Is Jesus an excuse not to surrender to Krishna?

[CCC 0]

 

There are many pious and saintly Hindus and even Vaishnavas like the Godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada who were disciples of Srila Saraswati Goswami that were berated by Srila Prabhupada while Jesus gets some special concession.

 

As prabhupada used to say, If you don't love Krsna, you don't love Jesus and vice versa. Also said that Krsna is not and hindu God, He can descend whatever he wants (also his expansions, pure devotes,etc.).

 

Jesus is a pure devote and a representative of the Lord, is a saktyavesa avatar, so is not diferent from Krsna, because He is imbested with the power of God, he is his representative, and all he did is the will of his Father. You can read that when Jesuchrist was baptized. there we can heard:

 

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

 

10And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

 

11And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

Jesuchrist is the Diksa Guru of Christians, that means if you want to follow that path you must take shelter in Him, follow his instruccions, etc. for that reason Jesuchrist said the only way to the father is me, Jesuchrist descent by the will of God, He is not acting whimsically.

 

Is not possible to love Krsna if you don't love Jesus or refuse him or when you heard his name get angry, no, as prabhupada said he is the topmost Devote of Krsna.

He sacrifice himself to spread god consciousness, the will of god. He made miracles, He heal ill people, He expeled demons, He was sinless, He resurrected, this is external but is important, Is more important his instructions and teachings.

 

 

To me it is quite obvious that Srila Prabhupada adjusted his preaching strategy for his western audience and stretched the truth to accomodate the sentiments of Christian society for the purpose of avoiding conflict with said Christian societies.

 

Can you read the Prabhupada's mind? Do you think that his words are not

straightforward?

 

 

There are many pious and saintly Hindus and even Vaishnavas like the Godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada who were disciples of Srila Saraswati Goswami that were berated by Srila Prabhupada while Jesus gets some special concession.

 

Sorry but I think that you should not compare Jesus with Prabhupada's God brothers. Prabhupada said that his godbrothers are several offenders of Bhaktishidanta Sarasvati. You should read the gaudiya math history.

 

 

Hare Krsna!

[Guruvani 0]

Jesus meets none of the criteria given in shastra as being a bona fide spiritual master as he has no sampradaya and did not preach the Yuga Dharma of chanting the Maha-mantra.

 

As such, like Srila Prabhupada said, we accept Jesus but we don't accept his philosophy.

 

So, what use is a religious leader whose philosophy has been rejected even by Srila Prabhupada?

 

The Gaudiya siddhanta is that there is no other way in this age for deliverance except for the chanting of the Holy name of Krishna.

 

Since, chanting the Holy Name of Krishna is not preached or practiced by Jesus, I subsequently reject him and his apa-sampradaya they call the Christian church.

 

There is no other way, no other way, no other way and that includes that Jesus is also not the way of deliverance in this age of kali.

 

The shastra declares that the only bona system in this age is the chanting of Hare Krishna.

 

As such, Jesus and his cult do not meet the Vedic requirements for being a bona fide spiritual system in the age of kali.

 

I am not going to give Jesus any special consideration.

If he doesn't meet the shastric requirements then he is out of the picture.

 

There is only ONE WAY in this age and it is NOT Jesus.

[Guruvani 0]

 

.

 

Can you read the Prabhupada's mind? Do you think that his words are not

straightforward?

 

 

You don't have to be a genius to see that if Srila Prabhupada says things in preaching to non-devotees, Christians and other such mundaners, that contradicts shastric siddhanta that he must have been making concessions to spoon-feed them the process of hearing from the sadhu.

 

I certainly DO NOT accept that every last word Srila Prabhupada spoke was absolute and in total compliance with shastric standards.

 

He made many compromises in his preaching for the purpose of gradually bringing people in to the Vaishnava Dharma.

 

However, it gets to be a problem when neophyte devotees who don't know shastric siddhanta accept every last word of Srila Prabhupada to be absolute and conclusive.

 

Some devotees have left the Saraswata camp due to the fact that they could not distinguish preaching tactics from deviated siddhanta.

 

Some devotees well familiar with shastra and tradition have left the Saraswata school because they could not separate preaching tactics from deviated siddhanta.

 

I don't write off Srila Prabhupada or the Saraswata school as being deviant from the tradition.

 

I understand that they have made compromises and adjustments in their preaching for the purpose of reaching in to western societies.

 

Some devotees just leave and seek out "traditional" camps.

I prefer to try and understand how the Saraswata acharyas are not deviants, but have made compromises in their preachings for the sake of reaching people in the western world.

[suchandra 1]

Although Christians don't believe in a soul, still they believe in hell.

Now the Pope abolished the limbo hell for children - it doesnt exist anymore. One more reason not to use Jesus not to surrender to Krishna - Jesus' actual teachings are not known anymore.

 

 

How can limbo just be abolished?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5406552.stm

<!-- S BO --> <!-- S IBYL --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="416"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="bottom"> WHO, WHAT, WHY?

The Magazine answers...

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- E IBYL --> <!-- S IIMA --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="203"> <tbody><tr><td> The notion of limbo has long been problematic for the Church

</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IIMA --> The Pope may be about to abolish the notion of limbo, the halfway house between heaven and hell, inhabited by unbaptised infants. Is it really that simple?

Pope Benedict XVI's anticipated pronouncement on limbo will have been informed by the International Theological Commission - a group of leading Roman Catholic theologians who have been meeting to consider the issue.

The Pope, himself, has been quoted in the past as saying that he would let the idea of limbo "drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis".

He was quoted as saying that limbo has never been a "definitive truth of the faith".

So what is limbo?

<!-- S IBOX --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="208"> <tbody><tr> <td width="5"></td> <td class="sibtbg"> WHO, WHAT, WHY?

A feature to the BBC News Magazine - aiming to answer some of the questions behind the headlines

<!-- S ILIN --> Vatican to review limbo

<!-- E ILIN -->

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IBOX -->

According to the BBC's Religion and Ethics site [see internet links, right], the church held that before the 13th Century, all unbaptised people, including new born babies who died, would go to hell. This was because original sin - the punishment that God inflicted on humanity because of Adam and Eve's disobedience - had not been cleansed by baptism.

This idea however was criticised by Peter Abelard, a French scholastic philosophiser, who said that babies who had no personal sin didn't even deserve punishment.

It was Abelard who introduced the idea of limbo. The word comes from the Latin "limbus", meaning the edge. This would be a state of existence where unbaptised babies, and those unfortunate enough to have been born before Jesus, would not experience pain but neither would they experience the Beatific Vision of God.

<!-- S IIMA --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="203"> <tbody><tr><td> Pope Benedict was quoted as saying he would let limbo drop, while he was a cardinal

</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IIMA -->But limbo has long been a problem for the Church. Unease has remained over reconciling a Loving God with one who sent babies to limbo and the Church has faced much criticism.

The current review of limbo began in 2004, when Pope John Paul II asked the commission to come up with "a more coherent and enlightened way" of describing the fate of such innocent babes.

This review is part of a wider re-examination of the notion of salvation that has been taking place within the Church.

Many Catholics would see the abandonment of limbo as a good thing - there is little doubt that some interpretations of the teaching may have caused untold misery to the millions of parents whose children have died without being baptised.

But there are those who argue that it is not simply a "hypothesis" that can just be swept aside; that the notion that unbaptised children do not go to heaven has been a fundamental part of Church teaching for hundreds of years.

Then, of course, there is the argument that if this can be abolished, what else is disposable?

Not popular

According to church historian Michael Walsh limbo is so unpopular it has all but dropped out of Catholic consciousness.

It has not really been standard teaching for decades and it has not been part of official teaching since the early 1990s, when it was omitted from the catechism - the Church's summary of religious doctrine.

<!-- S IBOX --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="208"> <tbody><tr> <td width="5"></td> <td class="sibtbg"> A papal decree reversing the firm Catholic belief of two millennia that infants dying unbaptised do not go to heaven would be like an earthquake in the structure of Catholic theology and belief

Father Brian Harrison

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IBOX --> "Most priests don't talk about the notion of limbo anymore. There is a understanding that it just simply doesn't wash with people," says Mr Walsh.

But, there are a number of conservative and traditionally minded Catholics who say they are shocked by the notion of getting rid of limbo.

Father Brian Harrison, a theologian, told the BBC News website that while limbo may have been a "hypothesis", he argues that the clear "doctrine of the Catholic Church for two millennia has been that wherever the souls of such infants do go, they definitely don't go to heaven".

He argues that this is borne out in the various funeral rites for unbaptised children practised by the Church.

"A papal decree reversing the firm Catholic belief of two millennia that infants dying unbaptised do not go to heaven would be like an earthquake in the structure of Catholic theology and belief," he said.

Some argue that the question of limbo has taken on fresh urgency because it could be hindering the Church's conversion of Africa and Asia, where infant mortality rates are high.

An article in the UK's Times newspaper this week suggested that the "Pope - an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic - is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to heaven".

The theological commission ends its deliberations on Friday. Most commentators believe the Pope will not make any decision immediately. Until he does, the fate of limbo is in - well, limbo.

 

<hr> Here is a selection of your comments.

I don't think man has the power to decide what happens to the human soul after death. And I don't think that God would leave the soul of innocent kids hanging in mid-air.

O Adiba-chuks, Abuja, Nigeria

I may be ignorant of the details of the Catholic religion, but it seems to me that if limbo is abolished then the default for unbaptised infants would be that they go to hell (as they did before the "theological hypothesis of limbo" was introduced). How popular would that be? Not so much, I think. This whole issue just goes to confirm my belief - that religion is a load of bunk.

B Smith, Ottawa, Canada

Surely, Doctrine cannot be changed from Pope to Pope for the pleasing of people. Surely, Doctrine is from God who is constant.

Nathan Wigglesworth, London, England

But what about purgatory? Is that next?

Craig McGill, Uddingston

Isn't it interesting how religions pick and chose what they want to believe. It all just leads to the conclusion that religion is the word of man, not of God. Which has to make one wonder if God exists at all?

Martin, London

As an atheist I'm confused about this news. Has purgatory gone now too? If I get baptised, does Jesus pay for all my sins, or just the old ones? Is there a sliding scale of sins, or does he wipe them all out? It sounds like all the fundamentals are up for debate, so we might as well start on the basics.

John Bates, Leeds, England

At what age did Jesus get baptised? Does the Bible teach infant baptism?

Geoff Mason, San José, Costa Rica

I admit I am atheist. But does any one else see a problem with this? All religions are supposed to be dictated by a higher or divine power and yet here we have the beliefs of a religion being changed by men because they feel it is unpopular???

Andy, Derby

I think that the idea of limbo is scandalous; to put this upon young babies is an embarrassment to the Catholic church. This is babies who haven't even been given the opportunity to do any wrong or commit any sin. Babies should not need to be baptised before they can get to heaven.

Elaine Murphy, Lanarkshire, Scotland

I am a Muslim religion teacher. We believe that all the babies in the world were born innocent.

Hakan Buyukdere, Turkey

<!-- E BO -->

[mahak 0]

This is what srila prabhupada taught, and despite some of his disciples rejection of any idea of discernment, this is very much a requirement, a duty, of his disciples.

 

So, we reject some very well respected hindus, like ramakrsna, et al. Why? Because they fail to preach devotion to the supreme Lord, they have all together another agenda of trying to make us think we are all an energy ball, and this is our goal, to become the energy ball again. Even some so-called vaisnavas who preach kirtana and bhajana, they are worse, because they say bhakti is a technique for the sentimentalist to also obtain the energy ball. The gaudiyas who were criticized also tried to change the philosophy of Vyasadeva by creating an appointed acarya scenario, berating the whole teachings of guru tattwa to falsely indicate a post or platfrorm based on their own efforts. So Prabhupada shines the light in their romaraharsana philosophy, stating no matter how they are approved by fellow followers of visnu or krsna, they are rejected by Lord Balarama for failing to recognize his part in guru tattwa, his authority alone that empowers the vaisnava acarya.

 

So he cuts jesus some slack? Perhaps, but he never cuts the christian slack, not at all. He says about them exactly what jesus says about them, they are rejected by God because they dont love him, they love their false religion. However, Lord Jesus Christ speaks on behalf of God, gives God credit for any truth, sets his own limitation, and states the requirement to follow him must be that one loves his father, accepts his name as "hallowed", which means honored, worshipped, set apart from all other names as special. As far as disciplic succession goes, Lord Jesus and His Father gived important instruction about accepting a spiritual master. Even though his guru, John, knows that Jesus is greater than he, he also gives initiation because this is the teaching of both father and son. The christian falls short when they think they can read the bible, declare allegiance, then claim they are his. They didnt read the bible, because the teachings of approaching guru are there, and they have neglected.

 

Lately, Ive been quoting Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Christians who has defined theology as only available from one who looves God and their disciples. This is a fact. If you wonder why Srila Prabhupada is loose on this issue, rather than to accuse him of pandering, which is really lame, offensive, and quite arrognat on your part, did you ever consider that he was telling the christian that Jesus did not mislead them, that all that is missing from their THEOLOGY is that they do not have a spiritual master, they have not followed in the footsteps of Lord Jesus Christ and submitted themselves before one who loves god, one who can give them theology, not just another eccliastic religion, which is what christianity offers (and is also the only thing ISKCON offers if they insist that one must surrender to the appointed, elected, eccliastic acarya). Srila Prabhupada invites the christian to study theology under his guidance, and thus the christian can actually follow Lord Jesus Christ. As far as all your claims of hindu eccliastic rules and guidelines, these are of no consequence, and rejected even by Lord Chaitanya, who calls the muslim, Srila Haridas Thakur, namacarya, the supreme caretaker of the holy name of Krsna. Your discredit of Lord Jesus Christ on his following vaisnava tradition applies to Haridas Thakur as well, so it holds no value at all with any sane vaisnava.

 

Jesus Christ taught of the self, the soul (whetever that is), but, as he requires, ya gotta have ears to hear. His teachings of the difference between material existance and spiritual life are plentiful and profound. That the eccliastics throughout history have deleted these teachings is beside the point, because man cannot destroy absolute truth by mere book burnings, persecution, and creation of antithesis of teachings as truth. If there were a christ katha section on audarya fellowship, Id be happy to point out his teachings of the transcendent self, using both canonized and extra biblical sources, but we arent christians here, and when Lord Jesus is even mentioned, he is offended just as sure as if Krsna was presented on an al jezeerra forum.

 

Look at things another way, Guruvani, Srila Prabhupada is not a patronizer nor a panderer, he never misleads anyone for any reason. Your insistance to the contrary on any thread of Lord Jesus is most unbecoming, and really doesnt represent the disciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[cbrahma 0]

 

Then why did Srila Prabhupada even exclude his very own Godbrothers from the ISKCON paradigm?

Why are so many saintly Hindus abused for not having proper sampradaya?

 

I don't see any reason why the Jesus cult should get special concessions that so many other sects and cults of the world do not get from the Vaishnava authorities.

 

Even babajis at Radha kunda chanting the names of the Lord under extreme austerity for many years are rejected by the Saraswata acharyas, so I am certainly not going to give the Jesus cult any special consideration.

 

Many saintly devotees of Krishna have been excluded in the Saraswata school.

Other than as a preaching device I don't see any reason why the Jesus cult should get any special favor.

 

The remarks Srila Prabhupada made about Jesus were just preaching tactics.

Otherwise, Jesus was nobody special.

 

Buddha was a shaktyavesha avatar as well, but I don't see devotees injecting quotes from Buddha into every spiritual conversation on this forum.

 

Jesus has his place, but bringing him up in every discussion amongst devotees is considered objectionable to some devotees who don't want to hear about Jesus in every discussion that devotees have.

 

Jesus should stay in his own topics.

 

Bringing Jesus into every Krishna consciousness discussion of Vaishnava topics is just offensive to some people.

We are dealing with semantics. A religious sect is not an individual. Prabhupada's godbrothers do not amount to a religion. I rarely bring in Jesus on these topics. Your antipathy against Jesus is what drives the subject matter.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Although Christians don't believe in a soul,

Where does this come from. Catholics and Lutherans alike mention the soul in their theology.

[mahak 0]

btw, jesus doesnt teach limbo or hell or heaven, this is all bogus, so if the pope throws out some man made crap, hurrah, well done, keep going. If he is accepting suggestions about bogus crap to toss out, how about the armageddon/final days crap that was introduced less than 200 years ago. Easy to back up, using his own canonized bible, he can defeat all these ghouls competing with the madhi freaks using fear to control the masses to slave for them. mahak

[suchandra 1]

 

Where does this come from. Catholics and Lutherans alike mention the soul in their theology.

The Bible declares plainly that man is temporary, of the dust of the earth. There is no immortal quality about man at all-unless and until he receives it from God through a resurrection. Words like "immortal" and "soul" appear together nowhere in the Bible.

 

The Biblical Truth About the Immortal Soul

 

Traditional beliefs about heaven and hell are based on an underlying teaching-that everyone has an immortal soul that must go somewhere after his physical life ends.

This belief isn't unique to traditional Christianity. "All religions affirm that there is an aspect of the human person that lives on after the physical life has ended" (World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts, Andrew Wilson, editor, 1995, p. 225). In other words, in general all religions believe in some kind of immortal essence, a spirit that lives on separately after the physical body dies. Most professing Christians call this the immortal soul.

Failure to properly understand this subject is a fundamental reason for the prevalent beliefs regarding heaven and hell. If an immortal quality exists in a human being, it must depart from the body when the body dies. The typical views of heaven and hell have as their foundation the belief in the immortal soul that leaves the body at death.

What does the Bible say about the existence of an immortal soul? Does this belief have a foundation in Scripture?

Many are surprised to learn that the words "immortal" and "soul" appear together nowhere in the Bible. "... Theologians frankly admit that the expression 'immortal soul' is not in the Bible but confidently state that Scripture assumes the immortality of every soul" (The Fire That Consumes, Edward William Fudge, 1994, p. 22, emphasis added).

That such an important assumption should not be explicitly taught in the Bible is surprising, considering how confidently theologians hold to this doctrine. If it isn't found in the Bible, where did the idea originate?

The New Bible Dictionary offers this background of the nonbiblical nature of the immortal-soul doctrine. "The Greeks thought of the body as a hindrance to true life and they looked for the time when the soul would be free from its shackles. They conceived of life after death in terms of the immortality of the soul ..." (1996, p. 1010, "Resurrection").

According to this idea, the body goes to the grave at death and the soul continues to exist as a separate conscious entity.

Belief in a separate soul and body was popular in Greek society and was taught by one of their most famous philosophers. "The immortality of the soul was a principal doctrine of the Greek philosopher, Plato ... In Plato's thinking, the soul ... was self-moving and indivisible ... It existed before the body which it inhabited, and which it would survive" (Fudge, p. 32).

How the immortal-soul idea entered Christianity

When did the concept of the immortality of the soul enter the world of Christianity? The Old Testament does not teach it. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia explains: "... We are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness and is nowhere found in the Old Testament" (1960, Vol. 2, p. 812, "Death").

The first-century Church did not hold to this belief, either. "... The doctrine is increasingly regarded as a post-apostolic innovation, not only unnecessary but positively harmful to proper biblical interpretation and understanding" (Fudge, p. 24).

If such an idea were not in place in the Church during the time of the apostles, how did it come to assume such an important place in Christian doctrine?

Several authorities recognize that the teachings of Plato and other Greek philosophers have profoundly influenced Christianity. Jeffrey Burton Russell states: "... The unbiblical idea of immortality did not die but even flourished, because theologians ... admired Greek philosophy [and] found support there for the notion of the immortal soul ..." (A History of Heaven, 1997, p. 79).

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, in its article on death, states that "the 'departure' of the nephesh [soul] must be viewed as a figure of speech, for it does not continue to exist independently of the body, but dies with it ... No biblical text authorizes the statement that the 'soul' is separated from the body at the moment of death" (1962, Vol. 1, p. 802, "Death").

Should we then accept a teaching that is nonbiblical? Many people take it for granted that their doctrines are based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. Yet Jesus said in a prayer to His Father, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). Does God give men the liberty to draw from the world's philosophers and incorporate their beliefs into biblical teaching?

God inspired the apostle Peter to write: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21). We must look to the words of Christ, the prophets and the apostles in the Holy Scriptures if we are to understand the truth about the doctrine of the immortality of the soul or any other religious teaching.

Let's dig into the Scriptures to see exactly what the Bible tells us about the soul.

Soul in the Hebrew Scriptures

The Old Testament teaches that the soul dies. In Genesis 2:7 we find that when Adam was created he became a "living soul" (King James Version). In Genesis 9:12 the same Hebrew words are translated "living creature" and refer not to humans, but to every sort of animal distinct from man.

God told Adam and Eve, two "living souls," that they would "surely die" if they disobeyed Him (Genesis 2:17). God also told Adam that He had taken him from the dust of the earth and he would return to dust (Genesis 3:19).

In the Old Testament, man is referred to as a "soul" (Hebrew nephesh) more than 130 times. The term is also applied to sea creatures (Genesis 1:20-21), birds (verse 30) and land animals, including cattle and "creeping" creatures such as reptiles and insects (verse 24).

It follows, then, if we make an argument for man possessing an immortal soul, animals must also have an immortal soul, since the same Hebrew word is used of man and animal alike. Yet no biblical scholars would seriously make such claims for animals. The truth is, the term soul refers to any living creature (whether man or beast), not to some separate, living essence temporarily inhabiting the body.

Among the plainer statements in the Bible about what happens to the soul at death are Ezekiel 18:4 and 18:20. Both passages clearly state that "the soul who sins shall die" (emphasis added throughout). Not only do these scriptures show that the soul dies, but the soul is identified as a physical being-not a separate spirit entity having an existence independent of its physical host.

The Scriptures tell us that the dead do not have consciousness. "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing ..." (Ecclesiastes 9:5). They are not conscious in some other state or place.

The New Testament teaching

The New Testament contains several statements that confirm that the wicked will die-permanently. In Matthew 7:13-14, in exhorting His disciples to choose the way that leads to life, Jesus states that the end of those who do not choose life is destruction. He contrasts that path with the way of righteousness, telling us "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

The apostle Paul also stated that the wicked will die. In Romans 6:20-21 he talks about those who were slaves of sin and says that for them "the end of those things is death." So those who are slaves of sin, who habitually commit sin, can perish completely.

Romans 6:23 is one of the best-known verses of the Bible. Yet many people either overlook what it plainly says or read into it an entirely different meaning. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

This verse plainly tells us two crucial truths. First, the punishment of the wicked is death, not a life of eternal suffering in another place. Second, we do not already have eternal life. It is something God chooses to give us. We see from this verse that a fleshly human being has nothing about him that is immortal; God must give eternal life to us through our Savior, Jesus the Messiah. In 1 Timothy 6:16 Paul also tells us that God alone has immortality.

Paul makes a similar statement in Galatians 6:8: "The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (New International Version). This tells us what happens to sinners. Eventually they will "reap destruction," but those who obey God will ultimately receive eternal life.

In Philippians 3:18 Paul speaks of those who are "enemies of the cross of Christ." Verse 19 says that their end is destruction, not eternal torment in another life after death.

Finally, in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul emphatically declares that the wicked will come to a complete end: "These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord ..."

So is man an immortal soul, or does he have an immortal soul? The Bible declares plainly that man is temporary, of the dust of the earth. There is no immortal quality about man at all-unless and until he receives it from God through a resurrection.

The Bible clearly states that man puts on immortality at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:50-54), not at the end of his physical life. Until that time man has no more permanence than animals.

[mahak 0]

try kebra negast, where there is description of the travels of the pearl. There is no bucks involved if one is taught they are eternal. Why give to the stuffy church to save my soul if I know that I am the soul and I cannot be damaged in any way, shape or form.

 

As a kid suffering under this anti-christ philosophy, I thought the soul was a little ball inside me that was black (a convenient eurocentric color, BTW) if I mortally sinned, grey if I venially sinned, and yes of course, pure white if I bought enough indulgences from the popes business representative, the fraud called the holy see.

[Guruvani 0]

 

We are dealing with semantics. A religious sect is not an individual. Prabhupada's godbrothers do not amount to a religion. I rarely bring in Jesus on these topics. Your antipathy against Jesus is what drives the subject matter.

Jesus was an individual, so they say.

So, the comparison is good as far as I am concerned.

 

As for me, I am not going to give any credit to Jesus if in fact even senior disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur have been neglected by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Christianity is a major world religion on the strength of Roman and British political influence.

 

As a religion on it's own it has no actual substance as far as I am concerned.

[CCC 0]

Hare Krsna!

 

Well I think that there is a very important point that almost all people forget: the difference between religion and scriptures.

 

As far as I know religions and scriptures are not the same. I understand that holy scriptures are revealed by god (directly spoken by him, inspired, etc.) and religion are made by humans to understand them. So sometimes people blame god or his devote but the fault is not of them at all. For example in this case Lord Jesuchrist never founded the Catholic church or a religion and people blame god and or jesus for all atrocities made by the Catholic church. Is a fact that Catholic church was created 500 or 300 years after by Constanino. And before there was a christian parampara from Lord Jesuchrist to the apostles and so on... If you read the bible you could see that these people spiritually were very powerful by the grace of god, sadly they were persecuted oppressed, killed, as all genuine servants of god in this case by the romans....

 

please read the San Francisco de asis biography, there you can read a true devote of Lord Jesus, you could see there that there is no diference between a pure devote of the Lord, all divine qualities are manifested on him. A lot of devotees who has read this biorgaphy thinks that San francisco de asis life and behavior are not diferent from Vedic great yoguis or saints. Personally when I read some excerpt of his biography I remembered the most merciful incarnation of the Lord and as Devote of himself, Sri Caitanya.

 

In conclusion:

 

Vedic scriptures are given until today by the parampara system, that is not religion, is the genuine way, knowledge is passed from spiritual master to disciple and there are 4 sampradayas with so many branches.

 

In Christian history there is also a parampara system from the beginning, but from the Catholic religion I don't know what happened to that parampara... also it is said that catholic church has changed many verses in the bible and knowledge about reincarnation and other matters.

 

Time Place and Circumnstances, you should not expect the same knowledge as vedas, Israel people were ignorant and very rebellious, They used to kill their prophets, seers, in fact they killed Lord Jesuchrist himself! if you read the bible you will see blood and war from the beginning till the end. on the contrary Indian people has been very peaceful and spiritual in all his history and vedas has 3000 more years than Christianity, moreover the vedas are eternal, just were compiled 5000 years ago.

 

All avatar of God has an intention and it depends in time place and circunstance, it is said that too much light blind the eyes. Personally I think that Prabhupada is a saktyavesa avatar and he comes to the western world

at the propitious time and circumnstances. I think that if he could come before, maybe 200 years ago, he would be burned by the inquisition. similarly Jesuchrist came in a propitious time 2000 years ago, the same for Buda, sankaracarya (lord siva avatar?) and son on...

 

 

Hare Krsna

[CCC 0]

 

There is only ONE WAY in this age and it is NOT Jesus.

 

 

you are talking like fanatics Christians who say

 

there is only ONE WAY and that is JESUS

[Guruvani 0]

 

you are talking like fanatics Christians who say

 

there is only ONE WAY and that is JESUS

 

Brhan-naradiya Purana

harer nama harer nama

harer namaiva kevalam

kalau nasty eva nasty eva

nasty eva gatir anyatha

"In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy the only means of deliverance is

chanting of the holy name of the Lord.

There is no other way.

There is no other way.

There is no other way."

Blame the source not the messenger.

 

Jesus can't help anyone.

There is no other way except chanting Hare Krishna.

[Guruvani 0]

 

you are talking like fanatics Christians who say

 

there is only ONE WAY and that is JESUS

 

Padma Purana

 

satyam kaliyuga vipra

sri harer nama mangalam

param svastyayanam nrnam

nasty-eva gatir anyatha

 

"Oh brahmana, chanting of the holy name is the auspicious process in Kali Yuga. It is the highest auspiciousness for mankind. There is no other way."

 

 

 

 

What part of NO OTHER WAY do the Jesus lovers not understand?

[Guruvani 0]

The Jesus cult is a warm and fuzzy feel-good faith that unfortunately does not comply with the Vedic or the Vaishnava conclusions about the authorized religious process for the age of Kali-yuga.

 

By all shastric conclusions the Jesus cult does not conform to the authorized process of deliverance for the age of Kali-yuga.

 

As such, the warm and fuzzy feel-good faith might give people a sense of righteousness or religiousness, but such a religious system does not conform to the Yuga Dharma as described in authorized Vedic literatures.

[CCC 0]

 

Jesus was an individual, so they say.

So, the comparison is good as far as I am concerned.

 

As for me, I am not going to give any credit to Jesus if in fact even senior disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur have been neglected by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Christianity is a major world religion on the strength of Roman and British political influence.

 

As a religion on it's own it has no actual substance as far as I am concerned.

 

Why you belittle Jesus? The pure devote of the Lord?

 

Who is your guru? Srila Prabhupada or his godbrothers?

 

I can feel that you are going against two pure devotees of the Lord: Jesuchrist and Prabhupada. Also you are underestimating Prabhupada words, and prefer the word of his severe offenders godbrothers.

 

Prabhupada never offended his spiritual master and talks very nice about Lord Jesuchrist, BY FACTS, not sentimentalism. Also said that his godbrothers are several offenders BY FACTS.

 

Prabhupada's GodBrothers are several offenders of his Spiritual Master, so I think that somehow or another are offenders of Lord Jesuchrist as well, it is possible that they are talking with hatred words about Lord Jesuchrist and or understating him.

 

Often people with fanatical mentality get angry when they heard others Lord's names or whatever.

 

A week ago a christian guy said me that Krsna is just a spark of the Lord or a servant of him, and sometimes I heard shaivist talking with hatred words about Lord Krsna, and vice versa, it is sad that attitude because that is revealing their ignorance.

 

 

770422r3.bom Conversations

Prabhupada: He cannot make any comment. These are facts. Two parties there were. One party, to use guru as their instrument for self-aggrandizement, and another party left guru. So both of them are offenders. This Kunja Babu, this Tirtha Maharaja's party, he wanted to enjoy senses through guru. And the Bagh Bazaar party, they left.

 

Tamala Krsna: Vasudeva.

Prabhupada: So both of them are severe offenders.

 

 

 

 

Hari Bol

[CCC 0]

 

Bringing Jesus into every Krishna consciousness discussion of Vaishnava topics is just offensive to some people.

 

is offensive for you?

maybe because you hate him

 

I know that for atheist is offensive talk about god and his devotees because they are envious and hate them but for a devote of Lord Krsna??

 

I am aspiring for being a devote of Lord Krsna and I love talking about Jesus and Krsna.

 

 

Hari Bol

[Guruvani 0]

 

is offensive for you?

maybe because you hate him

 

I don't hate Jesus or Christians.

What bothers me is when these Jesus Krishnas manufacture some false concoction of Christianity and Vaishnavism by taking a couple of sentences of Srila Prabhupada and creating a hybrid religion out of it by trying to Christianize the Krishna consciousness philosophy.

 

That is what bothers me, when devotees mix together their Jesus sentiments with Krishna consciousness as if Srila Prabhupada came to give some hybrid mixture of Jesus and Krishna.

 

Quite honestly, it aggravates the hell out of me.

 

The one thing that Srila Prabhupada hated the most was when devotees concoct or manufacture their own hybrid philosophies by mixing together different religious ideas.

 

I hate it when devotees try to mix Jesus with Krishna conciousness just because Srila Prabhupada made some statement about Jesus being some sort of incarnation of something.

 

This mixing business was not what Srila Prabhupada intended when he gave some recognition to the so-called Jesus as being some kind of incarnation.

 

He simply wanted to avoid a war with the Christian world.

He didn't want to mix Jesus in with Krishna consciousness.

[CCC 0]

 

The one thing that Srila Prabhupada hated the most was when devotees concoct or manufacture their own hybrid philosophies by mixing together different religious ideas.

 

Sorry but you hate that, not Prabhupada. Prabhupada never hate someone or something. And your words are not sincere because you said that for you Jesus is a myth and you have deleted that post!! at last you have revealed your mind! maya tricked you.

 

 

is the last time I will reply you because you are an offender and intolerant who is against his own spiritual master and belittle his own spiritual master words. I have read the bible, I have read the Srimad Bhagavatam completly two times, the bhagavad gita almost 20 times, nectar of devotion, finishing caitanya Caritambrita and almost all little books of Krsna, when Prabhupada says that Jesus is a pure devote a representantive of God, a saktyavesa avatar I believe in him, these avatars are countless. So I offer my obeisance to him, because is very dear to Lord Krsna.

 

Is not possible to love god if you hate or belittle his representative, Krsna is in our heart hearing all and reading our minds all the time...

 

 

Hari Bol

[Guruvani 0]

 

And your words are not sincere because you said that for you Jesus is a myth and you have deleted that post!!

I didn't delete that post.

I stand by my words.

The moderator deleted it.

 

Jesus is a myth to me.

 

The only historian that has any record of Jesus was some goof named Josephus.

I ain't gonna buy the Jesus myth because some old goof named Josephus mentioned some Yeshua in his history book.

 

Yeshuas were a dime a dozen back then just like Bill or Steve is a common name today.

 

Jesus only appears in the gospels.

He is not found in any genuine history from the middle-east.

[HerServant 0]

 

I didn't delete that post.

I stand by my words.

The moderator deleted it.

 

Jesus is a myth to me.

 

The only historian that has any record of Jesus was some goof named Josephus.

I ain't gonna buy the Jesus myth because some old goof named Josephus mentioned some Yeshua in his history book.

 

Yeshuas were a dime a dozen back then just like Bill or Steve is a common name today.

 

Jesus only appears in the gospels.

He is not found in any genuine history from the middle-east.

 

You must love your "Jesus myth" because you spend much of Krsna's energy on Jesus.

 

You claim need of historians (even if they be atheists) to prove Jesus existed.

 

And the historical evidence of Krsna?

 

Since when does faith need to be upheld by historians? In fact, without "myth" there is no faith. It cannot be scientifically proven that a Brahma weapon can be manifest by a devotee. Can you believe it to be possible?

 

Or Jesus walking on water .. it cannot be scientifically proven. It requires faith.

 

It is clear your desire is actually to drive the name of Jesus out of this forum.

 

Ha ha ha ha ha hah ha ha ha hah

 

Hiranyakashipu cannot make Prahlada stop saying Krsna

 

ha ha hahahha ha hahahahahah hahah a

[theist 1]

 

Originally Posted by Guruvani

I didn't delete that post.

I stand by my words.

The moderator deleted it.

 

 

You should be deleted as an aparadhi.

[suchandra 1]

 

you are talking like fanatics Christians who say

 

there is only ONE WAY and that is JESUS

Thanks CCC, well, one more proof that we live in the age of differentation, therefore, "whatever name you have got":

 

"There are so many ways to call the same man. Similarly, if you have got a name, holy name of the holy father, you chant that. This is our propaganda. Harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam [Adi 17.21] This is the recommendation in the Vedic literature, that in this age, this age of differentiation, this age of fight, quarreling, misunderstanding, if I say, “This is the name of God,” and you say, “No, this is the name of God,” then there will be fight. So better, Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives here, that whatever name you have got… But it must be God’s name, harer nama, not your manufactured name. It must be authorized God’s name. You chant that."

BG 7.1 - A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, Fiji, May 24, 1975

 

Could be that people don't agree with each other and throw bombs upon what is an authorized name of God?

[cbrahma 0]

 

The Bible declares plainly that man is temporary, of the dust of the earth. There is no immortal quality about man at all-unless and until he receives it from God through a resurrection. Words like "immortal" and "soul" appear together nowhere in the Bible.

 

The Biblical Truth About the Immortal Soul

 

Traditional beliefs about heaven and hell are based on an underlying teaching-that everyone has an immortal soul that must go somewhere after his physical life ends.

This belief isn't unique to traditional Christianity. "All religions affirm that there is an aspect of the human person that lives on after the physical life has ended" (World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts, Andrew Wilson, editor, 1995, p. 225). In other words, in general all religions believe in some kind of immortal essence, a spirit that lives on separately after the physical body dies. Most professing Christians call this the immortal soul.

Failure to properly understand this subject is a fundamental reason for the prevalent beliefs regarding heaven and hell. If an immortal quality exists in a human being, it must depart from the body when the body dies. The typical views of heaven and hell have as their foundation the belief in the immortal soul that leaves the body at death.

What does the Bible say about the existence of an immortal soul? Does this belief have a foundation in Scripture?

Many are surprised to learn that the words "immortal" and "soul" appear together nowhere in the Bible. "... Theologians frankly admit that the expression 'immortal soul' is not in the Bible but confidently state that Scripture assumes the immortality of every soul" (The Fire That Consumes, Edward William Fudge, 1994, p. 22, emphasis added).

That such an important assumption should not be explicitly taught in the Bible is surprising, considering how confidently theologians hold to this doctrine. If it isn't found in the Bible, where did the idea originate?

The New Bible Dictionary offers this background of the nonbiblical nature of the immortal-soul doctrine. "The Greeks thought of the body as a hindrance to true life and they looked for the time when the soul would be free from its shackles. They conceived of life after death in terms of the immortality of the soul ..." (1996, p. 1010, "Resurrection").

According to this idea, the body goes to the grave at death and the soul continues to exist as a separate conscious entity.

Belief in a separate soul and body was popular in Greek society and was taught by one of their most famous philosophers. "The immortality of the soul was a principal doctrine of the Greek philosopher, Plato ... In Plato's thinking, the soul ... was self-moving and indivisible ... It existed before the body which it inhabited, and which it would survive" (Fudge, p. 32).

How the immortal-soul idea entered Christianity

When did the concept of the immortality of the soul enter the world of Christianity? The Old Testament does not teach it. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia explains: "... We are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness and is nowhere found in the Old Testament" (1960, Vol. 2, p. 812, "Death").

The first-century Church did not hold to this belief, either. "... The doctrine is increasingly regarded as a post-apostolic innovation, not only unnecessary but positively harmful to proper biblical interpretation and understanding" (Fudge, p. 24).

If such an idea were not in place in the Church during the time of the apostles, how did it come to assume such an important place in Christian doctrine?

Several authorities recognize that the teachings of Plato and other Greek philosophers have profoundly influenced Christianity. Jeffrey Burton Russell states: "... The unbiblical idea of immortality did not die but even flourished, because theologians ... admired Greek philosophy [and] found support there for the notion of the immortal soul ..." (A History of Heaven, 1997, p. 79).

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, in its article on death, states that "the 'departure' of the nephesh [soul] must be viewed as a figure of speech, for it does not continue to exist independently of the body, but dies with it ... No biblical text authorizes the statement that the 'soul' is separated from the body at the moment of death" (1962, Vol. 1, p. 802, "Death").

Should we then accept a teaching that is nonbiblical? Many people take it for granted that their doctrines are based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. Yet Jesus said in a prayer to His Father, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). Does God give men the liberty to draw from the world's philosophers and incorporate their beliefs into biblical teaching?

God inspired the apostle Peter to write: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21). We must look to the words of Christ, the prophets and the apostles in the Holy Scriptures if we are to understand the truth about the doctrine of the immortality of the soul or any other religious teaching.

Let's dig into the Scriptures to see exactly what the Bible tells us about the soul.

Soul in the Hebrew Scriptures

The Old Testament teaches that the soul dies. In Genesis 2:7 we find that when Adam was created he became a "living soul" (King James Version). In Genesis 9:12 the same Hebrew words are translated "living creature" and refer not to humans, but to every sort of animal distinct from man.

God told Adam and Eve, two "living souls," that they would "surely die" if they disobeyed Him (Genesis 2:17). God also told Adam that He had taken him from the dust of the earth and he would return to dust (Genesis 3:19).

In the Old Testament, man is referred to as a "soul" (Hebrew nephesh) more than 130 times. The term is also applied to sea creatures (Genesis 1:20-21), birds (verse 30) and land animals, including cattle and "creeping" creatures such as reptiles and insects (verse 24).

It follows, then, if we make an argument for man possessing an immortal soul, animals must also have an immortal soul, since the same Hebrew word is used of man and animal alike. Yet no biblical scholars would seriously make such claims for animals. The truth is, the term soul refers to any living creature (whether man or beast), not to some separate, living essence temporarily inhabiting the body.

Among the plainer statements in the Bible about what happens to the soul at death are Ezekiel 18:4 and 18:20. Both passages clearly state that "the soul who sins shall die" (emphasis added throughout). Not only do these scriptures show that the soul dies, but the soul is identified as a physical being-not a separate spirit entity having an existence independent of its physical host.

The Scriptures tell us that the dead do not have consciousness. "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing ..." (Ecclesiastes 9:5). They are not conscious in some other state or place.

The New Testament teaching

The New Testament contains several statements that confirm that the wicked will die-permanently. In Matthew 7:13-14, in exhorting His disciples to choose the way that leads to life, Jesus states that the end of those who do not choose life is destruction. He contrasts that path with the way of righteousness, telling us "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

The apostle Paul also stated that the wicked will die. In Romans 6:20-21 he talks about those who were slaves of sin and says that for them "the end of those things is death." So those who are slaves of sin, who habitually commit sin, can perish completely.

Romans 6:23 is one of the best-known verses of the Bible. Yet many people either overlook what it plainly says or read into it an entirely different meaning. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

This verse plainly tells us two crucial truths. First, the punishment of the wicked is death, not a life of eternal suffering in another place. Second, we do not already have eternal life. It is something God chooses to give us. We see from this verse that a fleshly human being has nothing about him that is immortal; God must give eternal life to us through our Savior, Jesus the Messiah. In 1 Timothy 6:16 Paul also tells us that God alone has immortality.

Paul makes a similar statement in Galatians 6:8: "The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (New International Version). This tells us what happens to sinners. Eventually they will "reap destruction," but those who obey God will ultimately receive eternal life.

In Philippians 3:18 Paul speaks of those who are "enemies of the cross of Christ." Verse 19 says that their end is destruction, not eternal torment in another life after death.

Finally, in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul emphatically declares that the wicked will come to a complete end: "These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord ..."

So is man an immortal soul, or does he have an immortal soul? The Bible declares plainly that man is temporary, of the dust of the earth. There is no immortal quality about man at all-unless and until he receives it from God through a resurrection.

The Bible clearly states that man puts on immortality at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:50-54), not at the end of his physical life. Until that time man has no more permanence than animals.

 

 

Regardless of the history - the soul is a basic doctrine of orthodox Christianity. I should know I was one for a good part of my life.