>>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.


man..its been a few years since I did this reading..I think its the Brahma Sutras. But even in the Mahabartha it talks about how he was prophesised. I cannot remember the exact story..but Vishnu had given a vision to Sage Vyasa (?) that he would come down in the clan of Yadava to defeat the evil ruling power and restore peace to the land, and Vyasa had written it. Also note, you may claim that if it is prophesised only to one priest it is somehow less valid. I have 2 answers for that: first of all, it was prophesised to more than one person, but the names are slipping me right now (been studying stats for 3 days and my brain isn't all here;-)) and secondly, in Indian tradition, priests are given a lot more respect than Christians give their priests. I don't mean respect in the sense you may think, I mean that Hindu priests were seen as seers, or Godmen. They spent much more time preparing for priesthood (ie. most spend a minimum of 25-35 years learning before they are initiated into swamihood).



>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.


I hope you are just making a point hee about Christianity and not about Hinduism...if you are saying that the prophesis concerning Krishna were human in origin and not truly divine, then I will respond to this further....but first explain how Jesus's were truly divine and Krishna's were not?? That is, if that is what you were trying to say.


>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.

In the Mahabaratha, Krishna was pre-prophesised to be born a Yadava, and that is why the King (ie. the evil King Kamsa) jailed his own sister and killed all her children...since she was the same blood line and might therefore be the bearer of his killer (which she eventually was). Not sure where else it was right now...but all the Dasha avatars were pre-prophesised in the Brahma sutras, and in the Vedas. Vishnu explicitly said when he would come down (which yuga, or cyclical period), where he would be born, and for what purpose each time he came. All of this was told to Vyasa and other priests (who's names escape me right now...Valmiki(?)...I'll have to get back to you with reference #'s).


>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.

Fine...but that is by your perception, some see little difference.


>>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.

Oh my, I am really questioning the purpose of this now! Are you serious? What you said right here is proof for the "being bias" comment I made!

Ok, when I said that "Hindus believe that this is true" you claim that this is being subjective. But when you say Christians believe Christ's ressurection was a true historical event, you believe this is objective??? Let me explain this to you, when I said Hindus believe its true, I mean that Hindus believe that KRISHNA'S LIFE WAS TRUE HISTORICAL FACT, WHETHER WE BELIEVE IT OR NOT. The only reason I said "Hindus believe this" is because since you are Christian, I knew you wouldn't believe it. Hindus are also objective in this belief in Krishna (ie. they believe that whether or not anyone believes it, he really lived and performed all his miracles).

Your logic here is questionable. By your logic I could also claim that Christians are being subjective in believing in Jesus ressurected, since, althought they believe it to be a true historical fact, only Christians believe it...right? Re-read what you just wrote and tell me how your logic is right!


>>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.
>

I don't understand you at all...a few posts ago (or maybe it was in another thread, can't remember) you were explaining that you were "qualified" to have such discussions and you even spent a paragraph explaining the Gita to me...and now you are asking me to point out where the proof is? I thought you read the Gita (or so was the impression I received from you post explaining it to me).

The proof is in the Gita! There is also other proof of his miriacles, (Mahabartha, Bhagavad Vahini) but right in the Gita Krishna performs a miracle when he shows Arjuna his cosmic (universal) form. It is in fact, a major part of the story...you ask questions like this, I assume, becuase you believe that the Gita is a "religious" book and you want something more "objective" right? But when anyone asks for proof of Christ's miracles, the Bible is quoted! How is the Bible more of a valid source of objectivity than other scriptures of other lands? Especially considering that Sanskrit is one of the oldest written languages known, and many western written languages are based on much of its structure.


>>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.


Actually, to tell you the truth, I don't know how you thought I was debating anything...I explicitly stated that I was just STATING things...I think you may be thinking that "the best defense is a good offense"...or something...


>>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


What does this mean? Do you really mean ok? I can't tell by the capitals...but in case you are trying to be sarcastic...I know that the name thing was a weak comparison, I was just making statements to show similarities among cultures, etc.


>>>>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,



Don't understand "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.

In many parts of India, especially the south, villages usually tend to have a particular diety that they exclusively worship. In some places, Krishna is exclusively worshipped as God...I think they are called Krishnavites, or something to that affect...Shiva also has exclusive followers called Shivites.

On the same note, the fact that the "Hare-Krishna" movement arose shows the popularity of the Krishna deity....now I know you are going to make some cult comment or joke, but I am merely pointing out that Krishna is very important to Hinduism, and a very popular form to worship....so much so that a separate system developed around him (ie. Hare Krishnas). Also note, when I say popular, I don't mean in the sense you may think, I mean that he's a very commonly known form of God.

>Also
>what I mean by temporary
>incarnation is that Christians say
>that Christ is forever in
>the incarnation even after he
>ascended to heaven.

That may be so, but realise that to Christianity this is important, but in Hinduism it is not! Also, the term "temporary" (as I explained below) does not have the same force it does in Sanskrit...what i mean is, Hindus do not believe in a temporary state of God even though they do believe in dieties...its hard to explain for me, but its a concept called non-dualism (and note, the concept is not called "Everything is one" but "non-dualism"...that is for a reason! Think about it a bit and you might grasp what I am trying to say).


>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.

Well, people you talked to who said this are correct...in a sense. He is temporary in the Western/Christian perspective (ie. no longer in the form of Krishna) but they still believe that form of Krishna exists...even today! This is a difficult concept...

As for verses...well...I don't have a Gita with me now...but check the chapters on "transcendental knowledge" and "Dhyana yoga" and also the chapter discussing having knowledge of the absolute. I will have to get back to you on the verses...


>>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.


Don't understand this response?


Also, see post 91 (I think) in the "Christians Pro-Death Penalty" thread...in case you didn't see it yet.