The Jesus we know is the Jesus taught by the Church.
Wait a minute.
1. The concept under discussion is whether Buddhist practice can legitimately be a part of Christian practice. If I tell a Buddhist I feel closer to Jesus if I indulge my desire for a dozen jelly donuts while I pray, and he says that would not be compatible with his religious practice, would he be "relegating Christianity to obscurity for the rest of the world" or would he be honestly expressing his view of his faith's precepts?
2. I'll phrase my question another way and you might see my point better: If a Christian believes that Christ is all, the Alpha and the Omega, what place does Buddhism have to offer in that Christian's religious practice? I guess what I'm saying is that Robert Kennedy is about as deep as a wading pool.
and these are what interest me, and why I get miffed when people say Buddhism and Christianity are not at all compatible.
Well, how can a reincarnationist religion be compatible with one that says man dies once and is then judged? How about putting on the mind of Christ versus getting rid of the ego entirely? God giving one the desires of his heart versus the need to extinguish all desires? The biggest difference is the Resurrection.
BTW, why do you think that the trials of Jesus and Buddha ended so differently? Because Buddha didn't have to die for anyone's sins and rise from the grave.
But there are striking differences--many of which, understandably, came from theologians as well as "Christian" ideas posited after the death of Jesus when the Church was being shaped.
No offense, but the idea that Christianity is largely different from the actual teachings of Christ is most often advanced by "scholars" who want to put their words in the mouth of Christ, so that He can endorse their views and/or scold their enemies. Tell me, what is there in the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed that conflicts with the New Testament Scriptures? The NT was written by men He personally chose.