top of page
Search

Jesus was NOT Copied From Krishna

Many online scholars and Tik-tok University graduates love to claim that Jesus was copied from earlier Cult deities. You can just look up things such as "Jesus copied from Horus" and find plenty of videos of folks saying things like some pagan deities were born on December 25th, and so on. Many popular voices like comedian Bill Maher have spoken about these things with great confidence, like they've spent their entire lives dedicated to study (spoiler alert, they haven't at all). So today's question of concern is whether Christians copied from Hinduism to create Jesus.


Krishna is described by Britannica.com as: "One of the most widely revered and most popular of all Indian divinities, worshiped as the eighth incarnation (avatar, or avatara) of the Hindu god Vishnu and also as a supreme god in his own right.” This deity did become the center of multiple cults in the time of the first century AD, but it wasn't until later in history that people began to draw parallels between Krishna and Jesus. Modern TikTok mystics in the West constantly claim that Jesus is the by-product of left-behind cult traditions in later centuries. The issue with this line of thinking is that the Gospels and the New Testament we have today are the most accurate documents of antiquity. Far surpassing historical figures like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great in manuscript copies. Scholars and Historians agree that the Gospels we have today about Jesus contain eye-witness detail that has been so very well preserved that we can be certain they are accurate. We can reconstruct the entire NT, but two or so verses with Early Christian letter quotations alone are just one example. You will not find a better historical record than the Gospels.


Statue of Krishna at the Sri Mariamman Temple in Singapore
Statue of Krishna at the Sri Mariamman Temple in Singapore

So we cannot reasonably use the argument that "there is no way to know about the real Jesus," which kind of dismantles the argument from the bat! The creed about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8 dates to as early as the 30s AD, possibly months after Jesus was crucified!


Modern Klaims About Krishna


Here is a short list of the general claims you will see about Krishna relating to Jesus:


  1. Krishna was born on December 25th to a virgin mother.

  2. His birth was signaled by a star attended by angels and shepherds who presented him gifts and spices.

  3. Krishna was persecuted by a tyrant who killed thousands of infants in an attempt to kill him.

  4. He is depicted with his feet injuring a serpent.

  5. Krishna was a miracle worker and taught parables.

  6. He argued with Hindu priests and called them hypocrites.

  7. His disciple's name was Arjuna, which translates to John.

  8. Krishna was killed at the age of 30, crucified on a tree between two thieves, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.

  9. He will return upon a white horse to kill an evil prince.

  10. He was called "the Lion of the tribe of Saki" and was the second person of the Hindu trinity.


Does the Evidence Kombat the Klaims?


Now that we have looked upon the klaims of the kritics, let's see if the evidence kombats Krishna or not! Does the actual textual evidence from the scholars confirm these claims, or are they pure Miller's Hot Ring Bologna?


Q1 Was Krishna Born on December 25th to a Virgin Mother?


Krishna was not born in December, all sources will tell you he was born in the summertime during Janmashtami (the birth festival of Krishna) in August. Krishna was also not born to a virgin; his mother had 7 children before birthing him, so she was not a virgin whatsoever. It was only said that Krishna was not born through sexual intercourse


Q2 Didn't a Star to the East Signal His Birth, with Angels and Shepherds?


There is not a shred of evidence that a star signaled his birth to the east. There were angels and cowherders present, but none of them gave Krishna gifts and spices; instead, flowers from heaven.


Q3 Was Krishna Persecuted by a Baby-Hungry Tyrant?


This claim is partially true. Krishna's mother was imprisoned by a tyrant named Kamsa, who murdered all seven of his siblings. A far cry from thousands of infants being killed in an attempt to kill Krishna.


Q4 But Krishna is Depicted with His Heel on a Serpent, That Must Have Been Copied, Right?



First of all, Jesus is not depicted in this manner anywhere in scripture. This "parallel" is drawn from a prophetic passage in Genesis about Jesus (Genesis 3:15). Nor did the Early Church depict Jesus in this way, the art of Jesus with a serpent originates from the 6th century AD which is much too late in Chrch history to be copied from a pagan cult from the time of Jesus. Even when Jesus is depicted atop a serpent, it is in light of Genesis 3:15 and not Krishna. Krishna's story with the serpent is not even comparable to Jesus' other than the fact that both have a serpent (an Association Fallacy). Krishna had to dance on the serpent (named Kaliya), a giant, thousand-headed serpent, to defeat it. Also a far cry from Jesus.


Q5 Didn't Krishna Perform Miracles and Teach in Stories and Parables?


Yes, Krishna did in fact perform miracles. This is not as big a breakthrough as some think, as all deities perform miracles. To apply this would be nonsense, and as for his teaching, he was a teacher but never taught in parables.


Q6 Did Krishna Argue With Priests and Call Them Hypocrites?


Krishna did attack Hindu priests, but not for being hypocrites, but rather for being too strict with their rituals.


Q7 Did Krishna Have a Disciple Named John?


Krishna did have a companion named Arjuana, and many tik-tik university graduates love to claim that this name translates directly to John. Sadly, no linguistic or etymological evidence connects the name John to Arjuana. John is the transliteration of the Hebrew name Yochanan (יוֹחָנָן), and it means "Yahweh is Gracious".


Q8 Was Krishna Crucified at the Age of 30 on a Tree Between Thieves, Raised From The Dead, and Ascended into Heaven?


There is no footprint of evidence left behind that Krishna was crucified or rose from the dead, or even died at the age of 30. These are all made-up claims. Krishna actually lived to be 125 years old, with some ages varying, but staying in that general area. He was killed when a hunter named Jara thought he was a deer and shot him, and afterwards, Krishna ascended into heaven. As we see, there are no parallels about their deaths, which in Christianity is the entire foundation of our Faith (1 Corinthians 15:14).


Q9 Isn't a Future Incarnation Coming on a White Horse to Kill an Evil Prince?


Yes, in Hindu scriptures, Krishna does come back on a white horse to end all evil, but the events differ from Revelation. In the Bible, Jesus returns after a period of seven years called the Tribulation (after judgment has reigned upon the rebellious Israel) to save those who are saved and separate those who didn't choose God's grace. When He comes back, it is for His 1,000-year reign before Satan is banished into the lake of fire and New Jerusalem is made, and creation is restored to full glory with God forever. Krishna just comes back every Yuga (age of mankind) to save them from evil influence. These situations differ entirely.


Q10 Was Krishna Called the "Lion of Saki," and the 2nd Person of the Hindu Trinity?


No, Krishna has never been called the "Lion of the tribe of Saki" and was not the second person of a trinity. He was the 8th of 10 Avatars/Incarnations of the god, Vishnu. A far cry from a triune God and the Hypostatic Union.


Conclusion


Even though small parts of some claims are true, like him coming back on a horse or performing miracles, there are still scholars who say Hindus may have been borrowing from Christians! "Some scholars believe that, except for the name, the Krishna cycle of stories has borrowed extensively from Christian sources, especially in relation to the birth, childhood and divinity of Jesus. The Great orientalist, Sir William Jones, held that the spurious Gospels which abounded in the first years of Christianity found their way to India and were known to the Hindus. According to others, Krishna's victory over Kaliya is a travestied version of Christ's victory of Satan, the Serpent. The German writer, Weber, held that Krishnaism was indebted to Christianity on the grounds that the worship of Krishna as the sole deity was a post-Christian phase in Hinduism, and the legend of his birth and the celebration of his birthdays, the honour paid to his mother Devika, and his life as a herdsman, all showed Christian influence (I p. 131)... Summing up the data, Hopkins says, 'Considering how late are these Krishna legends in India, there can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales, but not in name' (XI p. 144)." (Benjamin Walker: The Hindu World, Page 240)



“These stories of Krishna can only be dated as early as between the 4th to 6th centuries.” (Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hindu Religion and Philosophy, Rutgers University)


“May be as early as the second century.” (David V. Mason, Editor in Chief for Ecumenica; An online Religious Journal.)


As we can see, Jesus cannot be a copycat of Krishna because, although they have minor similarities, they fall short as evidence for religious plagiarization. I pray that the Holy Spirit may guide you to the truth of our good and glorious God, Jesus Christ. Amen

Comments

bottom of page