[AMAIC: The following article has biblical errors, but it does show the clear likenesses between
the Lord Jesus Christ and Lord Krishna]
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Is Jesus Christ derived from Lord Krishna?
Have you every noticed the amazingly coincidental similarity between these two names - Jesus Christ and Lord Krishna - and asked yourselves, why the names of two major religious figures in two major religious are exactly the same? Have you every looked at the evolution of religions and wondered if it's possible that Christianity is actually derived from Hinduism (partly the story of Lord Krishna)? Well, you're not the only one! Many leading experts believe that not only the name Jesus Christ is a derivative of Lord Krishna, but also, the religion of Christianity might be partially and fully derived from Hinduism! [sic, or vice versa]
Once we start comparing Christianity and the teachings of Christ with the life and teaching of Lord Krishna (and Hinduism in general), we immediately start seeing glaring similarities in the two. It would be naive to assume that these similarities are purely coincidental/circumstantial and that Christianity evolved all by itself to have the name of it's main deity to be exactly the same as one of the Trinity in Hinduism, among other obvious similarities!
Let's analyze some of these similarities -
Similarities between Krishna's father Vasudev and Christ's father Joseph - Joseph had eleven brothers (in Matthew's genealogy), meaning they were all 12 brothers. The name "Vasudev" is actually a part of the famous Hindu "12 syllable mantra". Now, this one similarity in numbers might be disregarded by Christian skeptics as a coincidence, but when we start looking deeper into different versions of Bible (yes, Bible has many versions and sometimes contradictory stories), we find that this number 12 is repeated again and again in the life of Jesus. For example, the last time we see Joseph in any of the gospels is also when Jesus was 12 years old (this is found in the story of passover visit to the temple in Luke). Matthew's genealogy also is organized into three tesseradecads and the last of those connects Joseph to Zerubbabel through 12 generations (excluding Joseph because he is a descendent), and we note that this number 12 shows up all over again. Many experts believe that these changes to genealogy are deliberate and there are plenty of contradictions regarding both Joseph and Jesus's genealogy, but one thing that always shows up is this number 12! In Hinduism though there are no contradictions at all and Vasudev always has been associated with the 12 syllable mantra, this has also lead to the use of number 12 in various social rituals as well without any contradictions/confusions. But in Christianity, it's seems as if many attempts have been made to fit this number 12 in relation to Joseph/Jesus at various places over time as Bible evolved from the earliest old testament to today's version. Also, the fact that Joseph is supposedly added in the gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the early epistles of Paul, has interested many scholars because it shows that the exchange of knowledge (number 12 for example), happened from Hinduism to Christianity and not the other way round. Finally, everyone knows that Jesus dined with 12 apostles in the last supper, which again is intriguing when we see it in terms of so many other such seemingly unrelated Christian stories throughout different versions of Bible. But why were early Christian scholars trying to introduce this number? Where did they learn about this number from? The only answer that prominent experts would agree on is that it originated in Hinduism.Now I ask any Chritian skeptics, do you still disagree? How can you explain this uncanny similarity between the mortal fathers of both Krishna and Jesus?? It's clear as a day that the early Christians took Hinduism and the legends of Lord Krishna and distorted it into their Bible in multiple stories over time.
Krishna means "of darker color" and Christ means "covered in dark/olive oil" - Now, this one is obviously almost exactly the same and makes even the most skeptic Christians wonder how can even the names have exactly the same meaning! Some Christian skeptics have gone on to claim that Christ doesn't mean dark and rather, it means "anointed", which is a valid point because "anointed" indeed is one of the old translations of the word "Christ". But then we ask the simple question: How would an "anointed" person look like? Would he look somewhat discolored? Would he look darker? The answer to these questions is a resounding yes! Just think about it for a second, if I cover myself with any anointments, would the color of my skin change to darker? Yes, it would. If someone is still skeptic, we went deeper into the Hebrew language and found that the word "Chrism" actually refers to anointment by Olive oil! A person covered with olive oil will certainly look darker and can be thought of as "of darker color" or in other words - "Krishna"! The similarity in both the name Krishna and Christ but also the very meaning of the names - "Dark color" and "Covered with dark (Olive) oil" - are uncanny and can't be refuted. It's not hard to surmise that the early Christians were aware of the name "Krishna" and it's meaning and significance and they modeled the name "Christ" exactly after "Krishna" both in the meaning and the intent.
Both Christ and Krishna were known to be threatened by the local ruler when they were young. Both have very similar stories - In Krishna's case, it was Kansa (also known as Kamsa) who wanted to kill him. He tried to imprison Krishna's parents but they were able to flee and survive in time. Surprisingly, Jesus Christ has a very similar story as well in which the evil king Herod actually issued a royal decree to warrant Christ's death. Further, Kansa killed all offsprings of Devaki trying to ensure that Lord Krishna would also die as one of the children; this same story also shows up in Bible as the story of the Massacre of Innocents in Matthew where King Herod ordered that all young children in Bethlehem be killed to ensure Jesus' death. Also, just as in the case of Lord Krishna, Christ's parents (Mary and Joseph) survived in a very similar fashion. Lord Krishna grew up in Vrindavan hidden away from Kansa while Jesus grew up in Egypt in hiding from Herod. Since the stories are so surprisingly similar, it's not difficult to see why the Christian version might be derived from then existing Hindu version.
Both Christ and Krishna were divine beings / "sons of God" walking on the earth as mortals - This one is obvious but extremely important because of the fact that Christ is not depicted as an angel or a jinni or some other supernatural creature in the Bible! Instead, Christ is considered the Son of God Himself! This is intriguing because Christian myths are full of all manners of supernatural/divine creatures sent by God to earth for various purposes; but why ONLY Christ is the son of God? Why are not all the angels also sons of God? The answer becomes obvious when we draw parallels with Hinduism: Lord Krishna is an Avatar of Lord Vishnu. This is why He is not same as minor gods, pretas and other creatures. Lord Krishna is a conscious manifestation of God Himself. Now if Christ were to come from Krishna, it's logical to assume that the early Christians took the Hindu story of Lord Krishna and transformed it into their own versions/interpretations, but the main details like being Son/Avatar of God stayed the same.
Both Christ and Krishna clearly state that the only way to salvation is through them - Lord Krishna, in Bhagwat Geeta, states that Moksha is attained by those who completely surrender to Him and Him alone. Those who do not surrender to Lord Krishna and rather worship false gods will not attain Moksha/Salvation/Nirvana. In Bible, Jesus Christ again asserts, in exactly the same fashion, that the only real way of attaining salvation is by accepting Jesus as your lord and savior! Please also note that this is a somewhat unique case because it doesn't apply to other Abrahamic religions. For example, Mohammed, in Islamic traditions, doesn't claim that salvation can be attained only by accepting Mohammed as our lord and savior. Only Jesus claims, exactly the same as Lord Krishna does, that we must accept Him as the lord and savior to attain true salvation. The similarities are again obvious!
Similarities between Christ's Cross and Lord Krishna's Maharoopa/Vishwaroopa - Now this one would require atleast one full book to fully analyze as the philosophical and religious implications of both are truly immense. I'll probably cover it more completely in later articles but here let me briefly mention that the Cross signifies Christ's willingness to accept all the sins/pains in the world. In other words, Cross implies that the results of all the actions of humans in the world go to the Christ. This is exactly the same as what Lord Krishna implies in the Maharoopa when he says that all results of all actions of all beings go to him. This is just one similarity between the Cross and Maharoopa, but the readers would certainly see more as they look deeper.
So we see that the similarities between Jesus Christ and Lord Krishna, and consequently Christianity and Hinduism, are unmistakable from linguistics, philosophical, religious, historical and mythical perspectives! There are hundreds of more similarities that clearly prove that Christianity is simply a distorted or perhaps a misinterpreted version of a facet of Hinduism!
Taken from: http://www.hinduisminfo.com/2011/02/christ-krishna-christianity-hinduism.html
No comments:
Post a Comment