Krishan and Jesus

[Christian2]

It is said that Krishna is the incarnation of God.

Jesus is the incarnated Word of God.

Some say that Christianity borrowed this concept from Hinduism.

Can this allegation be refuted?

Thanks.

[Byblos]

It is said that Krishna is the incarnation of God.

Jesus is the incarnated Word of God.

Some say that Christianity borrowed this concept from Hinduism.

Can this allegation be refuted?

Thanks.

It's possible that Krishna had also borrowed the idea from OT prophesies or that the story itself is a prophesy of the real incarnation. But to answer the question more directly, yes, it can be refuted on account of the resurrection.

[Christian2]

It is said that Krishna is the incarnation of God.

Jesus is the incarnated Word of God.

Some say that Christianity borrowed this concept from Hinduism.

Can this allegation be refuted?

Thanks.

It's possible that Krishna had also borrowed the idea from OT prophesies or that the story itself is a prophesy of the real incarnation. But to answer the question more directly, yes, it can be refuted on account of the resurrection.

Because Krishna did not rise from the dead?

[PaulSacramento]

It is said that Krishna is the incarnation of God.

Jesus is the incarnated Word of God.

Some say that Christianity borrowed this concept from Hinduism.

Can this allegation be refuted?

Thanks.

If you understand the Christian concept of God and the Christian concept of the incarnation and Trinity, then you would know that there is nothing in common.

The Christian concept of the incarnation has to do with the Son of God becoming flesh for a specific reason, our salvation.
It is not A god becoming flesh, one God amongst many God, even if a supreme God like Krishna/Vishnu.

It was also not a virgin birth of course.

Here are some sources for you:

In regards to morals:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna01.php

In regards to life story:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna02.php

[PaulSacramento]

Here is a very good article:

http://www.risenjesus.com/?s=krishna&submit=Search

Please note here:

a. Similarities to Krishna

Ms. Murdock contends that Jesus as crucified savior was merely borrowed from other religions. For her, one of the most striking similarities is found with Krishna, the Hindu god. Indeed, her forthcoming book, “Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled” expounds on this position.(21)

What about Ms. Murdock’s claim that Krishna is so similar to Jesus that Christianity must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper, he has just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Penguin World Classics and is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.

When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna had been crucified, he replied, “That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion.”(22) He also added that Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in the heal. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages who came there for him could not really see it.(23)

Then I read a statement by Ms. Murdock from her article “Krishna, Crucified?” an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.(24) In it she states, “it appears that Krishna is not the first Indian god depicted as crucified. Prior to him was another incarnation of Vishnu, the avatar named Wittoba or Vithoba, who has often been identified with Krishna.” To this Bryant responded, “She doesn’t know what she’s talking about! Vithoba was a form of Krishna worshipped in the state of Maharashtra. There are absolutely no Indian gods portrayed as crucified.” Then he became indignant and said, “If someone is going to go on the air and make statements about religious tradition, they should at least read a religion 101 course.”(25)

Later I emailed him regarding her 24 comparisons of Krishna to Jesus which the reader may find in The Christ Conspiracy.(26) He stated that 14 of her 24 comparisons are wrong and a 15th is partially wrong.(27) What about her 9 _ that are correct; especially Krishna’s virgin birth, the story of the tyrant who had thousands of infants killed (a parallel to Herod), and Krishna’s bodily ascension? Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, “[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name.”(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former “to be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD.”(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation.(30) An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century.(31) Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires.

Ms. Murdock further claims that Christianity has failed in India because “the Brahmans have recognized Christianity as a relatively recent imitation of their much older traditions.”(32) To this, Dr. Bryant simply commented, “Stupid comment.”(33)

Ms. Murdock’s claim that Christianity has borrowed substantially from Hinduism is without merit. Her claims are false, unsupported, and exhibit a lack of understanding of the Hindu faith.

[Christian2]

Thanks to all.

I know a lot of what is said about Krishna post-dates Christianity. IOW's the borrowing was the other way around.

I just found this on the Internet:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... agavadgita

Clip: Although Krishna is considered to be an avatar of Vishnu in modern Hinduism, some evidence suggests that Krishna and Vishnu were originally separate deities. In the Bhagavadgita, Krishna proclaims himself to be a supreme deity, rather than an incarnation of Vishnu. Additionally, Krishna appears primarily in Hindu epics such as the Mahabharata, whereas Vishnu appears primarily in the Vedas and Puranas. This suggests that initially Krishna was the deity of Kshatriyas (warrior caste) while Vishnu was worshiped by Brahmins (priestly caste), lending further evidence to their initial distinctiveness. The two deities appear to have merged during, or prior to, the fifth century C.E. The Vishnu Purana, written during this time period, is the first text to proclaim Krishna to be an avatar of Vishnu.

If I am understanding properly, it appears the "incarnation" of Krishna also post dates Christianity.

Am I understanding it correctly?

Thanks.

[Byblos]

It is said that Krishna is the incarnation of God.

Jesus is the incarnated Word of God.

Some say that Christianity borrowed this concept from Hinduism.

Can this allegation be refuted?

Thanks.

It's possible that Krishna had also borrowed the idea from OT prophesies or that the story itself is a prophesy of the real incarnation. But to answer the question more directly, yes, it can be refuted on account of the resurrection.

Because Krishna did not rise from the dead?

Correct. At most we can say that Krishna was assumed bodily into his eternal abode, a feat not unheard of in the OT.

[PaulSacramento]

Thanks to all.

I know a lot of what is said about Krishna post-dates Christianity. IOW's the borrowing was the other way around.

I just found this on the Internet:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... agavadgita

Clip: Although Krishna is considered to be an avatar of Vishnu in modern Hinduism, some evidence suggests that Krishna and Vishnu were originally separate deities. In the Bhagavadgita, Krishna proclaims himself to be a supreme deity, rather than an incarnation of Vishnu. Additionally, Krishna appears primarily in Hindu epics such as the Mahabharata, whereas Vishnu appears primarily in the Vedas and Puranas. This suggests that initially Krishna was the deity of Kshatriyas (warrior caste) while Vishnu was worshiped by Brahmins (priestly caste), lending further evidence to their initial distinctiveness. The two deities appear to have merged during, or prior to, the fifth century C.E. The Vishnu Purana, written during this time period, is the first text to proclaim Krishna to be an avatar of Vishnu.

If I am understanding properly, it appears the "incarnation" of Krishna also post dates Christianity.

Am I understanding it correctly?

Thanks.

First off, co-relation does not equal causation BUT even if it did, it is my understanding that the writings that speak of the incarnation are from LATTER than those of the gospels, even if they cite the event happening before the gospels.

[Christian2]

Thanks to all.

I know a lot of what is said about Krishna post-dates Christianity. IOW's the borrowing was the other way around.

I just found this on the Internet:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... agavadgita

Clip: Although Krishna is considered to be an avatar of Vishnu in modern Hinduism, some evidence suggests that Krishna and Vishnu were originally separate deities. In the Bhagavadgita, Krishna proclaims himself to be a supreme deity, rather than an incarnation of Vishnu. Additionally, Krishna appears primarily in Hindu epics such as the Mahabharata, whereas Vishnu appears primarily in the Vedas and Puranas. This suggests that initially Krishna was the deity of Kshatriyas (warrior caste) while Vishnu was worshiped by Brahmins (priestly caste), lending further evidence to their initial distinctiveness. The two deities appear to have merged during, or prior to, the fifth century C.E. The Vishnu Purana, written during this time period, is the first text to proclaim Krishna to be an avatar of Vishnu.

If I am understanding properly, it appears the "incarnation" of Krishna also post dates Christianity.

Am I understanding it correctly?

Thanks.

First off, co-relation does not equal causation BUT even if it did, it is my understanding that the writings that speak of the incarnation are from LATTER than those of the gospels, even if they cite the event happening before the gospels.

I don't understand what you mean when you said:

even if they cite the event happening before the gospels

Thanks.

[PaulSacramento]

I mean that the writings we have the cite events BEFORE the gospels ( and before Christ) were all written AFTER the gospels.
See the article I linked to.

The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, “[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name.”(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former “to be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD.”(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation.(30) An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century.(31) Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires.

[Christian2]

I mean that the writings we have the cite events BEFORE the gospels ( and before Christ) were all written AFTER the gospels.
See the article I linked to.

The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, “[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name.”(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former “to be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD.”(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation.(30) An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century.(31) Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires.

OK, thanks.