Jesus is not God

[Guest guest]

"We are all the God."

 

yes until nature calls us in the bathroom... do not say stupid things

[Guest guest]

Jesus is the only way. No other way to reach the father. He likes a people like you. Because he died not only for christians, for you also. Did u call his name ever before ?. He will answer you immediately and he will do more that what you think and pray.

 

God Bless you

[Guest guest]

jesus is offended by saying that he's the only way

 

it is like saying that his father, the lord, is able to save only one people and to send only one son and messiah

 

to say that Jesus is the only way is actually blaspheming lord Jesus Christ

 

[Guest guest]

He is the only way to heaven, but he probably said that due to time place and circumstance, you think that he would have got people to follow him is he had said, well there are many other gurus and devotees who can take you to heaven?

 

Out of Krishna's mercy, Jesus said that to save all his disciples...Like Prabhupada said, there is only one Guru, Krishna, but anybody who repeats his message and glorifies his name is also guru, hence one can take shelter at the lotus feet of Jesus also...

[Guest guest]

He is the only way to heaven, but he probably said that due to time place and circumstance, you think that he would have got people to follow him is he had said, well there are many other gurus and devotees who can take you to heaven?

 

.....of course, this is exactly my point, the guru, for practical reasons, to keep with him distract disciples, sometimes says "think only of me.. i am the only one"

 

hence one can take shelter at the lotus feet of Jesus also...

 

.......provided he does it accepting the process of chanting hare krishna

[Guest guest]

jesus says u can get to the heavenly planets through him - nothing more, nothing less...

 

chanting hare krishna is the way to reach ultimate personal liberation...

 

if one would chant 'Christ' it would lead to some form of spiritual enlightenment, but not to the ultimate...

[humble 0]

"if one would chant 'Christ' it would lead to some form of spiritual enlightenment, but not to the ultimate..."

 

Truly, for Christ is not God/Krsna.

 

Of course, God is Krsna, and so while the name Krsna is the name chanted by the Krsna Consciousness Movement, religionists who chant any other of God's recognised names can too reach enlightenment.

[Guest guest]

but chanting of allah, for instance, will not lead directly to vaikuntha in this birth...as far as i understand it leads to heaven, as mohammed puts it, and then from there it may lead to vaikuntha...

 

chanting the names of krishna or incarnations of visnu leads to liberation...

 

that's why all those buddhists who don't believe in god will still reach liberation if they are thinking of Lord Buddha when they die! Ironically, if u are not a very good Buddhist, i.e. you cannot concentrate on 'the void', you have a higher chance of liberation! I think those who think of Buddha still don't reach Vaikuntha, cos they do not think of him as God...probably impersonal realisation...

[Guest guest]

"Why are we wasting time talking about Jesus? What does Jesus have to do with Hinduism? He was a prophet/wise man and God is in all of us. Better to focus on personal beliefs than talking about other religions we don't know much about. Seriously.

 

Seriously VJ, I think you missed the whole point, being a pure devotee and an avatar, Jesus has a lot to do with this discussion. You can't take away God from His devotee, since a devotee is the hart and sould of God and by following their footsteps one gets a chance to go back to our original home, no matter what your religion is.

By the way this forum is not just about Hinduism, it is more than this, this forum is about our natural functuion and essence.

[Guest guest]

...a devotee is the "heart and soul" of God

[humble 0]

Hare Krsna

 

"but chanting of allah, for instance, will not lead directly to vaikuntha in this birth...as far as i understand it leads to heaven, as mohammed puts it, and then from there it may lead to vaikuntha...

 

chanting the names of krishna or incarnations of visnu leads to liberation...

 

that's why all those buddhists who don't believe in god will still reach liberation if they are thinking of Lord Buddha when they die! Ironically, if u are not a very good Buddhist, i.e. you cannot concentrate on 'the void', you have a higher chance of liberation! I think those who think of Buddha still don't reach Vaikuntha, cos they do not think of him as God...probably impersonal realisation... "

 

--- While I do not wish to enter into a conflict, friend, I must disagree with you. You say that Allah is not Krsna - this is not true in my opinion, and neither in the opinion of Srila Prabhupada, who stated on a number of occassions that "there are many names for God. You call Him God, another man calls Him Allah. I call Him Krsna". Do you see?

 

You also state that a "not very good Buddhist" stands a better chance of reaching enlightenment - I disagree. While of course the Buddhist's central belief, especially regarding the afterlife from this material body, is somewhat different to a Krsna Conscious man, nonetheless Buddhists seek an enlightenment of their own, and I believe a good Buddhist can reach enlightenment easier than a "not very good Buddhist".

 

My thanks.

[Guest guest]

"Priest: And for a Muslim you mean to chant Allah.

 

Prabhupada: Yes.

 

Priest: Name Krsna, Allah, Jesus, (indistinct), what is the...

 

Prabhupada: Allah is not name. That is...It is not the name. It is just like the idea of God.

 

Priest: Yeah.

 

Priest: Allah means also (indistinct).

 

Prabhupada: But that is not the name. That is...Just like the President and Mr. Nixon. The President may be another person. Not only Nixon, but another person also may be. So President is the general understanding of the post. But still, one who occupies the post, he has got a name

"

 

N98:740609RC.PAR

[Guest guest]

Prabhupada: "There is no difference between chanting and hearing or remembering or worshiping in the temple. Çravaëaà kértanaà viñëoù smaraëaà päda-sevanam, arcanam [sB 7.5.23]. The temple worship is called arcanam. Vandanam, offering prayers. The Christians, the Muhammadans, they offer prayer. Of course, not to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but impersonal feature or some idea. But that prayer is also one of the processes of bhakti. Anyone who accepts the supremacy of God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his process of worship has to be considered in the category of bhakti-yoga

 

740422sb.hyd

[Guest guest]

Prabhupada: If you think that Jesus Christ's name is also, you can chant, we have no objection. We say that you chant the holy name of God, whatever you have got. That's all right

 

prabhupada: Now, take for example the Muhammadan name Allah. Allah means the greatest. So God is greatest. So that greatest conception is this Brahman conception. And so far Christian, I don’t think they have got any particular name. They say God

 

690512rc.col

 

 

[Guest guest]

hence it seems impersonal realisation...

 

what is clear is that islam and christianity only talk of heaven...they don't talk of this whole other spiritual dimension...so how can one rach that spiritual dimension (in this life) thru following those religions?

 

As for Buddhists, it is some form of enlightenment (impersonal) - yet not Vaikuntha liberation...unless of course their consciousness is fixed on Buddha as God at the time of death...

[Guest guest]

i believe some mahayana buddhist sects are vaishnav.

 

voidist buddhists like zen reach pradhana, the void.

[Guest guest]

i believe some mahayana buddhist sects are vaishnav.

 

vaishnava is one who specifically refers to the vishnu personality

 

mahayana are somewhat personalists most of all because they "worship" the master

[Guest guest]

to karanp1987: I was raised to be a Christian, and have been my my whole life. But, I have had some very strong doubts which no one could answer. I could never "accept" Jesus as God, as you are saying that you don't believe that he is God. I went to view The Passion of The Christ and that's when I basically then realized that Christianity was formed by men. I have studied other religions such as Islam and it has most of the same ideas only much more rigid in some ways. Man distorted the facts in history and took him to be God when he called him father. I know now especially after studying many of Bhaktivedanta's books know that this is true. There is only one God, Krishna and he sends his disciples to help the lost souls. Whether or not they respond and decide to love him is up to him. But, we have so many role models, if you will to follow.

[Guest guest]

Jesus Christ is a pure devotee; time spent relishing his glories and pastimes are no more a waste of time than relishing those glories of Srila Prabhupada or Mother Yasoda.

Hare Krishna.

[Guest guest]

Haribol Saksi Gopal Prabhu,

thank you for inspiring this nice discussion; it's contents and subjects are nice to debate and a good tool for realization.

if i may ask prabhu, where are you from?

[Augustine 0]

 

In Bible, Christ makes numerous references to His Father (God, i ei Krishna), but Christians have misinterpretted Christ to be God, this is what is causing all the chaos and confusion.

 

 

That you say this makes me believe you labour under two misunderstandings...

 

1) A misunderstanding of passages born out of ignorance of their context

 

2) Ignorance of just how Christians believe Christ is God.

 

Christ is the Logos (Greek...often translated as "Word", but also means "rationale") of God, which means He is consubstantial (of one essence) with God. Hence, "God", Divinity. In more personalistic terminology (which the Bible does not shy away from, since God is intensly "personal", and that is ultimatly how we relate to God) the relationship of this "Logos" is portrayed as that between a Father and a Son.

 

Thus, Christ as "Son of God" is not the denial of Divinity which you portray it to be. This is beside the fact there are passages in the Bible which explicitly state that Christ is in fact God.

 

- He is continually called "Lord", which in the original Greek of the New Testament is "Kyrios", a title only applied in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to the Divinity.

 

- Many explicit passages like the following...

 

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (St.John 1:1-4, 14)

 

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (St.Matthew 1:23)

 

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace be unto you." Then saith he to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord and my God." Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (St.John 20:26-29)

 

 

[Guest guest]

hare krishna and dandavats

 

Please consider the position of Lord Jesus Christ among Vaisnavas before making such statements. He is regarded as the Spiritual Master and a shaktivesha avataar. The thing that bothers most is that many Christians lay claim on Jesus as if they are in some way the only "owners" of his teachings. Since most christians do not understand what is shaktivesha avataar, or a Guru (spiritual master) they cannot understand the vaishnava position on the matter. Jesus preached in many parts of the world. In india, for example, the inscriptions on the famous Jagannath temple at Puri bear testimony to the fact that Isaa Masiiha (meaning messenger from God who delivers), which is the name of Jesus in india, was there. In addition, the records in Buddhist monastry in lhasa which were translated to Bengali by Swami Abedhananda also speak of the same. Apart from that, the Bhavishya Puraana, which is considered as Holy as you consider the Bible, also contains conversations with Jesus and in Kashmir there is a tomb of Isaa Mesiiha which is claimed to be the place where he left his body.

So then you may try to place your belief against ours and so on, but then both are on the same pedestal. One may argue that these are fabricated, but nothing of the sort was "fabricated" for Prophet Muhammad who is also considered to be the Spiritual Master.

 

Transdental subject matters cannot be understood by scholarship and so the examples you provide mean nothing. Vaishnaivas understand these things through the Divine Spiritual Masters who alone are capable of imparting true meaning of the statements in the scriptures.

 

There is no denial of divinity because by nature all are Divine. But the special position of Jesus as the Spiritual Master and in addition shaktivesha avataar makes him "more divine" as you may like to understand it. But Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta clearly say that Jesus, Muhammad (and Buddha, Parashurama, Vyasadeva ...) are not vishnu tattva (or expansions of the Supreme Lord) but jiva tattva; so it has to be accepted. We also address Jesus as Lord Jesus Christ and Buddha as Lord Buddha as they were shaktivesha avataars.

The Spiritual Masters teach according to time and circumstances and so the meaning of their words cannot be known so easily, consequently many of the statements appear contradictory.

The most striking example would be the famous one in Bible where it says that one cannot attain God without following the Son. Most Christians apply it in an absolute sense and consequently find ways to mock other Spritual Masters. The more likely thing is that the statement applied to that time and region but even if taken literally Vaishnavas understand it that the way to approach the Supreme Lord is through the Guru and hence through Jesus. They understand perfectly well that the Guru is One, there are nothing like different Gurus which is of course very hard to understand for Christians.

[Guest guest]

 

That you say this makes me believe you labour under two misunderstandings...

 

1) A misunderstanding of passages born out of ignorance of their context

 

2) Ignorance of just how Christians believe Christ is God.

 

 

 

Point 1:

 

Is the following passage you quoted out of context. In this passage jc does not say he is god. Rather jc simply points out to doubting Thomas that he he should not doubt jc. Now read it and see it in context. Before you point fingers at us you should avoid doing that same mistake.

 

 

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace be unto you." Then saith he to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord and my God." Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (St.John 20:26-29)

 

 

The other two passages were obviously interpolated. There were no original aramaic manuscripts. As jc himself spoke in aramaic, it is only logical that the gospels are to be in aramaic. Since there isnone all new testament is mostly new(corrupted and not reliable) in the first place.

 

Point 2:

 

Logic:

 

In new testament, there are statements made by jc himself and statements made by ignorant and/or so called enlightened people.

 

Obviously jc's own words carry more weight. Jc confirms he is no god throught his own words in gospels and jc confirms this explicitly. Why don't you read the quotes from gospels in this discussion thread and give some rational answers once.

 

There are a few other points you need to think about.

 

1. How can God possess a body that can be destriyed ? Jc possessed a body that was destroyed.

 

2. How can God die ? Jc died ie his was destryed.

 

A true GOD's body is HIS SPIRIT and vice versa.

 

In short christianity is born out of superstitious beliefs.

[Augustine 0]

 

There is no denial of divinity because by nature all are Divine. But the special position of Jesus as the Spiritual Master and in addition shaktivesha avataar makes him "more divine" as you may like to understand it. But Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta clearly say that Jesus, Muhammad (and Buddha, Parashurama, Vyasadeva ...) are not vishnu tattva (or expansions of the Supreme Lord) but jiva tattva; so it has to be accepted. We also address Jesus as Lord Jesus Christ and Buddha as Lord Buddha as they were shaktivesha avataars.

 

 

I've been studying Vaisnava doctrine, so I have some familiarity with the distinctions you're making.

 

The problem from a Christian p.o.v. is that as far as we're concerned, Christ is I guess what you would call the highest, eternal "expansion" of God - the Logos, which in Greek means the word/rationale of God. He has all of the "opulences" of His Father, and is in fact the agency by which all things which are have come into being.

 

Another important distinction, is that while Christianity (at least in it's Orthodox form, as in "Eastern" Orthodox) teaches on the the Divine Energies and that they are eternal, a distinction is made between these energies, God as He is, and the creation. My understanding is that Vaisnavism teaches that all things are fundamentally a part of God, and that souls are eternal (having no beginning, and obviously no end) and are qualitatively (if not quantitatively) equal to the Bhagavan/"Supreme Personality". On the otherhand, Orthodox Christianity teaches that all things (including souls, whether they be those of men or the different classes of angelic spirits) are created, they had a begining, and if they have no end, this will be solely by the will of God. Things continue in existance by the Divine Energies, and the closer they are to God the more they manifest His Personal qualities, but these are distinct from that which is sustained by them and bathed in them.

 

This is why ultimatly the Christian concept of "Incarnation" and the Vedic idea of "avatara", while similar in some important respects, are not indentical. I've seen Krishna devotees here mock the Christian ideal, typically because the Scriptures clearly outline the materiality of Christ's human nature, that He was besides being Divine, truly a man. As far as Christians are concerned however, God "as He is", is uncircumscribed - He is above the categorizations of the temporal world, which would include such things as location, shape, size, etc. Hence why, if God were to take on a visible form, it involves some kind of condescension on His part - whether it be the shaping of Divine energies in a manner perceptable to the senses (this is perhaps close to the Vaisnava idea of avatara - for example, the theophanies talked about in the Old Testament), OR in the case of Christ, the assumption of human nature. For Christians the latter (assumption of humanity/incarnation) has a significance which is overlooked here - namely the sanctification/elevation of humanity. Christ, as a man, overcomes the world, by a humanity infused with Divinity. This in ancient Christian dogma, is the heart of the ascetic struggle/podvig of salvation.

 

Unfortunately, people will keep talking past each other, and will be incapable of engaging in a meaningful debate of ideas, if we're not understanding what the other actually believes.

 

[Guest guest]

"Hence why, if God were to take on a visible form, it involves some kind of condescension on His part "

 

it is not exact in vaishnava-vedic terms...

 

god is already as he appears as krsna bhagavan or the avataras... there's no transformation. He already lives everywhere because the distinction between material and spiritual world is only "technical" and due to the limitations of conditioned souls

 

the fact is that god is god and he IS a spiritual form and individual.... if i see now krsna, is not that he has accepted some sort of material limitation to be seen by me..

 

 

the opposite..

 

 

he simply has given to me the transcendental vision to see him in his full reality

 

this is the way krsna appears and the avataras too... avataras are not different individuals or manifestations, but sides of the supremely various personality of krsna

 

let us not commit the mistake to think that beyond krsna or vishnu,varaha, narasimha, there's something more absolute and elevated