So, Jesus is constantly revered as the savior of man and a blameless boy born of God and a virgin mother among Christians. But how authentic is the story after all? Was Jesus all the Bible claims he was, or just a quick copy of some other stories so that Christianity could have a messiah too? One good example is
the Hindu messiah, Krishna. I've made a very small chart listing just a few of MANY exact details of Jesus' and Krishna's lives that were similair or exactly the same.



And if you're thinking "well maybe they ripped off Jesus' story for Krishna", think again. Stories of Krishna are much older than the Bible, and say he was born earlier than 3000 BC. And Krishna is not the only very-similair prodigal boy born of a god and a woman and raised blameless and pure. A couple other good comparisons are theseus and dionysus.

I'm interested to see counter-arguments to this. What makes Christians think that their messiah is so authentic?

Concerning each of your points:

Krishna perhaps can be considered the 2nd figure in their God-head, but Krishna is not monotheistic. Krishna is polytheistic. Christianity on the other hand is monotheistic, it maintains that the "Trinity" is a 3-in-1 triune God, not a polytheistic God.

That both father's were carpenter's is interesting, and for my mind, the only point in that list that gives pause for thought.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but Krishna was not born of a virgin. Indeed, his mother, Devaki, was in prison and had given birth something like 8 times, and every time the baby was killed, until Krishna was born and lord Vishnu appeared and miraculously saved the baby.

As for the rest, the correlations seem so generalized as they could apply to any miraculous character throughout history. "Heals the sick", "performs miracles", "from heaven in human form". Sounds like any God-like being, and I'm sure if you generalize any character's throughout history (let's say compare two Egyptian Pharaoh's with the same level of generalizations), and you'll find them also sounding remarkably similar.

I think you're not really considering the relative rarity of some of the other elements and how they match up perfectly. I haven't heard of many other past heroic characters (mythical or not) who performed miracles, raised the dead, healed those with diseases, was the son of the one true God in human form, was killed next to thieves, had a last supper with his disciples, etc.. etc. Also keep in mind that I posted only 14 out of well over 300 examples of similarities like these. And yes I seem to have incorrectly stated the virgin mother thing. I believe I misread from my original source. I've edited that one out.

"Sent from heaven in human form" - could possibly describe every God-like character in existence, who at some point manifested in human form.

"Performed miracles" - likewise, any God-like being is "god-like" for just that reason - the ability to do acts not normally associated with humans.

"Raised the dead" - I'd consider this amongst the miracles in the last post, and quite common amongst god-like beings. What was the context in which the dead was raised with Jesus and with Krishna?

"Met a gentile woman at a well" - since "Gentile" means non-Jewish, any woman that Krishna is attributed to have met at a well would most likely be non-Jewish. What did Krishna do/say with the woman at the well?

I could continue, but my point is that without any idea of the context of the actions between the two character's, it seems very generalized. If there were more specifics about the events between the two, maybe we could engage with the subject a little better. Know what I mean.

The only disagreement I have is with Shakyamuni's dad being a carpenter. Everything I have read says he was a king. Other than that, the stories of Krishna, Mithras, Osiris, Attis, Jesus, and so on ad infinitum are almost indistinguishable.

Krishna wasn't killed next to thieves. He was accidentally shot by a hunter while sitting under a tree.

Um did I miss a post somewhere Gid? Shakyamuni is another name for the "historical" Buddha. You read right though, his father was a king. There are some other differences between the Life of Buddha myth and other messianic tales, but it's all basicly the same archetype.

It amazes me how much effort is put into the discredit of Christianity. It almost seems obsessive for some.

Nor is Christianity – calling yourself monotheistic does not make you monotheistic – as Mako has pointed out in the past, either Christians are polytheists or they worship a god with multiple personality syndrome.

Nor was Jesus, the early Christians (including Paul) had no concept of a virgin birth.

To continue from the religioustolerance website - Was Krishna killed by accident or was he crucified? Here are some sources that say he might have been crucified:
The author Jacolliot, referring to the "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions," states that the body of Krishna: "was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures...[Later] the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared--no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes..." - Jacolliot, "The Bible in India," Sun Publ. Co., (1992). M. Guigniaut's Religion de l'Antiquité, which states: "The death of Crishna is very differently related. One remarkable and convincing tradition makes him perish on a tree, to which he was nailed by the stroke of an arrow." - M. Guigniaut, "Religion de l'Antiquité"
There are other references to Krishna being crucified, and being shown with holes in his feet, hands and side. - Acharya S, "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled,"
In the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) Yeshua's crucifixion on a cross or stake is often referred to as being "hung on a tree:" – see Acts 5:30, 10-39, 13-29 and Galatians 3:13.

some amazing coincidences between Krishna and Jesus:
Both were called a God and the Son of God.
were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity
Their adoptive human fathers were carpenters (so says one Hindu tradition)
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local ruler planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.
The object of Krishna's birth was to bring about a victory of good over evil."
Krishna "came onto earth to cleanse the sins of the human beings."
"Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax, Jesus was born while his foster-father, Joseph, was in the city to be enumerated in a census so that "all the world could be taxed."
"The story about the birth of Elizabeth's son John (the Baptist), cousin of Jesus, corresponds with the story in the Krishna myth about the birth of the child of Nanda and his wife Yasoda." Nanda was the foster-father of Krishna.
The Greek God Dionysos, Jesus and Krishna were all said to have been placed in a manger basket after birth.
Looks to me like there is nothing to really set Christianity apart from the much older “Savior” religions!

Amazing how broad the definition of crucifixion can get.
Anyway, what indication is there that religioustolerence. whatever it is, i can't remember, is reliable. Any idiot with a decent word processor can put up a website.

I wouldn't categorize Buddhist mythology with messianic tradition. Strictly speaking it's a wisdom tradition, lacking the godhead and physical death and resurrection that messianic traditions entail.

Whoops. I can't believe I confused Buddha and Krishna. I guess I was thinking ahead. edit-It must have been the "lion of Saki" thing.All these messiahs are so similiar. Has anyone ever noticed that Samson is probably a remnant of a savior myth? The only thing missing is that "Shemshon" (hebrew for man of the Sun) will return someday.

Yes, it is amazing, but even more amazing is the fact that early Christians did not seem to have a concept of a crucified man, at least according to their art. A sheep or Lamb is shown on the cross for the first 3 or 4 centuries of Christianity. It wasn’t until the Roman Church became the only Christianity that a man became the victim on the cross. As for religioustolerence, the very fact that they will and do post the references that they get their information from would tend to show that they are prepared to back up their information.. You are right about idiots and word processors, as evidenced by the proliferation of Christian websites on the internet!

That could be it Gid. No worries though, you aren't going to be polishing Hotei's belly for eternity because of it.


As for you capeo. While universally Buddhism is a "wisdom tradition" you neglect to consider the different cultural strains of it, some of which have deified Gautama as a deliverer. Then we have the Pure Land school whose primary means of salvation er, I mean gaining of enlightenment, is simply to repeat the name of Buddha (Amitabu) over and over.

Besides who says that an archetype must fit the mold exactly. For example, what is the need of a ressurrection in a school that believes in reincarnation?

Minus the red herring.
Are their sources reliable? I can find plenty of references to reptiles running the world or Constantine I throwing books on a table to decide what would make it into the new testament, doesn't make it true. The list you posted is from Graves' Sixteen Crucified Saviors. Saying it is useless would be generous. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...ier/graves.html especially, in this case, the bit in the second paragraph about most of Graves' sources on Krishna being post Christian influence in India.

Well aware of the problems with Graves' tome, however most of what he wrote can be verified from other sources...religioustolerance even had a little article on what he got wrong and what the "real facts" were. Let's see any Christian website be a honest and open about their sources...they all tend to agree wholeheartedly with their sources no matter how ridiculous the subject matter! You need to spend a little time on some of those "enemy" sites, might even open your eyes

of course, this gets more confusing when you consider that Jesus believed in reincarnation. That's why they voted it out i guess.

I don't consider Jodo Shu or Jodo Shinshu a true school of Buddhism as many Buddhists don't. There's nothing wrong with it but Shinran's teachings, in particular, are ultimately contrary to the body of work from the writers of each of the three branches and is considered a faith without perception (thus purely faith-based) school that has more in common messianic religions. As for directly deifying Shakyamuni, I'd be interested in which school or particular sutra you would be referring to because I'm not aware of it.



I should note that not every school takes reincarnation literally. Particularly Ch'an/Zen.

More to point of the OP its doubtless that Christian mythology borrowed from current Hellenistic mystery cults and Hinduism as well as Buddhism, in the case of some gnostic gospels, which had reached Greece by 320 BCE.

I'd like to mention that your argument there is only really the point of the original post. The story of Jesus is unoriginal, predictable, been-done-before. Is that how you believe God works?

And things such as being fathered by the one and only God with a human mother, being completely without sin and blameless, Visited by wise men guided by a star at birth, etc, are far too specific to just "expect" them of a messiah character.

Again, minus the red herring.


I somehow doubt it, the guy was 1 for 16 on the figures he looked at actually being crucified. Anyway, are those other sources reliable?

Most of them are world recognized scholars, so I would say that yes they are - probably much more than the corresponding Christian sources!

No school is a true school of Buddhism.

I'll see if I can dig up exactly where I got that notion from and PM you the info. Admittedly it's quite possible I misread/ misinterpreted something (don't we all do that from time to time?). We'll find out if I must eat my words or not.



Hence the word "a" in that sentence. I am well aware that Ch'an doesn't support the idea of reincarnation.


I agree. But in the scheme of things, does it really matter? Sure it might give some who believe a slightly different perspective on the origins of their beliefs, but otherwise it's just another slap in the face from those who have issues. It has to stop at some point because it doesn't get any of us anywhere.

Well, I guess that depends on how the topic is dealt with. If it's just bandied about to incite fights with believers then I agree. On the other hand the scholarly, historical and archeological aspects of religion are terribly interesting, especially since these religions were and are so intrinsic to world culture. We shouldn't have to dance around the facts just because it's contrary to someone's sensibilities. The problem around here (and everywhere) is some people make or take it personal, so I know what you mean.

If you find what your referring to let me know. It could be a new post.

Who are they?

Way too many to list...each essay on the website has references....you might want to check it out, that would answer your questions on who they were.

I think whether or not they're generalizations, the fact that these examples exist in ancient times, and that they reflect on numerous cultures would leave many to believe that it's just nonsense. Stories that resemble those on snopes.com...urban legends.

Wasn't Horus a Virgin Birth though, and also older than Jesus, seems the Jesus story is an amalgamation, and stolen just like the holidays of Christmas and Easter

Although the whole Graves comparision between Krishna and Jesus is rife with errors, there are some similarities, which is why the Christians tried to say that Krishna was actually the devil.

Also Buddha is considered by many hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu much like Krishna

well, I'll start with the religious tolerance site I guess.
Graves we have already discussed.
Acharya S is in no way a recognized scholar.
Jacolliot wasn't trained in a historical profession, but was rather a judge. Wikipedia seems to think him unreliable, and that is all I can quickly find on him that is in languages I understand.
Guigniaut I can find nothing on. Likewise on Jocelyn Rhys.
The "Pagan origins of the Christ myth" site does not list an author that I can see. Does not cite anyone either.
Boslooper is the only one in the bunch with a PhD, although what he is cited for is not in support of your case.
all the other links are dead.

All of this to me begs a question: So what? There are archetypal similarities between Jesus and Krishna, and .... So what?

If I was trying to insure that God's work was discredited and brought into question, would I not muddy up the waters by developing stories of other "saviors" whose lives matched the life of Jesus, so that those who could be easily misled would be?

Yup, exactly why the story of Christ was created, to muddy the waters and mislead the ignorant (exactly the same reason Chirstians created Christmas and Easter as well)

So, why "create" the Jesus story if there were already all these other stories that could simply be used to "mislead the ignorant"?

Why use a "story" that had been used so many other times before? If one simply wanted to mislead the ignorant, why not just make up a story? After all, we're ignorant, so why not just make up a nice story for us?

Simpler, its easier to go into an area, and grab bits an pieces of other people's stories and incorporate them into the story of your savior in order to gain converts, same reason they took the pagan holidays in Winter and spring and made them part of the Jesus myth (you do know that Christmas and Easter were originally pagan holidays right?)

Oh yeah, of course. They just had it in for you Christians thousands of years before your holy book was even written and messiah supposedly was alive .

So what? Well, is your God too lazy to come up with an original story for the savior of men? You could likely piece together almost every last element of Jesus' life (Aside from specifics like places and names), with stories of other messionic men who were talked about before Jesus supposedly was here on earth. On the other hand, if you look at it objectively, it simply shows that the Bible's creators took ideas from other stories and used them to mold the character of Jesus.



I think you're tripping over your words in that post.. at first you say why not just use the other stories (Which I believe is what happened, that's the point of this topic), then you say why not just make up a story? I'm a little unsure where you were going with that, but... here's an analogy.

You are making a frozen dinner. You have two options: cook it in the microwave, or cook it in the oven. If you cook it in the microwave, it'll be done in 5 minutes, although it'll have that "Microwave dinner" taste and consistency. On the other hand, if you cook it in the oven, It'll take half an hour, but taste a bit better and be more evenly cooked. What will most people do? They'll make it in the microwave, because the microwave will do the job, and they don't want to wait around so long for the oven just to make the meal a little bit better.

That's how it works with the prophets IMO. They could make a fresh story about Jesus, although it would take a lot longer, and the people they're trying to fool generally aren't going to critique a rush job anyway. If the word were inspired by God, I think you would see a much different story of Jesus... one that hasn't been used over and over previously. Since after all, God wouldn't need a microwave or an oven, he would just snap his fingers and the meal is cooked to perfection.

^More likely people have just chosen to generalize the stories so much that they of course sound similar. Let me generalize events in the careers of President Bush and President Clinton, and let's see how many people want to argue that these two people are the same. Far from a microwaved rush job, I think the hard work seems to have been put in by the skeptics who are trying to latch onto everything they can to try and discredit something they disagree with. Ooh look, two characters are said to have done miracles - they must be copies of each other. Ooh look, two cultures ascribe people as god-on-earth - they must be copies also. See a pattern?

well why is it then that paul was so active in the mediterranean? all for a copy cat god? no way, only a few years after christs death, so many people would have known if it was indeed a copy. just use common sense.

three hundred years later, when the new testament was written by church councils, they were free to embellish whatever elements they felt best to force the new religion down the pagan throats it was intended for. we don't really know what was in the original writings. Paul was no more than a precursor to Nilly Vanilly, a lysinc artist. A man who fell off a horse and "saw something". By the fourth century, when the Christians had all but wiped out the followers of Mithras, since his story was so nearly identical to that of Jesus as to threaten the new official state religion, it was pretty to rewrite and lipsync. Jesus may have been a real person, maybe not. I does not matter. "Jesus Christ" of the currently available n.t., is pure 100% fiction.

The New Testament was not "written" by the councils, they took the letters that were circulating around the existing churches, and gathered the ones which were used by all the churches.

Clinton never owned a baseball team, or drove companies given to him by his daddy into the ground, even gerneralized these stories would not be the same, christians on the other hand basically lifted verbatim from the beliefs of others.

After they pretty much murdered all opposition, including "heresies" they voted out.

Jesus is the only religious figure to have been born at the start of the Age of Pisces, thereby making him candidate Numero Uno for the position. The Age of Aquarius (beginning in '68 or '69) marked the start of this age's birth of a messiah (or messianic consciousness - as New Agers are frequently fond of saying). Besides, orange robes, a tambourine, and a shaved head are for buskers.

Im just curious- if Krishna was such an important character did he have a Bible like book written about him? What is his version of the Bible if any? I just dont know enough Krishna so im trying to understand...If Kirshna was what Jesus was at the time- why wasnt he a much bigger deal? Anyone can help me out here? Cheers!

Yes, there are several pieces of literature on Krishna. Check the wikipedia article on him.

Does the name "Bhagavad Gita" ring a bell? There is actually a vast literature about Krishna.

Awesome - thanks for the replies- i dont always trust Wiki thats why

Next- If Christians stole from Kirshna why would they replicate so many things - i mean they didnt even change the story around- theres plenty of identical features...Surely if the Christians new they were founding this new religion they would change things signifficantly with only a few minor similarities- but if these examples are right then its very, very similar. I dont see how the Early Christians would take so much out from Krishna and incorporate it into Jesus. I personally believe in Jesus and a majority of what the Bible says about him- Krishna obviously existed too...Yet all of this to me isnt really important. The most mportant thing to me as the life of Jesus and the examples he set of which i'd like to follow. I dont focus too much on all the subtopics it just makes things a whole lot more confusing. When you look at the bigger picture many religions seem to have "borrowed" from other religions. Bed time for me.

Isn't that a Human construct though? I mean if I'm making the calendar and historic timescale I could have his birth fall when I want.



Why wouldn't they, its easier than making up your own story, and its a way to gain converts, heck they did it to the Pagans as well

Since these are religions that are much older than Christianity and Judaism, you would be assigning omniscience and omnipotence to Satan....This then will begger the question, if Satan and Jehovah are both omniscient and omnipotent, how then do we know which is the true loving God and which is the evil god....Satan has never had millions killed in his name, Jehovah has!

Actually they took only those that agreed with their particular dogma. Luckily for the present group of Christianity, the Roman Church was much more violent and bloody that the more pacific brands of Christianity - many of which were closer to the original teachings of the original Christians - Da Wolf

Well if your ideas of generalizing are rediculous. Please do find things like these, exact specifics in the lives of GWB and BC that are the same, and I'll rest my case. And we're not talking just presedential actions, we're talking their family, their personality, etc. Again, it is not "generalizing" similarities when the similarities are rarely found in stories other than stories of other messiahs. Tell me, how normal of a trait is it to be born by a God and a woman, Live without sin, ascend to heaven upon death, perform miracles, etc.. etc.. etc. These are not general nor common things. They're wild and implausible claims. Stop acting like you see these things all the time. What I'm saying is that there is almost no unique element of Jesus' life as the bible describes it. It's not just a little bit of nitpicking here and there.



You mustn't forget that at the time, it would have been difficult for a common Israeli man to research into other messiahs. They didn't have to worry about it, there was no global compendium of information where you could just research any popular historical figure at the touch of a mouse.

Then there is the fact that the current type of Christianity is the “Pauline” version of Christianity. The early Roman Church was much more violent and bloodthirsty than the more pacific versions, totally destroying them by the 5th century CE. As was pointed out, 1st century/2nd century people did not have ready access to information. Only a very few individuals would know anything about Krishna or Osiris and even Mithraism which was a contemporary religion practiced mainly by soldiers and upper class Roman men, would have been relatively unknown (dogma wise) to the uneducated, unwashed masses. Paul seems to have (quite successfully) tailored a cult that combined the pagan resurrecting savior god with the Judaism of the 1st century CE and since most of the early Christians were lower class (slaves and women), they were almost totally illiterate and had no way of knowing that they were practicing a clone of the older religions.

Zeus was rather prolific if I recall correctly. Not quite the same as Krishna or Christ. 'Live without sin' is in rather New Testament terms and vague. Ascend to heaven, yeah sure. Perform miracles? I don't think you can get anymore general than that.


So does anyone else see problems in the fact that several of these supposed similarities are only supported by a 19th century man with no formal religious or historical training and who's only claim to fame is for being wrong and a 18th century man with some of the craziest ideas I've ever seen?

With Krishna the similarities aren't as stark, but with Horus, Mithras etc. the similarities are much greater

Zeus was a God, not a messiah. If we're talking about Zeus, then use Dinoysus as your Jesus reference. Although Zeus and Dionysus are mythology, not religion. The theories that Jesus' life story was copied are supported by PLENTY of people... not just two. I think you already knew that though.