Christianity is simpler

[cbrahma 0]

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.

 

Catechism is another fabrication of the "church" of men.

 

The actual Christian doctrine is that souls live in limbo in death and in the grave and then they are resurrected from the grave...

[Guest guest]

 

Sure beats millenia of transmigrations.

 

 

Which version of the Bible are you reading? In the Ethiopian Copts Bible (not the bible made by the servants of the Roman emporers), reincarnation is mentioned as a fact, in the book of enoch.

[cbrahma 0]

I actually don't care. Salvation is salvation. Resurrection is resurrection. However I get there as long as I do.

 

Which version of the Bible are you reading? In the Ethiopian Copts Bible (not the bible made by the servants of the Roman emporers), reincarnation is mentioned as a fact, in the book of enoch.

[Guest guest]

Churchianity may be simpler but that doesn't make it right. There are millions of retarded people in the world who don't have the brain capacity to understand either Christianity or Krishna. If you get just one chance to live on earth and surrender to Jesus, what chance do those folks have? What about people born in the family of a prostitute in Babylon. What sort of a world are they flung into? What is their destiny? Hell?

[Guruvani 0]

Jesus said: "as you sew, so shall you reap".

This is clearly a reference to the same principle as Karma.

 

Unless one can ruturn in future births, there is no way to reap what you sew.

 

Eternal damnation is hardly a good explanation of the "as you sew, so shall you reap" idea.

 

Not all non-Christians are sinners.

Some are pious and good, but modern day Christians will tell you that a born again serial killer will go to heaven, but a saint from any other religion is bound for eternal damnation.

 

The Christian doctrine is a pathetic excuse for a religious system.

Modern Christianity is the epitome of bigotry and prejudice.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

<center>John

 

Chapter 4</center><dt>25 </dt><dd>¹⁰ 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, ¹¹ 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...

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

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"!

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

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?

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

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...

[gHari 0]

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

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

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?

[Guest guest]

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.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

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.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

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.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

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?

[cbrahma 0]

 

Yer not going to try to discuss this thread anymore?

I have better things to do than sort out the logical tangles of such a discussion.

The fact is even if vaisnavas could convince me that Christianity was some bogus made up religion (which would take some doing), it wouldn't advance G Vaisnavism one iota.

My whole purpose in posting to this forum, is that I was caught in an impossible dilemna- I was attracted to chanting and horrified by the diksa guru process.

After discussing with these 'elevated' vaisnavas I decided I would be better off continuing with my Christian faith and forget about chanting.

[Guest guest]

First, there are more than 2 spiritual paths in the world: Protestant Christianity (the path you you follow) and ISKCON (the path you chose to no longer follow). Giving up on ISKCON AS your SOLE Path does not mean one must revert back to fundamentalist Christianity, with all it's baggage of hellfire and brimstone, and condeming all others to hell who don't follow their religion. Instead of going back to that narrow-minded religious though, you could have took the good things you like in Christianity, the good things you like in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and whatever other path.. and make your own personal path to God.

 

To suggest that Srila Prabhupada and all other deceased Hare Krishnas are presently burning in hell because they weren't Christians, is quite offensive. You've turned your back on ISKCON and now condemn it as a false religion. When you should realize it is one of many paths to God, just not the path for you. Also, turning your back on ISKCON does not mean you had to turn your back on Krishna and call him a false god.

[cbrahma 0]

There is quite a diversity within Christianity itself. I am a Lutheran and therefore NOT fundamentalist.

I don't presume to know who is going to hell. Only God can decide that.

 

 

First, there are more than 2 spiritual paths in the world: Protestant Christianity (the path you you follow) and ISKCON (the path you chose to no longer follow). Giving up on ISKCON AS your SOLE Path does not mean one must revert back to fundamentalist Christianity, with all it's baggage of hellfire and brimstone, and condeming all others to hell who don't follow their religion. Instead of going back to that narrow-minded religious though, you could have took the good things you like in Christianity, the good things you like in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and whatever other path.. and make your own personal path to God.

 

To suggest that Srila Prabhupada and all other deceased Hare Krishnas are presently burning in hell because they weren't Christians, is quite offensive. You've turned your back on ISKCON and now condemn it as a false religion. When you should realize it is one of many paths to God, just not the path for you. Also, turning your back on ISKCON does not mean you had to turn your back on Krishna and call him a false god.

[Guest guest]

 

I decided I would be better off continuing with my Christian faith and forget about chanting.

 

With all due respect, if you've made up your mind about this, why are you still posting on every topic and wasting time? Shouldn't you spend your time studying and following the teachings of Christ?

[Beggar 0]

Ecswuse me but did cbrahma just say he was Luciferian? And if he doesn't know who's burnng in Hell, why doesn't he just ask his good buddy?

[Beggar 0]

Once a politician who died unexpectedly and found himself at the gates of heaven trying to get inside. But St. Peter is puzzled. "I'm not sure this is really where you want to be," he says. "I think you better spend a day in hell, then spend a day up here. After that we'll decide where you belong." With that Peter puts the politician on a down elevator.

When the politician reaches the netherworld below, he's astounded to find running fountains, manicured lawns, palm trees, cocktail parties and a championship golf course. A very gracious and smiling fellow, Satan himself is serving the drinks and taking orders for gourmet meals. When the time is up, the politician is genuinely disappointed to leave.

Up in heaven again, the politician discovers that all the people float on clouds singing alleluias and playing harps. It's restful and peaceful but kind of dull.

"Look," the politician says to Peter. "I can't believe I'd ever say this, but I really think I'd be a lot of more satisfied in hell."

"Done," says St. Peter, and puts him back on the elevator.

This time, when the door opens, the politician finds himself in a barren wasteland, his friends dressed in rags and gathering garbage, the devil in horns and poking people with his trident.

"What is going on?" the politician cries. "Where are the drinks, the golf course, the tuxedos, the appetizers, the banquet orders?"

"Ah," the devil says. "That was yesterday. Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted.":crazy:

[Guest guest]

 

There is quite a diversity within Christianity itself. I am a Lutheran and therefore NOT fundamentalist.

I don't presume to know who is going to hell. Only God can decide that.

 

So Martin Luther a clearly unelightened individual, who believed in eternal damnation for Jews and all NON-Christians is your SatGuru? you sure have fallen far from Srila Prabhupada's higher teachings and guidance. Not saying he should be your SatGuru. I am not even a Hare Krishna, I am a Shakta. But to go from a peaceful religion like Gaudiya Vaishnavism, that teaches God (Krishna) is Infinite Love, and all jivas are given unlimited oppurtunities to return back home to Godhead... to a religion that teaches we only live one life, and then we are damned forever, if we didn't believe right in that one lifetime, IS clearly a step in the wrong direction.

 

You might want to rethink just exactly it is that you believe. Do you really believe that only the Christian religion is the True religion, and that people of all other faiths are going to be damned by the Christian God, Jehovah?

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

I have better things to do than sort out the logical tangles of such a discussion.

The fact is even if vaisnavas could convince me that Christianity was some bogus made up religion (which would take some doing), it wouldn't advance G Vaisnavism one iota.

My whole purpose in posting to this forum, is that I was caught in an impossible dilemna- I was attracted to chanting and horrified by the diksa guru process.

After discussing with these 'elevated' vaisnavas I decided I would be better off continuing with my Christian faith and forget about chanting.

I told you what to do - forget gurus and forget chanting if you like - pray and study - sincerely - and you'll find your way - just know that God is not limited to the Christian [or any other for that matter] tradition and know the truth an facts about Jesus and you'll be fine - if you don't wish to sort out the messiah issues then your simply embracing blindly - because if you really believe in God - you'll go where that may take you - even if it's in a place where such things are at question. Good luck!

[cbrahma 0]

I need desperately to chant. I feel like I'm in a spiritual desert without the precious Holy Name. Sometimes I feel like I'm suffocating and oxygen is the Mahamantra.

Thank you prabhuji for the encouragement.

[

 

quote=Bhakta Don Muntean]I told you what to do - forget gurus and forget chanting if you like - pray and study - sincerely - and you'll find your way - just know that God is not limited to the Christian tradition and know the truth an facts about Jesus and you'll be fine - if you don't wish to sort out the messiah issues then your simply embracing blindly - because if you really believe in God - you'll go where that may take you - even if it's in a place where such things are at question. Good luck!

[Guest guest]

From "Chant and Be Happy" Chapter 7

"Christ or Krsna, the name is the same"

 

My advice is if you are a Lutheran then get into being a Lutheran with all of your heart, all of your mind, and all of your strength. If you find anything that inspires you from another tradition perhaps you can adopt it.

 

For example Prabhupada met with Christian nuns in England and shared how in his culture his tradition used japa beads to always meditate on the name of God. He also shared that a great Mystic, Chaitanya, said that God has hundreds and millions of names. So in essence he was sharing that if they felt more comfortable to chant "The Jesus Prayer" all during the day then that would be a way that Christians could be faithful to their tradition yet learn a multi-cultural thing to increase their devotion from another tradition.

 

My advice is meditate on the great saints in your tradition like Saint Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa. There are so many saints that there is actually a feast day for each day of the year. Then you can use that idea from Gaudiya Vaisnavism that there are many holy days all through the year besides Christmas and Easter.

 

The main thing is to look to the strengths to keep yourself strong on the path. Study the lives of the great mystics in your tradition, as mystics the world over have shared many common characteristics. You can use the terminology of Gaudiya Vaishnavism to understand the beauty of these Christian mystics: each was a lover of God in a different rasa: santa rasa or peacefulness, dasya rasa or servitude, and so on. Some experienced God as their dearmost friend; others experienced God as their beloved and wore a wedding ring signifying this. Actually I think most nuns do this.

 

Each tradition also has its own pitfalls. In Christianity there have been the contemporary scandals of Jonestown, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Ted Haggart, HV Grant, Kent Hovind, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton, and Jim Whittington. Yet the same religion that produced those people also produced Mother Teresa and Saint Francis of Assisi.

 

In the meantime perhaps make a checklist of what helps you from Gaudiya Vaisnavism and what doesn't. Then avoid and steer clear of what doesn't resonate with you and incorporate into your life what inspires you. If you make such a checklist you will probably find that there are millions of other people in the world who agree with your list from ALL of the religions of the world. Most people probably don't like tyranny or tyrants as religious leaders. Most nice people probably don't like duplicity and lack of tact and patience in self-styled spiritual leaders. Most people probably don't like a religious leader

using their money for selfish means rather than the stated goals of the Mission Statement of their religion.

 

Then stick to what you do know and do like, focus on the positive. The first thing on the "to do" list of Jesus was: "Love God"; the second thing was "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Then find the people that are doing those things. Find the people who are really acting on this realization and not talking about it: "God is Love; Love is Patient and Kind." By doing so you will have harmony with every tradition, such as the Dalai Lama who said, "My religion is very simple: my religion is kindness."