Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Posted: January 20 2017 at 12:37
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God. Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Their adoptive human father was a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. 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. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. Both Yeshua 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. Each cured "all manner of diseases." Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his 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 his enemies. Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected.
Too much similarities in my personal view to just call it "coincidence".
*Heavy sigh. *
Convenient comparisons do more to hurt one's argument then to help them. Let's take this one for instance, without going through very many, off the top of my head, I can tell you that the main differences lie with the source of the comparisons.
That Krishna was crucified is found only in a select Hindu oral tradition and not in the Hindu's authoritative text titled the Mahabharata, which also includes the philosophical treatise known as the Bhagavad Gita. Both of these texts would be comparable to the Christian Bible and it's text which focuses on Christ called the New Testament, and relates all of the Christ tales.
First off, Krishna was not crucified in the Mahabharata but accidently shot in the heel by a friend while hunting. This death is more akin with the death of the Greek hero Achilles. No crucifixion or resurrection, as relayed in one of hundreds, if not thousands, of oral variants.
That is just one and probably most important literal difference. There is also a deep divide in each religion's theologies which puts any comparisons of the two into the trash. Krishna revealed to his charge Arjuna (in the Bhagavad Gita) this key Sanskrit proclamation: "Tat Tvam Asi." (Thou art that.) That man and the divine are one, and he was celebrated for it. Christ was condemned and executed for stating the same thing, that He and Father were one.
There are better ways to disprove myths without using sloppily patched together comparisons.
Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396
Posted: January 20 2017 at 13:22
Jesus
and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Aren’t we all? Didn’t we just delude ourselves into thinking
otherwise?Jesus and Krishna were one of
many that lifted their veil of delusion.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
There were masters throughout the ages that did not have to
reincarnate back on the physical plane but chose to do so for a special
dispensation.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
Anyone attuning their consciousness with the universal Christ Consciousness
has achieved unity.
The Holy Trinity is referenced in most of the world’s religious
texts but very widely misunderstood.
When God as Spirit, existing beyond all of vibratory creation (causal,
astral and material) decides to create He becomes God the Father. His reflected consciousness within all of
vibratory creation is His only Begotten Son. Referred to as Christ or Christ Consciousness,
Buddha mind, Krishna Consciousness and many other such references.
The Holy Symphonic Vibration that makes up all of vibratory creation
is the Holy Ghost. Think string theory here…
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
There is only one Spirit that became the Father of all. Everything originated from a singularity.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
As I gather Krishna was from royalty but Jesus was more of a peasant.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
If the 3 wise men came out of the east and followed the star of
the east how did they end up in the west?The
star of the east wasn’t an actual star in the sky. It’s the spiritual eye of
intuition and gateway into omnipresent perception.The star of the east is also known as the
third eye, inner eye, eye of Shiva, single eye of intuition, dove descending
from heaven and probably many others.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill
the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary
and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua 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. Each cured
"all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his 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 his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected.
Too much similarities in my personal view to just call it
"coincidence".
Compare yourself to anyone on this planet and I’m sure you could
dredge up a lot of similarities.Coincidence?
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: January 20 2017 at 14:36
SteveG wrote:
A man named Jesus of Nazareth is thought by academics to have existed two thousandth years ago and put to death by the Roman prefect Pilate. If he was divine or an enlightened social thinker should be the question, as some others have stated.
who knows... but one thing we know he wasn't hahahha...
a f**king Republican
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8581
Posted: January 20 2017 at 14:51
^We should probably qualify that with a chronological /geographic stamp. "Republican " outside of post-WWII USA has been the more liberal leaning term in English speaking countries....if my historical interpretations are worth a grain of salt. What it meant at that time? I guess we would have to chance asking the Republican Guard.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: January 20 2017 at 15:11
Tapfret wrote:
^We should probably qualify that with a chronological /geographic stamp. "Republican " outside of post-WWII USA has been the more liberal leaning term in English speaking countries....if my historical interpretations are worth a grain of salt. What it meant at that time? I guess we would have to chance asking the Republican Guard.
deep man.. so deep it hurt my head.
I would figure my meaning was crystal clear... the same god fearing gun wielding minority hating Republicans that infest this country in the here and now.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
Posted: January 20 2017 at 15:18
There's some other stories that were liberally 'borrowed' from other mythological dieties/demi-gods as well, right down to the name of Jesus being a combination of Isa and Zeus.
Perhaps the most borrowed stories, probably because it had been such a "normal" part of like (and death) a couple of thousand years ago are those of the crucifixion and resurrection, which were previously associated with Horus, Mithras, Osiris, Dionysos, Krishna (or Chrishna), Hesus, and Osiris.
Indeed, many of the events of Christ's life in the Gospels were copied from "previous saviors" of non-Christian pagan religions. Stories of Dionysus especially have a lot in common with the stories of Jesus.
Maybe being an atheist isn't really that big of a thing. What I mean is: no one calls himself or herself an atheist with regard to not believing in unicorns/leprechauns/santa claus/Zeus/ etc. You don't have to carefully examine and evaluate the deity in question. You just don't believe in it, and never even think about it.
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes" and I need the knits, the double knits!
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8581
Posted: January 20 2017 at 15:19
micky wrote:
Tapfret wrote:
^We should probably qualify that with a chronological /geographic stamp. "Republican " outside of post-WWII USA has been the more liberal leaning term in English speaking countries....if my historical interpretations are worth a grain of salt. What it meant at that time? I guess we would have to chance asking the Republican Guard.
deep man.. so deep it hurt my head.
I would figure my meaning was crystal clear... the same god fearing gun wielding minority hating Republicans that infest this country in the here and now.
I just wouldn't want confusion people in who read this in 700 years when Prog is finally accepted as the one true religion and a Republican is strictly used as a proprietary name for a model of self propelled personal hovercraft.
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Posted: January 20 2017 at 16:18
SteveG wrote:
Convenient comparisons do more to hurt one's argument then to help them. Let's take this one for instance, without going through very many, off the top of my head, I can tell you that the main differences lie with the source of the comparisons.
That Krishna was crucified is found only in a select Hindu oral tradition and not in the Hindu's authoritative text titled the Mahabharata, which also includes the philosophical treatise known as the Bhagavad Gita. Both of these texts would be comparable to the Christian Bible and it's text which focuses on Christ called the New Testament, and relates all of the Christ tales.
I very much disagree with your idea that an oral tradition poses an unlikely source. You are presuming literary approach to mythological comparisons, that the mechanism of diffusion of mythological motifs arises through people directly reading and appropriating what they want to use from prior stories. I think rather that mythology is grounded in ritual, tradition, and religious practice of actual religions. It is more likely through gradual transmission of such tradition, ritual and religious practice that mythological motifs get diffused and indirectly appropriated. No comment though on your other points.
Edited by HackettFan - January 20 2017 at 16:22
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 21 2017 at 04:25
CosmicVibration wrote:
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
As I gather Krishna was from royalty but Jesus was more of a peasant.
You've not read the bible much then. Chapter 1 of Matthew goes to great length (17 verses) to establish the royal blood line of Abraham to David and then to Jesus (42 generations) while Luke extends that back from Abraham to Adam (76 generations in total). Establishing a direct link back to the biblical first man is somewhat meaningless path as many of the descendants of Adam would not show royal heritage so the only genealogical path of interest is that to King David and for the sake of argument we can say the number of generations from Jesus to King David is roughly 28 (according to Matthew). Archaeological and OT evidence of the reign of David dates him around 970BCE and that makes the length of a generation as approximately 34 years, which stacks up with the general rule-of-thumb of 30 years. This makes Luke and Matthew's genealogy at least mathematically feasible and not just arbitrary lists of names...
...from a mathematical perspective since each person has 2 biological parents, 4 biological grandparents, 8 biological great-grandparents and so on then 28 generations back from Jesus would be 268.4 million biological ancestors, which is 5 times the population of the whole planet at that time and roughly 500 times the population of Israel so there was a hell of a lot of intermarrying within each family and/or tribe. This means that the probability of an Israelite alive in 0CE being a descendant of King David approaches 1, not only that they are also directly related to every other Israelite alive at the time of King David...
The royal descent of Jesus is pretty much fundamental to him fulfilling the whole messianic prophecy malarkey where the immaculate conception is merely the icing on the cake...
Also, since Joseph was a tradesman technically he wouldn't have been a peasant so Jesus wouldn't have been either.
CosmicVibration wrote:
Compare yourself to anyone on this planet and I’m sure you could dredge up a lot of similarities. Coincidence?
There is a significant difference between coincidence, correlation and causation. A correlation is when the similarity is greater than what can be predicted by statistics alone, however if there is nothing that links the cause of the correlation then it is just coincidence. If I compare my eye-colour with anyone on this planet then I'll find that only 1 in 12 people have similar colour eyes as me, yet if I only make that comparison with people who live on the same island as me then I am six times more likely of finding a match and if I travel to Scandiwegia those odds are pretty much reversed with 9 out of 10 people sharing similar eye-colour as me. However if I travel to India or the Middle East then the proportion of people with similar eye-colour to me drops way below 1 in 12 to become insignificantly small. So because there is a strong correlation between my eye colour and specific populations of people then we can expect to find a causation of particular eye-colours that are linked to the genealogical make-up of those populations that makes blue eyes commonplace in some regions and rare as rocking horse poop in others. This is something that can be investigated to identify why there appears to be a causational correlation rather than a statistically anomalous coincidence.
Now Eddie's point here is the number of similarities between Jesus, Krishna (and other divine/messianic/religious figures) are above what can be predicted by statistics alone which makes this either a massive coinkydink or there is an identifiable cause for the correlation. The two obvious causes would be either they are the same person (unlikely but it has been proposed that Jesus travelled to India during his undocumented gap years between the end of his childhood and the beginning of his ministry) or the accounts of their lives and elevation to divinity are based upon a common and recurrent mythology that is prevalent in many (if not all) the worlds religions.
On the other hand both Jesus and Krishna are often depicted with the same eye-colour as me, my father was a carpenter and I am a descendant of Charlemagne - coincidence?
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20240
Posted: January 21 2017 at 04:26
Wow two days (coudn't find time yesterday) and four pages down (only??)... Good old PA spirit lives on, uh?
CPicard wrote:
^First: we're not discussing how goodbad people are Christian people. We know, we know, most of them give to the poor, they live and share with the community and they cook cakes to the newcoming neighbours. Fine. But that's not the point of the thread.
Secondly: while there are some details in the biography of Jesus as written in the Bible that are to be believed (the Resurrection, his divine nature, the Lazarus resurrection, the water becoming wine, etc...), I'm not sure we're discussing if Jesus was a man whose life times had been a little exagerated by his "biographists" or if he was the Son of God and the Messiah. The initial post asks the question of his EXISTENCE - a question more... crucial.
Thirdly: I'm aware of the "mythicist" hypothesis (the hypothesis that Jesus may have been a myth) and I consider that some points raised by the mythicists are... interesting and even seducing... But, having been a history student, I don't want to be seduced: I want to be convinced with proofs. And, to speak the truth, while I acknowledge some problems within the biographical aspects of the New Testament,what Eddie says won't convince me. Not only Constantine making Christianism the official religion of the Roman Empire wasn't the best thing to do by the Empire to keep its "dominions" under its grip (the cult of Mithra was vastly practiced by soldiers and merchants, two important groups in the Roman society), but this decision was also criticised by the elite and some rulers. Also, the main problems with the written sources about Jesus are not that the geographical aspects would be wrong: keep in mind that we don't have versions of the Evangiles older than the fourth century. We must assume that there could have been, decades after decades, heavy re-writings of what Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote in their times. That could explain some geographical glitches or even the weird holes in the chronology (we know that Jesus was born under the reign of Herod, but the year is still unclear).
What could puzzle us is that we can't find sources about Jesus from his times: none of the contemporean Roman, Greek or Hebraic authors wrote about him. The first authors referencing Jesus are Tacite, Pline the Young and Suetone - the three ones writing at the end of the first century, more than 50 years after Jesus' death. On the other hand, Paul of Tarse, whose existence was real, met the former disciples of Jesus and started writing around the year 50. So, it could be accepted as a proof of the existence of Jesus - even if his biography is somewhat full of holes.
First: it's too bad we're not discussing the evils of worship.
Secondly, to my knowledge it's not in the bibble (the old/ancient testament) they speak of the beatnik freak, but in the four evangiles in the new testament
Thirdly: as an atheist, I'd love to say that even the prophet is a
fallacy, tbut most likely, there were dozens of nutcases hearing the
voices from above on every steet corner... so whether he was called Joe Dick or harry (most likely the second), I don't give a hoot, but he most likely existed and unlike many of outer-space hearing dorks, this one was a peaceful one (which is not the case of that Mahomet dde, wh was a murderer and forced his beliefs on others.
Fourth: it's kind of logivcal no-one wrote about him as he was insignificant enough that no-one (except for a dozen freaks) thought it worthy to put down on paper his name. That's the point of a sect: a selected few start making up a piece of BS, and go on to spread the BS as far across as possible... So it took 50 them years for them to achieve that.
The feather that magically turned into 10 chickens. I know from personal experience how my old stories have changed quite considerably depending on beer intake, chicks and what mood I'm in.
Jesus was most likely a fine gent with some remarkably sympathetic ideas - hitting that hippie high well before Jimi wore blossom pants - but the accompanying tales are tarnished by time and the lack of any scientific proof.
I believe in the historical person - not the divine. Divinity is man-made.
For all we know, Jesus could've been a fine bowler.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: October 31 2015
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Posted: January 21 2017 at 06:39
HackettFan wrote:
I think rather that mythology is grounded in ritual, tradition, and religious practice of actual religions. It is more likely through gradual transmission of such tradition, ritual and religious practice that mythological motifs get diffused and indirectly appropriated.
Finally a good point on all this pointless discussion about their actual principles.......... So far it seems that Krishna should be part of the thread title.......... So, what about veering towards a much more coherent direction??
As people here seem SO interested in eastern mithology, then what about proven facts....... so let me give a suggestion, so easy to pick on this matter:
The Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism tenets' striking parallels with the latest discoveries in cyclotrons.
This should be of better interest both for the agnostic and the religious people, rather than trying to find the truth about the religious leaders or whatever were them.
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13627
Posted: January 21 2017 at 09:09
omphaloskepsis wrote:
More then likely, Jesus did exist and was crucified, although most the Bible stories are a crucifiction.
In fact, much of the Bible is based on historical fact, being a story of God's "chosen people". It is the miracles, resurrection, and other such instances which require faith.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Posted: January 21 2017 at 09:25
HackettFan wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Convenient comparisons do more to hurt one's argument then to help them. Let's take this one for instance, without going through very many, off the top of my head, I can tell you that the main differences lie with the source of the comparisons.
That Krishna was crucified is found only in a select Hindu oral tradition and not in the Hindu's authoritative text titled the Mahabharata, which also includes the philosophical treatise known as the Bhagavad Gita. Both of these texts would be comparable to the Christian Bible and it's text which focuses on Christ called the New Testament, and relates all of the Christ tales.
I very much disagree with your idea that an oral tradition poses an unlikely source. You are presuming literary approach to mythological comparisons, that the mechanism of diffusion of mythological motifs arises through people directly reading and appropriating what they want to use from prior stories. I think rather that mythology is grounded in ritual, tradition, and religious practice of actual religions. It is more likely through gradual transmission of such tradition, ritual and religious practice that mythological motifs get diffused and indirectly appropriated. No comment though on your other points.
I did not say that it was an unlikely source, but an unreliable one. The Mahabharata is thousands of years old and oral traditions can be hundreds, if not thousands, of years newer. Christianity arrived in full force with the advent of the British colonization of India. Christian missionaries could have influenced the local oral traditions which resulted with these so called Krishna crucifixion and resurrection stories, with an attempt by locals to show a "my God did it first" agenda. Oral sources can also evolve over time and be corrupted.
This is why its preferable to compare ancient written sources against other ancient written sources, and why RUkiddingVarese's written vs oral comparisons hold little weight with academics.
Edited by SteveG - January 21 2017 at 09:28
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.168 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Jesus Christ! Fact or fiction?
Topic Options
The T wrote:
)... Good old PA spirit lives on, uh? 
