In response to comparisons between various figures considered sacred and perfect/near perfect:
It would stand to reason that if perfection were present in a man/woman, that the aspects of him that were perfect would be comparable to various other figures held as such. Stories about such an individual would probably be similar to an actual individual's events, due to limited truly novel experience between individuals. Context and terms/conditions may vary, but novel events are probably nearly nonexistent. Given this, "stories" of perfect/near perfect individuals must be similar given the belief of what perfection would be being similar, and "stories" should be comparable to a real life example of such due to the same logic.
Originally posted by Alliance
Novel events may be non-existant, but the documetnation of such events may is likely non-existant.
Agreed, I was speaking hypothetically. If one perfect being exists/existed in reality, the stories about others fictional or otherwise should be comparable by virtue of a limited number of possible events.
Was Jesus A Buddhist ?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/207190/say_what_jesus_was_a_buddhist.html
Obviously he adhered to Judaism as a religion, but as a philosophy did Jesus adhere to Buddhism ?
Check out the link, then tell me what you think 😄
I think shakya made this thread about 2 years ago.
Anyway, no, he was a Jew if anything, and any Buddhist influences were either unintentional or added later as the manuscript and story changed.
Besides, you can find many relations between all kinds of religions, including Buddhism/Christianity. But perceived patterns don't usually equal direct causality unless the link can be firmly etablished.
Mahayana Buddhism sprang up at roughly the same period of time and the two would've had access to one another via trade routes between the Middle East and India, so there's obviously some influence. But there isn't much else to it besides that.
Actually, I forgot one thing:
Jesus didn't exactly demonify suffering. He did not call for any of us to inflict suffering upon another person, but at the same time, he emphasized on his own suffering, as well as stating that suffering was a way to prove devotion to God.
Buddha would have never agreed to that concept.