Bhakta Don Muntean

I am a victim of this invasive technology Read my story at my protest blog: http://www.dental_spy_implants.blog.ca Here is an actual X-RAY of the implant:

These are transcendental pics! The deep mellow in H.H. Jayapataka's face is almost as mesmerizing - as that of the Lord! I was wondering if anyone could mention what the red substance is that is all over the deities in this bathing? Just so deluded people don't think it is blood! BDM

I am present in every living entity as the Supersoul. If someone neglects or disregards that Supersoul everywhere and engages himself in the worship of the Deity in the temple, that is simply imitation. [sB 3.29.21] I think that this is the text "Guest" was mentioning...

I will reply...

Quote: "inconceivably simultaneously different from and non-different from Krishna" Reply: "...Everything is simultaneously one with and different from everything else. The cosmic manifestation created by the Supreme Lord by His material energy is also simultaneously different and nondifferent from Him..." [sB 3.28.31] This acintya-bhedabheda-tattva is not evidence that the - gods are aspects of Krishna - they are aspects of Krishna by respresentation only - not by oneness of identity. We are given this insight by Mahaprabhu - because we need to see how God is everything yet still an individual himself - without being an impersonalist. As the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, always rests in ethereal space know that in the same manner all beings rest in Me. [bG 9.6] All states of being—be they of goodness, passion or ignorance—are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything—but I am independant. I am not under the modes of this material nature. [bG 7.12] “I am situated in the material world, and the world rests in Me. But at the same time I am not situated in the material world, nor does it rest in Me in truth. [C.C., Adi 5.89] And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. [bG 9.5] The Lord, as Supersoul, pervades all things, just as fire permeates wood, and so He appears to be of many varieties, though He is the absolute one without a second. [sB 1.2.32] I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedänta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. [bG 15.15] Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto He who is the associate of the members of the Yadu dynasty and who is always a problem for the nondevotees. He is the supreme enjoyer of both the material and spiritual worlds, yet He enjoys His own abode in the spiritual sky. There is no one equal to Him because His transcendental opulence is immeasurable. [sB 2.4.14] For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me. [bG 6.30] The Blessed Lord said: He whose mind is fixed on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect. [bG 12.2] This present form, or any transcendental form expanded by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, is equally auspicious for all the universes. Since You have manifested this eternal personal form upon whom Your devotees meditate, I therefore offer my respectful obeisances unto You. Those who are destined to be dispatched to the path of hell neglect Your personal form because of speculating on material topics. [sB 3.9.4] We cannot let pantheism become our interpretation of Mahaprabhu's acintya-bhedabheda-tattva: ...There is an identity of this world with the Supreme Lord. This identity is accepted in a misconceived way by the impersonalists; they say that the Supreme Absolute Truth, transforming Himself into the universe, loses His separate existence. Thus they accept the world and everything in it to be the Lord. That is pantheism, wherein everything is considered to be the Lord. This is the view of the impersonalist. But those who are personal devotees of the Lord take everything to be the property of the Supreme Lord. Everything, whatever we see, is the manifestation of the Supreme Lord; therefore, everything should be engaged in the service of the Lord. This is oneness. The difference between the impersonalist and the personalist is that the impersonalist does not accept the separate existence of the Lord, but the personalist accepts the Lord; he understands that although He distributes Himself in so many ways, He has His separate personal existence...the impersonal or pantheistic view that everything is God is not a very intelligent proposal... [sB 3.21.31, purport]

Hari Bol gHari: Cool - gee - I would have never figured that out! [LOL] I'll have to see that movie [not sure I haven't seen it already - would have been too long ago - I don't recall that scene] - might be good for a laugh? I hope I didn't offend Prabhupada - or you! "I'm too old for words" You're never that old!! Have a great day!!

One last word on this "Zohar": "...The first attack upon the accepted authorship of the Zohar was made by Elijah Delmedigo. Without expressing any opinion as to the real author of the work, he endeavored to show, in his "Bechinat ha-Dat" that it could not be attributed to Simeon ben Yohai. The objections were that: if the Zohar was the work of Simeon ben Yohai, it would have been mentioned by the Talmud, as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period; the Zohar contains names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of Simeon; were Simeon ben Yohai the father of the Kabbalah, knowing by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his decisions on Jewish law would have been adopted by the Talmud; but this has not been done; were the Kabbalah a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts ("Bechinat ha-Dat" ed. Vienna, 1833, p. 43). These arguments and others of the same kind were used by Leon of Modena in his "Ari Nohem". A work devoted to the criticism of the Zohar was written, "Miṭpaḥat Sefarim," by Jacob Emden, who, waging war against the remaining adherents of the Sabbatai Zevi movement, endeavored to show that the book on which Zevi based his doctrines was a forgery. Emden demonstrates that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture; misunderstands the Talmud; contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities; mentions the crusades against the Muslims (who did not exist in the second century); uses the expression "esnoga", which is a Portuguese corruption of "synagogue,"; and gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were not introduced until long after the Talmudic period... The Zohar was censured by many rabbis because it propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose over-heated imaginations peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad influences. Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation of Judaism principles of faith..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar That is enough for me to form my opinion of its [lack of a] place in real Torah and Talmud discussion.

I think I get it now - Prabhupada is the "Reverend Harry" - and of course the subject matter is unwanted things? BDM

It is a very good question - but since Blaspheming = Uttering obscenities there is no doubt their faith is not humble and genuine - even if they do not accept - they do not need to become nasty. When they are like that they are demons - I bet if we could see their lives - Krishna's words would cinch it: ...Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes perform sacrifices in name only without following any rules or regulations.... [bG 16.17] ...Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them.... [bG 16.7] No - that kind of religious person has an ignorant pride that prevents his seeing God - anywhere. His constant faith bashing has something to do with some inane need to obsessively repeat a twisted continual re-validation of his dogma - thus – to prop-up his own beliefs within his heart - he thus tears down the faith of all those ‘unsaved’ who may be around him – for him it isn’t enough to be saved – but you better be in his church too. These people are lost and pretty much a waste of time. Notwithstanding - there are those Christians - who do not accept Krishna – but who also do not decry him – as you may appreciate - their position is naturally different than these ‘extremist types’ you’ve mentioned. Yer servant,

gHari, Not sure who you mean - which thread? http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/hinduism/101051/0/collapsed/5/o/1 This last post of yours on this thread is all I found. What do you mean - I am a little slow here - is this humor? Yer servant,

It must be noted that despite the fact that Jesus isn’t the messiah that the Hebrews were/are expecting – does not render the tradition of Christianity or the faith of Christians invalid. Some of what has Prabhupada says about Jesus: …Jesus Christ and Muhammad, two powerful devotees of the Lord, have done tremendous service on behalf of the Lord on the surface of the globe…. [sB 2.4.18, purport] …A devotee or saintly person should not be dreadful to others, nor should anyone be a source of dread to him. If one treats others with nonenmity, then no one will become his enemy. There is the example, however, of Jesus Christ, who had enemies, and they crucified him. The demonic are always present, and they find fault even in saintly persons. But a saintly person never becomes angry, even if there is very great provocation.… [sB 4.11.32, purport] …Lord Jesus Christ even tolerated crucifixion… [sB 6.5.44, purport] …Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura gives the following commentary on this verse. In the Western countries, Christians believe that Lord Jesus Christ, their spiritual master, appeared in order to eradicate all the sins of his disciples. To this end, Lord Jesus Christ appeared and disappeared…Lord Jesus Christ certainly finished the sinful reactions of his followers by his mercy, but that does not mean he completely delivered them from the pangs of material existence. A person may be relieved from sins once, but it is a practice among Christians to confess sins and yet commit them again. By getting freed from sins and again engaging in them, one cannot attain freedom from the pangs of material existence. A diseased person may go to a physician for relief, but after he leaves the hospital he may again be infected due to his unclean habits.… [C.C. Madhya 16.163, purport] …Jesus Christ took all the sinful reactions of the people and sacrificed his life. That is the responsibility of a spiritual master.… [Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 6] …Bob: Prabhupada, people that engage in religions, like these “Jesus freaks” and other people, claim that Jesus is guiding them. Can this be so? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, but they are not taking the guidance. … [Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 9] …Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get liberation. But it is very hard to find a man who is actually being guided by Jesus Christ.… [Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 9] …If Jesus Christ were an ordinary man, then he could not have delivered God consciousness.… [sSR, 4] …As Lord Jesus Christ said, we should hate the sin, not the sinner. That is a very nice statement, because the sinner is under illusion. He is mad. If we hate him, how can we deliver him? Therefore, those who are advanced devotees, who are really servants of God, do not hate anyone.… [Path of Perfection, 3] …Bhakti-yoga means connecting ourselves with Krsna, God, and becoming His eternal associates. Bhakti-yoga cannot be applied to any other objective; therefore in Buddhism, for instance, there is no bhakti-yoga, because they do not recognize the Supreme Lord existing as the supreme objective. Christians, however, practice bhakti-yoga when they worship Jesus Christ, because they are accepting him as the son of God and are therefore accepting God. Unless one accepts God, there is no question of bhakti-yoga. Christianity, therefore, is also a form of Vaisnavism, because God is recognized. Nonetheless, there are different stages of God realization.… [Path of Perfection, 8] … Christians believe that through His crucifixion Lord Jesus Christ assimilated all the sinful activities of the world’s people. A devotee of the Lord is always thinking of how to assimilate the sufferings of others… [MG, 3] … When the individual soul is specially empowered by the Supreme Soul, that is called avesa. He can act almost like God. We accept, according to this avesa, avesa-avatara incarnation, authorized incarnation, we accept, my Guru Maharaja accepted Lord Jesus Christ and Hazrat Muhammad, this avesa incarnation, almost the same power.… [Lecture 12/13/66] These quotes are about the person of Jesus – not so much about his followers. As noted at the top of this post - just because Jesus isn’t the Hebrew messiah doesn’t mean that he isn’t a - Saktyavesa-avatara - an empowered incarnation of God.. BDM

Quote: There is no incarnation or messiah who is predicted to appear in the future, in this age of Kali. Sri Chaitanya has already appeared. Reply: As noted already this messiah fellow isn't an incarnation of God - because he isn't God - or a god. The source texs state he is just a mortal man - like you and me. No mystic powers no special magic ability. The manner where he will become extraordinary - is a matter for another post. At this point let's look at points on why Jesus isn't the hebrew messiah; these are postings I've posted on an evangelical christian board: Quote: 16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. [Psalms 22] Reply: That verse does not actually read that way in the original hebrew - here is the real translation: "17 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet." In the making of your translation the Hebrew word 'KeAri' - "like a lion they are at my hands and feet" - was CHANGED to 'Kari' - "he gouged me" - thus in your translation it then reads - "they have pierced my hands and feet". Your traslation is not exactly grounded in reality. Why did your early translators make this obvious error? Well certainly it is an example of a falsification of the messianic prophesies - to fit the person of Jesus - all because the real predictions had nothing to say about a crucifiction - thus due to the murder of Jesus by the Roman State -the early translators re-wrote the scriptures. Jesus was indeed an empowered incarnation of God [i know that may anger some when I say that but it is a fact] - but he wasn't the messiah. In fact - a proper reading of the texts show that Jesus stated that His Mission was to 'prepare the way' - for the Messiah! In any event - I thought it important to point out that that translation is in gross error - of course - my translation is from the Hebrew Masoretic Bible. There are many other exmaples in modern Christian Bibles - like the above - introduced by early apologists - to cover over the less than scant possiblity that Jesus was the messiah. Let us NOT make offence to Yeshua by passing over His 'real identity' as mistaken for that of the messiah. The messiah is not God - neither is he an 'incarnation' - not anything like that - he is an extra-regular soul - "...whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days..." - but he is NOT God. Your Servant, ----------------- Oh and DO recall Jesus and his angry outburst in the Temple of God - "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought (animals for sacrifice) in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves..." [Matthew 21.12] - Clearly Jesus' major angry out-burst was in the 'Temple' - directed RIGHT at this animal sacrifice activity. --- We should note the connection of what Jesus said that day - to prophet Jeremiah in ch 7. 7-11 [whom he quoted]: "But here you are, putting your trust in deceitful words to your own loss! Are you to steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal, go after strange gods that you know not, and yet come to stand before me in this house which bears my name, and say: "We are safe; we can commit all these abominations again"? Has this house which bears my name become in your eyes a den of thieves? I too see what is being done, says the LORD." Question why evangelicals tell you an interpretation of Matthew 21.12 that says Jesus was responding the cheating money changers. Of course we know that when one went to the Temple in roman occupied Jerusalem to sacrifice - one could not use roman coins [or others] in the Temple - only the coinage of Tyre could be used for the purchases - all other money had to be exchanged for that. So naturally - there were people who exchanged it for them. The evangelicals actually teach a subtle anti-semetic idea of them 'cheating'. In their interpretations they want you to ignore that Jesus was quoting Jeremiah ch 7.11 - and he and his contemporaries knew the 'context' of that quote - it was all to do with a form of - false worship. "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought (animals for sacrifice) in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves..." So in fact the second part of that is a confirmation - 'the seats of them that sold doves' - by turning over these tables - so no one could exchange their coins - meant interupting the 'sacrificial business'. That says it all! We should also note that he saw it as an exploitation of the poor - as the doves were for those who could not afford a more expensive sacrifice. Indeed it is also conveyed by the Prophet 'and' Jesus that it is a 'thieving' from God - to think one can engage in sins and later expiate them - by killing animals. Their interpretations aren't true to the whole and original context of the narration. -------------------------- So explain these two points: Messiah was not to be born until Jerusalem and Bethlehem were a part of a revived Israel: Micah 5.1-2: 1 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee [not exactly him - but his distant maternal family origin] shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. 2 Therefore will He give them [beth-lehem Ephrathah] up, until the time that she who travaileth [i.e.: the human mother of the human messiah] hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. It wasn't until June 5, 1967 that Beth-leham was again in Israel's control. So according to this - after the messiah birth comes the recapture of bethlehem. Mistranslation of recall Psalms chapter 22 text 17 [text 16 in your OT] which if reviewed in the proper translation reads: --- "For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet." >>>>SOURCE: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2622.htm -- Then in your later 'christian' translations it is rendered QUITE differently: --- "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." >>>>SOURCE: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=ps+22.16&KJV_version=yes&language=english --- So in these we see: "like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet" - and the changed: "they pierced my hands and my feet" -- In the original Hebrew the word "KeAri" ['Like a Lion'] - is used; in the later 'INTERPOLATED' translation the word Hebrew "KeAri" ['like a lion'] was CHANGED to the Hebrew word "Kari" - ['he gouged me'] - thus the later translation of the text was changed to reflect the [false] theory that Jesus was the Hebrew Messiah [this had to be done because messianic prophesies are associated with this chapter] so they thought that they could bolster the idea that Jesus was the messiah by way of the "crucifiction" of Jesus reflecting this chapter - i.e.: you say that this is a prophesy of Jesus as messiah because of the crucifiction - yet even though Jesus may well have been crucified - there is no connection to that idea in this chapter of the Psalms - indeed Jesus knew this chapter well - it is a favorite of the suffering servants - indeed Jesus may have quoted the second text in the company of many ears at his horrible end: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me..." - yet that also does not mean that he was the messiah - YES - the original creeps in your cult changed the word "KeAri" to "Kari" to support a false teaching - so there you have it! So explain these - if you can... [they couldn't!] ------------------------ So you didn't really answer the questions. Micah 5.2 reads this way: 2 Therefore will He give them [beth-lehem Ephrathah] up, until the time that she who travaileth [i.e.: the human mother of the human messiah] hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. Even if that near/far theory which you are eluding to were real - it doesn't fit. God was to 'give up bethlehem' - which he did in 70 C.E. - so then Bethlehem was not under Jewish rule from then forward - until June 05, 1967 - after the time that she who travaileth [i.e.: the human mother of the human messiah] hath brought forth [given birth] - so we know that the two events are close in proximity. Your theory is thin. You 'spunaway' from the other point - psalms 22.16 - the word is certainly 'keAri' [like a lion] - not 'blk' - just consult a Rabbi on this point - your answers are incorrect. Jesus was not, is not, will not be - the Hebrew messiah! You should give up that false teaching and see who he really is - then you can claim to be his follower. -------------------- You advance a massive writing campain - but it changes nothing - Lord Jesus isn't the messiah. Your explanations of psalms 22 are incorrect - keAri is a hebrew phrase-word that means 'like a lion' - the word was for centuries rendered as kari 'he gouged me' which your translators then rendered into 'they pierced my hands and my feet' - so - why did they do this - your seeming lesson in hebrew grammer means nothing in this discussion. Then with the book of micah your explanations are not sound - the text itself is quite simple and relates nothing of a two-fold completion it simply says that the prophet saw the demise of Israel in 70 C.E. and knew that the messiah would be born around the time that bethlehem was again an Israeli center. The mention of 'bat-gader' fenced in maiden says even more - if we accept that the realization of his birth is after that re-capture... Too many of your quotes aren't even messianic verses... ------------------------- One good point to consider is that we learn from prophesy that during the messianic age it shall be 'multi-faith' - consider that! "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. 'For all people will walk every one in the name of his god', and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever." [Micah 4.3-5] So just think about the many mansions parable... Or this important one: "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part." [Mark 9.38-40] So there are many more but that is good for now... Let's Love and Serve God as a united an mature humanity - rather than bickering all the time about what His Name is. ------------------------ All my points [about the holes in your dogma that are gaping] - are unanswered! Like the proper interpretation of John 14.6 - you never comments on the well known error printed in bibles everywhere: Jesus never claimed that he is the only way - the problem enters in the translation of the word - “comes”: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. ‘No one comes’ to the Father except through Me." [John 14.6] The word "...comes..." is rendered from the Greek word - "erktai" - a very present tense verb - thus a more proper translation should read: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. 'None here comes' to the Father except through Me." Then you run away from the proper facts about this satan - an interpolated fiction - just see that hebrews do not accept the christian ideas of satan - for them he is rightly an allegorical figure - and THAT is how Lord Jesus understood this satan concept - which was adopted during the 6th century B.C.E. exile in babylon. Why are you last posted words an indication that you are now going to 'run' away? Do know for sure that anyone [not taken in by the falsehoods you are] reading our posted discussion will clearly see that you really failed to explain the good points I made. But who cares about that - I care about the fact that you are being misled - Maria - if you cannot even comment on the Truth of the quotes I gave - then what does that show? I am not asking you to follow me - I am asking 'you to test' your spirits as it were. I am asking you to confirm the reality of some of your ideas. After all - you are telling me that the fictional satan has me in a snare! You think Krishna is satan! I have a question - when a non-christian [like a hindu] prays to God [in the context of their faith] - who hears and answers their prayers? What does God think of those who are 'not' christians - but who still Love and Follow Him and pray in a 'different' Name? Maria - 'what' is 'incorrect' in this quote from God in the Bhagavad Gita: "...These works of sacrifice, of penance and of charity, true to the absolute nature, are performed to please the Supreme Person, O son of Prtha. But sacrifices, austerities and charities performed without faith in the Supreme are nonpermanent, O son of Prtha, regardless of whatever rites are performed. They are called asat and are useless both in this life and the next..." Spunaway - just see that you have 'nothing' to rebut Krishna's lucid words with - nothing but a spiel-sermon of sorts. Do understand that God; Lord Krishna - has appeared 'long before' Lord Jesus - and that it was Lord Krishna who first said that we are saved by 'grace not works' [bhagavad Gita 18.56]: "Though engaged in all kinds of activities [works], My devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace." So then G-d also says: "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." [bG 18.66] Then at last there is this good point: "Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demon becomes envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated in his own body and in the bodies of others, and blasphemes against [the] real religion." [bG 16.18] Sri Krishna's dialogue brings out this point: "Arjuna said, O Krsna, what is the situation of one who does not follow the principles of scripture but who worships according to his own imagination? Is he in goodness, in passion or in ignorance?" So Maria 'you' should want to know the answer that God gave him... ------------------------- Another common text that is advanced as evidence of Jesus as the messiah is Isaiah 7.14 - where it is claimed there is a prophesy that messiah would be born of a virgin. So let's look at this. "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." The word "Virgin" is rendered from the Hebrew word 'ALMAH' - which means "young woman" - the hebrew word for "Virgin" is 'BESULAH' - a different word. This verse was directed at King Ahaz - and it fortold of the birth of King Hezekiah. This verse has no messianic connections. However - there are messianic connections to part of this chapter. ---------------------- Another verse mentioned to support Jesus as the messiah is Isaiah 7.14 - where it is claimed there is a prophesy about the birth of messiah from a "virgin". The word "virgin" in hebrew is 'BESULAH' - the word in verse 7.14 is "ALMAH" - "Young Woman" - why is it changed in the so-called christian bible? The word "ALMAH" - is never rendered as "virgin" - so for instance - in the Hebrew Bible we see the correct rendering: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." This verse has no connection to Jesus nor the messiah - it is directed at king Ahab - and it foretells the birth of good King Hezekiah. It should be noted that the claim of Jesus appearing in the family of David is also a misnomer - if one takes Jesus to NOT be the 'actual son of Joseph' - then there is no basis to the claim. It's odd that the [so-called] Hebrew writers of the gospel accounts - would make 'this' error. What error you ask? Well Hebrews do 'not' trace a family history on the father's side - they trace it on the mother's side. In the gospel accounts Jesus' claim to the family of David - is made through his step-father Joseph! An odd error! Was Jesus really the son of Joseph? I think so! Why the need for the virgin birth story? Mary was not a decendant of David. Virgin birth - was a cutom theme in the myths of the ancient world - especially in 'Mithraism' - a popular cult which early christianity had to compete with - in fact - much of the two - are mirrors of the other. [more on that later] So in any case Isaiah 7.14 has 'nothing' to do with predicting the 'virgin birth of messiah' - nothing of the sort. It also has nothing to do with Jesus. There are some who think that in chapter 7 of Isaiah there are messianic connections - are there? The answer may be given that - yes there are. A 'partial glimpse' of the character of the messiah - is outlined in text 7.15 - along with a specific dietary designation; vegetarian: "Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good." [isaiah 7.15] It must be noted that MOST of the Hebrew Mystics [and Prophets] espouced this simple diet - as does - TORAH LAW. ------------------------

Quote: And by the way, this is the Kali-yuga, not kuli yuga. Reply: Well certainly it is "kali" - but if you thought about it you may have figured-out that I am spelling it most often phonetically. Why am I doing this? I often see people confuse kali ma for the personality of kali - two non-related entities. Just like phonetically spelling - Krsna - Krishna....

This one text is important: "In the mood of Lord Nrsimhadeva, Lord Caitanya ran through the city streets, club in hand, ready to kill all the atheists. [C.C. Adi, 17.92] Word for word: "pasandi — the atheists" The word isn't yavana.

Do you think Krishna is God?

And we know "Represents" - means is to 'express indirectly or be symbolic of' - it doesn't mean that if something represents something - it is that something... Yer servant, BDM

I know you well understand these facts!

That's well and good - but the universal form isn't eternal - and the demigods are not aspects of Krishna – not in the sense you are thinking. As Krishna says: “Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and the sages.” [bG 10.2] "...The personal forms of Krishna, the two-handed form and the four-handed, are completely different from the temporary universal form shown to Arjuna..." [bG 11.54, purport]

Those faiths are not based on myths - they may now follow some allegorical parts of the texts thinking they are literal - to many Krishna is a myth and the vast bulk of the vedic stories are called myth - it is a matter of vision - but the basis of these other faiths - is genuine.

Ghari posted Yamaraja's EXACT words: Yamaraja said: My dear servants, you have accepted me as the Supreme, but factually I am not. [sB 6.3.12] Do you need more? Bringing achintya-bheda-abheda-tattva into it - is more reaching - or you can also apply it fair - like to the other traditions? BDM

So apply this logic to the other faiths?

Quote: It is a mistake to believe that the Devas are "good" and the Asuras are all bad Reply: Not a mistake I make....

After the cooperation - the fight resumes...

Splitting hairs – or reading what’s actually there in chapter ten of Gita: …Of whatever we find, good or bad, the origin is Krsna. Nothing can manifest in this material world which is not in Krsna. That is knowledge; although we know that things are differently situated, we should realize that everything flows from Krsna.… [bG 10.4-5, purport] …The common man who has no love for Krsna cannot always think of Krsna; therefore he has to think materially. Arjuna is considering the mode of thinking of the materialistic persons of this world. Because materialists cannot understand Krsna spiritually, they are advised to concentrate the mind on physical things and try to see how Krsna is manifested by physical representations.… [bG 10.17, purport] … There are eleven Rudras, of whom Sankara, Lord Siva, is predominant. He is the incarnation of the Supreme Lord in charge of the modes of ignorance in the universe. Among the demigods Kuvera is the chief treasurer, and he is a representation of the Supreme Lord. Meru is a mountain famed for its rich natural resources. … [bG 10.23, purport] … These representations of Krsna only give hints of His greatness.… [bG 10.24, purport] … In Vedic literature, the king is considered to be the representative of God. In this age, however, with the corruption of the principles of religion, monarchy decayed and is now finally abolished.… [bG 10.27, purport] So in this way it is well explained in Prabhupada’s purports – that Arjuna was asking for this description to capture the minds of the materialistic peoples – that needed: to see how Krsna is manifested by physical representations With the exception of Siva – they are all described as materially representative of Krishna. You might be splitting hairs here – not me… BDM

…It is impossible for anyone to surmount the two-pronged attack of daivi maya—that is, her covering potency and her throwing potency. The more we try to conquer this divine energy, the more powerfully she defeats us by exciting us through the mode of passion and punishing us with the threefold miseries, culminating in all-devouring death. This struggle between the divine energy and the evil forces is eternal. Our inability to understand this struggle has led us to lament, “In the dispensation of providence, mankind cannot have any rest.”… [RTW 1.1] Thus some label it a struggle against good and evil. …For those who are sinful, atheistic, foolish and deceitful, it is very difficult to transcend the duality of desire and hate.… [bG 7.28, purport] All living beings in all the planets of this universe, including the presiding deities of all the planets, are fully under the control of the Lord. They work like birds caught in a net, who cannot move independently. [sB 6.12.8] Don’t the demigods and the demons fight perpetually? But these demons are not fallen angels...