Skeptic, on Jul 12 2004, 03:24 PM, said:
Krishna of India
The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah Krishna number in the hundreds, particularly when the early Christian texts now considered apocrypha are factored in. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was “Christna,” which reveals its relation to “Christ.” Also, in Bengali, Krishna is reputedly “Christos,” which is the same as the Greek for “Christ” and which the soldiers of Alexander the Great called Krishna
This is a fallacy of equivocation and therefore irrelevant.
It should be further noted that, as with Jesus, Buddha and Osiris, many people have believed and continue to believe in a historical Krishna.
This, too, is irrelevant.
The following is a partial list of the correspondences between Jesus and Krishna:
--Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”) on December 25.
--His earthly father was a carpenter, who was off in the city paying tax while Krishna was born.
--His birth was signaled by a star in the east and attended by angels and shepherds, at which time he was presented with spices.
--The heavenly hosts danced and sang at his birth.
--He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
--Krishna was anointed on the head with oil by a woman whom he healed.
--He is depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent.
--He worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.
I have found nothing in any Krishna myth which supports these claims. I might also point out that it becomes rather tiring when I have to do all the work to refute an argument which contains no evidence for its own assertions.
Claims for the remaining mythological figures will be largely ignored if unaccompanied by any supporting evidence.
--Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love, and he “lived poor and he loved the poor.”
That's true, but it's not enough to prove a link.
--He castigated the clergy, charging them with “ambition and hypocrisy . . . Tradition says he fell victim to their vengeance.”
--Krishna’s “beloved disciple” was Arjuina or Ar-jouan (Jouhn).
Fallacy of equivocation.
--He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
--He gave his disciples the ability to work miracles.
--His path was “strewn with branches.”
--In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
--Krishna was killed around the age of 30, and the sun darkened at his death.
--He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven “in the sight of all men.”
--He was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet, as well as having a heart emblem on his clothing.
--Krishna is the “lion of the tribe of Saki.”
--He was called the “Shepherd of God” and considered the “Redeemer,” “Firstborn,” “Sin-Bearer,” “Liberator,” “Universal Word.”
--He was deemed the “Son of God” and “our Lord and Savior,” who came to earth to die for man’s salvation.
I have found nothing in any Krishna myth which supports these claims.
--He was the second person of the Trinity.
Incorrect. He was one of many different deities.
--His disciples purportedly bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” or “Jeseus,” meaning “pure essence.”
I have found nothing in any Krishna myth which supports this claim.
--Krishna is to return to judge the dead, riding on a white horse, and to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate the earth.
Since the followers of Krishna believe in reincarnation, it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that he will return "to judge the dead."
This is obviously a misrepresentation of the myth.