Buddha is a saint?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat

So St. Josaphat is Buddha? So Buddha is a saint and is in heaven?

Attached: 19_nov_obadiah_prophet_barlaam.jpg (463x650, 50.91K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gotquestions.org/Manichaeism.html
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Barlaam_and_Josaphat
twitter.com/AnonBabble

As always, OP is a fag.

gotquestions.org/Manichaeism.html

...

No ones saying that in this thread, it's actually the other away around.

I don’t know why it says “may” there, it is well-known and undisputed that the story comes from a translation of the life of Buddha

Attached: 4CC9B660-C116-4242-A264-A3CF3AED9AF2.jpeg (1030x1473, 832.06K)

It's obvious that it is the spirit of Anti-Christ. The whole end time purpose for Satan is to make people believe everything is universal so they will accept the Abomination of Desolation and turn from the true Christ.

Do you speak English?

There literally is no proof that St. Josaphat is Buddha, deal with it.

Do you?

...

You call that "proof"?

Ok keep moving the goal post.

I ask for proof and you give me some convoluted story translated several times over from a non-Christian source and that's supposed to be proof that Buddha is a Christian saint. Go home.

Logical fallacy the post.

There is literally no proof that Buddha is a Christian saint, stay mad.

...

Buddha is not, was not, and never will be a Christian saint. This makes you buttmad, that's ok though, God still loves you even though you hate Him.

no u

Attached: Dtl4rtmWsAEjQKO.jpg (680x683, 83.02K)

no u

Christians are unreasonable sycophants. Do not parlay with them child.

Baby's first insult.

no u

Why are you tagging me? I thought that was another user? People would never ip Switch…right…. right? Oh well.

No u.

Man, even the Catholic Encyclopedia knew this.

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Barlaam_and_Josaphat

They were never officially canonized and are just stories Christians thought were true and these stories just happened to be loosely based off of the buddha. Buddha is (most likely) not in heaven and Josaphat isnt a saint.

Which is funny, because all Satan needs people to do is sin without repenting, and they'll be judged accordingly by Christ.

Just.
And btw Buddha is very very likely in hell unless he had some last minute repentance.

This. Faggotry is a sin OP, repent now.

So why would Buddha be split in two?
Language explanation like this is not proof but conjecture.
Medieval Christians had news of Buddha, yet nobody did the connection, I wonder why? Marco Polo in his book mentioned Buddha but no one made the connection even though Polo's book was widespread.
St.Clemens of Alexandria and St.Hyppolitus of Rome in their books mention the religions of India, including the religion of "Butta", yet no one reading them made any connection to Barlaam and Josaphat.
In the age of discoveries the portuguese established trade in India, and other nations did the same later, yet no one made the connection.
It's only with skeptical criticism in the 19th century someone said "oh this is Buddha, not a christian".

Just to be clear, these are two different OPs.

Apart from the childlike fighting derailing the thread, I'm actually curious to discuss this, no I don't think he is a saint, but the legend in question could be based off his story.
I'm curious if anyone around actually knows the legend of buddha, what it was about and what his teachings were.