Why is he a saint? Merits? Recognized miracles?

>>1870841
In Russian Orthodoxy, a saint is anyone who is recognized by the church to be in heaven.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad canonized them + the servants as new martyrs, which means they were killed under a heretical rule.

The Russian Orthodox Church canonized the family plus some of the servants as passion bearers, which are people who died in a "Christ-like manner," not necessarily people who were killed for their faith or by heretical rulers.

>>1870899
interesting

>>1870841
>Recognized miracles?
he made an empire disappear

he killed a lot of jews

>>1870899

Yup.

Doesn't mean shit in heaven. Almost all Catholic and Orthodox "saints" are already in hell.

>>1870954
Ded.

>>1871029
>proteshits

>>1871143

>Truth hurts.

>>1871029
Edgy XDDDDDD

>>1870954
kek

>>1871149
Which is why you protestants shit up every thread in order to obscure it.

Being a recognized saint in Orthodox literally just means being widely recognized as one, there is no official process. The officially process only means getting an official recognition in the Liturgy, but there are countless saints who never got that, but are still recognized saints because lots of people recognize them as saints. There is no juridical process or requirement to perform miracles.

>>1870841
He and his family were martyrs

>>1872322
guess that explains how Buddha made it to sainthood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat

>>1872633
>But not till the mid-nineteenth century was it recognised that, in Josaphat, the Buddha had been venerated as a Christian saint for about a thousand years
That's pretty interesting; I like reading about Buddhist/Christian overlap like this. Another example the Jesus Sutras that was written by Nestorian missions in China. One asserts that the Buddha gained enlightenment and his subsequent powers through God.

>>1872633
Seems like a lot of tenuous speculation in there, especially since the exact account of the Buddha version is not even provided

File: Stalin-icon-04.jpg (186KB, 499x604px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 499x604px

>>1872322
Ah, I see, this makes more sense now.

>>1872701
Ah, yeah, looking into this, literally the only similarity is that both Jehoshaphat and Buddha forfeited their princeship for spiritual reasons.

>>1872707
That's a work of internet art, not an actual icon. Stalin is not actually venerated as a saint in the Church, only Orthodox can be.

>>1872732
>Ioasaph (Georgian Iodasaph, Arabic Yūdhasaf or Būdhasaf) is derived from the Sanskrit Bodhisattva
you sure?

>>1872907
It's actually just the Septuagint rendering of Yoseph.

>>1872916
why would a indian prince from a non-christian family be named Joseph?

>>1872944
He probably wouldn't be, that's just a name he was given. It's quite possibly a corruption of his original name, but the hypothesis that the corruption comes ultimately from Buddha rests entirely on the idea that he came to be known to the Orthodox only through a Georgian translation, which there isn't actually any evidence for.

>>1872965
so you concede that it is a corruption, getting rid of the merit of your argument that it's just a biblical name. think I'm gonna trust the linguists on this one

>>1872989
No, I'm saying it is a Biblical name, as opposed to just a Greek rendering of Buddha, as you put forth here, that it's "derived" from Buddha.

I think I'll stick to the oldest accounts, which say it was derived from an account of John of Damascus, as opposed to an hypothesis that it came from a Georgian monk, which is literally only based on the idea that it would make the theory that the name came from Buddha, plausible, as without the idea of the name coming through Georgian, the hypothesis is extremely weak.

>>1872989
Haha, constanigger hasn't changed one bit. Still a lying dishonest insufferable tranny cunt.

>>1873025
Also, the hypothesis requires that the Georgian monk in question, got the story from a Manichean text. First of all, the very idea that a Georgian monastery would take the trouble to preserve texts from a sect that was considered the height of heresy, in a foreign language, is immensely dubious, but saying he'd take the trouble to not only copy this text, but to *translate* it, is devoid of even trace credibility.

File: transfiguration_icon.jpg (82KB, 790x800px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 790x800px

>>1872633
>>1872649
>>1872732

I think it's clear that the Buddha was a type of Christ that presaged His incarnation.

>>1873052
oh please. they didn't "preserve" the story, they adapted it to their own purposes. you underestimate the flow of ideas both in and out of christianity to and from other religions, especially one like Manichaeism which heavily borrowed from christianity along with a variety of others.

plus, if the story came from india georgian would be a very likely intermediary language

>>1873084
The version Buddha we think of today didn't didn't exist until hundreds of years after Christ. Prior accounts of Buddha depicted a character more like someone out of the Iliad.

>>1873095
It's actually the other way around, you dumb bitch. The historical accounts of the Buddha as contained in the Pali Canon predate Jesus by centuries and only after CE there arouse more fantastic versions of him, due to popular belief and Hindu influence.

Funny that you mention the Iliad considering the phony gospel authors took a page out of Homer making your favorite god-hero Geebus descend into Hades.

Now get AIDS and die.

>>1873092
>oh please. they didn't "preserve" the story
That's exactly what the argument you're supporting says, that the name comes from a Manichean text translated by a Georgian monk (which is pure speculation).

>plus, if the story came from india georgian would be a very likely intermediary language


If the story comes from John Damascene (which, admittedly, there is no first-hand record left of, but that is the oldest account of the story's source), it probably would not have come through Georgia. Greece had dealings with Indian stretching back to before Alexander. The Georgian monk hypothesis states that it didn't come to Orthodoxy until the 11th Century anyway.

>>1873095
Since you seem so keen on having an uninterrupted line of texts to establish a transmission of ideas from other religions to christianity I'm gonna have to ask you for the same from Christianity to Buddhism. at least give me this pre-christian "Illiad" Buddha

>>1873112
The Pali Canon doesn't have an account of Buddha's life, and doesn't date earliest than 29 BC.

>>1873112

The earliest Buddhist texts we have date to the first century CE.

>>1873095
Do you have sources to back that up or are you just making things up? Because I can point to sutras that predate Christ that spell out the dharma pretty well.

>>1873112
>the phony gospel authors took a page out of Homer
How, exactly?

>>1873122

or is it BC? can't remember. also I meant to say AD in my last post. CE and BCE are dumb.

>>1873123
Buddhism certainly had a monastic, spiritual order long before Christ (though the contemporary use of mantras postdates Christianity considerably, before then mantras were incantations by priests, and were not used in meditation). But I'm not talking about the spiritual discipline, I'm talking about accounts of Buddha's life.

>>1873121
Oh you're just a dumb lying bitch aren't you?

>>1873122
Kys

File: 1476324355734.gif (3KB, 36x26px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 36x26px

>>1873132

m'dawkins. Why do atheists white knight so hard for Buddhism?

>I'm not like, religious, but I really GET Buddhism, you know? I just started meditating recently...

File: Anal_Hyposthasis.jpg (99KB, 1534x364px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1534x364px

Is this why you like the orthodox doctrine of anal birth, because you don't have a vagina, eh, Constanigger?

>>1873140
Because Buddhism is to the Orientalism of today as Islam is to the Orientalism of the 19th Century.

>>1873144
Does that look like my tripcode?

>>1873140
Not him, but buddhists and the "spiritual" crowd piss me off more than Christians

>>1873140
How about you learn how to differentiate between BCE and CE before spouting nonsense?

>>1873131
Are you talking about Jataka stories? Because you otherwise would be wrong.

File: 1477363121801.jpg (117KB, 771x1000px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 771x1000px

Christianity is a man-made religion.

Yahweh was the Israelite proto-Rabbis' projection of their fixation for child foreskin into a malevolent jealous jinn.

Good night you morons.

>>1873172
You do realize that many groups in the Levant at the time cut off foreskins including the Egyptians, right? edgelord or false flagger, kys

>Ooga booga great spirit help me and I perform funny ritual!

>>1873124
He's saying that Jesus descending into hell was inspired by classical stories of katabasis. Heroes going into the underworld and returning.

File: faggotkike.jpg (147KB, 993x1024px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 993x1024px

>I wear funny hat and hold stick on hand booga ooga!

>>1873192
Are you having an aneurysm or something?

>>1873169
I'm talking about works like the Buddhacarita, which don't chronicle Budhha's life anything like how it is traditionally known today. The earliest source of Buddha's traditional biography is Buddhaghoṣa

>>1873189
If that were the case, there would be a narrative covering the actual descent, which there isn't. Furthermore, these heroes didn't descend through dying.

>>1873172
btw this is a pretty interesting find

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuntillet_Ajrud
>The inscriptions are mostly in early Hebrew with some in Phoenician script.[4] Many are religious in nature, invoking Yahweh, El and Baal, and two include the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah" and "Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah."[5] There is general agreement that Yahweh is being invoked in connection with Samaria (capital of the kingdom of Israel) and Teman (in Edom); this suggests that Yahweh had a temple in Samaria, and raises a question over the relationship between Yahweh and Kaus, the national god of Edom.[6] The "Asherah" is most likely a cultic object, although the relationship of this object (a stylised tree perhaps) to Yahweh and to the goddess Asherah, consort of El, is unclear.[7]

>>1870841
I don't know shit about it but presumably he's a saint-martyr. In the Catholic Church at least, martyrdom (which has a specific, theological definition) does a lot of work despite past sins. Martyrs often do not need to have miracles associated with them to be canonized.

>>1873210
You still haven't sourced your pre-Christian Illiad-esque Buddha

>>1873178
All with the same Afro-Asiatic origin, as in, just extended family to the Jews.

>>1873228
That's my point, it's simply a cultural thing and the development of Yahweh has nothing to do with it

>>1873210
Oral epic verse =/= Iliad
If you read the Buddhacarita, you would discover the Buddha to be fairly consistent with our current image of him.

>>1873230
Yahweh is cultural, and for early peoples these things were intertwined.
I haven't looked as deep into it as other things, but I know that folks are trying to reconstruct the Afro-Asiatic pantheon, and supposedly Yahweh is likely to be a monotheistic cult that came out of many at about the Babylonian time I think.

>>1873225
The Buddhacarita

>>1873221
Samaritans were non-Jews who appropriated Judaism and gave it their own spin, which is why Jews hated them. So this isn't really surprising.

File: Ajrud.jpg (20KB, 290x297px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 290x297px

>>1873221
Dude that calf is sucking dick

>>1873252
>Samaritans were non-Jews who appropriated Judaism and gave it their own spin
So Christians?

>>1873245
>supposedly Yahweh is likely to be a monotheistic cult that came out of many at about the Babylonian time I think.
sounds like bullshit to me. I'm not a scholar but I'm very familiar with the different theories for the development of Yahweh and I've never heard that. The closest thing I've seen is a claimed connection between YHWH and Ea. Placing the development of Yahweh monotheism back that far seems unlikely to me, I'm even suspicious of placing the development just back to the Aten cult, which there is a much firmer case for than for some Mesopotamian monotheism which there is no evidence of. There are definite connections to Mesopotamian mythology, but not the monotheism component.

>>1873252
The site of the culture where it was found was Israeli.

>>1873261
Christianity was started entirely by Jews, who decided to preach to gentiles as well, so not really.

>>1873252
>the monotheistic absolutist Semitic tribe calls the other adherent to Yahweh heretical
Color me surprised

>>1873252
This inscription predates the deportation of the population of Samaria. What's significant is that the cultic sites of YHWH worthy of note for the creator of this inscription do not include Jerusalem, but Samaria and Teman.

>>1873265
Since the Samaritans are leftovers from the Assyrians conquerors of Israel, that's not really surprising.

>>1873279
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuntillet_Ajrud
>Kuntillet Ajrud (Arabic: كونتيلة عجرود) is a late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE site in the northeast part of the Sinai peninsula.[1]
this predates assyrian conquest

>>1873276
Jerusalem, presumably, was an enemy of the polytheists in Israel (which was in constant civil war in the Bible), so that makes sense.

>>1873290
The Assyrian conquest and deportations was something that was ongoing and in many phases, possibly backing ground, then losing it, and so on, not something that happened all in one night by any means. To say it started a few decades before the final conclusion is most likely.

>>1873297
No, this dates to the late 9th century or early 8th century BC. the first Assyrian conquest happened in 732BC, with Samaria being sacked in 722BC with its population deported

>>1873297
Can I have a virgin birth with you constantine :3

>>1873312
The early eight century is several decades before that. That's the culminating deportation, but I'm sure there were plenty of wars with Assyria and sorts of occupations going on for a long time, especially since Israel was constantly in civil war, and people in civil wars will often side with foreign forces (in the Peloponneseian War, for instance, the Spartans and the Persians were allies).

>>1873327
Until 732BC Assyrians did not directly campaign in Israel. along with Kings and Chronicles, we have Assyrian inscriptions that confirm this. Israelite kings did battle with Assyrians before that, Ahab for one, but these fights were in coalitions with Arameans and occurred on their land

>>1873342
also adding that I find it hilarious that I'm arguing for the Biblical version of events against Constantine here

>>1873342
The Bible doesn't use calendar dates much, and a lot of the hypothetical placing for Biblical events is highly contention. For instance, Exodus: Patterns of Evidence, an amateur (but still informative) documentary, argues, though our current dating of Exodus shows zero evidence for it, if the dating is altered, quite a bit of evidence suddenly turns up. There are also various problems with how we date things and events in ancient times in general; if two events are just a few decades off, they can suddenly become nearly contemporary, as opposed to a century apart.

>>1873360
The dating for Assyrian inscriptions for this period are supported by a recorded eclipse in 763BC.

>>1873376
I know, I'm talking about in relation to the Exodus. The only issue I've raised for the Assyrian thing is that Biblical events don't have very stable dating at all.

>>1873378
I'm not talking about the Exodus. Biblical events this late are very firmly placed into the timeline as I've shown. You are just trying to manipulate the data to fit your beliefs yet again, this time for something quite bizarre and peripheral, as though Samaria becomes a major cultic site for YHWH only as soon as Samaritans arrive. You have to go off the assumption that the capital of the Kingdom of Israel wouldn't be a likely place for a cult center for YHWH, who is in the names of most Israel Kings after Ahab and is in half of the names in ostraca recovered from 8th century Monarchal period Samaria and that the archaeologists who discovered this find were off by a whole century in their estimate.

File: 1472926049413.jpg (78KB, 444x460px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 444x460px

>>1872011
>catholic "truth"

>>1873403
>>1873403
>You are just trying to manipulate the data to fit your beliefs yet again
This has absolutely nothing to do with my religious beliefs, which aren't affected one way or the other by this, and I don't see how they could be. This simply has to do with whether or not the Samaritans were Assyrians then, which, like I said, hardly matters in terms of religious accounts. The reason I'm suggesting they are, is because of the language the tablet is in.

>>1873420
suggesting they *were

>>1873420
>This simply has to do with whether or not the Samaritans were Assyrians then, which, like I said, hardly matters in terms of religious accounts
I've told you repeatedly that that doesn't fit the timeline. The Assyrian invasions of Israel were 732BC and 722BC, which would be when the deportations and importation of Assyrian settlers would be. You haven't explicitly said anything that connects it to your religious beliefs, I perhaps jumped the gun there. But I do sense an agenda behind you trying to take this inscription of YHWH of Samaria away from Israelites to later non-Israelites. I see honestly see no legitimate reason why you must attribute it to non-Israelites even with a Christian perspective as it's no secret that Israelites were mostly polytheistic. Even though the dating for the inscriptions aren't as secure as the invasions of Israel, it's considered the best fit and you've offered no reason why it should be moved forward a century other than general doubt. Just because the date isn't secure doesn't mean you can move it around to wherever the hell you want. Even moving it forward a century, it hardly makes sense for Samaria to just then become a major religious site for YHWH for the reasons that I've already stated.

>>1873447
The issue is the language, it's not the languages ancient Israelites used. And I don't just mean it's not in Hebrew, I mean it's not in any of the dialects used for that sort of thing by the Israelites, but it is a dialect Assyrians would use.

>>1873447
Don't waste your time arguing with this tripfag. No amount of evidence will get in the way of his desert cult of virgin buttsex.

>>1870841
No, he wasn't a Protestant.

>>1873740
>it is a dialect Assyrians would use.
Jesus christ you are either ignorant or grasping at straws. Assyrians would have written in Aramean. this is paleo-hebrew and phoenician

>>1873405
>misplaced quotation marks

>>1874353
adding to clarify: I'm not claiming that this inscription was made by an Israelite. I mean this was found in the northern part of the Sinai. It could have really been from any of the groups native to the region: Israelite, Moabite, etc but most likely Edomite or some other southern group. I'm only saying that it shows that there are two major cultic sites for YHWH: Monarchal period Samaria and Teman

File: 1450498394449.jpg (855KB, 3000x1705px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 3000x1705px

>>1871029
pls no bully

File: Odd innit.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>1873144
>that pic

>>1874353
>>1874410
What do you want, my man? The truth is water, Constantine is oil, and snake oil.

>>1870841
Regressive policy of state apologism/revisionism.

>>1873151
Yes.

>>1874353
>>1874410
Ah, sorry, my bad, I misread the article.

Yeah, you're right.

>>1870841
>Why is he a saint?
Russians are idiots.

>>1871029
>>1871149
Did Reverand Joebob preach that to the trailer park between snake shaking last Sunday?