Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://bibleprobe.com/buddhatoldofjesus.htm

Wow an obscure, unsourced cambodian scripture. That sounds very reliable. Let's face it, any scripture originating in cambodia would be recorded after his death, and thus highly unreliable.

No offense but "Salvation: Your New Relationship With God" doesn't sound like a scholarly text and goes out of it's way to avoid giving a citation, saying only that it comes from "a religious encyclopedia".

Personally I would really have to see reference to this elsewhere, in the text they used or from an actual Buddhist to take it seriously.

I like how it never actually names the scripture either.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://bibleprobe.com/buddhatoldofjesus.htm http://www.realestatebloglab.com/images/google-all-seeing-eye.jpg

The eye of God always looks bored to me.

BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH GOLDEN BOAT AND NINE LIVES!

Btw...Nails dont leave disks...and the scripture said it was in the palm and flat of the feet. Crucifiction was not generally preformed in that manner

Originally posted by Ordo
BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH GOLDEN BOAT AND NINE LIVES!

Btw...Nails dont leave disks...and the scripture said it was in the palm and flat of the feet. Crucifiction was not generally preformed in that manner

Obviously when Buddah looked into the future he saw a later painting of Jesus done in such a manner.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://bibleprobe.com/buddhatoldofjesus.htm

I have read Buddhist text before, but none that I've read have ever used the word sin.

The way this is written sounds like a Christian read some text and then wrote it. Also, heaven in Buddhism is one of the ten worlds, and therefore would not have a door.

The word "saved" is also never used as far as I can remember. I looked for the word saved in a Buddhist dictionary, and they do not have the word.

The idea that Buddha would say "The results of sin and Karma..." is laughable. It equates karma to sin, and that is a western concept.

I'm no expert, but I am convinced that this is a bad forgery.

This is an interesting article on the topic:

http://www.letusreason.org/Ecumen14.htm

... and here i was thinking, hmmm, this might be worth looking into.

sadly, any thread by jia disqualifies its integrity simply because jia made it.

Wow so there actually was an original source for that (however warped). I figured it was just complete bullshit. Which it still is, but at least it wasn't bullshit from thin air.

How do we know that this is Jesus?

People haven't changed their ways