The Hidden Story of Jesus

[Sonic Yogi 0]

For those who might have missed it, I would like to recommend a very nice documentary by academic theologian Dr. Robert Beckford. Especially, in the first two parts of his series on YouTube he goes to Vrindavan, India and meets with the devotees and learns about Krishna in his quest to understand the truth about Jesus.

He does a very good job of presenting Krishna in a very good light - not bad for a Christian theologian.

The YouTube video in all it's parts have been organized into an easily navigable topic on http://christbusters.com/index.php/hiddenstory

 

The theme at christbusters.com is to bust the myth that somehow Jesus is the only way to God and to promote broader understanding.

Dr. Beckford, in his documentary does that most expertly while at the same time maintaining his religious affiliation as a Christian.

 

The documentary The Hidden Story of Jesus by Dr. Robert Beckford is well worth watch and sharing with others.

 

Watch it at: http://christbusters.com/index.php/hiddenstory

[raghu 2]

 

The theme at christbusters.com is to bust the myth that somehow Jesus is the only way to God and to promote broader understanding.

Dr. Beckford, in his documentary does that most expertly while at the same time maintaining his religious affiliation as a Christian.

[url="http://christbusters.com/index.php/hiddenstory"]

 

This is the logic of half the hen.

 

The Bible is the scripture that says that Jesus is a valid path to God. However, the same Bible also says that Jesus is the only valid path to God:

 

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " (John 14:6)

 

Now the point here is obvious. If the Biblical statements preaching exclusivity are invalid, then why isn't the rest of the Bible by the very fact suspect?

 

This is just like kaisersose criticizing Rama for killing Vali from behind, but then ignoring the two chapters in the Ramayana afterwards in which Rama explained why He punished Vali in this way, and Vali accepting this punishment and praising Sri Rama.

 

You are just taking the parts that suit you and ignoring the parts that contradict you.

[Sonic Yogi 0]

 

This is the logic of half the hen.

 

The Bible is the scripture that says that Jesus is a valid path to God. However, the same Bible also says that Jesus is the only valid path to God:

 

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " (John 14:6)

 

Now the point here is obvious. If the Biblical statements preaching exclusivity are invalid, then why isn't the rest of the Bible by the very fact suspect?

 

This is just like kaisersose criticizing Rama for killing Vali from behind, but then ignoring the two chapters in the Ramayana afterwards in which Rama explained why He punished Vali in this way, and Vali accepting this punishment and praising Sri Rama.

 

You are just taking the parts that suit you and ignoring the parts that contradict you.

 

"The Bible"?

You talk as if the whole book was written all at once by one person.

The Old Testament derived from the Torah is hundreds or thousands of years older than the New Testament which contains a number of gospels written by different authors over hundreds of years.

 

If Jesus is the only way, then what value did "God" in the Old Testament have?

 

The New Testaments gospels were written in Greek by people who did not even know Hebrew as there is proof that they used the Greek translation of the Bible, The Septuagint, as their source of materials.

 

So, no, I don't accept the New Testament gospels on the same level as the writings of Vyasadeva.

 

Even on top of that, there were certain alterations of some of these New Testament gospels in the early centuries of Christianity.

 

In fact the Old Testament states that God spoke in different times and different places to various peoples.

 

The "Jesus is the only way" concept that was popularized by the apostle Paul in his gospel writings is certainly a very questionable claim.

 

Since we have no actual writings of Jesus and the book of Mark was the first Gospel that all other gospels were inspired by, we cannot just blindly accepts Paul's claim that Jesus said he was "the only way".

 

That statement in fact was written by Paul, who himself was not even a direct disciple of Christ as they were described in the book of Mark.

[kaisersose 0]

 

This is just like kaisersose criticizing Rama for killing Vali from behind, but then ignoring the two chapters in the Ramayana afterwards in which Rama explained why He punished Vali in this way, and Vali accepting this punishment and praising Sri Rama.

 

That is interesting. Do you have a link to this thread? I searched and found a thread on Vali, but I did not see any explanations to justify his actions. Or is this evidence not in the thread, but in the Ramayana? If yes, then I have not read those portions in a long, long time. I am fine with being wrong, I just need to see some evidence. I am not gonna turn around and add people to my ignore lists, if something I posted was inconsistent.

 

Cheers

[sant 0]

Sarg 17 - Sugreev's

As Raam's arrow hit Baali, Baali fell down on the ground. On his falling the earth became like its Moon lost in the skies. But his gem-studded gold pendant given by Indra sustained his life, grace and bravery. His body, chest-plate and arrow of Raam were the only three splendors crafted on him. He fell like yayaati fell from Swarg Lok. Raam and Lakshman went near Baali with high regard for him.

Baali said harsh words politely but rightfully to Raam - "You are a son of a renowned king, You are gracious, brave, merciful, protector of poor and sad people, and bear good character. Everybody praises you on this earth. Deciding on these attributes although Taaraa asked me not to fight with Sugreev but still I fought with him. How can you kill somebody who is fighting with another one and who is not vigilant about you. Since it was not apt for you, and I didn't see you either in the battlefield, I fought with Sugreev. But you will kill me like this, I never thought of this.

You are sinner like an ash-covered fire, you are an evil soul, you are proud of your Dharm, I didn't know that. You proved to be unfaithful as a well covered by grass. What did I do bad in your country? I eat only fruits and roots and live in forests; and I was not fighting with you but with another. You are born in Kshatriya family as a prince, learned in Ved, and are the form of Dharm then why did you do this kind of ruthless deed.

We are only wild animals and have animal-like nature too, but you didn't even think about justice or injustice being born in Raghu dynasty. What is your purpose behind killing me? [because you are Supreme Being there must be some purpose behind killing me. If you have killed me in search of Seetaa, then I would have brought Her in one day and that also without killing]

Saam, Daam, and Bhed are kingly policies but they may not work with me because I am not equal to you in kingship; only Dand (punishment) may work with me as I have committed wrongs. Just behavior, politeness, Nigrah (control) and Anugrah (request) are said as Raaj Dharm, but since you act as you wish, that is why you are greedy and childish. You don't know your Dharm at all. You acted under the control of your Indriyaan. You killed a faultless person, what will you answer for it in nobles' community. Hey Raam, The killer of cow, killer of Braahman, killer of thief, killer of a king and killer of people and those human beings who are not faithful, complaining nature, greedy, unfaithful to friend and desire for Guru's wife; and who marry before their elders - all go to hell.

My skin is unwearable by people, my hair and bones are also forbidden, also my flesh is not to be eaten. Five of five-nailed animals are eaten by Braahman and Kshatriya. A kind of wild rodent, lizard, and wild boar, and tortoise and me (monkey) skin and bones are not to be touched, and such a five-nailed animal is killed now.

When I was coming to fight, Taaraa stopped me, but I came here under the spell of Kaal and I didn't pay any attention to her. How were you evil-minded and artful born to Raajaa Dashrath like great soul? [He was truly not the physical son of Raajaa Dashrath who used to weigh sin and merit and good and evil]. If you had fought with me, I am sure Yam must have seen you killed by me. If you have killed me only to please Sugreev, you could have told me earlier. If you have told me your mission before, I would have brought Seetaa in one day only from that Raakshas, whether he would have been in Paataal or in sea. After my death, Sugreev will get this kingdom, this is justified but my killing is not." Baali got silent after saying this because he was in pain.

Sarg 18 - Raam Justifies Himself to Kill Baali

Baali thus said these polite words to Raam. Raam said to him politely - "Hey Baali, you are insulting me because of your little knowledge and want to advise me from your Vaanar childlike wisdom. This whole earth belongs to Ikshwaaku Vanshee kings, that is why they have full right to punish faulty people [baali's 4th question: "in your country or city, I did no misdeed..." - so when earth belongs to Ikshwaaku Vansh, you are not separate from it].

Presently pious, truthful, dear Bharat is ruling Prithvi and who can act A-Dharm (immoral) in his kingdom? We are taking care of A-Dharmee people in the same line. Your actions are not good according to a king. [baali's 5th question: "Non-guilty is being hurt" - his guilt was that he was not abiding with king's conduct]

Hey Baali, Elder brother, father and Guru, these three are considered like father and younger brother and son and disciples are considered as sons. Who understand it like this they know Dharm. Hey Vaanar Raaj, The very minute and infallible soul which lives in all living beings, it alone knows the just and unjust. But you are only a Vaanar, that is why your mind is childlike, then how can you know about Dharm? If you ask anything from a person who is blind by birth, how much truth can he tell you? [baali's 8th question: "Your primary aspiration is to kill without probing into good or bad.." - since I alone am the supreme soul residing in all creatures so only I alone will decide what is wrong and what is right].

You have illicit relationship with your younger brother's wife Roomaa who is like your daughter and I have killed you for the same crime. [With this enough reason Raam explains why He had killed Baali. Baali's 10th question: "unnecessary killers go to Hell.." - you are not unnecessarily killed, killing a sinner is no sin]. That is why you should not be sad.

I don't see any other means to control you other than elimination. [baali's 2nd question: "you have not punished the wrongdoer" - all the formalities are observed with kings of equal status, you are a very small king so you are straightway eliminated]. Since I come from Kshatriya caste, it is sin to have illicit relationship with sister, or daughter, or brother's wife. Punishment for such a person in scriptures is elimination. Bharat is king, we are only Raajaa's people. And Bharat is very particular about punishing lusty people. Hey Baali, As I am the friend of Lakshman, I have the same relationship with Sugreev also and that relationship is very important for me. [baali's 13th question: I would have brought Maithilee in one day.." - Raam wanted help in searching Seetaa only not to bring Her to Him. Only Raam had to kill Raavan]. I promised him to punish you according to Dharm which I did. So you should also consider this punishment according to Dharm.

Now you listen to another thing which may calm your anger. I have no repentance for killing you from hiding, because human beings always shoot birds and animals etc from hiding. Meat eaters prey running animals and thy are not considered criminals. Raajaa always prey, that is why I killed you at the time of fighting, doesn't matter with whom you were fighting. But I have killed you considering you as a Vaanar.

You should not doubt that wealth and life are given by Raaja only and because Raajaa is like Devtaa, therefore he should not be insulted nor one should speak before him. You don't know anything about Dharm and you are insulting me and my family who has been following Dharm since ancient times, in anger. Manu Smriti says that if a sinner is punished he goes to Swarg but the king who doesn't punish a sinner carries his sins. Whatever is sin is acquired by a murderer, the same sin is acquired by executing an innocent.

Kings are not to be rebuked, also no reproach is to be spoken against because they are divinities in human form. . But you are continuously reviling me who is persisting in righteousness."

After hearing this Baali didn't consider Raam wrong, because he got the knowledge of Dharm through Him. Then he said to Raam with his palms joined together - "Whatever you are saying that is true, but whatever I said to you in A-Gyaan, it was undesirable and improper. Please do not consider me wrong for it. I said that in ignorance. Now I am in your protection, I don't have any other sorrow except Angad with golden bracelets . He is still a child and I have brought him up with lots of love. He will be very sad in my absence. As you feel about Bharat and Lakshman, in the same way treat Angad and Sugreev. Sugreev can get even Prithvi's kingdom by your grace. Do not punish Taaraa for my wrongdoings and let not Sugreev slight her away."

Raam consoled Baali and said - "Hey Baali, You should not worry about anything, because we have already considered these issues before you said them. You have got a good Gati because of the punishment of your crime. Leave sorrow, Moh (intense love), fear because you cannot change your fate." Baali said - "What I said in ignorance, please forgive me for that."

[melvin 1]

 

For those who might have missed it, I would like to recommend a very nice documentary by academic theologian Dr. Robert Beckford. Especially, in the first two parts of his series on YouTube he goes to Vrindavan, India and meets with the devotees and learns about Krishna in his quest to understand the truth about Jesus.

He does a very good job of presenting Krishna in a very good light - not bad for a Christian theologian.

The YouTube video in all it's parts have been organized into an easily navigable topic on http://christbusters.com/index.php/hiddenstory

 

The theme at christbusters.com is to bust the myth that somehow Jesus is the only way to God and to promote broader understanding.

Dr. Beckford, in his documentary does that most expertly while at the same time maintaining his religious affiliation as a Christian.

 

The documentary The Hidden Story of Jesus by Dr. Robert Beckford is well worth watch and sharing with others.

 

Watch it at: http://christbusters.com/index.php/hiddenstory

 

If I were Jesus I`d change my name to Love. So that the statement," Jesus is the only way to God" would turn out this way," Love is the only way to God.":pray:

[Tirisilex 0]

When Jesus said he was the only way to God. He meant that his example was the only way to God.

[melvin 1]

 

When Jesus said he was the only way to God. He meant that his example was the only way to God.

What examples did Jesus show? They`re countless. That we should not do business inside God`s temple. That we should forgive 7 times 7 times 7 to the one who has done us wrong 7 times 7 times 7. That if someone throws a stone at us, we should throw one a piece of bread. That we should love one another. That we should not judge others so we won`t be judged. That faith can move mountains. That the father always rejoices if his prodigal son comes home. That what is from Cesar is Cesar`s and what is from God is God`s. That what comes directly from the heart which is evil is a sin not the one that goes inside the mouth. That only children can enter the kingdom of God. That if you offer one a drink you did it for God. That one is blessed if he visits the sick, those in prison. That one should be a good samaritan.So, what does these examples Jesus taught to his followers imply. Why, it`s simply all about LOVE!

[Tirisilex 0]

Problem is that Christians don't see it that way..

[melvin 1]

 

Problem is that Christians don't see it that way..

 

Then it`s the Vaishnavas duty to let the Christians see it their way! Srila Prabhupada did that so others would follow. The problem is why can`t they? I guess your answer to that question is as good as mine.

[raghu 2]

 

That is interesting. Do you have a link to this thread? I searched and found a thread on Vali, but I did not see any explanations to justify his actions. Or is this evidence not in the thread, but in the Ramayana? If yes, then I have not read those portions in a long, long time. I am fine with being wrong, I just need to see some evidence. I am not gonna turn around and add people to my ignore lists, if something I posted was inconsistent.

 

Cheers

 

The evidence I was referring to is in the Ramayana, in the two chapters (17 and 18 of Kishkindha kanda) immediately following Rama striking down Vali. In the first chapter, Vali gives his arguments as to why Rama's conduct was improper. In the second chapter, Rama elucidates Vali's transgressions, such as his banishment of Sugriva and his usurping of Sugriva's wife, which was tantamount to incest.

 

The basic gist of it was that Vali deserved to be punished rather than rewarded with fair one-on-one combat with another kshatriya. It is something like the way Karna was killed by Arjuna, deprived of the chance to get a fitting warrior's death because he had stood idly by and refused to protect Draupadi.

 

Vali accepts Rama's arguments as indicated by the shlokas at the end of the 18th chapter and then begged His pardon.

 

The idea that Rama lacked the ability to kill Vali "fairly" is nonsense. The same Ramayana states that He single-handedly killed 14,000 demons belonging to Ravana's army in Janasthan. Of course, you may choose not to believe that, but then why believe that Rama killed Vali as a sniper from behind a tree?

 

Accept all of it or none of it for the sake of argument. Just be consistent.

 

As usual, I see that Sonic Yogi completely missed the point.

[gHari 0]

 

This is the logic of half the hen.

 

The Bible is the scripture that says that Jesus is a valid path to God. However, the same Bible also says that Jesus is the only valid path to God:

 

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " (John 14:6)

 

Now the point here is obvious. If the Biblical statements preaching exclusivity are invalid, then why isn't the rest of the Bible by the very fact suspect?

 

This is just like kaisersose criticizing Rama for killing Vali from behind, but then ignoring the two chapters in the Ramayana afterwards in which Rama explained why He punished Vali in this way, and Vali accepting this punishment and praising Sri Rama.

 

You are just taking the parts that suit you and ignoring the parts that contradict you.

 

"The Way" is the only path, as Krsna says in the Gita: "All follow Me in all respects".

[Sephiroth 0]

Sonic Yogi :

 

 

The Old Testament derived from the Torah is hundreds or thousands of years older than the New Testament which contains a number of gospels written by different authors over hundreds of years.

 

Should be around 1,000 years before Jesus - when Moses took his people out of Egypt and went to Israel. First teaching to Jews were the Ten Commandments which become the basic for Judaism.

 

 

If Jesus is the only way, then what value did "God" in the Old Testament have?

 

What value should Jesus have to God of the Old Testament? Jesus have nothing to do with Judaism, as much as Christians like to link it. Christianity and Islam has nothing to do with Judaism and Jews do not accept them.

 

 

In fact the Old Testament states that God spoke in different times and different places to various peoples.

 

Yes, He had. In some cases, Angels like Gabriel will come down and talk to people on His behalf. To say that Jesus is the only way is to deny that God (of Israel) have talked or send Angels to communicate with humans.

[jeffster 0]

Re: John 14:6, when Jesus said that he was the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the father except through him, I take it in the context that he was very likely the most realized personality in Israel at that time, and that in acting in the capacity of guru to his "flock" (congregation), he was suggesting that he could take members of his congregation back to the kingdom of God. I don't feel that he was saying that he was the only guru for all time and circumstances, but he was the only guru available to those people in that place at that time. We will likely never know his exact meaning.

jeffster/AMd

[Sephiroth 0]

 

Re: John 14:6, when Jesus said that he was the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the father except through him, I take it in the context that he was very likely the most realized personality in Israel at that time, and that in acting in the capacity of guru to his "flock" (congregation), he was suggesting that he could take members of his congregation back to the kingdom of God. I don't feel that he was saying that he was the only guru for all time and circumstances, but he was the only guru available to those people in that place at that time. We will likely never know his exact meaning.

jeffster/AMd

 

Actually he (supposedly) said that he was the ONLY WAY to God at that time and all others who claims to speak in behalf of God, are false.

 

Christians believed this for the past 2,000 years and when Muhammad came to power, he repeated the same thing - that he and he alone was the Prophet of Allah and there will not be anymore prophets after him. And that the only way to god was through Islam.

 

This two jokers have managed to fool the human race into cutting themselves off from God for the past 2,000 years.

 

When people stop believing that they could communicate with God through Spiritual Practice (like what Hindu sages have been doing for the past 5,000 years), then they will become close-minded. And once that happens, no matter how loud God speaks to Man, Man will simply ignore it.

[chandu_69 0]

I find the following in bible(Nt) to support what jeffster said in post 14

 

Matthew 15:24: "But he [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

[Sonic Yogi 0]

 

I find the following in bible(Nt) to support what jeffster said in post 14

 

Matthew 15:24: "But he [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The concept that Jesus is the only way comes from one verse in the book of John. The book of John was written after Mark, Matthew and Luke by an unknown author. There is no historical information about who wrote the Gospels apart from the name attached to them. Nobody has written anything saying "I knew Mark, and his real name was Ralph and he wrote the book of Mark".

The word gospel comes from the archaic version Godspell.

The gospels were supposed to be revelations that men who were under "God's spell" transmitted as mediums.

In other words, back in those ancient times it was considered that God spoke to man through prophets who were under "God's spell".

 

So, there were hundreds if not thousands of books written by many, many people who thought that what was coming into their minds on the subject of God or Jesus was a divine dispensation from God.

 

So, it is not even known who really wrote the book of John. The author was unknown to anyone who could write a historical account regarding his identity.

 

If, by some chance, the council of Nicea that had been convened by Emperor Constantine to standardize the books of The Bible, had not chosen the book of John, then today Christianity would in fact not be an exclusivist faith propounding that Christ is the only way to God.

 

However, in order for the Old Testament principle that the Jews were the chosen people of God to be carried over into the Christ conception, the writer of the book of John deemed it necessary to establish that Christ was in fact the only way to God being the Jewish messiah that he was supposed to be. It is generally accepted that the writer of the book of John was more "Jewish" than the author of the synoptic gospels.

 

Prior to the book of John, Christ had not been said to be the only way in the book of Mark, Matthew or Luke - the synoptic gospels that appear to possibly all be written by the same person.

 

The book of John most certainly shows that it was written by a different author who added the "Jesus is the only way" concept that had previously not been found in the original synoptic gospels.

[gHari 0]

The five cent philosophers will translate "Those who believeth in me will have eternal life" as "if I believe Jesus is the Son of God, I will go to heaven".

 

Unfortunately there are many five cent Christians out there with not much time to devote to this God thing. So they buy the five cent version ... and get their money's worth .... complete with the "only way, we're number one, go USA" cheer.

[raghu 2]

 

The concept that Jesus is the only way comes from one verse in the book of John. The book of John was written after Mark, Matthew and Luke by an unknown author. There is no historical information about who wrote the Gospels apart from the name attached to them. Nobody has written anything saying "I knew Mark, and his real name was Ralph and he wrote the book of Mark".

The word gospel comes from the archaic version Godspell.

The gospels were supposed to be revelations that men who were under "God's spell" transmitted as mediums.

In other words, back in those ancient times it was considered that God spoke to man through prophets who were under "God's spell".

 

So, there were hundreds if not thousands of books written by many, many people who thought that what was coming into their minds on the subject of God or Jesus was a divine dispensation from God.

 

So, it is not even known who really wrote the book of John. The author was unknown to anyone who could write a historical account regarding his identity.

 

The book of John most certainly shows that it was written by a different author who added the "Jesus is the only way" concept that had previously not been found in the original synoptic gospels.

 

Now you see, this is exactly what I have been saying all along about the Bible. Except that when I say it, the Hare Krishnas fly into a rage, whereas when one of their own says it, then there is no problem.

 

The only real difference between my position and your position regarding the Bible is that your conclusion is not logical. Why? Because you are still rationalizing the acceptance of "half the hen!"

 

Let us break it down:

 

1) Christianity is the religion of the Bible

 

2) Bible represents (at least theoretically) the teachings of Jesus.

 

3) Through Bible, teachings of Jesus and understanding of Jesus' position as son of God, savior, etc is known.

 

4) Yet, Bible has been interpolated over the years (Sonic Yogi just admitted this above).

 

5) Since we know some parts of Bible have been subject to interpolation, it stands to reason that other parts of Bible could also have been interpolated/adulterated (logically follows from point #4).

 

6) Therefore we do now know what parts of Bible really represent what Jesus taught.

 

7) Therefore any doctrine (divinity of Jesus, exclusivity of Jesus, alleged teachings of Jesus) based on the Bible is similarly suspect.

 

So why go through all the trouble of accepting a religion based solely on a set of scriptures which you admit have been adulterated over the years? We can't trust the Bible, as you have just admitted. You can suspect that some parts of the BIble have been interpolated, but you cannot rule out the possibility that other parts have been interpolated. So why go gaga over Jesus? Everything you know about Jesus is *from* the Bible, which you just admitted is adulterated by people coming after Jesus!

[Sonic Yogi 0]

 

Now you see, this is exactly what I have been saying all along about the Bible. Except that when I say it, the Hare Krishnas fly into a rage, whereas when one of their own says it, then there is no problem.

 

The only real difference between my position and your position regarding the Bible is that your conclusion is not logical. Why? Because you are still rationalizing the acceptance of "half the hen!"

 

Let us break it down:

 

1) Christianity is the religion of the Bible

 

2) Bible represents (at least theoretically) the teachings of Jesus.

 

3) Through Bible, teachings of Jesus and understanding of Jesus' position as son of God, savior, etc is known.

 

4) Yet, Bible has been interpolated over the years (Sonic Yogi just admitted this above).

 

5) Since we know some parts of Bible have been subject to interpolation, it stands to reason that other parts of Bible could also have been interpolated/adulterated (logically follows from point #4).

 

6) Therefore we do now know what parts of Bible really represent what Jesus taught.

 

7) Therefore any doctrine (divinity of Jesus, exclusivity of Jesus, alleged teachings of Jesus) based on the Bible is similarly suspect.

 

So why go through all the trouble of accepting a religion based solely on a set of scriptures which you admit have been adulterated over the years? We can't trust the Bible, as you have just admitted. You can suspect that some parts of the BIble have been interpolated, but you cannot rule out the possibility that other parts have been interpolated. So why go gaga over Jesus? Everything you know about Jesus is *from* the Bible, which you just admitted is adulterated by people coming after Jesus!

 

Well, you don't seem to understand that "the Bible" consists of two sections - The Old and the New Testaments.

 

Jesus did not exist in the old Testament.

The Old Testament is based upon the Jewish Torah, even though the Jews do not not accept Jesus.

 

You seem to be missing my point.

I don't believe in Jesus.

That is why I created the website christbusters.com and that is why you will find several articles by me on the Sampradaya Sun denouncing the authenticity of Jesus.

 

Jesus is a myth.

The New Testament consists of a number of books written by men who thought they were under "Godspell" and writing gospels.

Being a prophet was a livelihood for many men in those ages.

It was a job to be a prophet and channel God by writing books.

 

Nobody even knows who wrote the gospels.

There is no author that anybody can for certain attach to the synoptic gospels or any gospel after that.

The authors of the Christian testament are anonymous.

Nobody know who wrote the gospels.

[sant 0]

 

That is why I created the website christbusters.com and that is why you will find several articles by me on the Sampradaya Sun denouncing the authenticity of Jesus.

 

Sad never expected this from you.

What a sick name.

[sant 0]

There are more people who know in jesus as son of god than who know chaitanya as an avtara.

[Sonic Yogi 0]

[Sonic Yogi 0]

 

Sad never expected this from you.

What a sick name.

 

Well, no Vaishnava can believe in Jesus without having to reject his own faith.

Because all we know of Jesus is what is in the gospels and there it says that Jesus is the only way to God and that deity worship is idol worship.

 

If I believed in Jesus, I would have to reject Krishna and Sri Caitanya according to what they claim Jesus taught.

 

So, in order to believe in Krishna I must reject Jesus as factual because the teachings of Jesus in the gospels claims that nobody gets to God but through Jesus.

 

I pass urine on such a concept.

[raghu 2]

 

Well, you don't seem to understand that "the Bible" consists of two sections - The Old and the New Testaments.

 

I understood that perfectly well. It really isn't relevant here. If it matters, I was mostly referring to the New Testament.

 

 

You seem to be missing my point.

I don't believe in Jesus.

 

What?!?!? How can you be a Vaishnava and not believe in Jesus? Don't you know that Jesus is a pure devotee of Krishna? You Offender! Theist will now have to put you in his ignore list.

 

(p.s. to Sant, this is sarcasm)

 

 

That is why I created the website christbusters.com and that is why you will find several articles by me on the Sampradaya Sun denouncing the authenticity of Jesus.

 

Jesus is a myth.

 

Thanks for clarifying your views on this. I did not realize christbusters.com was your website. I am sure Theist will want to have words with you regarding this.

 

Let the fireworks begin!

 

 

I pass urine on such a concept

 

 

Most days I dislike the distance and separation which the internet forces upon us. Today is not one of those days.