The Passion of Christ

[Guest guest]

many hindus and other faiths are very turned off by seeing

jesus glorified ,they should not be demonized as insincere

or some kind of heretic.

 

Prabhupada preached according to the times as others have also.

 

after all in goloka you wont hear about jesus or mohammed.

 

the epistles of paul are supposedly the original christian

writings,preceding the gospels by many years.

 

"In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ's virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation -- the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ -- that he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even raised the dead -- is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them? Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul's Epistles were written.

 

Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus. The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain: Paul knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the Christian world: Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables: Paul is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world -- that is, if the Epistles may be trusted -- is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus.

 

Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And are not these the features that constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!

 

The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus -- an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament -- first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue.

 

A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ's physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean Milman writes: "The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died," and Mosheim, Germany's great ecclesiastical historian, says: "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality -- a myth.

 

 

John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.

 

Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.

 

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

 

Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

 

Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew -- a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ -- that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.

 

For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."

 

In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.

 

The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.

 

The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."

 

The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.

 

These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs."

 

 

 

What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew,The Gospel According to Mark,The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

 

But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.

 

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

 

There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

 

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

 

But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

 

There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

 

Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How do they agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to give the genealogy of Joseph, and both count the generations! Nor is this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but two names between David and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much the New Testament writers knew about the ancestors of their hero.

 

If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!

 

Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another.

 

Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called "Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew's application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious.

 

His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question!

 

After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. The account of his being found discussing with the doctors in the Temple at Jerusalem when he was but twelve years old, is told by Luke alone. The other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this discussion; and, this single incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence? If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the life of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty years of that life? What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world? If Christ was the incarnation of God, if he was the greatest teacher the world has known, if he came to cave mankind from everlasting pain -- was there nothing worth remembering in the first thirty years of his existence among men? The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing of the life of Jesus, before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their purpose.

 

Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence long enough to write the Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the Temple is proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround it. The statement that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing that he was with them; that they went a day's journey before discovering that he was not in their company; and that after searching for three days, they found him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous improbabilities. Add to this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke, surrounded by a period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none of the other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear.

 

The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ's life. What do they know of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the public career of Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John's Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years. The Synoptics teach that Christ's public work was confined almost entirely to Galilee, and that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long before his death. John is in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as to the scene of Christ's labors. He maintains that most of the public life of Christ was spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. Now, between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but the last few weeks of Christ's ministry was carried on in his native province of Galilee, it is certain that the greater part of that ministry was not spent in Judea, two provinces away.

 

John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple occurred at the beginning of Christ's ministry; and nothing is said of any serious consequences following it. But Matthew, Mark and Luke declare that the purification of the Temple took place at the close of his career, and that this act brought upon him the wrath of the priests, who sought to destroy him. Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia Biblica assures us that the order of events in the life of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and untrustworthy; that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and that the facts "show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the Evangelists write." In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined.

 

Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.

 

 

On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion? "

 

m.j.gauvin

[Guest guest]

Romans of various creeds celebrated Saturnalia from the 17th to the 24th of December. At that time slaves changed places with their masters, and all kinds of license was permitted. Then on December 25th there was a great feast, the Brumalia, when parties were given and presents exchanged. This day was called The Birthday of the Unconquered Sun, when the sun, three days after reaching its lowest point on its annual course, began to rise higher in the sky indicating the coming end of winter, when animal and plant life, necessary for life, would flourish anew. The sun-god Mithra had many followers in Rome. At midnight at the beginning of December 25th, the Mithraic temples were lit up with priests in white robes at the altars, and boys burning incense, much as we see in Roman Catholic churches at midnight on Christmas Eve at the present time. Mithra's worshippers believed that he had come from heaven to be born as a man in order to redeem men from their sins and that he had been born of a virgin on December 25th. Shepherds were the first to learn of his birth, just as shepherds are said, according to "Luke," to have been the first told of Jesus' birth. Then would come a meal representing the Last Supper when Mithra ate with his disciples before ascending to heaven. The German Yule and the Jewish Hanukah were also winter solstice festivals. The Egyptians believed that their god, Horus, was born of a virgin as the savior of mankind and was cradled in a manger. Egyptian statues from centuries before Jesus was born showing the infant god Horus with his virgin mother Isis standing alongside were remarkably similar to later statues of baby Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

 

Adonis or Tammuz of Babylonia was also born of a virgin. He died a cruel death, descended into hell, arose from the tomb and ascended to heaven. In a mid-summer festival, the worshippers of Adonis wept over an effigy of the dead god which was washed with water, anointed day the Resurrection was re-enacted, after which the crowd shouted: "The Lord is Risen." Finally his ascension was simulated in the presence of his devotees.

 

Attis of Phrygia was called the Good Shepherd, and was said to be the son of the virgin Nana. It is reported that Attis, when in his prime, mutilated himself and bled to death under a sacred pine tree. The Festivals of the Death and Resurrection of Attis were staged by his worshippers from March 22 through March 25. A pine tree was cut on March 22, and an image of the god was tied to the trunk. He was shown as "slain and hanged on a tree." Then the effigy was buried in a tomb. On the night of March 24, the priests opened the tomb and found it empty. The Resurrection of Attis was celebrated on March 25. His followers were baptized in blood, thereby having their sins washed away, and they were therefore declared to have been "born again."

 

It was a common belief among early Christians that Mary was pregnant for only seven months. This legend is preserved in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Although this gospel was widely used by early Christians, it was never accepted into the official canon. Semele, mother of Dionysus, was also believed to have had a 7 month pregnancy.

 

Jesus appeared as a wandering holy man who is later transfigured in the presence of some of his disciples. Dionysus was portrayed in the same manner in Euripides' play The Bacchae, written in 410 BCE.

 

Mark, chapter 5 describes Jesus driving demons from a man into a herd of about 2,000 pigs who rushed over a cliff and drowned. In Eleusis, about 2,000 initiates would bathe in the sea. Each had a young pig to which the believers' sins would be transferred. The pigs were then chased over a chasm and killed.

 

John 21:11 records that Jesus performed a miracle which enabled Simon Peter to catch exactly 153 fish. The Pagan Pythagoras considered 153 a sacred number. The ratio of 153 to 265 was referred to by the Pagan Archimedes as "the measure of the fish." That ratio is used to generate a fish-like shape using two circles. The sign of the fish was used by the early Christians as their main symbol.

 

Both Dionysus and Jesus celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples before his death.

 

Dionysus is described in Euripides' play The Bacchae as bringing a new religion to the people, being plotted against by the leaders, being arrested and appearing before the political ruler. Dionysus said to his captors "You know not what you are doing..," almost replicating Jesus' words at the cross. He was unjustly accused and executed. All of these themes are seen in the Gospels.

 

 

[Priitaa 0]

You're right, that I suspect its you. I'm not going to waste time asking the administrator. It does seem odd that following your posts, are 'guests,' who believes exactly as you do.

 

"what is it that he said that you find so compelling ?

If you like what you hear and find that inspiring to listen to that doesn't bother me at all."

 

Try to understand, instead of trying 'not' to understand. Its not what Jesus said that is found compelling. Its that PRABHUPADA SAID IT. No one should specualte on his words, be it about the topic of Jesus, Mohammad, the Moon's distance, or the Earth was oce one big piece of land - bharata varsa.

 

"who among you study jesus as a source of siddhanta anyways ?"

 

Therefore why not leave us alone? It is a fact most Vaisnava's don't read the Bible or accept instruction from that source. Yet we stick with the words of Prabhupada, so why should anyone who believes differently care? But the bottom line is, as I just pointed out, anything Prabhupada says, I will stick up for, hook, line and sinker. :-)

 

"At the same time there are many scholars who have studied

the history of christianity and find that the story of jesus

is found elsehwere"

 

Who cares what mundane scholars think? Again, faith in the materialist is being presented as bigger fact than Prabhuapda's words.

 

Your posts aren't about facts, they are about facts 'you' believe in, and they are about facts from the mouths of materialistis, not from an Absolute authorty - His Divine Grace Srila Prabhuapda. There are just as many 'scholars' out there who could disprove the same 'facts' you present here. Even, my small self can defeat various points in your last posts! Easily. Now, you could point out Prabhupada could be disproved, but I'm not out to disprove Prabhupada and then connvince myself of some angle (lying for converting). I accept his words as is without adding any mental speculation.

 

"beliefs that jesus was not real should not make them asuras "

 

What you decicde it 'should' or 'should not' do to them is not what happens. I specifically remember Prabhupada had this conversation with Hrdayananda M and told him this is, indeed, what it is capable of doing. And he said that therefore we should not remove their religion before they have fully accepted ours.

 

Its not me making long posts to destroy the belief of those who maybe are part Chrisitian/part Hare Krishna devotee; or worse, some don't even consider Krishna anymore after reading them. And worse yet, they give up all religiosity, become atheists, possibly committing crimes. -- Even the Vedas do not start off on the highest level but one of gradual elevation and keeping society sane and safe.

 

While you speak like we, the HK's, are being too attached to Jesus, it is really some Hindus who are attached to hatred of Christianity and discrediting a pure devotee who doesn't fit their concepts. However, if Prabhupada were to tell me Jesus was not a Vaisnava, would not be in the spiriutal world (which I have a quote contrary to your statement, that says he will be), if I had to make a choice between Prabhuada and Jesus, or Prabhuapda and Krishna, do not think I would have a problem! I would always choose Prabhupada and Krishna - hands down. So this is not the issue. It's a matter of surrendering to the words of the pure devotee, regardless of what they are.

 

While you ask what it is about Christ to be found as so compelling, its not about his teachings, its about his position! Prabhupada does not throw around the word shakyavesavatara cheaply. Those who speak down about Jesus are committing Vaisnava aparadha and will experience the unfortunate karmic reactions! We want to stop that. If you need to beliefve he does for your own faith to stay strong, thats your business, but don't try to tell us its cuz Prabhupada was lying for the sake of preaching. He didn't have to say so much about him if that were the case, and certainaly not shaktyavesavatara!

[Priitaa 0]

Guest, sorry to disappoint you, tho Shiva's words were in synch with you (hmmmmm), Sihva did not 'get me there.' I'll stick with Prabhuapda's words, thank you very much.

 

And guest, you wouldn't know what Jesus said if you fell over it. Your source is the Bible and modern Christianity. Oh yes, and mundane scholars. Face it, this isn't about propagaing Krishna, its about hatred of Christians.

 

But you are right about one thing, we repeatedly claim we are NOT Hindus, and even tho you cant stand that, ours is a much higher science not based on bodily concept or so much other hindu beliefs, but on transcendence and returning the spirit soul to their original, natural relationship with Krishna. We did not steal a thing. You simply do not understand the difference between Hinduism and transcendence - and that even hurts your feelings, or ego. But then again, that's this idea one must be proud of their birth, they are better because they were born in India, born brahmana, etc., etc. -- more bodily concept.

 

You want to talk about how bona fide Christianity is? Lets talk about how bona fide Hinduism is. It's not even a sanskrit word; its not to be found in any ancient Vedic literature. It too has been messed with by man, there are more sects of Hinduism than Christianity. The word itslef was not really derrived from religion but the result of an inability to pronounce the letter "S" of the Sindu river, callng those who lived across it "Hindus" when they really meant "Sindus."

 

What is disgusting is that you find everything Prabupada said to be found in Hinduism rather than recognize his trasncendenal position of pure devotee! He taught soemthing far more sublime than Hinduism. Do not reject his postion or watch out - mad elephant offense on its way!

 

If you have ISKCON hatred, that's your problem. But then why come here? Why not go to Hindu message boards where you will fit in as well as get along with many? Maybe because you are too small there, just one of the crowd, or you may get high from picking fights with the little iskcon devotee and trying to get people to disbelieve in their spiriutal master.

 

[Guest guest]

sorry didn't know you owned stock in Christ Corp.,

man you can really need to calm down, if you want to

believe in jesus like i said that is fine with me,evidently

you cannot be humble in that belief and allow others not

to share that vision without sending them to hell for punishment,the catholic church is always looking for a few good men,i hear the post of the grand inquisitor is open,

give it a shot,who knows ? maybe they will love Prabhupada

as much as you seem to ,when you get the job ,remember,

jesus loves you. /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Guest guest]

You're right, that I suspect its you. I'm not going to waste time asking the administrator. It does seem odd that following your posts, are 'guests,' who believes exactly as you do.

 

 

I guess if 'guests' agree with you they are the chosen ones,

but if 'guests' agree with those who you dislike then they

have to be forgeries ?

 

Tell you what,if you need to be always right and everyone who disagrees with you being offenders and working for the

"dark side" ,even though i have never posted as a guest

here,(except for a few times when i forgot to log in,but always i posted the next post claiming responsibility,check

with forum admin,or else you are accusing an innocent

man,what would jesus say ?)

 

if you want i will post as guest and speak of your glories

and insights and all the rest,then maybe you will not be so

offended that anyone could possibly agree with anything i say.

[ancient_paztriot 0]

Guests play both sides and squeeze the middle, like the politicians and businessmen who push people too far (then lableled terrorists) and then act as if they're just policing the problem. It is later than it seems.

 

To play the devotee is to confuse the audience. To change ip's confuses the admins.

 

I would simply lock the political guests out. But that may prove impossible.

 

Anyway, I have my 'proven' technique to avoid them by not reading their posts. They'll have to keep it real short to tempt me. I feel for the admins. To have to read their posts is to be a slave to their rules. They don't play fair. They do things through conversation here that would never wash under natural circumstances of discourse. Why give them the time of day? It's your own false ego.

 

People who play their game will fall. You do not have to defend your experience to hypocrites who simply want to rush to hell.

 

There is no good reason I should subject myself to their posts when it is counter-productive. But I know they are reading mine/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

But we should be careful about accusations. I think if we just protect our Krsna consciousness, then we are taking care of business. Accusations simply fuel the intended dissention.

[Guest guest]

we need to see reality from an "insider" perspective

rather then as an "outsider",then you will never be

"played".

 

what i mean is that when we fergit the control over everything we come in contact with,when we see only

various chaotic happenings with various motives and various

causes then we are an "outsider" and are being "played".

 

When we see everything as part of one scheme,one controller,

one plan,one cause,then we are an "insider".

 

so there is nothing to fear but fear itself,it is

our problem when we forget where we are and what reality

is and how it operates,we see this man as our friend,that man as our enemy,this as good action ,that as bad action,

that is all part of the illusory conception of life,

a self realized soul sees everything and everyone serving

God,God is in control over all things and at all times,

so as Krsna states "everyone follows MY path,in ALL

respects".

 

We really need to be involved in 'SMARANAM',remembering

is described as part of Sadhana bhakti,this does not mean

that we should always remember the pastimes,but that we

should always remember Krsna ,HERE AND NOW.

 

This is the vision that the devotee needs to rise to,ignore what you see with your eyes,see with the eyes of knowledge,

see with the knowledge that everything is God and controlled

by God,then you see accurately,then you are free from delusion of dualistic conceptions of good/bad,friend/enemy,

etc, all you see is the will of God and you are peacefull.

 

That is the uttama stage of consciousness,also known as

"samadhi" ,consciousness in trance state,not like a zombie,

but never being distracted by the illusion of God

not being in absolute and total control over everything

you percieve,always seeing reality like this,including

your mental imaginings ,this is the samadhi or uttama

stage of Yogic trance, this is accomplished

by practice,you need to contantly reel in your delusional state ,remember where you are and what is real,

and what is an illusion.

 

 

 

peace,baby !

[ancient_paztriot 0]

we need to see reality from an "insider" perspective

rather then as an "outsider",then you will never be

"played".

 

Well, there are "authoritive" insiders who are played by their own designs… like most of us. But when people's motives do not extend beyond this world, they are lost to themselves and others.

***

 

what i mean is that when we fergit the control over everything we come in contact with,when we see only

various chaotic happenings with various motives and various

causes then we are an "outsider" and are being "played".

 

Couldn't disagree more. Other people and their motives are real. Some people are trying to control everything. Some people just pliantly go along… happy to bask in the glow of that power.

***

 

We we see everything as part of one scheme,one controller,

one plan,one cause,then we are an "insider".

 

When we live Krsna consciousness, then we have Krsna's personal audience. There is no question of confidential knowledge. Anything else is bhogus.

***

 

so there is nothing to fear but fear itself,it is

our problem when we forget where we are and what reality

is and how it operates,we see this man as our friend,that man as our enemy,this as good action ,that as bad action,

that is all part of the illusory conception of life,

a self realized soul sees everything and everyone serving

God,God is in control over all things and at all times,

so as Krsna states "everyone follows MY path,in ALL

respects".

 

These discriptions of equanimity are guidelines. What supercedes this is what Krsna wants you to do according to time and circumstances. A self-realized soul may see. But not us. We will not make advancement without discriminating.

***

 

This is the vision that the devotee needs to rise to,ignore what you see with your eyes,see with the eyes of knowledge,

see with the knowledge that everything is God and controlled

by God,then you see accurately,then you are free from delusion of dualistic conceptions of good/bad,friend/enemy,

etc, all you see is the will of God and you are peacefull.

 

Yes and no I'd say. Time and circumstances. Arjuna was forced to discriminate by Krsna. Vidura and Bhisma conspired to discriminate. We can't artificially take a position other than Krsna's.

***

 

I'm talking too much by my own standards. Feels like such a labor lately. (My situation is forcing me to be renounced).

 

I understand why some of your posts bring suspicion.

 

In any case, it's better for everyone not to start accusations that can't be scientifically objective. Just keep KC alive!

[Guest guest]

For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me.

 

PURPORT

 

A person in Krsna consciousness certainly sees Lord Krsna everywhere, and he sees everything in Krsna. Such a person may appear to see all separate manifestations of the material nature, but in each and every instance he is conscious of Krsna, knowing that everything is a manifestation of Krsna's energy. Nothing can exist without Krsna, and Krsna is the Lord of everything — this is the basic principle of Krsna consciousness.

 

=====================================================

 

 

A true yogi observes Me in all beings and also sees every being in Me. Indeed, the self-realized person sees Me, the same Supreme Lord, everywhere.

 

PURPORT

 

A Krsna conscious yogi is the perfect seer because he sees Krsna, the Supreme, situated in everyone's heart as Supersoul

 

====================================================

 

Those in full consciousness of Me, who know Me, the Supreme Lord, to be the governing principle of the material manifestation, of the demigods, and of all methods of sacrifice, can understand and know Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, even at the time of death.

 

PURPORT

 

Persons acting in Krsna consciousness are never deviated from the path of entirely understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the transcendental association of Krsna consciousness, one can understand how the Supreme Lord is the governing principle of the material manifestation and even of the demigods.

 

=====================================================

 

 

Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes, heads and faces, and He has ears everywhere. In this way the Supersoul exists, pervading everything.

 

PURPORT

 

As the sun exists diffusing its unlimited rays, so does the Supersoul, or Supreme Personality of Godhead. He exists in His all-pervading form, and in Him exist all the individual living entities, beginning from the first great teacher, Brahma, down to the small ants. There are unlimited heads, legs, hands and eyes, and unlimited living entities. All are existing in and on the Supersoul. Therefore the Supersoul is all-pervading.

 

======================================================

 

One who understands this philosophy concerning material nature, the living entity and the interaction of the modes of nature is sure to attain liberation. He will not take birth here again, regardless of his present position.

 

PURPORT

 

Clear understanding of material nature, the Supersoul, the individual soul and their interrelation makes one eligible to become liberated and turn to the spiritual atmosphere without being forced to return to this material nature. This is the result of knowledge. The purpose of knowledge is to understand distinctly that the living entity has by chance fallen into this material existence. By his personal endeavor in association with authorities, saintly persons and a spiritual master, he has to understand his position and then revert to spiritual consciousness or Krsna consciousness by understanding Bhagavad-gita as it is explained by the Personality of Godhead. Then it is certain that he will never come again into this material existence; he will be transferred into the spiritual world for a blissful eternal life of knowledge.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Very wise responce.

Thanks

Harry

[Guest guest]

The 'Passion' for Evangelism

 

By Scott Presson

CBN News Producer

 

February 16, 2004

 

Mel Gibson's new movie "The Passion of The Christ" is stirring up controversy for both its content, and its marketing.

 

 

CBN.com – (CBN News) - Many people who have seen the new film, The Passion of The Christ say it is not just a movie, it is an experience. And it is an experience they want to share with others.

 

That seems to be the exact result that Director Mel Gibson is looking for, as he uses a very different approach in marketing his upcoming film.

Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion of The Christ is stirring up controversy for both its content, and its marketing. In a first for Hollywood, Gibson bypassed the traditional marketing methods of a big budget movie, and took "The Passion" directly to churches all over the country..

 

Pastor Jack Graham of Prestonwood Baptist Church said, "It is the powerful story of what happened at the cross." In hundreds of pre-screenings of the movie, he shunned the critics and found support from well-known Christian leaders.

 

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Valley Community Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life, a book that topped the New York Times bestseller list, said, "I can't think of another film I've been more excited about in the last 20 years."

 

Pastor Warren shot a promotion for the film, and his church has already purchased 18,000 tickets. Ordinarily, pastors would be the last people to suggest their members go see an R-rated movie, but not this time.

 

Don George, who is pastor of the Calvary Temple of Irving, Texas, said, "I'm encouraging you to go see that motion picture. Go to this R-rated movie."

 

But churches are mobilizing for an unheard of opportunity. They see The Passion of The Christ as a way to reach out to the community. Pastor Dan Marler of Oak Lawn First Church of God, said, "This movie is going to generate this interest. It's almost like I see this tsunami called 'interest in Jesus.' "

 

Outreach, a Christian company, is marketing the film. Not only as a movie, but also as a tool for evangelization. It is using everything from door hangers to posters. And Outreach has sent out 250,000 videos, mainly to Christians.

 

And the movie is indeed generating a "buzz."

 

Senior writer Gabriel Snyder of Variety newspaper, said, "What you're seeing is where sort of the evangelical message and the shrewd marketing are kind of dovetailing."

 

Even NASCAR is getting into the action. In this weekend's Daytona 500, the hood on driver Bobby Labonte's Number 18 car will have an ad for the movie.

 

And church members are getting the word, to get out the word. Harmony Moses, who is a member of Prestonwood Baptist Church, said, " I've already got a few people in mind that I'm going to start praying really, really hard that they'll come with us, and maybe it'll make a real difference."

 

[Guest guest]

Holocaust exaggerated: Gibson dad

From correspondents in New York

February 19, 2004

A WEEK before the United States release of Mel Gibson's controversial movie, The Passion of the Christ, the filmmaker's father has repeated claims the Holocaust was exaggerated.

 

Hutton Gibson's comments, made in a telephone interview with New York radio talk show host Steve Feuerstein, come at an awkward time for the actor-director who has been trying to deflect criticism from Jewish groups that his film might inflame anti-Semitic sentiment.

 

In his interview on WSNR radio's Speak Your Piece, to be broadcast on Monday, Hutton Gibson, argued that many European Jews counted as death camp victims of the Nazi regime had in fact fled to countries like Australia and the United States.

 

"It's all - maybe not all fiction - but most of it is," he said, adding that the gas chambers and crematoria at camps like Auschwitz would not have been capable of exterminating so many people.

 

"Do you know what it takes to get rid of a dead body? To cremate it?" he said. "It takes a litre of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million of them? They (the Germans) did not have the gas to do it. That's why they lost the war."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gibson's father caused a furore last year when he made similar remarks in a New York Times article.

 

In a television interview with Diane Sawyer this week, Mel Gibson accused the Times of taking advantage of his father, and he warned Sawyer against broaching the subject again.

 

"He's my father. Gotta leave it alone Diane. Gotta leave it alone," Gibson said, while offering his own perspective on the Holocaust.

 

"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenceless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."

 

During his lengthy radio interview, Hutton Gibson, 85, said Jews were out to create "one world religion and one world government" and outlined a conspiracy theory involving Jewish bankers, the US Federal Reserve and the Vatican, among others.

 

The Passion, which gets its US release on February 25, purports to be a faithful and graphic account of Christ's last 12 hours on earth.

 

Jewish leaders who have attended advance screenings have voiced concerns that its portrayal of the Jews' role in Christ's execution could stir up anti-Semitic feeling.

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

many historians realize that the jewish numbers on holocaust do not add up. in Auschwitz alone they were oficially (on the camp's monument inscription) revised from 4 million to more probable (but still contested) 1 million. however, the pressures on historians from the jewish communities is so great it is almost suicidal for a researcher to question the "official" 6 million figure(actually this number is derived from Talmudic writings).

 

Now, whether 1 million or 6 that is still a lot of people. still it needs to be put in perspective with other nazi victims (Russians lost close to 20 millions, Poles 6 millions, etc.) who very rarely remembered by the world outside their home nation. Sad but true...

[Guest guest]

You're right, but Jews are good at marketing, he-he! A little off-topic, but the same thing can be said of Hindus who've lost more lives to islamic and christian invaders than anyone else but not many people know about it. They think jews and blacks have been the only victims of racism, slavery, terror etc. But Hindu holocaust is probably the most horrific of all. But why doesnt the world know? It is the Hindu's fault, he has been doing nothing to spread awareness, whereas the intelligent Jew has his hands full. So we need to admire their efficiency and despise worthless races like Hindus etc. They are a dead race, not worth remembering.

[Kulapavana 0]

"the intelligent Jew has his hands full. So we need to admire their efficiency and despise worthless races like Hindus etc. They are a dead race, not worth remembering"

 

cruel and unjust words... anyway, at least Hindus are not despised all over the world like the "intelligent" Jews..

[gHari 0]

I would ask you all to offer your association to the ardent Christians who will be in the audience during this evening's premier of the movie. One day they will similarly join you in seeing Lord Caitanya's story come to life on the big screen.

 

 

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

I definitely plan to see this movie. Genuine spiritual inspiration transcends all sectarian barriers. It is very sad when we reject the uplifting religious experience only because it is outside our tradition or sampradaya.

[krsna 3]

It's high time to bring on 'Passion' film

The Shepherd's Heart by Bob G. Stewart

Thursday, February 26, 2004

 

It's about time!

For years, Jesus of Nazareth has been left out of nightly news programming, prime-time television, and newspaper editorials. Now, thanks in the most part by the controversy created by the coming release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," everyone's talking about Jesus. And I repeat, it's about time!

 

News network CNN recently ran a special titled "The Search for Jesus." Dianne Sawyer and ABC have been playing and replaying portions of the interview the reporter did with Gibson. Several other cable networks have run specials about the motion picture. Seems Jesus is suddenly big news for the media folks.

 

In addition, all types of special interests groups, religious leaders, television preachers and so-called experts have come out for or against the movie. Some have sought to demean Gibson for his portrayal of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus. Some have criticized what they say is an obvious slant against the Jewish community as a whole. Some have said that scenes portraying the beatings and crucifixion of the Savior are just too graphic … too bloody … to violent.

 

The facts, if you believe the Bible, defend what Gibson has apparently put on film. Jesus of Nazareth did die at the request, even if not technically at the hands, of the Jewish priesthood of is day. Scourging and crucifixion were bloody, violent and inhumane.

 

As I have stated before, those of us who consider ourselves Christians have collectively kept our heads in the sand far too long concerning such things as those mentioned above.

 

We don't talk about "who killed Jesus" because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Easier to blame the Roman governor Pilate than to suggest that the Jewish leaders of the first century could and would do such a thing. Easier to say Rome was at fault than to suggest that the priesthood, in light of the fact that they had no law to sentence a person to death, could have coerced Pilate into doing their will concerning the prophet from Nazareth.

 

We don't (or didn't for many years) talk about how utterly horrible and inhumane Roman scourging and crucifixion really were. Do the research and you'll find out. Better yet, see the movie. From what I've seen and heard, Gibson's interpretation of the ordeal is very true to what really took place.

 

We've looked at the "Passion" through somewhat rose-colored glasses for years. Maybe Gibson has forced us to realize that it's time to take off the blinders and face the raw truth.

 

I certainly hope so.

 

[Haridham 0]

Maybe when Christ said he will be returning he meant in the movies. I mean because of this movie people are most likely going back to church now. The movie recieved rave reviews, people were in tears and hey if Mel Gibson can do so much for christianity then I am sure someone can do something for Krsna Consciousness.

 

I havent seen the movie, if someone has please let me know. I wonder what the rest of the devotees think and what krsna consciousness itself thinks about this movie.

 

 

Hare Krsna.

 

Jai Sri Jesus ji.

[krsna 3]

There’s no middle way in‘Passion’

 

Dante Fabiero | Daily Trojan

 

Nothing unites people like a common belief, but nothing is more divisive either.

 

That is the lesson that I learned as I sat in a movie theater Wednesday night, watching Mel Gibson's new movie, "The Passion of the Christ."

 

The film has great acting and moving scenes. However, its ultimate failure lies not in its portrayal of the final hours of Jesus' life but in its narrow-minded and intolerant vision of the world that sometimes borders on cluelessness.

 

As a Jew, albeit a nonpracticing one, I was extremely intrigued when the first charges that "The Passion" was anti-Semitic surfaced last fall. The torrent of publicity, both praising and criticizing the movie, was enormous and practically unheard of for a film that has not yet been released.

 

The cacophony reached a crescendo just as the film was released in movie theaters this week, prompting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of moviegoers across the country to go see it. Whole theaters were bought out by churches, with the film shown to parishioners flooding in to see it.

 

But the movie did not live up to its hype, portraying instead a dark and violent end to one of the most important figures in world history.

 

First, I want to clarify that in my opinion the film is not anti-Semitic in its nature. The blame for Christ's death is not unambiguously laid at the feet of the Jewish high priests. Indeed, it is very hard to discern who had a greater share of blame in the movie: the Jewish priests, Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his teacher, the crowd that demanded the crucifixion, or procurator Pontius Pilate, who had the final word on Jesus' sentence.

 

But "The Passion" as conceived by Gibson has a deeper and darker division, one that overshadows Jesus' message of love and peace in the film. This division between believers and unbelievers threatens to spread the hatred throughout all strata of society.

 

To recycle an oft-used metaphor, the movie is just like a double-sided coin. It's either heads or tails. There can be no other outcome. In the movie, all the characters are either with Jesus or they are against him. There can be no third way.

 

In fact, it is hard not to believe that Gibson intended the movie to play that way. As David Elcott, U.S. director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, recounted in his essay, Gibson told members of an Illinois congregation, which included Elcott, who pre-screened the film that the world is divided between those who believe and those who deny. In the same speech, Gibson said that all opponents of Jesus were dupes of Satan.

 

The black-and-white paradigm of the world, as espoused by Gibson, holds many problems. Chief among those is that its proponents, no matter their religion, automatically think of the people disagreeing with them as subhuman, just like the Roman soldiers who administered the beating in "The Passion," were portrayed as sadistic and ravenous beasts, hungry for blood.

 

That disdain for others gradually grows into hate and then into intolerance, culminating in acts of violence against those who are not perceived to be "the true believers." We have seen plenty of examples of that in all religions the past couple of decades, whether it be the events of 9/11, a deranged Jewish settler in the West Bank shooting up a mosque or a Hindu mob destroying a mosque in Ayodhya that stood on an alleged holy site. No faith is immune to it.

 

"The Passion" does not advocate violence, but it leaves the door wide open for narrow-minded people to claim that the death of Jesus needs to be avenged - whatever or whoever their target might be.

 

The movie's message is going to be amplified by its large venue. It opened in more than 3,000 movie theaters across the country. The official Web site for the movie can be viewed in 17 languages in addition to English. Obviously, the movie's creators and promoters have big plans for the movie's release overseas.

 

And just as obvious is the fact that many people, both here and abroad, who are unfamiliar with the Gospel before seeing the movie will take the powerful visual imagery in its most literal sense. They will come out of the theater thinking about the powerful imagery of violence against Jesus and wanting to avenge it in some way.

 

I have no doubt that most of the people who will see "The Passion" will take with them the lessons of love and tolerance that Jesus taught. But the movie could spark violent incidents that do not befit the United States, an open and tolerant society.

 

It is high time that all the people in the world, Gibson included, see the many sides the film has, and heed the message of tolerance that Jesus preached.

 

[krsna 3]

Mel Gibson's 'Passion' nearly soldout at Hangar

 

Controversial film shows three times Friday and Saturday

 

By CONNIE GOFF-cgoff@classicnet.net-Forum Community Reporter

 

At the time of its release, "The Passion of the Christ" was already one of the most controversial films in history.

 

For months, Mel Gibson had been showing rough cuts of the self-financed $30 million movie to religious leaders before its opening in 2,800 theaters on Ash Wednesday.

 

The movie was shot in late 2002 and early 2003 in Rome's famed Cinecitta Studios and in the southern Italian city of Matera. Gibson worked on the screenplay with Benedict Fitzgerald for nearly two years, cutting and pasting passages from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and incorporating accounts and interpretations by other saints, nuns and religious scholars.

 

A great part of the controversy around the movie is the violence that is depicted during the final 12 hours of the life of Jesus; however, despite the fact that it is rated R and is extremely graphic, the film is expected to have a long life as a Christian teaching tool.

 

The movie was expected to open strongly, unlike "The Last Temptation of Christ", which died a quick death at the box office in 1988. Advance ticket sales have been huge. In some parts of the country, congregations are renting entire multiplexes.

 

"The Passion of Christ" opened at the Hangar in Maryville on Wednesday. It will be showing two times daily during the week and three times each day on Friday and Saturday. An employee from the Hangar reported that several churches and other organizations had purchased many tickets and seating was hard to find.

 

Gibson chose James Caviezel to portray Jesus Christ. He survived being hit by lightning, throwing his shoulder out and getting hypothermia during the shooting of the movie. "I don't think I could have gotten to the same performance level in 'Passion' without my faith because when I was going through so much and wanted to quit, I had an answer to 'what is this all for?'," Caviezel quoted to Lawrence Toppman of the Charlotte Observer.

 

The Virgin Mary was played by Maia Morgenstern, a charming actress from Romania. Monica Bellucci, an Italian actress, is Mary Magdalene and Gibson cast himself as the soldier who drives the first nail into the hand of Jesus.

 

Film critics, Roeper and Ebert discussed the movie in their nationally syndicated show this past weekend.

 

"This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film," said Roeper. In Ebert's remarks he said, "It's a very great film. I think the controversy was very premature and was based on people that hadn't seen the film, and who are going to be a little surprised at what's actually in the film."

 

Comments from those attending the movie at the Hangar this week were varied. "I thought it was a very accurate account," remarked Don McAdams, Maryville. "I thought the violent scenes were a little overdone," said Dora Moutray, Quitman. "It seems to me that if a person was beaten as badly as it was shown, they wouldn't survive and certainly wouldn't be able to carry the cross up the hill like that."

 

Denise Jasinski said that she had been following Mel Gibson and the making of the movie for six or seven months. She had visited the web site and read anything she could get her hands on about it. "I had prepared, so I wasn't shocked," Jasinski said. When her seventh grade son asked her about the 'gore', she told him, "There was never a time I had to close my eyes because of the 'gore', but it left me hurting." Jasinski said that the times were probably depicted with a great deal of reality. "Those were very brutal times. The violence is just how they dealt with things."

 

Those interested in viewing the movie need to go prepared. The story is not sugar-coated, but presents the facts as they are found in the Scriptures. "Christ's being able to withstand the beatings that were given to Him and endure to the end proves that he is physical beyond us. It moves Him from human to divine," said Jasinski. "It left me emotionally drained and spiritually rejuvenated."

[gHari 0]

As I left the theatre I said to the director (out loud even), "Geez, Mel. We've already read the book. You could have given us somethin' for our $13". For me, thirteen bucks is a lot of dough, and I expected a lot more, a whole lot more from the one movie I will see this year.

 

For me there were three moments: one where he asks God about those laying traps for him; one where I thought maybe he didn't exhibit some mystical power simply because the damn animals were just not worthy of Krsna's mercy; and the last when I became surprised how christendom seems to have no idea about spiritual beings. It is difficult not to remember the constant beatings of Haridasa Thakura in the Muslim marketplaces, and the way in which he acted throughout.

 

For the most part, nothing really happens, so unless you've forgotten the story or your faith, then it is pretty boring. I guess for downtrodden Christians it would be uplifting when Jesus tells his disciples that "They hated me, they will hate you", somehow helping their pain in this world. Actually I think it helped me a little too.

 

I tried and tried to have compassion for those animals as they whipped Christ, noting how they looked just like my tormentors, the same drunken stupid belly-laughter and demonic evil chortles and violent hatred seething only too visibly below the surface of their filthy bodies. Obviously I never managed to accomplish the goal as Jesus begs, "Love also your enemy".

 

I'm giving it three stars out of five and most of a thumb up; that for the eighty percent of the audience who remained seated at the end as though spellbound. It may well be a revival of that ol' time religion. Hallelujah.

 

gHari

 

[krsna 3]

I mean isn't it a chance for the real Vaisnava dharma to be propounded outside the movie theatres.

Them book distributors could be handin' out Gitas and Bhagavatams to all the "faithful".

 

How about the sequel called "The Second Coming" ?

[gHari 0]

Mel's next movie based on Sri Caitanya Bhagavata, Adi Kanda 16:<blockquote>The local Muslim authority known as the Qazi became envious of Haridasa Thakura's popularity and reported to the Nawab, "This man is acting like a Hindu; arrest him and punish him appropriately." The envious words of the sinful Qazi sparked an immediate response from the equally sinful Nawab, and Haridasa Thakura was arrested and brought forth. Having received the mercy of Lord Krsna, Haridasa had no fear of the Muslim authorities nor even of death itself. With the name of the Lord on his lips, Haridas appeared before the Nawab.

 

When devotees and other pious persons in the locality of the Nawab's palace heard that the saint Haridasa was coming, they were extremely happy, but when they subsequently learned that he was coming as a captive of the Muslim ruler, they were horrified. Previously many religious people had been terrorized and incarcerated by the Muslims; those prisoners were happy to learn that Haridasa might be joining them. His presence in their miserable situation would certainly eradicate their suffering. The prisoners even requested the prison wardens to allow them unrestricted association with Srila Haridasa.

 

When Srila Thakura was brought into the prison, he looked compassionately at all the prisoners who immediately prostrated themselves at his lotus feet. His long graceful arms which extended to his knees, his lotus eyes, and his charming moon-like face enchanted everyone. They offered their most sincere respects to the saint, and love for Krsna stirred in their hearts. Srila Haridasa Thakura was pleased with the tremendous devotion which had grown in the hearts of the prisoners and he blessed them, "Just remain as you are." But the miserable prisoners could not grasp the depth of that blessing and they felt quite dejected.

 

Haridasa could see the misunderstanding and compassionately explained himself, "My blessing to you is that you will remain as you are, but please do not feel dejected. I could never wish you any misfortune. I simply desire that the love you now feel for Krsna should always remain the same. From now on chant Lord Krsna's name and constantly remember His pastimes, inspiring one another to retain his devotion.

 

"Violence and tyranny are absent in the spiritual world, so sincerely cry out for Krsna's help and constantly think of Him. When you are released from this prison do not return to your old materialistic ways nor associate with degraded or sinful people because one can never cultivate love for the Supreme Lord Krsna by living a mundane life. You should know for certain that Krsna is unobtainable by the materialistic person.

 

"A materially engrossed mind is shaped by unwanted, mischievous desires; the attachment for wife, children, family and other such illusions brings about destruction. If by divine arrangement any person reaches the platform of pure devotion toward Krsna, certain realizations dawn on him and he gradually becomes detached from material life, giving himself instead to the worship of the Supreme Lord. If that person returns again to his materialistic life, his mind will become contaminated by capricious, mischievous desires.

 

"I certainly do not want you to remain prisoners forever, but I do pray that you develop a distaste for material pleasures. Please chant the holy name of the Lord. My blessing was meant to free you from your present miserable condition and to insure that you remain happy in love of Krsna. I look upon everyone equally and wish the best for all living entities. I pray that you may develop unflinching devotion for Krsna. Do not be sad; you will be freed within two or three days. You may believe me. Once you leave the prison you may live in the forest or you may live in your home, but always think of Krsna and try to cultivate spiritual life." Having showered his unrestricted mercy upon the prisoners, Haridasa went before the Nawab.

 

Because of his purity, Srila Haridasa Thakura radiated a certain effulgence which the Nawab could not fail to notice. He rose respectfully when Haridasa entered and offered the saint a seat. Although he himself had become quite confused, the Nawab asked Haridasa, "What sort of mentality has overcome you? Knowing you have the good fortune to become a Muslim, why do you behave like a Hindu? We do not even accept rice touched by a Hindu. Yet you want to ignore your high birth and become a low-caste Hindu? To discard your own race, land and religion for another is perverted. How do you expect to attain the liberated platform if you behave like this? I have decided to punish you according to the mandates of the Koran so that you will be freed from your sins."

 

Srila Haridasa Thakura patiently listened to the threats and accusations of the Nawab, recognizing his words as the illusory potency of the Supreme Lord Visnu. Without any apprehension, Haridasa simply smiled at the Nawab and spoke in a sweet, soothing voice, "My dear Sir, there is only one God for all living entities. The difference between the Muslim God and the Hindu God is in name only. According to knowledgeable Hindus and Muslims, and according to every scriptures, be it Koran or Puran, God is one. He is the non-dual, eternal, transcendental and absolute Truth, infallible and perfectly complete, and in that capacity He resides in everyone's heart.

 

"The omnipotent Lord is the supreme controller of everything. The living entity is moved by the desire of the Supreme Lord, and he acts and works only according to the Lord's design. The Supreme Lord's transcendental name, activities, qualities, associates and abode, etc. are glorified according to different classes of spiritual instruction. But irrespective of the manner in which He is worshiped, the Lord accepts everyone's individual mood of surrender towards Him. However, if one living entity feels hatred or envy toward another, he ultimately reflects those emotions in his relationship with the Lord. Whatever you see of me and my activities are direct manifestations of the Lord who guides me from within.

 

"Looking at it from another perspective, a person may be born in a family of brahmanas but despite his high birth he demonstrates the perverted behavior of a fourth-class, uncultured person. What can the Hindus do with such a person? He is forced to act in degrading ways because of his innate propensities, and he accordingly suffers or enjoys the reactions of his activities. What could be achieved by punishing him for activities which are an intrinsic part of his nature? My dear respected Sir, please consider these points seriously, and if you still find me guilty then punish me."

 

The Muslim courtiers were sincerely moved by the honesty of Haridasa Thakura's words and presence. But his wisdom could not penetrate the envious and sinful heart of the Qazi who turned to the Nawab and instructed, "You must punish this man! He is evil and mischievous. Others will fall under his influence and become equally sinful. He will disgrace our Muslim religion and community. Therefore he must be appropriately punished. If he wants to be excused, then let him preach from his own scripture."

 

The Nawab tried again, "My friend, just speak from your own scripture and accept the path. Then you will have nothing to fear. Otherwise, the Qazis presently will force me to punish you; they will revile and insult you. Why should you let that happen?"

 

"Whatever the Supreme Lord desires is destined to happen; there is no one who can check it," replied Haridasa. Each one of us suffers according to the degree of his previous offenses. You should know without a doubt that you are merely an instrument of the Lord's desire. Even if my body is cut into pieces and I loose my life, I will never give up chanting the Lord's holy name."

 

The Nawab heard the fearless reply of Srila Haridasa Thakura and turned to the Qazi, "Now what is your decision about him?"

 

"Lash him in twenty-two market places until he dies," replied the envious Qazi. "There is no other judgment I find appropriate. If he lives despite the punishment, then I will conclude that our big scholar has spoken the truth."

 

The sentries were called in and the orders boomed out, "Lash him until he breathes his last breath! The sin a Muslim incurs by becoming a Hindu can only be punished by death!"

 

The Qazi's envious designs had fructified in the heart of the Nawab and Srila Haridasa was dragged away by the sentries. From one market place to another they beat him mercilessly, their black hearts consumed by hate for the pure devotee of the Lord. But Haridasa was a pure soul, completely surrendered to the Supreme Lord, so he faithfully chanted Lord Krsna's holy name. So absorbed was his in the fervent chanting that he did not feel any pain.

 

Goodhearted and pious people could not bear to see the torture inflicted on such an innocent person. Some begged the sentries to stop while others predicted, "If they continue to torture this good man, the entire kingdom will be ruined." Many of them cursed the king to die, while some tried to stop the sentries physically. One person threw himself at the feet of the sentries and pleaded, "I will give you any reward you like if you stop this merciless beating." But none of these protests evoked the slightest mercy from the sentries who continued to drag Srila Haridasa Thakura from one market place to another, lashing him relentlessly.

 

By the grace of Lord Krsna, Haridasa felt little pain in his body. Just like Prahlada in the Srimad Bhagavatam who was tortured by demons, Haridasa never suffered at all. Not only was Haridasa freed from his pain, whoever remembers this story of Srila Haridasa will also be saved from the miseries of life. Throughout his ordeal, Haridasa's one emotion was pity for the sentries. "O Lord Krsna, please be merciful upon these poor souls so they may not be punished because of me."

 

Nothing could stop the insensitive sentries who were determined to see their assignment through to its deathly end. Yet for all their beating, Haridasa showed no signs of distress as he was absorbed in remembering the holy name of Lord Krsna. At last the guards had to stop in amazement. "How can a human being survive such a brutal beating? Any ordinary man would have died after the beating we gave in the first two or three market places. We have lashed him continuously through twenty-two market places and he still shows no sign of either pain or death. Occasionally he looks up to smile at us." They concluded that he must be a saintly person.

 

"Oh Haridasa," they pleaded. "Because of you we shall certainly be punished. When the Qazi sees that despite our beating you are still alive, he shall certainly kill us instead."

 

"If my survival brings such terrible misfortune to you," replied Haridasa, "then I shall definitely give up my body. Just see how I die."

 

Srila Dasa Thakura immediately fell into trance. A pure devotee of the Supreme Lord possesses all mystic power so without any hesitation, Srila Hari dasa fell lifeless, without a trace of breath. The Muslim sentries were astonished but gladly brought the body of Srila Haridasa to the Nawab. When the Nawab ordered the sentries to bury him, the Qazi protested, "No, if he is buried he will be saved and ultimately gain entrance into heaven. Although he got the high birth of a Muslim, he behaved like a low Hindu, therefore it is proper for him to be thrown in the Ganga to suffer eternally like the other lost Hindus. By being buried he will become elevated and freed from his sin."

 

On the Qazi's order the sentries picked up the body of Haridasa Thakur and carried him to the Ganga. Hari dasa remained in his deathly trance, meditating on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The spirit of Lord Krsna then descended into the body of Srila Thakura and he became so heavy that it was impossible to move him. The strongest sentries came forward to push him into the waters, but he remained in deep trance and could not be moved. Haridasa had already drowned in the ocean of love of Lord Krsna, and he had no perception of the world around him. He knew not if he were still embodied, or wandering somewhere in the universe, or deep in the water of the Ganga. Just like Prahlad Maharaja, Haridasa Thakur had the spiritual ability to constantly remember the Supreme Lord. Such an extraordinary capability was not surprising for Haridasa's heart was the permanent residence of Lord Gauracandra.

 

This entire episode with Srila Haridasa Thakura is a replication of the heroic activities of Sri Hanuman in Sri Lanka. Indrajit, Ravana's son, had sent the Brahmastra, a weapon given to him by Lord Brahma, to capture Hanuman.

 

Hanuman could easily have escaped it, but to show respect to the potency of Lord Brahma, Hanuman allowed himself to be bound by the Brahmastra. Similarly, Srila Haridasa Thakura could have escaped the punishment of the Muslims, but by allowing them to torture him, he taught the world a lesson: despite the extreme miseries of life, one must never stop chanting the name of Krsna.

 

Dasa Thakura was directly protected by the Supreme Lord Krsna, Govinda, therefore who could harm him? If one simply remembers the name of Haridasa - not to mention his terrible ordeal at the hands of the Muslims - he becomes free from his own pain and misery. Most certainly Srila Haridasa Thakura was one of the closest and most important associates of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Caitanya Candra.

 

Haridasa floated downstream on the currents of the Ganga, and after some time he became conscious, by the Lord's desire. Fully awakened and overwhelmed with ecstasy, he climbed the bank of the Ganga and proceeded toward Phulia, loudly chanting the name of Krsna as he walked. When the Muslims saw Srila Haridasa they were convinced that he possessed extraordinary mystic powers. Pure, happy feelings replaced the envy and hate in their hearts. They offered him obeisances, worshiping him as a very saintly person. By this worship the Muslims became free from material entanglement. In the presence of the Nawab, Haridasa stopped chanting and smiled compassionately at the Muslim ruler who was standing respectfully with folded hands.

 

In a humble and meek voice the Nawab said, "I can now understand that you are truly a saintly person. You have realized the absolute truth, and you have seen the one Supreme Lord everywhere and in everyone. Absolute knowledge and liberation - which the mystic yogis and philosophers proudly boast - has been easily attained by you because you are a perfect human being. I have come just to see you, simply to beg forgiveness. Kindly forgive me for the offenses I have committed against you. Because you see everyone equally, you have neither friends nor enemies; there is no one in the entire world who can actually grasp your extraordinary position. You are a free man in every respect. You may stay wherever you wish - in a lonely hut or a cave on the bank of the river Ganga. But please be merciful upon those of us who have committed this great offense against you."

 

Everyone - whether elevated or wretched - automatically forgets about mundane life when he sees the lotus feet of Srila Haridasa Thakura. The Muslims had been angry enough to kill him, yet they were transformed and they worshiped his feet, accepting him as a holy man. After forgiving and blessing them Haridasa went to Phulia.

 

With the holy name resounding from his lips, he reached an assembly of brahmanas near Phulia. The brahmanas were overjoyed by his arrival and they joined him in a roaring kirtan. As he danced in their midst, he felt ecstatic joy sweep through his body; crying, shivering, laughing, falling unconscious, swelling with horripilation, and roaring loudly, he fell to the ground totally immersed in love of God. The brahmanas could not contain their unbounded joy.

 

After some time, Srila Hari Dasa calmed himself and spoke to the brahmanas who sat around him, "My dear brahmana friends, do not feel sad because of what happened to me. This punishment was certainly due me. I stood in the court and listened to the Muslims blaspheme my Lord; for this the Lord has punished me suitably. I am really very happy because my punishment should have been more severe; the Lord let me off very easily. One goes to hell if he hears blasphemy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. My sinful ears were filled with such blasphemy and the Lord has given me the proper punishment so that I may never commit this offense again."

 

Srila Haridasa passed his time relishing the nectar of the holy name and giving his enlightened association to the brahmanas. Those Muslims who tortured Dasa Thakura, and their families as well, were all eventually destroyed. Haridasa left the village and moved into a cave on the banks of the river Ganga where he maintained himself on the sweetness of the holy name and the memory of the pastimes of the Supreme Lord. </blockquote>