Z
- Status
P
pianistclare
Guest
Catholic Online says they are.
I
Ion
Guest
What is unclear? They dedicated their life to Jesus. I read their story but in my native language. There should be a source in English language. The story is pretty long.
R
rossum
Guest
Well. that is very good for Catholic outreach to non-Catholic religions. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:Catholic Online says they are.
The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva).
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia: Barlaam and Josaphat
IIRC these two were relegated to the second division a few years ago along with a number of other legendary or semi-legendary saints.
There are other real saints with the same names who came later, and were named after one or other of these two.
rossum
I
Ion
Guest
Aren’t you interested to read about their life?
R
rossum
Guest
If you look at the top right of my post, you will see that I am Buddhist. The story of Barlaam and Josaphat is a distorted and Christianised version of the story of the life of the Buddha. I am already well aware of the life of the Buddha taken more directly from the original Buddhist sources. Karen Armstrong’s biography, “Buddha”, is an excellent starting point for non-Buddhists.
rossum
Z
ZenFred
Guest
Ion, thanks.
I couldn’t find anything about a second tier or more questionable list of saints. It looks like a saint is a saint, questionable historicity or not.
I find the mixed attitudes about Buddhism in the Christian church both fascinating and confusing. Seems the majority of Christians (in the US at least) don’t know anything about eastern religions and those that do are split between condemning them and admiring them pretty evenly. This is of course a gross generalization.
I couldn’t find anything about a second tier or more questionable list of saints. It looks like a saint is a saint, questionable historicity or not.
I find the mixed attitudes about Buddhism in the Christian church both fascinating and confusing. Seems the majority of Christians (in the US at least) don’t know anything about eastern religions and those that do are split between condemning them and admiring them pretty evenly. This is of course a gross generalization.
I
Ion
Guest
I do not think so.
First of all Buddha lived hundreds of years before them. Both Buddha and Josaphat were prince and they gave up the royal life for a most humble but spiritual life. But that is all that that makes them alike.There are many Christians saints who gave up royalty or great wealth for a life dedicated to Jesus. That is not such an extraordinary trait for a Christian, so Josaphat MUST NOT be redirected into Buddha for it. I do not know about Buddha or his teachings but Josaphat had to fight against the local polytheism. Maybe that includes Buddhism too even if is not mentioned? Maybe there were no Buddhists in that area? Maybe Josaphat thought that Buddhists can be brought in Christianity? Maybe the Christians and Buddhist were close to each other and fought against the Hindu? The story is long and I have to say that I have glanced it only more than read it carefully. The Buddhists are not mentioned. My personal opinion is that the story came through the oral tradition and I can’t say it is 100% literary true, but I am sure it is true in the main points. Josaphat is not Buddha and is in Heavens with Jesus.
Maybe there were Buddhists who heard the story of Josaphat and thought it is about Buddha? Maybe there were Christians who heard the story of Buddha and thought it was about Josaphat? Probably some time ago somebody wrote about this similar trait somehow, and generated the confusion. I can’t explain the note in the Catholic Encyclopedia but probably is going to be changed.
- Status