Bhakta Don Muntean

December 27, 2006

I got this response from a related site

This description is really frightening. In the seventies and eighties there were a number of cults that used 'loss of ego' to justify all sorts of abusive excesses. EST is one classic case.

I can't imagine all the destructive practices that can be justified under the 'loss of ego' pretext.

Ego is such an abstract concept, hard to pin down. The only truly ego-less people I've met were mentally ill.

It's so convenient. A guru could commit all sorts of artrocities on a disciple like rape and justify it as an excercise for losing ego.

How horrifying. A religion in which a loving God is nominal.

Why did you place a quote from me about guru being teacher - with this bunk? I see that you're frustrated but - do know that such a mood in you is playing more defiance than defense...

December 27, 2006

Diksa is a process that binds you to another person for eternity. Whatever the diksa guru demands you must do.
There is nothing esoteric about this. What better definition for such a relationship but slavery.

That is bogus - please do yourself a favor and download the free Vedabase and study that:

http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?26500000037010

This is an old version - but - it has everything Prabhupada gave us and it's not too hard to use - with this and use of the search engine - you can see what is what and see that the above concept isn't what were taught by Prabhupada. It sounds like you've some cheaters in your midst....

December 27, 2006

At my house we had cauliflower, broccoli and tomato subji with lots of fried curd, puris, cherry halavah, potato pakoras and basmati rice.

A Merry Krishna's feast.

Sounds great - especially that cherry halavah - how is that made?

December 27, 2006

Thank you for sharing this with us. I like this very much.

THANK YOU!

Would you like the exact list of ingredients and methods? I'll post them up sometime in the near future...

December 26, 2006

So here is a short video of me making holiday supper - of course no meat fish or eggs were used in this connection:

December 26, 2006

bottom line - where I stand is nobody should be alllowed have that kind of power of anybody else.

Who is the immediate authority in the christian traditions?

When people go to churches - how do they look upon the pastors?

What standards are expected for the pastor? What standards do pastors expect from their congregations?

If we are our own 'authority' - we may begin to take things too cheaply - thus - there is no question of authorities.

In churches everywhere people are advanced on their path because they accept the authorities - if the authorities are bonafide - then people learn and grow - if they are not - then they become further lost.

This is the case for all faith groups!

It is up to the followers - in any group - to understand - from scriptures [*and to a lesser degree - depending on 'where' in the world we live - community standards] what sort of interactions we aught to have with these authorities - what level of authority we shall give them over our thinking process etc., we must not follow blindly.

Like when we are in primary school [and our engagement choices were made for us by others] - when we were eight years old and stuck in some classroom - we may have felt subjugated and enslaved - by being forced to stay there and - the fact that the teacher made us stay - didn't make her a slave owner - perspective is the key.

Later - as adults - we give others authority over us - such as employers and pastors and gurus etc., - so - it's really a matter of informed perspective.

*Such as in places like Iran - where there are no 'real' community standards [due in part to a lack of intellectual diversity and - the state enforced religious and political ideologies] - due to the fact that too many of the authorities and leaders there are become so bogus - so - sincere peoples - in places like that cannot use the CS measure - in the manner which we are able to here in the west.

December 26, 2006

You have to understand cbrahma who you are a slave too. Of course the black mans slavery to a despotic white exploitative master is dispicable. But when we are slaves to a compassionate well wishing master that has our very best wellfare at heart, then we can only gain and feel quite at home under the wing of such an affectionate friend and guardian. And you will find they don't ever see themselves as master rather just the opposite.

A real spiritual master doesn't need a thing from you they are self satisfied the only reason they are offering you diksa is so that you can better focus on Gods Name, Form and pastimes and discover your real happiness derived from that. They don't need your energy or your laborious service, but you need to give it, so that you don't become a self egocentric miser, instead of a God-centric servitor and they just help you in that process, you can take it or leave it at any time you choose the choice is always yours. No chains on your feet, just a set of beads on your neck to remind you of your real identity as loving servant of the servant of a very beautiful God.

We don't lose anything by divine slavery, we gain everything.

The issue for so many is that these gurus are not qualified - they try to pass as pure devotees and they are conditioned - just like those who have taken shelter of them. Prabhupada was a Pure devotee and - he didn't become a guru until he was a senior citizen.

...a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced... [sB 4.12.33, Purport]

...So anyone of you, you can become guru. It is not that I am an extraordinary man, an extraordinary god coming from some mysterious place. It is not that—it is very simple thing.... [Lecture, August 19, 1976]

...So whatever limited circle, you just become guru and deliver them. Deliver means deliver from the ignorance...Don’t make addition, alteration. Then you become guru. Very simple thing. If I say that “My father said, ‘This is a bell,’ ” I am correct because I have learned it from my father, authority. I may be fool, rascal. It doesn’t matter. But because I have learned it from the authority and presenting it that “This is a bell,” this is perfect. Similarly, I cannot become guru because I am imperfect. My senses are imperfect. I cannot see even what is beyond this wall, although I am very much proud of my eyes. I want to see. What you can see? Imperfect, all senses. But if some authority says that “Beyond this wall this is the..., like this,” it is all right. So we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighborhood men, associates, but speak the authoritative words of Krsna. Then it will act... [Conversations, May 1977]

How many gurus have fallen in ISKCON and even outside ISKCON? How many started out 'very nice' and then - after taking so many worldly minded disciples - became polluted as a result?

I think that people should forget about initiations and just spend time in study and worship - gurus are teachers - this can be serviced through the senior devotees helping the new devotees to learn - really - temples have to become learning institutions - not hotels nor ritual centers.

Sure - there are good gurus out there - i even know some [like the one murdered on Janmashtami in Manipur :mad2: ] - but - we need them to focus on teaching in a broad sense - not that they are teaching only their own students and that's it [of course this goes on].

I have not taken initiation and i won't be taking initiation - everything that I'm supposed to learn from a guru - can be learned from Prabhupada's teachings - that is why he went to such efforts to produce the books and give the lectures - not that it was only for those devotees who were at that time his students - his intent is that we are all his students - that his presence shall be seen in his books - that his books would even become law books!

Srila Prabhupada is the teacher and - we can get the vedabase and search and learn faster and better than on a 1 on 1 - with some guy [who may or may not be qualified] - and - who may or may not be learned himself...at least Prabhupada's books presents us with the standards by which we can judge all these things.

"...So whatever limited circle, you just become guru and deliver them. Deliver means deliver from the ignorance..."

December 26, 2006

bottom line - where I stand is nobody should be alllowed have that kind of power of anybody else.

The vedic texts - when properly advanced - agree with you on this point...we must understand that a guru is a teacher and - that is all.

December 25, 2006

Now you quote Paul, a human as being doctrinal.
Catechism is a very early tradition. New Christians had to be taught the basic teachings of Christ. The Epistles or Letters of the Apostle helped to contribute to that teaching.

I'm not going to quibble in what form the Christians survive, but they do.

Sure beats millenia of transmigrations.

That's not home spun. Nevertheless salvation entails a lot more than ressurection of the body.

Yer not going to try to discuss this thread anymore?

December 25, 2006

guru can demand sexual favors and the boy will believe he has to comply.

Only if both parties are insincere can that happen - such a move by a guru is grounds to disassociate with such a guru - any sincere student would know that a guru cannot ask one to compromise the principles - especially in such a request of such 'service' - if a seeker falls for that line with some bogus guru - then - he [or she] is as much a cheater as the unqualified guru.

December 25, 2006

I was responding to the accusation that Jesus could not be guru.
Jesus is guru in role of teacher and savior. But he is not just a human being, he is also divine, in a way that is not in accord with the jiva-tattva philosophy of the vaisnavas. He does ask me to follow his commandments because He is one with the Father God. This is where it differs from the diksa concept. So many humans are being worshipped as god in the same way that Jesus is. But these self-appointed (or committee-appointed) 'gurus' are NOT GOD. It offends me to see people worship them and prostrate themselves to them. It is idolatry.

I agree with you - this guru worship is not a proper activity and the idea of guru as God - or as worthy of all the respect we would give to God - is a much abused concept and not approved by Prabhupada.

Our relationship with God is a very personal and dynamic thing and - we know that there are - '...nine processes of devotional engagement: hearing, chanting, remembering, worshiping, serving the lotus feet of the Lord, offering prayers, carrying out the orders of the Lord, making friends with Him, and surrendering everything to Him. One can engage in all nine devotional processes, or eight, or seven, or at least in one, and that will surely make one perfect...' - so we can pick one or all of these nine and - we can please God.

You should spend more time in broad study and not waste time sorting out ISKCON's cliques and all the rest.

Don't think that 'oh this whole thing is bogus' and then go towards a former faith again because at some point you may doubt that again and then end up thinking that the whole God thing is too contradictory and thus bogus - no - better to understand that God is very much 'other' and religions - all of them - are our attempts to either explain this 'other' or to maintain some memory of something this 'other' has done - in any case - it is up to each of us to see that God is MORE than all these faiths and also that this 'other' can be found within all these faiths.

We really have to see that there are fragments of this truth for us to find - in all the faith traditions [a treasure hunt of sorts] - we don't need to compete in this way - most especially - within our hearts - indeed - our focus is to learn about God and to love God and - no more.

December 25, 2006

We may be able to discern a 'mesiah' in this rubric jungle of prophecy, but I'm sure there's plenty of room for the illusory energy to play in these complex riddles of prophecy, with millions of minds giving their variagated take on it's conclusions.
And all this is simpler than "Just chant and be happy"

Not only did they have to cloak it in parable due to the ancient framework of persecution that existed but now the Christian doctrines have splintered into almost every language of the world, what to speak of the mystics interpretations of such a kaliedascope of what they call revelation.

Many of the scholars trying to gain access to these prophecies usually employ the ascending process of knowledge, which denies the real visionaries purport, muddying the water further.

It's really only the God realized soul who has access to the central city of revelation so to speak, that can truly understand the roads, gates and directions to that central Truth.

In knowing Him one can know everything that comes from Him. Including illusion.

In my posting here - with all the quotes - i was simply trying to show that there is a divergence in the scriptural traditions of the hebrews and that of the christians - on this issue of messiah [not to dismiss them as without basis].

Not only that - in many instances the mixed bibles - or those used by christians - the portions of the hebrew texts dealing with messiah are translated incorrectly - as can be evidenced by a comparison of these 'mixed' translations - with those found in the hebrew masoretic translations.

As for the ideas advanced in the ancient hebrew texts regarding a future messianic age - some of this is presented as cryptic in nature - but - much of it isn't - of course - in the hebrew tradition there are four ways to interpret a text - 1. literal 2. allegorical 3. mystical 4. homiletical - so a text many be interpreted in any or all of those categories and it is up to us to understand that.

There is great value in the Christian tradition and in faith in Jesus Christ - however - there shall be a messianic king and - it won't be fulfilled through any second coming of Jesus.

The ancient hebrew texts aren't all that complicated on this messiah issue and that is seen in my posting as well.

December 25, 2006

Save it for Al Qaeda, Don. This ain't the place for such shameful things.

What the hell are you talking about dear gHari? Save 'what' for Al Qaeda - are you comparing my postings - with them?

December 25, 2006

Mithras was born December 25th

Mithras had 12 companions

Mithras was known as the lamb, messiah and the shepherd

Mithras' followers were babtized

Mithras' mother was a virgin

Mithras' at his birth was attended by shepherds

Mithras turned water into wine

Mithras died and was resurrected

Mithras was worshipped on a Sunday

Who is Mithras? There is a great deal of evidence that some of what we know of Jesus is really interpolated from the ancient Persian Mithra mystery cult as found in the Roman world.

If we are going to believe in things - we should know all the facts - historical facts don't have to negate faith - only debate it - with that 'debate' comes greater understanding...

December 25, 2006

Now you quote Paul, a human as being doctrinal.
Catechism is a very early tradition. New Christians had to be taught the basic teachings of Christ. The Epistles or Letters of the Apostle helped to contribute to that teaching.

I'm not going to quibble in what form the Christians survive, but they do.

Sure beats millenia of transmigrations.

That's not home spun. Nevertheless salvation entails a lot more than ressurection of the body.

So you're saying that this 'early' Catechism taught by Paul 'a human' is 'doctrinal' and open to critical interpretation?

December 25, 2006

If you're going to devote yourself to this path - then - you aught to have proper understanding of Jesus and - that includes understanding that he wasn't the predicted messiah - the facts on this are clear - i was wondering about your thoughts on this.

The fact is - Jesus cannot be the messiah predicted yet to come - within the Hebrew scriptures.

If he were - the world would not be in this mess - he would not have to so-called 'come again' - there are NO texts in the hebrew holy books that speak of two comings to complete the mission - [i know all that about the suffering servant verses and it ain't about Jesus and this issue] - also some major texts in the 'christian' bible are translated wrong.

One is in Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]:

So in the King James bible it reads this way:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way:

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me;like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death!

So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done?

The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as they pierced my hands and my feet].

That is a fact.

Another text that is oft misquoted to support the Crucifixion/messiah theory is Zechariah 13.6 which reads [in the hebrew Bible] like this:

And one shall say unto him: 'What are these wounds between thy hands?' Then he shall answer: 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'

This text has nothing to do with Jesus nor the messiah! It has to do with false prophets of the line of the ancient Baal religion. These texts [Zechariah 3-6] in context may be a warning to false prophets - with the advent of/during the messianic age.

Literally "wounds between your hands." The false prophets like the prophet of Baal [i kings 18.28: And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with swords and lances, till the blood gushed out upon them] - apparently inflicted wounds on themselves - to defend against the accusation of being a false prophet - the idea was that a man would deny having inflicted wounds on himself - instead saying that he received them at home - "in the house of my dear ones."

So on the face of it when one takes the mistranslated Psalms 22.16 text and misapplies it with this Zecharaiah 13.6 quote - it may look like there is a seeming pattern which speaks of the murder of messiah - by Crucifixion - when in fact it doesn't in the least.

There is much much more to it than that! So let's start there.

Can you find me 'old testement' quotes that teach 'original sin' and some [and not Isaiah's 'suffering servant' descriptions] that say anything about messiah having to come once die by Crucifixion for everyone's sins and come again 2000+ years later to complete the mission?

Since i bring up the Isaiah quotes let's look at this:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [isaiah 53.10, King James version]

The same text from the Hebrew Bible reads quite differntly and enters an interesting point about the messiah:

Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: [isaiah 53.10, Hebrew Bible]

There is a significant difference contrasted in - to bruise him - and - to crush him by disease - obvious changes.

Also - when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin - contrasted to - to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution - this change goes to the heart of the false theory of original sin and false theory of messiah being a sacrifice for sin [enough edits that's another posting].

In text 3 of chapter 53 of Isaiah we read:

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, King James version]

He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, Hebrew Bible]

Can you see all these bogus changes there within the King James translation?

Why are these changes introduced?

It is that there was no reference to Jesus being a man of pains, and acquainted with disease - so instead - they changed it to - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief - do keep in mind the changes to the later verse [10] - where it should read - it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease - however - it reads like this in the King James - it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief - so these are important disparities which all can see.

Messiah shall be someone who is diseased and - Jesus wasn't recorded in the gospels as being diseased - he is recorded as having cured them - of course - we can see in these texts what disease it may be - a clue:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, King James version]

Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, Hebrew Bible]

So "griefs" and "diseases" are two distinct states - and they aren't mutually exclusive states either.

In that text the change to "griefs" from "diseases" - is carried through but - one part remains the same - we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted - what these words - stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted- are traditionally speaking of - is skin disease - like leprosy etc., something quite different from "griefs" or "sorrows"!

So of course - another part should be explained in context to this - in text 5 we read:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. [isaiah 53.5, King James Version]

Whereas in the original it really reads:

But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. [isaiah 53.5, Hebrew Bible]

Just see these changes all noted in red - "was wounded" [not killed] and - "for" is different from "because of" - this text does not support the false theory that messiah shall 'have' to die for anyone's sins [how the sacrificial theory relates to the messianic age is another discussion] - what to speak sins brought about by the non-biblical original sin theory.

In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven away, and her that I have afflicted; And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a mighty nation; and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from thenceforth even for ever. [Micah 4.6-7]

Of course the messiah that is expected - shall not be seen through any second advent of Jesus - because Jesus isn't the prophetically expected messiah - the 'why not' part of that - is a whole other discussion .

So it should be noted that the expected messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being - not God - not an incarnation [partial or otherwise] he isn't a demigod - he isn't a 'supernatural' nor divine being at all. - though he is 'different' - in that he has a 'general soul' or - a 'slightly universal' soul.

He doesn't have magic powers. Like in the days of old - God shall work the wonders - during the messianic age.

So what are a few points about this - in the Prophetic tradition.

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. For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. [Micah 4.4-5]

In that quote we see that the messianic age - shall be multi-faith.

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. [Micah 5.1-2]

In that quote we see that the messiah's maternal roots could be traced to this place [Beth-lehem]. To say 'which art little to be among the thousands of Judah' indicates that this was an obscure place - not a place of greatness.

It is a misnomer that he is to be born in Beth-lehem - clearly the texts confirm he is born among the exiles.

In saying 'out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days' confirms that he has been reincarnating toward this point for a long time - 'whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days'.

We also see that Beth-lehem shall not be a part of a State of Israel 'until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth' or - he is born - the text says 'Therefore will He give them up' - so is he talking about Beth-lehem - the Hebrew people in exile [and thus Jursalem] or - both?

The full point is 'Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - so 'them' indentifies - both those in exile and - Beth-lehem.

So they 'shall return' to where - to an already renewed and infant State or - to just a geographical location or - both?

We must consider that were it not for Jesus and the Faith surronding him - Beth-lehem would certainly have become a nearly deserted and forgotten place [by the time messiah is born somewhere in the exile] and - for Hebrews it [was] is an 'obscure place' a place of 'no mention'.

So we have to then ask - when did Beth-lehem again become part of a State of Israel?

It was on June 05, 1967 - so 'He [will] give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth and - that then should indicate that - he must have to be born just prior to that event.

Consider 'He [will] give them up until the time that she who is to give birth has given birth' - the word 'until' is important - so they are no longer 'given up' right after he is born and - if the messiah is to [alone] accomplish all this - how would he do so - as an infant child? So the use of 'until' means that as soon as he is born - no more position of being 'given up' or seperated from the renewed State.

We can also add that the formal reclamation of all of Jerusalem could/would also coincide with this noted event:

Now why dost thou cry out aloud? Is there no King in thee, is thy Counsellor perished, that pangs have taken hold of thee as of a woman in travail? [Micah 4.9]

After that - there is this description in Zechariah 1.14-17:

...so the angel that spoke with me said unto me: 'Proclaim thou, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil. Therefore thus saith the LORD: I return to Jerusalem with compassions: My house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem. Again, proclaim, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

So that part - 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.' - that means that God is angry at the nations of the world for it's treatment of His exiled because He was 'but a little displeased' and yet the nations after the exile were to have 'helped for evil' [or helped forward the afflications] and they were 'at ease' with doing so - thus God says 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy' - so when we see fruition of the Micah 5.1-2 events we see that God permits all of Jerusalem to be again under an Israeli State.

The State of Israel was first reclaimed after WWII - after the well known last general pogrom [directly under the Nazis and other's indirectly] came to an end - as noted in that quote God thinks that the world could have done more to prevent so much loss and instead they were 'at ease' with the Nazis - for too long - and God sanctioned this renewal - but - with this renewed State - there was a line as it were through [dividing] Jerusalem - until 1967.

It should be mentioned that many propagandists have taken Zechariah 14.2 - 'For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, but the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.' - to mean that there shall be a future war there and 'the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city' - but this not so - as that was fulfilled in 30 C.E. - with the Exile - it should be noted that Muslim rulers later allowed the reestablishment of a Jewish community in Jerusalem thus 'the residue of the people [that] shall not be cut off from the city' means that even after the exile the people were being enabled by God - for a return to a former status as a State or - the end of the Exile!

In text 3-4 we read that sometime after the exile comes "The Day of the Lord" - we note this point in texts three and four:

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fighteth in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleft in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, so that there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

So God indeed left mercy and an open door through this 'residue of the people [that] shall not be cut off from the city' - so that means that at some point [after the 30 C.E. exile] - the residue of the exile again comes to Jerusalem.

Additionally - if the world ends up in a sorry state over this point - there may well come this 'vist' - that produces a mountain dividing earthquake - so - in text 7 we read - And there shall be one day which shall be known as the LORD'S, not day, and not night; but it shall come to pass, that at evening time there shall be light. - of course we 'everyone' have choices - that impact everything.

So to the point again - there must have been a State of Israel - already in existence and intended by God - before the time of his birth - as noted by 'then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - it means that there is a State for him and his family and 'the children of Israel' to return to.

So yes these are my humble interpretations but - it could well be that he is already here - what aspects of the future of the State of Israel [and the world] are to be impacted by his appearance - is another discussion.

One thing is sure - whenever it is that he is born - there must have been a State of Israel - already in existence and intended by God [with a securing of Beth-lehem and [all of] Jerusalem with the timing of his birth] - before the time of his birth - as noted by 'then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - it means that there is already a State for him and 'the residue of his family' and 'the children of Israel' to return to.

We can see within this last quote [and through the other's so far] that there is a clear allusion to an exisiting Jerusalem and State - to the seeming surprise of God [and the remant of the people who later begin to return] some time before messiah is born - further - we've seen that God is to show-up in anger - which is noted as being - directed toward the nations - for their helping forward the afflictions of His exiled - when He was 'only a little displeased' - so - at the end of the last and worst pogrom [nazi] God indeed 'showed up' to reclaim Jerusalem and - as expected and 'planned' - He was 'surprised' to see some of His exiled - already there and - because He was sore displeased with the nations - for their 'at ease' adventures in the continual pogroms - He was pleased with finding some remant of His exiled there and He thus began the process - for messiah to be born and - coinciding it with the removal of the dividing-line through Jerusalem:

And the word of the LORD of hosts came, saying: 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great fury. Thus saith the LORD: I return unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called The city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts The holy mountain. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: There shall yet old men and old women sit in the broad places of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age. And the broad places of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the broad places thereof. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in Mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts. [Zechariah 8.1-6]

So later - when the House of The Lord is reestablished by the Lord [and ONLY by the direct efforts of messiah not just the State itself can do this - and it musn't be through violence] - we note this point:

Take with you words, and return unto the LORD; say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips. [Hosea 14.3]

One sad part of this is that messsiah's appearance shall be marked with spurious claims by others - that he is the anti-christ/al-dajjal.

[note this is composed of two other postings i've written - it is good for this post 'as is' - thank you!]

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [isaiah 53.10, King James version]

The same text from the Hebrew Bible reads quite differntly and enters an interesting point about the messiah:

Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: [isaiah 53.10, Hebrew Bible]

There is a significant difference contrasted in - to bruise him - and - to crush him by disease - obvious changes.

Also - when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin - contrasted to - to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution - this change goes to the heart of the false theory of original sin and false theory of messiah being a sacrifice for sin [enough edits that's another posting].

In text 3 of chapter 53 of Isaiah we read:

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, King James version]

He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, Hebrew Bible]

Can you see all these bogus changes there within the King James translation?

Why are these changes introduced?

It is that there was no reference to Jesus being a man of pains, and acquainted with disease - so instead - they changed it to - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief - do keep in mind the changes to the later verse [10] - where it should read - it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease - however - it reads like this in the King James - it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief - so these are important disparities which all can see.

Messiah shall be someone who is diseased and - Jesus wasn't recorded in the gospels as being diseased - he is recorded as having cured them - of course - we can see in these texts what disease it may be - a clue:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, King James version]

Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, Hebrew Bible]

So "griefs" and "diseases" are two distinct states - and they aren't mutually exclusive states either.

In that text the change to "griefs" from "diseases" - is carried through but - one part remains the same - we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted - what these words - stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted- are traditionally speaking of - is skin disease - like leprosy etc., something quite different from "griefs" or "sorrows"!

December 25, 2006

<center>John

Chapter 4</center><dt>25 </dt><dd><sup>10</sup> The woman said to him, "I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Anointed; when he comes, he will tell us everything." </dd><dt>26 </dt><dd>Jesus said to her, "I am he, <sup>11</sup> the one who is speaking with you."

There are many other verses but I'm not inclined to pursue such a pointless excercise. Your bald and laughable assertion about the facts proves nothing.

As for the prophecy about the crucifixion.

Zechariah 12:10 (NIV) "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Psalms 22:16 (NIV) Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Matthew 27:35 (NIV) When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Luke 24:39 (NIV) Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

John 19:18 (NIV) Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

Your obviously Jewish conviction that Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah flies in the face of over two thousand years of testimony to the contrary. When is the actual Messiah to come then?

</dd>

First - the Psalms 22.17 quote is one that we went over already:

Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]:

So in the King James bible it reads this way:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way:

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me;like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death!

So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done?

The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as they pierced my hands and my feet].

That is a fact and you cannot refute it.

As for quotes about messiah being Jesus - i wasn't looking for them from the 'new' testement - but rather - in the 'old' testement.

You cannot find them in the [so-called] 'old' testement because - they don't really exist.

As for the Zechariah 12.10 quote - that has nothing to do with Jesus and where is your evidence that it does? That misrepresented Psalms 22.16 quote?

As for 'when' messiah would be born - I already went over that point in the posting:

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. [Micah 5.1-2]

In that quote we see that the messiah's maternal roots could be traced to this place [Beth-lehem]. To say 'which art little to be among the thousands of Judah' indicates that this was an obscure place - not a place of greatness.

It is a misnomer that he is to be born in Beth-lehem - clearly the texts confirm he is born among the exiles.

In saying 'out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days' confirms that he has been reincarnating toward this point for a long time - 'whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days'.

We also see that Beth-lehem shall not be a part of a State of Israel 'until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth' or - he is born - the text says 'Therefore will He give them up' - so is he talking about Beth-lehem - the Hebrew people in exile [and thus Jursalem] or - both?

The full point is 'Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - so 'them' indentifies - both those in exile and - Beth-lehem.

So they 'shall return' to where - to an already renewed and infant State or - to just a geographical location or - both?

We must consider that were it not for Jesus and the Faith surronding him - Beth-lehem would certainly have become a nearly deserted and forgotten place [by the time messiah is born somewhere in the exile] and - for Hebrews it [was] is an 'obscure place' a place of 'no mention'.

So we have to then ask - when did Beth-lehem again become part of a State of Israel?

It was on June 05, 1967 - so 'He [will] give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth and - that then should indicate that - he must have to be born just prior to that event.

Consider 'He [will] give them up until the time that she who is to give birth has given birth' - the word 'until' is important - so they are no longer 'given up' right after he is born and - if the messiah is to [alone] accomplish all this - how would he do so - as an infant child? So the use of 'until' means that as soon as he is born - no more position of being 'given up' or seperated from the renewed State.

We can also add that the formal reclamation of all of Jerusalem could/would also coincide with this noted event:

Now why dost thou cry out aloud? Is there no King in thee, is thy Counsellor perished, that pangs have taken hold of thee as of a woman in travail? [Micah 4.9]

After that - there is this description in Zechariah 1.14-17:

...so the angel that spoke with me said unto me: 'Proclaim thou, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil. Therefore thus saith the LORD: I return to Jerusalem with compassions: My house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem. Again, proclaim, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

So that part - 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.' - that means that God is angry at the nations of the world for it's treatment of His exiled because He was 'but a little displeased' and yet the nations after the exile were to have 'helped for evil' [or helped forward the afflications] and they were 'at ease' with doing so - thus God says 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy' - so when we see fruition of the Micah 5.1-2 events we see that God permits all of Jerusalem to be again under an Israeli State.

Please read again this noted posting - with an open mind - you shall see the facts...

December 24, 2006

None of the voluminous references proves Jesus was not the Messiah. Actually He Himself claimed to be. His riding into Jerusalem on a donkey was exactly to fulfill the messianic phrophecy. He questioned Peter as to his true identity. When Peter responded in language that identified Him as the Messiah, Jesus told him it was not eyes of flesh that revealed this to him (Peter), but His father in heaven. It was after this that Jesus announced Peter would be the rock of His church.
So I guess Jesus was either was a nutcake or an evil man. Nice try.

You cannot prove me wrong quote by quote?

You best go through them quotes because the facts are the facts and Jesus never said he was the messiah - people assume he said this but he didn't because he isn't.

There is no prophecy that messiah would be crucified - if you think there was - then what are the quotes...

What about these facts:

One is in Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]:

So in the King James bible it reads this way:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way:

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death!

So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done?

The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as 'they pierced my hands and my feet'].

Jesus said many things that are not well understood - of course Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God but - he is NOT the messiah.

December 24, 2006

I have a Bhagavad Gita. There is no need to copy-paste entire purports. Besides I've read it in its entirety. I still refuse to subjugate my soul and mind entirely to another human being. It is incompatible with Judao-Christian teaching and more importantly my own conscience , the still small voice within. It is easily the origin of all the corruption I have known in Eastern religions, especially the ones transplanted here. Luckily Eastern gurus are no longer fashionable like they were in the sixties and seventies. By now most of them have been exposed as charlatans. In the case of Bhaktivedant swami, his organization has been exposed time and time again as corrupt. Do not proselityze me with this kind of Hinduism. Except possibly with Buddhism I think we've come to a period of Western history when Orientalism is an idea whose time has come and gone.

If you're going to devote yourself to this path - then - you aught to have proper understanding of Jesus and - that includes understanding that he wasn't the predicted messiah - the facts on this are clear - i was wondering about your thoughts on this.

The fact is - Jesus cannot be the messiah predicted yet to come - within the Hebrew scriptures.

If he were - the world would not be in this mess - he would not have to so-called 'come again' - there are NO texts in the hebrew holy books that speak of two comings to complete the mission - [i know all that about the suffering servant verses and it ain't about Jesus and this issue] - also some major texts in the 'christian' bible are translated wrong.

One is in Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]:

So in the King James bible it reads this way:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way:

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me;like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death!

So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done?

The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as they pierced my hands and my feet].

That is a fact.

Another text that is oft misquoted to support the Crucifixion/messiah theory is Zechariah 13.6 which reads [in the hebrew Bible] like this:

And one shall say unto him: 'What are these wounds between thy hands?' Then he shall answer: 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'

This text has nothing to do with Jesus nor the messiah! It has to do with false prophets of the line of the ancient Baal religion. These texts [Zechariah 3-6] in context may be a warning to false prophets - with the advent of/during the messianic age.

Literally "wounds between your hands." The false prophets like the prophet of Baal [i kings 18.28: And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with swords and lances, till the blood gushed out upon them] - apparently inflicted wounds on themselves - to defend against the accusation of being a false prophet - the idea was that a man would deny having inflicted wounds on himself - instead saying that he received them at home - "in the house of my dear ones."

So on the face of it when one takes the mistranslated Psalms 22.16 text and misapplies it with this Zecharaiah 13.6 quote - it may look like there is a seeming pattern which speaks of the murder of messiah - by Crucifixion - when in fact it doesn't in the least.

There is much much more to it than that! So let's start there.

Can you find me 'old testement' quotes that teach 'original sin' and some [and not Isaiah's 'suffering servant' descriptions] that say anything about messiah having to come once die by Crucifixion for everyone's sins and come again 2000+ years later to complete the mission?

Since i bring up the Isaiah quotes let's look at this:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [isaiah 53.10, King James version]

The same text from the Hebrew Bible reads quite differntly and enters an interesting point about the messiah:

Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: [isaiah 53.10, Hebrew Bible]

There is a significant difference contrasted in - to bruise him - and - to crush him by disease - obvious changes.

Also - when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin - contrasted to - to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution - this change goes to the heart of the false theory of original sin and false theory of messiah being a sacrifice for sin [enough edits that's another posting].

In text 3 of chapter 53 of Isaiah we read:

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, King James version]

He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, Hebrew Bible]

Can you see all these bogus changes there within the King James translation?

Why are these changes introduced?

It is that there was no reference to Jesus being a man of pains, and acquainted with disease - so instead - they changed it to - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief - do keep in mind the changes to the later verse [10] - where it should read - it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease - however - it reads like this in the King James - it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief - so these are important disparities which all can see.

Messiah shall be someone who is diseased and - Jesus wasn't recorded in the gospels as being diseased - he is recorded as having cured them - of course - we can see in these texts what disease it may be - a clue:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, King James version]

Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, Hebrew Bible]

So "griefs" and "diseases" are two distinct states - and they aren't mutually exclusive states either.

In that text the change to "griefs" from "diseases" - is carried through but - one part remains the same - we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted - what these words - stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted- are traditionally speaking of - is skin disease - like leprosy etc., something quite different from "griefs" or "sorrows"!

So of course - another part should be explained in context to this - in text 5 we read:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. [isaiah 53.5, King James Version]

Whereas in the original it really reads:

But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. [isaiah 53.5, Hebrew Bible]

Just see these changes all noted in red - "was wounded" [not killed] and - "for" is different from "because of" - this text does not support the false theory that messiah shall 'have' to die for anyone's sins [how the sacrificial theory relates to the messianic age is another discussion] - what to speak sins brought about by the non-biblical original sin theory.

In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven away, and her that I have afflicted; And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a mighty nation; and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from thenceforth even for ever. [Micah 4.6-7]

Of course the messiah that is expected - shall not be seen through any second advent of Jesus - because Jesus isn't the prophetically expected messiah - the 'why not' part of that - is a whole other discussion .

So it should be noted that the expected messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being - not God - not an incarnation [partial or otherwise] he isn't a demigod - he isn't a 'supernatural' nor divine being at all. - though he is 'different' - in that he has a 'general soul' or - a 'slightly universal' soul.

He doesn't have magic powers. Like in the days of old - God shall work the wonders - during the messianic age.

So what are a few points about this - in the Prophetic tradition.

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. For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. [Micah 4.4-5]

In that quote we see that the messianic age - shall be multi-faith.