Posted on 06/12/2006 9:24:09 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
The hypothesis that Jesus Christ is buried in central Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-administered Kashmir, has aroused a lot of interest among historiographers, researchers, scholars, archaeologists and religious groups both in India and worldwide once again. A team of German researchers, including two archaeologists, is planning to visit Srinagar later this year to investigate the subject.
Within India, the political party known as the Janata Party has set up a group of experts from among its members which would be coming to Kashmir's summer capital soon to start research work. The party's president, Dr Subramanian Swamy, who was in Srinagar last week, said that after reading a booklet by a German he has a "feeling of curiosity" about Jesus Christ and Moses having visited Kashmir and in the belief that both had died and are buried in the Valley.
Muslims in Kashmir and elsewhere revere both Jesus and Moses as "noble prophets" of "Bani Israel" (Children of Israel), as the Koran makes a number of references to them. Swamy also pointed to the belief of many Kashmiris that they were one of the "Lost Tribes" of Israel.
"It is a matter of great interest that Prophet Moses is buried in Kashmir and that Jesus too had visited the Valley, went to Ladakh to visit the Hemis monastery where he took Buddhism as his faith, returned home but left it again for Kashmir to escape persecution, and died here in Srinagar," he said. The Janata Party leader said that the team he has set up would do methodical research on the subject and come out with its findings "which everybody in the country would be interested in."
(Excerpt) Read more at adnki.com ...
Thank you, I did not know that! One of the trillions of things I do not know ... well, less one now. Do you happen to remember the name of the minor moon goddess for whom Mohamet named the religion he founded? I thought it was al al'lah, but again, it may be jumbled in my memory circuits.
Interesting plagiarism by the way.
But it is interesting, again, that you have segued from the teachings of Jesus and of Hinduism being similar, to a series of parallels between Jesus and Krishna. These are not the same thing.
But, since you want to play, let's go through the points.
Hindus believe that Krishna was the eighth "avatar" or incarnation of the god Vishnu - one of the Hindu deities in the Hindu trinity.
Christianity is quite clear (epistle to the Hebrews) that Jesus was incarnated once, and only once, to redeem mankind.
Whereas (say, abouthinduism.com) says Krishna loves re-runs: "In order to protect the righteousness and also to punish the wicked, I incarnate myself on this earth from time to time."
Vishnu is married to a goddess, and I don't mean Ann Coulter.
Jesus is the ONLY-begotten Son of God; but Krishna's mom had a number of other little gods & goddesses.
H'mmm, doesn't comport with Christianity.
Oh, yes, about the Trinity--Shiva is the destroyer; as Robert Oppenheimer reportedly said when he saw the nuclear test at Alagamordo, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
Hmm, doesn't comport with the Holy Spirit.
Some of these similarities are apocryphal which means their source comes from the extra-canonical scriptures of Hinduism.
Ah, apocryphal. Just as some of your earlier posts quoted apocryphal Christian-related texts...
(1) Krishna was miraculously conceived and born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") as a divine incarnation.
Hmm, Devaki's seems to have acted as a surrogate mother on a couple of occasions; and gave birth to an incarnation of the goddess Maya as well. And, oh, yes, Jesus was the firstborn. Krishna was the eighth. BZZZZT!
(2) He was born at a time when his family had to travel to pay the yearly tax.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, due to a to be counted for a census, in preparation for a one-time tax.
(3) His father was a carpenter yet Krishna was born of royal descent.
Of the House of David? I notice Krishna became a prince at the court of Mathura, after overthrowing his uncle. And he had a fairly large number of wives. Neither of these resembles Jesus. Why didn't you mention that?
(4) His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gifts.
What did the angels have to say about his birth? For that matter, was his birth foretold to his mother by an angel that he would save people from their sins?
(5) He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants who feared that the divine child would supplant his kingdom.
Was this prophesied beforehand?
The timeline in your points (6) and (7) contradict each other. In (6) you state the Sanskrit dictionary is "more than 2000 years ago" and you said it was writing of Krishna. In (7) you state Krishna was born hundreds of years after Jesus. Did you return my favor of a gratuitous timeline error? ;-)
(8) He was baptized in the River Ganges.
Not the Jordan? And when Jesus was baptized, you recall, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'
Did anything like this happen at the Ganges?
(9) The missions of Krishna and Jesus were the same - the salvation of humanity.
Hmm, Krisha fought against other gods/demons/what have you to save humanity from destruction; Jesus died and rose again to save humanity from their sins.
Skip down a bit, I've got to wrap up so that I can go exercise.
(16) There is an extra-canonical Hindu tradition which states that Krishna was crucified. According to some traditions, Krishna died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
Yup, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that these post-date Christianity by a good margin; and, as you note, they are extra-canonical tradition.
Whereas Jesus' crucifixion has been (as I said) CENTRAL to Christianity all along. Try reading up in the gospels on Gethsemane, you might find out that the crucifixion was part of the plan, not incidental.
And the Hindu sources say Krishna was shot by an arrow and his death had no redemptive value.
(17) He descended to hell, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended to heaven which was witnessed by many.
*Snerk*. You are conflating the Ascension and the Resurrection...Krishna's ascension was right after he got shot with the arrow, according to Wikipedia. No mention of the harrowing of hell, no mention of the disciples, no mention of "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit".
(18) Krishna is called the "shepherd god" and "lord of lords," and was considered "the redeemer, firstborn, sin bearer, liberator, universal Word."
Umm, firstborn when he was the 8th avatar; and 8th also of his parents. Why do I smell a troll here?
(19) He is the second person of the trinity, and proclaimed himself the "resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
BZZZZT! Called third strike--even "aboutHinduism.com" does not have this quote. Furthermore, there are many, many gods in Hinduism; not just one God. And the third person of the Trinity in Christianity is the Holy Spirit. NOT "the destroyer."
Again, what's the difference between a plum and an elephant? They're both purple, except for the elephant.
Try this site.
Do you often attempt to troll Christians like this?
Cheers!
Wow! Just wow. You've earned the right to pull on your whiskers.
My only interest in Jesus lies in what *he* had to say about this world and why he descended into this mess the ignorant call reality.
Cheers!
He "showed up" to bear witness to truth. To give life and give it more abundantly.
Cheers!
Which is not physical nor of this world.
BZZZT!
Wrong again. Recall Jesus admonishment of Thomas to put his hands in the hole in Jesus' side, and Jesus eating fish--post resurrection.
Nice try, though.
Cheers!
Interesting plagiarism by the way.
Big deal. I had the text saved on by computer from where I posted it. BTW that text does not even belong to that site. Its taken from a book written by Kersey Graves in 1875.
Hindus believe that Krishna was the eighth "avatar" or incarnation of the god Vishnu - one of the Hindu deities in the Hindu trinity.
Christianity is quite clear (epistle to the Hebrews) that Jesus was incarnated once, and only once, to redeem mankind.
Whereas (say, abouthinduism.com) says Krishna loves re-runs: "In order to protect the righteousness and also to punish the wicked, I incarnate myself on this earth from time to time."
Vishnu is married to a goddess, and I don't mean Ann Coulter.
Jesus is the ONLY-begotten Son of God; but Krishna's mom had a number of other little gods & goddesses.
Hmmm neat. BTW go back and read post # 15 by Junior. He said "Many of Jesus' teachings have an uncanny resemblance to various Eastern philosophies." Nobody claimed the Christianity and Hinduism are exactly the same. You are stressing on point that differentiates the two. When a father passes on his genes to his son its never an exact match but the similarity on a large number of genetic strands establishes the case of paternity. Similarly there is very striking core resemblance that binds Christianity and Hinduism.
You said Krishna's mom had a number of little gods & goddesses? How do you know? Can you name any of them?
Oh, yes, about the Trinity--Shiva is the destroyer; as Robert Oppenheimer reportedly said when he saw the nuclear test at Alagamordo, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
Huh??!! Shiva??!! Now where did you get this piece of trip from? The quote "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." (although deliberately and wrongly quoted that too out of context by Oppenheimer) actually comes from Krishna during a conversation with Arjun before the war, in Bhagwat Gita.
Some of these similarities are apocryphal which means their source comes from the extra-canonical scriptures of Hinduism.
Extra-canonical? Exactly what part do you consider as apocryphal and which "scriptures" according to you is "extra-canonical "? Can you explain? Lets hear it.
Ah, apocryphal. Just as some of your earlier posts quoted apocryphal Christian-related texts...
Explain.
Hmm, Devaki's seems to have acted as a surrogate mother on a couple of occasions; and gave birth to an incarnation of the goddess Maya as well. And, oh, yes, Jesus was the firstborn. Krishna was the eighth. BZZZZT!
Couple of occasions? What "couple of occasions"? Hey buddy why dont you do some more in depth reading of Hindu mythology before you pass on your wise cracks. Krishna was transferred to the womb of Yashoda (who ultimately gave birth to Krishna). Devaki was a virgin and Krishna was her virgin child. It was prophesied that Devki and Vasudeva's child will kill Kans. So Kans imprisoned them in seperate cells to avoid sexual contact. Devaki did not give birth to Krishna but gave birth to Yoganidra who was immediately killed by Kans.
Just like Herod tried to kill infant Jesus, Kans tried to kill infant Krishna.
BTW "seems to have" = Conjecturing.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, due to a to be counted for a census, in preparation for a one-time tax.
What is important is the reference to "tax".
Of the House of David? I notice Krishna became a prince at the court of Mathura, after overthrowing his uncle. And he had a fairly large number of wives. Neither of these resembles Jesus. Why didn't you mention that?
Mention what? The point is Krishna was of Royal descent (an Aryaput) just like Jesus. (Even though Krishna was always referred to as the son of a cowherd.)
What did the angels have to say about his birth? For that matter, was his birth foretold to his mother by an angel that he would save people from their sins?
It was foretold that Devaki would bear a child who would be the incarnate of God himself, Krishna's birth would bring a end to evil and suffering of mankind.
(5) He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants who feared that the divine child would supplant his kingdom.
Was this prophesied beforehand?
What do you think a prophesy means?
The timeline in your points (6) and (7) contradict each other. In (6) you state the Sanskrit dictionary is "more than 2000 years ago" and you said it was writing of Krishna. In (7) you state Krishna was born hundreds of years after Jesus. Did you return my favor of a gratuitous timeline error? ;-)
Sorry no such luck. I quoted Sir William Jones as is. Different sources have differing claims on the accurate time of Krishna's existence but they all agree on one thing, Krishna predates Jesus by thousands of years.One Vedic astrological calculation puts the date somewhere around 3500BC.
(8) He was baptized in the River Ganges.
Not the Jordan? And when Jesus was baptized, you recall, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'
Did anything like this happen at the Ganges?
Underline baptized in the River. I am wondering if you are asking for an exact Chinese dubbed version of a Hollywood sequel without any editing of the dialogs. Jeez!
Hmm, Krisha fought against other gods/demons/what have you to save humanity from destruction; Jesus died and rose again to save humanity from their sins.
Krishna fought and defeated evil (not "gods/demons/what have you") just like Jesus fought and defeated Satan.Christ in the war in heaven, pursues Satan down to hell (also called "harrowing of hell'') and destroys him.
Skip down a bit, I've got to wrap up so that I can go exercise.
(16) There is an extra-canonical Hindu tradition which states that Krishna was crucified. According to some traditions, Krishna died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
Yup, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that these post-date Christianity by a good margin; and, as you note, they are extra-canonical tradition.
Dont bet anything more. What exactly is "extra-canonical" that you talk of?
That "extra-canonical" label is hurled by all the self acclaimed (Christian) British "Indologists". Who decides what is "canonical" and what isnt? In the state of Maharashtra where I live we have temples of Vittoba (Vitthal) which are far older than Christianity. The striking thing about Vittoba is that the idol has nails crucified at the hands and feet. Vittoba/Balaji temples are found in Maharashtra and the south and according to locals here Vittoba/Balaji are both avatars of Krishna. In Maharashtra and the south all of the oldest temples (all of which predates Christianity by several hundreds of years)
BTW you might find it interesting to note, entire Hinduism is extra-canonical, nobody has any central authority or sticks to any one single version.
Whereas Jesus' crucifixion has been (as I said) CENTRAL to Christianity all along. Try reading up in the gospels on Gethsemane, you might find out that the crucifixion was part of the plan, not incidental.
And the Hindu sources say Krishna was shot by an arrow and his death had no redemptive value.
Hindu sources also says that Krishna was strung up and nailed on to a tree..............very similar to crucifiction.
(17) He descended to hell, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended to heaven which was witnessed by many.
*Snerk*. You are conflating the Ascension and the Resurrection...Krishna's ascension was right after he got shot with the arrow, according to Wikipedia.
LOL! Wikipedia is an open source where any nobody is allowed to contribute his/her version. BTW Hinduism itself has many different versions that varies from region to region and not one of them is sourced from wikipedia. It own no liability for the accuracy of the content. It can be written by anybody and retracted anytime.
Umm, firstborn when he was the 8th avatar; and 8th also of his parents. Why do I smell a troll here?
Troll ? Tell that to Kersey Graves. Of the earlier 8 conceived, none survived. And so Krishna is the first and the only one born.
(19) He is the second person of the trinity, and proclaimed himself the "resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
BZZZZT! Called third strike--even "aboutHinduism.com" does not have this quote. Furthermore, there are many, many gods in Hinduism; not just one God. And the third person of the Trinity in Christianity is the Holy Spirit. NOT "the destroyer."
LOL!. You are off by miles here dude. As I said try to do some indepth reading on Hinduism. Just because some quote on Krishna is not mentioned on some site "aboutHinduism.com" doesn't mean it does not exist. Clue: Try Bhagwat Gita. In Bhagwat Gita (the the greatest book on Hinduism) Krishna mentions that there is one and only one supreme God Head and all path to God goes through Krishna. Sounds similar?
BTW Hinduism has a billion Gods but the Trinity (the Supreme of them all) comprises of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The order isn't important.
Again, what's the difference between a plum and an elephant? They're both purple, except for the elephant.
More like a big elephant and a small elephant. Just because color of the two elephants vary a little (a tinge or two) doesn't mean they arnt the same animals. Read the poem "The Six blind men of Hindoostan" by Rudyard Kipling? Its the big picture thats more important.
Do you often attempt to troll Christians like this?
Jeez you get baited by a little inter-religious discussion? LOL. What kind of a niggle are you?
BTW here are some more similarities for you to ponder on :
Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea;
Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Check post #90, #91, #92
BTW the Vaishnavs are a very small sect in India mostly from Bengal, Assam and Manipur. They are purely devotees of Krishna and they dont quite worship the Trinity. The Vaishnavs didnt replace anything.
The Vedic Hinduism (Indra, Varuna, Agni etc) that you talk off existed at the time of the aryan settlement in northern India. The concept of Trinity existed even in the Indus valley civilisation.
BTW the Vaishnavs are a very small sect in India mostly from Bengal, Assam and Manipur. They are purely devotees of Krishna and they dont quite worship the Trinity. The Vaishnavs didnt replace anything.
The Vedic Hinduism (Indra, Varuna, Agni etc) that you talk off existed at the time of the aryan settlement in northern India. The concept of Trinity existed even in the Indus valley civilisation.
Cheers!
I pity you. Grow up.
Check your hearing, then.
[much writing deleted]
It occurred to me in the light of one of your previous posts, where you mentioned Christian missionaries to India, that a lot of the similarities you quote could well be the result of plagiarism of Christianity by Hinduism.
In particular, you cite neither chapter nor verse, so to speak, for these claims; you do not give the approximate age of the writings in which these specific claims appear; and you engaged in no literary analysis or exegesis, in an attempt to date the quotes.
...and if your earlier assertion is correct (I *think* it was yours), there is no central committee or council charged with deciding canonicity of any Hindu texts, or enforcing doctrine, it then makes it even more interesting to find these claims made in a vacuum. How is one to *define* standard vs. heretical Hindu belief; and without such a definition, what *are* the safeguards against theological drift, expropriation, and "outsourcing" of elements of other faiths?
Although, to be fair, I have Googled a couple of these claims and found them scattered among various Hindu and atheist sites.
With that in mind, it'd be fun to ask the atheists to apply the heavily critical literary techniques which they use to attack the Bible, to apply these same principles to undermine the claims of Hinduism. However, I've never personally run into any atheists who had the slightest interest in doing so...so 'your mileage may vary'.
Cheers!
Careful calling on the Moose-limbs, there. Seems to me there's been a LOT of sectarian violence between the Islamic folks and the Hindu chaps in India.
This contributes to the impression that you are a troll.
You spent a good deal of time building up the impression that Hinduism is based on a trinity. "See, we're just like the Christians."
Then in this post, you quote the Mohommedeans to refute the Christian Trinity, without even noticing your prior claims of the Hindu faith...
It begins to appear that you are choosing any stick at all with which to attack Christianity.
For me his teachings are more important the the imagery of Death and Resurrection.
Which again, gives away the whole game. For Christians, the Death and Resurrection are the ENTIRE POINT of Jesus' birth. And as I pointed out explicitly, quoting chapter and verse, they are and were regarded as explicit, literal, physical, historical events.
But you persist in calling it "imagery"--to the point that you claim Jesus died and was buried in India, and then say "Christianity and Hinduism are similar."
But if (as you assert) Jesus died in India, you aren't really talking about Christianity any more.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.