3 ms·

Get your facts correct. Buddha was more than 600 BC focus on the word "Before" while Christians and the Christian saints came after Christ. Don't be an intelle

Get your facts correct. Buddha was more than 600 BC focus on the word "Before" while Christians and the Christian saints came after Christ. Don't be an intellectual hodgepodge

amelius 26d ago
> Get your facts correct. Would you call them "facts"?
- Guestmodinfo 26d ago
  Christ and Christianity is well documented in all the kingdoms where it was persecuted and then the subsequent kingdoms had record of those records because one thing about kingdoms is that they don't throw away previous king's records because land records and administrative decrees are stored. Also Christians and Buddhist religions have the tradition of holding conferences that are well documented and happen after every few centuries. As an Indian I have read about records of the Buddist conferences held by various kings since after Buddha. Do I think Buddha is God. No. But he was pretty influential and impactful. The Christian conferences are also there where major theology points are discussed and confusions clarified. The records of thoe conferences exist
  - neonstatic 26d ago
    > Do I think Buddha is God. No. Neither did the Buddha
  - BirAdam 26d ago
    Buddhists and Catholics also hold interfaith dialogues.
azernik 26d ago
Did you read the article, or just the headline?
- Guestmodinfo 26d ago
  I just read the headline. Why should I read the article when the headline is so misleading.
  - Jtsummers 26d ago
    > I just read the headline. Why should I read the article when the headline is so misleading. Because the article explains the origins of the saints as Christianity coopting the story of the Buddha. The headline isn't wrong or misleading, you just made yourself look foolish by embracing ignorance. >> Individual Western historians have noted the similarities between the story of Barlaam and Josaphat and the story of the Buddha for centuries – for example, it’s mentioned in an early printed edition of Marco Polo’s travels from 1446. But it was only in the mid-19th century that the saints’ tale was generally acknowledged as being derived from the Buddha’s.
adolph 26d ago
The article isn't an explicit claim that these Christians were the Buddha, but that the story told about them is an apparent retelling of the Sidhartha story. It closes with: All this tells me that there’s something about our relationship with the divine and the sacred that transcends individual eras and places. A place or a festival or a story that appeals to our common senses of awe or morality or wisdom can reach people of any faith tradition. Perhaps they’ll interpret it through their own lens, of course. But in the end, isn’t that all we have?

Get your facts correct. Buddha was more than 600 BC focus on the word "Before" while Christians and the Christian saints came after Christ. Don't be an intellectual hodgepodge

amelius 26d ago

> Get your facts correct. Would you call them "facts"?

Guestmodinfo 26d ago
Christ and Christianity is well documented in all the kingdoms where it was persecuted and then the subsequent kingdoms had record of those records because one thing about kingdoms is that they don't throw away previous king's records because land records and administrative decrees are stored. Also Christians and Buddhist religions have the tradition of holding conferences that are well documented and happen after every few centuries. As an Indian I have read about records of the Buddist conferences held by various kings since after Buddha. Do I think Buddha is God. No. But he was pretty influential and impactful. The Christian conferences are also there where major theology points are discussed and confusions clarified. The records of thoe conferences exist
- neonstatic 26d ago
  > Do I think Buddha is God. No. Neither did the Buddha
- BirAdam 26d ago
  Buddhists and Catholics also hold interfaith dialogues.

azernik 26d ago

Did you read the article, or just the headline?

Guestmodinfo 26d ago
I just read the headline. Why should I read the article when the headline is so misleading.
- Jtsummers 26d ago
  > I just read the headline. Why should I read the article when the headline is so misleading. Because the article explains the origins of the saints as Christianity coopting the story of the Buddha. The headline isn't wrong or misleading, you just made yourself look foolish by embracing ignorance. >> Individual Western historians have noted the similarities between the story of Barlaam and Josaphat and the story of the Buddha for centuries – for example, it’s mentioned in an early printed edition of Marco Polo’s travels from 1446. But it was only in the mid-19th century that the saints’ tale was generally acknowledged as being derived from the Buddha’s.

adolph 26d ago

The article isn't an explicit claim that these Christians were the Buddha, but that the story told about them is an apparent retelling of the Sidhartha story. It closes with: All this tells me that there’s something about our relationship with the divine and the sacred that transcends individual eras and places. A place or a festival or a story that appeals to our common senses of awe or morality or wisdom can reach people of any faith tradition. Perhaps they’ll interpret it through their own lens, of course. But in the end, isn’t that all we have?