Augustine

I've been studying Vaisnava doctrine, so I have some familiarity with the distinctions you're making. The problem from a Christian p.o.v. is that as far as we're concerned, Christ is I guess what you would call the highest, eternal "expansion" of God - the Logos, which in Greek means the word/rationale of God. He has all of the "opulences" of His Father, and is in fact the agency by which all things which are have come into being. Another important distinction, is that while Christianity (at least in it's Orthodox form, as in "Eastern" Orthodox) teaches on the the Divine Energies and that they are eternal, a distinction is made between these energies, God as He is, and the creation. My understanding is that Vaisnavism teaches that all things are fundamentally a part of God, and that souls are eternal (having no beginning, and obviously no end) and are qualitatively (if not quantitatively) equal to the Bhagavan/"Supreme Personality". On the otherhand, Orthodox Christianity teaches that all things (including souls, whether they be those of men or the different classes of angelic spirits) are created, they had a begining, and if they have no end, this will be solely by the will of God. Things continue in existance by the Divine Energies, and the closer they are to God the more they manifest His Personal qualities, but these are distinct from that which is sustained by them and bathed in them. This is why ultimatly the Christian concept of "Incarnation" and the Vedic idea of "avatara", while similar in some important respects, are not indentical. I've seen Krishna devotees here mock the Christian ideal, typically because the Scriptures clearly outline the materiality of Christ's human nature, that He was besides being Divine, truly a man. As far as Christians are concerned however, God "as He is", is uncircumscribed - He is above the categorizations of the temporal world, which would include such things as location, shape, size, etc. Hence why, if God were to take on a visible form, it involves some kind of condescension on His part - whether it be the shaping of Divine energies in a manner perceptable to the senses (this is perhaps close to the Vaisnava idea of avatara - for example, the theophanies talked about in the Old Testament), OR in the case of Christ, the assumption of human nature. For Christians the latter (assumption of humanity/incarnation) has a significance which is overlooked here - namely the sanctification/elevation of humanity. Christ, as a man, overcomes the world, by a humanity infused with Divinity. This in ancient Christian dogma, is the heart of the ascetic struggle/podvig of salvation. Unfortunately, people will keep talking past each other, and will be incapable of engaging in a meaningful debate of ideas, if we're not understanding what the other actually believes.

This was perhaps the best answer I saw here to the original poster's question. Others did not seem to grasp the question. He wasn't looking for sources saying "Krishna is blue", but for the reason, the "why" he is blue. While I'm not an adherant to Vaisnavism, I would (if I were so inclined) offer the following as an answer - the lesser qualities, and characteristics of this physical/temporal world, are a murky reflection of the Deity, Who embodies all such perfections. All things are predicated upon Him. Thus, if in His Personal "form" He were to have what we would call "blue" skin, it's not really He who has skin the same colour as the sky, but the sky which is the same colour as His skin.

That you say this makes me believe you labour under two misunderstandings... 1) A misunderstanding of passages born out of ignorance of their context 2) Ignorance of just how Christians believe Christ is God. Christ is the Logos (Greek...often translated as "Word", but also means "rationale") of God, which means He is consubstantial (of one essence) with God. Hence, "God", Divinity. In more personalistic terminology (which the Bible does not shy away from, since God is intensly "personal", and that is ultimatly how we relate to God) the relationship of this "Logos" is portrayed as that between a Father and a Son. Thus, Christ as "Son of God" is not the denial of Divinity which you portray it to be. This is beside the fact there are passages in the Bible which explicitly state that Christ is in fact God. - He is continually called "Lord", which in the original Greek of the New Testament is "Kyrios", a title only applied in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to the Divinity. - Many explicit passages like the following...

What are your thoughts about Saivite Hindus who believe that Siva = God? For example, the authors behind the following website which seems to be as good a display of modern Savism as I've yet to see on the internet... Hinduism Online

Like Vedanta, you'll find many people saying many different things, even though they all claim to be faithful proponents of said philosophy/doctrine. However, generally only modernistic/liberal Christian groups would claim the Bible is a purely human work. There are two strains of sayings by and about Christ Himself in the Bible, which are only ostensibly contradictory if one does not understand what Christians basically believe about Christ. Christ is both truly God, and truly man. He is not one or the other, but both. As God He is eternal and has the attributes people of various religious traditions would associate with the Divinity. What is harder for some to understand, is the teaching of "kenosis" or "self emptying." To some degree, whenever God has approached His creatures to communicate with them, He has "lowered" Himself, that is to say come with humility in a way more appropriate to our abilities to understand and our limitations. Even the awesome theophanies described in the Bible are in reality examples of God "humbling" Himself for our benefit. In taking upon Himself a human nature and walking amongst men (the Incarnation), we have the ultimate example of this kenosis. Though God, in time Christ was born, felt pain, needed nourishment. Indeed, He even humbeled Himself to the point of even being able to taste death. All of this is for our sake. Hence, when you read passages in the New Testament which upon a superficial reading appear to deny the Divinity of Christ, it is important to read them alongside passages which clearly underline and affirm His Divinity. The point is, that what one is reading in the so called "denial" passages are really manifestations of Christ's humility. I find it particularly interesting/strange that devotees of the Krishna consciousness movement would have problems grasping this, since they themselves assert that the 16th century guru Caitanya was in fact the incarnation of Krishna (who they believe to be God) come as his own devotee.