jesus and krishna?

Question

similarities and diffrences?

Answer 1

Jesus is the only one who died for us!!

Answer 2

Krishna is God and Jesus is the Son of God. The holy Ghost is God within the Heart of Jesus. The word of Jesus is nondifferant than Krishna because He is speaking through the heart of the son. Krishna says in the Gita "Whenever their is decline in religious principals I appear again and again or send my representative to reestablish the truth." But the son never becomes the father. The son is part and Parcel of the Absolute truth Krishna, Allah, Jehovah, Go to www.stephen-knapp.com for universal thruths and www.essene.org on the original teachings of Christ.

Answer 3

Similarities:

Both born to Virgin mothers
Both royal descent
Both "Sons of God" from heaven to earth
Both healed people and cast out demons
Both had disciples they taught/ sent out
Both died and resurrected
Some would claim both "hung in a tree" at death

Differences:

Jesus fulfilled ancient prophecy/ Krishna had no prophecy to fulfill
Krishna was the 8th god-man incarnation- Jesus was/ is 1st & only Son of God in the Bible
Jesus was crucified and Krishna was not (big deal to myth)

Other things to think about:

Krishna was said to live 2nd-3rd BCE, but the written myths of Krishna post-date Jesus who was from 0-33CE
Jesus writings= 50-120CE
Krishna writings=800-1200CE
see letter of Paul & Gospel dates vs Naalayira Divyap Prabhandam dates

Also as I mentioned, the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) holds arguably over 300 Messianic prophecies...these were written from Moses all the way to Malachi (over 1000yr time span) and the Messiah had to fulfill each of the prophecies to be the true Messiah- Krishna had no prophecies set before him to fulfill

check out the surce links for more info

Answer 4

Jesus was both man and God, Krishna was not God.

Answer 5

Krishna, re - incarnate.

I AM

Answer 6

Joh 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Answer 7

Jesus says He's GOD.

Krishna says he is Everything and Everything is HIM.

same difference.

Answer 8

Krishna was blue.
Jesus was Jew.

Answer 9

both reincarnations of the supreme god.

ones from Hinduism and other is from Christianity.

Answer 10

Jesus and Krishna, similarities and differences.

Hello! This is a very nice question! Since so many people already have answered, but done so in problematic ways, I’ll just comment on those.

PROBLEMATIC ANSWERS (1): JESUS

1) Fireball226’s statement that “Jesus is the only one who died for us!!” is a very ambitious claim, and very problematic. First of all because there is little, or no, direct scriptural evidence in the Greek New Testament for that he is the only one who died for us. Jesus Himself did not, what I know, explicitly say that “I am the only one that is dying for you people [to get saved].” And if Jesus HIMSELF didn’t say EXACTLY that phrase, who said it? And why should we regard such a statement as significant, if it did NOT come from Jesus himself?

2) A second reason for why Fireball226’s statement is problematic is because it really presents the idea that there is only ONE religion that is true, namely the Christian one. But how do we KNOW that? Aren’t all of the mainstream religions THOUSANDS of years old? So how can we accept ONE of these religions as providing a perfectly correct testimony but regard all the others as false?

Of course, one can think that divine revelation, in principle, is wrong, or that “all testimonies that are older than one thousand years are wrong,” and therefore NOT accept Islam or Hinduism for any of those reasons. But if one thinks like THAT, then one must ALSO reject the Bible.

And this takes us the following idea. If one, in principle, accepts “divine revelation” (that is, that particular “miracles” are possible), then it seems almost impossible to reject ANY mainstream account that claims that miracles have happened. And this would include the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu teachings. So it seems to me that the only reasonable thing to do in this case is to accept ALL of them.

3) Furthermore, Fireball226’s statement is problematic for another reason. For it hinges on whether Jesus is God or just a messenger of God; whether the idea of “dying” only pertains to a material body or whether it pertains also to a spiritual existence; and whether Jesus, at all, HAD a material body or not.

Now, if Jesus IS God, then Jesus did not REALLY die at all, but just APPEARED to have died, while still, spiritually speaking, being alive. For God cannot die. God’s spiritual existence or “aliveness” or “being” (Greek: ‘ousia’) is, at least in the regular Christian conception, eternally guaranteed. Also, if Jesus IS God, then he did not necessarily have a material body such as ours, even though it may have APPEARED to be a material body to all human beings.

But maybe Jesus is NOT God. Jesus does not talk about himself as God [Greek: ‘theos’] or as the father [Greek: ‘ho pataer’]. Rather, when Jesus talks about himself, he mostly uses the label ‘the son’ [Greek: ‘ho huios’]. To my knowledge, there are no DIRECT statements of the form “I, Jesus, am God” that are found in the Bible (so “cliffy”’s statement that “Jesus says He’s GOD” is wrong).

Admittedly, however, there are some other statements by Jesus that can be INTERPRETED as saying that Jesus is God, such as Joh. 14:6 (as the comment from “halfadan” suggests). The problem is just that this statement (and others) can ALSO be interpreted in other ways. So there seems to be no really CONCLUSIVE statements to the effect that Jesus is God.

Now, if Jesus is NOT God, then Jesus may or may not have died in a “human-like” way. This depends on whether or not Jesus came in a spiritual body, or whether he had a flesh-based, material body just like ours. In any case, according the Bible, Jesus really DID walk this planet and preached the glory of God, or, as Jesus calls Him, ‘the father’ [Gr. ‘ho pataer’].

[Note: To suggest that Jesus is NOT God Himself is NOT necessarily to say that God is not a person. God could very well be a person, while Jesus being ANOTHER person.]

PROBLEMATIC ANSWERS (2): KRISHNA

1) “Carpanone Kid’s” comment that “Krishna was not God” has very little support in the transmitted, traditional understanding of Indian philosophy and religion, as well as in their scriptural accounts. Virtually all Hindus that really respect the Bhagavad-gita as their main text think of Krishna either as God Himself, or as some form of demigod [Sanskrit: ‘deva’, English: ‘divine’]. If they think of him also as a demigod, they mostly identify him as a form of Vishnu. Believers in Krishna therefore normally are also believers in Vishnu; hence they are called “Vishnu-ites” or “Vaishnavas.” Incidentally, as Jayashri devi dasi (Haribol!) says, Vaishnavas are, in general, of the opinion that Jesus is the Son of God, a messenger of God, as opposed to God Himself (for various reasons).

2) ‘brandon_c” has posted a number of inaccurate observations about Krishna. First of all, in the Indian scriptures there are lots of prophecies; not only various predictions of Krishna/Vishnu and other “incarnations” are mentioned; even Mohammed and ‘Jesus the Messiah’ (Sanskrit: ‘isha-masiha’) are mentioned in a text called ‘Bhavishya Purana’ [Sanskrit ‘Bhavishya’ = ‘future’; ‘Purana’ = ‘ancient’ or ‘old’ account].

3) ‘brandon_c” says that “Krishna was the 8th god-man incarnation.” But that’s just ONE way of looking at it. Some others say that Krishna is not really INCARNATING as Krishna, but, since He is God Himself, comes in his own spiritual body. So there are different ideas here in different camps.

4) ‘brandon_c’ says that “Krishna was said to live 2nd-3rd BCE, but the written myths of Krishna post-date Jesus who was from 0-33CE.” First of all, what I can understand, the accounts of Krishna are no more myths than those of Jesus; and it is because they are NOT treated as myths that their priests have bothered to remember them and to document them.

5) Second, the dates that ‘brandon_c’ mentions must be explained better. ‘brandon_c’ does not say WHO said when Krishna lived; and the expression “2nd-3rd BCE” does little to enlighten us: 2nd-3rd CENTURY BCE? or 2nd-3rd MILLENIUM BCE?

According to the ancient tradition, and the accounts presented in the Bhagavad-gita (from the epic Mahabharata) and elsewhere, the time of Krishna’s pastimes on this planet is estimated (with the help of astronomical information and a computer-generated reconstruction of the position of the polar star, and other information) to approximately 5100 years ago, at the start of a certain so-called ‘yuga’ (time-period) called ‘kali yuga’. The Western scholars, however, do not want to admit that the Indian scriptures (which originally were transmitted in oral form and only later were written down) are that old, except for the oldest ones (Rig veda, Yajur veda, etc.), which they (at the very least) now put in the second millennium B.C.

If there are any more questions, don’t hesitate to email me!