How do we know Krishna, Buddha or Moses existed?

InvestigateTruth said:

So, Bahaullah was a Historical Person who claimed to be a Manifestation of God. How about Krishna?
Do you think, 5000 years later from now, people will start about doubting if Bahaullah was a historical person, when for them stories go back too long ago?

Click to expand...

5000 years after 21st Century! I do not think these childish ideas will bother humanity at that time - Gods and their prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations and mahdis.

Vinayaka said:

By your analysis, all fictional characters must have existed. People are still talking about Hamlet. He must have had children, right? People must have told their kids about him, right? Your argument falls apart .... easily.

Click to expand...

Yeah, with eight wives, Krishna had many sons. Most of them were killed in a fratricidal war after a drinking bout on the beach of Dwarika due to the curse of a sage. Srimad Bhagawat Purana mentions their names.

InvestigateTruth said:

Suppose today, a group of people, come up with a new myth, and make up stories about an Incarnation of God on earth, called 'so and so'. Completely a new One!
Do you really think, people believe it? Wouldn't they question that, if indeed such a Person was on earth and claimed to be a God, how come no body in previous generations knew about Him, or said anything about Him?!

Now, let's talk about, for example if a Person by the name Krishna, did not exist. If indeed He never existed on earth, how would people have started to give away their own beliefs and replace it with a belief in Him, and His stories? Suppose a group of people had come up with a tale, and invented a Person by name of Krishna as incarnation of God. Why would even people of that time, accept that, when none of their grand parents or family or people, ever said such a thing, and all the sudden the story started?!

Now, compare that with for example Bahaullah. None would question His existence. Why? Because, our grand grand parents, or people in that generation had seen Him, and thus His news, was passed on to the next generation. But if He did not exist even, no body would have passed the news from generation to the next. Same must have been with Krishna. Right?

Click to expand...

Why would the Almighty God choose to be human?
Would he like to be entomb in the womb for nine months?



Nine months! encased in a womb filled with pungent bodily fluid?
Then after nine months, He is born as a helpless little child.



And completely at the mercy of people - for food, shelter and clothing?
And this helplessness would be until puberty.

I think this is a waste of time, right?

If I am the Almighty God, I will not be human
I will be unchanging and I will talk to my chosen
On the things I planned and on the things that I want done
I am bigger than the whole universe, which I created



Why would I like to be a fetus covered with things that will make you nauseate and be queasy?
Why would a god waste his time inside a mere creation, waste his time in a womb pungent enough that it would inspire man to concoct the primordial soup and then call it science? What would I achieve by being a bacteria in a poop pile? To prove to myself, I could do this stuff?

Isn't much better for me to create exoplanets, galaxies of stars, black and white holes than to emerge nine months later in somebody's hole from a deep slumber?
Isn't it much better that I rather answer the prayers of my people than being in a terrible dark place like a woman's womb? Imagine how many of my chosen people would be helpless for years on end because their almighty chose to be a fetus or a child.

InvestigateTruth said:

Suppose today, a group of people, come up with a new myth, and make up stories about an Incarnation of God on earth, called 'so and so'. Completely a new One!
Do you really think, people believe it? Wouldn't they question that, if indeed such a Person was on earth and claimed to be a God, how come no body in previous generations knew about Him, or said anything about Him?!

Now, let's talk about, for example if a Person by the name Krishna, did not exist. If indeed He never existed on earth, how would people have started to give away their own beliefs and replace it with a belief in Him, and His stories? Suppose a group of people had come up with a tale, and invented a Person by name of Krishna as incarnation of God. Why would even people of that time, accept that, when none of their grand parents or family or people, ever said such a thing, and all the sudden the story started?!

Now, compare that with for example Bahaullah. None would question His existence. Why? Because, our grand grand parents, or people in that generation had seen Him, and thus His news, was passed on to the next generation. But if He did not exist even, no body would have passed the news from generation to the next. Same must have been with Krishna. Right?

Click to expand...

People did not distinguish between fiction and fact before modernity arrived. Very few people travelled more than a few miles out of their hamlets, they got all their news through words of mouth from traders and other rare visitors or once in a lifetime pilgrimmage for something. Every story was believed as news from "out there". So, no, I do not believe our modern day ideas of verification applied back then.
That said, presence of Krishna, specifically, as an Indian prince at around 1000 BCE who took part in a big war and helped one side win through strategms and diplomacy is not implausible. Indian princes of that time were also philosophically sophisticated (as Buddha shows and Upanisads show as well). So the core idea of a prince gifted in diplomacy and philosophical thought is obviously plausible. The rest would be legendary elaborations through the centuries.

@InvestigateTruth Why do you think that anyone would need or want to know that Krishna existed? What good do you think it does for you, to know that?

InvestigateTruth said:

I quote from wikipedia about scientology:

"Scientology does not preach or impose a particular idea of God on Scientologists. Rather, people are expected to discover the truth through their own observations as their awareness advances." Scientology - Wikipedia

I don't see this a comparison with the belief in a prophet, incarnation of God, or Buddha. Because, in the latter cases, it is about believing in a Person who was on earth, whereas scientology does not require believing in a person. I cannot see how we can use this comparison to make a conclusion about OP.

Click to expand...

Also, converting from Islam to Christianity may not be a comparison to draw a conclusion from it, as regards to OP. Because, the Muslim community or Christian community already exist. But let's say, if there was no Muhammad, would the community of Muslims come to existence? Of course not. Thus, when there is the community of Hindus who believe in Krishna, how can we say, Krishna did not exist as the Founder of the religious community?

Click to expand...

Did Apollo or Juno exist as the founder of the Roman religion?
Did Zeus exist as the founder of the ancient Greek religion?
Did Odin exist as the founder of the viking religion?

Obviously religions aren't found under a rock and are ultimately invented and kickstarted by humans. Some of those humans might be featured in the religion one way or another (as a prophet, a demi god, a full god, one of many gods, what-have-you).

I'm totally fine with the idea that Jesus and Krishna were real historical humans.

InvestigateTruth said:

Then, how do you reply to the series of arguments in OP? It is a step by step logical deduction to show, a Person with the name Krishna must have existed.

Click to expand...

That is Bahai logic, since they have to prove Bahaullah as a manifestation.

MJFlores said:

Why would the Almighty God choose to be human?
Would he like to be entomb in the womb for nine months?
Nine months! encased in a womb filled with pungent bodily fluid?
Then after nine months, He is born as a helpless little child.

Click to expand...

Questioning the will of God?
Womb is not a bad place. Pungent or not, the ovarian fluid is not smelled or drunk by the child. It is like being in a swimming pool for nine months, except for some quickly resolved discomfort when the child comes to rest on mother's spine. That is when it moves.

InvestigateTruth said:

Suppose today, a group of people, come up with a new myth, and make up stories about an Incarnation of God on earth, called 'so and so'. Completely a new One!
Do you really think, people believe it? Wouldn't they question that, if indeed such a Person was on earth and claimed to be a God, how come no body in previous generations knew about Him, or said anything about Him?!

Now, let's talk about, for example if a Person by the name Krishna, did not exist. If indeed He never existed on earth, how would people have started to give away their own beliefs and replace it with a belief in Him, and His stories? Suppose a group of people had come up with a tale, and invented a Person by name of Krishna as incarnation of God. Why would even people of that time, accept that, when none of their grand parents or family or people, ever said such a thing, and all the sudden the story started?!

Now, compare that with for example Bahaullah. None would question His existence. Why? Because, our grand grand parents, or people in that generation had seen Him, and thus His news, was passed on to the next generation. But if He did not exist even, no body would have passed the news from generation to the next. Same must have been with Krishna. Right?

Click to expand...

Making up stories about an incarnation of God on Earth wouldn't involve claiming miracles that could be disproved. It would also involve making up a story about a person that many of us needed to believe in...a saviour for our times.

Today's stories of "super people" sometimes involves an anchor into the common persons reality called their genesis story which explains how an ordinary person or someone who appears ordinary is actually extraordinary. We want to be that person and believe in that person.

In the past the world was a much larger place and our fears were more varied and numerous. The distance our imagination had to travel was, perhaps shorter. Jesus, Krishna and ancient super-people fit a need inside of those who first heard their stories even more so than they still do today. They are the spiritual avatars of yesterday whose deep reach into our psyches still answer the call for the need for meaning and inspiration. As such they speak to some level of objective reality with our psyches.

LuisDantas said:

Buddha was a much better documented person than either. Moses sits somewhere in the middle, but I would still say that his existence was probably literal.

Click to expand...

That's simply not true. The textual evidence for the Buddha's life is centuries late (second century AD). And most of it is of questionable historical value. The New Testament is more contemporary to Jesus than any Buddhist text is to the Buddha.

While I myself would not seriously doubt that Siddhartha Gautama existed as a historical person, if we were to apply the same standards to Gautama as you do for Jesus then we would have no choice but to reject his historicity as unlikely. Anything less would be special pleading.

Musing Bassist said:

That's simply not true. The textual evidence for the Buddha's life is centuries late (second century AD). And most of it is of questionable historical value. The New Testament is more contemporary to Jesus than any Buddhist text is to Buddha.

While I myself would not seriously doubt that Siddhartha Gautama existed as a historical person, if we were to apply the same standards to Gautama as you do to the Jesus then we would have no choice but to reject his existence as unlikely. Anything less would be special pleading.

Click to expand...

It is not a big deal either way, but I don't think so.

LuisDantas said:

It is not a big deal either way, but I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Just be consistent. You have no more leg to stand on for Siddhartha's historicity than you do for Jesus'. (Actually, you have less). Whether or not that matters to you in your practice of Buddhism is neither there or there to me.

Musing Bassist said:

Just be consistent. You have no more leg to stand on for Siddhartha's historicity than you do for Jesus'. (Actually, you have less). Whether or not that matters to you in your practice of Buddhism is neither there or there to me.

Click to expand...

Eh. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

Aupmanyav said:

Questioning the will of God?
Womb is not a bad place. Pungent or not, the ovarian fluid is not smelled or drunk by the child. It is like being in a swimming pool for nine months, except for some quickly resolved discomfort when the child comes to rest on mother's spine. That is when it moves.

Click to expand...

Even thinking about a womb makes me tipsy.
I bet it taste delicious as you describe it.
What Does Amniotic Fluid Smell Like?

What is the will of God?
One of the will of God is 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

My God does not change Malachi 3:6
My God cannot lie 1 Samuel 15:29
My God cannot cast a shadow James 1:17
My God is spirit therefore cannot be seen.John 4:24
My God is not human, not even a Son of Man.Numbers 23:19
My God is the Father who created all men Malachi 2:10
My God is King eternal, invisible and immortal 1 Timothy 1:17
My God is the only true God. John 17:3

Having stated who God is, he doesn't like to change, to be opaque, to be human, to be visible, to be kill-able and lastly he is not a liar. And as such, people have claimed to be God - a god who spent a miserable 9 month period surrounded in amniotic fluid.

15 Living People Who Say They Are God

LuisDantas said:

Eh. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Neither do those who doubt the historical Jesus.

InvestigateTruth said:

Suppose today, a group of people, come up with a new myth, and make up stories about an Incarnation of God on earth, called 'so and so'. Completely a new One!
Do you really think, people believe it? Wouldn't they question that, if indeed such a Person was on earth and claimed to be a God, how come no body in previous generations knew about Him, or said anything about Him?!

Now, let's talk about, for example if a Person by the name Krishna, did not exist. If indeed He never existed on earth, how would people have started to give away their own beliefs and replace it with a belief in Him, and His stories? Suppose a group of people had come up with a tale, and invented a Person by name of Krishna as incarnation of God. Why would even people of that time, accept that, when none of their grand parents or family or people, ever said such a thing, and all the sudden the story started?!

Now, compare that with for example Bahaullah. None would question His existence. Why? Because, our grand grand parents, or people in that generation had seen Him, and thus His news, was passed on to the next generation. But if He did not exist even, no body would have passed the news from generation to the next. Same must have been with Krishna. Right?

Click to expand...

Krishna didn't exist.

Buddha was a person, not an ascended master.

Moses was buried by God on Mt. Nebo and appeared on Mt. Tabor AFTERWARD.

Glad to help!

sayak83 said:

People did not distinguish between fiction and fact before modernity arrived.

Click to expand...

How do we know this? Do people distinguish between fiction and fact now? Do Christians in our modern time, believe resurrection of Jesus is a fiction or fact?

Very few people travelled more than a few miles out of their hamlets, they got all their news through words of mouth from traders and other rare visitors or once in a lifetime pilgrimmage for something. Every story was believed as news from "out there". So, no, I do not believe our modern day ideas of verification applied back then.

Click to expand...

If they easily accepted any beliefs then, why when Jesus came to Jews, they killed Him? Same with Zoroaster. They killed Him too, because He claimed to have a divine revelation.

said, presence of Krishna, specifically, as an Indian prince at around 1000 BCE who took part in a big war and helped one side win through strategms and diplomacy is not implausible. Indian princes of that time were also philosophically sophisticated (as Buddha shows and Upanisads show as well). So the core idea of a prince gifted in diplomacy and philosophical thought is obviously plausible. The rest would be legendary elaborations through the centuries.

Click to expand...

So، you agree with OP, that Krishma existed as a person?

InvestigateTruth said:

If they easily accepted any beliefs then, why when Jesus came to Jews, they killed Him? Same with Zoroaster. They killed Him too, because He claimed to have a divine revelation.

Click to expand...

If a person cannot survive he or she has not had any divine revelation.

BilliardsBall said:

Krishna didn't exist.

Buddha was a person, not an ascended master.

Moses was buried by God on Mt. Nebo and appeared on Mt. Tabor AFTERWARD.

Glad to help!

Click to expand...

Thanks for expressing your opinion on Them. Do you have any reasoning why Krishna was not a real person, but Buddha was?

Shantanu said:

If a person cannot survive he or she has not had any divine revelation.

Click to expand...

Why? They have said, they have Spirit or Soul. Their Soul went to heaven after death of body. So, If it is true they survived.