>>Actually, many people do think they
>>are reflected in his teachings
>>in the Gospels...most Christians won't
>>accept it, but much of
>>what Christ said was not
>>new...what I mean is, it
>>may have been new to
>>his people, but much of
>>what he said had also
>>been said in other parts
>>of the world by other
>>people...but then I no you
>>will not accept this, even
>>though it is documented (just
>>as Jesus's life and teachings
>>are).
>>
>
>Responce: There have been many sayings
>of Christ that are very
>similar to those of the
>rest of the world, but
>what I was saying is
>that the teachings of those
>religions have no bearing on
>what he said in the
>gospels. Actually, the way Jesus
>taught salvation is new and
>very unique a concept foriegn
>to other religions.


I never said that Jesus didn't bring ANYTHING new, I know he did, I said much of what he said had already been said in other places. I am not trying to discredit Jesus's relevance to religion and spirituality.


>I ask was Krishna's prophesied
>700 years before his birth
>(Isiah 7:14)?


Yes, Krishna's birth was prophesised in early Vedic literature.
Many hundred years before he came.

Also was his
>place of birth prophesised like
>Jesus was(Micah 5:2), how bout
>his ancestory (Gen 12:2-3;cf 22:18)?

No it wasn't, but if you know the story of the Mahabarat, they discuss how a goddess came into a vision to his mother years before and told her that she would bear a son that would be God. This was when Krishnas parents were jailed for life. His first 7 siblings were murdered because of this, since Kamsa feared that they were the child (ie. God child) sent to kill him. When Krishna was born, his father took him out while all the guards were put under a spell and fell asleep.


>How about what tribe he
>will come from (Gen 49:10)?

No, maybe not....but their were many things about Krishna that were prophesised that were relevant to Hindu/Indian culture. For example, his gotra, sutra, and and lineage were prophesised...so in cultural terms, yes his tribe was prophesised since they predicted what lineage of saints he would be born under.


>They might have taught love,peace
>etc, but Christ talked about
>the coming of hell,

Yes, all of Krishnas prophesis came true as well....to a Hindu, you must realize, Krishna is just as important as Jesus is to Christianity. Krishna did speak about hell actually...in fact he was one of the first deities to do so. When he was conversing with Arjuna, he explianed the concept of heaven and hell to him explicitly...in fact, after the Mahabarth war (where the Gita discussion between Krishna and Arjuna took place) the Pandavas went to heaven, but since one of the brothers had used wrong means in the war to trick the Kauravas, one of them was sent to hell. When the Pandavas got to heaven, one of the Kauravas came to hug them...they could not understand why their enemy was accepted into heaven, and therefore chose to go to hell to live with their brother (who had been sent there earlier). Anyways, the concept of Heaven/Hell had been discussed by Krishna.


>when
>he will return,

Krishna did say he would return...as the Kalki avatar.

>he's own
>resurrection,

Krishna did not resurrect, so not relevant. Realize that resurection may be proof for Christians, but in the Hindu religion, ressurection is not proof of being an avatar. Many Hindu saints in the Himalayas are known to leave their bodies on command and return if necessary days, weeks, etc later...but then I know you think this all not true...but realize to HINDUS it is.

and the destruction of
>Jeruselem.

No, you got me there, Krishna did not prophisize this.


Did any of Krishna
>prophesies come true?

Yes, all of them.


Did Krishna
>come to die for our
>sins and restore out union
>with God?

No, but that was not his purpose. He came for a different purpose...Hindus have a much different concept of life and death than Christians (ex. reincarnation, etc). Krishna could not come to die for man's sins since this concept is not a part of Hinduism.

I'm curious how
>do you explain 119 prophesis
>that were all fufilled by
>one human?

I NEVER SAID THAT JESUS WASN'T GOD. Understand that I am not Christian so I don't necessarily believe that if Jesus is God, than all other prophets, avatars, etc are not. Just because I am saying that Krishna had relevance to the world, it doesn't mean I don't think Jesus is God. Its not a competition to me....and by the way, many of the Dasha Avatars fulfilled hundreds of prophesies.


Also the whole
>issue about Christ name, that's
>no big deal.

I wasn't trying to make it a big deal, i was just giving examples of similarities, that's all.


>>Are you sure? That may
>>your perception do to your
>>Christian bias. Krishna is
>>only a temporary incarnation?? Depending
>>on what sect you speak
>>to, you may get varying
>>answers to this. Incarnation
>>of a panthesistic God??
>
>Responce: Actually I'm quite sure,

If you are sure that Krishna is a temporary incarnation, then you are obviously biased by your believes. Do you really know the relevance of Krishna to Hindus? I don't mean have you read a book by a Christian missionary group who have been to India...I mean, do you realize the importance of Krishna to some sects of Hinduism?? If so, how? Have you ever discussed Krishna with a Hindu priest? Or any Hindu? They do not believe he is temporary at all. You do not understand the Hindu concept of non-dualism, or you would understand this fact better.


>oh
>yeah thanks for calling me
>bias( I'm glad we don't
>have to resort to name
>calling on this site).

Calling you bias is calling you a name?? I wasn't insulting you, but in my opinion you were being biased by your Christian background. I didn't realize calling someone "biased" was an insult.

Do
>you know what I mean
>by temporary incarnation and panthesistic?
>

If you are thinking from a Christian/Western point of view, then yes, Krishna is a temporary incarnation...but realize HINDUS DO NOT THINK THIS. The Hindu concept of non-dualism takes them completely away from the idea of being "temporary" when it comes to Brahman. And yes Krishna is a panthesistic God from the western perspective, but although God is universal (ie. Brahman) he is not considered impersonal. In fact, God is specifically thought to be "a person"....read the Purshasooktam ("The Universal Person") from the Upanishads.