenter's son might expect in the way of formal education at that time.

This all seems so clear that a reasonable person, such as yourself, would find it agreeable, I am sure.

Yes.

However, I am just as sure that you will doubt me in adding that Jesus discovered something consequental to his study. At first, apparently only in Genesis, but upon further investigation, he found a "hidden manna" that permeated the entire writing, a priestly secret that could not be denied.

It was this, his discovery, which the Devil tempted him to turn in "bread," i.e., money. It was this which informed him that he was the messiah. But, even so, he knew better than to assume he might have the beneficient protection needed in a fall from the temple towers. He was still just a man. He gradually came to understand what it all meant, and that the devil's offer of power was too small. For he, in fact, had found a pearl of great value in the field of religion that was of everso much more value. And then, his ministery to the sick began.

Now, a reasonable man would find this too unreasonable to consider, because the only proof of such a hypothesis would require the evidence of the hidden manna, would it not?

And support for the notion that Jesus found this "hidden manna". I honestly have no idea what that might be, and I suppose you speculation is as good as any other.

It does cause me to wonder about a related question though. To what extent did Jesus know that he was the messiah and at what age did this become apparent to him? If he was literally God in human form we could expect him to know this from birth, but maybe such knowledge had to be revealed gradually to enable him to lead a more normal childhood? We will never know, but it's an interesting subject for speculation.

[kofh2u]

1) And support for the notion that Jesus found this "hidden manna". I honestly have no idea what that might be, and I suppose you speculation is as good as any other.

2) It does cause me to wonder about a related question though. To what extent did Jesus know that he was the messiah and at what age did this become apparent to him? If he was literally God in human form we could expect him to know this from birth, but maybe such knowledge had to be revealed gradually to enable him to lead a more normal childhood?

3) We will never know, but it's an interesting subject for speculation.

3) To "know" is vague. We "know" only what we come to believe, and even our mind can and does change thereafter, too.

2) Jesus went through a number of states of "development" for lack of a better term....

A] He read this to a synagogue:

Isa. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me (Jesus); because the LORD hath anointed me (the messiah ben Joseph) to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isa. 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year for of the LORD, (Christ), ....

B] He was baptizes by John and then the heavens opened to him.

We can note that it was immediately thereafter that he spend 40 days in deep reflection. It was there he pondered the meanings, the potential uses of, and the significance of his knowledge of the hidden manna.

C] Then, this powerful change in Jesus can not be seen othereise than another step toward his final destiny:

Matt. 17:2 And was transfigured, (becoming totally conscious even in
the remembrance of his Unconscious Mind), right before them: and his face did shine as the sun (as had the face of Moses), and his raiment was white as the light.

Matt. 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them, (in his previously unconsciousness, as though) he was in the presence of) Moses and Elias, (the memory as real as dreams), talking with him (aloud, for all to hear).

1) The hidden manna is explained in detail in Ezekiel 1 and Exekiel 10. Its discovery by Jesus is mentioned in Matthew 3:11-12, Luke 3:17. It is confirmed by ritual still respected in the Jewish service. Its is a knowledge confirmed in its appropriate applications to Torah. It is supported by the rational speculation concerning the Gospel stories of Jesus' ministery, both in its power to faith heal, its enormous impact on the illiterate Jewish community, and in its competition to the Sanhedron's monopoly of the Daily Torah Readings.

Jesus, with this hidden manna, was essentially able to resurrect the original levitical Kohenim, reviving the suppressed art of the Aaronic priestly daily services of the "Hand Blessing."

[Fairhaven]

Jesus being God is a real mystery, but one that I believe with all my heart. It's hard to understand that if Jesus is God then did he know he was the Messiah from birth? But I think you're right in saying that the knowledge had to be revealed to him. Even though he is God in human form, he is still a human, and no human knows everything, but they learn.
In Luke 2:52 it says that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
So Jesus grew mentally, physically, spiritually, and socially.

[MuggleOrSquib]

Just for a lark I decided to study this claim over a decade ago, and to treat it as a serious claim. The following are some of the problems with the claim:
The ancient churches are characterized by an interest in pilgrimages. In India, the site believed to be where St. Thomas was martyred is one such site. There are NO sites outside of the Levant and Egypt associated by the ancient churches with Jesus' presence.
There has been a church in Kerala, south India, since at least the fourth century, with evidence that it goes back well before that (1st century?). There is no tradition in this church that Jesus spent time in India.
There is Sogdian Christian grafitti from both Pakistan and Ladakh (near the border with Tibet), but there is no evidence that I have ever seen that any of these grafitti have any connection with a tradition of Jesus having spent time in the area.
The 'Nestorian' church was the dominant church along the land route to India, both through Afghanistan and from Yarkand and Khotan in the Taklikmakan Desert of western China, and there is NO tradition among these Christians of Jesus having passed through any of these areas.

The 'evidence' for Jesus having spent time with the Buddhists is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, either from undated Buddhist manuscripts (which could well have been about a MUCH later young man named 'Isa [also the name of a Christian advisor to Kubilai Khan]) or from a 'semi-heretical' 19th century Islamic sect, the Ahmadiyya.

The concerns of the Buddhists, and the concerns of Jesus, based on Buddhist and Christian documents, differ enormously. Buddhists tend to be uninterested in a relationship with divinity, while the core of Jesus' teachings deals with the Kingdom of God.

As far as I can tell, (though I'll need to research it again) the philosophical issues with which the Buddhist community was concerned both at Nalanda (before Jesus) and at the council under Kanishka (a bit after Ignatius and before Justin) are not reflected at all in either Jesus' teachings or in those of his early followers.

Rather a lot of info, I know, but hope that sheds a bit of light on the issue.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin