| ▲ | Guestmodinfo 2 hours ago |
| 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Get your facts correct. Would you call them "facts"? |
| |
| ▲ | Guestmodinfo 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 |
|
|
| ▲ | azernik 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Did you read the article, or just the headline? |
| |
|
| ▲ | adolph 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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?
|
