Buddhism was intended as a path to follow, not a religion. It developed doctrine and dogma as a means to perpetuate power.
Buddha and Jesus (if he existed) were just two guys who figured out a nice way to live one’s life and told people about it. It was their later followers who turned their principles into an organized religion.
You are aware that Buddhism and Judaism are very different, right?
There were prophecies in Jewish scriptures that the Messiah HAD to fulfill in order to be the Messiah, and not a false preacher. Jesus didn’t fulfill them. If you want to believe in him, that’s entirely up to you, but it doesn’t mean that the prophecies don’t matter to the Jews, or to the validity of him being our Messiah.
I don’t think Buddha promised people anything. Buddhism is all about self, it is you and you alone. To include someone into your self, including your family, is selfish. Kind of ironic though, because most asian cultures are collective societies. They do things as a group. Yet most Buddhists are asians.
Then again most americans live in a individualistic society, and yet christianity is all about groups, togetherness. I think each society is adhering to something that they lack or long for.
No – because there wasn’t a tradition with prophecy as a central point in India back then.
I don’t think Jesus is subject to this standard so much as that Christians used the Hebrew prophecies to say ‘hey, he was the Messiah’. And apparently scholars now feel Christians elaborated the stories about Jesus to fit the prophesies. But his teachings are just as relevant without all that.
A good question, well posited. I’d like to answer from a Theravada Buddhist’s perspective if I may .. it may give some insight albeit a poor one and provide comparison to the other fine answers already given.
Firstly then to the question of prophecy.
The Buddha was originally a Prince, Prince Siddhartha. He led a very sheltered life and at one time ventured forth from his sheltered life in the palace ostensibly to see and observe what was to him, new things. What he observed was pain and suffering and from that experience left the palace and his family to find the reason for the suffering that he observed.
There was no prophecy for such a search. The Prince chose to find the reasons for suffering and to tell others of his findings. He became an ascetic of many sects and religions during his search and his searching and efforts resulted in a whole new way of thought which he then began to tell and explain to others. Initially there were 10 close friends in his group and later he taught his mother and son after returning to the Palace on his travels.
As for his contribution to Religion, there was only a change in thought and at the time he was considered a rebel because his way of thought went against many Religions of the time…there are many discourses which explain the Buddha talking to the various Religious Leaders and Ascetics, Kings and so on who came to him about his new way of thought and how it could help rather than detract from their own. Many of them becoming Buddhist and even Arahants ( a term meaning a highly aware Being and close to Enlightenment ) after such meetings.
The only thing which the Buddha himself remarked upon was that there will always be Buddha’s and that there will always be Arahants in the world and that there would come a time when Buddhism would fade from existence and then re-emerge stronger than before…and he mentioned that this is just how things are…
As for the question regarding the Christ being subjected to such prophecy, the reason is because of the historic Messiah needing to fulfill such a requirement to be known as such, as it were.
It was historically true that a Messiah was predicted by prophecy and that there was certain criteria by which he was to be recognised. There is speculation and some evidence that there were several candidates at the time of Jesus and that Jesus was thus tested for authenticity by the then Leaders of the time. Even the Roman potentate Herod, was said to consider Jesus authentic by referring to Him as ‘King of the Jews’ as Jesus’ family were of the House of David…this giving Jesus a legitimate claim to the ancient Throne of David and thus a legitimate claim to the Title ‘King’…such evidence indicates that Herod was indeed not treating Him in disdain when referring to Him thus….but rather treating Him as Royalty with legitimacy to legal Rights during his interrogation with the Potentate…
This goes some way in explaining why Jesus was considered a potential threat to Rome’s rule in Palestine…Rome considering that any claim to the ancient Throne of David a direct threat to Rome itself….such a Rightful Heir even considering a return to a Monarchy would be seen as a threat to Rome’s authority under a Dictatorship from the Roman Emperor…thus Jesus’ treatment under Roman Law of Crucifixion which was reserved for enemies of the State of Rome as opposed to other forms of execution under the Law as a common criminal…
According to the Scriptures, Jesus didn’t fulfill all of the prophecies laid down which explains why the Jews of the time didn’t accept Him as Messiah and still do not…
Even so, its my opinion that He contributed greatly to Religion and Spirituality regardless of this question and remains in my mind a legitimate claimant to the Throne of David and possibly the best example of how to Unite the mess in the Middle East…I also think that the prophecy was indeed fulfilled in Him but that there were political efforts made at the time to discredit Him as well as His family….
This is my opinion only and it is not my intent to cause offense…please forgive me if any was taken
Peace my friend…from