Worshipping a Beautiful Idea

[theist 1]

 

Srila Prabhupada referred to Jesus figuratively.

 

This statement is so much dog ***t. So did he speak about Radha/Krsna figuratively as well?

 

Still just repeating the same thing. For the third time I will ask you why you are to be considered a superior authority to Srila Prabhupada?

[Guruvani 0]

 

This statement is so much dog ***t. So did he speak about Radha/Krsna figuratively as well?

 

Still just repeating the same thing. For the third time I will ask you why you are to be considered a superior authority to Srila Prabhupada?

 

please show me any quote where Srila Prabhupada said Jesus was historically real.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada never acknolwedged Jesus was historically real.

[Guest guest]

In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century. The other passage mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. The authenticity of this latter passage has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

 

 

Testimonium Flavianum

The following passage appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3, in the translation of William Whiston:

 

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

[Guruvani 0]

 

In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century. The other passage mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. The authenticity of this latter passage has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

 

 

Testimonium Flavianum

The following passage appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3, in the translation of William Whiston:

 

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

 

 

so, really the whole historical claim to Jesus hinges on 2 verses from a Christian interpretation of some writings of the so-called historian Josephus?

 

sounds flimsy if you are trying to use that to prove that Jesus was historically real.

 

so, the whole argument that Jesus was historically real is not sound enough to really make a solid case.

[theist 1]

 

please show me any quote where Srila Prabhupada said Jesus was historically real.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada never acknolwedged Jesus was historically real.

 

Many hundreds of statements. You have a folio so use it.

 

But agin you dodge my question by asking oneself. That means you don't have an answer.

 

If you would say IMO Jesus was a figurative being only. I would have no problem. But instead you speak with such a certainty based on nothing but your tiny brain and then have the audacity to claim to speak for Prabhupada and try to turn what he said on it's head because it doesn't fit into your well.

 

It's not rather you accept the historicity of Jesus Christ it your arrogance that I challenge.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Many hundreds of statements. You have a folio so use it.

 

But agin you dodge my question by asking oneself. That means you don't have an answer.

 

If you would say IMO Jesus was a figurative being only. I would have no problem. But instead you speak with such a certainty based on nothing but your tiny brain and then have the audacity to claim to speak for Prabhupada and try to turn what he said on it's head because it doesn't fit into your well.

 

It's not rather you accept the historicity of Jesus Christ it your arrogance that I challenge.

If I accept Jesus, then I have to accept what he said that he is "the way, the truth and the life and NO man comes to God but through him".

 

Well, I can't accept that.

So, I can't accept Jesus.

 

I don't think Srila Prabhupada would ever accept that either.

 

If he really accepts Jesus, then he has to accept that Jesus is the only way.

I don't think Srila Prabhupada would agree that.

[Guest guest]

 

so, really the whole historical claim to Jesus hinges on 2 verses from a Christian interpretation of some writings of the so-called historian Josephus?

 

sounds flimsy if you are trying to use that to prove that Jesus was historically real.

 

so, the whole argument that Jesus was historically real is not sound enough to really make a solid case.

There are more writings by Josephus.

There is a lot CORROBORATIVE evidence that argues against a fictional Jesus.

The canonic Gospels which documented the oral tradition of over fifty years.

The writings of early Church Fathers such as Origen, Justin.

Also there is an anthropological argument that a symbolic Jesus would have been embellished like other mythic characters, such as Zeus or Osiris.

If you're going to manufacture an Ideal Jesus why bother with so many gritty human details - such as breaking bread - having supper at the tax collectors house -, weeping over Jerusalem etc...

The Gnostics however, dehumanized Jesus, very much like a 2 dimensional deiity. That's why they were considered heretics.

There is so much insistence in Christian theology on Jesus's humanity, I fail to understand how that could be the result of mythologizing. What psychological purpose would it serve? The historicity, the specificity of Jesus is actually a scandal to the idealists.

[Guest guest]

The Gnostics also did not believe in the crucifixion, which makes sense if your God is an Ideal God. Why would you want him to go through all that icky suffering.

[Guruvani 0]

 

There are more writings by Josephus.

There is a lot CORROBORATIVE evidence that argues against a fictional Jesus.

The canonic Gospels which documented the oral tradition of over fifty years.

The writings of early Church Fathers such as Origen, Justin.

Also there is an anthropological argument that a symbolic Jesus would have been embellished like other mythic characters, such as Zeus or Osiris.

If you're going to manufacture an Ideal Jesus why bother with so many gritty human details - such as breaking bread - having supper at the tax collectors house -, weeping over Jerusalem etc...

The Gnostics however, dehumanized Jesus, very much like a 2 dimensional deiity. That's why they were considered heretics.

There is so much insistence in Christian theology on Jesus's humanity, I fail to understand how that could be the result of mythologizing. What psychological purpose would it serve? The historicity, the specificity of Jesus is actually a scandal to the idealists.

Whether Jesus was an actual historical figure or not can never be proved or disproved one way or the other.

 

As far as that goes, we don't have any proof that Josephus was anything more than a fiction character that somebody dreamed up and wrote about.

 

The bottom line is not so much if Jesus was real or not, but whether or not a person accepts the teachings that are ascribed to the supposed person of Jesus Christ.

 

Even if Jesus was real, I don't accept his claim to be the only way to God.

 

Statements like that just convince me that he was a fiction character because if he was real I can't imagine any sane person saying anything like that.

 

Jesus the Son of God?

God only had ONE son?

 

My Dad had four sons but God can only have one?

 

Whether Jesus was real or not, is not crucial to me.

Even if he was a real historical figure I cannot accept him as a spiritual master because his teachings are against the teachings of Krishna.

 

As well, this claim to being "the only way to God" has been at the root of thousands of years of Christian bigotry and prejudice.

 

Can any religion in the wolrd expect to be brothers with Christians when they know that Christians believe that their way is the ONLY way?

 

There is no room for spiritual brotherhood between Christians and any other religion of the world because they have a philosophy of exclusivity.

 

I hate that kind of religious bigotry.

 

Christian philosophy creates bigots and fanatics like Jerry Falwell.

 

I think that man was a sorry excuse for a human being.

 

I have no use for a religion that creates bigots and lunatics like that.

[Guest guest]

 

Statements like that just convince me that he was a fiction character because if he was real I can't imagine any sane person saying anything like that.

 

Actually that argument was used in favor of his divinity.

"Aut Deus Aut Homo Malus" (Either God, or a bad man)

is the medieval argument offered as proof of Christ's divinity

If Jesus lied about being God - then he was a bad man.

But Jesus was clearly not a bad man, therefore he must have been what he said he was.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Actually that argument was used in favor of his divinity.

"Aut Deus Aut Homo Malus" (Either God, or a bad man)

is the medieval argument offered as proof of Christ's divinity

If Jesus lied about being God - then he was a bad man.

But Jesus was clearly not a bad man, therefore he must have been what he said he was.

 

Still, all we have are matters of faith.

I can't accept that Jesus is the only way to salvation or the only way to God.

 

So, real or unreal, I can't buy into the Pauline cult of Christianity.

 

Even if Jesus was real, he never left behind a single written document to record his teachings and the way the gospels came about are also very suspect having come about 100 years after the supposed life of Christ.

 

I don't like the 100 year timeline between the crucifiction and the coming of the gospels.

[Guest guest]

 

Still, all we have are matters of faith.

I can't accept that Jesus is the only way to salvation or the only way to God.

 

So, real or unreal, I can't buy into the Pauline cult of Christianity.

 

Even if Jesus was real, he never left behind a single written document to record his teachings and the way the gospels came about are also very suspect having come about 100 years after the supposed life of Christ.

 

I don't like the 100 year timeline between the crucifiction and the coming of the gospels.

 

The Vedas were transmitted orally for 8000 years according to Vedantists.

Just because a teaching tradition is not in writing, doesn't mean it's questionable.

Your real problem isn't Christ, it's Christians. Moreover, those politically conservative war-monging capitalist materialists who call themselves Christians are so far from the teachings of Christ they are a rabid embarassment to Christendom everywhere.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Your real problem isn't Christ, it's Christians.

No, my problem is with Christ.

He said he was the only way to God and that nobody can get to God but through him.

 

Well, I will spare you the explitives, but any such teaching as far as I am concerned is a load of hog manure.

 

And, this dogma has been at the root of centuries of Christian bigotry and prejudice.

 

These kinds of religous dogmas are going to be the ruination of the human race someday.

 

The ISLAMIC version of this dogma is an unrelenting scourge on the planet. These religious bigots from both sides are causing a clash that will someday bring down the world economies and bring human society to it's knees.

 

So, I am not too fond of these bigoted religious faiths of either flavor.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

If we see Christ as a representative of Gurudev (He's more in the role of Guru than in the role of somebody like Sri Krishna, isn't He?), then certainly it is true, no one comes to God except through Gurudev (whether formal, in the heart, etc.).

 

What people seem to get hung up on is the names (Jesus/Yeshua/Krishna). While, of course, the Name is important (all-important), the Lord has innumerable names describing innumerable qualities.

 

Certainly, there *are* Christians who take that statement literally and consider that those who don't embrace the Holy Name of Jesus are damned for eternity, but there are also Christian theologians who employ a more "Christian" approach, if you will to interpreting scripture.

 

Of course, in the Vaishnava sanga, there are certainly analogous attitudes to be found (as children, Bahulasva's twins and I used to ask folks at the supermarket if they ate meat--if they said "yes", we told them with glee that they were going to hell).

 

In any case, it's interesting to see this how this discussion has unfolded. I appreciate everybody sharing their insights.

 

 

No, my problem is with Christ.

He said he was the only way to God and that nobody can get to God but through him.

 

Well, I will spare you the explitives, but any such teaching as far as I am concerned is a load of hog manure.

 

And, this dogma has been at the root of centuries of Christian bigotry and prejudice.

 

These kinds of religous dogmas are going to be the ruination of the human race someday.

 

The ISLAMIC version of this dogma is an unrelenting scourge on the planet. These religious bigots from both sides are causing a clash that will someday bring down the world economies and bring human society to it's knees.

 

So, I am not too fond of these bigoted religious faiths of either flavor.

[Guruvani 0]

 

If we see Christ as a representative of Gurudev (He's more in the role of Guru than in the role of somebody like Sri Krishna, isn't He?), then certainly it is true, no one comes to God except through Gurudev (whether formal, in the heart, etc.).

 

Well, even if you can convince yourself and me too that the meaning is like that, it won't help the situation because I am not the Christian bigot who thinks that all other religions are the work of the devil.

 

I certainly don't need to believe in Jesus for my own salvation.

 

Devotees have done without Jesus for thousands of years and devotees certainly don't need Jesus to be a Krishna conscious devotee.

 

Why now that all devotees have to love Jesus?

 

It's not me you need to convince to solve the problem.

 

it's the millions of Christian bigots in the world that you need to convince.

 

So, go get 'em tiger!!!

[Guest guest]

Go hand in hand. When one is considering himself (herself) to be a member of a particular religion, this necessitates a certain bigotry against all other religions. This is not because the other religions are wrong, but the bigot is quite faithless, the epitome of an infant kanistha adhikari. He MUST decide that thewre is no other way because if not, then he is confused.

 

Sometimes, I get perturbed at guruvani for his rather aggressive stance against Lord Jesus Christ. But then again, I have been noted as saying that comparitive religious study is a waste of time. So, in a way, I support Guruvani and his decision to focus only on the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Srila Prabhupada did not teach christianity. He referred to Lord Jesus Christ often in his teachings, but really, he is bhaktivedanta, meaning he teaches the Bhakti GLEANED form the vedic shastra. He is emphatically the servant of Srila Vyasadeva, who became bhaktivedanta as his part in the reciprocal initiation he had received from Srila Narada Muni. Vyasadeva made all kinds of religion with his creation of the veda, but he was not satisfied with religion. He, in fact, was totally frustrated. Narada Muni solved his frustration. Told him to GLEAN BHAKTI from the veda.

 

So, Srila Prabhupada mentions Lord Jesus Christ countelss times. This is not something he would do for a mythical person without so actual spiritual validity. But, he also GLEANED BHAKTI from the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ, something that had been neglected by those content with religiosity. There is an essence of Lord Jesus Christ. He denies being the Father, but rather sent by the Father to remind everyone of their constitutional position as his servant. He tells his disciples, "Pray as I do, Our Father who resides in the spiritual realm, hallowed be thy Name." This is where Srila Prabhupada fully supports the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no difference in their decision to tell others of the glories of the Holy Name of the Supreme Lord.

 

As far as Jesus telling his disciples that there is no other way, Srila Prabhupada also tells his disciples that he is the only way. What is a guru supposed to do, inspire their disciples to shop around, that any way is just as good? No, never, this would be the greatest disservice to one who has approached a spiritual master, to have the guru say that any one else can solve your problem, No, gurus do not slap their disciples in the face.

 

So, guruvani is actually practicing the verse he quotes with disdain (and a bit of bigotry). He has dedicated his life in a certain process, and is content that Srila Prabhupada will bring him back home. I do not fault him in this singlemindedness. And his anit-christian rhetoric is okay with me too, because there are countless cases of horrifying bigotry in his name, that he predicted, as disd Srila Prabhupada in his wanrings to us concerning kali cela, the demons in vaisnava garb.

 

But Srila Prabhupada is Okay with Jesus Christ, and says so. Lord Jesus Christ is okay with Srila Prabhupada, and said so as well. You see, they are not bigoted, insecure, faithless kanistha adhikaris, they are pure vaisnavas, full of nothing but spiritual love reciprocated with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

Does this foolish statement make sense to anyone but Guruvani.

 

 

No, my problem is with Christ.

He said he was the only way to God and that nobody can get to God but through him.

Now out of one side of his mouth he says Jesus never existed. But then he quotes him!!, saying his teachng is why he can't accept him.

 

Not to mention the fact that that particular quote attributed to Jesus is seen by many if not most Christian scholars to be an interpolation.

 

But even so it can be accepted along the lines that Murali already raised. Guru is one. Also Bhakti is not an impersonal force. Bhakti is personified. And that personal soul who we call Christ was/is 100% Krsna Bhakta.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Does this foolish statement make sense to anyone but Guruvani.

 

 

Now out of one side of his mouth he says Jesus never existed. But then he quotes him!!, saying his teachng is why he can't accept him.

 

Not to mention the fact that that particular quote attributed to Jesus is seen by many if not most Christian scholars to be an interpolation.

 

But even so it can be accepted along the lines that Murali already raised. Guru is one. Also Bhakti is not an impersonal force. Bhakti is personified. And that personal soul who we call Christ was/is 100% Krsna Bhakta.

 

does that mean I have to eat fish too?

 

According to Rupa Goswami, devotional service to Krishna that ignores sruti, smriti and Purana is simply a disturbance to the bhakti culture.

 

I don't see any sruti, smriti or Purana in the teachings of Jesus, so maybe that is why this whole Jesus thing is just a disturbance to the society of devotees.

 

Jesus never offered his food to Krishna.

Jesus never chanted the Maha-mantra.

Jesus never chanted any name of God.

Jesus said that you cannot realize God through chanting.

 

Jesus does not come in any sampradaya that is authorized by the Vedic authority.

 

So, really, I am at a loss as to how this whole Jesus thing really has any place in the life of a devotee.

 

By all the traditional measures of the Vedic authority, Jesus and the Christian cult are apa-sampradaya and a disturbance to the true devotional science.

 

Why should a devotee be required to accept a guru who doesn't come in any of the authorized sampradayas?

 

According to all the rules of the Vaishnava shastra, it is forbidden to take knowledge of God from outside the authorized sampradayas.

 

Why should we break the rules and go outside the authorized sampradayas to hear about Jesus?

 

What is the difference bewtween Jesus and Bubba Free John?

[Guruvani 0]

 

<!--[endif]--> Srila Prabhupada: Then why are you claiming that you are Christian? For instance, you are wearing a crucifix. You Westerners often keep or wear a crucifix, yet that sign actually means that you killed Christ. The crucufix is the symbol that you so-called followers of Christ killed Christ. Many, many people in the priestly order carry the cruifix. The crucifix is the sign that

<!--[endif]-->

Srila Prabhupada: [Warily:] Maybe. [Laughter.] But mainly, that symbol shows how you killed Lord Jesus Christ. That is the sign. That reminds you that you killed your spiritual master. You accuse the Jewish people--"They killed him"--but you also killed him, and you are still killing. Although, of course, you like to call yourselves Christian. Therefore, I want to know‑‑you are a learned scholar‑‑since when did you start abiding by the order of Lord Jesus Christ? That is my question. Since when? <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

 

[Guruvani 0]

Srila Prabhupada:

 

Two thousand years have passed, but to date you have not been able to accept the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. And you are all claiming that you are Christian. But since when did you accept Christianity? That is my question. Because as far as I can see, you have disobeyed the order of Christ. So, now that two thousand years have passed, when did you accept? Hmm? Who will answer this question?

[Guruvani 0]

Srila Prabhupada: Now, after taking instruction from Christ, first of all they killed Christ. That means they could not understand the instruction. Therefore, their first business was to kill the instructor. And following that, two thousand years have passed--and still they are killing. So, since when have they accepted the teachings of Lord Christ? Can you answer this?

[Guruvani 0]

So, Srila Prabhupada said that after 2000 years nobody was yet following Christ.

So, what use is the whole bluster about Jesus?

[Guruvani 0]

Srila Prabhupada:

 

 

You accuse the Jewish people--"They killed him"--but you (Christians) also killed him, and you are still killing.

[Guruvani 0]

Srila Prabhupada letter to Aniruddha das:

 

 

 

Yes, Lord Jesus was jivatattva. He is not Visnu tattva. When a jiva tattva becomes specifically empowered by the Lord, he is called saktyavesa avatara. Lord Buddha and Lord Jesus Christ were in this group of saktyavesa avatara..

So, Jesus was Jivatattva.

Srila Prabhupada compares him with Buddha.

We are not followers of Buddha either.

 

Buddha preached the most virulent form of atheism known to man.

 

Jesus, Buddha........ not concerned with either one.

[kbdas 0]

i never could understand why some folks get so fried if one does not accept this Jesus stuff. what it has to do with the philosophy of Mahaprabhu is beyond me. but that is typical of his followers, they are now in Bharata preaching against Sanatan Dharm i think.