Krishna, to the Indian people, is their god. His life and the events surrounding his life took place in a different setting, different time, and they believe there were real eyewitnesses to the life and miracles of Krishna. That doesn’t sound like collective memory, it sounds like people witnessed someone different, but nearly identical in archetype to Jesus.
Please post the multiple accounts by multiple authors - both from “believers” and from those who did not believe. Christianity can do that. I’m almost certain Krishan-ism cannot.
By the way, who’s to say that Christianity isn’t a collective memory (or borrowed archetypes) of the epic of Gilgamesh? That sounds more plausible and much less of a stretch than what you propose.
History says Christ existed. The unbroken line of sucessors from the Apostles - historically demonstrative - says so. Encyclopedia Brittanica - the only encyclopedia allowed as evidence in courts - says so.’
How is it “less plausible” that the God of the Universe would want to reveal Himself to His creation and some get it wrong?
Additionally, people have claimed that different cultures and religions wrote about a worldwide Flood because they all witnessed the same thing (even though according to the Bible, only Noah’s family survived). However, research has shown that no worldwide flood has ever occurred, therefore the story of Noah’s Ark is merely allegorical. How can there be collective memory to an event that never occurred? It seems more likely the stories are borrowed and evolved to suit a particular culture’s needs for their time and place.
When Caesar called for a census of the “whole world” everyone knew that he meant every area HE controlled. You have placed a modern American definition to the phrase “whole world”.
According to the excerpt about Krishna’s birth, his coming was prophesied and it came to be.
Show me the documents that were hundreds of years old prior to the “birth” of Krishna that tell where he would be born, by whom, at what time, under what signs and we’ll talk.
I can write a story that says “hey my birth was prophesised!” Difference is, there are actual hundreds-of-years-old documents that were well know to be the prophesies of this coming Messiah, in existence, Not a story that says they exists.
That contradicts your statement.
You want it to contradict my statement. There’s a difference.
But, even if that weren’t the case, that to me, sounds like desperate grasping to find any difference, to claim that Jesus isn’t anything like Krishna. That would be a difference without any importance, since it is said that Christianity borrowed and evolved these earlier, ancient stories; so of course things like setting, time, place, and other minor details will be different. For the average person, anyone who reads the comparisons will notice glaring, nearly identical, similarities.
And anyone with an open mind will also notice the glaring, unexplainable, much more significant differences like Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascension. The tiny movement that started as a branch of a Middle Eastern religion, was persecuted mercilessly to try to destroy it, and yet it is the biggest religion in the world; replacing one of the most powerful empires without raising a single sword?
Do Krishna’s followers today (are there any today?) perform miracles? Does Krishna have a “Lourdes”? Do Krishna’s followers turn up Incorruptible? Do Krishna’s followers raise the dead?
Hope this helps, God Bless,
Nate
