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!