primate

Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D. (Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya), speaks here of the Absolute Truth. Since there can only be one Absolute Truth, his assertion that different religions aim for different Absolute Truths is absurd. A specific religion may be a wrong path, but there is only one Truth (or top of the mountain). Most religions are in search of the one Absolute Truth or God. Jesus also referred to this one universal Truth when he states: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." ( John 14:6-7). I’m quite convinced that the concept of God or Absolute Truth in original Christianity (as rendered in the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the New Testament) also refers to the God or Absolute Truth of Hinduism/Vaishnavism (as rendered in the Vedas). This Absolute Truth is necessary reality. It is personal, eternal and fully independent. It is the one omniscient, omnipotent, panentheistic Godhead; the source and ground of everything. This is the concept of God portrayed in both the Vedas and the Bible. Thus, the Vedas and the Bible are ultimately compatible religious scriptures. If you don’t agree, then just try to imagine what it would mean if it actually is true, i.e., if empirical science would find hard evidence of this universal Truth. Perhaps then you will approach any attempts at unifying Christian doctrine and Hindu doctrine slightly more open minded..

What could possibly be wrong with this statement!?

I think the term 'eternal (aionios) life' in Romans 6:23, is an attempt to indicate a state of being alive that is different from our common understanding of temporary material life, similar to the Vedic notion of a liberated spriritual state of being. Aionios hell means age lasting hell, like the Vedic notion of a (eternally) conditioned material state of being, which can only be ended through God-consciousness. Where does Jesus say that people will be eternally punished or tortured in Gehenna? Does this mean we have an agreement?

Let’s say that it’s clear that the Roman Catholic Church is extremely ambivalent about the ontological status of hell, both in its catechism and in statements of the Vatican such as: Hell as a "state of eternal separation from God", must be understood "symbolically rather than physically". (see post #93). Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." So, the final wages the incorrigible sinful will receive is not eternal punishment in hell, but simply death or cessation of life. Jesus mostly speaks of 'hell' using the word hades (the grave). Gehenna (the unquenchable fire) is mentioned only a few times in the New Testament as the final destruction (not punishment or torture) of those who do not repent and willfully accept God’s merciful love. Anyway, I think I made it clear that I don’t accept that the concept of hell (Gehenna) as a place of eternal punishment by fire is consistent with the (original) New Testament. And I agree with Theist that hell as "a state of eternal separation from God" can be seen as similar to the Vedic notion of being eternally conditioned to material life, which is described clearly as a miserable (damned) state of being, relative to a liberated and purely spiritual state of being (eternal life)..

Isn't that what actually happened? You seem to have missed my point. Most serious religions are not existing outside the Catholic Church (or Christianity). Adherents can attain eternal life. Thus, Christianity is not the only way to God..

Many Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled in precise detail by Jesus of Nazareth. Neither the Jews nor the disciples of Jesus understood at the time that Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, even though at times He told them this was the case. They were looking for a far different Messiah than the one that many prophecies actually described. Astronomer and mathematician Peter Stoner, in his book Science Speaks, offers a mathematical analysis showing that it is impossible that the precise statements about the One to come could be fulfilled in a single person by mere coincidence. The chance of only eight of these dozens of prophecies being fulfilled in the life of one man has been estimated at 1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000. Now, the only remaining question is whether the New Testament is a factual account of the life of Jesus, or a total fabrication or fraud. The most definitive argument in favour of the authenticity of Christian scriptures would be any a priori postulation of one omniscient and omnipotent God. Such a God makes no mistakes. It is virtually inconceivable that such a God would allow a total deception in His name or a chance fulfilment of many prophecies in the life of the wrong person, thus misleading hundreds of millions of Christians. Of course, the same would be true for, e.g., Hinduism, Judaism and Islam. In this respect, Christianity just happens to be the latest rendering of universal religious Truth, which is ultimately fully compatible with all monotheistic religions, including (as I argued in another thread) Hinduism/Vaishnavism. Christianity doesn’t claim to be exclusively true, threatening unbelievers with eternal hell and damnation. This is a relatively recent pagan myth that crept into Christianity, and has no actual place in the New Testament. Even when Jesus Christ stated "no one comes to the Father but through Me", He didn’t say that other religions are ultimately invalid. He just described the universal process of God-realisation through Self-realisation. In fact, Krishna stated exactly the same in the Gita. If through all ages God consistently allowed for such religious deception of the masses in His name, the purpose of it would indeed be inconceivable..

A Christian = A (Gaudiya) Vaishnava, as far as I'm concerned..

Agreed!

(Gaudiya) Vaishnava of course.

BTW, the Vatican position appears to be that both accounts are true, i.e., "hell is a state of eternal separation from God (John Paul II)" and "the fires of hell are real and eternal (Benedict XVI)". The same article that you quoted Pope Benedict XVI from, also states: This means that according to the Vatican, "a state of eternal separation from God" is symbolism for "a real eternal fire". Somehow this doesn’t make sense..

Hindu Puranas have been very clear on the question of heaven and hell. Writers of law-books or Smritis, like Yajnavalkya and Vishnu, have given serious description of the various hells and the various pleasures of heaven. Yogi Yajnavalkya mentions 21 hells in his law book, viz., Raurava, Kumbhipaka, Maharaurava, Tamisra, Andha Tamisra, etc. The author of Vishnu Smriti also has written the same thing. A hell is a region of sharp, severe, intense pain. The evil-doers suffer for a period. Bad action is worked out in that state and then the evil-doers come back to earth-plane. They get another chance. The Ruler of Hell is Lord Yama. He is assisted by Chitragupta. Hell is a particular locality which is walled off from the surrounding regions of space by the messengers of Yama. Sinners get a thick body called Yatana-Deha when they are punished. The punishment in hell is not remembered by the soul when it is reborn. The punishment in hell is reformatory and educative. The permanent educative effect remains in conscience. The innate fear which some souls feel at the sight of temptation of sin is due to the finer development of conscience in the furnace of hell-fire. This is the permanent gain acquired by the soul. The soul is reborn with keener conscience after being purified by hell-fire. He can make better use of his faculties in the next birth. Lord Krishna says in the Gita: Triple is the gate of this hell, destruction of the Self lust, anger and greed; therefore let man renounce these three (XVI-21). You do various wicked deeds when you are under the influence of anger, lust and greed. If you control these three evil Vrittis, you enjoy everlasting peace. Cultivate the opposite virtues: forgiveness, purity and generosity; these evil traits will die by themselves. Lokas Or Planes: Hell Or Naraka

Let’s agree then that there is much controversy regarding the concept of "hell" in Christianity, even among different Popes.. It is a fact, however, that the term "hell" is used as a rendering of the Greek word "hades" or (in the Old Testament) the Hebrew word "sheol", which both simply mean the "grave". A second Greek word, tartaros, which has also been translated into the English word "hell," occurs only once in the New Testament, (II Peter 2:4) and does not refer to humans, but to the restrained condition of fallen angels. Its meaning, translated into English, is "darkness of the material universe," or "dark abyss," or "prison." Finally the term "hell" is used as a translation of "gehenna". This Greek word, as all authorities admit, is derived from the name of the narrow, rocky Valley of Hinnom which lay just outside Jerusalem. It was the place where refuse was constantly burned up. Trash, filth, and the dead bodies of animals and despised criminals were thrown into the fires of gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnom. Ordinarily, everything thrown into this valley was destroyed by fire, completely burned up. Therefore, Christ used "gehenna" to picture the fate of unrepentant sinners, at the final day of judgement, when the dead are resurrected from their graves, and a lake of purifying fire will engulf the Earth. The popular idea of hell as a place where sinners go directly after death to be tormented by fire clearly originated from these mistranslations. In most of the passages of the New Testament where we see the word "hell," the original Greek word is not gehenna but hades. So, according to the Bible when people die they go to the grave and remain in an oblivious state until the end of times. Then they will be judged, and only when they do not repent at that point, they will be completely destroyed in the lake of fire. This is called second death. The idea of an ever-burning "hell" is a pagan myth and superstition. It is merely a fable that has crept into Christianity. God has no desire to torment or to torture anyone. God is love. He created us mortal for our own good. He will condemn no one because of ignorance, and will see to it that every single one will ultimately learn the truth and have a real chance for salvation. But if God granted eternal life to those who persistently rebel and fail to develop righteous character, they would simply bring misery on themselves as well as others for all eternity. Certainly the kindest thing God can do, for all involved, is not to allow such a rebel to continue living. So God will simply put the incorrigibly rebellious to eternal death - not mercilessly torture them forever. What Is Hell?

So tell me, what do you think? And be careful about actually 'wasting bandwidth on this site'..

And I am saying, the Bible does support the theory of reincarnation. Although it doesn’t explicitly state that reincarnation is true, many passages logically imply that reincarnation must be true. Probably there are no explicit statements in the Bible about reincarnation because (as argued) it was considered common knowledge in early Christianity. Worst case scenario is that such statements have been removed from the Bible after the Church banned the teaching of reincarnation as heretical in 553 CE at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. However, that seems unlikely and, in the light of the foregoing, unnecessary. No. These are the views of Ethan Walker III on reincarnation and Christianity, and the teachings of Origen. I don’t know what this means. Anyway, we are not discussing Judaism here. We are discussing Christianity and Vaishnavism. If you accepted my correction, I have nothing to complain. Again, I do not agree. The Bible supports reincarnation by implying reincarnation. All that Hebrews 9:27 states is that you die (once) and then you are judged. It doesn’t say anything about what happens next. Probably, you will reincarnate and live an entire other life and die (once), after which you will (again) be judged, etcetera. Anyway, if Hebrews 9:27 is your hard evidence that reincarnation is not supported by the Bible, then I’m not convinced. I beg your pardon? Are you suggesting that this July 1999 statement of Pope John Paul II is not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican on the ontological status of Christian hell? These are simply not explicitly disputed, because that would be unnecessary. Eternal punishment is understood as a state of separation from God. Exactly! Who is talking about a lake of fire (Or eternal darkness, for that matter)? So, finally you admit that you cannot answer the question how people can "reap what they sow", and/or "live by the sword and die by the sword", without some form of karmic law and reincarnation..

The fact that nobody suggested this before, is not an argument against the validity of the proposition. Actually I’m not the only one who concludes that these verses only make sense in the context of reincarnation, see e.g.: Reincarnation and the Bible; REINCARNATION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY This is the second time that you misrepresent my sayings on this point. I already corrected you in post #75, where I said exactly the same as in post #70. I didn’t state that Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah! The fact that people thought Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah, or any other ancient prophet, indicates that reincarnation of ordinary men was commonly accepted in those days, and it also was implied in Jesus' question. As I stated in my post #68, in the first five hundred years of Christianity, reincarnation was most certainly on the main stage of Christian theology. The idea of hell as some sort of eternal punishment came about after the Church banned the teaching of reincarnation as heretical in 553 CE at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, when it condemned Origen and his teachings, and had to come up with some way to explain how God's justice could possibly work. Hebrews 9:27 (King James Version) "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Thus, after death you will be judged. That’s not incompatible with the notion of reincarnation. So now you agree that this verse actually implies reincarnation! Your subsequent suggestion that this would only be meant for god(s), most certainly cannot have any Biblical support. According to the Bible there is only one God. As I stated in my post #68 Most biblical scholars believe hell to be a symbol of eternal separation from God and God's presence. Pope John Paul II declared that, while Scripture uses the image of place in relation to eternal damnation, what is really involved is a state of self-exclusion from God. The following is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church: Now, as argued in my post #77 This 'state of separation from God' is fully compatible with the Vedic concept of 'mode of ignorance' and the resulting perpetual cycle of material birth and death, which can only be ended by submission to God (or Krishna-consciousness). Vedic literature even speaks of hellish planets where souls that are unwilling to accept God as supreme being reincarnate. Of course it does not. I suggest you reread the argument in post #70, where the symbolism of this and other verses is clearly explained, as well as their ultimate implication of karmic law and reincarnation. Many people obviously do not "reap what they sow" in this life, or "live by the sword and die by the sword" in this life. In order for such claims to be true, some form of karmic law and reincarnation must be true. I don’t see any way around it.

I quoted many instances in the Bible that support my ideas. What exactly do you mean?

This statement of yours tells me that you still don’t quite understand my argument. Christ (or the Son) is God. The Father is also God. In this sense Christ and the Father are One. When the limitations of Jesus Christ avatar are set by the Father, they are set by God. And in this sense they are also set by Christ. I think I made it clear that there really are no ontological differences between Christ and Krishna, and between Jesus Christ avatar and Krishna avatar. Actually, I think the Christian version sounds more logical. How can Krishna avatar be limited, when he sets his own limits? You stubbornly hold on to your own ideas of Christian hell. You’re free to do so. But hell as a place of eternal torment is officially not a part of Christianity. I argued how reincarnation and karmic law can conveniently be an alternative interpretation of your concept of hell, and how this is compatible with both (early) Christianity and Vaishnavism/Hinduism! In conclusion, I suggested a possible unification of Christianity and Vaishnavism. You may have noticed that I needed to explain more ideas and concepts of Vaishnavism within the Christian context, than vice versa. So, I don’t understand your apparent resentment about the whole idea. You (as a Hindu/Vashnava?) should be quite pleased with it..

Well, it can equally be said that if you accept Christianity, then you accept that Jesus is God. Among religious scholars the consensus is that according to Christian scripture Jesus Christ is God. So, either you reject this altogether, or you accept it. There is no middle way. As the renowned Christian writer C.S. Lewis observes: Since you appear to be willing to accept the divinity of Jesus, but not the equality of Christ and God, then what kind of divinity do you have in mind? Are you suggesting that Jesus was a demigod? Here you have a point. Perhaps it helps to know that in certain kinds of Judaism, the death of a righteous man brings forgiveness of many. This may be related to Karmic rule in Hinduism, in which a precise balance between good and bad Karma is maintained. The death of a righteous man could bring about much negative Karma, which must then be compensated by collective positive Karma. This might be the actual mechanism by which the death of Jesus Christ took away the sins of all mankind. But I’m sure you will not accept this. I already argued in post #68 that this popular conception of hell as a place of eternal torment, is based on the practice of ignoring separate Greek words in the English translation of the original Christian texts. Even the Roman Catholic Church nowadays accepts this. The punishment you speak of must be understood as a state of separation from God. This fully agrees with the Vedic concept of 'mode of ignorance' and the resulting (endless) cycle of material birth, sickness and death. In this context, I also argued in posts #68 and #70 that reincarnation was an important part of early Christianity and that references to reincarnation can still be found in the New Testament. So, as far as I’m concerned, this matter is closed. I argued in post #56 and #58 that Christianity does propound a panentheistic or monistic theist concept of God, in which everything is created and maintained by Christ and everything exists in Christ. It’s evident that in this sense Christ is on exactly the same level as Krishna. Now, Jesus as Christ avatar has limitations, whereas Krishna avatar has not, as per your conviction. But there is ground for debate here. According to legend Krishna died because a hunter shot him in the foot after mistaking him for a deer in the woods. And the need to do battle and other descriptions of the Mahabharata epic indicate that Krishna avatar was subject to human limitations: Again, I argued in post #68 and #70 that this view is inconsistent with many passages in the bible that only make sense in the context of reincarnation.

Whether Mary should have been a virgin or not, is beside the point. Anyway, this is still an ongoing debate. The point is, that Matthew accepted Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament. If you accept the gospel of Matthew, you accept that Christ is God. Again, the point is how (in this case) Mark understood the specific situation: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?". To be forgiven by ordinary men, is obviously not the same as being forgiven by God. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Jesus Christ to die on the cross for the sins of all mankind. When John the apostle fell down to worship the angel, the angel refused to accept worship, saying, "You must not do that!...Worship God!" (Revelation 22:8-9). And Jesus is not refusing to accept the title "Good," but rather is questioning the young ruler's motives ("Why are you calling me good?"). And if He is accepting the title "Good" as applicable to Himself - and indeed, elsewhere specifically applies it to Himself - and God alone is "good" in these terms, Jesus is implicitly declaring His own Deity. For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Mark 10:18 Jesus was talking here about knowledge of the end of times. I don’t deny there is a difference between the Father and the Son. In the Christian Trinity, Father and Son are different, but they are both God. Ultimately everything is consciousness or knowledge. So, any difference between the Father and the Son must be in terms of consciousness or knowledge. I already made it clear that the Christian panentheistic concept of God is similar to the Vashnava concept of God. Consequently, if Christ is God and Jesus was His avatar and His Son, then it follows that Christ is Krishna and Jesus is at the same level as Krishna avatar. Let’s take this comparison one step further. Melvin and I more or less agreed in another thread: Brahman is the Father, Vishnu/Krishna is the Son, and Consciousness/Paramatma is the Holy Spirit. So, the difference between the Father and the Son in Christianity, might be similar to the difference between Brahman and Krishna in Vaishnavism.. First of all, I didn’t state that Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah. The fact that people thought Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah, or any other ancient prophet, indicates that reincarnation of ordinary men was commonly accepted in those days, and it also was implied in Jesus' question. Back then, of course, no one suspected that Jesus was in fact an incarnation of God.

Since you do not accept Jesus' explicit statement in Johns Gospel (verse 8:58).., here are some quotes and arguments based on the Gospel of Matthew and Mark, which clearly indicate that also according to these authors, Jesus Christ was God on Earth:

By your logic we can also eat eggs. Commercially available chicken eggs are not vitalized, and 'technically' they are just a product of the chicken 'menstruation-cycle'. So we can eat them without killing an animal..

I was also responding to this issue. And I stated: Jesus Christ and Krishna were both avatars of the same God and both in fact were God, and in this sense it can be said that Christ is Krishna. So, these inconsistencies in the Bible can be solved by adopting the Vedic/Hindu concept of avatar! I also clearly denied and refuted your claim that Jesus Christ never explicitly stated that He was God. So what do you mean when you say: "Since you have not denied the basic and fundamental differences i have pointed out we have nothing more to discuss, i believe."? Agreed. And I’m not an evangelist either. I’m just interested in (spiritual) truth. I already explained in my previous post that this conception of Christian 'hell' is wrong. So why do you repeat it as an argument? I’m not familiar with that translation. It should state: Hebrews 9:27 (King James Version) "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Thus, after death you will be judged. That’s not incompatible with the notion of reincarnation. Actually there are many references in the Bible to reincarnation and pre-existence of the soul. Here are just a few:

First of all, in comparing Christianity and Vaishnavism/Krishnaism, it’s most relevant what Christianity upholds to be the truth. Apart from the question whether Jesus actually claimed to be God in any of his own sayings, Christians believe him to be God. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, but one being. (Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Secondly, the disciples who personally knew and were taught by Jesus, and who then wrote most of the New Testament, are thoroughly consistent with Jesus' statements about Himself. His disciples were monotheistic Jews. For them to agree that Jesus was God, and then to give their lives for this belief, tells us that they had come to see for themselves that the claims Jesus made about Himself were so convincing as to leave no doubt in their minds. Perhaps the boldest claim Jesus made about His identity was the statement, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). Translated into English, His statement may appear or sound confusing. But in the Aramaic or Hebrew language in which He spoke, He was making a claim that immediately led the people to try to stone Him for blasphemy. Jesus was revealing His identity as the actual One whom the Jews knew as God in the Old Testament. He was saying in one breath that He existed before Abraham and that He was the same Being as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Anciently when the great God first revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:13-14, Moses asked Him what His name was. "I AM WHO I AM," was the awesome reply. "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Jesus clearly claimed to be this same Being—the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (verse 15). "I AM" is related to the personal name for God in the Old Testament, the Hebrew name YHWH. When this name appears in our English Bibles, it is commonly rendered using small capital letters as LORD. It is transliterated as "Jehovah" in some Bible versions. When Jesus made this startling statement, the Jews knew exactly what He meant. They picked up stones to kill Him because they thought He was guilty of blasphemy. (Who—and What—Was Jesus Christ? > Jesus Christ: The Real Story) I think this is a different discussion. And most Christians don’t believe in the concept of Hell, being an actual place of eternal torment: The Christian doctrine of hell derives from the teaching of the New Testament, where hell is typically described using the Greek words Tartarus or Hades or the Hebrew word Gehenna. These three terms have different meanings and must be recognized. Tartarus occurs only once in the New Testament in II Peter 2:4 and is translated as a place of incarceration of demons. It mentions nothing about human souls being sent there in the afterlife. Hades has similarities to the Old Testament term, Sheol as "the place of the dead", or in other words, the grave. Thus, it is used in reference to both the righteous and the wicked, since both wind up there eventually. Gehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed. Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection. Hell is taught as the final destiny of those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior (Hell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Most biblical scholars believe hell to be a symbol of eternal separation from God and God's presence. Pope John Paul II declared that, while Scripture uses the image of place in relation to eternal damnation, what is really involved is a state of self-exclusion from God. In the words of Pope John Paul II, "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy". (Hell in Christian beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) It’s also interesting to note that in the first five hundred years of Christianity, reincarnation was most certainly on the main stage of Christian theology. The idea of Hell as some sort of eternal punishment came about after the Church banned the teaching of reincarnation as heretical in 553 CE at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, when it condemned Origen and his teachings, and had to come up with some way to explain how God's justice could possibly work. (REINCARNATION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY)

I don't see how this solves any contradictions. Actually, all the gospels were written after Jesus died. The earliest one was the gospel of Mark, which is thought to be written at the earliest after 70 AD. Moreover, the entire Christian Bible is believed to be the word of God himself, just like Vedic scriptures are believed to be the word of God. Furthermore, I don't believe Jesus' crying out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", is really contradicting his being one with God. Jesus had to suffer like any other flesh and blood human being. Only the true terror, despair and shed blood of God himself could erase all sins of mankind. Likewise, the fact that Jesus "was sent", can be seen as part of his being human. So, your argument in your post #59 doesn't hold. I don't see how your post #53 (about hell) is relevant. Do you agree then that Jesus Christ and Krishna were avatars of the same God and that both in fact were God, and that in this sense it can be said that Christ is Krishna? This - in combination with the monistic theistic concept of God in Christianity (see my post #57 and #58) - would mean that Christianity and Vaishnavism are remarkably compatible religious philosophies..