primate
-
Content Count
553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by primate
-
-
...
Do you know any Vaishnav guru in India who would dare say a thing like that?
...
What could possibly be wrong with this statement!?
Even when Jesus Christ said, "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.
-
The Greek noun “aion” literally means “an age” or “an indeterminate period of time.” Hebrews 1:2 tells us that “God made the ages,” and the Apostle Paul tells us that there was a state of existence BEFORE the ages (1 Cor. 2:7) and that the ages will END. (1 Cor. 10:11) Clearly, if something begins and ends, it cannot be unending.
The adjective “aionios” comes from the noun “aion” and means “age-abiding” or “age-lasting.” It is a common rule of language that an adjective can have no more force than the noun from which it is derived. For example, if I say that my grandfather is my elder, I mean to say that he is older than myself, and therefore, is to be respected. However, if I change this noun to its adjective form, this, in no way, changes the meaning of the word. By using the word elderly, I am still saying that my grandfather is old. It’s the same meaning—all that has changed is the form. The same is true with “aionios.” If “aion” (the noun) means “an indeterminate period of time” then it goes to follow that “aionios” (the adjective) will also have the same basic meaning.
This adjective is never found until the writings of Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) who only used the word five times, and while he did use this word in the context of eternity, he never used it by itself to mean such. Why? Because the word, in and of itself does not mean “eternity.” Whenever he wanted to convey the idea of eternity, he always combined a stronger forced word with it (such as “aidios”), but not once did he ever use “aionios” by itself to mean “endless.” However, both Plato and Aristotle did use the word “aionios” by itself to mean temporary.
Matthew 25:46 - “Aionian” or “Eternal”
The entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on a single verse of Scripture--Matthew 25:46. This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together and only in some Bibles. There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of "eternal punishment" on ANY of their pages, NOR the pagan concept of Hell.
...
The noun "aion" in Greek literature has always meant "an indeterminate period of time. It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a fish (three days or nights), the length of a man's life, or as long as a very long age.
"Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language
The verbal pivot on which swings the question, Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Endless Punishment? Is the word Aión and its derivatives and reduplications. The author of this treatise has endeavored to put within brief compass the essential facts pertaining to the history and use of the word, and he thinks he has conclusively shown that it affords no support whatever to the erroneous doctrine. It will generally be conceded that the tenet referred to is not contained in the Scriptures if the meaning of endless duration does not reside in the controverted word. The reader is implored to examine the evidence presented, as the author trusts it has been collected, with a sincere desire to learn the truth.
… (1) the fulfillment of the language in this life, (2) the meaning of aiónion, (3) and the meaning of kolasis, demonstrate that the penalty threatened in Matt. 25:46, is a limited one. It is a threefold cord that human skill cannot break. Prof. Tayler Lewis thus translates Matt. 25:46. "These shall go away into the punishment (the restraint, imprisonment,) of the world to come, and those into the life of the world to come." And he says, "that is all that we can etymologically or exegetically make of the word [aiónion] in this passage."
An argument was introduced by Augustine, and since his day incessantly repeated, that if aionios kolasis does not mean "endless punishment," then there is no security for the believer that aionios zoe means "endless life," and that he will enjoy the promise of endless happiness. But Matt. 25:46 shows the "eonian chastisement" and "eonian life" are of the same duration-lasting during the eons, and when the eons end, as Scripture states they will (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26), the time called "eonian" is past and the life called "eonian" is finished, but life continues beyond the eons, as Paul teaches at 1 Cor. 15:26: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." That is, the last, the final one in order. How will it be destroyed? First Corinthians 15:22 gives the answer: "For as IN ADAM ALL are dying, even so IN CHRIST ALL shall be made alive." Death is destroyed when ALL have been vivified, or made alive, IN CHRIST. There will then be no more death. Just as life is destroyed by death, so death is destroyed by life. Our present bodies are mortal and corruptible (1 Cor. 15:44-55), but when mankind is made alive IN CHRIST they will be raised immortal and incorruptible.
-
When The same word aionios(greek) is used to describe Eternal life it should also describe Eternal hell.
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.
That is an opinion which is not supported by Jesus explicit words.It is no wonder Vatican tries unsuccessfully to give spin while not explicitly disowning jesus's statements
Where does Jesus say that people will be eternally punished or tortured in Gehenna?
A good number ordinary Christians(not the Evangelical types who tries to scare people and convert) are coming around to that view but the official church cannot take that position as evidenced by their doctrinal stance.
Does this mean we have an agreement?
-
Not exactly.Pope John paul 2 expressed his desire that Hell be described differently then what is proclaimed by Jesus.The official Church represented By respective denominations of catholics, protestants, Southern Baptists etc Affirm that punishment in Hell is real and eternal for those who don't accept Jesus as Savior.
Only a small minority of christians like seventh day adventists reject Eternal hell.
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)..
-
… and bring all the Jews back to Israel … Jesus never did any of that.
Isn't that what actually happened?
"The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church ... can have eternal life." --Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino 1441 A.D., Ex cathedra.
So the teaching that Christianity is the only way to God is not new - it has a Biblical basis and it was formally defined as early as 1302 (that's what I've been able to find).
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..
-
Thank you master Thiest & Master Primate.But you have answered my request in phlisophical terms.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I am referring to the following types of persons that I want to approach to press upon them topics from the Vedic POV:
Dear Mayor of the City,
I am a "_________" so, accordingly I am expressing my views as based on the Vedas of ancient India . . .
or,
Dear Congress member, or,
Dear Television News Person, or,
Dear Local Council member, or,
Dear Police Chief member, or,
I'm seeking a secular [non-sectarian] nomenclature for a non-accredited Scholar/activist/self-motivated spokesman of societal Issues from the Vedic POV ---without the stumbling-blocks of disparagement by the secular party that I will be approaching.
If I explain Important issues [in a comprehensible & competant way] I do not want to be ignored because I am precieved as a religionist-propagandist ---even before I am given a listening audience.
A Christian = A (Gaudiya) Vaishnava, as far as I'm concerned..
-
Primate,I take eternal fire to refer to material desires. Eternal damnation is to be eternally afflicted by these incessant desires driving us deeper into madness while never finding any satisfaction.
Eternal damnation then can be seen as synonomous with "eternally conditioned" for to be condition to material life is clearly a damned state of being.
What the Popes or other Christians think it means may be something quite different.
I am convinced one cannot make much sense philosophically of the Bible until one has read Vaisnava literature, and then it just opens up.
Agreed!
-
SEEKING ADVISE:If I present myself to the public media [ie: Tele, Newsprint, Radio] to debate topics like 'Cow-protection', 'Vegetarianism', 'Meditation', 'Yoga' etc:
How should I (I am an Iskcon Hare Krishna Devotee) present myself?
Do I say, 'I am an Orthodox-Hindu'?
Which Title is the least denominational --yet presumably accepted as authentic? Keep in mind that I would assume that I would be heavy-handed and unbending and thus old-school Orthodox.
Please advise.
(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:
Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in "straightfoward" language "like a parish priest". He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a "state of eternal separation from God", to be understood "symbolically rather than physically".
The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns - Times Online
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.
-
That is correct.The vatican apparently doesn't approve the "personal opinion" of Pope john paul 11 as evident from the webpage link i gave above in post 86.The present Pope also disagrees with Pope john paul 11.
The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns
The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns - Times Online
Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.
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.
-
Jesus, Apparently.You are unnecessarily wasting bandwidth $$ of this site.I have already posted this and the vatican affirmation twice.
Matthew 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Most biblical scholars believe this to be a symbol of eternal separation from God and God's presence. The book of Revelation contains the image of a "lake of fire" and "burning sulphur" where "the devil, the beast, and false prophets" will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Revelation 20:10) along with those who worship the beast or receive its mark (Revelation 14:11).
The New Testament also uses the Greek word hades, usually to refer to the temporary abode of the dead (eg. Acts 2:31; Revelation 20:13). Only one passage describes hades as a place of torment, the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus here depicts a wicked man suffering fiery torment in hades, which is contrasted with the bosom of Abraham, and explains that it is impossible to cross over from one location to the other. Some scholars believe that this parable reflects the intertestamental Jewish view of hades (or sheol) as containing separate divisions for the wicked and righteous. In Revelation 20:13-14 hades is itself thrown into the "lake of fire" after being emptied of the dead.
Hell in Christian beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So tell me, what do you think? And be careful about actually 'wasting bandwidth on this site'..
-
I am not discussing the validity of reincarnation.I am merely saying Bible doesn't support the theory of reincarnation.Plain and simple.
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.
The link you gave describes Augustine's thoughts.There is nothing to suggest that Augustine interpreted Biblical material to support his theory of reincarnation.
No. These are the views of Ethan Walker III on reincarnation and Christianity, and the teachings of Origen.
I would address the first verse Deuteronomy. 18:10-11, NIV
"who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead".
One should know a bit about Judaism to understand this verse.
Judaism says The spirit of the dead persons is alive awaiting Judgment day.This doesnt suggest that the dead are going to reappear in bodies.
I don’t know what this means. Anyway, we are not discussing Judaism here. We are discussing Christianity and Vaishnavism.
I accepted your correction.What are you complaining at?.
If you accepted my correction, I have nothing to complain.
Not at Main centre stage.There are only few people who suggested reincarnation.And that suggestion was shotdown by Majority because it doesnt have Biblical support.
Reincarnation is a topic of far reaching Implications and if the Bible(Old and new) wants to take a stand it will say clearly in no uncertain terms.Augustine didn't use biblical material to suggest reincarnation.He was only trying to rationalize "God is Good" doctrine.
It was dubbed heretical because Bible didnt say it.Simple.
Again, I do not agree. The Bible supports reincarnation by implying reincarnation.
"Once to die" ;That is the key phrase.
But there is also Jesus, Elijah: the sons of god and holy spirits....
Holy spirits appear at the bidding of God(As per bible).Holy spirits appearance and disappearance is as per wishes of god.
Not a single instance in entire Bible about Human beings taking rebirth.
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.
That is a Big lie of yours.Are you suggesting Vatican doesn't represent Roman Catholic Church?.
Are you this dense?
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?
You can argue till eternity quoting some Heretics(lol) but the statements of Jesus regarding eternal punishment are not disputed by Vatican.
These are simply not explicitly disputed, because that would be unnecessary. Eternal punishment is understood as a state of separation from God.
The Vatican position is " separation from Jesus is a bigger punishment compared to eternal Punishment in hell fire".
Exactly!
Btw, "perpetual cycle of material birth and death" is not same as Burning in lake of fire.Many people would like to relive their Lives if there is a chance.I dont think there is anybody who loves to get burned in a lake of fire.
Who is talking about a lake of fire (Or eternal darkness, for that matter)?
That is an issue you have to take up with Main stream christian scholars and see if this argument of yours is accepted.
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..
-
1)Reincarnation:You said in Post 70 That Matt. 16:13-14 and Matt:26:52 make sense if only reincarnation is taken into account.There might be plenty of Biblical quotes which may not make sense at first glance but nobody suggested to use ideas from Hinduism.
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
Later you said in post 75 "people thought that Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah" and "commonly accepted by people of those days".This assertion of yours has no biblical support.
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.
You have no counter to Hebrews 9:27 that explicitly prohibits reincarnation of human beings.
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.
In post 68 you mentioned Exodus 3:13-14 supporting reincarnation but it is meant for god/god(s)/Holy spirits and not for human beings .
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.
2)Coming to "eternal hell" your argument about faulty translation and "main stream Christianity" opinion with regards to "eternal hell" are thoroughly debunked with biblical quotes in post 78 and Vatican’s explanation in post 80 .
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:
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. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell' (n. 1033). (John Paul II, General Audience of 21 July 1999)
Catholic Culture : Library : Hell Is the State of Those Who Reject God
Hell in Christian beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Your claim that Exod. 21:24-25 which advocates an eye for an eye is similar to law of karma is unsustainable as Karmic law is not Implemented by human beings but they suffer the consequences of their actions(Karma); whereas Exod. 21:24-25 suggests explicit human action of retaliation /reparation.
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.
-
...
So far you haven't quoted anything from bible that supports your ideas.
...
I quoted many instances in the Bible that support my ideas. What exactly do you mean?
-
...
The limitations of Krishna on earth is set By krishna himself.Krishna is Bound by his own rules while Jesus is bound by the rules of Father.
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..
-
That statement of yours is much clearer.
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:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher
…
You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to" (Mere Christianity, p. 56).
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?
Now, that is completely different from what Hinduism teaches.That God has to die for the sins of Humans has no place in hinduism in general or vaishnavism in particular.So, any parallels drawn b/n christianity and hinduism is spurious and invalid.
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.
And the most important point i keep mentioning is the Punishment for unbelief, which you try to duck by saying that eternal punishment doesnt exist.That eternal punishment exists for unbeleif is directly evident from jesus sayings.
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.
You are contradicting your self after a few lines.You agreed that Jesus has limitations(By his own admission) while krishna was explicit that he is not bound by any limitations.
Btw, panentheism has no place in mainstream christianity or it's root, Judaism.
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:
According to Mahabarata Drona Parva (182.41-43), Krishna , incarnate God, loses sleep over the threat to Arjuna’s life. He worries, as any other human being would do, over the possible death of his best friend, the man whom he loves above all else. He worries that he might fail in the mission he has set for himself. And worrying, he says: “I do not think it is so important to save my father, nor my mother, nor you my brothers, nor even my own life, as it is to save Arjuna in this war.”
What we see here is the distress, the torment that only a human being can feel – and not God. And the intense relief only a human being can feel when a terrible calamity has been averted on the brink of its happening. God does not lose sleep over the death of a mortal. God does not dance for joy when that mortal is pulled out from the jaws of death. Only a human being does. And if it is God who does these, it is God who has come under the limitations of being born a human being.
No, it indicates that common man's perception about God's prophets/messengers/spirits.
The bible in no uncertain terms denies reincarnation.
I have nothing more to add.
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.
-
The Jewish Scholars say Matthew was reading a faulty Greek Translation of Isaiah 7:14 .According to Them there was no mention of Virgin in Original Hebrew bible.
Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since i have no knowledge of Hebrew i have nothing more to add.
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.
Jesus also says man can ask forgiveness for sins of fellow men from god.
Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Matthew 6:15: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
He also says in above verses it is easier FOR MEN to forgive sins(of fellow men)
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.
It appears form bible that Angels are also worshipped.
Revelation 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things.
No explicit statement from Jesus that he is God(while he was On earth).
Jesus was slightly more clear when he says It is Only god who is Good.
Mark 10:18:And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
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
And then Jesus says It is only Father(God) who knows Every thing
Matthew 24:36 :But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
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..
Hebrews 9:27 (King James Version)
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
I mistakenly Posted the explanation given.
The verse clearly prohibits Reincarnation.With regards to Elijah, john etc they are exceptions if your interpretation that Jesus is reincarnation elijah etc is valid.
No reincarnation is mentioned for ordinary Men.
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.
-
...
when you make a sweeping statement that christ is nothing but Krishna you should back up with an explicit statement from Jesus (while he was alive).
...
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:
The first Gospel writer, Matthew, opens with the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. Matthew comments on this miraculous event with the quote from Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which is translated, God with us" (Matthew 1:23). Matthew is making it clear that he understands that this child is God; "God with us."
Jesus claimed authority to forgive sins, an authority that belonged to God only. The LORD (YHWH) is the One pictured in the Old Testament who forgives sin (Jeremiah 31:34).When Jesus healed one paralyzed man, He also said to him, "Son, your sins are forgiven you" (Mark 2:5). The scribes who heard this reasoned He was blaspheming, because, as they rightly understood and asked, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (verses 6-7). Responding to the scribes, Jesus said: "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts?...But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (verses 8-10).
Jesus received worship on many occasions without forbidding such acts. The first and second of the Ten Commandments forbid worship of anyone or anything other than God (Exodus 20:2-5). Yet Jesus accepted worship and did not rebuke those who chose to kneel before Him and worship. A leper worshipped Him (Matthew 8:2). A ruler worshipped Him with his plea to raise his daughter from the dead (Matthew 9:18). When Jesus had stilled the storm, those in the boat worshipped Him as the Son of God (Matthew 14:33). A Canaanite woman worshipped Him (Matthew 15:25). When Jesus met the women who came to His tomb after His resurrection, they worshipped Him, as did His apostles (Matthew 28:9, 17). The demon-possessed man of the Gadarenes, "when He saw Jesus from afar ...ran and worshipped Him" (Mark 5:6).
Who—and What—Was Jesus Christ? > Jesus Christ: The Real Story
-
...
Drinking milk is NOT equal to slaughter.
It is quite the contrary.
We can live WITHOUT having to slaughter ANY animals. This is the essence of society where cow protection is given utmost importance and priority.
...
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..
-
But it is not me who made the comparison and declared Krishna is Christ(jesus).I merely pointed out the Fundamental differences that makes your assertion invalid.Since you have not denied the the basic and fundamental differences i have pointed out we have nothing more to discuss, i believe.
As i said before i have no intention to establish the divinity or the lack of it, of Jesus.I was merely responding to your statement in post number 60 about inconsistencies in bible
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."?
Once again i have no problem with beliefs of people as long as they don't hurt others.I am not an evangelist out to convert people.
Agreed. And I’m not an evangelist either.
I’m just interested in (spiritual) truth. The description of hell in Bible(new testament) are graphic and descriptive.We already had this discussion before and the specific quotes from bible are listed at What the Bible Says About Hell | Bible.org.
I already explained in my previous post that this conception of Christian 'hell' is wrong. So why do you repeat it as an argument?
Could be ; but Jesus didn't say anything about reincarnation or suggested anything to that effect.
Reincarnation is explicitly denied in Bible(NT)
Hebrews 9:27 Everyone has only one life in which to determine their destiny .
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 the above Bible passage Jesus actually asks his disciples the identity of the person he was in a past life. Notice that the disciples knew exactly what Jesus was talking about and their answer to Jesus referred to people who died a very long time ago. Notice also that there is no Bible passage that shows Jesus refuting the concept of reincarnation whenever the concept is brought up. Instead Jesus teaches reincarnation.
Common sense should tell us that everyone who lives by the sword (a life of crime for example) do not always die by the sword. A vast multitude of people throughout history have gotten away with their crimes. In fact, this is another apparent injustice that some people even use to deny the very existence of God. This statement from Jesus is completely absurd and ignorant unless reincarnation is true. For the divine justice that Jesus refers to as being true, people who don't pay for their sins in their life must pay for them in a future life.
This law of divine justice is also found in the Old Testament:
This law of divine justice is practically a universal religious concept. In eastern religions, this law of divine justice is known as karma. This law of divine justice is equal to the concept of reincarnation. This law of living by the sword and dying by the sword is the principle of reincarnation. In other words, this law of divine justice is the law of reincarnation.
-
Gospel of John was written after Jesus death claiming to be revelations from Jesus.Most of Mark and Matthew writings were the saying's of Jesus while he was alive.In those writings Jesus never claimed to be god.
If he did, please point out.
Don't you think Jesus words are more authentic then other people words?.(response to:entire Christian Bible being word's of god)
The contrast is Plain and obvious .Krishna Claims to be God In Gita whereas Jesus claims to be dependent on Father and is doing his Father's bidding.
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)
No, and it is explained clearly in post 53 and it's preceding posts.Eternal punishment in hell for unbelief as described in Christianity is not compatible with Hinduism.
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.
-
I have countered that Point in posts 53 and 59.I have no issues with divinity of Jesus.I was pointing out the apparent contradictions you mentioned.The contradictions can be resolved
when you separate what Jesus said while he was alive and what The apostles added after his death.Gospel written by John is after the death of Jesus and the Hebrews you mentioned are obviously not Jesus's sayings.
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.
In Hinduism the concept of Avatar is established Much before the arrival of Krishna.So, there is no dichotomy as far as Hinduism is concerned.
The Jews have an issue about Jesus being the son of god.But, that is an altogether different matter which has to be resolved B/n the Jewish and christian people.
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..
Sita Ram Goel on Jesus
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
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..