Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

chandu_69

Members
  • Content Count

    571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by chandu_69


  1.  

    I think the term 'eternal (aionios) life' in Romans 6:23, is an attempt to indicate a state of...blah blah
    The term is αιώνιος in romans 6:23

    αιώνιος is an adjective of αLώνιος.It represnts

    eternal timeless, forever etc..

     

    The term is used to describe god as eternal in Bible(Nt).

     

    αἰώνιον is the term used by Jesus to describe eternal fire.Here is the actual link with Greek

    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.

     

    You are trying to imply something spiritual in bible where as what you see is father son duo scaring the hell outta people.

     

    Father is ready to punish

    Son is ready to save.

     

    Add some thing in between to fill up an otherwise dry and boring narration.


  2.  

    Why do you insist on formal conversion?

     

    Anybody can take shelter of Harinam and such a person becomes a vaishnav.

    Don't care so much about the external designation or religion. Follow the principles of bhakti and you will find happiness automatically.

     

    Yes, in India anybody can convert to Islam, but conversion to Hinduism is very strictly monitored! This is the irony!

     

    He has to consider future consequences for his wife.Try to think before dispensing advice.


  3.  

    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).

     

    True.They(The Vatican) don't want to be seen contradicting Jesus on his explicit statements of Eternal fire in Hell while trying to sound more civilized than islam.

     

     

    Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    "

     

    When The same word aionios(greek) is used to describe Eternal life it should also describe Eternal hell.

     

     

    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.
    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

     

     

    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.
    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.

  4.  

    Dear HariKrishnang,

     

    First I want to warn you about the Muslim position on converting to other religions. The Qur'an states:

     

    "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers ." (3.85)

     

    So the Qur'an makes it pretty clear that no other religions are acceptable to "Allah". The Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) state that anyone who leaves Islam is to be killed. In a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, anyone who leaves Islam is imprisoned, given three days to return to Islam, and if, at the end of the three days they have not re-accepted Islam, they are beheaded. This is in accordance with the Hadith and is taught by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

     

    While this does not apply in India, I would still be wary of stating that your fiancee is a Muslim. I'm sure there are militant Muslim groups in India who may very well kidnap and murder an "apostate from Islam", even though this is against Indian law. So just be careful.

     

    Moving on, Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains the conversion process in his book "How to Become a Hindu". The process involves a ritual called a namakarana samskara or name-giving ceremony, the same ritual performed to newly born children. The prospective convert must first enact formal severance from their former religion (although I don't think that this would be necessary for Islam, given the dangers) and choose a new name. Subramuniyaswami recommends that the name change must be legal and that the convert must use their new name in all walks of life, obtaining new passports, drivers' licences etc. Then a fire sacrifice is performed by a pujari (Hindu priest) and the devotee writes his new name in a tray of uncooked rice.

     

    This person has to be careful in declaring in public about the erstwhile religion of his wife.

     

    The following Islamic site also confirms that Any person leaving islam shall be killed.

    Source of the Punishment for Apostasy - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

     

    The site lists the hadiths.


  5.  

    Let’s agree then that there is much controversy regarding the concept of "hell" in Christianity, even among different Popes..

     

    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.


  6.  

    There are very inspirational portions and some horrific nonsense in the Old Testament for instance.

     

    .... The teachings of Christ Himself is another matter.

     

    How would some body rate the following

    Leveticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

     

    Can you say Christ is another matter if he endorses it?.

     

    It seems Jesus Endorses the Old testament to the dot and specifically Lev 20:9


  7.  

    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?

     

    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.


  8.  

    Who is talking about a lake of fire (Or eternal darkness, for that matter)?
    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.

     

    http://bible.cc/matthew/18-8.htm


  9. Here is a repetition of Vatican's Position on eternal hell.

     

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

     

    Quote

     

    1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

     

     

    1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.

    Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire. . "617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

     

    Unquote...


  10.  

    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

     

    I am not discussing the validity of reincarnation.I am merely saying Bible doesn't support the theory of reincarnation.Plain and simple.

     

    The link you gave describes Augustine's thoughts.There is nothing to suggest that Augustine interpreted Biblical material to support his theory of reincarnation.

     

    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.

     

     

     

     

    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.
    I accepted your correction.What are you complaining at?.

     

     

    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
    .

     

    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.

     

     

    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.
    It was dubbed heretical because Bible didnt say it.Simple.

     

     

     

    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.

     

    "Once to die" ;That is the key phrase.

     

     

    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.
    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.

     

     

     

    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:
    That is a Big lie of yours.Are you suggesting Vatican doesn't represent Roman Catholic Church?.

     

    Are you this dense?

     

     

     

    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.
    You can argue till eternity quoting some Heretics(lol) but the statements of Jesus regarding eternal punishment are not disputed by Vatican.

     

    The Vatican position is " separation from Jesus is a bigger punishment compared to eternal Punishment in hell fire".

     

    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.

     

    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.
    That is an issue you have to take up with Main stream christian scholars and see if this argument of yours is accepted.

     

    Good Luck.


  11.  

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

     

    Two major points here

    1)Reincarnation of Humanbeings

    and

    2) Eternal hell

     

     

    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.

    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.

     

    You have no counter to Hebrews 9:27 that explicitly prohibits reincarnation of human beings.

     

    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 .

     

    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 .

    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.


  12. Load of rubbish

     

     

    Polygamy was the norm till it was abolished by law.

     

    Polygamy was the Norm?.Who told you?.

    The fighting class(kshatriya) have more wives to account for loss of lives in wars.It was not a norm for the general public.

     

     

    . We have also abolished Sati and Child marriages which were part of the Hindu practices.

     

    Sati was not a prescription to be followed.No where in hindu scriptures Sati was recommended.Early marriage for girls was recommended for different reasons altogether.

     

    There are explicit statements in Veda for a widowed women to Get out of grief and get on with her life.

     

     

     

    Scriptures also talk about slavery, human sacrifices and many other practices which were socially acceptable norms when the scriptures were written.

     

    Which scriptures? The Abrahamic scriptures?.

     

    No where in Hindu scriptures Slavery is supported.

     

     

    Polyandry was permitted as per the scriptures.

     

    Polyandry was explicitly prohibited by scriptures.

    There are exceptions like Draupadi.

     

     

    Have you heard of the Deva Dasi system which has been abolished? Scriptures are quoted for that also.

     

    There is no scriptural support for devadasi system to begin with.

     

    Devadasi is a woman dedicated to a diety in a temple and remains Brahmacharini all her life.The system degraded in to exploitation.The much revered Carnatic music singer M.S Subbalakshmi hails from a family of devadasis.

     

     

     

     

    Yagnavalkya talks in detail about conduct of Gambling houses.

     

    So?


  13.  

     

    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

     

    Now this is the easy part.Here is the official position of Vatican.

    Eternal hell: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

     

    Quote

     

    1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

     

     

    1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.

    Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire. . "617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

     

    Unquote...

    My comments//The opinion of the Vatican is that separation from god is a bigger punishment than getting burned in The lake of fire Eternally.Vatican, even for a moment doesn’t deny Eternal punishment for those who refuse to believe in Jesus.//

    The protestants also affirm the idea of eternal punishment in hell.

     

     

    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.. :)
    You keep posting somebody's opinion on this matter.Your opinion is neither supported by the official mainstream christian position nor the Bible.So far you haven't quoted anything from bible that supports your ideas.

    I don't feel particularly happy in pursuing unrealistic ideas:P


  14.  

    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.

     

    We are not talking about beliefs here.This i made it clear several times.

     

    The issue you raised is Krishna is same as christ.

    And i countered that by quoting Jesus wherein he says He is less than his father(Which you agreed).

    Jesus is dependent on His Father(Old testament God) by his own admission ,while Krishna says He is Independent.

     

    This is not about Beliefs of People but about how Jesus and Krishna Describe themselves.

     

    If that doesn't settle the matter for you I have nothing further to add.

     

     

    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?

     

    This is again repetition of what i said earlier.I have no opinion On Jesus's divinity or the lack of one.

     

     

    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.

     

    There is no confusion in the statement of Jesus On eternal punishment.

     

    Jesus’ statements on Everlasting punishment In hell

    This is the fate of people who don’t serve his disciples/apostles(Jesus says he sends them..(details in the chapter matthew 25)

    Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    This particular statement is clear even in original greek.

    The word aionios stands for eternal/everlasting.

    Check the explanation at the bible site:

    Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

     

     

     

    Now, Jesus as Christ avatar has limitations, whereas Krishna avatar has not, as per your conviction

     

    Conviction has no place here.It is all about how Krishna and Jesus explain about themselfes.

     

    The point is Jesus's limitation is set by His father(Matthew 24:36 :But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.) The limitation of Jesus the christ, is applicable even while he is in heaven with Father...End times...

     

    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.


  15.  

    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.

     

    That statement of yours is much clearer.

     

     

     

    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.

     

    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.

     

    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.

     

     

    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).
    I missed that.

     

    But here is another angel that accepts worship.Probably this angel is on a higher plane.

     

    Acts 27:23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve.

     

    Detailed commentary is available on what it means to serve.Acts 27:23 Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me

     

     

    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
    That is right.Jesus is giving a clear demarcation between him and father.

     

     

     

    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.

     

    That is the difference b/n Krishna and Christ.

    Krishna says he is the creator and he knows everything while Jesus makes it clear that he has his own limitations vis-a-vis Father(God).

     

     

    Ultimately everything is consciousness or knowledge. So, any difference between the Father and the Son must be in terms of consciousness or knowledge.
    True.

     

     

    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.
    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.

     

     

    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..
    :)

     

    Melvin changed his opinion.Check his post no 64.

     

     

     

     

    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.
    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.


  16. 2:42-43: Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

    2:44 In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

    2:53 When your mind is no longer disturbed by the flowery language of the Vedas, and when it remains fixed in the trance of self-realization, then you will have attained the divine consciousness.

    The problem is with the person who is bewildered By the flowery language of Vedas.Not the Vedas itself.

     

     

     

    Bhagvat also teaches various material subject and as already been pointed out by someone, would you then become indifferent to Bhagvat puran?

     

     

    The same analogy should apply here.

     


  17. 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.


  18.  

    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.

     

    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.

     

    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.


  19.  

    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."

     

     

    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.

     

     

    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 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)


  20.  

    TRANSLATION BG 4.25

    Some yogīs perfectly worship the demigods by offering different sacrifices to them, and some of them offer sacrffices in the fire of the Supreme Brahman.

     

    That is Fanatic obsession with the word demigod.As pointed out by Jnd earlier those who comment on serious matters in this forum haven't even read the gita in full.

    Continuing with the various scarifices(including 4:25) krishna says

    4:30 All these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed of sinful reactions, and, having tasted the nectar of the results of sacrifices, they advance toward the supreme eternal atmosphere.

    31:O best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never live happily on this planet or in this life: what then of the next?

    32:All these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.

    Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.....

     

    and not by condemning them like the theists of the world.

     

    For the theists of the world chanting is the only way to reach Lord and everything else is mundane and irrelevant contrary to what Krishna says in Gita.

     


  21.  

    Are we to stay celibate always.. even in marriage? Because I don't think I can do this.. Will Krishna not accept me if I have sex within marriage? And If I do have sex in marriage I would practice it with tantra.. Is this OK?? I kind of feel depressed over this..

     

    Here is what i understand from Gita and the iskcon reference given by Mike.

     

    Gita 3:34 There are principles to regulate attachment and aversion pertaining to the

    senses and their objects. One should not come under the control of such attachment and aversion, because they are stumbling blocks on the path of self-realization.

     

    (Aversion to sex with wife could also become a stumbling block in self-realization :ponder:)

     

    Since uncontrollable lust is a stumbling block to self-realization it has to be tamed with intellect(3:40-41).

     

    In 3:36 Arjuna asks about the reason for sinful acts and Krishna says in 3:37 that uncontrolled lust is responsible for sinful activities.

     

    It doesn't appear(for me) that these verses have any bearing on conjugal relationship b/n husband and his wife.


  22.  

    First of all, in comparing Christianity and Vaishnavism/Krishnaism, it’s most relevant what Christianity upholds to be the truth.

     

    True.

     

    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.

     

     

    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.

    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

     

    "One testimony may state: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28), yet in another, the same Lord Jesus Christ exclaims: "My God, my God, why didst"

     

     

    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)

     

    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.

     

    But, 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).

     

     

     

     

    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)

    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.

     

     

    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....
    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 .

×
×
  • Create New...