Edward M Posted November 7, 2010 http://www.rense.com/general81/chinese.htm Came upon a comment on youtube on a Jesus/Buddha comparison and googled it and found this article. Haven't searched more yet, but hoping some of you could shed some light on this theory? Peace Ed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted November 7, 2010 Considering that there is almost zero evidence that a historical Jesus ever existed, I doubt that the Chinese theory has any merit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted November 7, 2010 Considering that there is almost zero evidence that a historical Jesus ever existed, I doubt that the Chinese theory has any merit. The Qin emperor referenced in the article who defeated the Mozi army and globalized... um, unified... China into a mega-empire is known as "fen shu keng ru" -- "burning books and burying scholars." I believe we have to be very careful when citing "no evidence" to examine WHY there is no evidence, HOW this lack of evidence was brought about. In most cases, it will lead to an episode of "fen shu keng ru" in history, and another, and another, and another! The great library at Alexandria also referenced in the article was also burned, and scholars were also buried -- either physically killed or went into hiding to escape persecution. This has been a fairly consistent pattern throughout our history: the rulers who want empires must first burn the books, bury the scholars, thus get rid of all "evidence" of truth and substitute their own version. E.g., all current college curricula use textbooks published by publishers who get Rockefeller funding (the shy label will say "non-profit" but where this "non-profit" comes from is traceable, and quite educational, even though the kind of "evidence" it presents is "circumstantial.") What the people who put "science" into these books leave out (while of course writing themselves out too, as though they aren't really there at all) must therefore be viewed as "planted evidence," much like what a corrupt cop will do who will plant false evidence on the scene and remove all true evidence when following orders from the higher-ups to incriminate the innocent or to absolve the guilty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orb Posted November 7, 2010 Jesus chinese ? cmmon now. There's clear proof in the Bible that Jesus was PUERTO RICAN His first name was Jesus. He was bilingual. He was always being harassed by the authorities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seth Ananda Posted November 8, 2010 Jesus chinese ? cmmon now. There's clear proof in the Bible that Jesus was PUERTO RICAN His first name was Jesus. He was bilingual. He was always being harassed by the authorities. Sorry mate, he was Black! No really I have seen pictures! As far as I remember he has redish hair and was plain looking as far as new testament description goes. And hey, why argue with that as that is the only reason we even know his name? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted November 8, 2010 My guess is that both Jesus and Mozi were enlightened men. Their similar conclusions would have bubbled up from the inside in either event. Enlightenment is always going to want to elevate the downtrodden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that Posted November 8, 2010 Considering that there is almost zero evidence that a historical Jesus ever existed, I doubt that the Chinese theory has any merit. Zero evidence? What about the holy grail then, if that's not a tangible piece of evidence I don't know what is! Sorry mate, he was Black! No really I have seen pictures! As far as I remember he has redish hair..... Black with red hair!!!???? Next you're gonna tell me he also sported a mohican hairstyle Seth! Black, ok, totally believable if not probable, but black with red hair!? No wonder they crucified him, red heads have been getting the raw end of the stick throughout history! Ginger Jesus. It's all making sense to me now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spectrum Posted November 8, 2010 Who is telling the Story? Robin Hood or the King? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted November 8, 2010 Who is telling the Story? Robin Hood or the King? Precisely. "Until the lion has his historian, the hunter will always be the hero." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 8, 2010 The Qin emperor referenced in the article who defeated the Mozi army and globalized... um, unified... China into a mega-empire is known as "fen shu keng ru" -- "burning books and burying scholars." I believe we have to be very careful when citing "no evidence" to examine WHY there is no evidence, HOW this lack of evidence was brought about. In most cases, it will lead to an episode of "fen shu keng ru" in history, and another, and another, and another! The great library at Alexandria also referenced in the article was also burned, and scholars were also buried -- either physically killed or went into hiding to escape persecution. This has been a fairly consistent pattern throughout our history: the rulers who want empires must first burn the books, bury the scholars, thus get rid of all "evidence" of truth and substitute their own version. E.g., all current college curricula use textbooks published by publishers who get Rockefeller funding (the shy label will say "non-profit" but where this "non-profit" comes from is traceable, and quite educational, even though the kind of "evidence" it presents is "circumstantial.") What the people who put "science" into these books leave out (while of course writing themselves out too, as though they aren't really there at all) must therefore be viewed as "planted evidence," much like what a corrupt cop will do who will plant false evidence on the scene and remove all true evidence when following orders from the higher-ups to incriminate the innocent or to absolve the guilty. At last, someone who seems to be taking my "Why's it called a "Kindle"?" question seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idquest Posted November 8, 2010 Slightly off-topic, but does anybody know whether Jesus ever required / recommended celibacy? Catholic Church requires celibacy from the priests and this is in line with the daoists views. However when daoist logic is purely practical I'm not sure what Catholic Church is saying on celibacy. Did Jesus say anything on that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted November 8, 2010 Slightly off-topic, but does anybody know whether Jesus ever required / recommended celibacy? Catholic Church requires celibacy from the priests and this is in line with the daoists views. However when daoist logic is purely practical I'm not sure what Catholic Church is saying on celibacy. Did Jesus say anything on that? The reason Catholic church required celibacy from the priests has to do with money. If a priest died who was married, his estate went to the wife and children. If a priest died who was celibate, his estate went to the Catholic church. That's the real, and only, reason behind the requirement. The Catholic church has wealth no one would be able to wrap one's mind around without losing it, and the celibacy bit contributed every penny of the trillions earned by priests presiding over a currently 1,3 billion strong flock worldwide. Times two thousand years... get the picture. The institutionalized taoism's celibacy requirement is of exactly the same origins, contrary to all the hoopla. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
island Posted November 8, 2010 It's not the man but the message. So it doesn't matter where he was from. Judaism encouraged only sexual acts in a monogamous relationship, so God knows where the catholics got celibacy from? I guess it's all down to the interpretation of the scriptures. By the way God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground in Genesis so semen retention maybe isn't such a bad idea? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted November 8, 2010 At last, someone who seems to be taking my "Why's it called a "Kindle"?" question seriously. I take all names and symbols seriously. In a ritualistic society, one has to read signs to understand what the ritual is actually trying to accomplish. The downside of this attention to the symbolic values of names and signs being that I spent four months trying to name a kitten of mine, and every time a name would just fall off as unfitting. Finally the kitten grew enough to reveal a unique personality, his true nature, so a name I tried then did stick because a match was successfully found, after several preceding failures. The cat is Haomao now... the Chinese for "a good cat" or "a cat who brings luck" or "cat luck" or "cat goodness," something like that. He looks somewhat Chinese, has a yin-yang symbol on his nose, and is really a kind, affectionate, well-behaved (unlike his mother), good cat... so the first time I tentatively called him Haomao, he came running... bingo! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idquest Posted November 8, 2010 The reason Catholic church required celibacy from the priests has to do with money. If a priest died who was married, his estate went to the wife and children. If a priest died who was celibate, his estate went to the Catholic church. That's the real, and only, reason behind the requirement. The Catholic church has wealth no one would be able to wrap one's mind around without losing it, and the celibacy bit contributed every penny of the trillions earned by priests presiding over a currently 1,3 billion strong flock worldwide. Times two thousand years... get the picture. The institutionalized taoism's celibacy requirement is of exactly the same origins, contrary to all the hoopla. I've come across the same idea why reincarnation into actual live people was/is recognized in Tibet, namely to facilitate the transfers of land titles in feudal society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted November 8, 2010 The downside of this attention to the symbolic values of names and signs being that I spent four months trying to name a kitten of mine, and every time a name would just fall off as unfitting. I think there's a kind of evolutionary dementia going around having to do with naming baby animals. I've got 2 four month old puppies and I can't get a name to stick either. Nothing seems right, or it does at the time and then a week later it's wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eric23 Posted November 9, 2010 By the way God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground in Genesis so semen retention maybe isn't such a bad idea? Onan's transgression was not masturbating or failing to retain his seed. The problem was that he refused to inseminate his widowed sister in law, thereby putting a halt to the family name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragonfire Posted November 9, 2010 who cares what jesus was... he could be black, brown, green for all I care. what matters is he existed and he taught the way. He was the son of god, but so is everyone. Its reported buddha was anglo? just kidding... I have no clue and don't care. Focus on what is taught, not who was teaching. There are many people out there that are fully enlightened, but will never be known in public, because they choose not to reveal their nature. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) "who cares what jesus was.." It's another one of those questions I don't like the answer(s) to. Suffice to say that many people seem in fact (usual caveat) to care about what colour Jesus was and have as a result created entire galleries depicting such. I suggest "scripture" is "pro-scripture". Other than that, I dig the guy's teachings and I have to ask WTF happened to that?? Edit: "Mozi" = "Moses"??? That would be weird/cool Edited November 9, 2010 by Kate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
