Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RadheRade1657


    Well, this is simply my opinion. The Gospels put Jesus in an actual place and time, meeting with actual figures of the time. This makes it easier to go into surviving historical records and cross reference.


    For starters, Jesus' birth story is rather easy to disprove.


    It would've made absolutely no sense for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem. It would've made no sense for Joseph to have gone to his "ancestral" town to be taxed. (his father's town perhaps...but his distanced ancestral town?)

    There is no record of a "worldwide" census, which would've obviously have been documented.

    There are also conflicting scriptures that say Jesus was born in Nazareth or Galilee, even a scripture where people are mocking him, claiming he can't be the Messiah "because he wasn't born in Bethlehem"...which is it?


    As for a virgin birth: Romans 1:3: "...Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

    No such thing is listed in the earliest of Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Mark. If these are supposed to be biographical scriptures on Jesus' life, why would they not be mentioned?

    None of the Gospels seems to even be able to agree on who Jesus was even related to.

    Also, the idea of the virgin birth seems to come from a mistranslation of an older scripture which would've translated as "young girl" and not "virgin".

    Some of the more miraculous aspects of Jesus' life seems to closely parallel the life of Krishna, as well as the God Horus and seemed to be an attempt to appeal to people of Pagan faiths.


    Why also would Joseph have taken Mary to Bethlehem, obviously late in her pregnancy? Only men were taxed at the time.


    The Gospel of Mark is almost completely compiled of re-written scriptures that were written many years before Mark. It is also quite anti-jewish, reflecting the sentiments at the time. This is the original of the four basic Gospels and the others reference it heavily.


    The Gospel of Luke was apparently written as an argument against earlier Gospels. Supposedly it's author felt that previous Gospels were not "accurate" enough. Why then would all four of these Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) be included together and are supposedly complimentary?


    It is believed by some that several parts of the Gospels have been a forgery, added later to the scriptures.


    When we completely base our opinions of Jesus on these Gospels that are obviously not very trustworthy...then how can we believe in His existence?


    Sorry for such a long post. I could've added much more to it, only I have to go to work. :)

    Well, we really don't know when Jesus lived or when he really died. The Catholic Church decided those dates (as well as his age at death) in the 400's. So, it's hard to tell if there may have been a large census (maybe not the whole world, as the gospels claim, but maybe a large part of their world).

    His ancestral town could've been his father's town. We don't know how far back the writer was going. My father is one of my ancestors. It could've meant it as the town he was born and raised in, which was later translated as "ancestral".

    Yes. You are right about the two conflicting stories of the place of birth. But, you must remember that there is also a smaller town called Bethlehem right outside of Nazareth, so it could've been that they went to this small town to register.

    Many people date the Srimad Bhagavata Purana to the Tenth century C.E. That doesn't mean it wasn't around before that. We don't know which gospels came first and which gospels came later.

    Who are we to say that the virgin-birth didn't really happen just because the term "virgin" in the book of Isaiah may have meant "young woman" rather than "virgin" (something which is hotly debated by scholars on both sides of the debate) ? The birth of Jesus could still have been virginal, and later when the gospel writer (in this case, Matthew) looked for a prophecy to show that it had been foretold earlier.

    Oh, please tell me that you're not taking from the one book, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors", which makes such ludicrous claims as Krishna having been crucified on a tree. You really can't trust that book as far as you can throw it... by a long shot.

    We don't know how far along Mary was in her pregnancy. She could've been seven months along and delivered early. Besides that, if they did go to the smaller Bethlehem right outside of their town, then it wouldn't have been an arduous journey or anything.

    How is the Gospel of Mark anti-semetic? And, even if it is a compilation of several sources before it, that adds even more credibility to the stories found therein. Showing that the stories were in circulation possibly even during Jesus' life.

    The Gospel of Luke claims at it's beginning to be Luke's letter to a wealthy man who wanted to know of Jesus, not as a rebuttal to earlier gospels.

    So what if Atheist scholars speculate that parts of the gospels are forgeries? The same scholars are also the ones that date the Srimad Bhagavatam at the Tenth century C.E. And I'm sure that they would consider the story of Sri Meenakshi Devi as implausable and try to point out inconsistencies in Her story.


    Pesco means fish right? Is poyo a reference to chicken?Is that a real term they use? LOL OMG it's crazy out there.


    Meat eaters are even proud of themselves now for just eating organic cows. Never mind the cows still suffer they are treated better before their throats are cut.:rolleyes: Vegetarians do this with milk also.

    They really do use that term! It's a mix between languages! Poyo is chicken in Spanish, and Pesco is fish in Latin! Even their name is mixed up! :D

    Oh jeez... don't even get me started on "organic cow farms". A lot of the people who get their meat from there actually pick out which cow they want slaughtered, and they're proud of themselves for that.


    You see no difference because you look at the externals only. It is a very different music, very different dance, and a very different mood of the dancers.

    How do you know this? I think that Shiva's drum complements Krishna's flute quite nicely! I think it's you that look at the externals only: Kali Ma lives in the cremation ground, Radharani lives in Goloka; Kali Ma has black skin, Radharani has skin as light as the sun... so they must be completely different since their physical qualities are different.


    Because one won't be single pointed and have a sadhya or goal in their sadhana which is required for sadhana to be successful. No goal no result, mixed goal mixed results. The higher devotees who genuinely aspire for Vrndavana lila in madhurya rasa (under the guidance of the Rupanugas) will naturally be attracted to the camp of Srimati Radharani and will not even wish to hear about Rukmini and Satyabhama in Dvaraka what to speak of Kali dancing. In the beginning stages of practice one may give up the association of ganja smokers and associate with devotees who have no such habits. Later on one will actually renounce even hearing of Dvaraka lila because it will be unfavorable for their internal Vraja mood. Of course this stage is very advanced and high and far beyond our current level, but we should know these things and it can reflect in our current practices and mood. Also I don't think that you will find cowherd boys and girls in Goloka Vrndavana with crosses around their necks.

    I try to be Christ-Conscious in that I try to follow the message of Jesus (Love thy neighbor as thyself; love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy might and with all thy strength). I don't see how following his message impedes my (rather slow) progression in Krishna consciousness in the slightest.

    Your painting of all Kali devotees as "ganja smokers" is ludicrous. That's like saying that just because some members of ISKCON were perverts that molested children that all ISKCON devotees are now pedophiles. Check your facts. You don't know every Kali devotee, and until you do, don't paint them all as drug-addicts.


    You've fallen into my trap, and revealed your filthy christian upbringing. Thank you!;)

    Oh, yes! You've just revealed my great secret that I was raised Catholic (something that I've talked about on several threads before this one)! :rolleyes:

    And, thanks for insulting the family that God chose for me to reincarnate into! You sound a little like Hitler. If you replaced "Christian" with "Jewish", you guys could be twins!

    I still really don't know how one can truly accept everything in any religious scripture (the Bible, the Vedas, etc...). That doesn't mean there isn't wisdom to be found in these scriptures, but not everything in them is based in fact. That is, unless you really believe that the sky is a firmament holding back water from a flat earth (which is something in both the Vedas and the Bible) and that it's supported by seven white elephants which sometimes stomp to create earthquakes (which is in the Vedas). ;)


    Veda is apoureshya, so what it says has to be accepted. Other books like bible are not, so their accounts of jeeesus etc. are mere fabrications. Therefore, your comparision with bogus faiths like C or Jeeesus is ridiculous.


    Oh yes, I'm sure that it is absolute fact that Indraaa Devaaa had to kill a draaagon so that the raaaiiin could come out of the great fiiirmaaament of the skyyy which "holds the waaatersss" back from the eeeaaarth. We don't have to accept the Vedas at face-value. To make such a claim is laughable at best.

    Besides that, Mr. Vedantist, the Rig Veda says, "Truth is one, but is called by many names."

    Oh, and thanks for teaching me that Jesus is now a faith! I never knew that before! :rolleyes:


    Yes, my website. Some new things are in the works. These will be posted soon. Thank you. And yes, religious art is very nice to look at. Spiritual windows. The kind that is painted with loving devotion to God. rsd

    I really liked the story about the Filipino girl that went to the Krishna temple :) Thanks for sharing this story and all the other ones on your website!


    Well to simplify things and avoid the issue of mixing Krsna Consciousness together with Christianity lets look at the second part of your equations:

    Kali = Divine Mother, Radharani = Kali therefore Kali = Radharani. Do you really believe that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Goswamis gave the siddhanta that Kali = Radharani? For preaching the specific may be taken to the general, so in that way it may be said in a very general way that Radharani is a manifestation of the Divine Mother. But if we look at things more closely we will find that such an equation not only falls short but actually obscures the real position of Srimati Radharani and madhurya rasa. Srila Sridhar Maharaj would say in this context, "as denotation increases connotation decreases and as connotation increases, denotation decreases." To approach the real conception of Radha Govinda and Mahaprabhu connotation much increase to a very intense degree as found in the writings of Srila Sanatana, Srila Rupa and Srila Raghunatha das Goswamis. At that point the comparative religion class is left in the dust at warp speed.

    Kali dancing with Shiva in the cremation grounds surrounded by yoginis; Radharani dancing with Krishna in the forests of Vrindavan surrounded by Gopis... I really see no difference ;)

    And, why does it really matter if I mix Christ Consciousness with Krishna Consciousness?








    good attempt, nice test but one unsolicited advise...pls. take care of the addreses to the Supreme, i.e. as you've mentioned in q19. Chaitanya used to call his servant

    Vaishnavas would write ShreeChaitnaya used to call HIS servants


    similarly in q22 Nityananda had his grand bathing at the house of

    Vaishnavas would write LordShreeNityänanda has HIS grand bathing at the house of...


    or not hanumanaje, but Hanumanjee Mahäräja


    these are not just formalities...


    pls. do take care, but a good attempt, anyway.



    There are many acceptable ways of treating the Lord. You can treat Him as a friend or even a lover if you wish. You don't usually address your close friend or lover as a Maharaja or anything else... you address them by their names. I think Indulekha's test is fine the way it is. It reflects her special relationship with Lord Krishna-Chaitanya and Sri Nityananda Prabhu :)


    why is this a "believe in jesus" topic. Belief is very lame anyway, because believers all think they are God anyway. Just witness any believer. They all have god complexes.


    No, this is about consciousness of the Supreme Lord, Krsna Consciousness. Lord Jesus acknowledged that a roman soldier occupying a foreign land had shown signs of God Consciousness despite not having all the beliefs that were fully present in Judea at the time.


    I dont believe in ISKCON. I didnt believe in ISKCON even when I was operating within the foundation as a helper of my spiritual master in his preaching program of Krsna Consciousness. What Srila Prabhupada gave me was not belief in God. That was impossible, because god to me back then was just a banner for manifest destiny, zionism, brutal genocide of all those who refused to believe as religions do. Still is. Which I reject fully. While it can be said that some acaryas may say they are christian, jew, hindu, muslim, I say I am not any of these, because such designation dies with the body only to be born in another system where the former jew becomes a muslim palestinian or the former devout catholic becomes a brahmana of hindu persuasion.


    Krsna Consciousness comes when all material considerations, including membership in nation, race, gender, religion, culture, etc, are renounced fully and only Krsna becomes the object to place ones attention on. This is Srila Prabhupadas teachings, not religion membership for salvation.


    So, why not discuss the topic? Why all this believe stuff? There is no peace in such discussion of belief, because believers only fight and die. History has shown this statement to be a fact.



    What else would you call faith in a deity other than 'belief'? Faith in the Atman? Faith in any non-physical, non-provable entity?


    I see...I didn't know that.

    Everything is becoming corrupt! Now we can see that the dhamas of the Lord are slowly hiding themselves. We have to struggle to keep those dhamas, but there will be a time where those dhamas will vanish from our vision. How sad.:crying2:


    It's a great travesty to see all the suffering that is happening in this world because of a lack of love for man and for God. :(


    Thank you for your input. Actually, if you go back to that page where all the items on Gagabandal are located, below the photo of one of the girls levitating, you will see a small picture of the priest, Father Andreu, that you have mentioned. The link there will take you to the full story. What happend to him is nicely written down, if you are interested. Here is that link, again: http://www.cedarpost.com/GarabandalEvents.htm


    Regarding Our Lady of Guadalupe, I also have this story on my website. I have a pretty extensive collection of pictures included with the full story. The pictures are very nice, as is the story. I live next to the Guadalupe River so down here in Texas you see Her Holy image everywhere. Here is that link: http://www.cedarpost.com/Guadalupe.htm


    Oh, this is your website? It's very nicely put together! I'll be sure to take a more in-depth look at it.

    I love Guadalupe. She's such a little sweet heart! :D I really like the pic of her defeating the Red Dragon... so dramatic!


    Yes, but the Jesus thing is a bit complex. It's not just that we can't prove he exists...it's that we can prove that things attributed to him never happened at all.


    Again, this doesn't mean that he didn't exist, but that obviously whoever wrote the Gospels (or whoever decided to edit them later) was rather untruthful.


    What's the proof that none of these things happened? There's no evidence that Kansa massacred infants after Sri Krishna's birth, but we believe it happened. Some could say that the lack of evidence of this massacre makes it invalid, but we still believe it. There's no proof that Parashuram killed thousands of Kshatriyas. Or that there was ever a race of talking monkey-people that met Lord Rama and helped him rescue Sita Devi from a demonic king with ten heads. Does that make all of these stories untrue, just because there's no historical evidence for them?

    So, what exactly is there that disproves Jesus? Lack of evidence? Well, this can be applied to any religious figure, so if one is going to take that point of view, then that person should be a Deist or Atheist. They're the only forms of belief that have any real basis in science or provable fact.


    What faith do you need to be a vaisnava? What are the qualifications?

    Should that be one's manifest goal? Yes I want to be a Vaisnava so now I'm going to do such and such , live in a temple, follow some Vedic rules and then I can call myself a Vaisnava. Is that how it goes? Are Vaisnava those people who have striven for that title or rather those sincere servants of God who have surrendered their lives to Him? None of this has to do with an obssessive concern over not believing in Jesus.

    I'm not obsessively concerned with people not believing in Jesus. I just don't think it's appropriate to insult another's religious figure (especially when you believe in other, also non-provable religious figures).


    Allow me (if it's ok) to put a semi-ex-christian, non-vaishnava influenced stance on this.


    There is very little if any proof of Jesus' existence. At least, if you believe everything said about him in the Gospels.

    The thing is that so many times and locations etc. are mentioned in accordance to His lifetime that one can in theory research these references and see if they add up.


    For example, it has mostly proven that Jesus could not have been born in Bethlehem. Even though that is the popular consensus.


    This does not exactly prove that he didn't exist, but that perhaps what has been written about him is not exactly truthful.

    Well, there's also no physical evidence of the existence of Sri Rama or Kanya Kumari, or any other avatar within Hinduism (excepting a few recent ones). There's hardly any evidence for Buddha. There's virtually no evidence for Lao Tzu or Confucius either. All religion is based on faith. To believe in Maheshwara or Sri Meenakshi Devi is based solely on faith, nothing else. So, what I was trying to say with the statement you quoted was: Why is it okay for one to have faith in Rama, but not to have faith in Jesus?


    Oh, that must be why the magazine used to be called, Needles. Kid you not. Whatever you make of it, the messages spoken by Mary are there to encourage Catholic to be better people. You might find that story of John Traynor interesting. This guy was shot up pretty bad during WWI. Because he was operated on in military hospital and given a lifelong pension for his injuries, his medical condition was well documented. Here's the link: http://www.cedarpost.com/JohnTraynor.htm


    I full heartedly agree. Mary is just as much a form of the Divine Mother as Kali or Radharani. Did you read about the priest (his name escapes me) who said that he saw Mary and on the way back from the apparition site died with a smile on his lips? I, personally, think that he entered into Samadhi. Some people on here might say, "Samadhi can only be reached through the Sanatan Dharma!", but, hey, the Vedas themselves say that Truth is One but is called by many names!

    Have you ever heard of Guadalupe (http://www.sancta.org/)? That's my favorite of all the apparitions of Mary. :D


    Yesterday I received the magazine, Garabandal Journal. Since I only to Wired Magazine, wasn't sure what this was. Looking closer I have discovered that the zine is dedicated to the supernatural events that occured in a small village in northern Spain back in 1961, involving four young girls, ages 11 -12. I had no knowledge of this. I have now placed three related videos and links to 3 Websites at:



    Hope you find this interesting. I think watching the videos top to bottom is best. Thank You, rsd


    I read about Garabandal in my old Catholic days... pretty interesting. Did you know people used to drive needles into the children's flesh in order to see if they were really in a state of divine ecstasy or not?


    And even if he existed, what happened to jesus was nothing extraordinary, most criminals at the time were punished by crucifixion. So this guy jesus wasn't the only one to undergo this, it was common during the Roman days. So if at all the man existed, he must've been a rabble-rouser who was punished eventually for treason. So the real traitor was jesus, not poor Judas!:eek: Judas must've been the real vaishnva, then. Judasaaya NamaH.


    Who cares if it wasn't "extraordinary"? Rapes happen all the time. They're not "extraordinary" either, but they are horrible crimes that no one ever deserves to go through.

    So, he deserved to be crucified for treason against the cruel Roman government? Oh, God forbid someone disobey a ruthless set of conquerors who massacred thousands of people all over the world!

    Oh, yes, let us all take refuge in Judas, who sold out his teacher for 30 shekels... :crazy:


    Jesus never existed. So I don't see why we must believe in this non-existent entity in order to be vaishnava. Belief in the supremacy of Vishnu makes one a vaishnav. Therefore, the mythical Jesus is irrelevant to vaishnavism.


    What makes you so sure that Jesus never existed? I bet you would be very angry if a Christian said such a thing about Lord Rama (who can't be historically proven any more than Jesus), but there you go saying it about Lord Jesus (who can't be historically proven anymore than Sri Rama). Hmmm... well if that's not blatant hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

  • Create New...