ApostateAbe

Robert Tulip, welcome to the forum. There is at least one Indian native in this forum, and she may be able to help decide the debate.

ApostateAbe

Send a message to hinduwoman.

Robert Tulip

Hi Abe. Zwaarddijk uses rather florid language to denigrate Ms Murdock -accusing her of "shoddy scholarship ... crap." As with Zwaarddijk's previous errors, a quick internet search showed that Acharya's reported claim in this instance is perfectly reasonable. The boot is on the other foot, and the shoddy analysis is coming from Zwaarddijk.

The author of the claim I cited above that a colloquial Bengali rendering of Krishna is 'Kristo' is Subhamoy Das: "A Hindu by birth, Subhamoy has researched and written extensively on Hindu philosophy and Indology...Subhamoy has a Master's Degree in English Literature from the University of North Bengal, Darjeeling, India."
http://hinduism.about.com/bio/Subhamoy-Das-4489.htm

spin

This tinkly plaintive cry, "you are wrong", seems to be based on the ramblings of Subhamoy Das about how modern Spanish uses Cristo which appears similar to Bengali Kristo.

What you have done however, is surreptitiously changed topic. The claim was that Acharya S, when she "says Bengali for Krishna is Christos", is wrong. The Spanish is inconsequentially there because of appearances. The opinions of Swami Prabhupada (born 1896) are more irrelevances here. Subhamoy Das states without sources "A colloquial Bengali rendering of Krishna is 'Kristo'", but that requires two phonemic changes before you get Χριστος, the final nominative ς and the initial fricative Χ--this is where the Spanish comes in handy because it has lost the fricative to help an argument from appearance. So far the claim that the "Bengali for Krishna is Christos" seems false, based purely on vague appearances and unsourced claims of Subhamoy Das.

If the "Bengali for Krishna is Christos", why does Subhamoy Das refer to Swami Prabhupada who instead talks of "Krsta" (meaning "attraction")? He seems oblivious of Subhamoy Das's claim that a "colloquial Bengali rendering of Krishna is 'Kristo'", working instead from the Sanskrit word Krsta.

What is amazing here is that someone feels that quoting about.com would be sufficient for anything. It all seems like nutters riffing on similarities.

I should have noted this gem:

Based on what logic do you think this mishmash of similarities from all over the place is significant?

Dyaus Pitar is a good Indo-European cognate with the Greek, though that has nothing to do with "Abrahamic myth", per se. This is followed by claimed relations between Hebrew names and those I gather culled from the Indian context. Incidentally, regarding the fun a-brahma, Greek uses εκ/εξ to mean "out of" and Latin uses "a-". But most amusingly "ark", "argo", "Agastya". Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek for what we refer in English to as "ark" looks anything similar. Pure mishmash. Why are we jumping from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English in our correspondences between Indian material and "Abrahamic myth"?

Iskander

You should excuse Z’s use of florid language; Z will soon learn to speak American and use horse shit, bullshit, making shit ...to the delight of American scholars.

Only the testimony of a certified Hindu is good enough for a man with a special critical nature. We will have to wait for the oracle to reveal the mystery to all.

ApostateAbe

OK, that counts for something, though I wouldn't place as much weight on modern linguistic connections as I would historical etymological roots. Other online sources indicate that "Krishna" is Sanskrit meaning literally "dark, black and blue," and I would expect that any theory to connect "Krishna" with "Cristo" would have to incorporate that Sanskrit root. I certainly don't think you should be granting Subhamoy Das the final say. Subhamoy Das has a master's degree in English literature. I also have a master's degree in an unrelated topic , but that doesn't give me any authority on the matter. Subhamoy Das is also religiously slanted, being an advocate of the position that Hinduism and Christianity can be both true at the same time.

Toto

IIRC the poster hinduwoman has previously opined that reported similarities between Hindu and Christian themes can be traced to early Christian missionaries, who tried affirmatively to make Christianity seem similar enough to Hinduism to get it past a cultural barrier. Acharya S tries to claim that Krishna was crucified - but this involves a very creative redefinition of crucifixion.

aa5874

And what kind of creativity is needed to claim Jesus was crucified in the sub-lunar??? Explain a sub-lunar cross?? or a sub-lunar trial???

Or explain the creativity need to claim the offspring of a Ghost was crucified??

There is NO real explanation for Mythology.

The crucifixion of the Son of a Ghost Jesus is mythology.

Chili

The offspring of the gost stood below the cross and was introduced to Mary as her son. So who do you think now they crucified?

stephan huller

Because we've (they've) started with an assumption and tried to marshal facts to support it rather than let the individual pieces of evidence when taken together lead us to the conclusion.

Each one of the individual parts is a topic in itself. For instance the apostles as signs of the zodiac. It now appears that Valentinus said something like that. But what did he say? We could spend the next thirty years figuring out what he likely meant without coming to a conclusive answer. How then can we begin to move on to anything beyond that? Beyond me.

I find it hard enough to find a 'meta-theory' between the Old and the New Testaments where there is an acknowledged relationship between the source material let alone this nonsense.