Did Krishna claim to be the God above all gods?

[Spiderman]

Krishna allegedly said :

"I am the beginning, middle, and end of creation.
Among animals I am the lion; among birds, the eagle Garuda. I am Prahlada, born among the demons, and of all that measures, I am time.

I am death, which overcomes all, and the source of all beings still to be born.

Just remember that I am, and that I support the entire cosmos with only a fragment of my being.""

Jesus said I " I am the Alpha and the Omega....before Abraham was, "I AM".

"I am " is the most sacred name for God "Yahweh ", a name considered so sacred, Israelites often didn't dare utter it.

Is Krishna claiming to be the Great "I AM" , Yahweh, Alpha + Omega ....the beginning and the end?

 

[Nietzsche]

Arguably, Krishna was claiming to be something greater, specifically the "everything".

 

[Jainarayan]

Krishna allegedly said

It's recorded in the Bhagavad Gītā, nothing alleged about it. Whether you believe in the Bhagavad Gītā is another matter.

"I am " is the most sacred name for God "Yahweh ", a name considered so sacred, Israelites often didn't dare utter it.

Is Krishna claiming to be the Great "I AM" , Yahweh, Alpha + Omega ....the beginning and the end?

Krishna never used "I am" as his proper name, nor was he ever addressed or referred to as such. It's simply the first person singular of the verb "to be". What is your point?

 

[sayak83]

Krishna allegedly said :

"I am the beginning, middle, and end of creation.
Among animals I am the lion; among birds, the eagle Garuda. I am Prahlada, born among the demons, and of all that measures, I am time.

I am death, which overcomes all, and the source of all beings still to be born.

Just remember that I am, and that I support the entire cosmos with only a fragment of my being.""

Jesus said I " I am the Alpha and the Omega....before Abraham was, "I AM".

"I am " is the most sacred name for God "Yahweh ", a name considered so sacred, Israelites often didn't dare utter it.

Is Krishna claiming to be the Great "I AM" , Yahweh, Alpha + Omega ....the beginning and the end?

Yes, he is claiming to be the incarnation of Supreme God, personified Brahman ( the substance of all of existence) and the Supreme Self that supports all individual selves.
But it has nothing to do with I AM as a proper name or anything.

 

[wizanda]

Is Krishna claiming to be the Great "I AM" , Yahweh, Alpha + Omega ....the beginning and the end?

Currently reading the Kalki Purana, where Kalki being the rider on the white horse before the end of the age, similarly to what we find within Revelations...Says that Kalki being the final incarnation of Vishnu is also all things.

What you need to realize is all these individual names, are only aspects or reflections of the one God Brahman, who makes everything.

Krishna being an avatar is an aspect of Brahman; the same as Yeshua is an aspect of YHVH.

Found the other day YHVH means the 'Lord to be', and Brahman can also mean 'to be'.

It is all one; it is only people's limited understanding that makes us see it as separate.

 

[paarsurrey]

Currently reading the Kalki Purana, where Kalki being the rider on the white horse before the end of the age, similarly to what we find within Revelations...Says that Kalki being the final incarnation of Vishnu is also all things.
What you need to realize is all these individual names, are only aspects or reflections of the one God Brahman, who makes everything.
Krishna being an avatar is an aspect of Brahman; the same as Yeshua is an aspect of YHVH.
Found the other day YHVH means the 'Lord to be', and Brahman can also mean 'to be'.
It is all one; it is only people's limited understanding that makes us see it as separate.

I agree to what I have colored in magenta. It is a phenominon to be understood about Jesus, Krishna Etc; there is no human G-d, it could never be. It is blemish for G-d to be physical and human
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

What you need to realize is all these individual names, are only aspects or reflections of the one God Brahman, who makes everything.

Krishna being an avatar is an aspect of Brahman; the same as Yeshua is an aspect of YHVH.

That's not entirely, or rather, universally true in Hinduism. In "Krishnaism", Krishna is the source of all that is, i.e. Brahman. This view of Krishna manifests as Vishnu, who in turn manifests or incarnates as the Krishna we typically think of, and other avatars. My take is that this is the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gītā, hence the Divine Form we find in BG chapter 11.

See the section Krishna under the Wiki article Vaishnavism.

 

[Jainarayan]

I agree to what I have colored in magenta. It is a phenominon to be understood about Jesus, Krishna Etc; there is no human G-d, it could never be. It is blemish for G-d to be physical and human
Regards

The contradiction and misunderstanding of God incarnating in that post is epic. Christians and Hindus believe that Jesus and Krishna, respectively, are as human as you or I.

 

[Vinayaka]

The contradiction and misunderstanding of God incarnating in that post is epic. Christians and Hindus believe that Jesus and Krishna, respectively, are as human as you or I.

Only some Hindus (for sure) and some Christians (I think), but you knew that. Just adding for other's benefit.

 

[Jainarayan]

Only some Hindus (for sure) and some Christians (I think), but you knew that. Just adding for other's benefit.

Yes, certainly not all in both religions. Thanks for adding, I always forget.

 

[YmirGF]

The contradiction and misunderstanding of God incarnating in that post is epic. Christians and Hindus believe that Jesus and Krishna, respectively, are as human as you or I.

Some of us are quite comfortable with the proper understanding of the term. I, personally, have no difficulty with the idea or possible reality.

Only some Hindus (for sure) and some Christians (I think), but you knew that. Just adding for other's benefit.

It is a pretty "heady" topic, to be sure. (Pun intended.)

 

[Windwalker]

It is blemish for G-d to be physical and human

Why?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why would G-d need to take a human form? Please
Regards

 

[sayak83]

Why would G-d need to take a human form? Please
Regards

Why can't he if he wants to? You are putting a limitation on God. Explain.
Regards.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why can't he if he wants to? You are putting a limitation on God. Explain.
Regards.

He can exercise all his powers without becoming low as human? Can't he? Please
Regards

 

[sayak83]

He can exercise all his powers without becoming low as human? Can't he? Please
Regards

The idea that human beings are low is your presupposition. God can become an ant in order to reform the ant society is he so pleases. He is indiscriminate and is already in everything and everyone (in Hinduism).

 

[wizanda]

That's not entirely, or rather, universally true in Hinduism.

Thank you was aware, as my first introduction of Hinduism in the UK, was Krishna Consciousness devotees, and maybe should've made it clearer in the post; yet generally like to stick with religious facts, and not people's beliefs, which can go outside of the the text.

 

[paarsurrey]

The idea that human beings are low is your presupposition. God can become an ant in order to reform the ant society is he so pleases. He is indiscriminate and is already in everything and everyone (in Hinduism).

It is consciousness that makes the difference.It is one aspect of the issue.If G-d becomes an ant, and his consciousness is not of an ant, then he is not an ant. Right?
It will be, therefore, a meaningless exercise to do it.
Regards

 

[atanu]

It is consciousness that makes the difference.It is one aspect of the issue.If G-d becomes an ant, and his consciousness is not of an ant, then he is not an ant. Right?
It will be, therefore, a meaningless exercise to do it.
Regards

Shri Krishna as a man is in the eyes of onlooker.

The true form of God as 'MahaKaal' was shown to Arjuna.

 

[paarsurrey]

Born from a human mother would always be a human, cannot be another species.Right? Please
Regards