Of course Jesus should be preferred over Krishna by all Christians. It is not even necessary for Christians to consider Krishna, Jesus should be able to meet all their needs.
According to Our Lord, He will judge based upon religion as well as good works. In St. John iii. 5, “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This is a reference to Baptism which he instructs the Apostles to do in St. Matthew xxviii. 19, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” If people are not baptized into the Catholic Church, they will be treated differently, regardless of their good works.
This is more than one way of being ‘born of the spirit’ or being ‘born again’, but if you want to believe that just by being Catholic will give you special privileges when Jesus Returns, that is quite OK.
Whose prophecy? I thought Shias believed Jesus and the Mahdi would return at the same time at Damascus. Nonetheless Jesus is the unique Son of God - unigenitus filius Patri.
Yes, and this is because works must be joined to grace for supernatural merit. Simply being “a good person” is not enough to merit the Beatific Vision. We must be transformed by the sacraments.
The prophecy says that the Mahdi will return first and then Jesus will return - but they will meet at some time (maybe in Damascus). So there may be a couple years in between their two Returns. Whether you call him a ‘Son of God’ or not, the Mahdi is still considered a messenger of God, so your reaction to him is significant.
If only you could consider what the meeting may be like, then the rest is also described the way it was.
That is only to take a portion of what Christ said concerning morals and ignore the theological statements Christ made concerning himself. That whoever does not take up his cross and follow him is not worthy of him. Part of Christ’s mission was not only to reveal a new way but to reveal himself as the object of faith, hence why the desciple emphasized faith in the Christ. Christ said whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, whoever disbelieves in the Son does not have eternal life. If Christ did not expect to be the object of faith, then he would not have died for our sins, yet he did so. So part of Christ treating people is to take into account their knowledge of him for only through him can we know the Father.
The parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant applies here. This is a Jain version:
Exactly! He says whoever believes in the Son who reaches the Father (not someone who believes in Jesus personally). The Son incarnates as many different individuals at different times in history. It is does not matter which incarnation you follow. So Jesus is quite sufficient for all Catholics, you can just ignore all the other incarnations.
We have the Bhagvat Gita which is said to have been his own words. So whoever wrote or spoke those words is Krishna.
So I guess my next question would be, what evidence is there that the Bhagavad Gita is Krishna’s own words?
I am not sure what you mean what evidence is that the Gita is Krishna’s words - it is obviously somebody’s words. If you want to call that person who original spoke those words from the Gita by some other name, that is ok with me. But we call that person Krishna (but you may call him Kris if you prefer)
That’s not what the New testament says, the word became flesh and dwelt among us. John doesn’t tell us of multiple incarnations and I have no reason to trust he has incarnated more than once. In fact it makes no sense for him to incarnate more than once since Christ accomplishes in the act of one incarnation the purpose of incarnation, uniting man with God. That is in taking on our humanity, suffering and living in a truly human way in all things without sin, Christ became the object of our salvation.
My original question was “Is there any evidence that Krishna actually existed on earth? Was he a historical figure?”. In response to that question, you said that we have the Bhagavad Gita, which is said to have been the words of Krishna. So, my subsequent questions were based on your response to my initial one. If the Bhagavad Gita is being presented by you as evidence that Krishna actually existed on earth (if it isn’t, then I’m not sure why you said what you did in response to that question), then I’d like to know why you believe that is the words of Krishna. How do you know that?
The reason for multiple incarnations is that knowledge about God and spiritual world is as vast as that of the natural world. One incarnation can only reveal as much of this vast knowledge as those listening can handle. Even our knowledge about salvation is not yet complete.
I think in John 3:36, those are John’s own words not directly those of Jesus. There is something similar in I John, but I still don’t think they are directly Jesus’s words ether.
We need to wait and see how this manifests - as I said there are two incarnations coming soon. I think the separation of goats and sheep is already happening per Matthew 25:35-40
I am not that familiar with this story, I thought the rich man did not give up his possessions? I think it is perfectly OK to believe that faith in the person of Jesus is a requirement for salvation and that everyone else is doomed (except for God’s mercy of course).
I personally believe in words of Krishna - the Bhagvat Gita on its merits. Of course a lot others also believe in them. Like I said, if in your opinion Krishna did not exist of earth, that is OK. In that case, I believe in whoever wrote those words. And I call that person Krishna.