>
>
>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.

Responce: Oh my bad I thought you were trying to debate the differences between Christ vs Khirhna, I did'nt realize that you were just stating a point.
>
>
>>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.

Responce: If you have time I would like to see the prophesis that concearned his birth. Or just tell me in which literature I can find it.
>
>
>
>
>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.

Responce: The point that I was trying to make is that the prohesis that concearned Jesus, were truly divine and not human in origin, some people state that Jesus mearly tried to imitate the prophesis in the Old Testament and was not the one they were talking about.
>
>

>
>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.
>
Responce: I would like to see thsi prophesy as well and compare it, you have to remeber Jesus lineage and birth were foretold throughout history by more than one prophet.
>
>>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.

Responce: Your right, I completely over looked that one, a better argument that I should have said was that the hell that Krishna preached vs the hell of Christianity are different.
>
>
>>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.

Responce: But, this is were we split. You said that Hindus believe this to be true making it kind of subjective( now correct me if I am reading to much into your wording) but Christians say that Christ resurrection was a true event in history meaning whether we believe it or not it happened.
>
>
>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.

Responce: If you have time I would like for you to point me out some of them, and compare them to the prophesis in Isiah and Jeremiah if you want to.
>
>
> 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.

Responce: all this stems from the fact that I thought you were trying to debate instead of realizing you were just stating things.
>
> 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.

Responce; Good deal, I miss read you. I thought you were debating that fact.
>
>
>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.

Responce: Sure OK
>
>
>>>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.
>

Responce: Actually, what your saying is kind of spaced out, you said do I realize the importance of Krishna in some sects. Well point me out to some of those sects at least give me some names background or something then I can answer you. Also what I mean by temporary incarnation is that Christians say that Christ is forever in the incarnation even after he ascended to heaven. Hindus do not believe that Krishna is, at least not the ones I have talked to in the past, but if you got a disagreement cool give me verses and stuff and all that.
>
>>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.
>

Responce: No offense.
> 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.

Responce: Good answer, hope you write me back peace