>
>
>man..its been a few years since
>I did this reading..I think
>its the Brahma Sutras.

Responce : OK I'll wait.

>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.

Response: Ok, now explain how Krishna fufilled this prophesy.
when you have time. You know what I mean?

>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;-))

Response: No prob, I'll chill.

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).

Response: But if you look at the prophesis of the Bible I think you'd be shocked at the level of detail inwhich they prophesied, like where he was born ( and actually naming the city) when he would die(Daniel's seventy weeks)to the day. The prophet Isiah named the king of bablylon 75 years before hand and said he would release the Jews, Jeramiah foretold exactly how many years the Jews would be in exile. Ok big deal right, where here is the deal if you go outside the bible and compare it with history then you see that these men were prophets of God. It's one thing to predict a mans death its another to predict that he would be cruxified when cruxifiction had not been invented yet.
>
>
>
>
>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: Well I don't believe Krishna was divine. But thats not what I was saying here, I was just showing that there is no way Jesus could have read the Old Testament and followed the prophesis. But you have to realize is that the gospel of Christ was not written by Christ but by eye witnesses which is very important in a court of law, that's the difference. An eyewitness is the most important thing that you can have inorder to justify a claim and that's what Christianity has.
>
>.
>
>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).

Responce: can you prove this by an eyewitness account, what is the validity in this prophesy ( not trying to offend you). That's the whole point there were witnesses to all of Christ miracles and prophesis which will stand in a court of law. As a matter of fact it did. Simom Greenleaf the royal professor at harvard university did just that.

>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: No prob, I'll wait.
>

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

respose: oh yeah how so.
>
>
>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!

Responce: No its not bias by any means. I mean the story of Christ resurrection has a lot of evidence that he rose. Especially 5000 witnesses, that's not subjective.
>
>Ok, when I said that "Hindus
>believe that this is true"
>you claim that this is
>being subjective.

Responce: No I mean were there any witnesses. Why do you believe this, whats your case( not trying to offend you). I can point the fact that there were 5000 witnesses to Christ, to the fact that Paul's creed in 1 cor 15 dates back to the days of the hellenistc Jews. meaning that it dates back to 2 to 3 years of the event itself. Which says there was not enough time for legend to creep in. I can point to medical evidence the type of shock he went into. Historicle evidence such as the Yohanan.


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).

Respose: Now why do Hindus believe this.
>
>
>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).

Response: Yeah I have a Gita, but i am no Hindu apologetic. I may know it pretty well. But I can't defend it.
>
>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?

Response : easy, because the bible can be proven to be a divine book, by its prophesis. Look at eze 26-28 the prophesy of the city of Tyre and then check history and see what happened to the city of Tyre its exact. Look at Isiaih he told when Egypt was going to be attacked by the Assarians, then he also said when they attacked they would be joined by the Medes, then check history; it happended. You can check archeology with the black obelisk where we have in the Bible Jehu in 1 Kings paying homage to the Assarian emperor, manuscript evidence where have 5,366 copies of the new testament written in greek.

>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...

Response: They very reason I came to this site was because there was an article were some lady was trying to disprove that Jesus existed. One of her arguments was that Krishna and Christ were a lot alike so I thought thats were you were going MY BAD.
>
>
>
>
>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.


Responce: No I really meant ok (lower case).
>
>

>
>>
>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.


Response: Oh. I know about those. Got you.
>
>
>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.



Responce: By the way are you Hindu, and do you belong to a specific sect.

>>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).

Response : I sure will.
>
>
>
>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...

Response: I get you.
>
>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...

Response : Take your time. I'll look also.
>
>
>
>Don't understand this response?


Response: Oh I was saying its cool.
>
>Also, see post 91 (I think)
>in the "Christians Pro-Death Penalty"
>thread...in case you didn't see
>it yet.

Response: Will do peace.