The film Zeitgeist begins with list of pagan gods such Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus and Mythra. It goes through the list of details associated with Jesus Christ and then applies them to these pagan gods in order to create the impression that Christianity is only a copycat religion. However, viewers (whether believers or skeptics) should watch this film with the realization that there is an agenda behind it. — And I advise anyone reading this to do the same with what I am about to say as well.
So, please bear with me as I go over the facts of this matter:
After Zeitgeist finishes its claims about Attis the film then makes similar claims about Krishna that he was born of a virgin, a star in the east announced his birth, performed miracles with his diciples and was resurrected upon his death.
According to the story of Krishna’s birth, Kasma (his uncle) offered to be the charioteer for the wedding of his sister, Devaki in her marriage to Vesudevu. While he was driving the chariot to the wedding hall he then heard a voice which said that the eighth child of his sister would destroy him. After hearing this, he decided to kill his sister on the spot.
However Vesudevu begged Kasma not to kill Devaki promising to hand over to him any child they would have and Kasma agreed. Every time the married couple had a child, they handed him over to Kasma. The seventh child, however was saved when the parents slipped it passed the sleeping guards. And when it came time for the eighth child to be born Kasma decided not to risk anything and had both Vasudeva and Devaki locked up in a dungeon and there Krishna, the eighth child, was born. At that moment, Vasudeva’s chains fell off and he decided to escape with his child. He replaced him with a female infant thinking Kasma wouldn’t kill her. Kasma, however, attempted to kill her not knowing she wasn’t the child he was looking for. However she disappeared before any harm could happen to her.
Now first, as for the claim that Krishna’s mother Devaki was a virgin at his birth according to the story of Krishna,
Krishna was of the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva, a noble of the court.
Krishna was the youngest of eight children meaning his mother Devaki could not possibly have been a virgin at the time of his birth. The story clearly says that Kasma would be destroyed by her eighth child. Besides, there is nothing in the story that implies that his birth was miraculous in the slightest. From the story of Krishna’s birth, it is obvious that there is virtually no resemblance to the birth of Jesus. Not to mention, there is no star in the east that proclaims his birth.
It is true that Krishna performed miracles. But, being a god in his own right, this is a given and is not relevant because miracles would only be expected from a deity. (Click here) — Also there is an apparent parallel between Kasma who wanted to kill Krishna and Herod the Great who wanted to kill Jesus according the Matthew chapter two. But this is the only similarity between the two narratives. Considering all the differences, the only parallel seems pretty trivial.
Now what about his death and resurrection? — The fact of the matter is that Krishna was not crucified. According to sacred Hindu writings (See “Mahabharata 16: 4“ ) he was accidentally shot and killed by a hunter that mistook him for a deer.
The hunter, mistaking Keshava [or Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of Keshava. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendour.
When the hunter found out what he had done he became afraid, but in that moment it says that Krisha “comforted” him. When that happened he ascended to heaven and saw the gods and deities.
So the fact is that even though he was killed, the circumstances in the Hindu writtings are completely different from the Christian tradition. — Jesus was betrayed, crucified, placed in a tomb, then was resurrected. Krishna simply ascended to heaven when he was killed. So it has to be concluded that there is no credible evidence to believe that Jesus was copied from Krisha. Even what little similarities they have are really trivial and cannot be said to have influenced one or the other.
As a side issue, there is one particular claim made many other ”Jesus-Mythers,” though not by Zeitgeist that the term “Christ” (Jesus’ title as the Messiah) is similar to the name “Krishna” because of the somewhat similar pronunciation. However Christ, or Khristos, actually means “the annointed.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
On the other hand, the meaning of Krishna’s name (click here) is completely different,
The term Krishna in Sanskrit means “black” according to standard dictionaries. It is related to similar words in other Indo-European languages meaning black. The name is often translated as ‘the dark one’ or as ‘the black one.’
Anyway, the attitude of Zeitgeist is now becoming clearer: “Academic correctness be damned! We have our agenda and we are going to advance it even if it means distorting the facts.” — I truly feel sorry for anyone that takes these films seriously without doing actual research.
As a side issue, there is one particular claim made many other ”Jesus-Mythers,” though not by Zeitgeist that the term “Christ” (Jesus’ title as the Messiah) is similar to the name “Krishna” because of the somewhat similar pronunciation. However Christ, or Khristos, actually means “the annointed.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
0 comments:
Post a Comment