Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no testimony that Krishna rose or ascended bodily. The narrative states that he died, and his spirit ascended, abandoning his body. This is not the same as what is said of Jesus.
Do you see, however where the gospel writers got their ideas from when they wrote the segments about Jesus dying, rising and ascending into heaven?
Bingo. And how did Christianity initially spread? Through the testimony of those who claimed to be eyewitnesses.
Yes. In the exact same way any religion spreads. In the same way Buddhism spread--people telling stories of Buddha over a course of centuries. In the exact same way Mormonism spread--faster than Christianity did, I might add. Does this make the Mormon story of Joseph Smith and the angel Gabriel and the golden plates more believable than the story of Jesus? It should if we're going by how fast the religion spread.
The conclusion you should come to is the one most unbiased scholars have come to. They are the experts. The vast majority of experts agree there was a Jesus or someone upon which the Jesus legend was based although we have no details because no one mentions him. Historians believe someone existed because there had to be someone to account for the appearance of Christianity. With this argument one can argue that
Krishna must have been real because of the appearance of Krishna on July 21, 3228.
You didn't know Krishna has a birthday just like Jesus, did you?
So if Jesus was born on December 25 and he was real, then Krishna has to be real too, right?
"Even gods come to earth with their destinies chalked out for them. So claims astrology, at any rate. So when Arun K. Bansal, the father of computer astrology in India, says that Hindu god Krishna was born on July 21, 3228 BC, it feels momentous somehow. The date essentially transforms Krishna in our minds: from a mythological figure of mystery, even if a much-loved one, into well a flesh and blood entity. You can almost see him gurgling in Yashoda’s lap as Rishi Garg performs his naming ceremony in a cow shed more than 50 centuries ago."
So was Krishna as real as Jesus? Everything that proves Jesus was real exists also for Krishna including testimony he died, rose and ascended just like Jesus.
All of these avatar memes similar to Jesuus began in Egypt with Osiris in the 3000's BCE although some scholars believe he was based on a real ruler in the predynastic era from 5000BCE. Krishna is the Hindu version. Mithra is the Iranian version. You will need to follow the evolution of the memE through the various regions to see that they all have the same underlying theme but are expressed differently.
You can almost see the effect of culture and the Chinese Whispers' effect on the ways the underlying meme is changed. The Jesus version is the most sophisticated, IMO. For example, the sacrifice of Mithra was slaying the Buil but with Jesus, it was metaphorically slaying His animal nature by dying Himself without defense.
Do you see, however where the gospel writers got their ideas from when they wrote the segments about Jesus dying, rising and ascending into heaven?
I believe that three of them wrote down what they saw and heard, and the fourth (Luke) wrote down what he was told by eyewitnesses.
The death, resurrection, and ascension trope is a common one because it is fitting of a god-man. That it is so ubiquitous is only further validation that the Christian narrative is true.
Bingo. And how did Christianity initially spread? Through the testimony of those who claimed to be eyewitnesses.
You either believe them or you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Yes. In the exact same way any religion spreads. In the same way Buddhism spread--people telling stories of Buddha over a course of centuries. In the exact same way Mormonism spread--faster than Christianity did, I might add. Does this make the Mormon story of Joseph Smith and the angel Gabriel and the golden plates more believable than the story of Jesus? It should if we're going by how fast the religion spread.
Not sure why you're pitting Mormonism and Christianity against each other, since Mormonism is a direct outgrowth of Protestant Christianity. Joseph Smith believed in the gospel Jesus, you know.
And as for Buddhism, it's not dependent on any historical claims like Christianity is. Any claimed historical event from the life of Siddhartha Gautama could be debunked, and that doesn't affect the credibility of Buddhism at all. But if the resurrection of Jesus is debunked, then Christianity is worthless and has nothing to stand on.
And as for Buddhism, it's not dependent on any historical claims like Christianity is. Any claimed historical event from the life of Siddhartha Gautama could be debunked, and that doesn't affect the credibility of Buddhism at all. But if the resurrection of Jesus is debunked, then Christianity is worthless and has nothing to stand on.
I don't know that that is true. The claims that there have been a long line of Buddhas, each separated by periods of time when all vestiges of Buddhist knowledge and thought have disappeared from mankind is a pretty big claim (for which there is zero evidence).
I don't know that that is true. The claims that there have been a long line of Buddhas, each separated by periods of time when all vestiges of Buddhist knowledge and thought have disappeared from mankind is a pretty big claim (for which there is zero evidence).
But if that claim were definitively debunked, it would not invalidate the teachings of Buddhism.
However; if the resurrection of Jesus were debunked, that would completely invalidate Christianity.
There's a one liner in "Antiquities of the Jews" that mentions Jesus when Flavius Josephus talks about James the Just getting stoned. It's something like..."James the Just, brother of Jesus,....." Most historians and archeologists agree that it was written by him.
Josephus does not mention James the Just, just a James who was a brother of a Jesus, probably the son of Damneus. And the grammar suggests that the 'who was called Christ' was a later addition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
