[Gengis Khan]

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?

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?

[grey_whiskers]

No time for a reply this morning.

Cheers!