The Catholic concept Trinity about The Father, The Sons and The Holy Spirit seems to be adopted from the Buddhist concept of the Triple-Gem (Tri-Ratna or Ti-Ratana) although the Trinity had deviated for millenia with the adoption of The God as the substitute for The Buddha.
As known that it had been that Jesus been and learn the Indian beliefs where he adopted The Atta concept from Hindhuism, The Triple Gem from Buddhism, Kamma and maybe he was misleaden in Jhana of being halucinated as a Son of The God Almighty.
The Buddha become the Father, The God Almighty as can be seen today that even most Buddhist believe that their Buddha became The Buddha Almighty (The Adi Buddha or Sang Hyang Adi Buddha) which can protect, give, determine, etc. In the Son they see the Father, as Buddhist sees Buddha in the Dhamma. And, in the Holy Spirit they also the Father, as Buddhists see The Buddha in The Sangha.
I have heard the trinity concept evolved because of contradictions in the bible. For example, the 1st commandment is âthou shalt have no other Gods before meâ, but Jesus says, âno one comes to the Father except through meâ⌠this would place Jesus before God, and is in direct contradiction with the 1st commandment. The only solution is to make them both the same person.
This also coincidentally solved an issue with Genesis 1, where God talks about himself in a plural form, âlet us create man in our own image, after our likenessâ. Now Christians can say that Jesus and God were talking together (even though Jews wrote Genesis, and donât believe in Jesus). I personally think this is simply an artifact of Jews borrowing the Genesis creation story from the Canaanites, who believed in a pantheon of gods (coincidentally called Elohim, the same word used for âGodâ in Genesis 1⌠Elohim being plural for the pantheon including the head god, El, and his fellow gods).
Before the first council of Nicaea (325AD), there was much disagreement among early Christians as to whether Jesus was actually God or not. I have heard this was the main focus of the first council of Nicaea, hence the Nicene Creed stating that Jesus is God.
Where did you hear this? Can you cite the source? Iâve never heard of this. My understanding of the Trinity forming is the similar to the one that Moloch mentions above.
I have no doubt that Jesus is God. A God in his own realm after passing away, for it has mentioned that he sit next to the father. Jesus is a man of high Metta quality.
This is of my own understanding based on the theory that Jesus been in India and the documentary by BBC about Jesus missing years. It has been a few centuries after the first schism happen in Buddhism. Jesus visits India at the time where some Buddhist sects developed with their own concept and the probability that he also learns from the non-Buddhists Brahmin of the âAttaâ concepts.
Yup, this is just my own personal understanding. It may not a fact based on the history build by some people but we do understand that history was build from the perception of those amd for the sake of who rules at that time. But this time, I based my understanding on a controversial BBC Documentary âThe Missing Yearsâ. Right or wrong who knows it just âCittaâ.
Iâm not too convinced by this. Iâve only read a couple of books about Graeco-Roman religion, but I would prefer to stick with the idea that he lived in a group of Zealots that held ideas similar to what he would later teach. Maybe Jesus did have his own powerful mystical encounter with God and then described it through this lens in the Gospels.
Monisms arenât a unique to Indian religions. Western religions Jewish mysticism would develop monist ideas that would ring to the tune of Indian ideas of atman. Even Christian mystics, like Meister Eckhart, developed these ideas through their own mystical experiences without contact with Indian ideas.
Just because they have similar ideas doesnât mean they get them from the same source. I enjoy hearing the similarities between mystical experiences but I wouldnât want to force any explanations on why theyâre similar because then it just becomes essentializing and confusing for me.
Some of the things written about Jesus appear this way, others do not. While I do appreciate Jesus being a good person there were a few recorded events where I would question his âMettaâ.
One example would be when he drove a legion of demons out of one man, and into 2,000 pigs owned by a local farmer. These pigs then jumped off a cliff in suicide. So Jesus is directly responsible for bankrupting a farmer, killing 2,000 pigs, and possibly starving an entire village who doesnât have their expected 2,000 pigs to eat this yearâŚ
On a literal reading, perhaps not. But Christian animal rights advocates have come up with other ways of reading the Gerasene demoniac narrative than that of Augustine and Aquinas (who both cited it as evidence for the supposed moral insignificance of animals).
For example, the Swedish Lutherans Annika Spalde and Pelle Strindlund argue for what they call âthe Anti-Imperial Reading of Mark 5:1â20â:
Against a literal reading of this story stands a more nuanced and careful reading: this is a coded political tale that grew out of anti-Roman sentiment. The demon tells Jesus that its name is âLegionââthe name for the largest Roman military unit. Nobody who heard this at the time Markâs Gospel was written could have failed to recognize that this name referred to Roman troops. New Testament scholar Hans Leander maintains that âonce the name Legion has been revealed several other military allusions are displayed.â
Here are some examples:
⢠the Greek term behind âto send themâ (apostellĹ) can also mean âdispatch,â as when an officer dispatches a soldier (5:10);
⢠the Greek word used for âherdâ (agelÄ) was also a local term for a band of trainees (5:11);
⢠âHe gave them permissionâ (epetrepsen autois) can also denote that a military command has been given (5:13); and
⢠the Greek term behind the English ârushedâ (hormaĹ) connotes a troop rushing into battle (5:13).
The spirits beg Jesus not to âsend them out of the country.â The pigs, considered unclean animals, can be interpreted as symbols of the âuncleanâ conquerors that had occupied Jewish lands. The self-destruction of the possessed swine, then, is a symbol of the end of the occupation, when the Roman soldiers have been sent âout of the country.â
Moreover, this passage echoes the exodus drama, as the possessed pigs ârushâ headlong into the water and drown, just as Pharaohâs army had done at the Red Sea. Moving beyond the text itself to the historical context, the Tenth Roman Legion that was stationed in Decapolis (the region where the story takes place) at the time Mark wrote his Gospel had a boar as their ensign, and the number two thousand corresponds to the size of a Roman legion that had been detached to fight against the Jewish insurgents.
In an occupied country, âMarkâs depiction of âLegionâ as inferior to Jesus evidently has subversive potential,â writes Leander. Maybe, as Leander suggests, the story was written down and spread as a way for an oppressed people to resist the occupying forces without actually risking their lives; the story then tells us that âthe Romans are not as powerful as they think.â
Killing 2,000 pigs that do not belong to you is not only immoral, itâs illegal.
You can claim this is a metaphor, but then you are the one placing your own interpretation on the text. How do you know which words from/about Jesus are metaphor and which are literal?
Okay, but thatâs something to take up with those who believe the story to be history, not with me who believes it to be a politically subversive fiction.
Sure. And you can claim itâs an historical fact that 2,000 demon-possessed pigs once went running into the Sea of Galilee, but then you are the one placing your own interpretation on the text. (For all their loud protestations to the contrary, the fundamentalistsâ project is no less an interpretive project than that of the most liberal of liberal Protestants or most modern of modernist Catholics).
I wouldnât say that this is something that I know, for the determining of whether something in an ancient text is more reasonably read as history or as something else (myth, allegory, anagoge, etc.) is more a probabilistic than a probative enterprise.
Not at all. My views derive largely from the sort of methods developed by biblical demythologizers, historical critics and form critics. And since Iâve really no skin in the game â not being a Christian â likes and dislikes donât come into it.
This forum is for the discussion of Early Buddhist Texts (EBT) !!
The EBT are predominantly the Tipitaka drawn from the Theravada tradition, translations of which are available on our mother site SuttaCentral.net. This forum discusses their meaning, translation, interpretations and historical context. We seek to explore how these teachings evolved and related to later traditions and try to understand how their wisdom may be applied to present day modern world issues such as climate, society, political systems, economics etc. Other texts and traditions may be drawn upon for purposes of comparison and elucidation, but are not the prime focus of this forum. The texts we are discussing are over 2500 years old and may contain material which can be interpreted as patriarchal, misogynist, sexist or offensive. Please bear in mind that these are ancient, traditional views which may clash with modern sensibilities. Due discretion is advised when posting and discussing such content.
