"Strong Evidence that Christianity
Stole/Borrowed Elements of an
Older Hindu Myth"
- Robert Howard Kroepel - Copyright © 2001

-Krishna is the son of the Virgin Devaki.
-Jesus is the son of the Virgin Mary.

-The nativity of Krishna is heralded by a star.
-The nativity of Jesus is heralded by a star.

- Krishna is born in a cave.
- Jesus is born in a cave/manger.

-Krishna is visited in the cave by three wise men bearing gifts.
-Jesus is visited in the stable/cave by three wise men bearing gifts.

-Krishna's birth occurs while his foster father, Nanda, is in his native city to pay taxes to the king, King Kansa.
-Jesus' birth occurs while his foster father, Joseph, is in his native city to pay taxes to the Governor.

-King Kansa tried to kill Krishna by ordeing the slaughter of all males born on the same day as Krishna.
-King Herod ordered the slaughter of all infants born on the same day as Jesus.

-The Virgin Devaki is told by an angel, "In thy delivery, O favored among women, all nations shall have cause to rejoice."
-The Virgin Mary is told by an angel, "Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. ... Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son...

-Krishna raised the dead.
-Jesus raised the dead.

-Nanda is warned by an angel to flee from King Kansa by crossing the -Jumna River with the infant Krishna.
Joseph is warned in a dream to flee from King Herod into Egypt with the infant Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

-The baby Krishna began speaking to his mother shortly after birth.
-The baby Jesus began speaking to the Virgin Mary shortly after his birth,

Krishna is the second person of the Hindu Trinity: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, (3) Siva. Krishna is the incarnation of Vishnu.
- Jesus is the second person of the Christian Trinity: (1) God, the Father, (2) Jesus the Son, (3) the Holy Ghost.

-Krishna was crucified.
-Jesus was crucified.

-During the crucifixion, Krishna was wounded by an arrow.
-During the crucifixion, Jesus was wounded by a spear.

-At noon on the day of Krishna's crucifixion, the sun darkened.
-From the sixth hour to the ninth hour on the day of Jesus' crucifixion, the sun darkened.

-Krishna descended into Hell.
-Jesus descended into Hell.

-Krishna rose from the dead
-Jesus rose from the dead

---------------------------------------------
So, if you belive the Jesus story, why don't you believe the Krishna story? Aren't both fables for children? If not, is Winnie the Poo a saint? How about Bambi?

NOTE: (The religion of Mithra was very popular in Persia and the Roman Empire from the 1st & 2nd Century B.C. up to the 3rd Cent. A.D.)

--Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.

--Mithra was a great traveling teacher and master.

--Mithra had 12 disciples.

--Mithra’s followers were promised immortality.

--Mithra performed miracles.

--Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

--Mithra was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

--Mithra's resurrection was celebrated every year.

--Mithra was called “the Good Shepherd” and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

--Mithra was considered the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” [Word] “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”

--His sacred day was Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

--Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.

--His religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithra said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”

--“His annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement of pledge of moral and physical regeneration.”

--------------------------------------

This is a good story too! Did Christianity copy from this one too, or just from Krishna?

I think the Bible is not really one book, it's a library bound together. The different books contradict one-another. The story of the virgin birth, etc. isn't reasonable.

The "virgin birth" (which Moses also supposedly had) is a metaphor for the springing of the child from a higher source, a person more than mortal.

Christianity is the moral philosophy that I choose to follow. Jesus is my great spiritual teacher. And yes, I do believe that He died for atonement "at-one-ment" and that he arose (but, I do think that there are various explanations or methods of resurrection possible.) It is interesting that the earliest Christian creed does not contain much of the later dogma found in the Nicene Creed written around 300 C.E. At the time of this Apostle's Creed, there was still widespread belief in re-incarnation. No contemporary writings in exist that describe what was meant by the resurrection of believers. Recall that the "ressurected body" of Christ at times exhibited physicality and as a "spirit" form. Nor does the records of the greatest earliest Christian preacher, Paul, mention any specifics on the life of Christ other than the "Lord's Supper", the death by crucifixtion and the resurrection. Mary is not even mentioned in the earliest Gospel text of Mark.

As for the miracles, there are many today who do "spiritual healings", some even by the laying on of hands or by somic "energy work."

Did Christ ever proclaim to be "God." Not in the Gospel text without equivication. He did say that the kingdom was within each of us. Was He "divine?" My faith is such that I believe He is, and we all share in a common divine-ness.

After saying all this, that is why Christianity is a faith, a belief system, and attempt by philosophers to describe the "totally Other." Just as Atheism is a belief system that believes in the complete and total self dependence of humankind upon itself, its collective intelligence and its natural ability to define the moral good.

Which is the "only true" belief system? If that was possible to determine, then the true one would no longer need to be called a faith or system of beliefs.

quote:

---

Nightvoice said: "....is a metaphor for...."

---

I agree with the spirit of your approach here, and yes, I understand that we are dealing with the conventions of metaphor at use in 1st Century religious thought.

But, how does one, as an enlightened non-literalist Christian, know where the boundaries are? What part is non-negotiable truth? If the central event of the Christian religion -the "resurrection"- is indeed only a borrowed metaphor from the past, (à la Bishop Spann) then what is left? A nice philosophy? A religion? A myth? Or...(as it is for me) not much more than a culturally transmitted tradition my family trotts out from time to time to mark seasons, holidays, life passages, etc (but yes, it is also a laudable philosophy).

So I'm left to question why this religion is special? Why we should not worship Mithra, or Krishna and Jesus too (or maybe all of the above / none of the above)? Perhaps the great Christian Martyr Saints did die for nothing more than a fungible pastiche of near eastern philosophy and superstition. Were they no more than pacifist versions of the equally suicidal 911 hijackers? Probably not.

Anyway, a big part of my question also goes to those who INSIST that the Bible is the inerrant word of god; that it is literally true, is free of man's hand etc. How does one dismiss the overwhelming evidence that so much of it is borrowed, second hand myth?

We may broaden the discussion and direct the same questions to Muslims and Jews as well I think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury:

So I'm left to question why this religion is special? Why we should not worship Mithra, or Krishna and Jesus too (or maybe all of the above / none of the above)? Perhaps the great Christian Martyr Saints did die for nothing more than a fungible pastiche of near eastern philosophy and superstition. Were they no more than pacifist versions of the equally suicidal 911 hijackers? Probably not.

Anyway, a big part of my question also goes to those who INSIST that the Bible is the [b]inerrant word of god; that it is literally true, is free of man's hand etc. How does one dismiss the overwhelming evidence that so much of it is borrowed, second hand myth?

We may broaden the discussion and direct the same questions to Muslims and Jews as well I think.
[/B]

---

The more you dig Mercury, the more confuseder it gets! What IS it that makes ANY religion or belief or Philosophy special? I guess it's just people being on different paths at different times in their lives. Different stages of growth. You can confront someone who's telling you that you're going to Hell with the facts you've previously mentioned, and if they are "locked" into their particular "path" It's not going to matter WHAT you say!

It's comfort level too and it's also a matter of "readyness" to see a different viewpoint. The one's who are ready to kill "infidels"for their faith and will sacrifice their own children, these people terrify me. I believe we have belief systems here in America that are just a whisper away from killing. Scary!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury:
But, how does one, as an enlightened non-literalist Christian, know where the boundaries are? What part is non-negotiable truth?

---

I once met a very good spiritual director. In his words, "Christianity will only mean something to you if you can pare it down to the bare essentials of your belief. Then ask yourself why you beleve them."

Most Chrisians don't question, they just accept. That is contrary to what a spiritual path is meant to do: to assist you on developing insights that grow your spirit and enrich your life experience.

Paul wrote in one of his letter, that he was providing milk and bread for the new converts because they were not ready to partake of meat.

Many believers are at this stage of their development. Milk soaked bread is so easy to eat. Eating meat demands that you cut and tear, trim away the fat and manuover your knife around the bone before you can start feasting. How do you decide which portion of the joint is to be kept and eaten and which part is to be discarded? No one is the perfect carver and some of the choice morsals get tossed and some of the grissle finds its way to the serving platter.

I really don't think any religion adequately describes the divine. Cultural conditioning is a large factor whose altar you worship at. All religions have had their fanantical internal sects, who claim to have more of the truth than their bretheren: a purer and higher enlightenment.

quote:

---

Nightvoice said: "In short, for me it is a case of listening for the "still, small voice" and letting it instruct your heart and influence your life. "

---

Again, I think that sounds reasonable. But still I don't see how that would specifically direct you to one religion vs another? Wouldn't whatever religion one picks then be no more than an imperfect and artificial external framework for a wholly internal dialog? Never really approaching anything we could call "truth"...?

As lutefisk said: "The more you dig .., the more confuseder it gets!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury:
Wouldn't whatever religion one picks then be no more than an imperfect and artificial external framework for a wholly internal dialog? Never really approaching anything we could call truth"...?

---

Yes and no. Religion will always be imperfect. It's a man-made sytem, however lofty its' goals. You are right. It is an artificical structure for an interal dialog with the "Source" or what I call the "Totally Other." A faith system is a way to visualize, touch and express in our life by doing no harm this undescribable "Totally Other". Each religion shows and celebrates a different aspect of this "Source." The filter that one chooses is, for most people, a culturally established one, based on the area of the world and the family you were born into. Some later change the filter they were raised with because, with another filter, they have seen an aspect of the "Other" which has transformed or transfixed them in some deep and profound way.

Faith is a journey, not a destination. In the Christian writings, Paul states that heaven, earth, faith and hope will pass away. Only love will remain. Faith is life's journey to the Truth. The Truth is the "Totally Other." We will never fully comprehend it.

I came across this, and thought it expresses what I'm trying to wrap words around.

"Faith has no religion... and if you depend only on religion there can be no communication of what faith is. Faith is a mystery; you cannot interpret it. If you try to interpret, you miss. A life of faith can be lived, but not thought about. It is more like poetry, less like philosophy. It is a sign, it is a door. It shows, but it says nothing."

PS: There are more people than you can imagine who are struggling with the questions you are asking. The only person who holds the answer is the questioner. Now, that's a real Zen statement, "Little Grasshopper."

Basically, my view of what Christianity really teaches is so at odds with the version I see put into every day practice at the human level it makes my head spin!

Is it even worth considering the tenets of organized religion in the 21st Cent when so much of it comes from prior "pagan" myth (Krishna/Mythra/Attis) and tribal cultural practice? Why not just stick to the "internal" personal dialog?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury:
... So, if you belive the Jesus story, why don't you believe the Krishna story? Aren't both fables for children? If not, is Winnie the Poo a saint? How about Bambi?

---

I think it really goes to a number of questions. The fact that these kinds of stories crop up over-n-over again may be evidence of something else. It is extremely unlikely that those who wrote the scriptures we call "the Bible" were even aware of those previous myths. So, unless one can prove otherwise, it is unlikely that they are "borrowed" or "stolen" from them. It's that whole "Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater and Kennedy was shot in a Ford Lincoln." kind of confabulated connection.

There are other examples:
Superman The Movie - Jor-El sends his "only son" to "save mankind".
Tron - just watch the movie and tell me this isn't the "Christ Myth"
E.T. - Jeez, he even rises from the dead, heals the sick and returns to 'heaven'.
The Matrix - the connection here is so direct that some youth groups show this film a a witnessing tool.

There are plenty of other such examples. this kind of "god-man" story crops up in every culture, in every time it seems. This doesn't prove that somehow that the standard Christian message is true, it just strongly indicates that the idea that somehow that message is "stolen" from other myths is at least questionable, and probably false unless evidence of a direct nature is found.

Perhaps there is something genetic that pulls us to respond to this "god-man" idea. Perhaps - as the scripture says - "eternity is written in the heart of man". Perhaps something else entirely.

quote:

---

Dansgold said: "It's that whole "Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater and Kennedy was shot in a Ford Lincoln." kind of confabulated connection."

---

Come on DG, isn't it a little more direct than that: Mithra, Jesus, Apis, Zoroaster all born on 25Dec, 'star' announcement, virgin birth, wise men, crucifixion, resurrection, redeemers of our sins, etc. And please know you are NOT correct when you say that "(i)t is extremely unlikely that those who wrote the scriptures we call 'the Bible' were even aware of those previous myths." The fact is that we are not talking about Aztec or Chineese mythology here. The Mytrhaic, Apis and Zoroastrian myths/religions were practiced throughout the exact same region of the ancient world where the bible stories were written. And, more specifically the New Testament stories themselves were written during the apex of the Roman empire when the Mythraic, Zoroastrian and Apis religions not just present but were extremely popular throughout the empire -even in Rome itself. It must be recognized that the authors of the bible no more lived in a vacuum than do we. The most popular religion among senior officers in Rome's army by the end of the 1st Cent AD. was the cult of Mithra.

In any case, I'm very surprised at your interesting response! I too agree that
perhaps something is wired into the brain that infuses these otherworldly themes into our myths and religions ("causality" however is another matter for future debate).

However, even though some of us realize that truth is amorphous, we should acknowledge that traditional Religion (in its organized form) presents itself as absolute "truth"... and it's adherents -to this day- demand certain laws to punish transgressors: abortion, gays, fornicators, (and in some 'radical' evangelical Protestant sects, drinkers, dancers, gamblers are consigned to hell, etc).

Many laws are still based on religion. But, given the fudgy nature of dogma, the burden should be on the "religious" to prove the veracity of their own particular creed if we are to codify their beliefs into law. The burden is NOT on me to disprove their wild and sundry assertions. (ex. How can I prove there are NO leprichauns or NO elves, NO boogey man?) The answer can't be "well, that's what most good people believe"...well, there was a time when most people (and the Church itself) insisted -based on scripture- that the earth was flat. But their belief did not in fact make the earth flat. They and their religions were simply wrong.

So, this is the central dillema I have when I view organized religon's place in our world. How do we know we are not still seeing another "flat" world when we live and think accoring to our religious traditions?

developing ...

quote:

---

Dansgold said: "If the truth is truly amorphous as some have "realized" ... then the burden is on them as to why they would call anything 'true', 'untrue', 'myth', etc. and not see that such is in direct contradiction with that "realization".

---

Dansgold, oh well, sorry. I was only trying to be nice and inclusive. Perhaps "amorphous" was the wrong word when it comes to describing the concept of 'truth' in matters religious. Yes, of course I know I should have said "Bull Shit." Do you like that better? How would you put it?

Anyway, here's more source material:

quote:

---

Attis of Phrygia

--Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana.
--He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.
--His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers
--His priests were “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”
--He was both the Divine Son and the Father.
--On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
--He descended into the underworld.
--After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25 (as tradition held of Jesus) as the “Most High God.

---

When it comes to people who believe in Bible inerrancy, I agree that their ignorance of other myths is disgusting. Or if they do hear of the myths they attribute them to the devil.

What's different to us about the Jesus myth is, for one thing the monotheistic aspect. That may or may not be important, but I think it is because I can relate to a parent and child paradigm.

I don't dismiss the other myths of other traditions. I've read The Jesus Myth. That common set of themes of which you speak is made more important to me, not less, because they have it in so many cultures.

Timothy Freke was saying that there's a human mystery pageant that people get to in their lives, producing a feeling of union with the great mystery of human existence. It leads to ecstasy, and a state of 'initiation'. I think it's every human's choice whether to go on that quest or not.

But as for people saying you've got to believe in the literal salvation and second coming of Jesus, and that being the only way, and that the goal is to make heaven and avoid hell, I don't believe in that at all. Even if Jesus talked of hell... Jesus was a man of his own time. The most he could've known was all there was that could be known. I think he was not omnisicient. I think he was a Jew with a new idea of what it meant to be a good person, and also how to fight the Romans by using their own laws against them.

Most of the "good and bad" in your list, Mercury, happen to be Americanisms. You won't find much support for these values in Europe, for instance. To them, we American are still Puritans and unsophisticated in these areas. And they're right!

Most of the real moral laws we should be following are based on many traditions other than Judeo-Christian. The Code of Hannirabi (sp?, hey it's late here), the rules of conduct found in the Greek philosophers. The Greek philospospers, especially Aristotle got corrupted when it was grafted into Christian dogma by Augustine of Hippo, (circa 400 CE)

As I said before, religions are man-made institutions and are fallible. The thinking person needs to look behind the thick veneer of "dogma", to try to discover the original kernel of truth that was being taught. The religious fanatics? Well, if they didn't have a "religion" to back up their views on how to live a goodly life, they would invent something. They are not about "good" or "moral". They are about power and control. Whenever you see or hear politicians spouting "family values" or the millionaire tele - evangelists spouting off, remember religion is only the vehicle for their power play. They are not talking about "the moral good" in the broadest and truest terms.

If someone is oppressed by the use of a "religious yard stick", the yard stick is off. Whether ot be the standards of the most restrictive sects of Christianity, Judaism Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion being practiced today.

Faith, as opposed to "religion", is and has always been an internal dialog. The deepest early Christian thinkers and mystics were hermits.

Regarding the benefit of having organized religions. I'm afraid it is too late to get rid them. Humankind has always had its religions with a guiding priest culture or a single shaman to direct the followers. And those figures of authority have always been in direct opposition to that culture's rule makers for power over law setting. I guess it's just a part of the human conditions.

In any case, I see from your comments that you too understand how prior myth played a big role in our present day religion(s). How much is original and how much of a role past myth played is what I was interested in discussing.

I think America should look closely at it's own "Taliban-like" Puritan past. It still colors and distorts everything in religion and american culture. The first step in freeing ourselves from their icy grip is to acknowledge that we are still prisoners of their peculiar, anti-life, un-christian beliefs.

The Puritans came here for religious "freedom" then tured around and repressed everyone elses religious freedom in Massachusettes (and elsewhere).

I'm not sure if as you say "(r)egarding the benefit of having organized religions" that it is "too late to get rid them." It might be happening -at least in Europe where the Churches of Rome are empty and even the Archbishop of Cantebury himself recently declared that Britian is no longer 'Christian' in any sese in which the word was previously understood.

I remember learning somewhere during the seventies that in colonial America, women worked and there were a lot of common law marriages. Kids had to fend for themselves, by and large.

But seriously folks ...

This whole line of reasoning comes from something called the "History of Religions Movement", which was popular in some historic circles around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 21st. This body of thought is no longer considered valid by most historians, but it has been - at least partially - embraced by certain atheist and agnostic apologists (apparantly unaware that these ideas have been discredited among real historians, theist and non-theist alike)

The general gist of it goes something like this: "Anytime you find a similarity or parallel narrative, that is proof of either derivation, causality or dependency." Now ... that's a pretty brief summary, but it captures the essence.

So, what's wrong with that approach? It turns out quite a bit actually. I'm with the well-respected historian Adolf von Harnack on this, who offered "We must reject the comparative mythology which finds a causal connection between everything and everything else." There was/is a strong tendency by the History of Religions adherants to convert - often without any supporting evidence - every single parallel into an infulence, and every such influence into a source. That's about as clear a case of the logical fallacy of false cause (arguing that when two things occur in proximity, one must have caused the other) as you are likely to find. Proving causal connection requires a lot more than proximity.

A lot of wordplay is often involved. It's common to take a pagan myth and then reword it using Christian terminology. Using this method, a pagan hero who was wounded in a battle but recovers to defeat his enemies and free his people suddenly is transformed into a "suffering savior" who "rose, as if from death" to "bring salvation". Historian/philosopher Edwyn Bevan puts it this way: "... if one writes an imaginary description of the Orphic mysteries ... filling in large gaps in the picture left by our data from the Christian Eucharist, one produces something very impressive. On this plan, you first put in the Christian elements, and then are staggered to find them there."

In many cases, it is impossible to establish a timeline for various pagan practices. So, when you find similarities between certain Mithraic rites and Christian practices - how can you say who was copying whom? The earliest references regrading Mithraic practices/ideas with counterparts in Christianity are generally accepted as being post Pauline. As such, it is at least as plausible (and the evidence suggests probable to say that they copied Paul rather than the reverse.

There is so much that can said about this - but this is already a long post. Suffice it to say that the details are important, regardless of whatever position you ultimately take.

quote:

---

Dansgod said: "On a lighter note: I fail to see whuy somone would characterize something as "Bull Shit", and then go to great lengths to discuss it.

---

more later....gotta run!~