Ok, just to let you know, I am not going to be looking up any references for you...and before you say "see, there is no proof" its not. Its because I am actually pretty busy with school, certificate courses on the side, and I just got a new job last week that keeps me busier than ever. ..and I really don't have time to go searching the university library now. But that doesn't mean proof doesn't exist, if you look around the internet I'm sure you'll come across references for where to look and all...if you chose not to, that's also fine.

Also, I am not a "Hindu apologetic" (which is another reason I don't feel the need to go searchng right now), but from the way things have turned out here, I really seem like one, don't I? To tell you the truth, I don't know how things got to this point of me defending Hinduism, but I was really just asking what you thought of the belief that Christ travelled East for the sake of conversation...

But (and no, you don't have to believe me) I have been fortunate to learn a lot about Eastern religions, and let me tell you that there is much evidence for many of their beliefs too. It may not all be in written form either, but different cultures have different ways....

In a previous post you mentioned that this is more than a hobby to you (which leads me to assume that you either have a degree, or are studying theology, or are a priest) yet you also tell me that you will not tell me how you know anything, or where you've learned about other non-western cultures. Well, I'll tell you a bit about me. I have been very fortunate in my life to travel a great deal, and I spent over 3 and 1/2 years in India, most of my time there studying religion and culture...so I am not just speaking on what I don't know. I also have Hindu family members...but since you did ask before, I am not part of any Hindu sect. But I did spend a great deal of time learning from Hindu priests, and let me tell you, their reasoning is so much different than what we're used to...their logic behind their religion is much different, their approach to studying God and scriptures is also different. I actually heard first hand from them about prophesises, etc...but unfortunately coming back west has caused my Sanskrit skills to severly diminish, so looking up these references right now would be very tedious, and since my initial purpose wasn't to defend Hinduism, I don't see the point. I have also seen (first hand) many astonishing things that provide proof enough for me (and no, in case you are going to ask, its not levitating saints, or people walking on fire or any of that other stereotypical bull). If you travel through the Himalayas, you'll learn a lot more about what Hindu philosophy is about as opposed to the more ritualist practices of the rest of India.

I am sincerly glad that Christianity answered your questions...but to tell you the truth, it did not answer mine. (I was actually born Christian)...and what I have learnt from Eastern religions, and Native spirituality has actually brought me much more peace and joy than anything. I live a much cleaner, healthier life, and I am more happy than I ever was. So my point is, I am not going to continue defending Krishna, etc ( this may surprise you, but personally.....I am really not too concerned with whether he ever existed or not, I am more interested in the philosophy more than anything else...but I guess it might not have seemed that way, huh?) here since I am not a "Hindu apologetic", but just know, India has a very different way of doing things that Westerns will commonly mistake for ignorance or stupidity...but there is really much more to it....Sanathana Dharmic philosophy was actually a science at first (like a real natural science, like biology, chemistry, etc...to try and understand the universe) before in became the more ritualistic Hinduism we know today. If you want some references though, trying looking up David(?) Frawley, cause I think he's written a lot about the time/proof of various Hindu events...check his bibliographies...not sure though...

I am more of a philosopher than a theologian, so that may lead to a lot of our disagreements here...

>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.

Man, this post is starting to inspire me to keep up with my Sanskrit so that I can actually show you some proof that would satisfy you more...what I wouldn't do for an extra hour each day :-)....I know I said I couldn't, but if I have some time I'll try to find you at least 1 or 2 references...

>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.

The eyewitness thing proves that we have a different approach to religion, etc in the west...but I really don't want to argue about this, cause I know where its going to lead..



>>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.

Just making a point here: but realize that Krishna was believed alive around 1500 years before Christ! So things were different...and that may also be why the type of proof you seek is harder for you to find.


>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.]

Just wondering...is there any proof of the 5000 witnesses other than the Bible?


>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.

I don't dispute this...in fact I heard about this (medical evidence and all) from (gasp!) a Hindu priest!
>
> 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.

Believe that Krishna lived? Don't understand?


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.

Yeah, but you didn't answer my question "how is it more objective than other cutures' works?" Other books have made prophesies that have come true you know.


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.

Check any chapter of the Upanishads for such prophesies...the Gita has prophesies by Krishna about India that have come true.


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

No. But I do find a lot of merit in it...the philosophical side.