Featured Pages

▼

Sunday, 12 June 2011

Krishna and Jesus


Having covered Horus and Jesus,  Mithra and Jesus and Historical Jesus?, let us move on to Krishna.

Similarities between the Krishna character and the Jesus character include:
  • Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
  • Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
  • Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
  • Both had an earthly father who was a carpenter.
  • The mothers of both were (sometimes said to be) virgins.
  • Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
  • Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
  • Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination.
  • Both Jesus and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
  • Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
  • Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
  • Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
  • Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
  • Both were 'without sin'.
  • Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
  • They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
  • Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole.
  • Both cast out demons, and raised the dead.
  • Both selected disciples to spread their teachings.
  • Both were meek, and merciful.
  • Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
  • Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
  • Both celebrated a last supper.
  • Both forgave their enemies.
  • Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.
The list goes on, but I think that makes the point.  Incidentally, Krishna was on earth sometime between 3000 and 300 years before Jesus.  I think it is clear which story has precedence.

Conclusions later . . .


Related post links, added later:
at

5 comments:

  1. Opinionated Primate13 June 2011 at 01:19

    Very nice blog and interesting to bring up in debates with those who insist Christ was unique. Keep up the good work :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown18 February 2012 at 20:26

    Again, citations to original texts? And how did the Jesus community of Roman Palestine encounter Indian religions? What does "gentile" mean outside the context of Judaism? What about the myriad stories of people meeting women at wells in the Hebrew Bible? Again, the omni- language comes from the Chruch Fathers, not the New Testament, as was Jesus as "fully human and fully divine." Jesus never said that he existed before he was born. The NT is deeply influenced by middle-platonic philosophy, which we can see most explicitly in John 1 and Paul. (See also, Philo of Alexandria.) Nor does it say that he descended in to Hell. The word "hades" is used in the NT, but that was just the realm of the dead, but like the Hebrew concept of Sheol.

    Some of these similarities are, at best, less than skin deep. Many people have forgiven enemies, have spread their teachings, etc.

    Again, I ask, "What about Judaism?" Jesus was in a Jewish context. Messianism arose in a Jewish context (hell the word "messiah" is a Hebrew word, not Egyptian, not Indian, not Greek, Hebrew). This comparative religions stuff lacks methodological foundation and ignores Jesus's historical context (or the context that he was supposedly in). Read Jesus as a Jew first, and then move beyond that. Read him that way first because that was the world he lived in. This is just regurgitation of the pseuvdo-scholastic work of others without actual inquiry into real works of scholarship.

    Acharya S (one of the main proponents of this sort of methodology free trash) is not a reputable scholar. We must engage reputable scholarship, use repeatable scholarship. If we are going to critique fundamentalists and conservatives for lacking in scholarly rigor, we must apply the same critique to ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Secular_Jihadist14 November 2012 at 00:40

    Agreed Justin, I see this thrown around all the time, without any citations, and if by chance one exists, its Archarya S.

    It just makes everyone involved look equally uninformed as the ones they are criticizing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous29 June 2023 at 14:57

    Can you please say or cute where you got this information from? That would be very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous29 June 2023 at 14:57

    I mean "cite".

    ReplyDelete