Post Reply
Page 4 of 14  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next
Switch to Forum Live View A Framework for Interpreting the Bible that promotes Peace, Healing and Unity
5 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2009 - 10:39PM #31
haggaion
Posts: 1,972

hebrewtattoo wrote:

Go no further that the below quote, and I would add ignorance.  But it is hard to practice Intolerance when people spew such stupidity.  That is why this forum is a joke.


I agree, it swims in speculation.

:)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 8:48AM #32
Bob Wells
Posts: 112

flitzerbiest wrote:

Krishna, like Jesus was a historical figure.  He lived roughly 5000 years ago, thus preceding any writings of the OT.  In fact, the mythology that attached to him was written prior to the writing of most, if not all of the OT.  The counterfeit was developed centuries before the original.  Who would have guessed?


The Hindus are aware of the Biblical men of renowned that walked the earth in those days. They have a rich faith tradition. It would be rude to speak ill of their gods.

It is also rude to speak ill of Jesus. Thought I have respect for the New Testament, I am not a Christian. That makes me a guest in a forum dedicated to discussing the sacred text of the Christian's Bible. It is proper to show respect to these people and allow them to express their opinion of the book they hold dear.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 8:52AM #33
flitzerbiest
Posts: 175

haggaion wrote:

What sort of hard evidence do you have that this is true?  What is the oldest dated document that we have that refers to Krishna? We have a portion of GOJ dated 115-140, maybe 25-50 years after John was to have written it.


The preservation argument seemed nonsensical to me even before I began to question the Evangelical party line.  What difference does it make that we have old fragments of the gospels?  The illogical leap from "the Bible is well-preserved" to "the gospels are historically accurate" is immense.  Of course, it turns out that the "well-preserved" claim is a bit thin too.  Extensive textual variations exist, particularly between the early Vulgate and the greek manuscripts, but also within both families.

The point that I had made was that Krishna could not possibly have been a counterfeit or imitation of Christ.  Even the most conservative scholars place the Bhagavad Gita at roughly 1000 BCE.  Some Hindu scholars argue for as much as 2000 years before that.  Parenthetically, it is interesting that scholars from within that tradition argue for older dates just as Christian scholars argue for older dates than the historical record can definitively support.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 12:17PM #34
SteveC
Posts: 250

Bob Wells wrote:

The Hindus are aware of the Biblical men of renowned that walked the earth in those days. They have a rich faith tradition. It would be rude to speak ill of their gods.

It is also rude to speak ill of Jesus. Thought I have respect for the New Testament, I am not a Christian. That makes me a guest in a forum dedicated to discussing the sacred text of the Christian's Bible. It is proper to show respect to these people and allow them to express their opinion of the book they hold dear.


I've read the entire thread up to this point and I have witnessed nothing close to rudeness. What I have read resembles polite disagreement

I'm no guest here. I go where I want and make myself at home. The problem with statements such as:

a forum dedicated to discussing the sacred text of the Christian's Bible


is that Christianity often translates into bigotry when Christians interact with the rest of humanity. Read our history books if you need evidence. In this respect Jesus was a colossal failure. All religions are colossal failures when interpreted beyond the perspective of the original primitive peoples that created them. These people were cavemen.

After reading this post, would you like to change your definition of rudeness?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 12:23PM #35
SteveC
Posts: 250

The Hindus are aware of the Biblical men of renowned that walked the earth in those days


What is your point?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 3:50PM #36
Tilion
Posts: 19

Originally posted by SteveC

These people were cavemen.


Isn’t that overstating things a bit?  Some of these “cavemen” crawling around at the time dreamt up primitive ideas like geometry and trigonometry; ideas most people still can’t fathom in 2009.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 8:09PM #37
haggaion
Posts: 1,972

flitzerbiest wrote:

The preservation argument seemed nonsensical to me even before I began to question the Evangelical party line.  What difference does it make that we have old fragments of the gospels?  The illogical leap from "the Bible is well-preserved" to "the gospels are historically accurate" is immense.  Of course, it turns out that the "well-preserved" claim is a bit thin too.  Extensive textual variations exist, particularly between the early Vulgate and the greek manuscripts, but also within both families.

The point that I had made was that Krishna could not possibly have been a counterfeit or imitation of Christ.  Even the most conservative scholars place the Bhagavad Gita at roughly 1000 BCE.  Some Hindu scholars argue for as much as 2000 years before that.  Parenthetically, it is interesting that scholars from within that tradition argue for older dates just as Christian scholars argue for older dates than the historical record can definitively support.


I ask I thought a simple question.  Give me the date for the oldest document we have that speaks about Krishna.  I was not asking for your interpretations of why the Bible is "well-preserved" or not.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 8:44PM #38
kwd111
Posts: 1,104

flitzerbiest wrote:

At any rate, the idea that any, let alone all of the apostles died to protect the truth about Jesus is historical conjecture at best.


First, I think you forgot about Paul
Second, I think you forgot about the rest of history.  There are many who died to disseminate the truth of the Living God and still do.
Third, was there a reason to bring this point up? :)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 8:48PM #39
flitzerbiest
Posts: 175

haggaion wrote:

I ask I thought a simple question.  Give me the date for the oldest document we have that speaks about Krishna.  I was not asking for your interpretations of why the Bible is "well-preserved" or not.


I am not an expert on Vedic documents.  Nevertheless, I speak well within the range of secular/historical scholarship when I say that 1000 BCE is the latest date for the Bhagavad Gita, which is not even the oldest reference to Krishna.  It is simply impossible that Krishna was a counterfeit or copy of Jesus, which my entry point into this subthread. 

And, for the record, you did introduce the issue of gospel preservation.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 10:13PM #40
haggaion
Posts: 1,972

flitzerbiest wrote:

I am not an expert on Vedic documents.  Nevertheless, I speak well within the range of secular/historical scholarship when I say that 1000 BCE is the latest date for the Bhagavad Gita, which is not even the oldest reference to Krishna.  It is simply impossible that Krishna was a counterfeit or copy of Jesus, which my entry point into this subthread. 

And, for the record, you did introduce the issue of gospel preservation.


Is there such a thing as historical scholarship when it comes to dating manuscripts of Bhagavad Gita? 

I introduced a dated NT document that mentions Jesus only as a point of comparison, that there really is no real comparison between the two religions when it comes to historical documentation.  Hindu is not about history, it is not like Christianity that claims to be historical.

So, where is this 1000 BCE Bhagavad Gita document to be found, or are you just making up that date?

Or if you misspoke, or evaded the question, tell me the date of the oldest Bhagavad Gite copy.

But maybe we have no manuscripts older than a few hundred years? Maybe there is no hard evidence that the Bhagavad Gita was nothing more than a fanciful invention of a 1000 years ago?  Or 500 years ago?  Of course Hindus are going to claim it as old, but why can't someone just compare gnostic texts of the 2-3 century AD and claim they are the inspiration of the Bhagavad Gita?

But you are the one that wrote:

Krishna, like Jesus was a historical figure. He lived roughly 5000 years ago, thus preceding any writings of the OT. In fact, the mythology that attached to him was written prior to the writing of most, if not all of the OT. The counterfeit was developed centuries before the original. Who would have guessed?


If anything, the evidence says the opposite.

My point, Hindu manuscript evidence is not in the league as the NT.  What is historical for the Hindu is not a big issue when it comes to their religion, unlike Christianity.  That is not to denigrate their religion, I only mention it because you thought of making a ridiculous comparison.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 14  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook