The monk who created the site is a Theravada Buddhist and almost every monk featured on the site is of the Theravada (or presectarian/Early Buddhist) school. The Theravada school is the oldest school of Buddhism.

The canonical texts of the Theravada school, in which this website is rooted, are transcriptions the original, actual, oral teachings of the historical Buddha of ~500 BC.

These texts are called the Pali Canon. They are the Buddha's actual words, orally trasmitted by monks for 500 years, and then transcribed in the 1st century AD. Much of the Pali Canon has been translated into English and is available at sites like suttacentral.com and accesstoinsight.com.

It's true that the the Open Buddhist University's solidly presectarian/Early Buddhist foundation isn't obvious if you are not already familiar with it.

The Pali Cannon, while orally transmitted by monks for 500 years before being written down, should not be assumed to be "the original, actual, oral teachings of the historical Buddha".

They are the closest thing we have to what the Buddha might have taught (assuming he actually existed, and like Jesus, there is no evidence outside of religious texts that Buddha did exist).

I'm not up to date on the of historicity of the buddha, but virtually no reputable scholars or historians endorse the "christ myth theory." It is widely accepted across all disciplines that at the very least he existed and was baptized & crucified and there is extensive scholarship around this consensus.

The rest of your comment feels plausible, but confidently being so wrong about such an easy to check fact of scholarship makes it all untrustworthy.

Virtually all mainstream secular scholars of early Christianity agree that Jesus existed. He was mentioned by Josephus and Tacitus, and the Talmud - a religious commentary, albeit not a Christian one, with genuine historical narrative interspersed - mentions him repeatedly. Essentially, based on the sources we have access to today, it’s far more likely that Jesus was a real wandering preacher in the first-century Land of Israel (there were many of those!) than that every mention of him in the sources was fabricated.

My understanding is that scholars also believe that Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, was indeed historical, but the contemporary sources are weaker.

> My understanding is that scholars also believe that Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, was indeed historical, but the contemporary sources are weaker.

This is correct and as for which parts of the text are original, philologists such as KR Norman, Gombrich, Vetter and Bronkhorst have come to some consensus (like on the four noble truths and dhyana), excluded some things and some things are still debated.