The Bible. Myth or Reality?

[Jan Ardena]

Will you agree that Jesus is the central figure in the New Testament of the bible? That makes him fairly important, I'd say. Yet when we look at Hindu scriptures, there's not a single mention of Jesus. That seems to indicate to me that Jesus isn't at all important to Hinduism.

So, if Hinduism and Christianity are both concerned with the One Big God, like you say they are, and Christianity says Jesus is the Son of God (and part of the Holy Trinity that is God), then why is there no mention at all of this vitally relevant and important personage in your favorite Hindu scriptures?

I hope you will explain.

The Christian religion mainly holds that Jesus is the only son of God.
Hindus (at least some) hold that Jesus was an incarnation of Vishnu (God).

But in what way do the scriptures disagree? This is what I am asking.

jan.

 

[Daecon]

Hindus (at least some) hold that Jesus was an incarnation of Vishnu (God).

Where does it say that?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Where does it say that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/jesus_1.shtml

jan.

 

[Daecon]

Is that a scripture?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is that a scripture?

I said: Hindus (at least some) hold that Jesus was an incarnation of Vishnu (God).

I asked: But in what way do the scriptures disagree?

Do you know?

jan.

 

[Daecon]

Do the scriptures say that Jesus was an incarnation of Vishnu?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do the scriptures say that Jesus was an incarnation of Vishnu?

Answer my question first.

Jan.

 

[Daecon]

I'm trying to. Stop avoiding.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm trying to. Stop avoiding.

Do the scriptures say that Jesus was an incarnation of Vishnu?

Not to my knowledge.

jan.

 

[Daecon]

Then they disagree on that point, for starters.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then they disagree on that point, for starters.

How is Jesus not being mentioned as an incarnation of Vishnu, within Vedic literature a disagreement between the Bible and the Vedas?

jan.

 

[Daecon]

It's a ridiculous question. A disagreement is a disagreement. Please explain what you don't understand about that.

Quoted for repetition.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Quoted for repetition.

Why don't you just answer the question?

jan.

 

[Daecon]

Oh dear, am I being evasive and not answering your question?

Frustrating, isn't it?

 

[Sarkus]

How is Jesus not being mentioned as an incarnation of Vishnu, within Vedic literature a disagreement between the Bible and the Vedas?

Bible: Jesus mentioned as the son of God.
Hindu scriptures: Jesus not mentioned as the son of God.

If true then this is a disagreement: a disagreement does not need to be a case of saying the exact opposite (i.e. it does not require Hindu scriptures to state that Jesus was not the Son of God) - it merely needs to be a lack of consensus.


But on that matter, this is quite an interesting article, which suggests that any mention of Jesus in Hindu scripture was actually inserted by Christians as a means of surepetitiously converting them to take Jesus as their Saviour...
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/jesus_predicted_in_the_vedic_literature.htm

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bible: Jesus mentioned as the son of God.
Hindu scriptures: Jesus not mentioned as the son of God.

Bible: Jesus mentioned as the son of God
Hindu scriptures: Jesus not mentioned.

If true then this is a disagreement: a disagreement does not need to be a case of saying the exact opposite (i.e. it does not require Hindu scriptures to state that Jesus was not the Son of God) - it merely needs to be a lack of consensus.

Where is the ''lack of consensus''?
Not mentioning a particular personality, is not a lack of consensus.

But on that matter, this is quite an interesting article, which suggests that any mention of Jesus in Hindu scripture was actually inserted by Christians as a means of surepetitiously converting them to take Jesus as their Saviour...
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/jesus_predicted_in_the_vedic_literature.htm

It's still in the book though.
Still think there is a disagreement?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh dear, am I being evasive and not answering your question?

Frustrating, isn't it?

I thought you said you were trying to answer the question.
Did you mean it?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Bible: Jesus mentioned as the son of God
Hindu scriptures: Jesus not mentioned.

Is that still your position?

Where is the ''lack of consensus''?
Not mentioning a particular personality, is not a lack of consensus.

Most would disagree with you for the simple reason that a consensus is a general agreement between things. If there is no such general agreement then there is a lack of general agreement.
So, as said, if it is true that Hindu scriptures do not mention Jesus then since general agreement = consensus, we can indeed say that there is a lack of consensus.

It's still in the book though.
Still think there is a disagreement?

I didn't say I thought there was a disagreement. I said that "if true" (that Hindu scriptures do not mention Jesus) then there is disagreement / lack of consensus.

Do I think there is now? I don't even know if these books are considered scripture or not.
Do you?
If so, do you think it possible that the mention of Jesus could have been inserted into the texts during the British rule of India, and not be historically authentic?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is that still your position?

For the sake of the argument, it doesn't matter what my position is, but I will take that position just to make a valid point.

Most would disagree with you for the simple reason that a consensus is a general agreement between things. If there is no such general agreement then there is a lack of general agreement.
So, as said, if it is true that Hindu scriptures do not mention Jesus then since general agreement = consensus, we can indeed say that there is a lack of consensus.

Never the less, a consensus is based on opinions, so what is it about the vedas that forms the opinion that there is a disagreement on Jesus?
Can you actually go into it?

I didn't say I thought there was a disagreement. I said that "if true" (that Hindu scriptures do not mention Jesus) then there is disagreement / lack of consensus.

Read above.

If so, do you think it possible that the mention of Jesus could have been inserted into the texts during the British rule of India, and not be historically authentic?

If it wasn't inserted, would it change anything about how you view it?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

For the sake of the argument, it doesn't matter what my position is, but I will take that position just to make a valid point.

If you take a position just to make a valid point, that says that it's not your position, even though you stated it previously as if it were. Hey ho.

Never the less, a consensus is based on opinions, so what is it about the vedas that forms the opinion that there is a disagreement on Jesus?
Can you actually go into it?

A consensus is an agreement of opinion. If parties simply to don't offer an opinion then how can there be agreement. The absence of agreement/consensus can otherwise be referred to as a disagreement.
It's a matter of semantics, of the meaning of "disagreement", not the detail of the Vedas / Bible.

If it wasn't inserted, would it change anything about how you view it?

Not significantly. It would add information about Jesus' early life that is missing from the Bible.
Would it change anything about how you viewed it if your current view on it was reversed? I.e. if you think it wasn't inserted, would it change anything about how you view it if it was inserted, and vice versa?