The Buddha a Catholic Saint...

B

bodhi_mindisfree

Well-Known Member
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Dallas, NC
Did anyone know that Buddha Shakyamuni is actually a Catholic saint? I don't want to get in trouble plagarizing, so I will quote the whole section in ESSENTIAL BUDDHISM, A COMPLETE GUIDE TO BELIEFS AND PRACTICES by Jack MaGuire. Page 30 and 31:

Sometime early in the second millennium c.e., the Roman Catholic Church unwittingly made the Buddha a saint. It happened when a centuries-old hero named Josaphat was canonized. Church authorities knew him only by popular legend, but that's all it took back then, as long as the story was engrossing, inspiring, and doctrinally sound.
Josaphat's story qualified on all three counts. He was born to a royal couple in India, at which time it was prophesied that he would become a religious leader rather than succeeding his father as king. Determined to thwart this fate, the king wouldn't allow his son to leave the palace grounds for many years. Finally Josaphat did, and what he saw horrified him: the old, the sick, and the dead. Fortunately, he also encountered Barlaam, a Christian monk from Sri Lanka, whose wise counsel impressed him so much that he too brecame a monk.
Desperate to win Josaphat back, the king gave him half the kingdom to rule. Josaphat quickly turned this land into a model Christian state. His father was so moved by the results that he himself converted to Christianity. When he died shortly afterward, Josaphat refused to take the throne. Instead, he joined Barlaam as a wandering ascetic and performed many miracles before his peaceful and widely mourned death.
In Josaphat's legend, modern scholars recognize the story of the Buddha, which apparently shape-shifted as it traveled west from region to region. They attribute the name Josaphat to a linguistic contortion of the Buddha's title, Bodhisattva (in an earlier, Arabic version of Josaphat's story, his name was Yudasaf). Even the name Barlaam probably derives from the term Bhagavan (Blessed One), which is often bestowed in the Buddha. Thus Josaphat's story can be interpreted symbolically to describe Josaphat saving hmself-a truly Buddhist concept!
Although Josaphat is no longer liturgicallyh celebrated by the Catholic Church, his name remains in the Roman Martyrology, the official catalog of saints, and his day of worship is still listed as November 27. Because he was made a saint before the canonization process was reformed (1588),
Click to expand...
 
Nothing shocks me anymore. So potensially a Christian can pray to a saint who is really a founder of a totally different religion. How Ironic.
 
God must be busy, huh? Nah, Im just playing. There's only one mediator between God and man, and thats the Christ, Jesus. Oh and by the way...Saints are anyone who have repented and put their trust in Christ. Like me, the wretched guy talking with u now.

Grace and Peace!
 
Terrence, please try and understand that some people have views different to your own.
 
Oh, I know. I was just going by the bible though. I know not even believes the Bible or exactly as the Bible says.
 
Then again, there are different interpretations and understandings of the Bible. As the saying around here goes, mileage may vary. ;) (I forget who to credit for that one ... wil?)

andrew
 
Terrence said:
Oh, I know. I was just going by the bible though. I know not even believes the Bible or exactly as the Bible says.
Click to expand...
taijasi said:
Then again, there are different interpretations and understandings of the Bible. As the saying around here goes, mileage may vary.
Click to expand...
There is also the fact that there are many who have no problems accepting Christ and not believing all of the Bible.
I don't know where it's set in stone that Christians have to accept the Bible in it's entirity.
 
Cavalier, I know you're aware ... so for Terrence, and anyone who hasn't seen it, there's this thread which might be relevant here. Several lines from the Dhammapada have been posted, and Seattlegal has shared some parallels from Christian teachings. Reminds me of the book Living Buddha, Living Christ, by Thich Nhat Hanh ... which I need to reread.

cheers,

andrew
 
cavalier said:
There is also the fact that there are many who have no problems accepting Christ and not believing all of the Bible.
I don't know where it's set in stone that Christians have to accept the Bible in it's entirity.
Click to expand...

Therein lies your problem and why you err, incidentally. No one can accept Christ. Christ is King of kings and God. He must accept us. Also, when it comes down to the issue of salvation, there arent many different interpretation of the Bible, only one. God is not the author of confusion and He left His word in stone...actually, He left it in scripture, that we may know what He says and do it. Our opinions on the issue dont matter at all, especially when considering that God has already spoken on the matter. On many of the nonessential issues that have no baring on salvation, Christians disagree, and thats fine. But again, the essentials are essential to the faith and is the litmus test whereby a person can be named a Biblical Chrisitan.
 
Terrence said:
Therein lies your problem and why you err, incidentally. No one can accept Christ. Christ is King of kings and God. He must accept us. Also, when it comes down to the issue of salvation, there arent many different interpretation of the Bible, only one. God is not the author of confusion and He left His word in stone...actually, He left it in scripture, that we may know what He says and do it. Our opinions on the issue dont matter at all, especially when considering that God has already spoken on the matter. On many of the nonessential issues that have no baring on salvation, Christians disagree, and thats fine. But again, the essentials are essential to the faith and is the litmus test whereby a person can be named a Biblical Chrisitan.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting qualification.
 
Terrence said:
the essentials are essential to the faith and is the litmus test whereby a person can be named a Biblical Chrisitan.
Click to expand...
But we're not asking about whether the Buddha is a "Biblical Christian!" The New Testament wasn't written for 6 or 7 centuries after Buddha's incarnation as Siddharta Gautama! Then again, this is true of plenty of the characters one reads about in the Bible. They weren't Christians at all! They were Jews!

So was Moses a "Biblical Christian?" Or Abraham, Jonah, Joshua? Ha! NO!

But were they SAINTS? This is as interesting a question to me as whether the Buddha might be. Any resident Catholics on hand to address this? Q? Thomas?

Namaksar,

andrew
 
Here's the thing, I'll give yout the really quick answer (kinda busy). All the OT saints where saved the same way as the NT saints: Faith in the Messiah. The OT trusted in the promise to come (Jesus) and the NT saints trusted in the one that came (Jesus). We're saved by grace through faith, remember? Jesus is the key here. He Himself said that many came before Him, but they were all false and the wrong paths/way. He is the only way to eternal life and God. As for where they saints was? I dont understand what you mean..
 
I'd still like to get back to the original post.

Terence it seems you disagree with the particulars of Catholic Saints and that is ok but is not what is being discussed, but as to the actual information surrounding this saint.

http://www.christiannewage.com/StIodasaph.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02297a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josaphat_(saint)

So far I haven't discovered any significant disagreements with the statement...other than it appears it is believed they cannonized a fictitious person, a christianized story of Buddha...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top