Why Jesus over Lord Krishna?

[openmind77]

Let me start off by saying I do not write this to mock Hinduism or to disparage Hindus, but merely report my own findings. If you believe I am mistaken somewhere, please let me know and I will rectify.

1. 
   *] The Biblical account (the Gospels, since we’re discussing Jesus) seems to be telling a true historical account of eyewitness events (have a look at the section entitled “The Historical Evidence” on this tract). Can this be said for Krishna?
   *] The extra-Biblical evidence seems strong for Jesus (the martyrdom testimony of the Apostles, atleast of Peter, Paul and James; more at “The External Evidence” in this tract). Can this be said for Krishna?
   *] There’s no evidence that Jesus was ever with a woman, and it seems he remained chaste while He walked the Earth. However, it seems Krishna was a bit … different in this regard.

1. 
   I am not sure whether you are saying Krishna did not exist or that he did exist but was not chaste enough for your taste.
   
   In either case, I think for Christians, there is no need to believe in Krishna and whether he even existed. Jesus should be sufficient for your needs, until the next incarnation arrives on Earth.
   
   So the important thing to realize is that other incarnations are possible,

 

[Micosil]

I did say I’m not going to mock Hinduism or to disparage Hindus. Guess that part was ignored.

bails thread

 

[openmind77]

I did say I’m not going to mock Hinduism or to disparage Hindus. Guess that part was ignored.

bails thread

Sorry, I did not mean to ignore anything. I am sure you were being respectful and sincere.

 

[LivingWaters7]

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.

So, in response to my actual original question, you are not able to provide any evidence that Krishna actually existed on earth.

Thanks.

 

[openmind77]

So, in response to my actual original question, you are not able to provide any evidence that Krishna actually existed on earth.

Thanks.

If you say that Krishna did not exist of Earth, and that he sent the words in the Bhagvat Gita to us by some unknown supernatural means, I am sure there are plenty of people who will believe you.

But I think there was an earthly human being who spoke those words.

 

[LivingWaters7]

If you say that Krishna did not exist of Earth, and that he sent the words in the Bhagvat Gita to us by some unknown supernatural means, I am sure there are plenty of people who will believe you.

But I think there was an earthly human being who spoke those words.

I haven’t said anything about Krishna’s existence, nor have I implied such. I am simply asking for evidence for Krishna existing on the earth. If the Bhagavad Gita is evidence of his existence on earth, then I’m asking why is it evidence that Krishna (specifically him) existed on the earth? What is it that points to him being the author/speaker of the words?

 

[openmind77]

I haven’t said anything about Krishna’s existence, nor have I implied such. I am simply asking for evidence for Krishna existing on the earth. If the Bhagavad Gita is evidence of his existence on earth, then I’m asking why is it evidence that Krishna (specifically him) existed on the earth? What is it that points to him being the author/speaker of the words?

If you are saying that Krishna did not speak the words in the Bhagvat Gita and it was actually someone else then please tell me that person’s name - then I can start worshipping him too.

 

[LivingWaters7]

If you are saying that Krishna did not speak the words in the Bhagvat Gita and it was actually someone else then please tell me that person’s name - then I can start worshipping him too.

I am not saying anything. It would be best if you stop attempting to say that I am.

Again, all I am asking for is evidence that Krishna existed on this earth. If you believe that the Bhagavad Gita is evidence of that, then I am simply asking for what evidence is there that it was Krishna that wrote it. Why is the Bhagavad Gita evidence of his existence.

 

[openmind77]

I am not saying anything. It would be best if you stop attempting to say that I am.

Again, all I am asking for is evidence that Krishna existed on this earth. If you believe that the Bhagavad Gita is evidence of that, then I am simply asking for what evidence is there that it was Krishna that wrote it. Why is the Bhagavad Gita evidence of his existence.

I guess you could say that it is similar to saying that the ten commandments is the evidence for the existence of Moses on this earth.

But the answer is that the Bhagvat Gita exists and it is evidence that someone spoke those words and that someone happens to be named Krishna. If the Gita had used some other name, then we would have called him by that other name.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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 know the Bible does not mention multiple incarnations and there is no reason for you to believe in them. If you were living in the last few centuries I would agree with you - there was no need to even think about other incarnations, including Krishna.

However, we are at a point in history, when there will be two more incarnations soon - one is the muslim Mahdi and the second (a couple of years later) would be the Returned Jesus. It would good to be ready to receive both, even though you only believe in the second one.
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).

But this kind of belief will lead to great disappointment when a new revelation teaches otherwise - and as I said a new revelation is almost upon us.

I suspected you would dismiss John’s words because they are not part of the synoptics, though why you would trust Matthews words eludes me. Were a portion of the apostles apostate so that we might dismiss John and accept Matthew? John was a pillar in the apostolic community alongside Peter and Paul and for a good reason, because he was the disciple whom Jesus loved.

This is why I brought up the parable of the rich man and why it is important. Jesus doesn’t say, go give up your wealth period, he adds the clause, “and follow me.” Jesus makes following him part of the Gospel that he gives, part of the new life he promises. We see this language more clearly reflected In John’s gospel but it exists within the synoptics as well.

Consider at the resurrection the command Jesus gives to his apostles, go and baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now if you deny the resurrection this will not do, but why trust the other parts of Matthew in that regard? Is it perhaps that you only want to take the moral teaching and ignore the theological points that Jesus makes concerning himself?

Jesus at points before his resurrection tells his apostles things that indicate who Christ is.:

24:42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

They are to keep watch for the return of Jesus, not just have a moral code by which to live by, by which Jesus is unimportant. This is why in the epistles Jesus is constantly mentioned as the basis of faith with phrases like “in the Lord Jesus” or “by the power of his Word” or “Those sanctified in Christ” or “but we preach Christ” and etc. Jesus emphasized a faith in himself and you say Krishna did not. Either his apostles have misrepresented Christ (as many modern scholars believe) or they kept the faith Christ handed down to them. I happen to believe the latter, though you believe in the former. This however demonstrates a key difference between Krishna and the Christ, in that one is to receive worship, honour and glory and the other can be disregarded and no one will suffer at having disregarded Krishna. People will suffer however if they ignore Jesus.

 

[openmind77]

I suspected you would dismiss John’s words because they are not part of the synoptics, though why you would trust Matthews words eludes me. Were a portion of the apostles apostate so that we might dismiss John and accept Matthew? John was a pillar in the apostolic community alongside Peter and Paul and for a good reason, because he was the disciple whom Jesus loved.

I don’t dismiss John’s gospel at all, I would never call him an ‘apostate’. He just tends to quote whole paragraphs as coming from Jesus’s mouth. I find Matthew’s quotes are more convincing that is all.

This is why I brought up the parable of the rich man and why it is important. Jesus doesn’t say, go give up your wealth period, he adds the clause, “and follow me.” Jesus makes following him part of the Gospel that he gives, part of the new life he promises. We see this language more clearly reflected In John’s gospel but it exists within the synoptics as well.

Consider at the resurrection the command Jesus gives to his apostles, go and baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now if you deny the resurrection this will not do, but why trust the other parts of Matthew in that regard? Is it perhaps that you only want to take the moral teaching and ignore the theological points that Jesus makes concerning himself?

Of course, the intent of Jesus was for people to follow him and his teachings. And they should. Those who don’t follow his teachings are indeed lost. But does not mean Jesus will abandon people who don’t follow him personally- those are just other people’s claims.

Jesus at points before his resurrection tells his apostles things that indicate who Christ is.:

24:42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

They are to keep watch for the return of Jesus, not just have a moral code by which to live by, by which Jesus is unimportant. This is why in the epistles Jesus is constantly mentioned as the basis of faith with phrases like “in the Lord Jesus” or “by the power of his Word” or “Those sanctified in Christ” or “but we preach Christ” and etc. Jesus emphasized a faith in himself and you say Krishna did not. Either his apostles have misrepresented Christ (as many modern scholars believe) or they kept the faith Christ handed down to them. I happen to believe the latter, though you believe in the former. This however demonstrates a key difference between Krishna and the Christ, in that one is to receive worship, honour and glory and the other can be disregarded and no one will suffer at having disregarded Krishna. People will suffer however if they ignore Jesus.

I think Jesus preached faith in the Son not in his own person. I did not say the Son is unimportant - he is the way to the Father. But the Son manifests in multiple ways.

We do need to watch for the Return of Jesus, but if another messenger of God comes before that, it would be unwise to ignore that messenger. In fact it may be impossible to ignore him. One such possible messenger soon to appear is the Mahdi expected by muslims.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I don’t dismiss John’s gospel at all, I would never call him an ‘apostate’. He just tends to quote whole paragraphs as coming from Jesus’s mouth. I find Matthew’s quotes are more convincing that is all.

Of course, the intent of Jesus was for people to follow him and his teachings. And they should. Those who don’t follow his teachings are indeed lost. But does not mean Jesus will abandon people who don’t follow him personally- those are just other people’s claims.

I think Jesus preached faith in the Son not in his own person. I did not say the Son is unimportant - he is the way to the Father. But the Son manifests in multiple ways.

We do need to watch for the Return of Jesus, but if another messenger of God comes before that, it would be unwise to ignore that messenger. In fact it may be impossible to ignore him. One such possible messenger soon to appear is the Mahdi expected by muslims.

You’re distinction between the Son and Jesus is a heresy which makes no sense of the scripture and makes it impossible to read. At certain points it would be the Son talking and at certain points it would be the man Jesus talking and all this explanation serves the purpose of trying to reconcile what you find difficult, namely incarnation. There was a name for this heresy and it was called adoptionism, the idea that the spirit merely descended into the man Jesus. Yet we know Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit from birth and we see him even as a child confounding the teachers in the temple with his wisdom.

It’s not incarnation, it’s more akin to possession, something which the Bahai believe (since they also distinguish between Ali Nuri and this entity Baha’u’llah). Now the problem in suggesting that another messenger has come and that Christians have ignored him doesn’t quite make sense from a Christian New testament point of view. Christians don’t deny there could have been private revelation to certain individuals after the apostles, but none of them can supersede the apostolic deposit given by Christ which is the benchmark for determining the validity of any such claim. All sorts of people have claimed to be prophets but they have at many points, like Muhammad, Joseph Smith or Ali Nuri, contradicted the original deposit. Their response typically is to say the original deposit was lost or misunderstood and in that we see they are really attempting to be re-constructionists of lost traditions and beliefs.

Jesus did not tell us to await the Mahdi, he told us to await for his sudden and shocking return, in which all will see him. Likewise there is no reason to distinguish between the Word/Logos and the man Jesus, for they are the same person. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us if you accept the words of John and consider them trustworthy, believe them then. That it is the same Jesus who wept for Lazurus who also said that before Abraham was, I am.

 

[openmind77]

You’re distinction between the Son and Jesus is a heresy which makes no sense of the scripture and makes it impossible to read. At certain points it would be the Son talking and at certain points it would be the man Jesus talking and all this explanation serves the purpose of trying to reconcile what you find difficult, namely incarnation. There was a name for this heresy and it was called adoptionism, the idea that the spirit merely descended into the man Jesus. Yet we know Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit from birth and we see him even as a child confounding the teachers in the temple with his wisdom.

It’s not incarnation, it’s more akin to possession, something which the Bahai believe (since they also distinguish between Ali Nuri and this entity Baha’u’llah). Now the problem in suggesting that another messenger has come and that Christians have ignored him doesn’t quite make sense from a Christian New testament point of view. Christians don’t deny there could have been private revelation to certain individuals after the apostles, but none of them can supersede the apostolic deposit given by Christ which is the benchmark for determining the validity of any such claim. All sorts of people have claimed to be prophets but they have at many points, like Muhammad, Joseph Smith or Ali Nuri, contradicted the original deposit. Their response typically is to say the original deposit was lost or misunderstood and in that we see they are really attempting to be re-constructionists of lost traditions and beliefs.

Jesus did not tell us to await the Mahdi, he told us to await for his sudden and shocking return, in which all will see him. Likewise there is no reason to distinguish between the Word/Logos and the man Jesus, for they are the same person. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us if you accept the words of John and consider them trustworthy, believe them then. That it is the same Jesus who wept for Lazurus who also said that before Abraham was, I am.

You are right. In Catholic terms ti would sound like a heresy to distinguish between the Son and Jesus. But I would definitely not call it possession.

In Hinduism it is called an Avatar - the Son and the incarnation are as One (even as a child) - so all words that are spoken are of the Son. In fact, Hindus already have two recognized past incarnations - Rama and Krishna.

A new incarnation has not yet come, but will soon arrive. The muslims are expecting the Mahdi to come before the second coming of Jesus. Whether he will be an incarnation or merely a messenger/prophet is yet to be seen. But his will not be a private revelation - he will be seem word-wide. The reaction of Christians/Catholics to such a global incarnation is critical because it will be as powerful as the second coming.

 

[TonyBS]

You are right. In Catholic terms ti would sound like a heresy to distinguish between the Son and Jesus. But I would definitely not call it possession.

In Hinduism it is called an Avatar - the Son and the incarnation are as One (even as a child) - so all words that are spoken are of the Son. In fact, Hindus already have two recognized past incarnations - Rama and Krishna.

A new incarnation has not yet come, but will soon arrive. The muslims are expecting the Mahdi to come before the second coming of Jesus. Whether he will be an incarnation or merely a messenger/prophet is yet to be seen. But his will not be a private revelation - he will be seem word-wide. The reaction of Christians/Catholics to such a global incarnation is critical because it will be as powerful as the second coming.

No truer words spoken

One has to decide if it is past tense or future tense that we speak about though

Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You are right. In Catholic terms ti would sound like a heresy to distinguish between the Son and Jesus. But I would definitely not call it possession.

In Hinduism it is called an Avatar - the Son and the incarnation are as One (even as a child) - so all words that are spoken are of the Son. In fact, Hindus already have two recognized past incarnations - Rama and Krishna.

A new incarnation has not yet come, but will soon arrive. The muslims are expecting the Mahdi to come before the second coming of Jesus. Whether he will be an incarnation or merely a messenger/prophet is yet to be seen. But his will not be a private revelation - he will be seem word-wide. The reaction of Christians/Catholics to such a global incarnation is critical because it will be as powerful as the second coming.

They are not one however, there are two entities in your mind, Jesus the man and the Christ the spirit. There is the man Jesus and the spirit which took control of his body. My question would be this, did they share the same body and take turns or did the man Jesus cease to exist or cease in consciousness when the spirit inhabited his body? In both cases we might call this possession, though it raises some troublesome questions in regards to the merits of the sacrifice of the man Jesus since clearly it is not the word dying in any real sense but the physical man. Is it Jesus the man’s sacrifice that counts for salvation? To me this notion has no power. It is the the Word Jesus assuming human nature, taking on a human will and living out life as a man perfectly for our sakes that gives that sacrifice a true power, not some innocent regular man dying for our sins.

Once again, I am left with no other conclusion than to believe Krishna in an ultimate sense is unnecessary, whereas Christ is everything and necessary to all things.

 

[Servant19]

They are not one however, there are two entities in your mind, Jesus the man and the Christ the spirit. There is the man Jesus and the spirit which took control of his body. My question would be this, did they share the same body and take turns or did the man Jesus cease to exist or cease in consciousness when the spirit inhabited his body? In both cases we might call this possession, though it raises some troublesome questions in regards to the merits of the sacrifice of the man Jesus since clearly it is not the word dying in any real sense but the physical man. Is it Jesus the man’s sacrifice that counts for salvation? To me this notion has no power. It is the the Word Jesus assuming human nature, taking on a human will and living out life as a man perfectly for our sakes that gives that sacrifice a true power, not some innocent regular man dying for our sins.

Once again, I am left with no other conclusion than to believe Krishna in an ultimate sense is unnecessary, whereas Christ is everything and necessary to all things.

The question you should all be asking is:

Is the source of consciousness the physical body, or the spirit?

.

 

[openmind77]

They are not one however, there are two entities in your mind, Jesus the man and the Christ the spirit. There is the man Jesus and the spirit which took control of his body. My question would be this, did they share the same body and take turns or did the man Jesus cease to exist or cease in consciousness when the spirit inhabited his body?

My understanding is that the Avatar shares the body with the Divine spirit, but the human does not cease to exist. But they don’t take turns either - they become as One, speaking simultaneously - how this occurs is beyond me.

In both cases we might call this possession, though it raises some troublesome questions in regards to the merits of the sacrifice of the man Jesus since clearly it is not the word dying in any real sense but the physical man. Is it Jesus the man’s sacrifice that counts for salvation?

Again I don’t call it possession, which is usually against the will of the human person.

I don’t believe that Jesus’s sacrifice counts for salvation - it serves as an example to all of us.

To me this notion has no power. It is the the Word Jesus assuming human nature, taking on a human will and living out life as a man perfectly for our sakes that gives that sacrifice a true power, not some innocent regular man dying for our sins.

Once again, I am left with no other conclusion than to believe Krishna in an ultimate sense is unnecessary, whereas Christ is everything and necessary to all things.

Krishna is not necessary to anyone, but his teachings are useful for us.

However, the Son is necessary for us all, since he is the way to the Father, but belief in a specific incarnation is not.

I think the nature of Jesus’s sacrifice will become clear when the new incarnations - that of the Mahdi and the Return of Jesus occur - that will be sooner than you expect.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

My understanding is that the Avatar shares the body with the Divine spirit, but the human does not cease to exist. But they don’t take turns either - they become as One, speaking simultaneously - how this occurs is beyond me.
Again I don’t call it possession, which is usually against the will of the human person.

I don’t believe that Jesus’s sacrifice counts for salvation - it serves as an example to all of us.
Krishna is not necessary to anyone, but his teachings are useful for us.

However, the Son is necessary for us all, since he is the way to the Father, but belief in a specific incarnation is not.

I think the nature of Jesus’s sacrifice will become clear when the new incarnations - that of the Mahdi and the Return of Jesus occur - that will be sooner than you expect.

The nature of Christ’s sacrifice was made clear 2000 years ago

Mat 26:27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins

Hebrews expands

9"23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28** so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;** and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Either we believe these words or we don’t. Christians do and I don’t see Krishna matching them or confuting them, hence why Jesus is more important than Krishna for we are dependant on him to be right with God.

 

[TonyBS]

The nature of Christ’s sacrifice was made clear 2000 years ago

Mat 26:27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins

Hebrews expands

9"23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Either we believe these words or we don’t. Christians do and I don’t see Krishna matching them or confuting them, hence why Jesus is more important than Krishna for we are dependant on him to be right with God.

Or we look at these words, “And he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” which have also been translated;

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time **without sin **unto salvation.

so also Christ, having been offered once in order to bear the sins of many, will appear for a second time, apart from sin, to those awaiting Him for salvation.

so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.

Thus Can have many meanings and not restricted to but a closed view, of course IMHO

Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Or we look at these words, “And he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” which have also been translated;

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time **without sin **unto salvation.

so also Christ, having been offered once in order to bear the sins of many, will appear for a second time, apart from sin, to those awaiting Him for salvation.

so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.

Thus Can have many meanings and not restricted to but a closed view, of course IMHO

Regards Tony

I like how you don’t deal with the actual point in the discussion. That Jesus once for all paid the price for sins. Bahai don’t really believe that and instead believe all manifestations brought salvation, though the inspired author of Hebrews tells you otherwise.

Yes Christ will come again, we await that day which has not come yet though thousands of false prophets and perhaps not a few Persian mystics have claimed it so.