Well, I'm not a scholar looking to put my words into Jesus mouth. Nor am I saying that Buddhist practices can be a part of Christian ones. I'm simply looking at the root of
Jesus and Buddha's struggle with the ills of humanity.
Obviously, we have two different figures and religions here. Vastly different. But the men who spawned them share some similarities that I think should not be simply thrown away. I'm not saying that their rituals and practices and traditions are similiar.
As far as the trials of Christ and Buddha, I never meant that they should have ended the same. Each has a dynamically different mission. They, by the religious traditions and history that precede them, cannot end the same.
Finally, that the Gospels were written by men he personally chose, and that followed him is of no doubt. But much of the NT is written by Paul, and by others who never met Christ. Now, of course, Paul says God was revealed to him through a ray of light, and looking at the amount of passion he exuded forming the early church, I'm inclined to believe him. But this hints at what I meant by the religion being formed after Jesus death.
By the way, what in the world does the Bobby Kennedy quip mean?
Never mind about the ROBERT Kennedy quip. I see Robert Kennedy and immediately think of THE Bobby Kennedy.
I certainly didn't mean you personally.
Finally, that the Gospels were written by men he personally chose, and that followed him is of no doubt. But much of the NT is written by Paul, and by others who never met Christ.
Actually, Paul and Luke are the only writers of the NT who did not know Jesus personally, and some scholars believe Luke was one of the disciples who followed Him but was not one of The Twelve. Since Luke's accounts in Acts are mostly of events he witnessed himself and the original disciples are mentioned extensively, it's a sure bet he wasn't putting anything out that they would have objected to. The other disciples accepted Paul, and Peter even accepted a rebuke from him. There's really no evidence at all that the NT or any other early Christian writings were outside the doctrines laid down by Christ while he was here.
Now, of course, Paul says God was revealed to him through a ray of light, and looking at the amount of passion he exuded forming the early church, I'm inclined to believe him. But this hints at what I meant by the religion being formed after Jesus death.
Well, not to nitpick, but Paul said Jesus appeared to him in light and they had a conversation. This conversation was witnessed by his travelling companions. As for the religion forming after Jesus' death, it's clear he intended to establish a relgion, saying to Peter "On this rock I will build my church."
In fact, if you think about it, if the Resurrection happened the men who witnessed it would guard the truth of the whole Jesus story very well. If there was no Resurrection, then Christianity is not something to be respected, but a cruel fraud. But then, what would be the motive for fraud, if these guys spent their lives poor and at least some of them died by violence?