RSS

Jesus and Krishna

30 Sep

Some people believe that there are so many similarities between Jesus and Krishna that it seems obvious that they refer to the same individual. This is partially true, but not in the manner most purveyors of this similarity would like us to believe. Some of the supposed similarities are:

  • Jesus was born on December 25th … so was Krishna
  • Jesus was born in a stable… so was Krishna born in a stable
  • Jesus was born of a virgin… so was Krishna born of a virgin
  • Jesus’ father was a carpenter… so was Krishna’s father a carpenter
  • Jesus’ birth was accompanied by infanticide… so was Krishna’s
  • Jesus was crucified… so was Krishna
  • Jesus rose from the dead… so did Krishna

At first one would look at these things and say: “Wow! Could this be true that Krishna is Jesus or Jesus is Krishna? The Hindu religion claims that the story of Krishna precedes that of Jesus, and if these allegations are true, Jesus would have had to have been originally Krishna, and the Apostles or the writers of the New Testament must have plagiarized the Hindu scriptures. Is this possible? In a word: “No!” this is not possible. Let me explain why.

First of all in a previous blog, I have shown that December 25th wasn’t associated with Jesus’ birth until two to three hundred years after Jesus was born and over one or two hundred years after the New Testament was written. The fact is the New Testament alludes to the fall as being the time of Jesus’ birth, specifically the Jewish Feast of Trumpets, according to the sign in the heavens in Revelation 12.

Secondly, according to the Hindi scriptures, Krishna was born in a prison cell where his mother and father were kept by the king [Bhagavata, Bk 4, I:4-5]. It seems the king had found a prophecy saying one of the sons of Princess Devaki would kill him and take the throne. Therefore, both she and her nobleman husband were kept in a prison cell and guarded by the king’s men. So, according to the Hindu faith, there is no similarity in either the birth places of Jesus and Krishna or in the vocation of their “fathers”.

Another supposed similarity is that Krishna was born of a virgin, but this would be impossible according to the Hindu scriptures [ Mahabharata Bk 12, XLVIII; cp. Bhagavata, Bk 4, I:4-5], because Princess Devaki had at least six other sons before Krishna was born. Each of them was killed by the king, but Krishna escaped. In contrast, Jesus was Mary’s first son. She was a virgin upon conception and a virgin at birth. Where is the similarity here except in the minds of the purveyors of this myth?

As alluded to above, the infanticide that took place under Herod has no similarity with Princess Devaki’s six sons (some traditions say seven) who were slain at birth [Bhagavata, Bk 4, XXII:7]. All were known by the king, all were of the same family and all deaths preceded the birth of Krishna. According to the New Testament, Herod killed indiscriminately in an effort to find Jesus, whom he presumed should inherit his throne.

Krishna (also called Keshava) was never crucified as is advertised by the myth enthusiasts. He was slain by accident while meditating in a forest by a hunter who mistook him for a deer [Mahabharata, Bk 16, 4]. As far as a resurrection is concerned, it was immediate not after being buried for three days and three nights, as is the case with Jesus. Moreover, the only person to whom Krishna showed himself alive after his death, according to the Hindu scriptures, is the hunter who killed him [Mahabharata, Bk 16, 4]. Does anyone, reading this, see any similarity between these two figures?

There seems to be many other similarities between the two figures, but the problem is that, although the mythical figure, Krishna, predates Jesus birth, the earliest accounts of these similarities are written in Classical Sanskrit. This form of Sanskrit did not exist until the 2nd or 3rd century CE, and the earliest manuscripts, showing these many similarities, post date the New Testament manuscripts, so who copied from whom?

Are Jesus and Krishna the same person? No, not really! The similarities are real, but the accounts of Krishna that are similar to Jesus are the result of pagan corruption of Christian evangelism in India. There are Christian traditions that the Apostle, Thomas, evangelized parts of India and was killed there. The similarities, therefore, would be a corruption of the Christian Gospel preached there and their absorption into the Krishna cult.

 
9 Comments

Posted by on September 30, 2010 in Jesus, Religion, Syncretism

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

9 responses to “Jesus and Krishna

  1. Esi Pingo

    January 5, 2012 at 05:54

    In fact I dnt need 2 prove 2 u ze existence of Sanskrit since millions of years now- it is already a fact..! So i dnt wish 2 write more on zis topic as its just a waste of time..

    We also know zat Lord Krsna n Lord Jesus r not ze same person..! And we are also convinced zat Jesus is bona fide..! But u people instead of trying 2 follow ze teachings of Jesus and preach His cult, u waste ur time blaspheming others-perhaps u just enjoy doing it, or u do it for cheap adoration, or marketing of your blog!

    Just try 2 follow seriously ze teachings of Jesus, ze son, u’l definitely attain to Krsna, ze father! Zis is my friendly advice 2 u!

    Your well-wisher
    Esi

     
  2. Ed Bromfield

    January 4, 2012 at 09:44

    What you have offered is a claim your religious book makes and **you** told me that NAZA supports the claim made by your religious source. First of all, NAZA is a business conglomerate in Southeast Asia. Perhaps it advertized on a TV program, but I don’t know that, and you didn’t say. You have not offered testimony as to what kind of program this was. Was it a religious program produced by NAZA for commercial purposes? Was it a science program that was supported by NAZA? Whatever it was, it is easy for the viewer to misinterpret the claims made on a TV program. It is much better to have a hard source that can be viewed by all. I gave you mine, and you cast it aside with contempt saying the **dictionary** was my bible.

    Thus far, all you have offered is your opinion. It is fine to have an opinion, but if you wish to be taken seriously, you must support your claims with an authority we all are able to see, recognize its value and act accordingly. Your analogies are amusing, but hardly relevant here, unless your intent is to apply them to yourself. But I don’t think that was your intention. Was it?

    THE ABOVE WAS POSTED FIRST AND WHAT IS BELOW WAS ADDED ROUGHLY AN HOUR AND A HALF LATER:

    Okay, I’m doing the research that you should be doing to support your case. You are referencing NASA not NAZA. According to what I have been able to find, you are speaking of an ancient **land bridge** in the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka, found HERE.

    The website is one of your religious sites, so it is unclear that NASA is making the claim that it is 1.7 million years old or Krishna.org is making the claim. I suspect it is Krishna.org making the claim. So, all of your claims are based upon your own interpretation of your religious book and nothing else. Nothing that has been discovered by NASA has anything to do with either Sanskrit or classical Sanskrit. In short, you have nothing to support your disagreement with the claims I made in the above blog post concerning the dating of classical Sanskrit.

    Have a good day

     
  3. Esi Pingo

    January 4, 2012 at 07:42

    On ze contrary it’s u who making baseless claims.. I gave u evidence such as The Ramayana with support from NAZA discovery but u seem to b closing ur eyes on them!

    As I told u evn if ze sun comes in front of ze owl, ze latter will close it’s eyes..n zus deny ze sun’s existence! But thoz who hav experience of ze sun know zat it exists..! Ze owl rains always in illusion.

     
  4. Ed Bromfield

    January 3, 2012 at 00:25

    No, I have not missed the point. The point is still that you claim Sanskrit has been in existence for millions of years. You have still not shown anything to support your case. I have shown support for my opinion, but you poo-pooed it. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone is able to show something to support the position they hold. I’m waiting for you show some authority other than yourself. :-)

     
  5. Esi Pingo

    January 2, 2012 at 23:35

    U missed ze point my dear..ze rocks r nt ze evidence in zemselvs bt zey r part of it! U cud hav searched on Naza’s discovery of ze bridge or Ramayana or Valmiki! Bt unfortunately u missed it..
    The sun is always zer bt for a bat that opens it’s eyes at ngt only, ze sun does not exist at all..THIS WAS AN ANALOGY- NOW DON’T TRY 2 FIND A LINK BETWEEN LANGUAGE N BAT OR SUN!
    Hope u understood my hint.

     
  6. Ed Bromfield

    January 1, 2012 at 13:07

    The last time I checked **rocks** have absolutely nothing to do with **language**. Rocks are a lot older than language. Do you care to try again?

     
  7. Esi Pingo

    January 1, 2012 at 05:53

    Fact r zer e.g. The naza just a few years ago discovered a bridge in ze sea linking India n Sri Lanka- n zey confirm the rocks r around 1.75m years ago! From ze Ramayana we learn abt ze bridge built by Lord Ramacandra to go 2 Sri Lanka! Zis Ramayana was written by Valmiki muni around zat time in Sanskrit..by ze way y r u taking Dictionary.com as ur “Bible”? Hw cn u b sure zat it presents ze true knowledge?

     
  8. Ed Bromfield

    January 1, 2012 at 04:01

    Greetings, and thank you for reading my blog and for taking the time to comment. First, let me say that I did not mention the Sanskrit language as a problem as far as Christianity is concerned. However, you probably need to get your facts straight in regard to your reply. Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, and it didn’t exist prior to 1200 BCE according to Dictionary.com.

    Concerning **Clasical** Sanskrit, my information shows there is no evidence of it’s existence before the 2nd or 3rd century CE, but you are welcome to offer evidence of your own, if you so desire. However, opinions like 1.7 million years is incredibly optimistic and cannot be supported by any evidence am familiar with.

     
  9. Esi Pingo

    December 31, 2011 at 11:58

    PLz get ur facts right–Sanskrit has been existing for millions of years now! The Ramayana of Valmiki Muni was written more zan 1.7million years ago..and ze language is Sankrit!

     
 
%d bloggers like this: