Stop stealing Krishna to make a mistaken point

[hinduwoman]

And this is for atheists.
One John G. Jackson wrote a great deal about pagan origins of Christianity. The American Atheist Press published his books like 'Christianity before Christ'. In one portion he compares Christ with Krishna point by point. Obviously there are broadly similar motifs but I don't know where he got his sources except from missionaries with a motive/dullwitted people who never set foot in India.

1. Krishna was born of a Virgin ---

2. He was born in a cave.

3. The wicked demon king ordered all male children born on that day to be killed.

4. Krishna was crucified

5. He descended to hell and rose up again.

I get it that this writer died in 1990's. But since his book was republished in 2002 should not the editors do checks for the sources. Today with internet and hoards of Hindus roaming about in USA it should be easy.
Otherwise the atheists just look silly.

 

[dystopian]

1. Krishna was born of a Virgin ---

Probably from:

Lord Vishnu himself later appeared to Devaki and Vasudeva and told them that he himself would be their eighth son and kill Kansa and destroy sin in the world. In the story of Krishna the deity is the agent of conception and also the offspring. Because of his sympathy for the earth, the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son, Vaasudeva (i.e., Krishna). This is occasionally cited as evidence that "virgin birth" tales are fairly common in non-Christian religions around the world.[52][53][54] However, there is nothing in Hindu scriptures to suggest that it was a "virgin" birth

From wikipedia.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

1. Krishna was born of a Virgin ---

2. He was born in a cave.

3. The wicked demon king ordered all male children born on that day to be killed.

4. Krishna was crucified

5. He descended to hell and rose up again.

What page do these bullets come from?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But since his book was republished in 2002 should not the editors do checks for the sources.

No, not at all.
Any books sold in the Religious section are legally prohibited from fact checks, historical searches or 'would an objective five year old think this was a good argument' evaluations. Without such laws, there would not BE a religious section.

 

[Underseer]

Probably from:

Lord Vishnu himself later appeared to Devaki and Vasudeva and told them that he himself would be their eighth son and kill Kansa and destroy sin in the world. In the story of Krishna the deity is the agent of conception and also the offspring. Because of his sympathy for the earth, the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son, Vaasudeva (i.e., Krishna). This is occasionally cited as evidence that "virgin birth" tales are fairly common in non-Christian religions around the world.[52][53][54] However, there is nothing in Hindu scriptures to suggest that it was a "virgin" birth

From wikipedia.

Ah, so it was immaculate conception, but not a virgin birth. Frankly, that seems like a piddling detail to quibble over.

What about the other claims?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ah, so it was immaculate conception, but not a virgin birth. Frankly, that seems like a piddling detail to quibble over.

The immaculate conception was Mary's, while Jesus was born of a virgin. Not the same thing at all.

Mary was conceived without inheriting the legacy of original sin, while Jesus was conceived without Joseph.

 

[Underseer]

Ah, so it was immaculate conception, but not a virgin birth. Frankly, that seems like a piddling detail to quibble over.

The immaculate conception was Mary's, while Jesus was born of a virgin. Not the same thing at all.

Mary was conceived without inheriting the legacy of original sin, while Jesus was conceived without Joseph.

That still sounds like an awfully fine distinction if you ask me.

 

[Draconis]

Erm, suddenly I started wondering if God was a virgin. If so, then it would be ok to call it a virgin birth... kind of.

But (more seriously) if this was kind of a practise run for Christ... why would it be necessary? Or perhaps we should be talking about Krishnanity?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The immaculate conception was Mary's, while Jesus was born of a virgin. Not the same thing at all.

Mary was conceived without inheriting the legacy of original sin, while Jesus was conceived without Joseph.

That still sounds like an awfully fine distinction if you ask me.

How is that fine?
Clean soul as compared to asexual reproduction?

That's apples and anvils.

 

[Juma]

That still sounds like an awfully fine distinction if you ask me.

How is that fine?
Clean soul as compared to asexual reproduction?

That's apples and anvils.

The small difference is wether it was the head character or his mother that was "immaculately concieved". The big similarity is that they share the notion if persons normally being born with an "unclean soul." And that the head charscter was somehow cleaner.

 

[Deepak]

How is that fine?
Clean soul as compared to asexual reproduction?

That's apples and anvils.

The small difference is wether it was the head character or his mother that was "immaculately concieved". The big similarity is that they share the notion if persons normally being born with an "unclean soul." And that the head charscter was somehow cleaner.

In either case a similarity to avatars in Hinduism seems forced. Even a casual reading of the Ramayana or Mahabharata reveals that it's a means to an end for the dieties activities in the material world rather than some semaphore of 'goodness' or 'cleanness' as such.

 

[hinduwoman]

No the first point is important theologically.

Since in Hinduism humanity does not Fall in the Abrahamic sense there is no such thing as original sin and immaculate conception as a concept does not exist.
Again Devaki is not a Virgin. She had 7 children already before Krishna's birth. Though Krishna took shape in her womb the conception in this case was sexual.

 

[hinduwoman]

1. Krishna was born of a Virgin ---

2. He was born in a cave.

3. The wicked demon king ordered all male children born on that day to be killed.

4. Krishna was crucified

5. He descended to hell and rose up again.

What page do these bullets come from?

I just highlighted the important points. The whole para is:

Another great pagan christ was Krishna" of India. In the sacred books of India it is
recorded that Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki, that his nativity was heralded by a
star, and that though of royal lineage, he was born in a cave. (According to the
apocryphal gospel of Protevagelion,- a work attributed to James, the brother of Jesus, the
Christian savior was born in a cave.) At the time of Krishna's birth, the cave was
mysteriously illuminated. (At the birth of Jesus, "there was a great light in the cave, so
that the eyes of Joseph and the Midwife could not bear it.") The infant Krishna spoke to
his mother soon after his birth. ("Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to
his mother: 'Mary I am Jesus the Son of God, that Word which thou did bring forth
according to the declaration of the Angel Gabriel unto thee, and my Father hath sent me
for the salvation of the world' " - according to the apocryphal gospels of 1 and 2 Infancy.
) Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the
king. (Jesus was born while his foster-father Joseph was in the city to pay his tax to the
govenor.) The babe Krishna was adored by cowherds. (The infant Jesus was adored by
shepherds.) King Kansa sought the life of the Indian Christ by ordering the massacre of
all male children born during the same night as was Krishna. (This is almost identical
with the story of the slaughter of the innocents, ordered by Herod.) Nanda was warned
by a heavenly voice to flee with the infant Khrisna across the Jumna River, to Gakul, to
escape King Kansa. (Joseph was warned by a voice in a dream to flee into Egypt with the
Christ-child to escape the wrath of Herod.) Krishna performed many miracles in the city
of Mathura. (Jesus, while in Egypt, lived in a town named Matarea, where he performed
many miracles.) Krishna was a crucified christ. He is pictured in Indian art as hanging on
a cross with arms extended. (Dr. Thomas Inman, a celebrated authority on pagan and
Christian symbolism, states that: "Christna, whose history so closely resembles our

o

Lord's, was also like him in his being crucified." ) Krishna was pierced by an arrow while
hanging on the cross. (Jesus was pierced by a spear during his crucifixion.) The light of
the sun was blotted out at noon on the day of Krishna's death. (The sun was darkened
from the sixth to the ninth hour on the day of the crucifixion of Christ.) Krishna
descended into hell to raise the dead before returning to the abode of the gods. (We read
of Jesus Christ that: "He descended into hell, and on the third day rose again from the
dead." The Descent into Hell of Jesus is described in the apocryphal gospel of
Nicodemus.-) Krishna rose from the grave, and finally ascended bodily to heaven in the
presence of a multitude of spectators. (A similar story is related of Jesus Christ.)

It is from Jackson's Pagan Origins of Christ myth which he repeats again in this book

The whole story is just wrong including the claim that in Indian art Krishna is showing hanging crucified from a tree. (Now Woden hanging from the World Tree is a more proper comparison). None of the events match. The Christian story is taken wholesale and shoved on to Krishna.

What is really upsetting personally is that atheists kidnapped an older god without checking facts.

 

[dystopian]

(Now Woden hanging from the World Tree is a more proper comparison).

Not really. The only similarity is they both had their sides pierced with a spear and were suspended in a torturous position. But Woden did it to himself, suffered much longer, didn't die, and did it to gain power (by learning the runes and their magic) not to cleanse away anyone's sin.

 

[lpetrich]

hinduwoman, you are completely right about how awful that biography is. It's almost as bad as the alleged biography of Horus that I've seen in several places. Legendary heroes' biographies don't resemble each other *that* much, though they do have more broad resemblances.

When I did a Lord Raglan scoring for Krishna, I was careful to research sources like an abridged version of the Vishnu Purana that I'd found somewhere. IMO, Lord Raglan's profile is good for comparing legendary heroes, because it's general enough to fit several legendary heroes' biographies without fitting documented heroes' biographies very well.

Lord Raglan's hero profile - Atheism - Wikia
List of Lord Raglan evaluations - Atheism - Wikia

 

[AJ113]

That still sounds like an awfully fine distinction if you ask me.

How is that fine?
Clean soul as compared to asexual reproduction?

That's apples and anvils.

Not to mention two different people.

 

[Bomb#20]

(Now Woden hanging from the World Tree is a more proper comparison).

Stop stealing Woden!