How do we know Krishna, Buddha or Moses existed?

[InvestigateTruth]

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?

 

[Spirit of Light]

To take the example of Buddha Sakyamuni or Siddharta gautama as he was know as before his enlightenment (buddhahood.) He was aborn as a prince in that time Nepal/now India the place is called Lumbini. and there is archeology evidence of his existance, and they found the ruines of the castle belonging to the cast of Sakya, Sakya was rulers of a small part in Nepal the lumbini area.
There are stupas erected in the name of the buddha around the area.
The name of his father is Śuddhodana and his mothers name was Maya devi.

one of the teachers of Siddharta was Alara Kalama

 

[Twilight Hue]

I consider any religious figure no more or less improbable or probable than any other religious figure of antiquity. It all depends on what evidences are available if any.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Right?

I do not think so. Krishna probably was a regional God of India who became very important later. Krishna story is much older than the writing of BhagawadGita. Krishna does not need to be historical for Hindus. The stories of Krishna are enough to guide us.

That "your grand grand parents, or people in that generation had seen Him" does not in anyway prove that he was a manifestation of God (I would take the whole thing as fictitious).

As for Buddha, He is so recent. Alexander came to India just about 150 years after the supposed time of Buddha. So, Buddha stories were still warm.

 

[LuisDantas]

Every case is different, although I don't think any of those that the OP mentions besides Krishna qualifies as an incarnation of God.

Krishna, much like Jesus, was probably never a human being as such.

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.

Muhammad was definitely a real historical person, as was Bahahullah. There are simply far too many witnesses during far too long a time for reasonable doubt to arise.

 

[Vinayaka]

Having existed or not is a far different argument than being the same person, or even similar people.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I do not think so. Krishna probably was a regional God of India who became very important later. Krishna story is much older than the writing of BhagawadGita. Krishna does not need to be historical for Hindus. The stories of Krishna are enough to guide us.

That "your grand grand parents, or people in that generation had seen Him" does not in anyway prove that he was a manifestation of God (I would take the whole thing as fictitious).

As for Buddha, He is so recent. Alexander came to India just about 150 years after the supposed time of Buddha. So, Buddha stories were still warm.

OT is not about proving Krishna was indeed a Manifestation of God or not. It is about, if a Historical Person by the name Krishna existed who claimed to be a Manifestation of God?!
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?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Krishna, much like Jesus, was probably never a human being as such.
.

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.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think so, personally.

Krishna works perfectly as fictional or symbolic being. Perhaps even more so than Jesus.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

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.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

I don't think so. For example Zoro. He is a fictional person. Does even a single person believe in existence of a historical Zoro? What about spiderman? Do you know if anybody actually believed in his existence? No! What about Krishna? Do you know a people who believe in His existence historically? Of course! Many Hindus have believed Krishna is a historical person. So, no, your argument does not make a fair comparison.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I quote from wikipedia:


According to Guy Beck, "most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna—that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic histories."


"A paper presented in a conference in 2004 by a group of archaeologists, religious scholars and astronomers from Somnath Trust of Gujarat, which was organised at Prabhas Patan, the supposed location of the where Krishna spent his last moments, fixes the death of Sri Krishna on 18 February 3102 BC at the age of 125 years and 7 months."
Krishna - Wikipedia

 

[WalterTrull]

How do I know you exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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!

Ever heared of Scientology?
The lore isn't about some incarnation of God, but it sure is a crazy crazy story.
And I probably don't have to explain to you just how many followers it has around the world and what kind of power the oranization has at its fingertips through those followers.

It's not even a century old. I think it started in the 50s or 60s and really exploded in the 70s and 80s onwards.

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?

We have millions of case of people today, that you can actually go and talk to, that gave up their religious beliefs to take on some other religious belief.

From pretty much any belief to any belief.
Muslims becoming christians.
Christians becoming muslims.
Abrahamisists becoming budhists.
Etc etc.

Why would converting to your particular religion of choice mean anything special?

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?!

For pretty much the same reason as any other person starts believing things religiously I'ld assume.

Personally I'm baffled at why anyone would believe anything religiously.

In any case: believing something is only evidence of believing something. Just because something is believed by some (or many), doesn't make that something correct.

[qutoe]
Now, compare that with for example Bahaullah. None would question His existence[/quote]


I have no idea who that is actually

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?

I don't really care tbh, because it doesn't matter.

For example, I know Julius Ceasar existed. He was a great emperor and brilliant strategist. He was also a human. Eventhough he were declared, and believed to be, a god by romans of his time. He wasn't actually a god though.

It doesn't matter what people merely believe - especially not when it comes to such extra ordinary claims.

No amount of mere words would ever be sufficient to accept such wild claims.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Ever heared of Scientology?
The lore isn't about some incarnation of God, but it sure is a crazy crazy story.
And I probably don't have to explain to you just how many followers it has around the world and what kind of power the oranization has at its fingertips through those followers.

It's not even a century old. I think it started in the 50s or 60s and really exploded in the 70s and 80s onwards.



We have millions of case of people today, that you can actually go and talk to, that gave up their religious beliefs to take on some other religious belief.

From pretty much any belief to any belief.
Muslims becoming christians.
Christians becoming muslims.
Abrahamisists becoming budhists.
Etc etc.

Why would converting to your particular religion of choice mean anything special?




For pretty much the same reason as any other person starts believing things religiously I'ld assume.

Personally I'm baffled at why anyone would believe anything religiously.

In any case: believing something is only evidence of believing something. Just because something is believed by some (or many), doesn't make that something correct.

[
Now, compare that with for example Bahaullah. None would question His existence]


I have no idea who that is actually




I don't really care tbh, because it doesn't matter.

For example, I know Julius Ceasar existed. He was a great emperor and brilliant strategist. He was also a human. Eventhough he were declared, and believed to be, a god by romans of his time. He wasn't actually a god though.

It doesn't matter what people merely believe - especially not when it comes to such extra ordinary claims.

No amount of mere words would ever be sufficient to accept such wild claims.

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.
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?

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't think so. For example Zoro. He is a fictional person. Does even a single person believe in existence of a historical Zoro? What about spiderman? Do you know if anybody actually believed in his existence? No! What about Krishna? Do you know a people who believe in His existence historically? Of course! Many Hindus have believed Krishna is a historical person. So, no, your argument does not make a fair comparison.

What color was Krishna's skin? Did he play the flute to seduce the girls that took care of the cows? Did he or the people around claim he was a manifestation or an incarnation? Are all stories about him historically accurate, or are some fictional?

But what about other characters in Hinduism? Did Rama exist? Did Hanuman exist? What is weird about this is even with Jesus, Baha'is say much that is written about him is fictional, Yet, he is not? Did he walk on water? No, that's symbolic. Did he do the healings? Probably not, they too are probably symbolic. Raise others and himself from the dead? No, symbolic. Which means they did not literal happen. Which means they were fictional. So what is historical and real about any of "The Great Beings" Baha'is talk about?

 

[CG Didymus]

Ever heared of Scientology?
The lore isn't about some incarnation of God, but it sure is a crazy crazy story.

Just because no one knew about this incarnation of God until L. Ron talked about him, doesn't mean he didn't exist. L. Ron, the credible person he is, must have documentary evidence to prove that this person existed. Tom Cruise and Nicklas Cage wouldn't believe some flake would they?

But, let's go back to Joseph Smith. Is the angel Moroni and the Book of Mormon real? Are the golden plates real? I don't think so. I don't know why Baha'is would think so. Yet, it's a pretty darn successful religious movement. Maybe even more successful than the Baha'is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Every case is different, although I don't think any of those that the OP mentions besides Krishna qualifies as an incarnation of God.

OP has a monotheistic view point. He does not understand Hinduism, debates about historicty or non-historicity, as if it makes any difference. Apart from the nine avataras, we have some 24 leelavataras and countless avataras of Vishnu's discuss, his mace, his counch shell, his foot-wear (Prabhupada). Then you have sages who too were avataras of Gods, Sankara of Shiva, for example. Avatara in Hinduism is a way to honor a memory, real or fictitious.

 

[siti]

According to Guy Beck, "most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna—that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic histories."


"A paper presented in a conference in 2004 by a group of archaeologists, religious scholars and astronomers from Somnath Trust of Gujarat, which was organised at Prabhas Patan, the supposed location of the where Krishna spent his last moments, fixes the death of Sri Krishna on 18 February 3102 BC at the age of 125 years and 7 months."

Doesn't this give the lie to your argument though? If there's a span of over 2000 years, according to scholarly opinion, for the time of Krishna's supposed existence, and presumably as long or longer for the writing of stories about him to have accumulated - perhaps from oral traditions that go back even further still...doesn't that suggest that whilst there may have been someone by that name who was an influential person in the field of religion at some point, the accounts about his life, teachings and exploits are not historical but collections of myths?

And as for someone in 5000 years doubting the existence of Baha'u'llah, I think anyone who reads the accounts about his life will not need that long to start doubting the historical accuracy - 5 minutes would be more like it.