is jesus actually hindu god "LORD KRISHNA"?
- Thread starter rahul_sharma
- Start date
everneo: The truth is the truth regardless whether you believe it or not. If you can predate Kirshna before Christ doesnt make Christ wrong. Not to mention that Christ has been around for a long time before he came into this world. Hes been prophicied by many centuries before his birth. Same goes for a lot of people.
As i said earlier, i don't think Christ & Krishna could be the same person. The resemblance of some events in the legends of both might be possible, so is the possible resemblance of some of your/my life events and that of Hitler. But saying that Krishna legends were borrowed from Christ legends is ridiculous and shows ignorance about written literary/architectural/political history of India. Catholic encyclopedia is not the ultimate source of history !camphlps said:
camphlps said:
But does the level of the details of the prophecies of Christ include the details of what the Christ legend has in common with the Krishna legend?
Not even close.
So, yes, if Krishna pre-dates Christ, it IS evidence of Christ being based on Krishna rather than vice versa.
Please explain how that is not valid.
Explain how a newer legend could possibly be based on an older one.
everno, I wasn't quoting from a catholic enclopedia. What I meant was that some of the stories may have borrowed from Christianity, especially the Hindu "Trinity." Not all Hindus have the exact same beliefs, so it's difficult to make comparisons.
Also, one of the professors from Fordham university maintains a <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/indiasbook.html">sourcebook</a> of Hindu literature.
I've also read Ramayana before and did not find too much semblance to Christianity.
Also, one of the professors from Fordham university maintains a <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/indiasbook.html">sourcebook</a> of Hindu literature.
I've also read Ramayana before and did not find too much semblance to Christianity.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
one_raven said:
Christians (in general, imo) don't care even if the exact belief about Jesus was in existance hundreds of years before (but instead attributed to another person), because they can say that Satan read the Old Testament (I'm serious) and figured out what God wanted to do and decided to imitate it. The early church fathers, from what I can tell, didn't deny the other gods/miracle men, in general, but instead attributed their source to Satan.
All the similarities you find will fall on dear ears since it can be claimed as Satanic, or a variant of the true ancient tradition (like variants about the flood).
I'm guessing there were ancient religious texts in the Roman Empire which rivaled the age of the Hebrew Bible, but it's not like "The Holy Roman Empire" would have been in the habit of copying that stuff.
Last edited:
I've heard that same absurd argument.
I can't imagine that anyone could actually buy that one, but, sadly, people do.
It requires a complete disconnection from reason and goes even further beyond rationality than simpe blind faith.
Something I said on my blog today seems to fit well here, so I'm going to be pretentious and quote myself...
(let me clarify and say that it came with a disclaimer: "If there is such a thing as God..."
I can't imagine that anyone could actually buy that one, but, sadly, people do.
It requires a complete disconnection from reason and goes even further beyond rationality than simpe blind faith.
Something I said on my blog today seems to fit well here, so I'm going to be pretentious and quote myself...
(let me clarify and say that it came with a disclaimer: "If there is such a thing as God..."
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
One_Raven apparently believes it also, as he said "I've heard that same absurd argument." Okinrus, I have no desire to get into a discussion with you about religion, as I believe researching this topic and providing you with an answer would be fruitless. 
Last edited:
That is even more ridiculous. Hindu 'trinity' predates Krishna/Mahabharata himself/itself. The only controversy exists among historians is whether Mahabharata was written few THOUSAND years OR few CENTURIES before Christ. On any account, hindu trinity is more original and antique than the christian trinity after the inclusion of Jesus with God and Holy Spirit combines.okinrus said:
No resemblance ofcourse. Leo Volont thinks Ramayana lacks in morality whereas Christ provided morality for the collectives or Charity something. A thorough reading would reveal he missed a lot. Anyway, on that account also Buddhism predates Christ - buddhism advocated non-violence & love and service to masses, providing collective morality by its 'dharma', building viharas for monks that serve as hospitals and educational centres - a precursor to church, should i say. That is before Christ by centuries.
Not to mention...everneo said:
Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent's head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd", the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting."
He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."
But, of course, Satan planted those ideas in the Heathens' heads before Christianity existed, and Buddha was a servant of the Devil.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
everneo said:
Some form of Zoroastrianism made Satan (Ahriman) basically God's equal. Although a created being according to Christians, Satan almost has that type of power it seems. Almost. I mean look at how the NT mentions the false christs and false prophets producing "lying wonders" which, if possible, would deceive the elect. I'd assume most Christians would believe this power given to these false christ and false prophets would be from Satan. Powerful dude there. So powerful he apparently (through some beast?) resurrects (or appears to) Nero, or the anti-Christ, or whoever is supposed to be mentioned in the book of Revelation. Makes you wonder, just how is it one could be sure that Jesus, and the NT itself, wasn't from such a powerful being? Of course, the NT tries to forbid us from thinking such with the "blasphemy of the holy spirit" idea, but arguing against thinking such thoughts does not necessarily mean such a thing couldn't happen.
In fact, look at this passage,
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
I mean, look at the attributes of this guy, who through this "man of sin", "with ALL POWER and signs and lying wonders." Almost sounds all powerful there, doesn't he?
Last edited:
well i never said christ wasnt based on other legends. everneo claimed that when predated it would "prove" christ to be a construction of that legend. Being based on it as One Raven put is a complete different thing..
Though what would be easier to preach?....something tottally new and never heard of..
or something that they can relate and undertand more clearly...remember they had to preach to those Hindus Bhudist and other religions of the world. That is why God chose the path of Christ as he did. So that men would believe.
Though what would be easier to preach?....something tottally new and never heard of..
or something that they can relate and undertand more clearly...remember they had to preach to those Hindus Bhudist and other religions of the world. That is why God chose the path of Christ as he did. So that men would believe.
Lol, that's so silly considering Christianity is the 2nd "newest" mass religion there is. Darned near almost every religion pre-dates Christianity.
As someone else said, the good vs evil thing came from Zoroastrianism. Much of what is found in Judiams, Christianity, and Judaism that makes it seem more unique comes from Zoroastrianism, and much of that comes from Babylonian/Sumerian religion. Good vs evil, angels, and all that stuff is borrowed from an earlier religion. Seriously, there isn't any real new teachings that come from modern Middle East religions. It's just old teachings thrown into a blender with parts and names changed to better apply to the people in that region at that time as it adds a bit more personal relation to it. What else do you expect to happen when numerous powers have each controlled the Middle East at one time or another. Obviously it's going to become a melting pot of various religious beliefs.
- N
rahul_sharma,
Krishna is Shree Bhagwan, Jesus is shyakta-vesha avatara.
Jesus is a partial incarnation of Krishna.
If understood properly, yes.
Krishna was percieved differently according to the individual perception. Check His pastime with Kamsa, as He was about to wrestle with Kamsa's prize wrestlers.
Krishna descended from Goloka Vrindavan.
Krishna is described as one without a second. The Hindu trinity consists of Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma, all are exansions of Krishna.
Where does it say this?
Demons always want to kill demi-gods and claim themselves to be gods and/or God, this is their nature.
Christ comes from the Greek word Kristos which came from the (south) Indian word Krishta which was the way they pronounce the name of Krishna.
"Hindu" came from the word "Sindu" a mis-pronunciation. The word Hindu is not a vedic term, but a muslim (mohamadan) term.
Jan Ardena.
Krishna is Shree Bhagwan, Jesus is shyakta-vesha avatara.
Jesus is a partial incarnation of Krishna.
If understood properly, yes.
Krishna was percieved differently according to the individual perception. Check His pastime with Kamsa, as He was about to wrestle with Kamsa's prize wrestlers.
Krishna descended from Goloka Vrindavan.
Krishna is described as one without a second. The Hindu trinity consists of Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma, all are exansions of Krishna.
Where does it say this?
Demons always want to kill demi-gods and claim themselves to be gods and/or God, this is their nature.
Christ comes from the Greek word Kristos which came from the (south) Indian word Krishta which was the way they pronounce the name of Krishna.
"Hindu" came from the word "Sindu" a mis-pronunciation. The word Hindu is not a vedic term, but a muslim (mohamadan) term.
Jan Ardena.
rahul_sharma
Registered Senior Member
love u jesus because i really love LORD KRISHNA.......so i accept u as a remake of his life story....
This is quite interesting, even Krishna himself says:
"..those who pray with devotion to another god, it is to Me that they pray"
So from a Hindu view point, everyone praying with devotion to another god is actually praying to Krishna. This makes sense since Hinduism says that there is only one god, which manifests itself in everything, so whatever you're praying to, is to god.
Doesn't Hinduism say something about the image/form of what you worship doesn't matter, but the intent and devotion does? So if Jesus and Krishna represent the same supreme consciousness, praying to them would be virtually the same, right?
Also Krishna says that "The person who is equal to an enemy as well as friend.....such one is very dear to me" is kind of similar to Jesus saying to love your enemies.
It's actually really easy to see how the Bible could've come from the Bhagavad Gita
"..those who pray with devotion to another god, it is to Me that they pray"
So from a Hindu view point, everyone praying with devotion to another god is actually praying to Krishna. This makes sense since Hinduism says that there is only one god, which manifests itself in everything, so whatever you're praying to, is to god.
Doesn't Hinduism say something about the image/form of what you worship doesn't matter, but the intent and devotion does? So if Jesus and Krishna represent the same supreme consciousness, praying to them would be virtually the same, right?
Also Krishna says that "The person who is equal to an enemy as well as friend.....such one is very dear to me" is kind of similar to Jesus saying to love your enemies.
It's actually really easy to see how the Bible could've come from the Bhagavad Gita
Yes and no.VitalOne said:
It is the "consciousness" I would take issue with.
The Hindu ideal of the Prana and Akasha, as I understand it, is saying that all is one, but that one does not have a singular consciousness or identity. Nor does it have intent.
I could have it wrong, however.
I'm always trying to sell teh idea of Christianity being a purposeful syncretic mix of many cultures and religions, but I can't see that at all.VitalOne said: