Friday, April 10, 2015

Is Jesus a Pagan Myth? - Part One

Is Jesus a Pagan Copy-Cat? 
Most atheists do not deny the existence of Jesus, only the fact that he was anything more than a man. Some however allege that he was a myth. Not just a myth, but a stolen myth from various pagan sources. However how do their claims stand up? 

Krishna is the English spelling of the "eighth avatar of Vishnu" according to Hindus. Kersey Graves is the originator of the theory that Jesus is a myth borrowed from the account of Krishna. 
Some even spell Krishna as "Chrishna" to imply this connect (this is a sign of deception on their part. However we see that Krishna (the proper spelling and not Chrishna as some try to claim) means "Black" on account of Krishna's blueish black skin while Jesus' title Christ means "anointed one" and mirrors the Hebrew title Messiah, meaning "anointed one" as well. The gospel writers did not need to copy Krishna’s name into a Greek title since such a title already existed. 
According to the gospels Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, so to critics this is a clear copy-cat of Krishna who they say was born of the virgin Maia. However the Hindu texts actually say of Krishna "You have been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of Brahma on earth." (Mahabharata Bk 12, XLVIII) Again we note that another false name similarity is made, that between Mary (meaning "bitter") and Maia (likely meaning "illusion). Also he was not the first child, but Jesus was. 
Herod issued a decree to kill all infants under the age of two, possible only in Bethlehem or in all his territory, according to the gospel accounts. This to the skeptic is a clear case of copying from the Hindu accounts. However in Bhagavata Bk 4,XXII:7 it reads, “Thus the six sons were born to Devaki and Kamsa, too, killed those six sons consecutively as they were born.” We can see that similar only in the regard that infants were killed in both they really have nothing in common. The gospel writers mimicked nothing from this.  
According to the skeptics’ theory, both Krishna’s parents and Jesus’ parents fled. They say Krishna’s fled to Mathura and some even say that Jesus’ fled to some place called Muturea (another false name connection). In this regard the gospels indicate that Jesus and his parents fled to Egypt not Muturea. Hindu scriptures (Bhagavata Bk 4, I:4-5) say, “And for what reason did [Vishnu] incarnate himself as the son of Vasudeva in the prison house of Kamsa?” This shows that Krishna’s parents had no time to flee since they were already imprisoned by Kamsa. 
Jesus and his Father were both carpenters, but only Krishna’s father is said to be a carpenter while Krishna is said to be a nobleman. There is no similarity. Some may say that Jesus by being a descendant of David was royalty. He was a descendant of the royal house of David, but was born in poverty. The royal house of David had ceased to rule for about four hundred years. 
Jesus was hung or crucified, but Krishna was only impaled by an arrow shot by a hunter accidently (Mahabharata Bk 16,4). To say that he was crucified is a stretch. Especially since hanging a person on a stake or crossed beam stake was a deliberate act for execution, does this seem a bit of a stretch. Jesus was killed for the sins of mankind, but Krishna by mistake. He rose almost immediately while Jesus was raised up on the third day. 
Both were seen as saviors that much is true, but that isn’t to say they were saviors in the same sense. Jesus came to redeem mankind from original sin, but Krishna didn’t. The account of Krishna is not the source of the account about Jesus. Krishna differed in many different ways from Jesus and the concept of a Messiah already existed in the Hebrew Scriptures, (e.g., Daniel and Isaiah’s prophecies), so we can say that the skeptics ("mythers") are wrong in this regard.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your feedback. Your comment will be posted after approval.