Jesus and Krishna--Two Peas In A Pod

[firedragon]

The similarities between Krishna's life and Jesus' life are so startling that it's often difficult to tell where one begins and the other leaves off. That's why it's important to remember that the Krishna legend was around a full 1000 years before the gospels emerged. The only conclusion a rational person can reach given the often exact same matching details of each is that the gospel writers borrowed heavily from the Krishna legend and other dying/rising gods as they constructed their own legend of Jesus. Here is but a few in a laundry list of similarities

Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.

Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.

Both had adoptive human fathers who were carpenters.

Jesus was conceived by a god. Krishna was the reincarnation of a god.

Both were killed by piercing--Jesus by nails and a spear, Krishna by an arrow

Both resurrected.

This list is not exhaustive. It would take up too much space to list Jesus' similarities with all the dying/rising gods before him--Zalmoxis, Dionysus, Horus, Mithra, Romulus--who inspired the gospel writers to copy them.

Instead I want to mention a few details of Krishna's birth that convince me Jesus is an amalgamation of many other earlier stories.

Kamsa, the evil king ruling the land hears a voice from the sky predicting that a child will be born and will kill him. The king is terrified. He orders all the children born to his sister, who is the one who will give birth to the child, to be killed. But with the help of an angel the parents of the future child escape and flee to a faraway land. There they give the baby Krishna to a carpenter and his wife to raise.

Anyone who cannot see the parallels between this and the Jesus legend involving the prophecy of Jesus, Herod and the flight to Egypt for safety has to have blinders one. It's too exact to be coincidental. One can only conclude Matthew borrowed Krishna's story as a model for his own account.

It becomes clear that the Jesus story is just another legend based on many earlier legends that were floating around the area at that time.

1. Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.

If you read Mahabaratha you would note that Krishna lives in all beings. Vaasanath means live in. And nowhere in the Gospels will you find Jesus living in all beings. Jesus is conceptualised in the Trinity as "ever existing". He was always there as Jesus Christ the Son of God. Krishna was born new, then became divine as the Rigveda records him with out his divinity. In the Chandogya Upanishad he is spoken of as the "Son of Devaki" and a scholar. He is the 8th incarnation of Vishnu, Jesus is the only son. Jesus was born with no involvement of Joseph, unlike Krishna who had an earthly father. It is in the Purana's Krishna is elevated to deity. Where was he specifically referred to as Son of God? Krishna was a war veteran. A warrior. Jesus says "someone slaps you give the other cheek". Only in the eschatology the parable notes him asking for slaying of those who dont believe him.

2. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.

Krishna is NOT called the second person of the Trinity. He is the 8th incarnation of Vishnu. It is Vishnu who is deemed the second person in the Hindu trinity if one wants to address it as a trinity.

3. Both had adoptive human fathers who were carpenters.

I think a hindu scholar or even any hindu for that matter would find this quite a stupendous and false claim. Unless you could provide a Hindu source that says King Vasudeva was a carpenter. Please do.

Also, the Bible does not say Joseph was a carpenter. It is a misnomer. Tektwn in Koine Greek does not mean carpenter. It means a craftsman, and could be a metal worker, a handy man, a man who works with his hands.

4. Jesus was conceived by a god. Krishna was the reincarnation of a god.

Krishna was an incarnation, not a reincarnation. Jesus was conceived by God in the Christian philosophy but he always existed as the son with God eternally. Krishna was not.

5. Both were killed by piercing--Jesus by nails and a spear, Krishna by an arrow

Next time, someone will say that a man was pierced by a needle and its the same as Jesus. Arrow and Nails? Also mate, you were wrong. Jesus was killed by piercing. He was killed by crucifixion. You dont die by piercing when crucified.

6. Both resurrected.

No. Krishna was not resurrected. He was already a divine being, and he only spoke to the guy who killed him and gave him forgiveness because he shot him by mistake thinking he was game in his hunting trip. Is that like the concept of Jesus?

I dont know where this kind of information is coming from. I do remember some guy who wrote about this kind of parallels almost a hundred years ago and is widely rejected as nonsense by scholars at large. Whatever your aim is with this kind of post, please do some more research before presenting such absurd thesis's. I do understand that there are parallels in most of these things but the points you have given are seriously flawed due to lack of simple research. In this day and age, this is surprising really.

Anyway, that's that I suppose.

 

[firedragon]

Krishna followers chant "Hare Krishna". Christians pray aloud "Jesus have mercy". I can't distinguish the difference. Both are praying to their god.

OMG.

 

[1213]

The similarities between Krishna's life and Jesus' life are so startling that it's often difficult to tell where one begins and the other leaves off. That's why it's important to remember that the Krishna legend was around a full 1000 years before the gospels emerged. The only conclusion a rational person can reach given the often exact same matching details of each is that the gospel writers borrowed heavily from the Krishna legend and other dying/rising gods as they constructed their own legend of Jesus. Here is but a few in a laundry list of similarities

Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God....

I think it would be good to at least know that Bible tells there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus, and Jesus is a man. Trinity is not a Biblical teaching.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Also, even if this would be similarity, I think the teachings are what really matters and by what I know, they are not at all the same.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

So who was Jesus’ maternal uncle who swore to kill him then?
I keep hearing of these supposed similarities between Jesus and Krishna. For years now as a born Hindu
But the most I can find is that they both drew a large crowd and that’s it. The rest is a stretch at best.
Even their deaths is admittedly a bit of a stretch.
Come on man. Shot in the foot by a hunter is not the same as being nailed to a cross. It just isn’t, I’m sorry.
Krishna had his own folklore and you’re gonna have to deal with that.

I'm just going by what some educated scholars are writing. I'm not an expert in Hindu folklore. But I've read enough times to think there is something to the claims. The herod-kamsa connection is one I don't think any sensible person can deny.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The Jewish scripture speak of the coming Messiah some 1500 years before Jesus.
He would come as a Redeemer, paying the price for our sins. He would be rejected
of his own people. The Jews would lose their nation because they did not know the
time of their visitation. He would be despised, betrayed, tried and pierced. His legacy
would go out unto the Gentiles, until their time was fulfilled - then the Jews could
return to their homeland. And in his second coming the Jews would mourn because
the reigning and conquering king is the same lowly man they crucified.

isaiah speaks of this being israel. Nowhere does Isaiah mention a messiah.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm just going by what some educated scholars are writing. I'm not an expert in Hindu folklore. But I've read enough times to think there is something to the claims. The herod-kamsa connection is one I don't think any sensible person can deny.

Well I grew up with the folklore. You can find connections in anything if you really try hard enough. But it’s not always indicative of an actual connection. Our brain just likes patterns is all

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Well I grew up with the folklore. You can find connections in anything if you really try hard enough. But it’s not always indicative of an actual connection. Our brain just likes patterns is all

YOu may be right. I see a parallel between Kamsa trying to kill Krishna because he is afraid of him and his parents secretly fleeing to save Krishna's life, and Herod trying to kill Jesus because he is afraid of him and Mary and Joseph secretly fleeing to save Jesus' life. I think it's reasonable to think that the scholars who wrote matthew also knew of this story and liked it enough to include it in the nativity narrative.

 

[SomeRandom]

YOu may be right. I see a parallel between Kamsa trying to kill Krishna because he is afraid of him and his parents secretly fleeing to save Krishna's life, and Herod trying to kill Jesus because he is afraid of him and Mary and Joseph secretly fleeing to save Jesus' life. I think it's reasonable to think that the scholars who wrote matthew also knew of this story and liked it enough to include it in the nativity narrative.

Maybe. But again the context is missing.
Kansa isn’t afraid of Krishna per se. He’s afraid of his own demise. Ego is his greatest sin. He is otherwise a very honourable and noble man. (Though in adapting the source material he is usually played like a moustache twirling bad guy.)
And Krishna’s parents don’t flee. They’re locked up and have to wait until Krishna fulfils his destiny. IOW until he grows up and kills his uncle. Usually Kansa’s death is seen as him escaping samsara (eternal rebirth and death.) But opinions/interpretations will vary

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Maybe. But again the context is missing.
Kansa isn’t afraid of Krishna per se. He’s afraid of his own demise. Ego is his greatest sin. He is otherwise a very honourable and noble man. (Though in adapting the source material he is usually played like a moustache twirling bad guy.)
And Krishna’s parents don’t flee. They’re locked up and have to wait until Krishna fulfils his destiny. IOW until he grows up and kills his uncle. Usually Kansa’s death is seen as him escaping samsara (eternal rebirth and death.) But opinions/interpretations will vary

Here's what I read:

"But God planned otherwise. At midnight when the eighth child was born, the guards fell fast asleep and Vasudev's chain fell off his hands and feet. Wasting no time, Vasudev picked up the newborn baby, and carrying it in a basket, he started towards Gokul. Gokul was a village of cowherds, located across the Yamuna river, where his friend Nanda lived."

This, by the way, bears a striking resemblance to the story of Peter in prison:

"Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists."

 

[sayak83]

The similarities between Krishna's life and Jesus' life are so startling that it's often difficult to tell where one begins and the other leaves off. That's why it's important to remember that the Krishna legend was around a full 1000 years before the gospels emerged. The only conclusion a rational person can reach given the often exact same matching details of each is that the gospel writers borrowed heavily from the Krishna legend and other dying/rising gods as they constructed their own legend of Jesus. Here is but a few in a laundry list of similarities

Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.

Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.

Both had adoptive human fathers who were carpenters.

Jesus was conceived by a god. Krishna was the reincarnation of a god.

Both were killed by piercing--Jesus by nails and a spear, Krishna by an arrow

Both resurrected.

This list is not exhaustive. It would take up too much space to list Jesus' similarities with all the dying/rising gods before him--Zalmoxis, Dionysus, Horus, Mithra, Romulus--who inspired the gospel writers to copy them.

Instead I want to mention a few details of Krishna's birth that convince me Jesus is an amalgamation of many other earlier stories.

Kamsa, the evil king ruling the land hears a voice from the sky predicting that a child will be born and will kill him. The king is terrified. He orders all the children born to his sister, who is the one who will give birth to the child, to be killed. But with the help of an angel the parents of the future child escape and flee to a faraway land. There they give the baby Krishna to a carpenter and his wife to raise.

Anyone who cannot see the parallels between this and the Jesus legend involving the prophecy of Jesus, Herod and the flight to Egypt for safety has to have blinders one. It's too exact to be coincidental. One can only conclude Matthew borrowed Krishna's story as a model for his own account.

It becomes clear that the Jesus story is just another legend based on many earlier legends that were floating around the area at that time.

1) Provide evidence that Krishna story was 1000 years older. Bhagavata Purana is considered to be quite late, around 8th century CE. It is first quoted around 10th century by other Sanskrit works.
Origin of the Bhagavata Purana - Wikipedia
2) Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu. He is never called son of any God.
3) The Hindu "Trinity" is very different from Abrahamic trinity. And Vishnu is not the son of Brahma.
4) Vasudeva, father of Krishna is a king, not a carpenter. His adoptive father was the head of a village and a rich person owning many cows. Not a carpenter.
5) Not reincarnation, incarnation. Very different.
6) Krishna got killed at very old age, by an accidental arrow shot by a hunter in the forest. Very very different.
7) Krishna did not resurrect. That is non sense.

 

[SomeRandom]

Here's what I read:

"But God planned otherwise. At midnight when the eighth child was born, the guards fell fast asleep and Vasudev's chain fell off his hands and feet. Wasting no time, Vasudev picked up the newborn baby, and carrying it in a basket, he started towards Gokul. Gokul was a village of cowherds, located across the Yamuna river, where his friend Nanda lived."

This, by the way, bears a striking resemblance to the story of Peter in prison:

"Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists."

Well yeah then he returns. I mean he isn’t going to abandon his wife after all.
Escaping chains is an easy metaphor in storytelling, regardless of era and culture

 

[PruePhillip]

isaiah speaks of this being israel. Nowhere does Isaiah mention a messiah.

Really? Israel would be resurrected and shed its blood
for Israel? Where is THAT in the Mosaic law?

 

[ronki23]

Krishna wasn't a God in Hinduism when the Vedas were written; he came along much later with the other Aryan Gods

Just like you, your sister also is quite ill-informed (otherwise, you would not have been making these silly comments). After the assimilation of Aryans, Vedas are holy for all Hindus, whether in East, West, North or South. I would not term the original inhabitants of India as Dravidians in contrast to Aryans. There were many more people in India before the coming of Aryans than just the Dravidas. And yes, the beliefs of the indigenous people of India differed from those of Aryans. RigVeda does not mention Rama, Krishna, Shiva or Mother Goddess Durga.

That is a bizarre statement to make. I am from Bangalore, which makes me a Dravidian.



What is Indian culture, exactly? There is no such thing. India is highly diverse and contrary to popular opinion, there is very little that is common to all Indians.

The Indo Aryans (they called themselves Arya/Aryan and hence, their land became Iran) moved into the Indian sub continent in waves before 500 BC. They bought the Veda into the region, which eventually merged with local beliefs to form what is today known as Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.

Indra, Vishnu, Rudra, Mithra, Varuna, Agni, Vayu, etc., are Vedic gods. The rest are indigenous and non-Vedic (Shiva, Ganesha, Muruga, Perumal, Venkatesh, Amman, Ambaal, Kali, Durga, Ayyanaar, etc.,). Over time, Rudra was mapped to Shiva and Rama, Krishna, Perumal and Venkatesh were mapped to Vishnu.

The dark complexion of Rama, Bharata, Krishna, Vishnu, Arjuna, Abhimanyu, Draupadi, Drona, Nakula mentioned in the scriptures itself is enough to show that the Aryan -Dravidian divide is manmade without a factual basis.

The swastika has been found in the Harappan excavation sites as well which are supposed to be dravidian. However people keep on adhering to old historical narratives of western historians designed to ensure the people is divided . This tactic was also employed in the religious field so as to weaken the Indian independence movement by creating a rift between Hindus and Muslims and upper castes and lower castes .

Jesus too was based on these Aryan deities. So Jesus isn't based on Krishna rather both are based on some Iranic deity

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Really? Israel would be resurrected and shed its blood
for Israel? Where is THAT in the Mosaic law?

isaiah 54--the suffering servant is israel.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There were some good men in early Christianity. But from what I have read it was about trying to grow a religion that was still unknown. Christianity didn't take off big time until Constantine. Once in power, the Christian leaders' brutal quest to destroy all the competition is well known--the burning of the the library of Alexandria being but one example and the murders and executions another.

I don't know about everything, however the library of Alexandria burned 3 times and each time the culprit was never identified. Even without that great library, all of Christianity is theoretically rediscoverable. All of the schools and ideas are drawn from material that we can for the most part find or reproduce -- theoretically. Why do so? For several reasons: to provide a bridge between our time and theirs, to learn lessons from history, to witness what happened and why, to understand ourselves and for some of us to help us understand theology, its origin and practice.

I am told that the bishops began to compete with one another, and they began to use doctrinal arguments and claims of orthodoxy to stir up divisions they could benefit from. That probably gave politicians a lever with which to influence the churches, because in addition to funding charitably they could support bishops against other bishops. So lets say that Irenaeus is one of the first to strongly support orthodoxy. He's not the earliest. He is simple, ironclad evidence of a struggle long in progress by his time. We have other earlier examples of conflict and arguments where men and women having no faith in God's power to preserve truths sought to wrestle truths into one another.

 

[firedragon]

I'm just going by what some educated scholars are writing.

Can you give the name of the scholar who wrote the things you put up in the OP? I am asking this since you said something about educated scholars are writing and that you are just going by what they write.

 

[firedragon]

YOu may be right. I see a parallel between Kamsa trying to kill Krishna because he is afraid of him and his parents secretly fleeing to save Krishna's life, and Herod trying to kill Jesus because he is afraid of him and Mary and Joseph secretly fleeing to save Jesus' life. I think it's reasonable to think that the scholars who wrote matthew also knew of this story and liked it enough to include it in the nativity narrative.

Brother. Let me tell you something about this "parallel means plagiarism" idea of many.

Simple thing to assess. Both may have one source.

 

[PruePhillip]

isaiah 54--the suffering servant is israel.

54 is variously about Israel or the faithful within Israel.
53 is about the suffering servant who dies to redeem 'his' people
52 is half about Israel and half about the redeemer.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

54 is variously about Israel or the faithful within Israel.
53 is about the suffering servant who dies to redeem 'his' people
52 is half about Israel and half about the redeemer.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

54 is variously about Israel or the faithful within Israel.
53 is about the suffering servant who dies to redeem 'his' people
52 is half about Israel and half about the redeemer.

The unchanged common view among many Jews today, including Karaites, is that if the entire book of Isaiah is read from start to finish, in Hebrew, then it is clear that Isaiah 53 is NOT talking about one individual but instead the nation of Israel as a whole.

isaiah 53 jesus or israel - Google Search

Their text, their interpretation. I believe Christians used Isaiah 53 as a pretext to formulate their portrait of their avatar god, Jesus.