India: New Interest In 'Jesus Grave' In Kashmir

To: grey_whiskers

LOL! "See, we're just like the Christians."

That's what you got from GK's post?? You are really deaf.

Hindus aren't anything like Christians. The religions do have similiarities, but the respective practioners are like night and day.

Gandhi paraphrased: I like your Jesus but not your Christians. He is so unlike your Christians.

101 posted on 06/15/2006 1:24:14 PM PDT by ARridgerunner

To: grey_whiskers

[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.

could well be == Speculation,

Have any hard evidence to suggest if thats exactly the case and not the other way round? Almost all writers I have read so far have suggested that Christianity was influenced by Hinduism. If you have any evidence of your own, lets hear it.

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.

The quotes I posted came from a book "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" written by Kersey Graves in 1875. He has provided ample proof in it. I am merely stating it on his authority, and from my knowledge I find it pretty convincing. You wish to refute such claims the onus is on you to provide the evidence to disprove it (which you haven't done unfortunately). The quotes of Krishna come from non other than Bhagwat Gita which were written some time between 5th - 7th century BC . Your own attempts at rebuttals are just nothing more then mere specultlation/conjecturing (and totally illogical at that).

You make your claims based on third party reviews of books which hardly makes any case at all. Go read the books first. Go Read the Bhagwat Gita. Then provide your explanations and the evidences.

...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.

Here is news for you again. It happens with every religion. Tell me the Muslims have their Quran and their Hadith and their religion is only a few hundred years years old. They go to great lengths so as not to allow for any variation in their religious texts and yet the Sunnis, Shias and Ahmediyas accuse each other of heresy in the way they interpret the text.

Even the Bible first consisted of the old testament from which the New testament was written. You think having one single "standard" version of the Bible will do away with all the heretical beliefs? Think again. The Catholics, Protestants, Baptists and Orthodox regularly accuse each other of heresy.

You have to really understand Hinduism rather than blindly drawing conclusions. The Vedas and Upnishads were written at a time when paper hadn't been invented. It used to be written down on leaves but mostly the text survived because the contents were transfered from generation to generation by rote. Later on it was translated to many different languages. The Vedas were like an open book without begining of end. Nobody owned it. The Bhagwat Gita however is direct revelation from God. It was Gods own words. There could be differeing accounts in Mahbharata and Ramayana (even Indonesians have their own version of the great epics of Mahbharata and Ramayana). Not in Bhagwat Gita. Its a poem is sung exactly the same way it was meant when first written, no changes in the rhythm or iambic meter. No changes are possible in its structure.

As for the epics themselves slightly differing accounts does not constitute heresy in Hinduism. It is acceptable as long as the core essence of the teaching is maintained. But the point is that any of those differing accounts very much predates Christianity by a good thousand years.

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'.

I am sorry if you think of it as an attack on the Bible. That is not my intention. I am providing citations that suggest a possible link between the two. To me the similarities definitely does not seem to be mere coincidence.

102 posted on 06/15/2006 2:41:30 PM PDT by Gengis Khan

To: grey_whiskers

And I am no athiest just a Hindu.

103 posted on 06/15/2006 3:02:30 PM PDT by Gengis Khan

To: grey_whiskers

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.

Tell me about it.

This contributes to the impression that you are a troll.

You think that bothers me? (Yawwwwn)

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."

That would be a waste of time..... really.

The Trinity of Hinduism i.e Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva is a Trinity although not the same as Father of Heave, Holy Spirit and JesusChrist. And anyway Hinduism is far older than Christianity.

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.

Funny how you get baited by a slight academic observation on Islamic religion. The internet should be such a dangerous place for you no? With all the Muslim trolls lurking around? Sheesh!

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.

(For me if his life and his teachings/message comes secondary to the idea of his "Death and Ressurection" then his life serves no purose at all.) You have your opinion. I have mine. Lets agree to disagree.

104 posted on 06/15/2006 3:07:06 PM PDT by Gengis Khan

Al'mat? Though it's most likely Baal or something that the madman Mo used as the prototype to cover up his satanic cult

105 posted on 06/15/2006 5:49:25 PM PDT by Cronos (Remember 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia! Sola Scriptura leads to solo scriptura.)

Just Krishna and Mahabharata predates the birth of Christ. Different sources put the dates anywhere between 1200BC to 3800 BC. The events of Ramayana happened before Mahabharata.

Agreed, but I disagree with your statement that the concept of the Hindu trinity pre-dates Christ. There is no real proof of that. Krishna can't be one member of the Trinity - unless as an incarnation of Vishnu, but then Rama and Narasimha and others are also incarnations of Vishnu. Most Hindu beliefs do not mention any trinity until the versions of the Ramayana in the past two thousand years. The Gods ARE mentioned, but not as some trinity.

Actually what you are talking about is Shankaracharya's modern day brahminical Hindu revivalism at a time when Hinduism was jostling for space with Buddhism.

Let me read up on that.

106 posted on 06/15/2006 5:55:43 PM PDT by Cronos (Remember 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia! Sola Scriptura leads to solo scriptura.)

107 posted on 06/15/2006 5:55:52 PM PDT by Cronos (Remember 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia! Sola Scriptura leads to solo scriptura.)

could well be == Speculation,

Exactly. I did that to illustrate how merely making your assertions, without even quoting the Hindu texts to support them, could be turned around easily.

Your response amounts to "Kersey said it, I believe it, that settles it."

BZZZZT. By that logic, I could cite Mein Kampf and say that the onus is on YOU to disprove it. Kersey makes the claim, Kersey has to substantiate it.

Further, you have not commented on where I have quoted from Hindu websites, showing significant *differences*--differences which even nominal Christians would sit up and take notice at. (E.g. Jesus' virgin birth vs. K's being the eighth child--even if the others were stillborn or whatnot; Jesus being the only begotten Son of God vs. K' being one of a number of gods / goddesses; K.'s leading a palace revolt against his Uncle vs. Jesus "My Kingdom is not of this World."; Krishna getting *MARRIED*...)

Almost all writers I have read so far have suggested that Christianity was influenced by Hinduism. If you have any evidence of your own, lets hear it.

You apparently have a misunderstanding of the "null hypothesis."

The standard, widely accepted position is that Judaism/Christianity are distinct from Hinduism.

If you wish to claim that Hinduism is the *real* source of Christianity, it is up to you to bolster that claim.

BTW, you'll have to try harder if you want to convince anyone that Hinduism influenced the JEWS to come up with Christianity--Jesus was Jewish, remember? Of the tribe of David, and all that...
"Hear Oh Israel, The Lord our God, The Lord is ONE." Jesus almost got stoned for claiming to be God...and the Jews regularly got in trouble with all their neighbors for their devotion to ONE God; and insisting that their ONE God was different from any other gods around. The quotes of Krishna come from non other than Bhagwat Gita which were written some time between 5th - 7th century BC .

What quotes of Krishna? The earlier post you had a bunch of alleged similarities between the lives of Jesus and K or claims made about them by others...taken from Graves...not direct quotes from K. So saying "the quotes from Krishna come from the 5th-7th centrury BC" in the way you did, seems like a non-sequitur.

Your own attempts at rebuttals are just nothing more then mere specultlation/conjecturing (and totally illogical at that).

What is "specultlation/conjecturing" about directly quoting Wikipedia.com (for example) to state that K. was killed by an arrow and not crucified? To find from pro-Hindu sites that K. was the eighth incarnation? These are MAJOR differences from the Christian creeds. If you have chapter and vers from the Gita which states that crucifixion occurred, let me know. It would also help if you had historical evidence that crucifixion was a known and practiced form of execution within the Indian subcontinent during that time frame...

Yes, that's right. But on the other hand, the monotheistic creeds are much more careful about differentiating between canonical material and mere accretions; which was exactly my point. If anything ever written or suggested (whether on purpose, by confusion, or design) about Krisha becomes part of the "Hindu teachings" about him, and you're not particularly careful about the *dates* at which material is written, but lump it all together, pretty soon you have Krishna being the influence behind the IRS and Roswell New Mexico as well.

Even the artist Michaelangelo was fooled by an ambiguity in the translations of the Old Testament to the point that he carved *horns* on a statue of Moses; but neither the Jews nor Christians are, shall we say, "Enterprising" enough to claim that this shows Judaism was really the inspiration behind Pan.

You think having one single "standard" version of the Bible will do away with all the heretical beliefs? Think again. The Catholics, Protestants, Baptists and Orthodox regularly accuse each other of heresy.

Nice attempt at a straw-man there. The issue is not heresy but plagiarism.

Its a poem is sung exactly the same way it was meant when first written, no changes in the rhythm or iambic meter. No changes are possible in its structure.

Try reading updated versions of The Canterbury Tales and you will find it is quite possible to preserve meter while changing the words--and even updating idiom over hundreds of years. Do you actually claim to have consistent, unimpeachable guarantees of the "chain of custody" during a time of oral transmission? By *definition* you can only have the *assertions* that the oral story did not change, there is NO control group or fixed standard.

The question is whether or not the tales of K. being crucified (for example) are really among the core accounts; and have been considered as part of the core accounts all along.

You have consistently ducked and dodged that question, instead relying on one *commentary* written by a WESTERNER in the 1800's: even after being asked, explicitly, several times, to provide the specific verses in the Gita and other ancient texts, together with some idea of the date they were written.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that I found many of your points listed on atheist websites, apparently under the impression that they were good to attack Christianity with.

The ironic part is, many of the tchniques used by the atheists to attack Christianity, particularly the Bible, would be quite applicable to Hindu writings as well. I just found it curious that they abandoned their skepticism about 'ancient religious texts' when they found one around which they thought they could beat the Christians up with...

Cheers!

108 posted on 06/15/2006 8:26:45 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

To: grey_whiskers

I doubt you realize that you are making contradictory statements.

Lets examine some of them. First you cite points of differences between Jesus and Krishna to suggest that there could be no similarities between the two. (I never claimed there weren't any differences but they also have a large number of similarities which IMO cannot be mere coincidence.)

But then in your next comment you say.................

"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. "

Which is suggestive of the fact that you yourself admit to the possible link between the two (although you would be more comfortable with the idea that it is Christianity that influenced Hinduism). Regardless of which religion influenced which, you do actually see the link.

And then you are coming back in circles, to the points of differences (which aren't many btw) to argue again that the two are different.

"Further, you have not commented on where I have quoted from Hindu websites, showing significant *differences*--differences which even nominal Christians would sit up and take notice at. (E.g. Jesus' virgin birth vs. K's being the eighth child--even if the others were stillborn or whatnot; Jesus being the only begotten Son of God vs. K' being one of a number of gods / goddesses; K.'s leading a palace revolt against his Uncle vs. Jesus "My Kingdom is not of this World."; Krishna getting *MARRIED*...) "

Your posts suggests you are in denial mode unable (or unwilling) to make an objective assessment of there being a possibility of a link. Your stand is confusing. What exactly are you arguing? That there is no similarities between the two? Or that you accept that there is similarities but it is the result of Christianity influencing Hinduism? Can you first make your stand clearer?

You cant argue both sides. That is "Firstly there is absolutely no link between Christ and Krishna!" "but if there is any link between the two then it must be the result of Christianity influencing Hinduism." This is how it sounds.

BZZZZT. By that logic, I could cite Mein Kampf and say that the onus is on YOU to disprove it. Kersey makes the claim, Kersey has to substantiate it.

If Kersey Graves (or for that matter anyone else even Hitler) writes a book, makes tall claims, provides the flimsiest of evidence to back it up, and if thats happens to be good enough for me (since I am the sole judge of whatever I should believe) then why should I demand or provide any proof for what is my belief? Such a demand sounds absurd doesn't it?

You have a problem with the claims made by him or other such authors. Then the onus is on you (I repeat on you) to provide the necessary proof to counter those claims. And yes by that logic you can cite Mein Kampf (if you so believe in it) as your source (and thats what "source" means) and if I disagree with it I should be giving the reasons why (along with the evidences).

In any case you will first have to read Kersey Graves to see if he has indeed substantiated or not. At present its like you dont want to read his book but want Kersey Graves to come out of his grave to provide you with the evidence.

And anyways the authors themselves have provided plenty of evidenced if only you care to read their books. Those authors have traveled to different places around the world, came to India, gathered the necessary evidences for their theory and placed them in front of their readers rather than sitting on their arse making conjectures and blindly rubbishing any alternative opinion without even the hint of evidence.

109 posted on 06/16/2006 8:32:17 AM PDT by Gengis Khan

To: grey_whiskers

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that I found many of your points listed on atheist websites, apparently under the impression that they were good to attack Christianity with.

The ironic part is, many of the tchniques used by the atheists to attack Christianity, particularly the Bible, would be quite applicable to Hindu writings as well. I just found it curious that they abandoned their skepticism about 'ancient religious texts' when they found one around which they thought they could beat the Christians up with...

Those citations appear on any number of sites, Hindu, Christian or athiests. They dont belong to the athiest sites (rather belong to the authors I have already mentioned). Those quotations can be used by any number of political/religious interest groups to serve their agenda. The spat between conservative Christians and athiests are an altogether a seperate issue (perhaps more political then religious). And I am not really aware of who exactly has "abandoned" what stand in the light of whatever they have just found out. I am not part of their argument.

110 posted on 06/16/2006 8:55:32 AM PDT by Gengis Khan

I doubt you realize that you are making contradictory statements.

No, I'm not. First you cite points of differences between Jesus and Krishna to suggest that there could be no similarities between the two.

You are attempting to get to swerve away from this into an "admission" of similarities. My point is that the differences are large enough, and the cultural history and beliefs different enough, that it is absurd to say that Jesus (a Jew in an occupied Jewish state) was influenced by Hindu beliefs.

"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. "

Yes, I even use the words 'similarities YOU QUOTE' to indicate that I only accepted them as conjectural at that point. And I notice you left out my next couple of sentences, in which I explicitly did this as a rhetorical technique to point out that you had not cited any Hindu writings directly in support of what Graves called similarities.

Somehow you quote mined this to make it appear I was contradicting myself. Do be more careful in the future. :-)

Regardless of which religion influenced which, you do actually see the link.

No, I acknowledge that you quoted Graves, who asserted a link.

Since I like firsthand material where possible, I asked you (again) for the Hindu writings in which the similarities appeared, together with material reliably dating those writings as pre-Christian, and something to assure that the interpretation of the writings as "similar to Christianity" was contemporary with the writings, and not tacked on later.

It is a simple question, why do you continually decline to provide the information? I wasn't asking Graves to answer, but you.

I have made my stand quite clear.

1) You have ignored the absolute rigidity of the Hebrews regarding monotheism: rendering it unlikely that any Jewish teacher would be swayed by or adopt a polytheistic creed; still less that he would get away with promulgating these doctrines to a Jewish audience. This argues against even the possibility of the cross-pollination of ideas which Graves claims.

2) You have not provided quotes from the Hindu writings, (and that from writings known to predate Christianity), of the parallels between Hinduism and Christianity. You have consistently either ducked the question, or claimed "It's all in Graves." Why do you decline to cut-and-paste the evidence for his claims?

3) You have not provided historical evidence that crucifixion was known and practiced during the Indian subcontinent during the time of the life of K. And you ignore quotes from a number of sites that state K. was killed by an arrow and ascended to heaven immediately thereafter. This contradicts the "crucifixion" as well as the Resurrection and the Ascension of Jesus, which are quite different in history and tone.

4) You have ignored clear and explicit listings of differences between the life of Jesus and of K. -- and Jesus death, and His resurrection. They are different enough that even were the cultural barriers to Judaism borrowing from Hinduism overcome, the specifics are all messed up. And you consistently decline to provide any solid evidence for the claims made by Graves...

5) You have denied the central role that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus play in Christianity. The entire bent and role of Christianity and Hinduism are quite different.

You are free to believe what you will; but going back a number of posts, you were trying to persuade me. Calling me contradictory, illogical, and in denial are wonderful forms of ad hominem but they do not possess evidentiary value.

At present its like you dont want to read his book but want Kersey Graves to come out of his grave to provide you with the evidence.

I never heard of Kersey, and I'm not asking him. I'm asking you again--what is so difficult about cut-and-paste?

Those authors have traveled to different places around the world, came to India, gathered the necessary evidences for their theory and placed them in front of their readers

In other words, they decided on their idea *first* and then scurried around trying to substantiate it. And you mention "authors"--do you have any "native Hindu" authors (from say, 1000-1500 years ago) who *back then* made the claim that Christianity was inspired by Hinduism, based upon their current understanding of the Hindu writings? Rather than, say, a Westerner who travelled to India in order to try to find evidence for an idea he came up with on his own...?

Cheers!

111 posted on 06/16/2006 5:17:43 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

To: grey_whiskers

You say "differences are large enough" but you haven't cited a large number differences. Secondly you have no explaination for the large number of similarities (which are approximately around 350 in all according to Kersey Graves and also Godfrey Higgin's Anacalypsis ) but your only defense has been to stress on the few instances of "technical" differences. Which is a very ineffectual defense. My point was there is resemblence between the life and the legends of the Christ and Krish-na (even the names are similar). I mentioned time and again that their accounts are similar (not same). I am not saying there are no differences. Differences are inevitable but the similarities are intriguely far too many be mere coincidence. Just saying there are differences is no good. How do you explain the large number of similarities? Even straight forward plagiarized work of writings can be easily mixed with redundancies and deliberated difference to create something that looks like genuinely original work. Just saying "hey look there are differences" does not explain the other areas where there is clear evidences of similarities. Care to explain something about the similarities?

You probably also know this for fact that Christianity is well aware of the fact that many of its accounts have stark resemblence from many "pagan" cultures from before. Christian Church explains it as "Satanic deceptions, foreknowledge and duplication". You probably also know that many original Gospels have been deemed heretical and were burnt and purged away. The reason why they were called as heretical was because of the distinct pagan origins of those Gospels.

You have ignored the absolute rigidity of the Hebrews regarding monotheism: rendering it unlikely that any Jewish teacher would be swayed by or adopt a polytheistic creed; still less that he would get away with promulgating these doctrines to a Jewish audience. This argues against even the possibility of the cross-pollination of ideas which Graves claims.

The Jews are no doubt monotheists. But if Christianity as you say has Jewish origin and Judaism is monotheistic then how do you explain the concept of Trinity? Jews dont have the concept of Trinity. The Trinity is essentially a polyethiestic concept. Most scholars on Christian history agree to the facts that the concept of Trinity comes from "pagan" culture and most probably Hinduism.

"The concept of a soul that is distinguishable from the body and can exist independently of it is alien to Judaism. It is first known in Hinduism. Only after the Babylonian captivity did any such concept arise among the Jews, and it is in the epistles of Paul, the "debtor to both the Greeks and the Barbarians," that the notion receives its first clear expression. (See 2 Corinthians 5:8 and 12:3 .)"

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3hare94.html

In fact to continue on this point further. According to Stephan Van Eck:

"Objective and open-minded scholars long ago conceded that Christianity is at heart a revamped form of Judaism. In the process of its development as something distinct from its mother religion, it became hybridized with so much pagan influence that it ultimately alienated its original Jewish base and became predominantly Gentile. The source of this pagan influence is varied and vague in the minds of most advanced Bible critics, but it may owe more to Hinduism than most people suspect. "

"It is in the doctrine of the Trinity that the Hindu influence may be most clearly felt. Unknown to most Christians, Hinduism has a Trinity (or Trimurti) too: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, who have the appellations the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer (and Regenerator). This corresponds to the Christian Trinity in which God created the heavens and the earth, Jesus saves, and the Holy Spirit is referred to as a regenerator (Titus 3:5 ). It is interesting to note, furthermore, that the Holy Spirit is sometimes depicted as a dove, while the Hebrew language uses the same term for both "dove" and "destroyer"!

The Trinity was a major stumblingblock for the Jews, who adhered to strict monotheism. The inherent polytheism in the Trinity doctrine cannot be explained away with the nonsensical claim that three is one and one is three."

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3hare94.html

And I notice you left out my next couple of sentences, in which I explicitly did this as a rhetorical technique to point out that you had not cited any Hindu writings directly in support of what Graves called similarities.

Most of your ripost is nothing more then of rhetorical value replete with needless theatrics. So lets cut the BS, here are some quotation that link Christianity to Hinduism.

"I am the beginning, the middle, and the end"

From BG: http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/gita.htm

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gita/bg10.htm

http://www.gita4free.com/english_completegita10.html

"I am ^(A)the Alpha and the Omega," says the ^(B)Lord God, "^(C)who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 1:8

"the kingdom of God"

From BG:http://www.asitis.com/2/72.html

http://vedabase.net/bg/2/72/en

""stumbling blocks along the way "

From BG:http://www.asitis.com/3/34.html

http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/gita/chapter3.html

http://vedabase.net/bg/3/34/en

http://oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk5.html

"23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,"

1 Cor. 1:23

"Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead."

From BG:http://www.asitis.com/2/11.html

http://oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk5.html

But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

Matt 8:22

"I envy none, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all."

From BG: http://oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk5.html

is a lot like the idea that "God is no respecter of persons" (Rom. 2:11 ; see also Matt. 6:45 ).

"One who is equal to friends and enemies ......is very dear to me"

From BG: http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/gita/chapter12.html

http://www.asitis.com/12/18-19.html

http://vedabase.net/bg/12/18-19/en

"love your enemies"

Matt. 6:44

"by human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day"

http://asitis.com/8/17.html

http://oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk5.html

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

(2 Peter 3:8)

Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity

Chapter 7 of BG describes Krishna as Saviour:

http://www.srivaishnava.20m.com/gita/gist.htm

http://www.ramakrishna.org/bhagavad_gita.htm

this soul of mine within the heart is smaller thena grain of rice, or a barley-corn, or a mustard-seed , or a grain of millet, or the kernel of a grain of millet.This Soul of mine is greater than the earth, greater than the atmosphere, greater than the sky, greater than these worlds.

Chandogya 3.14.2-3

http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/upanish.htm

20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."^[a]

Matthew 17:20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"How, if thou hearest that the man new-dead
Is, like the man new-born, still living man --
One same, existent Spirit -- wilt thou weep?
The end of birth is death; the end of death
Is birth: this is ordained! and mournest thou,"

From BG Chapter 2: http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/bhaggita.htm

Everything that is born is sure to die. Similarly everything that dies is sure to be born again. So what for should one grieve? Whatever happens before birth is a mystery, whatever happens after the death is a mystery. Only for a short while after birth and before death, that the soul takes a body, it is very transient. Why to grieve for what is temporary? Soul can never die. Do not grieve for it."

http://www.urday.in/mbhagwad.htm

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit^[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You^[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

John 3:3-8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most importantly read this:

"Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us."

Ecclesiastes 1:10

"Seated cross-legged in the forest, he was wounded in his single vulnerable place, his left heel, by an arrow shot by the hunter Jarâ (which means "cold" or "old age"), who had mistaken Krishna for a deer. Krishna pronounced his forgiveness of Jarâ, saying he "knew not what he did," and sent him to heaven in his own chariot before he died himself."

http://www.hermetic.com/sabazius/krishna.htm

Here is an exegesis of the concept of Virgin Birth as defined by Christinity and its repeated referances in other cultures including Hinduism (and birth of Krishna, Karna & Buddha). All three of those legend originates in India prior to Christianity. Also note that the concept of Virgin birth is non existant in Judiasm which is supposed to be the predecessor of Christianity. The exact accounts of virgin births differ from culture to culture but you can be sure that Christians did not get the concept from Jews. Then most probably they got it from Hindus.

http://www.athmaprakashini.com/virginbirth.htm

112 posted on 06/17/2006 10:54:05 AM PDT by Gengis Khan

"Actually Mithra is older than Krishna -- he's an Aryanic god mentioned in the Vedas and the Avestan."

You are wrong again as with most things.
Mithras (the Persian God) has been dated at 600 BCE while estimates of Krishna's birth vary. Some of them are 1477, 3112, 3600, 5150, and 5771 BCE.
See comparison:
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html

Here too Mithras is dated at 70 BCE. http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/PaganChrists.html#mithras

The concept of Mithras has been taken from Krishna.

Again you have confused yourself some other issue.
What you are talking about is the Aryan God Mitra, the surveyor (not Mithras) as mentioned in Rigvedas.

Rigveda, Book 1, Hymn 164, and Verse 46:
"God is one; sages call Him by many names. They have styled Him Indra [the resplendent], Mitra [the surveyor], Varuna [the venerable], AgniGarutmat [the great], for learned priests call one by many names as they speak of the adorable as Yama [ordainer] and Matarisvan [cosmic breath]."

113 posted on 06/17/2006 12:13:21 PM PDT by Gengis Khan

Why did you take so long to post any actual context?

At least you actually bothered to give some links; now I will have to do your homework for you and see how reliable they are, when and where they date from, etc.

This will take some time--and I will be on vacation for a couple of weeks to boot.

Cheers!

114 posted on 06/17/2006 12:34:48 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

To: Cronos; grey_whiskers

Here is an article on the pagan vedic God Mithra with links to Chrisianity written by the famous author Acharya S:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
(Lets not forget the Bibel was first written in Persia.)

Also here is an interesting article from Acharya S on "Virgin Birth" of Krishna:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/virgin.htm

And an article on curcufiction of Krishna by the same author:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm

And one on origins of Christianity:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm#foot60

115 posted on 06/17/2006 1:14:12 PM PDT by Gengis Khan

BTW here are some more similarities for you to ponder on :

Take these one at a time.

Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God.

Wikipedia.com -- "Titles and names of Krisha"
Krishna Vaasudeva - son of Vasudeva
(Vasudeva is the father of Krishna, Balarama
and Subhadra. His wives are Rohini and Devaki.
How is this at ALL like God the Father?)
Yadunandan - Son of the Yadu dynasty (..hmm, no lion of Saki here)
Aditya - The Son Of Aditi (but according to Wikipedia, Aditi is another goddess.
Is K.'s mother Devaki or Aditi?
Or is this an honorary title?)
Devakinandan - Son Of Mother Devaki.
Nandgopala - The Son Of Nand

Oh, here are some more differences:
Chaturbhuj - Four-Armed Lord (WTF?)
Kamsantak - Slayer Of Kamsa
(According to this site "http://www.avatara.org/krishna/lila.html"
Kamsa was his uncle; so he killed his own blood relative. And
his brother Bayarama killed Kamsa's eight brothers. So much for
the claim to be meek, merciful, and forgive his enemies.)

Whereas Jesus said, "Which of you convicts me of sin?"
Compare this to K.'s cavorting with thousands of gopi...)

Oh, and by the way, the Hare Krishnas (John Lennon sucks) think Jesus is K.'s son. Oops.

Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.

Except that according to Hinduism, K. was incarnated multiple times
(http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/vishnu.htm says
"at times, the balance is destroyed and evil demons get the upper hand.
Often in response to a request by the other gods, Vishnu then incarnates
n a human form to set the balance right again.
9 Vishnu incarnations are generally recognized as Vishnu avatars" )
Jesus was only incarnated ONCE. And that is going to be the only time. (Hebrews 9:26)

And according to http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/india/glossary1.html,
Balarama is the brother of Krisha, and also an incarnation of Vishnu.

Jesus is God's ONLY-begotten Son.

According to numerous sites, including "http://www.exoticindiaart.com/product/HF08/"
and "http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_11a.html"
K. multiplied himself to dance with the (female, thankfully) calf-herds (no Brokeback Mountain, here!)

Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity

Totally different Trinity. In particular Jesus is God's only Son, and
K. has brothers: one of whom Balarama is ALSO an incarnation of Vishnu.
And the Holy Spirit is not "the destroyer".

Also, K. was incarnated not to save people from sin, (let alone
to do it by his death and resurrection), but something different,
to save the Earth from a war between demigods and demons.
See "http://www.avatara.org/krishna/lila.html" for more.

I know! The Hindus inspired J.R.R. Tolkein's The Silmarillion. /sarcasm.

A spirit or ghost was their actual father.

I have checked a number of sites and found
nothing to substantiate the idea that "a" spirit or ghost
was K.'s father.

For example : "http://www.avatara.org/krishna/lila.html"
Jesus is the Son of God the Father, not an incarnation of God the Father.
He was conceived by the Holy spirit (third person of the Trinity).

And, oh, by the way, Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb.

According to "http://www.crystalinks.com/avatars.html",
both K. and his brother were moved to Rohini's womb to protect them.

Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.

Not according to "http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/krishna.htm"
In this case, while fleeing from his uncle who sought to kill him,
he was shielded by a "the great eternal snake, Vasuki".
(So much for K.'s being the son of the virgin who bruised a serpent's head.)
Sorry, this bears NO resemblance to wise men and shepherds, or a star.
Oh, by the way, K. also held a mountain up above his head as a child.
Where did Jesus do that?

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.

No such place in the Bible. Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt and stayed for two years, then relocated to Nazareth.
Whoever your source is, they're WRONG.

In neiher case was it a local dictator--Herod was a local king under Roman authority.
Kamsa was K.'s own uncle, not a "local dictator"--K. was a member
of the royal household, and it was foretold that K. would kill Kamsa.
From the site "http://surrealist.org/gurukula/storymatters/krishna.html" :
"Kamsa enlisted a demon named Putana to kill newborn babies.
The demon dressed as a beautiful woman and flew on her broom
to Krishna's nursery, hoping to kill Him with the poison she
had smeared on her nipples. Krishna's mother innocently let
Putana pick the baby up and put it to her breast. Krishna
closed His eyes and sucked out her life air, killing her,
without taking her poison. When Putana's soul departed, her
body returned to its real form: a gigantic witch that smashed
trees as it fell, stretching twelve miles across the landscape.
Putana's soul attained liberation due to the benevolent act of
offering her breast milk to Krishna and the inhabitants of
Vrindavana cremated the body. "
Sounds somehow different from Jesus and Herod. I don't know WHY...

Oh well, at least it mentioned witches and broomsticks.

I know, maybe The Wizard of Oz is really a Hindu story.

And, oh, yes, K.'s uncle killed his mother's first six children, a little different than killing all the male children
two years old or younger in a town (Luke 2: 16 - 18).

(Another one which is rather complex...but compare "http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/18770/2387/2" to the Gospel in Luke.
After that, the idea that there are ANY significant similarities, that Jesus was 'derived' from Hinduism, are utterly without merit.)

Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.

Funny, according to this site, "http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html", it was Buddha, not K.
If you have chapter and verse from any Hindu texts...well, so far you haven't given any.

Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."

According to this site "http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html"
"Seed of the woman" is Zoroaster, not K.

And "bruising the serpent's head" isn't the same thing as being protected
by the eternal snake while a baby fleeing from your uncle.

Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."

All the other sources I have seen mention him s from the Yadava tribe,
and none call him the "lion" of that tribe.
So do you have any sources from ancient Hindu writings to substantiate this claim?

Other sources http://www.bartleby.com/65/kr/Krishna.html,
Krishna appears in the Mahabharata epic as a prince of the Yadava tribe and the
friend and counselor of the Pandava princes.
See this site: "http://www.webonautics.com/mythology/avataar_krishna.html"
Krishna was born in the Yadava clan, a brave and virile people.
See "http://www.indiantraveldestinations.com/states-of-india/gujarat.html"
"With the advent of the Yadava tribe led by Lord Krishna, some 3,500 years ago,
came the glorious days for Gujarat. It was followed by 100 years of Lord Krishna's rule."
Oh yes, Jesus said,"My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) and was crucified by the Romans
at the instigation of the Jewish leaders, ostensibly for revolting against Caesar (for examle John 19: 13-16).
(As Pilate said about the inscription on the cross "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews"--
"what I have written I have written" John 19:22).

Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."

That is according to this site: "http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html"
(which has a number of the claims from your earlier post).
But the hypertext link which purports to back this up,
"http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Feb_1/msg00059.html"
does not even contain the word resurrection.

Jesus said this in John 11:25.

Both were "without sin."

Yes, God is defined as sinless.
But the *approach* or cure for sin is quite different--in Christianity it
is the substitutionary death of Christ. In Hinduism it is by successive
incarnations in bodily form, so that the soul is purified.

See this site "http://hinduwebsite.com/reincarnation.htm": "According to Hinduism a soul reincarnates
again and again on earth till it becomes perfect and reunites with it Source.
During this process the soul enters into many bodies, assumes many forms and passes through many births and deaths.
This concept is summarily described in the following verse of the Bhagavad gita:

"Just as a man discards worn out clothes and puts on new clothes, the soul discards worn out bodies and wears new ones." (2.22)

According to Hinduism a being has to live many lives and under go many experiences before it attains perfection and becomes one with the Divine."

And Jesus said, "Which of you convicts me of sin" (John 8:46) whereas K. killed blood relatives and got it on with thousands of women.

Totally different from the substitutionary death of Jesus.

In addition, speaking of sin compare and contrast
"http://www.ishwar.com/hinduism/holy_bhagavad_gita/chapter03.html"
"The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food
which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal
sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin."
to the Bible's 1 Corinthians 10:27-30, which talks about refraining from eating meat offered for sacrifice--
not because meat is bad, as Hinduism seems to teach, but because it was offered for sacrifice to
pagan gods.

Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.

This says nothing whatsoever about whether one was borrowed from the other.

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."
This doesn't necessarily show that one is derived from the other--Jesus'
miracles include a number of specific claims, including the water into wine
at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11).
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Typically most claimants to divinity have this. BFD.
See "http://www.gitamrta.org/god.htm"
“Many, many births both you and I have passed. I can remember all of them, but you cannot!"
(Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 4.5)
QUite different from Jesus. And by the way, the Gospels are quite clear that Jesus during the incarnation had things unknown to Him
"The angels do not know, nor the Son, but only the Father..." (Mark 13:32)

Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles For example, Lord Krishna, raised from the dead, Parikshit, grandson of Arjuna, who was born stillborn. Jesus raised from the dead Lazarus, a friend of a friend; it is also recorded in the Gospels that those who plotted to kill Jesus wanted to kill Lazarus as well because of the scandal Lazarus' resurrection had caused. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.

Yep. Any teacher who has disciples is really the same person. /sarcasm.

Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.

Nope. No reference to this that I could find by Googling, except
on Kersey Graves anothology type sites.
Meekness and mercy .NE. killing your own uncle.

Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.

Where in the *world* did this come from? The term "gentile"
is a Jewish concept; furthermore, the woman at the well in
John 4 was Samarian, not strictly Gentile.
And BTW, speaking of encountering women,
according to this site: "http://artamerica.com/zuri/ud-pp.html"
This poem was inspired by the love between Krishna and Radha.
The Hindu story tells of a November evening when Krishna goes
to his favorite spot in a forest and begins to play his flute
under the full moon. His music is so hypnotic, 900,000 gopis
(milkmaidens) come to him. In the midst of these women,
Krishna looks up and spots Radha. Well, talk about a
one-in-a-million kind of woman, one look at her and his
clothes fall off, and he drops his flute!
In fact, he is so taken with Radha, he refused to let go of
her while he made love to the other 900,000.
To me, this is classic ET- lore.
Krishna was a Sirian shape-shifter who helped seed the human race
by making love to, and impregnating, nearly a million milkmaidens
(white-skinned Earth girls). The stories of him tell us of how he
was able to morph himself into the perfect man and lover for
each woman he made love to. They also tell us how he did it... through the use of sound (his flute).

What should I say? Sounds like Bill Clinton.

Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.

Again, the last supper is from the wilsonsalmanac site without any
attribution or substantiation.

After running through these, I'm not even going to bother to look at any further links you give me.

These are without attribution or substantiation; the sites you do give contradict your own claims about them; and and "similarities" are either fabricated, late additions without attribution, or misquoted.

Thanks for your time, but what you have given so far is of such poor quality that I no longer consider it worth my while to look at any of your further postings on this subject.

And--by the way--I also read your commentary on post 112.

Large number of similarities? Let me see: Hinduism is polytheistic, the "Father" of the Trinity is married, the "Son" had thousands of women, Krishna was killed by arrows, his "ascenscion" immediately followd his being shot by an arrow, his death and ascension had NO redemptive purpose, he killed his own uncle, he had other incarnations of the deity as brothers and sisters, and you call these "technical" differences.

Like I said at the beginning, "they're both purple, except for the elephant."

You're quoting Kersey Graves (atheist) Higgins (a Freemason / Druid, who borrowed most of his stuff from Graves), and This contradicts your post 110 when you stated: Those citations appear on any number of sites, Hindu, Christian or athiests. They dont belong to the athiest sites (rather belong to the authors I have already mentioned). Those quotations can be used by any number of political/religious interest groups to serve their agenda. The spat between conservative Christians and athiests are an altogether a seperate issue (perhaps more political then religious). And I am not really aware of who exactly has "abandoned" what stand in the light of whatever they have just found out. I am not part of their argument.

The only reasonable response is this:

Cheers!

116 posted on 06/17/2006 8:52:58 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

Oh, yes, Achyara S.

Let's play her game of "manufactured resemblances prove common descent".

To quote from your article in an earlier post,

And an article on curcufiction of Krishna by the same author:

I know! K. was actually St. Sebastian:

Or better yet, Boromir from Lord of the Rings:

Either one of these is a far closer fit than the Crucifixion:

By the way, "curcufiction" is not an English word. Spell check is your friend. Tell me, do you work for Dell's tech support in your spare time?

Cheers!

117 posted on 06/18/2006 8:02:58 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

To: grey_whiskers

It isnt. Go read the begining of my post #112 again.

Yadunandan - Son of the Yadu dynasty (..hmm, no lion of Saki here)

Son of the Yadu dynasty means .........Royal. And it isnt his only title.

Aditya - The Son Of Aditi (but according to Wikipedia, Aditi is another goddess.
Is K.'s mother Devaki or Aditi?
Or is this an honorary title?)

In one of his different incarnation (not Krishna) he was one of the Adityas (Solar God) son of Aditi and Kashyapa. No connection with Devaki. :^

Oh, here are some more differences:
Chaturbhuj - Four-Armed Lord (WTF?)

What do you mean WTF?

Kamsantak - Slayer Of Kamsa
(According to this site "http://www.avatara.org/krishna/lila.html"
Kamsa was his uncle; so he killed his own blood relative. And
his brother Bayarama killed Kamsa's eight brothers. So much for
the claim to be meek, merciful, and forgive his enemies.)

Kamsa wasnt the only evil he killed. Krishna is meek and merciful and did forgive his enemies but not when they choose to remain evil. Compare it with Jesus harrowing of Hell.

(And its Balarama not Bayarama.)

Whereas Jesus said, "Which of you convicts me of sin?"
Compare this to K.'s cavorting with thousands of gopi...)

Its not "cavorting ". His relationship with Gopis is purely platonic. (Hey psssss what about Mary Magdeline)

Oh, and by the way, the Hare Krishnas (John Lennon sucks) think Jesus is K.'s son. Oops.

So?

Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.

Except that according to Hinduism, K. was incarnated multiple times

Yes so what? You are saying because he was incarnated multiple times there is no way he could have been sent from heaven to eart in form of man?

(http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/vishnu.htm says
"at times, the balance is destroyed and evil demons get the upper hand.
Often in response to a request by the other gods, Vishnu then incarnates
n a human form to set the balance right again.
9 Vishnu incarnations are generally recognized as Vishnu avatars" )
Jesus was only incarnated ONCE. And that is going to be the only time. (Hebrews 9:26)

Some believe in the second coming of Jesus. Even Krishna is predicted to be comming again. BTW did you read about the Trinity from the above site? So do you agree that Hinduism too has a trinity?

(no Brokeback Mountain, here!) Yes thankfully, they suck so bad!

Even the Christian God is also know for simultaneous appearances. The concept of Theophany is also present in Christianity but not in as much richness as in Hinduism.

Totally different Trinity. In particular Jesus is God's only Son, and
K. has brothers: one of whom Balarama is ALSO an incarnation of Vishnu.
And the Holy Spirit is not "the destroyer".

Doesnt change a thing. Both are called saviours, both are considered to have Virgin births according to their religions (albeit with differences). Both are part of the Trinity. Explain that.

Also, K. was incarnated not to save people from sin, (let alone
to do it by his death and resurrection), but something different,
to save the Earth from a war between demigods and demons.
See "http://www.avatara.org/krishna/lila.html" for more.

Where does it say "K. was incarnated not to save people from sin"? Or is it just one of your imagination?Ever read the Bhgawat Gita?

I have checked a number of sites and found
nothing to substantiate the idea that "a" spirit or ghost
was K.'s father.

You haven't even read the Mahabharata for God's sake! Check number of sites? LOL! Yeah right.You checked the whole internet and have come to the conclusion that it does not exist. eh?

For example : "http://www.avatara.org/krishna/lila.html"
Jesus is the Son of God the Father, not an incarnation of God the Father.
He was conceived by the Holy spirit (third person of the Trinity).

And, oh, by the way, Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb.

According to "http://www.crystalinks.com/avatars.html",
both K. and his brother were moved to Rohini's womb to protect them.

Are you dense? The point here is, it is still considered as Virgin birth. Virgin Birth is one that is conceived without sexual contact. Both Jesus and Krishna were conceived without sexual contact. The actual details of how exactly they were conceived is secondary.

Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.

Not according to "http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/krishna.htm"
In this case, while fleeing from his uncle who sought to kill him,
he was shielded by a "the great eternal snake, Vasuki".

Yeah kids sites! When desperation strikes just any site is good enough eh? Even kiddies site. Heh Heh. Like I would rely on Bible for kids when I search for references.

(So much for K.'s being the son of the virgin who bruised a serpent's head.)

Thats one was about Krishna defeating Kalia the serpent. You got it all mixed up man.

Oh, by the way, K. also held a mountain up above his head as a child.
Where did Jesus do that?

"faith can move mountains". I bet you know who said that. And now you have a good idea where it came from. BTW did you also read about the river parting into two to make way for Krishna. Now where else do you hear of the sea parting?

No such place in the Bible. Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt and stayed for two years, then relocated to Nazareth.
Whoever your source is, they're WRONG.

According to the Christian apocryphal text "the Gospel of the Infancy," the family traveled to Maturea, Egypt. (The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors - Kersay Graves)

LOL. Kans was also a local King (of Mathura) and Krishna uncle. Go and read again before blathering nonsense.

Oh well, at least it mentioned witches and broomsticks.

I know, maybe The Wizard of Oz is really a Hindu story.

There is a lot more about your culture that actually comes from Hinduism then you can imagine.

And, oh, yes, K.'s uncle killed his mother's first six children, a little different than killing all the male children
two years old or younger in a town (Luke 2: 16 - 18).

Kamsa and his agents have killed a lot many infants before they could get to Krishna.

How so?

Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.

Funny, according to this site, "http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html", it was Buddha, not K.
If you have chapter and verse from any Hindu texts...well, so far you haven't given any.

Thats because I dont read from the internet. I read from books. Try the Akhand Mahabharat all

Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."

According to this site "http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html"
"Seed of the woman" is Zoroaster, not K.

The site "http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html" also says the following things:

About Jesus:

Angels issued a warning that the local dictator, King Herod, planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination (Matthew 2:16). The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea.

"About A.D. 153 St. Justin (Apol., I, xxi) told his pagan readers that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ ought not to seem incredible to them, since many of the most esteemed pagan writers spoke of a number of sons of Zeus:
"He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus."
Justin Martyr (c. 100 /114 CE - c. 162/168 CE), an early Christian apologist; First Apology, 22
Why did these virgin-born Gods precede Jesus? "The devils ... craftily feigned that Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter not by sexual union."
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 64 Source
About A.D. 178 the Platonic philosopher Celsus ridiculed the virgin birth of Christ, comparing it with the Greek myths of Danae, Melanippe, and Antiope; Origen (c. Cels. I, xxxvii) answered that Celsus wrote more like a buffoon than a philosopher."
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

About Krishna:

His advent was heralded by a pious old man (Asita), who could die happy knowing of his arrival, a story paralleled in the Bible by that of Simeon (Luke 2: 25).
Krishna was born in a cave, which at the time of his birth was miraculously illuminated.
Devaki, the radiant Virgin of the Hindu mythology, bore Krishna to the god Vishnu (second god of the Trimurthi (also called the Hindu Trinity).
"The divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." Boslooper, Thomas, The Virgin Birth, SCM Press, 1962, Pp 148 & 149; cited in: The Virgin Birth of Christ.
Of royal descent, Krishna was born while his carpenter "while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king" (Pagan origins of the Christ myth: Pagan Christs: Krishna).
The story about the birth of Elizabeth's son John (the Baptist), cousin of Jesus, corresponds with the story in the Krishna myth about the birth of the child of Nanda and his wife Yasoda. (Source: The Virgin Birth Doctrine: Details of the two Gospel stories, 1922)
His birth was heralded by a star. The cowherds adored his birth. Celestial beings sang hymns at the birth. The baby Krishna began speaking to his mother shortly after birth.
Devaki was told by an angel, "In thy delivery, O favoured among women, all nations shall have cause to rejoice".
Angels issued a warning that the local dictator, King Kansa, planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. Krishna's parents fled and stayed in Mathura. King Kansa ordered the massacre of all male children born during the same night.
Krishna's birth was attended by angels and shepherds.
The infant Krishna also was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh by wise men.

Krishna's mission was to give directions to 'the kingdom of God' (Bhagavad Gita 2: 72).
Krishna travelled widely, performing miracles – raising the dead, healing lepers, the deaf and the blind. He cast out indwelling demons. One of the first miracles he performed was to make a leper whole. He lived in poverty and loved the poor.
Krishna warned of 'stumbling blocks' along the way (BG 3: 34).
He was baptised in the Ganges River. Krishna performed miracles in Mathura.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
Krishna withdrew to the wilderness to fast.
Eyewitnesses claimed Krishna was transfigured in front of his disciples; hence his disciples bestowed upon him the title jezeus, meaning "pure essence".
He proclaimed he was the "Way to the Father".
Krishna was anointed on the head with oil by a woman whom he healed.
He selected disciples to spread his teachings. He was meek, and merciful. He was criticized for associating with sinners. He humbled himself by washing the feet of others. He encountered a woman at a well.
His path was “strewn with branches".
He was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet, as well as having a heart emblem on his clothing. He may also be depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent.
He forgave his enemies. He celebrated a last supper. He descended into Hell, and was resurrected. Many people witnessed his ascension into heaven.
Krishna said that "by human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day" (BG 8: 17); cf 2 Peter 3: 8.

Krishna's names: Shepherd God; Sin Bearer; Liberator; Firstborn; Universal Word; Beginning and the End (Alpha and Omega) ("I am the beginning, the middle, and the end" (Bhagavad Gita 10: 20; cf Revelation 1: 8 ); Lion of the Tribe of Saki; identified as 'the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head'.
Krishna is the second person of the Hindu Trinity: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, (3) Siva. Krishna is the incarnation of Vishnu.

At about age 30, Krishna was "suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures ... [Later] the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared – no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes ..."
Jacolliot, Louis, The Bible in India, Sun Publ. Co., 1992; cited in Specific Similarities in the Lives of Jesus and Krishna
The crucified (this is open to dispute; read more) Krishna is pictured on the cross with arms extended. Pierced by an arrow while hanging on the cross, Krishna died, but descended into Hell from which he rose again on the third day and ascended into Heaven. (The Gospel of Nicodemus tell of Jesus' descent into Hell.) However, the Mahabharata refers only to Krishna's death by being shot by an arrow in the heel – suffering the same fate as the Greek god Achilles. Source
The skies and earth turned dark at noon on Krishna's death.
He brought back two boys from Hell.

Krishna is the second person of the Hindu trinity.
He is said to return to 'do battle' with the 'Prince of Evil' who will 'desolate the earth'.
Krishna was 'without sin'. Considered both human and divine; omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Hindu and Catholic priesthoods have much in common, according to Australian author Peter Bowler in True Believers.
Both have nunneries and monasteries; both believe celibacy is a virtue; both impose penances; both offer indulgences; and both use beads.
Krishna will return on the last day on a white horse to judge the living and the dead.
Krishna claimed: "I am the Resurrection".
He referred to himself as having existed before his birth on earth.
"Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, and Christos is the Greek version of the word Krsna. When an Indian person calls on Krsna, he often says 'Krsta'."
Srila Prabhupada

Krishna

Some features: A future reward in heaven or punishment in Hell; a day of judgment; a general resurrection; the need for repentance for sin; salvation requires faith in the Saviour; belief in angels and of evil spirits; belief that disease and sickness is caused by evil spirits; a past war in heaven between good and bad angels; free will; God is considered the 'Word'
Scriptures speak of "the blind leading the blind, "a new heaven and a new earth", "living water", "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", "all scripture is profitable for doctrine", "to die is great gain".
Fasting forms a part of the religion.
The act of being born again is present.
Immersion in water by Hindus is an important ritual. "Water in Hinduism has a special place because it is believed to have spiritually cleansing powers...In the sacred water distinctions of caste are supposed to count for nothing, as all sins fall away ... Every temple has a pond near it and devotees are supposed to take a bath before entering the temple." (Source: 'Water in Religion', The Water Page)

And "bruising the serpent's head" isn't the same thing as being protected
by the eternal snake while a baby fleeing from your uncle.

Read about Kalia the serpent. (Unless he happens to be one of your Uncle.)

Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."

All the other sources I have seen mention him s from the Yadava tribe,
and none call him the "lion" of that tribe.

This is from one of your source ""http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html"".

Krishna's names: Shepherd God; Sin Bearer; Liberator; Firstborn; Universal Word; Beginning and the End (Alpha and Omega) ("I am the beginning, the middle, and the end" (Bhagavad Gita 10: 20; cf Revelation 1: 8 ); Lion of the Tribe of Saki; identified as 'the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head'.

Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."

Thats because the above hyperlink is a link to the discussion to about the similarities of Krsna and Krsta pronunciation not a link for what you are looking for.

Wrong in both it is to seek refuge/redemption in God ......Christ or Krishna.

The purpose of BG is to explains a way to escape the cycle of birth and death. To seek refuge in Krishna and to attain Moksha or Nirvana. Te cycle of birth and death occurs for only those who have not taken refuge in Krishna.

And Jesus said, "Which of you convicts me of sin" (John 8:46) whereas K. killed blood relatives and got it on with thousands of women.

Already explained. (Yawn)

You have totally misread the word. Read it again:

"The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin."

It does not even talk about meat. You sound like a novice learning about sprituality.

Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.

This says nothing whatsoever about whether one was borrowed from the other.

Thats evident enough already by now.

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."
This doesn't necessarily show that one is derived from the other--Jesus'
miracles include a number of specific claims, including the water into wine
at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11).
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

So you admit there is a link? Or are you again trying to argue that it was Christian influence on Hinduism?

Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.

Yep. Any teacher who has disciples is really the same person. /sarcasm.

Same person? Whoever said anything about same person? We are talking about similarities between their account. I wonder whats freaking you out so much.

Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.

Nope. No reference to this that I could find by Googling, except
on Kersey Graves anothology type sites.
Meekness and mercy .NE. killing your own uncle.

Krishna is the symbol of mercy in Hinduism. His uncle was evil.

Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.

What should I say? Sounds like Bill Clinton.

Thats not Bill Blinton but your own perverted purport nothing to do with Krishna or Hinduism. Not even worth a rebuttal.

Thanks for your time, but what you have given so far is of such poor quality that I no longer consider it worth my while to look at any of your further postings on this subject.

If they are fabrication, late additions or misquotes, I have not seen you provide convincing proof that that are indeed such. All that you have are just mere conjectures. And whatever you brush aside as being of poor quality is actually the stuff you are in no position refute. You only defense was "since I am not able to find any references on it, it definitely does not exist". Its funny that if there is something that you havent come across or read about then it surely must not exist.

That is your own silly projection not Hinduism or Krishna. Doesnt sell.

Like I said at the beginning, "they're both purple, except for the elephant."

More like "both are elephants, except that one is a shade lighter".

118 posted on 06/18/2006 12:55:22 PM PDT by Gengis Khan

More like "both are elephants, except that one is a shade lighter".

Yes, your elephant is pink.

There are too many errors in your post to deal with in detail, I give a cursory overview below...

I have already substantively refuted your points, and you respond by ignoring them (crucifixion vs. being shot with arrows); by repeating your statement, again without substantiation (lion of Saki); quoting from noncanonical sources or from sources explicitly hostile to Christianity (Maturea); ignoring explicit references to Christian scripture even when they are given to you (single incarnation of Jesus vs. multiple incarnations of K., Virgin Birth of Jesus vs. K. being the eighth child of his parents); denying the elements of Christian Creeds ("conceived by the Holy Spirit") vs your statment 'the details of how they are conceived is secondarY); extensive quotes purporting to show almost word-for-word similarities between Jesus and K., which on examination are quite different ("let the dead bury their own dead"); quoting from sites (wilsonsalmanac) which explicitly contradict your earlier quotes ("seed of the woman" was Zoroaster, not Krishna), pretend not to notice the difference, and then quote-mine OTHER unsubstantiated allegations (apparently) from that site which were not even part of your original contention (correspondence between Elizabeth and Nanda); repeat unsubstantiated links from within sites ("I am the Resurrection" quote from the link in Wilson's Almanack" which I refuted beyond repair by noting even the single word "resurrection" is not on the page quoted); broken links -- the "Source" after Achilles in your post (who has nothing whatever to do with K. or India) is broken and gave me a 404 HTML error.

And you top this off by randomly quoting more and more from even more obscure atheist sites, which you pretend are Christian scholars or merely the disinterested; and then you say that I have not proved that they are later additions (like Kersey Graves, or Wilson's Almanac) whereas my quotes were from either dictionary sites (Wikipedia) or sites explicitly suportive of Hinduism.

In short, you are well on your way to committing every logical fallacy ever seen on Free Republic.

On this subject, therefore, you are merely a troll.

You are no longer worth my time--my life is too short to waste in any further posting on this topic.

120 posted on 06/18/2006 1:55:49 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794