Talk:Buddhist influences on Christianity/Archive 1

Merger proposal
There is an article Buddhism and Gnosticism which contains verbatim large chunks of this article. Since, beyond Elaine Pagel's invitation to Buddhist scholars to find parallels (I forget year/publication, can find it if needed) there is no evidence for any connection between Buddhism or Gnosticism and this is considered WP:fringe by scholars of both, does it need a separate article duplicating Buddhism and Christianity? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is worth noting that most of the similarities are not accepted by mainstream Christianity, Jesus and the Doves for example, comes from the Muslim Koran not the Christian bible, other stories are from Gnostic literature. It should be pointed out that the stories Christians allegedly borrowed from Buddha are not widely accepted in the first place by 99% of those who call themselves Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.74.47 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In his book Buddha and Christ, Zacharias P. Thundy sources the dove to an early Ethiopian or Coptic source in which he draws more parallels to the Buddha's birth in the Lalitavistara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.161.30 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is also worth noting that the presence of an article or the inclusion of content is not determined by what most people accept or believe. With that said, the merger makes a lot of sense, so I support it. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Goodo, one more voice in favour and then let's get on and do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the one more voice. Just do it. History2007 (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to keep the articles separate. It's already very long now, and the separate article gives space for more information. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I too would like to keep the articles separate, though the section in this article could use a better summary. I'm no religious scholar but from the looks of Buddhism and Gnosticism, it's no fringe theory. I don't see why that much information should be compromised due to someone's religious bias.  Sweet Nightmares  (awaken)  03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've shortened the Gnosticism-section, and removed the merger-proppsal. Any-one relly interested in these theories can follow the link. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Godama Sources
Book summary of "Jesus Godama Sources, oe; the Inherent Scholarly Prejudices on the Relationship between Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity—or—Jesus’s Godama Sources and a Truer History of the Post-Axial Age Egyptian, Grecian, and Persian Empires" which claims that King Tut was the Buddhist Zuzi-naga with his Buddhist ank staff which was also carried by the Magi. The book relates this to Mani and Buddas and Jesus. Whoever deletes this should sum up the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.41.19 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked it up, it is published by CreateSpace, and is a self-published item, not WP:RS. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You were faster than I am: "Daniel Joseph Hopkins, Jesus's Godama Sources. It's self-published, as far as I can see. It's not entirely clear who is Daniel J. Hopkins: an assistent-professor, recently deceased , or arrested for carrying a gun ." Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that he might be packing, let us be very, very nice to Mr Hopkins... CreateSpace is, however, a no-no. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Response by 68.32.41.19 - Thats great you guys being nice!! So nice of you, the summary given directly contradicts assertions by "scholars" so one would think it responsible to offer a reasonable opion??

The author of Jesus’s Godama Sources claims that scholars who have covered a question of borrowing between the two faiths have been highly prejudiced by Christian culture. He cites Max Muller on this subject who states: "“Our natural inclination would be to suppose that the Buddhist stories borrowed from our Christian sources and not vice versa.” The author tries to make the case that the previous scholar, and others others who finally would conclude a borrowing from India, such as Sir Williams Jones, faced cultural pressures which compelled them to speak in timid terms. The author makes the case that it was ancient western writers who placed Indians or the Buddhists in such founding spots of Christianity. He states that Nicolus of Damascus placed Indian gymnosophists in Antioch and Athens with a letter written in Greek, Philostratus placed them in Meroe, and Clearchus of Soli placed them in Syria, and, according to the author, the early church fathers place a certain Terebinthus, or Buddas, in front of Jesus’s disciples with Indian books before they mention the Gospel of Mark, Luke, Matthew or John. A good portion of the book deals with identifying the Terebinthus tree, or the Butm tree, as a representative Bodhi tree in Palestine with the “tree”, or “wood” on which Jesus, Theudas, or Buddas was hung.

"One must regretfully acknowledge that the fundamental idea brought out by the parable is incomparably higher in the Buddhist text than in the Christian Gospels.” —Primitive Christianity and its non-Jewish sources, p. 322."

"“The few works in English vindicating the independent origin of Christianity against Buddhist usurpation, all of them by Protestant writers, excellent as they are, dwell too largely on the comparative superiority of Christian teaching, and do not enter in sufficient detail into a critical scrutiny of the alleged proofs of Buddhist influence on Christianity.” —The Dhamma of Godama the Buddha and the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, p.vii."

Buddhist bhanaka, whom he relates to the Phoenix, the Benu bird and the bark wearing “Banus”of Josephus, were in Memphis Egypt before there ever existed Ptah, and that they wrote Sakyamuni Buddha into Persian and Egyptian histories as Haxamanis and Ptah. The author claims that the Greek play “The Birds” was referenced by Jesus (Matt. 24:28) and was first based on the Buddhist Lotus Sutra which was taken to Egypt, with the Jatakas, by Nagas, as the Ankh, a Buddhist peacock which, with its sudra feet & royal body, the author sees as representing a Buddhist attempt at mixing the world’s caste, class and race based systems. The author equates this system with the system of the Buddas who early church fathers mention as having introduced an Indian “Gospel” book to Jesus’ disciples before there was any New Testament Gospels.

The author claims that Amasis II had a Buddhist wife whose father was a Hun king related to Tenages, or Sunaga, who he guesses may have been a Teutonic Misr, or Melccha, copper figure from Taxila called Mahapadma or Shisunaga, or King Tut, the Tsing of China. The author attempts to make the case that this figure of Zi-zunaga represented the Buddhists attempt to mix castes and race through royal marriages. To support this the author claims that mixed marriages in India, and low caste persons rising to royalty, were very uncommon in the ancient world before Buddha, and, that the Buddhists had many fables about different Buddhist youths traveling to exotic lands where, before returning to their home, they are said to preach the gospel and leave children.

""The parrot naturally, takes a prominent place in Indian fable, both on account of his sagicity, his companionable nature, and his extraordinary length of days. He did not fail to attract much notice on the part of Greek writers on India; and Ktesias, who wrote about 370 B.C. seems to have caught some of the peculiar Indian regard for his powers, when he wrote that THOUGH HE ORDINARILY SPOKE THE INDIANS LANGUAGE, HE COULD TALK GREEK IF TAUGHT IT....12. A legend containing cuiously similar details is told in the Mahavansha of Shisunaga Sagas from the Far East, p 339"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.41.19 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * SOmeone poated:
 * Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you SHOULD sign your posts by typing four tildes ( 68.32.41.19 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you


 * do all that so you can cut what i post, - na. Revision as of 20:10, 13 January 2013 User:68.32.41.19

the problems with this page are along these lines:
The wiki page for Clement Alexander says that he didn't believe Jesus was the same as God which means that Clement didnt believe Jesus was God. Our words God and god came much later and so your translation of Clements quote is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.41.19 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean upper/lower case? I have not actually checked that quote but what does it have to do with Jesus? Clement is talking about Buddha... I do not understand what you mean at all. And Clement was born in 150, long after Gospel of Mark was written, so please see Mark:1.1 anyway. I really do not understand what you mean. History2007 (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions have been made about possible connections between Buddhism and Christianity, in particular Christianity being influenced by Buddhism.[1] Once agian, you editors are not the least qualified to handle this page According to whoever runs this page "scolars" are only those who have a "real" publisher. Article on this recyclopedia reads:

The majority of modern scholars who have studied both Buddhism and Christianity hold that there is no historical evidence of any influence by Buddhism on early Christianity.[2][3][4] Scholars generally consider any such influence implausible given that first century monotheistic Jews, }}}}}}}}}}}}} are highly unlikely to have been open to concepts that appeared to them as pagan(a term not used till well after the alleged time of Jesus}}}.[5] 13:13, 15 January User:2013‎ 68.32.41.19


 * I really can not follow the logic of this IP, e.g. that scholars are only those who have a "real" publisher, after reference to WP:RS, etc. I will just have to pass. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You editors are highly partial! Flinders Petrie found the cross-legged Buddha in Memphis in what he timidly calls "The Persian period" with the "deviant" mongolian. The same type of racist attitude is there when Max Muller takes his white mans burden to India in hopes of Christianizing thier texts. But even he could not finally deny the gospel indebtness to Buddhist texts. We know that proud and decent Mongolian figure found in the Ptah (Buddha, Phut, Buto, etc..) temple at Memphis dates to the time of Cambyses and the first Hellenes (Gynika{sunagas} of Kharosthi, or Christ, script )led by Amasis II, father of Tutenk-amun (ankh=ankusa, Licchavi staff ring to reap fruit, the Magi staff the same), or Janaka, Jancyrus, Susanga, tao (dharma) TeChing [tsang], Egyptian SONCHIS, EUNUCH, CONGO, Shanique, Kanishka, Shoshenq, Sheshanaag, American Zihuatanejo (SHAWSHANK of America) Shishak of the Bible,the Synagogue of Sangha in Gyges land, etc.. That Herodotus was being fed bits of Buddhist fables by a Ptah-ist priest cannot be doubted by any scholar who has read his history and the Buddhist legends.

"The entire character of the course predicated of Sakyamuni in his pre-existent state is an instructive comment of the Buddhistic ideas of the helplessness of man as a moral agent. It is strongly illustrative of the unrest under which all live, that are of women born, and of their earnest longing for a state of repose. Whilst the necessity of an ATONEMENT by SUBSTITUTION in unacknowledged, the thought itself runs through the whole tissue of the wonderous fable {Jatakas}: and as it is seen that no intelligence, according to the principles assumed, can perform so great a work as to render him worthy to present a sacrifice that would avail for the salvation of others. This lack is sought to be supplied by multiplied repetition of wise and virtous acts, that, when taken seperately,would be confessedly inadequate for the purpose, but when presented in the mighty aggregate seem to have and excellence beyond all possible estimate. The conception is one of the noblest ever formed in the heathen mind, that a sentient being should voluntarilly suffer during myriads of ages for the sake of misguided men" -Christianity and Buddhism Compared, p. 44


 * I am sorry, we discussed this on your talk page. Again the Christianity and Buddhism Compared book you mention here was written by R. Spence Hardy in 1874 and is outdated. I do not seem to be able to get this WP:RS point across to you somehow. History2007 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Source check
The lead has this: "Scholars generally consider any such influence implausible given that first century monotheistic Jews are highly unlikely to have been open to concepts that appeared to them as pagan." The source is a book by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd called "The Jesus Legend:  A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Gospels". I've had a look at the book, and it's awful. It's just not academic/scholarly - presents arguments that would never pass muster in academic circles. Anyway, just to concentrate on this particular sentence, the word "pagan" is totally wrong - that's what Latin-speaking Christians of a much later period called non-Christians who lived in the villages (the strict meaning of the word pagan is "country bumpkin"). Jews would not and could not have regarded anyone as being a pagan - they still don't to this day, it's a Christian concept. The point is, a conscientious scholar would never use that word in this context. But more seriously, it's just plain wrong about 1st century Judaism. It may have been monotheistic, but it was a seriously compromised monotheism. Of central importance was the concept of Holy Wisdom, which was not God but existed with God from the beginning of time and wanted to incarnate itself in humanity. Meaning that a good Jew could quite readily believe that a man could also be a god (that's where the idea of Jesus as the son of God comes from). Jews were very open to the ideas of their non-Jewish neighbours. Please find some decent sources. PiCo (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, so the source does say that, and that is not in question. But you think the source is not WP:RS in that the two people who wrote the book do not know what they are talking about. Right? History2007 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not the people, and it's not the book, it's specifically this sentence and the thought it contains, i.e., that 1st century Jews were not open to non-Jewish ideas. If that were true there'd never have been any Christianity, since Christianity is a fusion of Jewish and Greco-Roman and more general ANE ideas (but mostly Greco-Roman ones). Not much sign of Buddhism though. PiCo (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So let me get this again. You are not questioning that the book says that or that the book in general is WP:RS, or the abilities of its authors. You are questioning that specific statements correctness. Right? History2007 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, regarding your statement that not much sign of Buddhism, Paula Fredriksen agrees with that too, stating that no serious scholarly work has placed the origins of Christianity outside the backdrop of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. History2007 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to put the book in perspective, and get that issue out of the way, per WP:USEBYOTHERS Eddy and Boyd's book looks very much WP:RS in that scholars such as Richard Bauckham, Craig L. Blomberg, Craig S. Keener, Dale Allison, etc. all refer to it in their books, as a simple search will verify. The book as a whole is well received by other scholars, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They praise this specific book? I find that incredible. I find it superficial and well outside current scholarly consensus. But yes, there's no support for Buddhism having had any influence on anyone in the Roman or Roman-Greek world, except maybe, just maybe, the Gnostics, and even that's not certain. (It's not impossible, though - there were definitely occasional Indian holy men turning up in the general region).PiCo (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not say they praise it, they use it and refer to it, and in the context of WP:USEBYOTHERS that makes the book WP:RS given that the publisher (Baker academic) is a well known publisher, and Boyd was a Yale/Princeton type (classmate of Ehrman, student of Metzger in fact), etc. But in any case, we do agree on the conclusion that Buddhism had no influence and as you said it would even be a stretch to claim an influence on gnostism; but that may have been too late in any case. As for holy men occasionally showing up in the region, who knows what happened... But by and large there is strong scholarly consensus that Buddhism had no influence on Christianity. History2007 (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not inserting myself into your discussion with the gentleman up above - I don't think he'd find me terribly sympathetic. My gripe is that this particular source is arguing that 1st century Jews were uninfluenced by the world of which they were a part (the Greco-Roman and Levantine world), and this is simply not so. PiCo (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is distinct from the discussion above. But the Boyd book was saying that in the context of monotheism vs Buddhism, etc. They Now, whether you and I like or don't like what a book says is our personal views. There are probably other sources that say Jews were influenced by Greco-Romans, but those would not pertain here. So I am not sure what can be done here, given that we can not apply personal assessments to contents of references. To make a long story short, how about modifying that to say they were unlikely to have been influenced by Buddhist thought, and moving on. I touched it up anyway before we talk ourselves to our respective graves... History2007 (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do find you sympathetic, to reason, your "well-known" and only "reputable scholars" may not deserve the status that you may be giving them. "Our natural inclination would be to suppose that the Buddhists stories borrowed from our Christian sources and not vice versa. But here the conscience of the scholar comes in. Some of these stories are found in the Hinayana Buddhist Canon and date, therefore, boefore the Chrstian era." Max Muller. And just why is that a natural inclination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.41.19 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between "modern scholars who have studied both Buddhism and Christianity" and "scholars of Christianity and Buddhism". What qualifications do these "scholars" have for you to be presenting them as such? Again, they are "scholars" of what field? I have checked the sources here and most of your "scholars" do not claim to be able to read the earliest texts from either tradition. " Despite suggestions of surface level analogies, most scholars.."- maybe just cut this? It appears in several different forms;

"Most scholars {again scholars of what field? Theologians?} agree that there is no historical evidence of any influence by Buddhism on Christianity" Also, there were several early books claiming Christianity influenced Buddhism, specifically Mahayana. Wheat Among Tares, the Lotus Gospel, and the first missionaries to Tibet. The previous books usually argue along the lines that Asvaghosa was influenced by Thomas or another disciple of Jesus. The most striking evidence supporting Thomas in South India is that the early name to the king given of that area has a name like Vasadeva only with an M, a very common corruption when traveling from West India to Ethiopia. Some early church fathers say that Buddas, who they say had 4 Indian gospels around the disciples before the fall of Jerusalem, i.e. before our four gospels, had a disciple Thoams who went to India. Also, Buddha had a disciple named "twin (yamak)" who also doubted the Tamas,or Damma.

The many fables wiki lists which they give Buddhist parallels for, span the ancient world, and let me jump from continent to continent, yet there is this bubble around the ancient Christian world. To start, Aesop's fable about the frog not able to heal himself, or "The Quack Frog" from which Jesus says, "surely you will say to me this proverb/parable". There are many early Buddhist variations to the "Doctor, shhhh, you can't even heal yourself". Also, the Jewish Encylopedia admits that the Jewish 1st cent. fables are more indebted to Indian sources compared to Greek. You want sources for this and more, check your scholars. Obviously these comments do not apply to a traditional "encyclopedia", but on all levels, we need to constantly make sure when we create a separate class of "scholars", that at all times they deserve this status, but according to our system only the scholars can check themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.41.19 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Distinctions needed
I've not seen the article before, & while it has much going for it, I think it would benefit from distinguishing between different aspects of the two religions, including the following: the presentation of the life-stories of the founders, basic theology, developed theology, church organization, liturgical practices, and so on. Without ever having read much on the issue I'd question whether the solid wall of rejection of influence by Western scholars that the article presents is equally firm along all its sections. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, go for it. But that comparison is for the Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity article probably not influences as much - and will of course need recent WP:RS sources. As for church organization, etc. some of it may even resemble the Boy Scouts, so that type of analogy is again hard to build on. In fact many armies have similar structures, just because human nature being what it is makes it necessary. As for influences you will need evidence, not just similarities. Back in the 1970s, Elaine Pagels asked the Buddhist scholars to help her provide proof Jesus had Buddhist influence and since then she has had 30 years of deafening silence, according to In ictu oculi. Anyway, I am not working on this, so feel free to research it, but a discussion between us will become WP:OR pretty quickly. And there are suggestions the other way, again sans substance, e.g. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad taught that the Buddhists learned from Jesus - but of course, there is no evidence of that. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Boy Scouts enforce celibacy? Wow. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do Christians at large enforce celibacy? Of course not. Some Catholic priests are still celibate, but by last count they were the minority anyway. But what I meant by Boy Scouts was the hierarchical structure which is also shared by the IBM sales force, etc. By the way, in the early days the IBM sales force had their own form of liturgy (really!) where they would sing and had the motto "Think" plastered everywhere like a papal emblem of some type... History2007 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been warned several times to, according to wiki’s standards; present a fair presentation of the materials at hand. The editor/s of the opening lines to the ‘Buddhism and Christianity’ page are not ‘experts’ in this field and as each source cited for this line do not altogether say what the line claims, this is the most dishonest type of editing. “Scholars” doesn’t necessarily carry any weight in regards to this topic as none of the scholars you cite has applied the philological approach, neither have they claimed to compare the earliest texts from both traditions for verbal agreements, neither have they admitted Buddhists texts translated into western languages after the accusation of such a borrowing began, etc.. all of this would be standard approach for any scholar trying to reconstruct a textual dependency; they are related to the same general standards used today, and in the past, to detect plagiarisms.

Once a mother fucking gain, Masterofpuppets, where you at pussy?108.36.197.178 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)dhop 903 Brook ave puss

Discussion with the IP
This article is a mess, especially the first paragraph. While I understand the difficulty with remaining neutral on sensitive topics, the article seems to be self contradictory. Is there a documented and verified basis to say that Buddhism had an influence on Christianity? If so, state it and remain neutral and put criticisms in a Criticism section, you know like every other article on wikipedia. I came by this article just doing some research and while the information I was looking for is in the article, the article needs to be improved. No interest in religious debates, just want to use a good encyclopedia. Lipsquid (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You said it just above: Obviously these comments do not apply to a traditional "encyclopedia". They do not apply to Wikipedia which aims to be an online encyclopedia along the lines of traditional encyclopedias. Your comments do not apply, just as you said. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree those particular comments don’t apply. When I attempted to correct the Pagan reference I was threatened that I wouldn’t be able to edit again. Similar problems exist with the quote that Clement says Boutta was believed a "god". The same Theos is translated "God" when speaking of Jesus (check the next paragraph where all the sudden the Buddhist have ideas on God). As there have been philologist who have derived the word "God" from "Godama" I think a traditional encyclopedia would have the liberty to point this out without drawing any conclusions,

If Jesus says the "wisdom is justified by her children" shouldnt we recognize this as a goddess reference as we would in other faiths? In the same way we should recognize angels as minor "gods"? And when speaking of Christianity shouldn’t we recognize the early account of Jesus compared to later commentators?

"Suggestions have been made about possible connections between Buddhism and Christianity, in particular" -since the suggestions usually arise on first contact shouldn't this be mentioned? The Christians with Marco Polo also thought that the Buddha was a copy of Josaphat (Bosat,Asop, Essau, Jehuda= Buddha) And it should be mentioned that upon first contact Christians automatically assume their vague hero figure, or the later rites attached to him, was being plagiarized; many Greeks did the same when going to other lands! Hay that's great,.. unga bunga, my god must have done that! yes, yes, it must be!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.41.19 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Buddhism and Christianity page reads: "Following the initial contacts between Christian missionaries and Buddhism in the 13th century, discussions regarding the similarities and differences of, and a possible relationship between Buddhism and Christianity began and the 20th century witnessed a better understanding of the issues and the concepts [the Christians said, without any critical study, Hey thats a version of our God/god, or the devil pirated a copy] .[1][2]

Although surface level [?} non-scholarly analogies {did a scholar write that? dont do this to language, an analogy is an analogy} have been drawn between the two traditions, Buddhism and Christianity have inherent and fundamental differences at the deepest levels, beginning with monotheism's place at the core [??] of Christianity [if devil splits power its dualtheism]and Buddhism's orientation towards non-theism and its rejection of the notion of a creator deity which runs counter to teachings about God in Christianity [after 1st cent]; and extending to the importance of Grace [without acts? "not all who say lord lord, shall enter"] in Christianity against the rejection of interference with Karma "Jesus "you will not get out till you pay every penny [karma] in Theravada Buddhism ["transfer of merit" also thera,-pun], etc.[3][4][5] Another irreconcilable difference between the two traditions is the Christian belief in the centrality of the crucifixion of Jesus (the 3 or 4 hours, or his general sufferings, which the Buddha was all about in his infinate martyrs] as a single event that acts as the atonement of sins {Jesus forgives sins even before his fake death}, and its direct contrast to Buddhist "teachings" {??} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.41.19 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but your statements are well beyond my comprehension. I will just note that your last reference to the "Christian belief in the centrality of the crucifixion of Jesus" about the last few hours is WP:OR and reflects a lack of awareness of the theological issues. I really do not know what to tell you except to read WP:OR and WP:RS before typing again... But you have been told to read those so many times now... History2007 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes the suffering of Jesus on the cross was very important to Christians who believed that Jesus was on a cross, or tree. The saying that Jesus is eternally on the cross is a reference to the Jatakas and Buddhist texts which mention that a Buddha will not go to heaven until they prepare a place where everyone can come with them. Several "Gnostic" Gospels mention Jesus also suffered in many previous birhts "before Adam I am" the Buddhist sambho. Yes these comments are out of place for a "traditional" encyclopedia, but they are not our of place in general for the fact that people, as those who run wiki, find a strange trust in titles held by those who can do little more then repeat what the previous scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.41.19 (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is now very clear that you understand that your notions are against Wikipedia policies that "can do little more then repeat what the previous scholar" says as you stated. But that is Wikipedia policy, as you have just stated. And your comment is along the lines of I just don't like it - which by the way is just an essay. But the fact that "you do not like" the Wikipedia policy of saying no more then repeating what the previous scholars have stated means nothing in Wikipedia. Nothing. Policy must be followed. That is simple. Policy must be followed. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

agreed! 68.32.41.19 (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. History2007 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)