The Story of the Birth of Krishna

shankara

Established
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
352
Likes
469
#1
Note the similarities with the story of Christos being born on the run from Herod and his "massacre of the innocents", and the gifts being brought to the baby Krishna somewhat like in the tale of the Three Wise Men...

Long time ago, in ancient India, there lived a king called Ugrasen. He had two children, prince Kansa and princess Devaki. Prince Kansa was evil by nature. When Kansa grew up, he imprisoned his own father and crowned himself king.

Soon, his sister Devaki was married to King Vasudev. Right after the wedding, Kansa heard a divine warning from the sky, “O King! Your sister’s eighth son will grow up to kill you.” When Kansa heard this, he was afraid. He imprisoned his own sister Devaki and her husband, King Vasudev, immediately and kept them under continuous watch.

Years passed. Each time Devaki gave birth to a child in the prison, Kansa arrived and killed the infant with his own hands. When Devaki became pregnant for the eighth time, Vasudev’s friend King Nanda’s wife, Yashoda, was also pregnant. The eighth child, Lord Krishna, was born to queen Devaki at midnight in the prison. As soon as the child was born, Lord Vishnu appeared in His divine form and the prison was filled with a dazzling light. Both Devaki and Vasudev prayed to Lord Vishnu. At the same time that Lord Krishna was born in the prison, Queen Yashoda gave birth to a baby girl in Gokul. That infant was the divine energy of Lord Vishnu.

A divine message came to Vasudev soon after the birth of Lord Krishna, “Take this child across the Yamuna River to Gokul and exchange Him with Yashoda’s daughter. You will return before anyone comes to know about the birth of this child.”

Vasudev immediately followed the advice. The prison doors opened automatically as he walked towards them with the child in his arms. The guards had already been put to sleep by divine intervention. Vasudev then approached the Yamuna River, which was very turbulent due to fierce winds and rain. But as soon as Vasudev reached the riverbank, the river parted and made way for the divine child. Vasudev reached the opposite bank of the river safely and found that all the people of Gokul were fast asleep.

He entered the palace of King Nanda and Queen Yashoda and put the baby boy in the place of Yashoda’s baby girl. Then Vasudev returned to the prison with the baby girl in his arms.

As soon as Vasudev set the baby girl down next to Devaki, the prison doors shut automatically. The guards were now awake and were startled by the cries of the baby girl. The guards ran to Kansa and announced the birth of the eighth child.

With the memory of the divine warning fresh in his mind,.Kansa rushed to the prison to execute the child. Devaki appealed to him, “O Kansa, this baby is a girl and not the boy that the divine warning spoke of. How can this child harm you?” But Kansa ignored her, snatched the child from her lap and hurled the child against the prison wall.

The child did not fall down; instead she flew up and appeared in the sky as a goddess with eight arms, each arm carrying a weapon. She said, “O evil king! You will gain nothing by killing me. The one who will destroy you is elsewhere.” And the goddess disappeared.

Meanwhile, there was great rejoicing in Gokul. Everyone was celebrating the birth of King Nanda’s son. Nanda named the child Krishna. Entire Gokul wore a festive appearance that day. The streets were swept clean and all the houses were decorated with flags and flowers. Cows were smeared with turmeric and adorned with peacock feathers and garlands. All the people of Gokul danced in joy and flocked to Nanda’s house to see baby Krishna and to offer gifts.

(from https://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism-for-kids/73.html)
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,558
Likes
2,768
#2
I don't see many connections other than both being incarnations of the same concept
They were very different in many ways..
Jesus was pretty arrogant and harsh though.
The Gita is a superior teaching than the New testament.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
935
Likes
717
#3
Jesus was pretty arrogant and harsh though.
The Gita is a superior teaching than the New testament.
I do strangely agree brother, although the contexts of both situations are radically different. Jesus is also clearly very heavily restricted to speaking in allegory, whereas Krishna speaks completely freely about the entirety of existence and Dharma in the course of his speech to Arjuna without leaving anything to the imagination (and rather placing it all entirely on practice, just like with Muhammad btw).
 





Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
673
Likes
1,241
#4
What do you make of these verses from the Bagavad Gita?:

TWELVE: BHAKTI-YOGA – THE PATH OF LOVE

"Arjuna asked: My Lord! Which are the better devotees who worship Thee, those who try to know Thee as a Personal God, or those who worship Thee as Impersonal and Indestructible?

Lord Sri Krishna replied: Those who keep their minds fixed on Me, who worship Me always with unwavering faith and concentration; these are the very best.
Those who worship Me as the Indestructible, the Undefinable, the Omnipresent, the Unthinkable, the Primeval, the Immutable and the Eternal; Subduing their senses, viewing all conditions of life with the same eye, and working for the welfare of all beings, assuredly they come to Me.
But they who thus fix their attention on the Absolute and Impersonal encounter greater hardships, for it is difficult for those who possess a body to realize Me as without one.
Verily, those who surrender their actions to Me, who muse on Me, worship Me and meditate on Me alone, with no thought save of Me, O Arjuna! I rescue them from the ocean of life and death, for their minds are fixed on Me.
Then let thy mind cling only to Me, let thy intellect abide in Me; and without doubt thou shalt live hereafter in Me alone.
But if thou canst not fix thy mind firmly on Me, then, My beloved friend, try to do so by constant practice.
And if thou are not strong enough to practice concentration, then devote thyself to My service, do all thine acts for My sake, and thou shalt still attain the goal."

That last verse is me lol. It's an amazing debate, the difference between an impersonal and personal God. In the Gospels Jesus didn't endorse his own worship (though maybe hinted at it), but wouldn't you say Christianity became a type of Bhakti Yoga? Jesus was God, he was the intermediary, prayed to and alters built to. Look at the Orthodox prayer before the icon of Christ:

"We reverence Your spotless icon, O gracious Lord, and ask forgiveness of our transgressions, O Christ our God: for of Your own good will You were pleased to ascend the Cross in the flesh, that You might deliver from bondage to the enemy those whom You have fashioned. Wherefore, we cry aloud unto You: You have filled all things with joy, O our Saviour, for You come to save the world."

That prayer is rather mystical. They're not saying the name of Jesus, but "Christ" as God. Christ took on the flesh. It's reminiscent of what @bible_student and their crew were discussing in another thread. I wonder if that's why the early RCC adored the icons, because the physical painting was only a vehicle, a symbol, just as Jesus was.
 





Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
214
Likes
204
#5
Note the similarities with the story of Christos being born on the run from Herod and his "massacre of the innocents", and the gifts being brought to the baby Krishna somewhat like in the tale of the Three Wise Men...

Long time ago, in ancient India, there lived a king called Ugrasen. He had two children, prince Kansa and princess Devaki. Prince Kansa was evil by nature. When Kansa grew up, he imprisoned his own father and crowned himself king.

Soon, his sister Devaki was married to King Vasudev. Right after the wedding, Kansa heard a divine warning from the sky, “O King! Your sister’s eighth son will grow up to kill you.” When Kansa heard this, he was afraid. He imprisoned his own sister Devaki and her husband, King Vasudev, immediately and kept them under continuous watch.

Years passed. Each time Devaki gave birth to a child in the prison, Kansa arrived and killed the infant with his own hands. When Devaki became pregnant for the eighth time, Vasudev’s friend King Nanda’s wife, Yashoda, was also pregnant. The eighth child, Lord Krishna, was born to queen Devaki at midnight in the prison. As soon as the child was born, Lord Vishnu appeared in His divine form and the prison was filled with a dazzling light. Both Devaki and Vasudev prayed to Lord Vishnu. At the same time that Lord Krishna was born in the prison, Queen Yashoda gave birth to a baby girl in Gokul. That infant was the divine energy of Lord Vishnu.

A divine message came to Vasudev soon after the birth of Lord Krishna, “Take this child across the Yamuna River to Gokul and exchange Him with Yashoda’s daughter. You will return before anyone comes to know about the birth of this child.”

Vasudev immediately followed the advice. The prison doors opened automatically as he walked towards them with the child in his arms. The guards had already been put to sleep by divine intervention. Vasudev then approached the Yamuna River, which was very turbulent due to fierce winds and rain. But as soon as Vasudev reached the riverbank, the river parted and made way for the divine child. Vasudev reached the opposite bank of the river safely and found that all the people of Gokul were fast asleep.

He entered the palace of King Nanda and Queen Yashoda and put the baby boy in the place of Yashoda’s baby girl. Then Vasudev returned to the prison with the baby girl in his arms.

As soon as Vasudev set the baby girl down next to Devaki, the prison doors shut automatically. The guards were now awake and were startled by the cries of the baby girl. The guards ran to Kansa and announced the birth of the eighth child.

With the memory of the divine warning fresh in his mind,.Kansa rushed to the prison to execute the child. Devaki appealed to him, “O Kansa, this baby is a girl and not the boy that the divine warning spoke of. How can this child harm you?” But Kansa ignored her, snatched the child from her lap and hurled the child against the prison wall.

The child did not fall down; instead she flew up and appeared in the sky as a goddess with eight arms, each arm carrying a weapon. She said, “O evil king! You will gain nothing by killing me. The one who will destroy you is elsewhere.” And the goddess disappeared.

Meanwhile, there was great rejoicing in Gokul. Everyone was celebrating the birth of King Nanda’s son. Nanda named the child Krishna. Entire Gokul wore a festive appearance that day. The streets were swept clean and all the houses were decorated with flags and flowers. Cows were smeared with turmeric and adorned with peacock feathers and garlands. All the people of Gokul danced in joy and flocked to Nanda’s house to see baby Krishna and to offer gifts.

(from https://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism-for-kids/73.html)
I say it's entirely possible, given that souls/beings inhabit new bodies each life.

And wasn't Kirishna also born of a virgin. And a major theme of his was love, just like Jesus.

And Jesus is supposed to have gone to India as well (Hemus monastry etc.) - felt a kinship with them? (being Abraham's children via Ketura) married and sired there, and entombed in Shrinagar, if I've got that right?

Why not.

I do strangely agree brother, although the contexts of both situations are radically different. Jesus is also clearly very heavily restricted to speaking in allegory, whereas Krishna speaks completely freely about the entirety of existence and Dharma in the course of his speech to Arjuna without leaving anything to the imagination (and rather placing it all entirely on practice, just like with Muhammad btw).
Gospel of Thomas; Jesus speaks in terms of The All etc., although maybe not as extensively as Vedic literature does.

And just my thought: Western mind seems to be more arrogant than Eastern mind; know-it-all, so more closed minded, so maybe Jesus fitted his speech to his audience? Scripture confirms it (not referring to the counterfeit Jews [Rev. 2:9, 3:9] below by the way, but westerners in general).

Deuteronomy 9:6 Understand therefore, that the "I AM" thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou [art] a stiffnecked (arrogant and obstinate) people.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
214
Likes
204
#6
What do you make of these verses from the Bagavad Gita?:

TWELVE: BHAKTI-YOGA – THE PATH OF LOVE

"Arjuna asked: My Lord! Which are the better devotees who worship Thee, those who try to know Thee as a Personal God, or those who worship Thee as Impersonal and Indestructible?

Lord Sri Krishna replied: Those who keep their minds fixed on Me, who worship Me always with unwavering faith and concentration; these are the very best.
Those who worship Me as the Indestructible, the Undefinable, the Omnipresent, the Unthinkable, the Primeval, the Immutable and the Eternal; Subduing their senses, viewing all conditions of life with the same eye, and working for the welfare of all beings, assuredly they come to Me.
But they who thus fix their attention on the Absolute and Impersonal encounter greater hardships, for it is difficult for those who possess a body to realize Me as without one.
Verily, those who surrender their actions to Me, who muse on Me, worship Me and meditate on Me alone, with no thought save of Me, O Arjuna! I rescue them from the ocean of life and death, for their minds are fixed on Me.
Then let thy mind cling only to Me, let thy intellect abide in Me; and without doubt thou shalt live hereafter in Me alone.
But if thou canst not fix thy mind firmly on Me, then, My beloved friend, try to do so by constant practice.
And if thou are not strong enough to practice concentration, then devote thyself to My service, do all thine acts for My sake, and thou shalt still attain the goal."

That last verse is me lol. It's an amazing debate, the difference between an impersonal and personal God. In the Gospels Jesus didn't endorse his own worship (though maybe hinted at it), but wouldn't you say Christianity became a type of Bhakti Yoga? Jesus was God, he was the intermediary, prayed to and alters built to. Look at the Orthodox prayer before the icon of Christ:

"We reverence Your spotless icon, O gracious Lord, and ask forgiveness of our transgressions, O Christ our God: for of Your own good will You were pleased to ascend the Cross in the flesh, that You might deliver from bondage to the enemy those whom You have fashioned. Wherefore, we cry aloud unto You: You have filled all things with joy, O our Saviour, for You come to save the world."

That prayer is rather mystical. They're not saying the name of Jesus, but "Christ" as God. Christ took on the flesh. It's reminiscent of what @bible_student and their crew were discussing in another thread. I wonder if that's why the early RCC adored the icons, because the physical painting was only a vehicle, a symbol, just as Jesus was.
Brilliant verses from the Bhagavad Gita (read it 3 times but can't claim to be an expert). They dovetail with this:

Mark
12:29 And Jesus answered him, The First of all the Commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength and serve Him ONLY: this [is] the first COMMANDment.

And God can be rendered Guardian Of Divinity, which Christ must surely definitely be a Guardian Of Divinity.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
214
Likes
204
#8
It seems you are trying to do some kind of Notarikon with the English language... Not sure it really works in English...
Not me; I'm quoting the source that I've referenced.

But it makes sense to me anyway: God the Supreme being, and several others who are guardians of His Divinity. It makes this verse comprehensible, for example:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods?
 





Last edited:
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
352
Likes
469
#9
Not me; I'm quoting the source that I've referenced.

But it makes sense to me anyway: God the Supreme being, and several others who are guardians of His Divinity. It makes this verse comprehensible, for example:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods?
Right so Christ said that in Aramaic with the intention that it would be understood with the word "gods" in modern English... Rather than any other language... Only fits if you think that the British are God's Chosen People... Personally I would say that the Celts are one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, each of which are associated with a Zodiacal Sign. But the Chosen People? I mean, the Celts don't even really exist anymore, their culture is lost to the ages and genetically there's not really any "pure blood" Celts, they're intermingled with Vikings, Romans, Normans etc.

So I read some of this book you linked just out of curiosity. I'm not feeling the kind of energy of a genuine prophet, rather someone with a serious messiah complex. It's also quite offensive to the sincere Rastas and Nyabinghi, for whom the name JAH is their special Holy Name and Haile Selassie is their Christ, and which is a teaching about Black Liberation, the dream of a world of equality beyond the chaos and evil of Babylon. The English of course were among those who traded in slaves...

He also says something about the British Empire being a good thing because it was Anglican rather than Catholic... Seems to have a bit of a fixation on justifying everything related with the UK. I'm sure the Indians and all the others would have a different perspective.
 





Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
214
Likes
204
#10
Right so Christ said that in Aramaic with the intention that it would be understood with the word "gods" in modern English... Rather than any other language...
Unless you believe that the Supreme Being can make it happen, which I obviously do.

Personally I would say that the Celts are one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, each of which are associated with a Zodiacal Sign. But the Chosen People? I mean, the Celts don't even really exist anymore, their culture is lost to the ages and genetically there's not really any "pure blood" Celts, they're intermingled with Vikings, Romans, Normans etc.
There's evidence that the Celts are British anyway, despite all the mixed blood.

With now thousands of years of blood mixing it's no longer about blood anyway: see next post.

So I read some of this book you linked just out of curiosity. I'm not feeling the kind of energy of a genuine prophet,
Understood. All I can say is, read it with an open mind till the end: only 85 pages, and then if you still don't agree no problem.

The English of course were among those who traded in slaves...
Yes.

He also says something about the British Empire being a good thing because it was Anglican rather than Catholic... Seems to have a bit of a fixation on justifying everything related with the UK. I'm sure the Indians and all the others would have a different perspective.
The book says the American Indians were more intelligent than the white man? who left to escape tyranny and then brought it with them?
 





Last edited:
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
214
Likes
204
#11
Only fits if you think that the British are God's Chosen People...
I'd say were His chosen people, which they've mostly squandered (Matt. 22:1-14); now open to all races (Rev. 7:9). Israel means Champion of God, so any race that champions His cause is grafted in to true Israel (not the counterfeit state-of Rev. 2:9, 3:9, but some of those persons are included as well), and many true blood Israel will be cast out (Matt. 8:11-12)


British.png
 





Last edited:
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
352
Likes
469
#12
Unless you believe that the Supreme Being can make it happen, which I obviously do.



There's evidence that the Celts are British anyway, despite all the mixed blood.

With now thousands of years of blood mixing it's no longer about blood anyway: see next post.



Understood. All I can say is, read it with an open mind till the end: only 85 pages, and then if you still don't agree no problem.



Yes.



The book says the American Indians were more intelligent than the white man? who left to escape tyranny and then brought it with them?
Ok so I admit I haven't read, and probably won't read, all of it. One thing that immediately stood out from my cursory overview is his attitude towards women... "The lowest male spiritual level is higher than the highest female spiritual level"... Please, c'mon. Women have just as much potential to arrive at enlightenment as men, they are different and perhaps should have different roles, but they aren't inferior. I've met men who are literally no better than animals and women who are genuinely enlightened.

If the guy was just like, "ok so I have a certain degree of spiritual revelation and I'd like to communicate it to you" then ok, I could maybe understand. But the whole "I am Jesus"/"JAH" thing is massive arrogance, a total lack of respect for Divinity. It's actually quite possible to distinguish real spiritual texts, they're generally great poetry as well as spiritual teaching, in fact they are poetry because that's how Divinity communicates with the soul and not just the intellect. Really not feeling it with that book...
 





Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
214
Likes
204
#13
Ok so I admit I haven't read, and probably won't read, all of it. One thing that immediately stood out from my cursory overview is his attitude towards women... "The lowest male spiritual level is higher than the highest female spiritual level"... Please, c'mon. Women have just as much potential to arrive at enlightenment as men, they are different and perhaps should have different roles, but they aren't inferior. I've met men who are literally no better than animals and women who are genuinely enlightened.

If the guy was just like, "ok so I have a certain degree of spiritual revelation and I'd like to communicate it to you" then ok, I could maybe understand. But the whole "I am Jesus"/"JAH" thing is massive arrogance, a total lack of respect for Divinity. It's actually quite possible to distinguish real spiritual texts, they're generally great poetry as well as spiritual teaching, in fact they are poetry because that's how Divinity communicates with the soul and not just the intellect. Really not feeling it with that book...
Okay.
Wishing you a good day.
 





Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
214
Likes
204
#16
Just out of curiosity, how do you manage to have an intimate relationship with a woman when you believe that they are on a lower spiritual level than men? Doesn't intimacy require some kind of mutual respect? Or are you monks?
There are couples, and single men and women, who follow JAH, so obviously those women accept what He says: takes humility.

And there's quite tough advice for men as well - in the Book.

And obviously there are women who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, when there are very many men who won't.

2 Esdras
9:15 I have said before, and now do speak, and will speak it also hereafter, that there be many more of them which perish, than of them which shall be saved:
9:16 Like as a wave is greater than a drop.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,558
Likes
2,768
#17
i personally do not seperate scriptures, i see them as all connected to the same truths...
however, since the Gita came earlier..and since Jesus and Krishna are the same thing (incarnations of the logos), i regard the Gita as a far superior text. Although it came first, it contains the prerequisites required to understand the NT.
The New testament focuses heavily on the nature of sin, as in, our carnal nature, it's relation to spiritual death..and defeating it. The greatest issue I have is it insists on telling us that NOW (1st century AD) everything is different. you would think there's been some insane development that takes humans to a much higher level.
This would mean something, if it was evident through the ages. Christianity lost it's way long long ago and has never come back.
It tells us that we all fell into sin by the sin of one man (Adam) and now we're all saved through Christ. Yet, there is zero change in us.
If it meant that the slate is wiped clean in relation to the accountability of sin, then there was never any need for the NT, since we can just ask God for forgiveness...and it will be granted if we're sincere.
The only way christianity could work is if 1) people posses the correct belief regarding Jesus and 2) have a spiritual/mystical connection to him, as branches of the tree which he represents (the true vine).
The generations who came closely after Jesus, at least experienced the energy of authentic christianity..and even then Revelation tells us many fell into error. So really it seems a few people were 'saved' and that's it.
if Jesus was here today and even cared to talk to me, i would obv tell him his religion is a disappointment, it didnt change anything.

The Gita on the otherhand details various types of paths that lead to God. it encourages rather than condemns us. it's primary message is motivational..aswell as offering us some insight on the nature of God and our connection to God.
Krishna was basically the Logos made flesh (vishnu, the universal consciousness) and he was one of many. 'The Self' which is referred to throughout the Gita refers to the Logos/universal consciousness.
eg we were made 'in the image of God', the logos IS 'the image'. 'The Son' was just a metaphorical term to describe said Image.
The Gita tells us we are all part of the Supreme Spirit and cannot 'die' in that sense. That all things come from and return to it.
Furthermore, the NT was based on greek philosophy through the jewish philosopher Philo. Greek philosophy was borrowed heavily from persian and indian philosophy. So obviously the Gita is more authentic.

the NT focuses heavily on the Faith vs Works topic. That is the path of non-action vs the path of right-action, which only the Gita explains.
There are connection between hinduism, islam and christianity if people care to learn.
For example in hinduism (and in the gita) we're told about the 3 gunas/states of mind/nature.
Sattva/pure, rajas/passion, tamas/darkness. The Gita goes in depth explaining the types of civilisation produced from each state. The idea obviously being to encourage people to seek Sattvic nature.
in islam, there is the state of islam and the state of jahilliya, likewise islam focuses on the collective nature of these states. Eg the 'period of jahilliya' where people buried their newborn daughters alive and were constantly in conflict between tribes.
There's also hawa(passion) which is a state the majority of muslims live in eg believe in islam, but do not practice it and are sinful.
Now if you read Romans 1, Paul actually gives the same formula, when he talks about civilisations descent into darkness.
eg 'they forgot God' then 'fell into passion' and finally
"29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy."
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,071
Likes
996
#18
i personally do not seperate scriptures, i see them as all connected to the same truths...
however, since the Gita came earlier..and since Jesus and Krishna are the same thing (incarnations of the logos), i regard the Gita as a far superior text. Although it came first, it contains the prerequisites required to understand the NT.
The New testament focuses heavily on the nature of sin, as in, our carnal nature, it's relation to spiritual death..and defeating it. The greatest issue I have is it insists on telling us that NOW (1st century AD) everything is different. you would think there's been some insane development that takes humans to a much higher level.
This would mean something, if it was evident through the ages. Christianity lost it's way long long ago and has never come back.
It tells us that we all fell into sin by the sin of one man (Adam) and now we're all saved through Christ. Yet, there is zero change in us.
If it meant that the slate is wiped clean in relation to the accountability of sin, then there was never any need for the NT, since we can just ask God for forgiveness...and it will be granted if we're sincere.
The only way christianity could work is if 1) people posses the correct belief regarding Jesus and 2) have a spiritual/mystical connection to him, as branches of the tree which he represents (the true vine).
The generations who came closely after Jesus, at least experienced the energy of authentic christianity..and even then Revelation tells us many fell into error. So really it seems a few people were 'saved' and that's it.
if Jesus was here today and even cared to talk to me, i would obv tell him his religion is a disappointment, it didnt change anything.

The Gita on the otherhand details various types of paths that lead to God. it encourages rather than condemns us. it's primary message is motivational..aswell as offering us some insight on the nature of God and our connection to God.
Krishna was basically the Logos made flesh (vishnu, the universal consciousness) and he was one of many. 'The Self' which is referred to throughout the Gita refers to the Logos/universal consciousness.
eg we were made 'in the image of God', the logos IS 'the image'. 'The Son' was just a metaphorical term to describe said Image.
The Gita tells us we are all part of the Supreme Spirit and cannot 'die' in that sense. That all things come from and return to it.
Furthermore, the NT was based on greek philosophy through the jewish philosopher Philo. Greek philosophy was borrowed heavily from persian and indian philosophy. So obviously the Gita is more authentic.

the NT focuses heavily on the Faith vs Works topic. That is the path of non-action vs the path of right-action, which only the Gita explains.
There are connection between hinduism, islam and christianity if people care to learn.
For example in hinduism (and in the gita) we're told about the 3 gunas/states of mind/nature.
Sattva/pure, rajas/passion, tamas/darkness. The Gita goes in depth explaining the types of civilisation produced from each state. The idea obviously being to encourage people to seek Sattvic nature.
in islam, there is the state of islam and the state of jahilliya, likewise islam focuses on the collective nature of these states. Eg the 'period of jahilliya' where people buried their newborn daughters alive and were constantly in conflict between tribes.
There's also hawa(passion) which is a state the majority of muslims live in eg believe in islam, but do not practice it and are sinful.
Now if you read Romans 1, Paul actually gives the same formula, when he talks about civilisations descent into darkness.
eg 'they forgot God' then 'fell into passion' and finally
"29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy."
I disagree with your essential points on Christianity, but I'll save that for later. First I'd like to know to what time you date the first written texts of the Gita.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
935
Likes
717
#20
I disagree with your essential points on Christianity, but I'll save that for later. First I'd like to know to what time you date the first written texts of the Gita.
The Bhagavad Gita is not a closed text, matter of fact it is just an extracted sample of one crucial and memorable part of the sixth book (Bhishma Parva) from the Mahabharata, which is the longest historical epic in the world.

This page has some decent answers: https://www.quora.com/When-was-the-Mahabharata-written

And yes Krishna is a literal incarnation of God in the Mahabharata and he does a lot of amazing things and is a very complex spiritual leader.