Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: A comparative study between the Bible and the Vedas.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: A comparative study between the Bible and the Vedas.

    Indeed for Hindus this should not matter at all, although if there's no historical evidence people will not be able to maintain that he was an avatar or yogi without having to admit that they partially absorbed Christian theology by acknowledgement of Jesus' existence alone. But even if some historical man named Jesus existed, it's clear that he was not the man described in the Bible. Jesus from the Bible is an amalgan of different mythological figures, including the Egyptian sun God. For me the answer to the question "Why Hindus should reject Jesus" is self evident, unfortunately, it's not self evident yet for all Hindus, so meanwhile we may bring up more and more arguments to the table from all angels.
    Last edited by Sahasranama; 08 April 2011 at 07:32 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL, USA
    Age
    50
    Posts
    254
    Rep Power
    360

    Re: A comparative study between the Bible and the Vedas.

    Quote Originally Posted by pineblossom View Post
    The evidence I suggest is against such a view.

    There is a quantity of evidence to confirm that Jesus died at the hands of Roman authority in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate at the time Tiberius was Emperor. On that historians agree.
    No. I am a historian, and neither I, nor any of my other friends who are historians, (including a prominent Christian religious professor at a Christian university), believe there is any historical "proof" of the existence of "Jesus." However, just as I don't need historical "proof" of the existence of anything to do with the Vedas in order to follow Sanatana Dharma, a real Christian with real faith does not require it either. The only people who require this type of "evidence" are those who have little faith, or those who seek to use this "evidence" as "proof" of the superiority of their religion.

    Actually, the first Roman mention of "Jesus's" existence does not occur until almost a CENTURY after his alleged death, and it's simply an off-handed mention of a troublesome cult. We have solid evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilatus, as well as Emperor Tiberius...but as far as "Jesus," there is no contemporary evidence of his existence outside of the Christian scriptures. Even Josephus, whose mentions of "Jesus" are largely considered to be a medieval forgery, was not even born until years after the alleged crucifixion.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •