secterian view

[Guest guest]

 

they gave him fish and honeycomb.

It does not say he ate the fish.

It says he took the fish and ate before them.

 

It does not say he actually ate the fish they offered him.

It says he took the fish.

It does not say he ate the fish.

 

Maybe he ate the honeycomb and left the nasty fish.

 

this is redicolous.. i wont debate this any further.. u can interpret as u wish.. fine by me

[Kripamoya 0]

http://www.nofishing.net/FishFeelPain.asp

[Guest guest]

 

http://www.nofishing.net/FishFeelPain.asp

 

what has that to do with the quote from the bible?

 

Luke 24:42 says: "And they gave him [Jesus] a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them."

[Kripamoya 0]

 

what has that to do with the quote from the bible?

 

Luke 24:42 says: "And they gave him [Jesus] a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them."

 

Jesus said "though shalt not kill".

 

If he condoned the killing of fish, then that would make him a hypocrit.

 

Was Jesus a hypocrit?

 

Only God can give life.

Only God should take it away.

 

Fish have life.

[Guest guest]

 

Jesus said "though shalt not kill".

 

If he condoned the killing of fish, then that would make him a hypocrit.

 

Was Jesus a hypocrit?

 

Only God can give life.

Only God should take it away.

 

Fish have life.

 

and still he ate the fish.. first u ask me to find the bible quote, i do that and still it isnt good enough.. he ate fish, deal with it

[Kripamoya 0]

The post-resurrection stories are seen by most scholars as late additions to the Gospels, intended to settle a historical schism in the Church regarding whether Jesus rose bodily. The inclusion of fish consumption, which occurs only in the Gospels of Luke and John (the last two written), would bolster the idea of Jesus rising bodily, showing that he must and can fulfill his need for food. Interestingly, the post-resurrection stories include the one aspect of Jesus' life that almost all scholars consider dubious, Jesus' statement that "these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." Few Christians believe they can consume poison or should play with poisonous snakes.

[Guest guest]

 

The post-resurrection stories are seen by most scholars as late additions to the Gospels, intended to settle a historical schism in the Church regarding whether Jesus rose bodily. The inclusion of fish consumption, which occurs only in the Gospels of Luke and John (the last two written), would bolster the idea of Jesus rising bodily, showing that he must and can fulfill his need for food. Interestingly, the post-resurrection stories include the one aspect of Jesus' life that almost all scholars consider dubious, Jesus' statement that "these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." Few Christians believe they can consume poison or should play with poisonous snakes.

 

you most be the worst debater ever, sorry, but thats the truth.. read ur questions and my answers.. and u will see that nothing i have wrote was good enough for u and u started to talk bout things not on the subject.. i will stop debatting bout the fish and jesu now.. because the topic is secterianism here..

[Kripamoya 0]

 

you most be the worst debater ever, sorry, but thats the truth.. read ur questions and my answers.. and u will see that nothing i have wrote was good enough for u and u started to talk bout things not on the subject.. i will stop debatting bout the fish and jesu now.. because the topic is secterianism here..

oh well, eating fish is not the worst thing a christian can do.

Eating cows is the real sin of Christianity.

 

If Christians stopped eating cows and only ate fish, they would be making some remarkable progress.

 

Visit a slaughter house and see the reality of meat eating.

Then maybe you will think twice about justifying animal killing on the claims of following Jesus.

 

Vaishnavas don't even like to hurt an ant.

[Guest guest]

 

oh well, eating fish is not the worst thing a christian can do.

Eating cows is the real sin of Christianity.

 

If Christians stopped eating cows and only ate fish, they would be making some remarkable progress.

 

Visit a slaughter house and see the reality of meat eating.

Then maybe you will think twice about justifying animal killing on the claims of following Jesus.

 

Vaishnavas don't even like to hurt an ant.

 

assuming is mental speculation.. i dont step on ants, i am a strict veggie since several years back, i dont kill nothing.. so dont assume that.. i have visit where they make sasuage and meatballs.. i left the room when i saw it.. almost puking.. learn to read what i wright first.. then u can debate properly..

 

vaisnavas dont hurt living beings, then why do u try to hurt me by harsch words and insults? that isnt very vaisnava of u..

 

the last time now, i will stop debating anything that isnt related to the topic

[Guest guest]

 

Please show me any evidence from Christian shastra that directly says that Jesus ATE fish.

Jesus never ate fish.

jesus broke bread with is disciples.

 

John Chapter 21:

21:10

Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

 

21:11

Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

 

21:12

Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

 

21:13

Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.

 

 

How can a preacher who says "though shalt not kill" then turn around an kill fishies from the Sea?

 

Jesus NEVER said thou shalt not kill, you will not find this quote anywhere by Jesus Christ. That is a commandment from the 10 commanments of Moses, and it is not speaking about animals. Ask any Orthodox Jew what the Mosiac dietary laws enquire, and they will tell you they do not enquire vegetarianism.

 

We all know the Mosiac laws (613 in all) included animal sacrifices and allowed selective meat-eating, with the exception of pork and certain seafood. Kosher diet is what the Old Testament teaches, not vegetarianism. And from the Christian perspective, even those Kosher laws were revoked in the New Testament.

 

The Apostle Paul, who was appointed by Jesus Christ to preach to the Gentiles (non-Jews), wrote to the Roman Church that what we eat is a matter of personal conviction, and no one should tell another what to eat or not to eat: "The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him." (Romans 14:3).

[Guest guest]

 

Jesus said "though shalt not kill".

 

If he condoned the killing of fish, then that would make him a hypocrit.

 

Was Jesus a hypocrit?

 

Only God can give life.

Only God should take it away.

 

Fish have life.

 

Where did Jesus say thou shalt not kill? That was Moses who said that: and the Hebrew word is not killing (it's murder). Killing is allowed, such as when God tells you to kill, like God ordered the Jews to kill many people, because they were pagans who worshipped other gods besides Jehovah. The word in the Hebrew Torah, means shedding of "innocent" blood of a human being. Animals do not have souls according to the bible, so they cannot be murdered. One should not eat pigs however, because they are considered unclean. Cows are ok to eat in the bible, and that's why Jews eat hamburgers.

[Guest guest]

Krsna said to give us all dharmas - but he said something even more important - mam ekam sharanamvrta - surrender unto him. Krsna does not inlcude surrender to him as a religion or a religious duty. Surrendering to Krsna is the natural tendency of the soul - that's why it's called sanatana dharma - it's eternal, not temporary.

 

Any person who is making a genuine effort at service and surrender to God regardless of the nomenclature they use should be encouraged. That is what Srila Prabhupada meant by encouraging Christians and people of 'other' faiths. In the same eight versus that enigma eluded to which refer to the need for humility Lord Chaitanya told us that God has hundreds and millions of names and that he has invested his potency in them such that those who call on him in earnest will be heard and develop spiritually.

 

In the spritual world differences are beautiful - they are ornaments - they do not come under the sway material consciousness. For example, when the Gopis saw Narayana they paid their obeisances but they quickly went about looking for the Lord of their hearts - Sri Krsna. Philosophically speaking Narayana and Krsna are one, but in terms of rasa or loving exchange we see a difference. To Krsna's devotees they only have room in their hearts for him and they don't even see him as God! When God comes they pay respects and go about searching after their beloved.

 

A devotee will naturally love all people and see them in terms of their connection with God and he/she will honor their faith and their own personal development and heart. Sridhara Maharaja said that a genuine devotee will be a faith maker, not a faith breaker. A devotee will always encourage others to continue to grow - we are all students forever.

 

I'm personally not convinced that a person can really make significant progress spiritually without developing their heart in connection with a realized practicioner in the tradition one finds him/herself drawn to.

 

In terms of Krsna bhakti that means constantly associating with others who are drawn to devotion to Krsna and enlivening each other by conversing about him and living a life of dedication following in the wake of the sentiments of his intimate devotees.

 

There is nothing ugly and sectarian about that - it is only ugly and sectarian when a person who is steeped in sectarian ideas professes to represent the tradition and presents it in and ugly sectarian manner. Within the gaudiya vaishnava tradition we call these people kanistha adhikaris - meaning that there faith and surrender are not very mature. They are characterized as having faith which can be changed, seeing God in the temple but not in other people, not being conversant with the scriptural conclusions, etc. Most people who are adherents of any religion fall into this category to some degree or another. This is not surprising at all. But it does not mean that a better alternative is to pick and choose from all traditions and find your own way. Rather a neophye or kanistha advances by associating with devotees who are more advanced and eventually they develop deeper, more tangible faith, which is fixed and supported by scripture. They will move from being fixed in faith but not able to fully support their faith based on scripture (and intermediate) to eventually haing deep faith which they can fully support with scriptural backing. This is the superlative devotee and he/she will be able to touch other people on the level of the soul due to their experience and the development of their hearts in relation to service and surrender to Krsna.

[Guest guest]

it is really intressting to see how my thread about secterianism has turned to jesu ate fish.. what has this to do with anything?

[Guest guest]

 

it is really intressting to see how my thread about secterianism has turned to jesu ate fish.. what has this to do with anything?

 

Oh, look! Enigma is being sectarian! Instead of maintaining a broad perspective and appreciating how the Jesus/fish discussion fits admirably with the thread's theme, he has become concerned with what he calls "my" thread as if it can only be approached in the one way he intended. That is TRUE sectarianism!

[Guest guest]

 

it is really intressting to see how my thread about secterianism has turned to jesu ate fish.. what has this to do with anything?

 

It has a lot to do with the differences between Christianity and the Vedic religion. One preaches vegetarianism, reincarnation, that animals have souls, etc, while the other rejects these animalistic teachings - and instead teaches that we only live one lifetime, that only human beings are made in God's image, and that insteading of worrying about what we eat, we should be focused on reaching souls with the gospel of Christ, which can only save their souls.

[Kripamoya 0]

 

Where did Jesus say thou shalt not kill? That was Moses who said that:

 

Jesus quoted Moses saying that and affired the same thing.

 

Read your Bible.

 

Jesus did say that.

 

As a matter of fact Jesus took the "though shalt not kill" concept to an even higher level.

 

From the Sermon on the Mount:

 

"Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, "thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of judgment". But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of judgment"

[Kripamoya 0]

Jesus stressed bread as the best food.

He said we should pray for bread - not fish!

 

"Give us this day our daily bread."

[Guest guest]

 

Jesus quoted Moses saying that and affired the same thing.

 

Read your Bible.

 

Jesus did say that.

 

As a matter of fact Jesus took the "though shalt not kill" concept to an even higher level.

 

From the Sermon on the Mount:

 

"Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, "thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of judgment". But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of judgment"

 

Jesus quoted Moses who was given the 10 commandments from the Jewish tribal god. The same tribal god told the Hebrews to go and slaughter entire villages, so the hypocrisy is right there from the beginning.

 

In Jewish Law, thou shalt not kill, never meant to be vegetarians, nor did it mean thou shalt not engage in battles. It meant thou shalt not shed innocent human blood. Although who exactly is innocent was up to the Jews to decide, pagans and homosexuals were free to be stoned, as they are not concerned innocent before Jehovah.

 

As to Jesus eating fish, we see right in the Bible he did. Infact, Jesus went fishing with Peter his disciple, who was a fisherman for a living, and helped him catch a load of fish. Thos story is right there in the New Testament.

 

You must understand, Christians do not follow the vedic regulations, they follow the New Testament. So they do not care what the vedic regulations are, they don't even believe animals have souls, so they do not associate the killing of animals with murder.

[theist 1]

From what I understand Jesus ate something of the bread and fish that His disciples had prepared after He resuurected his body and appeared before them. He showed them he had a real "physical" body and that what their were seeing was not an apparition of some kind.

 

Those devotees that criticize Christ for that bite of fish are often shocked to find out that Bhaktivinode Thakur was habituated to lamb a fish until he finally gave them up.

 

Also another angle here is it is not the eatting of the flesh foods that is most objectionable it is the slaughtering and torturous treatment of those animals before they get to your plate that is the most abominable and condemnable.

 

That sort of viscious disregard for other life forms will not escape the punishment of God. Christians seem to think they have a liscense for their bloodlust because Jesus died for them on the cross. Yet they seem to forget the word's of Christ when He tells His disciples to "Pick up YOUR cross and follow me." And that is where the true transcendental teaching of Christ are to be found. Not in books or philosophy but in performing deeds that require an actual change of heart to accomplish.

 

It is so easy to dance around the cross of Christ singing "Yippee we are bathed in the blood of the lamb..." The cross is not a May Pole where we glory in the sacrifice of an innocent soul on our behalf. It is a teaching to us as to how we find the Way of Life within ourselves. By sacrificing the will of the flesh to perform the will of God. Jesus said "I am the way" and if we want to follow Christ we must walk His way by picking up our own crosses.

 

This is why I would never dishonor the name Christ by pretending and calling myself a Christian. Real Christians are rare. Someone said there are two billion christians on earth but I say if there were two billion real followers of Christ on earth by that amount of spiritual potency this earth would be a heavenly planet and more instead of the hell that it is now.

 

Was it Timothy that said "I will show you my faith by my works for faith without works is dead." There is a lot of wisdom in Timothy's words I believe.

[Guest guest]

 

Oh, look! Enigma is being sectarian! Instead of maintaining a broad perspective and appreciating how the Jesus/fish discussion fits admirably with the thread's theme, he has become concerned with what he calls "my" thread as if it can only be approached in the one way he intended. That is TRUE sectarianism!

 

dont be pathetic..

[Guest guest]

I hope that most people know by now that the Bible has been mistranslated and tampered with so many times over the centuries. There are too many examples to mention herewith, but keeping this in mind, let us keep an open mind and not fall prey to current mainstream doctrines and so-called fundamentalism caused by such tampering.

 

Re fish: Among the symbols employed by the primitive Christians, that of the fish ranks probably first in importance. The Greek word for fish is also an acronym which translates: "Ichthys" which means: Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter, which words briefly but clearly described the character of Christ and His claim to the worship of believers: , i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. The word Ichthys, then, as well as the representation of a fish, held for Christians a meaning of the highest significance; it was a profession of faith in the divinity of Christ.

 

Here is a very interesting link. Jesus was a member of the Essenes, who were

vegetarian. Jesus never ate meat, nor fish.

 

"Vegetarianism in the Bible:

 

thenazareneway.com/biblical_%20vegetarianism_denis_giron.htm

 

One excerpt:

 

"It should be noted that some scholars contend that the Greek word for "fish weed" (a dried seaweed) has been mistranslated in this story as "fish". It is certainly true that dried fishweed would be more likely in a basket with bread, and fishweed remains a popular food among Palestinian peasants like the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Also, in the beginning of the story (Matthew 14:13) it says Jesus got to this place by boat. These people were right by the sea. If they were out of fish, why not just go on a quick fishing expedition? Surely with 5,000 men present it would not be that hard to go fishing. With this in mind, it further supports the thought that fishweed was being used, not actual fish."

[Guest guest]

 

From what I understand Jesus ate something of the bread and fish that His disciples had prepared after He resuurected his body and appeared before them. He showed them he had a real "physical" body and that what their were seeing was not an apparition of some kind.

 

Those devotees that criticize Christ for that bite of fish are often shocked to find out that Bhaktivinode Thakur was habituated to lamb a fish until he finally gave them up.

 

Also another angle here is it is not the eatting of the flesh foods that is most objectionable it is the slaughtering and torturous treatment of those animals before they get to your plate that is the most abominable and condemnable.

 

That sort of viscious disregard for other life forms will not escape the punishment of God. Christians seem to think they have a liscense for their bloodlust because Jesus died for them on the cross. Yet they seem to forget the word's of Christ when He tells His disciples to "Pick up YOUR cross and follow me." And that is where the true transcendental teaching of Christ are to be found. Not in books or philosophy but in performing deeds that require an actual change of heart to accomplish.

 

It is so easy to dance around the cross of Christ singing "Yippee we are bathed in the blood of the lamb..." The cross is not a May Pole where we glory in the sacrifice of an innocent soul on our behalf. It is a teaching to us as to how we find the Way of Life within ourselves. By sacrificing the will of the flesh to perform the will of God. Jesus said "I am the way" and if we want to follow Christ we must walk His way by picking up our own crosses.

 

This is why I would never dishonor the name Christ by pretending and calling myself a Christian. Real Christians are rare. Someone said there are two billion christians on earth but I say if there were two billion real followers of Christ on earth by that amount of spiritual potency this earth would be a heavenly planet and more instead of the hell that it is now.

 

Was it Timothy that said "I will show you my faith by my works for faith without works is dead." There is a lot of wisdom in Timothy's words I believe.

 

this is true, real muslims and christians are rare, the same with vaisnavas.. the real God loving/fearing person dont care what he/she call themself, that isnt important.. they follow God and what they call themself is irrelevant

[Kripamoya 0]

Anybody that can read the Bible can see that the God of the Old Testament was a "jealous god" who was prone to lose control of his anger and exact all kinds of horrible penalties on the Jews.

 

The religion of the Old Testament was FEAR OF GOD.

God was not to be loved - but feared.

 

the Jesus concept teaches love of God, which is a big improvement over the fear of God in the Old Testament.

 

If Jesus was real, then I think his God was different from the god of the Old Testament.

Of course, jesus would never have admitted that.

 

There is no way that the world could love the vengeful, jealous god that all humanity lived in fear of in the days of the Old Testament.

 

The god of the Old Testament gave the Jews license to destroy entire cities and every living creature there, so they could claim the land of Israel for the Jews.

 

Tell Hell with that god.

 

 

I have no use for a god that allows the Jews to kills thousands of children, women and old men so the jews can lord it over a piece of land because they are THE CHOSEN CHILDREN OF GOD.

[Guest guest]

If you really follow Bible, Koran or Gita and completely submit to the will of God to realize Him in this life, you have to eat whatever is available on your way thinking that God is eating within you in His own will. Then you see what you can eat and what you can not.

 

Whatever food is given to you by Hari take it as it is. If it is meat than eat meat, if it is vegitable than eat vegitable. But know that God knows what you should eat and what you should not.

[Guest guest]

 

If you really follow Bible, Koran or Gita and completely submit to the will of God to realize Him in this life, you have to eat whatever is available on your way thinking that God is eating within you in His own will. Then you see what you can eat and what you can not.

 

Whatever food is given to you by Hari take it as it is. If it is meat than eat meat, if it is vegitable than eat vegitable. But know that God knows what you should eat and what you should not.

 

this I agree to, follow God and let Him decide what is best for u!

 

btw secterian, from the lat. word sect, means branch enigma, so all small branches from the bigger road is a sect.. it hasnt anything to do with a brainwashing cult or sumthing so u know that..