Krishna/Jesus

[nightflight]

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/krishnajesusmyths.html

 

Is this still debated? Is it significant that the stories surrounding Krishna and Jesus are so similar? I hear Christian apologists say that the similarities between the two figures are not of any importance; or that the Hindus borrowed from Christians.

[Asimov]

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name...t=krishna+jesus

[Ouroboros]

How can it be argued that Hindus borrow from Christians, when Hinduism is older??

 

May Jesus Krishna bless you all!

[Ouroboros]

Hinduism predates Christianity.  Most Christian apologist realize this problem and explain the similarities between Jesus and Krishna, by saying that Satan knew of Jesus beforehand and set up copycat stories to confuse future people after Jesus came.  Logic tells us that the original story historically comes first and any stories thereafter are the copycats.  Of course if someone believes in invisible, omnipotent, horned evil guys... they will believe anything.

 

Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that argument!

 

It's one of the arguments in my: "Most Ridiculous Arguments a Christian Ever Can Use" book.

Only forgot to turn the page…

 

 

[Asimov]

Hinduism predates Christianity.  Most Christian apologist realize this problem and explain the similarities between Jesus and Krishna, by saying that Satan knew of Jesus beforehand and set up copycat stories to confuse future people after Jesus came.  Logic tells us that the original story historically comes first and any stories thereafter are the copycats.  Of course if someone believes in invisible, omnipotent, horned evil guys... they will believe anything.

 

 

That's the thing though, is that there isn't much similarity between the two. Read the link I provided which includes the Hindu story of Krishna.

[Lokmer]

Because Hinduism is a very oral- and community-tradition centered religion, there's no way to know whether the particular story of Krishna that makes him sound similar to Jesus came before or after Christ, and hence impossible to know whether one borrowed from the other, or whether both descended from an older common ancestor.

 

Just because a religion is older does not mean that a particular piece of it is older. Religions are constantly evolving in repsonse to new material all the time.

 

-Lokmer

[♦ ficino ♦]

On the other hand, there are notable parallels between the story of Dionysus and the story of Jesus, and these stories came from the Mediterranean basin. Dionysus was the son of Zeus and a human mother, envied by rival authorities who killed him, but he was brought to life again... was not recognized in his home town by his own family... had to wander doing miracles to prove his divinity; eventually was raised to heaven and joined the Olympians; worshipers tear him apart and bathe in his blood in their rituals; initiation into his cult promised eternal life better than the dim realm of Hades. etc .

[nightflight]

On the other hand, there are notable parallels between the story of Dionysus and the story of Jesus, and these stories came from the Mediterranean basin.  Dionysus was the son of Zeus and a human mother, envied by rival authorities who killed him, but he was brought to life again...  was not recognized in his home town by his own family...  had to wander doing miracles to prove his divinity;  eventually was raised to heaven and joined the Olympians;  worshipers tear him apart and bathe in his blood in their rituals;  initiation into his cult promised eternal life better than the dim realm of Hades.  etc .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, good post!

[Guest Hannibal]

That's the thing though, is that there isn't much similarity between the two.  Read the link I provided which includes the Hindu story of Krishna.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The link you gave was from a christian apologist who specialized in red herrings. While he focused on some overstatements concerning the link between the two myths, he made sure to purposely miss the real point - that there doesn't have to be a great deal of similarities between the two myths, vis-a-vis some of the specifics, for the one myth to inspire the other.

 

In addition, I see it's been mentioned here in this thread that myths are oral traditions - ergo there's no "one" version of the Krishna story, yet the christian apologist acted as if this was so during his criticism. He later admitted in another thread that what I've just said is a valid criticism of his own argument, but he conviently left that out of his original post.

 

The overall point - that there were man/god myths that predated the jesus myth, is uncontroversial. To focus on the specific characteristics is to miss the point.

[Jun]

Krishna as a manifestation of Vishnu is mentioned in the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda was written before 1500 BC and is the oldest of all known religious books. It is the only extant bronze-age literature with an unbroken tradition.

 

Does that prove anything? No. Is it older than the bible? Yes. Did it influence the idea of a "Jesus?" Why not, as it is closely tied to the pre-Zoroastrian Persian religions.

[currentchristian]

Krishna as a manifestation of Vishnu is mentioned in the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda was written before 1500 BC and is the oldest of all known religious books. It is the only extant bronze-age literature with an unbroken tradition.

 

Does that prove anything? No. Is it older than the bible? Yes. Did it influence the idea of a "Jesus?" Why not, as it is closely tied to the pre-Zoroastrian Persian religions.

 

The website near-death.com states that Jesus was a reincarnation of Krishna. Here's a link to that specific page.

 

I read the Bhagavad-Gita this summer. What a great read; I recommend it.

 

-CC in MA

[Jun]

Krishna as a manifestation of Vishnu is mentioned in the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda was written before 1500 BC and is the oldest of all known religious books. It is the only extant bronze-age literature with an unbroken tradition.

 

Does that prove anything? No. Is it older than the bible? Yes. Did it influence the idea of a "Jesus?" Why not, as it is closely tied to the pre-Zoroastrian Persian religions.

 

The website near-death.com states that Jesus was a reincarnation of Krishna. Here's a link to that specific page.

 

I read the Bhagavad-Gita this summer. What a great read; I recommend it.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

The website near-death.com states that Jesus was a reincarnation of Krishna. Here's a link to that specific page.

 

I read the Bhagavad-Gita this summer. What a great read; I recommend it.

 

Have read it twice. It's very insightful.

[SkepticOfBible]

How can it be argued that Hindus borrow from Christians, when Hinduism is older??

 

May Jesus Krishna bless you all!

 

However hinduism and Judaism are roughly the same age.

 

In my personal opinion it is more difficult to make a case for the similarity between Krishna than for Mithra. It can be said there is an indirect one but those who claim that there is direct one is tough to maintain it

 

First of all Hindu and Christian were geographically apart, so the direct transfer of idea is difficult. Second of all, hinduism had very little influence within the backwaters of the Roman empire, save for few traders.

 

I think the teachings, theology of the small Jewish community known as Essenes and that of hellenised Judaism is the most likely influence for Christianity

 

I highly recommend you to read Hugh Schonfield's The Essene Odyssey, which explores this topic in great detail

 

Also check out

 

The Fame Of Jesus

 

Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenized(Greek influenced) Jewish philosopher that lived right in the "sweet spot" of history, the prime time and location to have been alive to witness evidence for the existence and fame of Jesus.

 

(The Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, or Septuagint, is supposed to have originated in Alexandria, Egypt and was performed between 300-100 B.C.E..)

 

The Hebrew and Greek cultures had mingled prior to Philo being born and during his life he encountered various religious concepts.

Philo made a trip to Jerusalem(Philo-On Providence(64)) during his life and had connections with Jewish and Roman authorities, and he wrote about a trip to Rome around 39-40 C.E. when he led a delegation of Jewish representatives to see the Emperor Gaius(Caligula).

 

Philo had an interest in reconciling elements of Hebrew teachings and thought with Greek philosophy, forming a type of religious philosophy.

The writings of Philo are very extensive and cover many facets of Old Testament teachings melded with Greek philosophical concepts, which results in a synthesis that creates a new expression of metaphysical thought.

 

Philo, acting as a bridge between Hebrew teaching and Greek philosophy, may have been quite influential in the formation of some key New Testament concepts.

 

Philo may have supplied the lubricant that greased the way for Jesus of Nazareth to become a god-man.

 

Rather than asserting that the New Testament was directed inspired by God, Christians would be more credible if they said that Philo might have inspired many of the concepts found in the New Testament.

However, appealing to the authority of Philo, who was only a man, would ruin the allegedly divine and absolute nature of their holy book.

It sounds so much more convincing, unique, and authoritative to say that "God" inspired the New Testament.

 

From a Christian standpoint, it would be advantageous if Philo the Jew could be portrayed as supporting or even "borrowing" concepts from Christianity.

 

Not surprisingly, the Church historian Eusebius(260 C.E.-341 C.E.) in his History of the Church, vouches for a story, from an unidentified source, which claimed that Philo met with the Apostle Peter in Rome during the reign of the Emperor Claudius(41 C.E.-54 C.E.) Eusebius also claimed that Philo had not only encountered the Gospels and writings of Paul in his travels, but that he clearly knew Apostolic figures of that time and endorsed their teachings and doctrines.

 

If this is true, then it's certainly curious that Philo would have incorporated key elements of his writing from Christians yet failed to mention the most important element of all them, which is Jesus of Nazareth, the long awaited King Messiah!

 

The fact remains that Philo never once mentioned Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth, nor does he say anything about other travels to Rome or meetings with a Apostolic leader that promoted a sacrificed "Christ" for the sins of the world.

 

The musings and claims made by Eusebius centuries later, about Philo endorsing Christianity and implying that he might have borrowed some of his concepts from Christians, should raise red flags that could indicate the employment of doctrine promoting propaganda on the part of Eusebius.

 

Philo wrote of the Logos or Word.

 

Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made.

De Specialibus Legibus I;

The Special Laws I(82)

 

The "Old Testament" expressed something similar:

 

Psa 33:6(JPS 1917 Tanach)

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

 

Note that the scripture states that the word of God creates. It does not say that the Word was God.

The word is a product of God.

 

The New Testament takes the motif further by declaring that the Word was God.

 

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

In particular, Philo and the New Testament share the theme of an intermediary celestial power, or Logos, that mediates between God and the elements of the world.

 

Philo wrote a description of the Logos, the celestial being, or force that is heir to the creation of the father:

 

And the father who created the universe has given to his archangel and most ancient Logos a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separate that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race.

Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit; (205)

WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS section XLII

Translation by Charles Duke Yonge

 

Text courtesy of Early Christian Writings, The Works of Philo Judaeus

 

Note how closely the New Testament claims about Jesus follow the description that Philo gave for a celestial mediator between God and men.

 

1 Tim 2:5

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

Hebrews 1:1-3

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

 

The mediator between God and the Hebrews was Moses, who was a man, not a celestial being.

 

The mediator between God and man then evolves into a powerful celestial being, a form of god-man called Jesus who not only mediates but cleanses as well.

 

Later on, the Church elevated "Jesus" to an even higher level and defined him being completely equal to God himself, a process that involves God sprouting three heads that become the three "persons" of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

Christianity is to a large degree a blending of Hebrew religious elements and Greek metaphysical concepts.

 

Philo laid out the template for this belief system and key parts of his work can be seen in the New Testament.

 

And remember not many of the early Christian believed in divine Jesus.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

Ebionites-

By this name were designated one or more early Christian sects infected with Judaistic errors.

.....

A stage in this development is seen in St. Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew", chapter xlvii (about A. D. 140), where he speaks of two sects of Jewish Christians estranged from the Church: those who observe the Mosaic Law for themselves, but do not require observance thereof from others; and those who hold it of universal obligation

.........

St. Justin, however, does not use the term Ebionites, and when this term first occurs (about A. D. 175) it designates a distinctly heretical sect.

........

The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3)

.......

Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all

....

They exerted only the slightest influence in the East and none at all in the West, where they were known as Symmachiani. In St. Epiphanius's time small communities seem still to have existed in some hamlets of Syria and Palestine, but they were lost in obscurity. Further east, in Babylonia and Persia, their influence is perhaps traceable amongst the Mandeans, and it is suggested by Uhlhorn and others that they may be brought into connection with the origin of Islam.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

[currentchristian]

Here's an interesting like to a Web site maintained by a member of the ISKCON - International Society of Krishna Consciousness:

 

http://www.iskcon.net/oregon/jesus/

 

-CC in MA

[Jun]

Here's an interesting like to a Web site maintained by a member of the ISKCON - International Society of Krishna Consciousness:

 

http://www.iskcon.net/oregon/jesus/

 

-CC in MA

 

From the biography of the sites author -

 

...........his special field of interest lies in the teachings of the historical Jesus in comparison to the Vaishnava tradition of India.

 

bwahahahahaha!