I am amazed at how low people can go to try to debunk another's religion and belief system. If you do not believe in Jesus or Christianity you know where the door is. No one is forcing you to believe in anything, so why the waste of time and energy trying to use lies to debunk what you can not prove? Go to this website for more copy cat /similarities of pagan gods and Christ. but here are a few biggies.
http://kingdavid8.com/copycat/home/html
For instance :
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Apollo stories?
Like what? Apollo was a Greek god who was the son of Zeus and Lito and the twin brother of Artemis. He was the god of music and an archer. He was associated with the swan, wolf, and dolphin. He had many romantic relationships with goddesses as well as mortal women (and even a prince named Hyacinthus!). There was no virgin birth or resurrection, or anything which strongly parallels to Jesus.
Links
Encyclopedia Mythica: ApolloProbert Encyclopedia: Greek and Roman Mythology (A)Wikipedia: ApolloGreek Mythology Link: ApolloEncyclopedia Of Greek Mythology: Apollo
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Buddha stories?
Most of us are somewhat familiar with Buddha. He was also known as Siddhartha Gautama and Shakyamuni Buddha, and he lived between 563 and 483 B.C. Buddha neither claimed to be god or a messenger of god. The definitive biography of Buddha was written by Ashvaghosha in the 1st century.
1. Buddha was born on December 25th of the virgin Maya, and his birth was attended by a "Star of Announcement," wise men and angels singing heavenly songs.
According to Ashvaghosha, Buddha was born of the King of Shakyas and his wife, Maya. He wrote that they "tasted of love's delights" before Buddha was born, thus Buddha was certainly not born of a virgin. The earliest accounts suggest nothing unusual about Buddha's birth, but later (still pre-Christian) versions suggest Buddha was conceived non-sexually, but don't state that mommy was a virgin. His birthday is never celebrated on (or believed to be) December 25th (by some traditions, it's May 8th - hey, that's my birthday! I guess I'm a myth!), and there was no star or angels at his birth by any tradition. The king did invite 108 Brahmins to the palace to celebrate his birth, and these could be called 'wise men'. However, there were no 'wise men' of any sort at Jesus' birth, as the Biblical appearance of the wise men happened at Jesus' home in Bethlehem when He was one or two years old.
Acharya S. claims in "The Christ Conspiracy" that "Mr. Robertson shows from St. Jerome that the Buddhists themselves did call Maya 'a virgin' - they believed in a 'virgin birth'." So we have the Buddhists telling St. Jerome who tells Mr. Robertson, from whom Acharya S. heard it... You'd think if this was a common belief, Acharya would be able to find a direct source instead of a third-hand source.
2. At his birth, he was pronounced ruler of the world and presented with "costly jewels and precious substances."
Sort of true for Buddha, but not true for Jesus. The forementioned Brahmins did predict that Buddha would be either the ruler of the world or the greatest religious founder of the world, and Buddha (apparently quite smart for an infant) chose the latter. So in Buddha's case, he was not pronounced ruler of the world. And as for Jesus, He was not pronounced ruler of the world at His birth, either, so how would it compare even if this was true for Buddha?
As for the gifts, while it could be assumed that, as the child of a king, Buddha would be given costly presents, no texts specifically say that he was bestowed with such gifts. And, again, as for Jesus, He was not given costly gifts at His birth. The delivery of the frankincense, gold, and myrrh happened when the wise men came to Jesus' home when he was one or two years old, not at the manger when he was just born.
3. His life was threatened by a king "who was advised to destroy the child, as he was liable to overthrow him."
First of all, there are many versions of the Buddha story, and this event occurs only in a rare version unfamiliar to most Buddhists. Secondly, this event doesn't correspond to the Biblical story of Herod's attempt to kill Jesus in Matthew chapter 2. Matthew wrote that killing Jesus was Herod's idea. In the Buddha story, the king in question (Bimbasara) is advised to destroy Buddha, but rejects this advice. So while Bimbasara is advised to kill Buddha, Herod is not advised to kill Jesus. While Herod wants, and attempts, to kill Jesus, Bimbasara does not want, or attempt, to kill Buddha.
4. Was of royal lineage.
This one's true, but not very meaningful. Buddha was the son of a king, while Jesus was a distant descendant (along with most of His neighbors) of King David. Millions of people are descended from royalty somewhere down the line (I've even heard a theory that all Europeans are descendants of Charlemagne), so this one is hardly unique of either of them.
5. Taught in the Temple at age 12.
Well, the first word is true. He indeed 'taught'. But it wasn't in a temple, and he wasn't twelve. He was fifteen.
6. Crushed a serpent's head (as was traditionally said of Jesus) and was tempted by Mara, the "Evil One," when fasting.
Tradition mentions Buddha killing a serpent, but it doesn't say that he crushed its head (the exact method of execution isn't given). Mara was AN "evil one", not THE "evil one" (the critic here is clearly trying to imply that she was the Buddhist equivalent of the devil, when in fact Mara was one of many demons). Other than the fact that both Buddha and Jesus were tempted while fasting by an evil being, which I'll admit is somewhat of a coincidence, there's not much to compare the two stories. Buddha was not in a desert, as Jesus was. Buddha was tempted with incestual pleasures and fear of death, while Jesus was tempted with hunger, putting God to the test, and idolatry. Besides that, the temptations of Jesus bear far more of a resemblance to the temptations of the Israelites in the book of Exodus (which predates Buddha) than they do to the temptations of Buddha, so any claim that Buddha's temptations are the basis of Jesus' temptations are ridiculous.
7. Was baptized in water, with the "Spirit of God" or "Holy Ghost" present.
There's nothing in any Buddha story or tradition about his being baptized.
8. Performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
He may have healed the sick, but the earliest Buddhist scriptures make no mention of his having performed any supernatural feats such as feeding 500 men from a small amount of food or walking on water. There does appear to be a story about a follower walking on water, but not Buddha himself.
9. Abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached the "establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
Not true of Buddha. Not true of Jesus, either. Buddhism encourages idolatry, and idolatry was abolished in the Judeo-Christian faith long before Jesus arrived. There are no specific references to Buddha being a "sower of the word" or preaching the "establishment of a kingdom of righteousness", but in general these terms would apply to almost any religious figure.
10. Followers were obliged to take vows of poverty and to renounce the world.
True of Buddha, but not true of Jesus. While many Christians do take vows of poverty and renounce the world, Jesus Himself never told all of His followers to do such things. Of course, there is the story of Jesus telling a wealthy young ruler to give everything he has to the poor, but this was a specific command to one man, not a general command to all followers.
11. Was transfigured on a mount, when it was said that his face "shone as the brightness of the sun and moon."
This one's sort of true. For Buddha, his transfiguration had to do with him reaching a certain level in his spiritual evolution, which caused outward physical changes. For Jesus, His transfiguration was His revealing who He was from the beginning. Jesus' transfiguration had nothing to do with his attaining any sort of higher level.
12. In some traditions, died on a cross.
Buddha didn't die on a cross in any traditions. Every reference I've seen states that he died at the age of 80 of a natural illness. If anyone can find an unbiased reference stating he died on a cross, please E-mail me.
UPDATE: A visitor pointed out to me that Buddha actually died of poisoning. Most of the sites I'm finding about Buddha don't mention this, but some do. This does appear to be the case.
13. Was resurrected, as his coverings were unrolled from his body and his tomb was opened by supernatural powers.
Nope. Buddha was cremated upon his death and was not resurrected in any tradition.
14. Ascended bodily to Nirvana or "heaven."
Clearly the critics here have no understanding of the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. Nirvana is a state where the soul is freed from the limitations of the body, so the idea that anyone can ascend 'bodily' into Nirvana is laughable.
15. Was called Lord, Master, Light of the World, God of Gods, Father of the World, Almighty and All-knowing Ruler, Redeemer of All, Holy One, the Author of Happiness, Possessor of All, the Omnipotent, the Supreme Being, the Eternal One.
Of the above, Buddha was only called 'Lord'. And a lot of these don't apply to Jesus, either.
16. Was considered a Sin Bearer, Good Shepherd, the Carpenter, the Infinite and Everlasting, and the Alpha and Omega.
Buddha was considered none of them.
17. Came to fulfill, not to destroy, the law.
Nope. He preached the law, but made no mention of the fulfillment or destruction of the law.
18. Is to return "in the latter days" to restore order and to judge the dead.
There is no mention in Buddhism of the old Buddha returning. They believe there will be a completely separate Buddha who will be born. This Buddha will restore order and bring world peace, but not judge the dead. Jesus made no promise of restoring order or bringing world peace on His return.
Links:Indian Mythology: Buddha AvatarEncyclopedia Mythica: BuddhaBuddhaNetTektonics: BuddhaPantheon: Buddha
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Dionysus stories?
Hardly. Dionysus (known by the Romans as Bacchus) was a Greek god who, among other things, gave and revoked Midas' power to turn everything he touched into gold. The original source of the list of comparisons comes from the book "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy. Let's check out this list (plus a few other claims people have added):
1. Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25th and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
Actually, his birth was always celebrated on January 6th. Also, his mother, Semele, was impregnanted sexually by Zeus. He was never referred to as the "Holy Child" or placed in a manger in any version of the story.
2. His birth was announced with a heavenly display and celestial music.
I can find no reference to either, and there is no "celestial music" in the Jesus story.
3. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
This is true. However, this phrase loses any similarities with Jesus when we deal with the specifics of what Dionysus did. Jesus traveled in a limited area, while Dionysus supposedly traveled to most of the known world (including Greece, Persia and Arabia). Jesus' miracles were healings and such - all positive miracles. Dionysus' miracles were judgments against those who defied him.
4. He "rode in a triumphal procession on an ass" and "is often pictured astride a donkey, which carries him to meet his passion" a scene re-enacted with crowds "shout[ing] the praises of Dionysus and wav[ing] bundles of branches."
This claim mixes two things, one semi-valid, one invalid. Dionysus was dipicted riding a donkey while a crowd waved ivy branches - the typical homecoming for any royal figure. The crowd welcoming Jesus to Jerusalem were imitating this sort of homecoming, though using the traditional palm branches of Israel. So while this could be called a sort of imitation, it's an imitation committed by the people in the story itself, not by any writer. The latter quotes come from the book "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy. Their only reference is to a depiction of a scene from Orphic eschatology which, oddly, has nothing to do with Dionysus.
5. He was a sacred king killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
There exists an unofficial story (that is, not part of the general understanding of the Dionysus story) in which he is, as an infant, attacked by Titans who eat everything but his heart. Zeus destroys the Titans, and restores Dionysus from the remaining heart. Who would call the Jesus story a 'copycat' of that story? Taking this 'similarity' apart, yes, Dionysus was killed. His actual body was eaten, but since Jesus' body was not (the eating of Jesus' body is a metaphorical thing), this is not a comparison. Also, Dionysus wasn't eaten in any sort of ritual for fecundity or purification. In fact, the eating of Dionysus is clearly a bad thing (unlike the eating of Jesus' body) and is punished by death. Also, he wasn't a sacred king. The king was Zeus, not Dionysus.
6. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th.
Nowhere is the date of March 25th given in any Dionysus story. The date of his "resurrection" after his murder by the Titans is given as November 8th (and as shown in the above answer, this story is hardly similar to the story of Jesus' resurrection and is an unofficial story anyways). There is an ancient reference to Dionysus being "a god who renews himself and returns every year rejuvenated", but this doesn't involve death. Besides that, Jesus didn't rise from the dead on March 25th earlier. While an exact date is not given, most scholars believe that His crucifixion happened no earlier than March 28th, making His resurrection no earlier than March 30th.
7. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
Dionysus was indeed "the God of the Vine". However, Jesus wasn't. And the only references to Dionysus turning water into wine are well after Jesus' time, and were thus likely influenced by Christianity and not the other way around.
8. He was called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods."
Nope. These would be odd titles to give Dionysus, his being the son of Zeus, who is the main God in the Greek religion. The titles would only fit Zeus himself, and even he was never referred to by either of these titles.
9. He was considered the "only Begotten Son," "Savior," "Redeemer," "Sin Bearer," "Anointed One," and the "Alpha and Omega", and "Lord God of God born"
Of these, Dionysus is only referred to as 'savior'. And in the context in which he is referred to 'savior', he is saving people from the wrath of Pentheus, not from sin or eternal damnation. So even this is hardly a comparison to Jesus.
10. He was identified with the Ram or Lamb.
In one version, he is born with horns on his head like that of a ram. That's the only mention of a ram in any Dionysus literature, and doesn't compare to Jesus' story at all.
11. His sacrificial title of "Dendrites" or "Young Man of the Tree" intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.
This was no a 'sacrificial' title in any sense. He was simply called 'Young Man of the Tree'. How does that suggest he was hung on a tree or crucified?
12. At his trial, Dionysus is described by Freke and Gandy as "a quiet stranger with long hair and a beard who brings a new religion."
Dionysus was hardly quiet before King Pentheus, but engaged in quite a bit of dialogue with him. As for "long hair and a beard", most men wore both in those days. In fact, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having long hair or a beard. We only assume He did because they were common for middle-eastern Jews in those days.
13. He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.
Nope. The followers of Dionysus never claimed to be 'born again' and their 'baptism' had to do with waving a fan above their heads, not submersing them in water.
14. His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
This is not true of any version of the Dionysus story.
Links:Encyclopedia Mythica: DionysusGods, Heroes and Myths: DionysusTekton: DionysusGreek Mythology Link: DionysusEncyclopedia Of Greek Mythology: Dionysus
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Hercules stories?
Most of us are somewhat familiar with Hercules (aka Alcides and closely related to the Heracles legend).
Here are the critics' claims:
1) Born of a virgin
According to the legend, Zeus disguised himself as King Amphitryon of Troezen, then paid a visit to the king's wife, Alcmene, slept with her and impregnated her. Nine months later, out pops Hercules along with a twin brother, Iphicles, who was fathered by the king. So we can easily scratch out the idea of Hercules' mom being a virgin.
2) Was the son of God
This one is true, Zeus being the primary god in Greek mythology.
3) Was known as the 'savior of the world' and the 'redeemer'.
He was not known by either of these titles, neither did he save the world in any sense or did he 'redeem' people as a whole. He defeated badguys and rescued goodguys, but never granted salvation from sin or died to save any of his followers.
4) Before he was born, his parents wandered to a bigger town.
His father (Zeus) and mother (Alcmene) didn't travel together at all. Except for their brief fling when Zeus was disguised as Amphitryon, they weren't ever together.
5) Prophets foretold his birth and that he would be a king.
Which prophets were those? No such thing appears in the Hercules story.
6) His birth was announced by a "heavenly display" and "celestial music".
Not in any version I've ever seen. Also, there is no celestial music at Jesus' birth, either.
7) Was born on December 25th
Again, not true of the historical Jesus. Also not true of Hercules in any tradition.
8) There was an attempt made on his life while he was an infant.
There was indeed an attempt on his life while he was still an infant, when his step-mother, Juno, put a serpent in his cradle (which Hercules kills), but this hardly compares to Jesus.
9) Was shown all of the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain.
Nope.
10) Walked on water.
Nope.
11) Met with a violent death and was resurrected.
The closest thing I've found to a violent death and resurrection is a story in which Nessus tricks Deianara (Herc's wife) into poisoning him. Hercules doesn't actually die, but the gods intervene and give him eternal life, and he ascends to Mount Olympus.
12) His mother and favorite disciple stood by him when he died.
Again, Hercules never really 'died' in any version of the story, and I can find no mention of his mother or any disciple in the one version in which Deianara poisons him.
13) As he died, tells his mother "Do not cry, I'm going to Heaven."
Nope.
14) Last words were "It is finished".
Nope.
15) When he dies, the Earth trembles and darkness covers the land.
Not in any version I've seen.
16) Ascended to Heaven when he died.
Again, he never really died in any version. In the one in which he has a near-death experience (see #11 above), he does ascend to Mount Olympus, which is a realm populated only by gods, so it's not the Greek equivalent of Heaven.
17) Is said to have conquered death.
According to whom? I suppose the idea that he survived many death-defying situations could mean that he 'conquered death' in some sense, but certainly not in the sense that Jesus did.
LinksEncyclopedia Mythica: HerculesMythology of the Constellations: HerculesWikipedia: HerculesTektonics: AlcidesEncyclopedia Of Greek Mythology: Hercules
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Horus stories?
Hardly. For those unfamiliar with the Horus story, Horus is a character in Egyptian mythology, the son of the gods Isis and Osiris. There actually appear to be multiple dieties named 'Horus', but the one who is the son of Isis and Osiris is the one the critics claim influenced the Jesus story. For a quick and unbiased debunking of this story, go to any search engine and find a site on Egyptian mythology and read the Horus story for yourself (I've provided some links at the bottom of the page), or check the mythology section at your local library (go ahead, I dare you!). Acharya S's book "The Christ Conspiracy" is the apparent source of this list, but the author provides evidentiarly footnotes for only five of the claims, and those footnotes frequently disagree with her own claims!
Here are the claims of parallels between Jesus and Horus, with my responses:
1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:
Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.
Horus was given three different birthdates in mythology, one of which does correspond to December 25th. But since Jesus wasn't, per the evidence, born on 12/25, this isn't a parallel.
"Meri" (technically "Mr-ee") is the egyptian word for "beloved" and was apparently applied to Isis prior to Jesus' time, as a title, not as part of her name. But since there were probably thousands of women between Horus' time and Jesus' with a name or title that was a variation on "Mary", there's no real reason to suppose that Jesus' mother was named after Isis in particular.
Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.
Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east
There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).
Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.
2) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").
First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.
3) He was of royal descent.
This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.
4) At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn't 'disappear' in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.
5) Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.
Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story.
6) He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").
Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”.
7) He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.
He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).
8) Horus walked on water.
No, he did not.
9) His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."
Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history - the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.
10) He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.
11) Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
No, he was not.
12) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.
13) He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.
14) He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
He was never referred to as “the fisher”, and there are no lamb or lion in any of the stories. Acharya S.'s footnotes on this claim only show an association with fish (which is that Horus WAS a fish, unlike Jesus), with no evidence of his being called 'the fisher' or having any association with a lamb or lion.
15) He came to fulfill the Law.
There was no “law” he was supposed to fulfill.
16) Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."
He was never referred to by either of these titles. "Krst", in Egyptian, means "burial", by the way. It wasn't a title.
17) Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."
No mention of this in Egyptian mythology.
Links:Encyclopedia Mythica: HorusEgyptian Mythology: HorusThe Eye Of HorusHorus: He Who Is AboveTektonics: Horus, Isis, OsirisEgyptian Book of the Dead
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Inanna stories?
Some parallels, but nothing striking. Inanna, the Sumerian goddess of love, procreation, and war, was at times considered either a virgin or very promiscuous. In some versions of the story, Inanna descends to the underworld to visit her sister Ereckigala, the goddess of death. As she passes through seven gateways, she is forced to surrender all seven articles of her clothing, one item at a time, finally arriving at her sister's lair naked. Ereckigala becomes furious and kills Inanna, then hangs her on a meathook or nail. Inanna's minister, Nincubar, sends a pair of flies to Ereckigala to bargain for Inanna's release. Ereckigala releases Inanna on the condition that she find someone to take her place. Inanna is either reincarnated into a new body or is resurrected to life, ascends from the underworld, and finds that her consort, Tammuz, had taken over her throne. She sends Tammuz to the underworld in her place.
Critics claim that Inanna was crucified, though no cross or tree was involved, and, besides, she was already dead when placed upon the meathook or nail.
Critics claim that Inanna was resurrected, which is true in some pre-Christian versions of the story, so this is a valid similarity. However, since the death and resurrection took place in the underworld, and not in ours, the similarity lacks much in the way of comparisons to Jesus.
Critics claim that Inanna was a savior. She was not.
LinksInanna - Queen of HeavenThe Descent Of Inanna
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Krishna stories?
It should be noted that a few of these claims originate with Louis Jacolliot (1837-1890), a Frenchman who lived in India. His claims have not been supported with any external evidence. If he is to be believed, we are taking only his word for it. No actual Buddhists in India appear to have ever professed the beliefs Jacolliot claimed. And even if, hypothetically, there were 19th century Buddhists who believe the things he claimed, it's likely their beliefs were influenced by Christianity, since there is no record of these beliefs pre-dating Christianity.
I've heard from a couple of followers of the Hindu religion (one named Manali, the other who will remain unnamed) who have provided much-appreciated feedback.
1. Born of a Virgin on December 25
Since, according to legend, Krishna had seven older siblings, it's unlikely his mother, Devaki, was a virgin (and there's no tradition saying she was). According to krishna.avatara.org, Krishna was born on the "8th day of the dark half of the month of Sravana. This corresponds to July 19th 3228 BC." I've seen other sites say he was born in August. Skeptic Acharya S makes the claim that Krishna was born of a virgin in the book "The Christ Conspiracy", but her footnotes for this merely say that "The orthodox legend of Krishna is that he was born of a married woman, Devaki; but like Maya, Buddha's mother, she was considered to have had a miraculous conception." How does having a miraculous conception equate to her being a virgin?
Manali says "The reason this gets mentioned as a point of similarity, I guess, is not to point that mothers in both cases were a virgin. And its not said anywhere that Devaki the mother of Krishna was a virgin. I think the point of similarity is that like Jesus, Krishna was not Devaki's child, but son of god, whom she conceived miraculously."
I agree that their both being conceived miraculously is a point of similarity, but the Christ-myther claim of Krishna being "born of a virgin on December 25" is still not true on either point.
2. His human father was a carpenter
No, his human father (his only father, for that matter) was a man named Vasuveda. I have found no sources suggesting that he was a carpenter. I even did internet searches on the combination of "Vasuveda" and "Carpenter" in Google, Yahoo and Infoseek, and got no hits except for articles written about Krishna by people whose last names were 'Carpenter'. In fact, he was most likely a dairy farmer. In some versions of the Krishna story, his father is King Kansa (who is also not a carpenter), who is also Devaki's brother. Some web sites state that Kansa is Devaki's cousin or uncle, but followers assure me Kansa is Devaki's brother.
3. Father was off paying taxes when Krishna was born
No, his father, Vasuveda, was in prison with his mother when Krishna was born. Or in the versions in which King Kansa is Krishna's father, you wouldn't expect the king to be paying taxes.
4. Birth was signaled by a star in the East
I've found no mention of this in any Krishna story.
5. Birth was attended by angels and shepherds, was presented with spices
I found this site, written by a follower of Krishna, which gives the story of the birth of Krishna, and even makes some general comparisons between Krishna and Jesus (that they were both born of a woman, born in this world and were 'God-on-Earth'), yet it mentions nothing about angels, shepherds, or spices. I haven't found such comparisons anywhere else, either. Manali points out that Krishna was visited by cowherds after his birth, since his family was in the dairy business.
6. A ruling tyrant ordered the slaughtering of thousands of infants upon hearing of Krishna's birth
While there is a parallel here, it's not the one the critics claim. According to Manali, "after Kansa failed to kill Krishna, and came to know that the baby has been born and is living somewhere, he called upon his army to search the entire city of Mathura and its suburbs, to find and kill all the infants born in the same period as Krishna. Thus he ended up killing several infants, and there are several stories of how miraculously Krishna as a baby escaped the killings." So it was "several" infants, not thousands. Also, the number of infants killed by Herod when he found out about Jesus couldn't have been much more than about twenty according to most scholars, so it wasn't "thousands" there, either. So replace "thousands of" with "several" in the claim, and there is a parallel. However, the earliest version of this story in the Krishna tradition probably dates from the 4th to 6th century A.D., well after the Jesus story had been in circulation. Some date the Krishna story as early as 2nd century A.D., but even this is after the Gospel accounts were written.
7. Was anointed with oil on the head by a woman he healed
I can't find any such incident in any version of the Krishna story.
8. Was depicted as having his foot on the head of a snake
Again, this cannot be found in any version of the story.
9. Worked miracles: raised the dead, healed lepers, healed the deaf, healed the blind
He worked miracles, but I have yet to find any references to his raising the dead, or healing lepers, the deaf or the blind. Acharya S has no footnotes for this claim, so apparently she can't find the references, either.
10. Taught in parables
One of the Hindu followers who responded says he knows the Krishna story very well, and he says that Krishna did not use parables.
11. Krishna lived poor and loved the poor
The two Hindu followers who responded to this page disagree slightly on this. The first one said that "Krishna never lived as a poor person. The Yadav Caste (of which Krishna was a member) are dairy farmers, and, since milk is an important commodity, they have always been quite wealthy by Indian standards". The second responder, Manali, says that "Krishna did live poor during parts of his childhood, when he was under the care of foster parents. When Kansa's reign ended and he was welcomed back into the royal family, he never lived poor again."
But when we say that Jesus "lived poor", we're talking about his entire life, childhood and adulthood, so this isn't a comparison. Besides that, many people throughout history have lived poor and loved the poor, it's not hard to believe that Krishna and/or Jesus may have been among them.
12. Castigated the clergy and charged them with hypocrisy and ambition.
Again, not found in any version.
13. Was transfigured in front of his disciples
Again, not found in any version
14. Gave his disciples the ability to work miracles
Ditto.
15. Krishna's path was "strewn with branches"
Ditto.
16. Some traditions held that he was crucified between two thieves
Critics claim this, but never back it up. The only method of demise that I can find is his being shot in the foot by a hunter's arrow, and then either died or disappeared. If anyone out there can give me an example of a tradition in which he is crucified, please let me know. Acharya S's footnote on this one makes claims about other mythological figures being crucified, but makes no mention of Krishna being crucified.
The forementioned Jacolliot does make the claim of Krishna being affixed to a tree with arrows after he was killed, but doesn't mention anything about two thieves, and since Krishna was already dead and no crucifix was involved, this was hardly a crucifixion. And no one has ever been able to back up Jacolliot's claim, anyway, making it likely fraudulent. And even if not fraudulent, this story postdates Christianity by over 1800 years and was thus certainly influenced by Christianity.
17. Was killed around 30 yrs old and the sun darkened at his death
According to tradition, Krishna was 125 when he died. Only off by 95 years! And there's nothing about the sun darkening at his death.
18. Rose from the dead and ascended to heaven
The closest parallel comes in some later versions in which Krishna's body turned into a log-like image which floated around the East coast of India, finally ending up in a temple in the town of Puri. But he neither rose from the dead or ascended to Heaven.
19. Was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet.
Only in post-Christian times.
20. Was called: Shepherd of God, Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin-Bearer, Liberator, and Universal Word
He was called the "Shepherd God", only because, unlike Jesus, he actually WAS a shepherd. Jesus was a shepherd only metaphorically. I cannot find any record of the other names.
21. Was deemed: Our Lord and Savior and Son of God, who came to earth to die for the salvation of man
He was never referred to by these titles.
22. Was the second person of a trinity
Sort of. The first Hindu follower who responded to this site states, "That Krishna is an avtar of Vishnu would make him the second god of the Hindu threesome". However, he also acknowledges that the form of the threesome has changed over the years, and besides that, "The Hindu threesome cannot be equated even remotely with the Christian trinity." The Hindu trinity is three separate beings, not the three-in-one of the Christian trinity.
23. Was called: Jezeus/Jeseus by his disciples
The source for this appears to be the forementioned Jacolliot, and thus postdates Christianity. Besides that, remember that Jesus' Hebrew name was Yeshua. Jesus is only the English pronunciation. So even if true, this one is essentially meaningless.
24. Krishna will return to judge the dead and will do battle with the "Prince of Evil." The Earth will be desolated.
This is another claim originating with Jacolliot and cannot be dated to earlier than the 19th century. Nor is it backed up by any evidence besides Jacolliot's claim.
Manali pointed me to these two passages in the "Bhagvad Gita":
"whenever there is a fall of sustenance; when it goes down, the righteousness falls off, to kill, to destroy these horrible negative forces: to save and sustain the saints, I come in every age in human form."
"To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium."
Manali says that Krishna is born into a new body in order to return (reincarnation), so this does not compare to Jesus, who is said to be returning in the same body He had in the 1st century.
Links:Hare Krishna Home PageEncyclopedia Mythica: KrishnaIndian MythologyProbert Encyclopedia: Hindu MythologyWikipedia: KrishnaInvestigating The Similarities
No comments:
Post a Comment