For more information, see: Kersey Graves and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Richard Carrier
WE have the singular coincidence presented in the histories of several of the Saviors of their lineal descent through a line of kings or princes, and yet commencing their probationary life under the most humble and adverse circumstances — being born in stables, caves, and other inauspicious situations.
The story of their royal blood was calculated to add dignity to their characters, while their humble birth in the midst of poverty, and unmarked by ostentation, would evince their humility, meekness, condescension, and absence of pride, and thus proclaim a lesson of humility and resignation to their disciples and followers.
Here, seems to be plainly indicated the motives for assigning them to such a birth, and such a character.
Christ’s lineal descent, it will be remembered, is professedly traced (though in a very zig-zag, disjointed manner) from the royal house of David. And yet his royal blood did not save him from the most ignoble and ignominious birth, and obscure exordium of his earth life.
A singular story, and yet a similar story, is told of the Indian Savior Chrishna, who was, according to the Rev. Mr. Allen (India, p. 379) of the royal house of Kousa, traced back through many generations. Yet, in order to teach the world a lesson of true humility, and administer a just reprehension to pride, he submitted to be born in a cave, amid the denizens of subterranean abodes. And here let it be noted, the best and most orthodox writers concede that while Christ is said to have born in a manger, that manger was in a cave. Mr. Fleetwood (a very popular Christian writer) testifies in this matter that “the Greek fathers generally agree that the place of Christ’s birth was a cave. (Life of Christ, p. 568.) Then the coincidence in this respect between Christ and Chrishna may be set down as complete.
We have no means of learning how many of the Saviors were of royal blood, as the genealogy of some of them is not given. But those whose lineal descent is furnished us are almost uniformly traced to or evinced as springing from royal parentage, and practical liumility — so far as it can be taught by an unostentatious birth — is a lesson taught by nearly all. Buddha Sakia of Hindostan is directly traced through a royal pedigree.
Speaking on this point, one writer remarks: “Tradition affirms that his mother was betrothed to a rajah, and of course her son belonged to the same royal caste that Chrishna did during his existence on earth.” (Prog. Rel. Ideas, vol, i. 84.)
“The Great Prophet” of Arabia (Mahomet) not only commenced his earthly career in a humble situation, but resembled Christ in having “nowhere to lay his head.” It is said of the Great Prophet, “A cloak spread on the ground served him for a bed, and a skin filled with date leaves was his pillow.” The genealogy of the God Yu (of China) is traced through a line of princes to a very remote origin, while his whole life was a lesson of practical humility, and proclaimed at every step, This is the way; walk ye in it.”