The birth of baby Jesus.

Copied with permission from "The Christian Thinktank"

An article addressing charges that the Gospel's are a copycat version of Vedic scriptures:

=============================================
(Again, the list from the (submitted) website):

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One"😉
He is called the Shepherd God.
He is the second person of the Trinity.
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
He worked miracles and wonders.
In some traditions he died on a tree.
He ascended to heaven.

Looking a little more closely,
Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One"😉 [We have already seen how these 'virgin birth' parallels are not close enough to constitute a 'compelling similarity', but this one is particularly inappropriate. The facts are simply otherwise--cf. Joseph Campbell, Occidental Mythology, p. 342:
"In India a like tale is told of the beloved savior Krishna, whose terrible uncle, Kansa, was, in that case, the tyrant-king. The savior's mother, Devaki, was of royal lineage, the tyrant's niece, and at the time when she was married the wicked monarch heard a voice, mysteriously, which let him know that her eighth child would be his slayer. He therefore confined both her and her husband, the saintly nobleman Vasudeva, in a closely guarded prison, where he murdered their first six infants as they came. (emphasis mine).
According to the story, the mother had six normal children before the 7th and 8th 'special' kids--a rather clear indication that the mom was not a virgin when she conceived Krishna [remember, this is not an issue of 'special births', but of 'virgin' ones].

He is called the Shepherd God. [So he was a cow-herd...so what?...Simply a common religious title, not a 'compelling similarity'...and we noted above that even this was different when applied to Jesus.]

He is the second person of the Trinity. [This is a misunderstanding of the Hindu pantheon/s. The Hindu pantheon differs from the Christian trinity substantially (e.g., one's a pantheon and one isn't...). The biggest problem with the assertion, however, is that it is simply wrong. Although the Hindu pantheon has changed considerably over over time, Krsna has NEVER been the 'second person of a 3-in-1'. In the oldest layers of Hindu tradition--the Rig Veda--the dominant three were Agni, Ushas (goddess), and Indra, although there were a number of other important deities [WS😕W:84]. After the Vedic period (before 1000 bc), and before the Epic period (400 bc - 400 ad) is the period in which a DIFFERENT "trinity" emerged. So WR:RT:105:
"Traces of the original indigenous religion are plain in the later phases of the history of Hinduism. In the course of time, large shifts occur in the world of the gods. Some gods lose significance while others move into the foreground, until at last the 'Hindu trinity' emerges: Brahma, Visnu, and Siva..."
Krishna was one of the avatars (manifestation, incarnation, theophany) of Visnu. As such, Krishna only appeared on the scene during the Epic period, and most of the legendary materials about him show up in the Harivamsa, or Genealogy of Visnu (fourth century a.d.) and in the Puranas (written between 300-1200 a.d.). He is one of TEN avatars of Visnu (what does that do to a trinity?). [WR:Eliade:133; WR😕W:91f; WR:RT:105f].
This is another exampe of someone 'loosely' using Christian terminology to describe non-Christian phenomena, and then being surprised by the similarity.


He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants. [Now, this is interesting. The only event in the life of Krsna I can find that is close to this kind of event is the story cited above at his birth, involving only 6 infants. How this person would turn that into "thousands" is beyond me (and probably beyond responsible writing as well). And, this motif of a king attempting to kill a supposed 'infant rival' is common to royal settings--not just divine ones. Hence, one can find this plot-line--a common one throughout human history--in the lives of Gilgamesh, Sargon, Cyrus, Perseus, and Romulous and Remus.(BM:227) This, of course, has nothing to do with mythology--it is simply a historical tendency of vicious kings...Herod's killing of some dozen or two children in Bethlehem is a matter of predictable aggression, not some 'mythic motif'...human monsters can be at least as grotesque as divine ones...)

He worked miracles and wonders. [Surprise, surprise--another religious leader is credited with miracles...Hmm, did Krishna 'borrow' from Buddha or from Thor? From Horus or from...?]

In some traditions he died on a tree.[The tree in India would in no way have the despicable connotations of the Roman cross of execution, even if this were true/known.]

From the standpoint of accuracy, let me mention that I cannot find any reference to him dying on a tree. The records (not from iconographic sources, btw) I have on his death run something like this :

"Krishna was accidentally slain by the hunter Jaras...when he was mistaken for a deer and shot in the foot, his vulnerable spot." (WR😕DFML, s.v. "krishna"😉
"One lance-like (poisonous, cursed) reed was eaten by a fish and then caught by a hunter. In a drinking bout, Krishna, Balarama, and the Yadavas picked the reeds, killing each other. As Krishna sat lost in thought, the hunter, mistaking him for a deer, shot him in the foot with the reed he had found in the fish, and killed him." [WR😀WM]

"Just after the war, Krsna dies, as he predicted he would, when, in a position of meditation, he is struck in the heel by a hunter's arrow." [WR😀AMY; was he meditating 'on a tree'?]

Perhaps he died sitting under a tree, but would that constitute a non-superficial parallel?

He ascended to heaven. [This is a misunderstanding of Hindu thought. "Heaven" is not actually a place in Hindu thought, for 'bodies to go', nor does one 'ascend' to it--especially not 'bodily' as did Jesus.

"At Balarama's death Krsna sat meditating; a hunter, Jara, pierced Krsna's feet by mistake, but afterwards, recognizing the hero, repented. Krsna left his body and entered heaven where he was greeted by the gods." [The Indian Theogony, Sukumari Bhattacharji, Cambridge:1970, p.305; note the difference between this and a 'bodily ascension of Jesus']


These similarities just don't seem to illustrate 'numerous, complex, detailed' parallels--of the type needed to suggest borrowing. And the differences between Jesus Christ and the Krishna of the legends is considerable. The earlier warrior-images of Krisha are those of a worthy and noble hero-type, but the later child/young man legends stand in stark contrast to Jesus. Krishnaic legends portray his playfulness and mischief in positive terms, but his consistent thievery (he stole cheese ROUTINELY from the villagers and lied about it to his mom--he was nicknamed the 'butter-thief' in the literature), his erotic adventures with all the cow-maidens of the village, his tricking the people into idolatrous worship of a mountain--just to irritate the god Indra, and the hiding of the clothes of the village women while they were bathing, and then forcing them to walk naked in front him before he would give the clothes back--these all draw a line between him and the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. [These stories can be found in the Myths of the Hindus and Buddhist reference above, as well as in many summaries of his legend.] The adult images of Krishna were considerably more 'worthy' and he came to be worshipped as a supreme deity. But his overall life (above) and his death as a hunting accident are so completely dissimilar to the life and voluntary crucifixion of the Son of God on earth. The similarities are paltry; the differences are staggering.

Originally posted by souverein
There is outside the bible nowhere a mentioning of this child massacre by King Herod. But a trustworthy historical source like Flavius Josephus describes Herod as a paranoid tyrant who killed for fear of being usurped three of his sons.

Not very likely this story comes from the Vedas

Originally posted by jaywill
Copied [b]with permission from "The Christian Thinktank"

An article addressing charges that the Gospel's are a copycat version of Vedic scriptures:

=============================================
(Again, the list from the (submitted) website):

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One"😉
He is called the Shepherd God. ...[text shortened]... ences are staggering.[/b]

Originally posted by RBHILL
i know because humans have only been here for about 6000 years.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or sincere but either way that is a false teaching and not biblical.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What's this about the Jews blowing the horn every 50 years? I'm not familiar with this. Tell me more; no, I'm not kidding, I'd like to hear about it.

Originally posted by RBHILL
When looking for civalizations they can't trace any back before the estimated date of the flood.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
What flood are you speaking of ?

Originally posted by RBHILL
do i really have to say?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You numb skull........the theme has been plagiarized and the names changed.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Thank you so much for posting that info info.....but where you have personally commented is in error.

Originally posted by souverein
"you numb skull"
Please refrain from insulting when people differ with you.

There are strong reasons to believe that the story of the birth of Jesus is not borrowed from the Krishna legends. Matthew (the only evangelist who mentions this story in his gospel) had - as far as known - no knowledge of Vedaism and Hinduism.
More reasonable to assume that ...[text shortened]... stology/mithra.html

Btw, Mit(h)ra was also worshipped in the Hindu pantheon around 1400 BC.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Its just that you said quote "its not likely that this story came from the Vedas" end quote........

And I never said the story came from the Vedas.

I was saying and meaning, the theme is borrowed straight from the Vedas.....or the idea is straight from the Vedas.

do you see that?

I say this because the Bible is mostly fabricated.

And becau ...[text shortened]... ver say much of whats in the Bible because it is in error.

God does not subscribe to error.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I am not trying to be a wise guy. I am serious. If you are referring to Noahs flood, what is your point? We disagree on mankind being 6000 yrs old. I dont understand the flood reference.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Well the flood is estimated at about 3000 bc. Because they can't find civilizations before then and china's calendar starts at about 2698 bc. And the tower of babel is about 2900 bc.