I'm not a Buddhist, but (thanks to darrellkitchen) I know I see the world somewhat similar to the Buddhist point of view. I have no opinion on whether Jesus did or did not exist, but I think that, if he did exist, he was an interesting and charismatic fellow who saw a lifetime of problems and grew up as a very perceptive child with big ideas about morality, and shared his views with other people in elaborate ways. And that he, like all of us, has what we call "the Buddha nature."
Real quick answer without double checking my sources... He was an enlightened being, but a man, not a God. Similar to the Buddha. When I get time, if I remember I'll check.
Isn't there some speculation that Jesus learned some of his teachings from Buddhism? It would make sense. My opinion is that Jesus was pretty cool, and there is much to be learned from Christianity, just like any religion.
Jesus pops up in a cpl secular history (Josephous, Tactitus) references as well as in the Quaran. Also if the gospels were written when most scholars (religious and secular)beleive they were (theorys on Mark vary from 40ce-75ce), even if you disregard the theology you have to awknoledge that it was written within the lifetime of people who would know whether he existed or not. Almost all scholars accept the historical existance of Jesus of Nazerath. There are a few fringe scholars who have alternate thoeries.
I don't know about the first two, but the Quran is filled with as much (if not more) crap than the New Testament. I've only read a translated version, because I obviously don't know Arabic.
Well here's the thing; when you're talking about history, if you have several references to the same person from different sources it doesn't matter if they say different things or even if what they all say is crap. The important thing is; If you can find a common denominater in all the accounts it suggests that at least that aspect was fact based. exp; there are only 2 accounts of Hannibal crossing the Alps and they contradict each other on almost every major point except the assertion that he did, in fact, cross the Alps. What this suggests is that if 2 different sources with two divergent agendas agree on a point it goes a long way to establish the credability of that point.
