Krishna is reputed to have died at the time that the original Dwarka was submerged by sea level rise (when the Ice Age ended). There are six citadels on each side of the now submerged lower portion of the Gomati River, just off shore from present day Dwarka, so Krishna apparently died circa 1500 B.C.
Krishna existed therefore Jesus did
- Thread starter IceAgeCivilizations
- Start date
Don't know, but the Hindu's did pinpoint a historical point in time, when the first Dwarka went under.
The ancient Dwarka, now submerged, was also called Kushsthali. Does anyone know what sthali means, 'cause Kush is in there, like Hindu Kush, and Kush was a son of Cham (Chambay), Ham.
Sthali means place, so Kushsthali means place of Kush.
The thing about Krishna that is interesting, however, is his appearance in two documents.
Krishna has his own "Gospel", called the Sri Bhagavatam Purana, detailing his life in its entirety, but he also appears in the Mahabharata, one of the more secular epics. The Mahabharata doesn't focus on Krishna, but he makes appearances throughout it and is instrumental in the war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas (the Pandavas being a band of brothers who are the central characters).
Krishna has his own "Gospel", called the Sri Bhagavatam Purana, detailing his life in its entirety, but he also appears in the Mahabharata, one of the more secular epics. The Mahabharata doesn't focus on Krishna, but he makes appearances throughout it and is instrumental in the war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas (the Pandavas being a band of brothers who are the central characters).
you let me know when Krishna head's the biggest religion in the world.
The Gita Govinda which detailed the relationship between Krishna and the Gopis, Radha in particular.
Redefine said:
I don't understand what that means.
Last edited:
I said that because common sense dictates that the person with the widest influence probably has the best chance of being real. Sure egyptian gods are big in egypt and Hindu god's are big in India, But jesus is huge in, basically, an entire hemisphere.
Wow. An appeal to popularity.
I don't think anyone will deny that Christianity has by far the most transcultural appeal.
Ah! yes, thanks. I knew he was a Krishna bhakt but I could not remember the name of his work.
You know C h r i s t i a n.
Perhaps that is due to it's similarity with common ancient religious rites.
There is the ancient Jewish tradition of a scapegoat, in which a victim is chosen to embody, signify, or be loaded up with, all the sins and misfortunes of the village. The scapegoat is then driven out, or in some cases killed, carrying the evils of the people with them.
Among the Garos people of Assam, near the foothills of the eastern Himalayas, a langur monkey (or sometimes a bamboo rat) used to be captured, led to every house in the village to soak up their evil spirits and then crucified on a bamboo scaffold. The monkey is the public scapegoat, which by it's vicarious sufferings and death relieves the people from all sickness and mishap in the coming year.
In one New Zealand tribe, a service was performed over an individual, by which all the sins of the tribe were supposed to be transferred to him, a fern stalk was previously tied to his person, with which he jumped into the river, and there unbinding, allowed it to float away to the sea, bearing their sins with it.
Water was used by the rajah of Manipur as a vehicle to transfer his sins to a human scapegoat, who crouched under a scaffold on which the rajah took his bath, dripping water (and washed-away sins) on to the scapegoat below.
Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow
Uh, let's go with all those that profess that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, that no person comes to the Father but by Him.
Early Christianity was more complex and varied than can be represented as one original line.
What about the First Council of Nicaea held in 325 A.D.? Wasn't this the first official council held on the doctrine of Christianity?
Wikipedia states that "the purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or merely of similar substance as God the Father."
(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea )
Christianity was made legal in 313 with the Edict of Milian decreed by Roman Emperor Constantine 1.
So it seems as if the First Council of Nicaea was dicussing about the Holy Trinity, and whether it existed. But actually, the Holy Ghost wasn't even mentioned.
So was the Church of Alexandria the first official Christian church?
Wikipedia states that "the purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or merely of similar substance as God the Father."
(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea )
Christianity was made legal in 313 with the Edict of Milian decreed by Roman Emperor Constantine 1.
So it seems as if the First Council of Nicaea was dicussing about the Holy Trinity, and whether it existed. But actually, the Holy Ghost wasn't even mentioned.
So was the Church of Alexandria the first official Christian church?
"Official," perhaps, but the church is the body of believers, nothing more, and nothing less.
I don't know alot about the Councils, but it is odd that the Holy Ghost was not mentioned at Nicaea (though the Trinity was), so I guess the power of the Holy Ghost had already begun to be de-emphasized by then.
It makes sense that Constantine would've de-emphasized the power of the Holy Ghost, as all power was to be Rome's.
I don't know alot about the Councils, but it is odd that the Holy Ghost was not mentioned at Nicaea (though the Trinity was), so I guess the power of the Holy Ghost had already begun to be de-emphasized by then.
It makes sense that Constantine would've de-emphasized the power of the Holy Ghost, as all power was to be Rome's.