3 ms·
Well, no, most of his claims were quite common in the time, not much is radical. Also most of those we only know 2nd or third hand and we know it's been heavily
by jospoortvliet 10y ago
Well, no, most of his claims were quite common in the time, not much is radical. Also most of those we only know 2nd or third hand and we know it's been heavily redacted on the way. If radical claims are a reason to consider someone divine, Buddha has much better cards.
- danielam 10y agoThe claims in question are those that are radical, specifically those involving claims of divinity, and thus not claims, if true, that can be known through unaided reason alone (i.e., the subject of divine revelation). That these claims are known through second or third hand accounts is neither here nor there. The Jesus that we know is the Jesus in those accounts so unless there's another reliable source you're leaning on (there isn't), there's little sense in talking about the "real Jesus" outside of the gospels (the most charitable reading of your use of the word "redacted" I can muster is that you mean the non-canonical gospels that were omitted from the bible, but again, those are irrelevant for reasons given elsewhere). Buddha did not make claims about being God/the son of God (which is to be expected given the Buddhist attitude toward theism) and thus the comparison in this regard is meaningless.