Jesus the Only Way

[ancient_paztriot 0]

Christ did not propagate KC. Prabhupada did not propagate Christianity.

 

Other religions do not mix and match. But you know better.

 

I think your glorification makes little difference to Jesus. - or Prabhupada.

[krsna 3]

[ancient_paztriot 0]

You're really just an offensive speculator.

[krsna 3]

[Guest guest]

 

Vedas or Hindu religion teaches in all roads leading to the same goal: salvation, moksha or way to God.

 

 

Where in the Vedas is this stated? Quote the Sanskrit, right down to the book, section, and mantra number please.

 

 

They consider Jesus as another avatara or atleast another moral teacher. the same Jesus claimed "I am the way, the Truth and the Life" This is an absolute claim contradictory to the philosophy of all roads leadig to Rome.

 

 

Where in the Vedas is it stated that "Jesus as nother avatara or atleast another moral teacher"??

 

Nowhere.

 

This isn't a problem for those who follow Vedas. While someone may make claims about the divinity of Jesus, such claims are not based on the Vedas. So... no problem for those following Vedas. On the other hand, if you praise Jesus as an avatara, then I agree it presents a problem when that same Jesus made certain claims of exclusivism.

 

But like I said, that isn't a problem for those who follow the Vedas strictly, since the Vedas don't mention Jesus at all.

 

 

 

[sudhaya 0]

 

Speaks about Lord Jesus Christ as far as I know, even mentions that he goes to India at the age of thirteen, I read all this in the book 'Vedic Prophecies, by Stephen Knapp.

[Guest guest]

 

Speaks about Lord Jesus Christ as far as I know, even mentions that he goes to India at the age of thirteen, I read all this in the book 'Vedic Prophecies, by Stephen Knapp.

 

 

Where in the bhaviSya purANa is Jesus said to be an avatAra?

 

I still have not seen a specific quote.

 

Anyway, the objection by the Christian fellow was that the Vedas supposedly said it. Trouble is, the Vedas do NOT say it. So I don't know who led him to believe otherwise.

 

 

[theist 1]

"its not in my book there it cannot be"

 

Avatars are more numerous than the waves of a river.

 

How does one know? We hear from one who knows.

[gHari 0]

 

 

<center>He is risen !</center>

 

 

[theist 1]

Yes, showing the world how to rise beyond death by serving the Father.

[krsna 3]

Post deleted by krsna

[krsna 3]

 

Haribol (Chant the Holy Name)

[Guest guest]

 

"its not in my book there it cannot be"

 

 

 

Um, no. The issue is that one shouldn't make claims that "X is an avatar because it says so in the Vedas" when no such statement exists in the Vedas. If you want to say "X is an avatar because I believe so," or "X is an avatar because my guru told me so," then fine. Just don't make claims about the Vedas which you obviously can't support.

 

Believing in something with all your heart and soul is no excuse to make up things about the Vedas which do not exist in the Vedas. That was the point.

 

Anyways, Vedas are not a "book." But I suppose I would have more luck convincing University Indologists of that point than I would the Christians-turned-Vaishnavas of this venerable forum. The official position here seems to be that Vedas are a "book" like any other religious book, albeit for Hindus. And similarly, cow protection is basically just a Hindu principle, but actually SanAtna-dharma is higher still. Sooner or later, I suppose this forum will eventually endorse the old "Krishna is a Hindu god" spiel using the same logic.

 

 

[gHari 0]

And your supposition is stupid, your ridicule arrogant. No one listens to someone like that. Just a little feedback, sport.

 

[Guest guest]

OK, forgive me. It was stupid of me to assert that one should not attribute personal opinions to the Vedas. Telling the truth is only for offensive hypocrites like myself. Real Vaishnavas credit the Vedas for all their ideas, which are actually only Hindu books anyway, no better than anyone else's religious books.

 

Yes, Vedas say Jesus is an Avatar. They say Mohammed is an avatar. ANd they say Moses is an avatar. I can't prove where in the Vedas that is said, but nevertheless the Vedas say it.

 

Also, George Bush is an avatar. The Vedas say so. Nevermind that I can't prove that; the Vedas still say it. Why? Because I said they did. If you ask me for proof, then you are Offensive. It's obvious that the Vedas say whatever I say they say, because everyone who disagrees with me is just Offensive anyway.

 

 

 

 

[theist 1]

not even offensive really, just a bore who likes the sound of his own voice.

[sudhaya 0]

 

From SRI BHAVISHYA PURANA. Pratisarga parva, Chaturyuga Khanda Dvitiyadhyayah, 19th Chapter. (text 20 onwards).

 

Ruling over the Aryans was a king called Salivahana, the grandson of Vikramaditya, who occupied the throne of his father. He defeated the Sakas who were very difficult to subdue, the Cinas, the people from Tittiri and Bahikaus who could assume any form at will. He also defeated the people from Rome and the descendants of Khuru, who were deceitful and wicked. He punished them severely and took their wealth. Salivahana thus established the boundaries dividing the separate countries of the Mlecchas and the Aryans. In this way Sindusthan came to to be known as the greatest country. That personality appointed the abode of the Mlecchas beyond the Sindhu river and to the west.

 

ekadaa tu shakadhisho

himatungari samaayayau

hunadeshasya madhye vai

giristhan purusam shubhano

dadarsha balaram raajaa

 

Once upon a time the subduer of the Sakas went towards Himatunga and in the middle of the Huna country (Hunadesh - the area near Manasa Sarovara or Kailash mountain in Western Tibet), the powerful king saw an auspicious man who was living on a mountain. The man's complexion was golden and his clothes were white. (Bhavishya Purana 19:22.)

 

ko bharam iti tam praaha

su hovacha mudanvitah

iishaa purtagm maam viddhi

kumaarigarbha sambhavam

 

<font color="red"> "The king asked, 'Who are you sir?' 'You should know that I am Isha Putra, the Son of God'. he replied blissfully, and 'am born of a virgin.' "(Bhavishya Purana 19:23.) </font color>

mleccha dharmasya vaktaram

satyavata paraayanam

iti srutva nrpa praaha

dharmah ko bhavato matah

 

" 'I am the expounder of the religion of the Mlecchas and I strictly adhere to the Absolute Truth.' Hearing this the king enquired, 'What are religious principles according to you opinion?' "(Bhavishya Purana 19:24.)

 

shruto vaaca maharaja

prapte satyasya amkshaye

nirmaaryaade mlechadesh

mahiso 'ham samaagatah

 

"Hearing this questions of Salivahara, Isha putra said, 'O king, when the destruction of the truth occurred, I, Masiha the prophet, came to this country of degraded people where there are no rules and regulations. Finding that fearful irreligious condition of the barbarians spreading from Mleccha-Desha, I have taken to prophethood'." (Bhavishya Purana 19:25-26.)

 

mlecchasa sthaapito dharmo

mayaa tacchrnu bhuupate

maanasam nirmalam krtva

malam dehe subhaasbham

naiganam apamasthaya

japeta nirmalam param

nyayena satyavacasaa

manasyai kena manavah

 

dhyayena pujayedisham

suurya-mandala-samsthitam

acaloyam prabhuh sakshat-

athaa suuryacalah sada

 

"Please hear Oh king which religious principles I have established among the mlecchas. The living entity is subject to good and bad contaminations. The mind should be purified by taking recourse of proper conduct and performance of japa. By chanting the holy names one attains the highest purity. Just as the immovable sun attracts, from all directions, the elements of all living beings, the Lord of the solar region, who is fixed and all-attractive, attracts the hearts of all living creatures. Thus by following rules, speaking truthful words, by mental harmony and by meditation, Oh descendant of Manu, one should worship that immovable Lord'." (Bhavishya Purana 19:27-30.)

 

isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa

nityashuddha sivamkari

ishamasihah iti ca

mama nama pratishthitam

 

"Having placed the eternally pure and auspicious form of the Supreme Lord in my heart, O protector of the earth planet, I preached these principles through the Mlecchas' own faith and thus my name became 'isha-masiha' (Jesus the Messiah)." (Bhavishya Purana 19:31.)

 

iti shrutra sa bhuupale

natraa tam mlecchapujaam

sthaapayaamaasa tam tutra

mlecchasthaane hi daarune

 

"After hearing these words and paying obeisances to that person who is worshipped by the wicked, the king humbly requested him to stay there in the dreadful land of Mlecchas." (Bhavishya Purana 19:32.)

 

svaraajyam praaptavaan raajaa

hayamedhan cikirat

rajyam krtva sa sasthyabdam

svarga lokamu paayayau

 

"King Salivahara, after leaving his kingdom performed an asvamedha yajna and after ruling for sixty years, went to heaven. Now please hear what happened when the king went to svargaloka." (Bhavishya Purana 19:33.)

 

Thus ends the second chapter entitled, "the age of Salivahara" of the story of Kali Yuga of the Caturyuga Khanda also called pratisarga-parva of the wonderful Bhavishya Maha Purana.

 

http://www.hknet.org.nz/Jesus-Went-To-India.htm

[Guest guest]

I know I'm going to be Offensive for pointing this out, but this message is entitled "Vedas talk about Christ," yet it does not quote the Vedas at all.

 

Furthermore, the original claim was that Vedas say Jesus is an avatar. But none of these verses (which are not even from the Vedas) actually say anything like "Jesus is an avatar."

 

All I'm saying is it's wrong to misrepresent the Vedas to the lay public to serve personal interest. Whatever your intentions or beliefs may be, you can not change what is in the Vedas by making bizarre claims as if they are obvious facts.

 

 

[sudhaya 0]

 

Not wasting my time, sorry.

[Guest guest]

Ok, I know I'm destined for eternal damnation but....

 

 

From SRI BHAVISHYA PURANA. Pratisarga parva, Chaturyuga Khanda Dvitiyadhyayah, 19th Chapter. (text 20 onwards).

 

 

 

Just for kicks, I decided to check up on this reference by looking in the bhaviSya purANa. For the record, the above citation is not exactly correct -- chaturkhaNda is the last part of the pratisarga parva, and it is divided into 26 adhyAyas. The adhyAyas are not further divided into more chapters.... there is no 19th chapter of the 2nd adhyAya as claimed above. But I figured that last part was a misprint. So I then proceeded to compare the verses quoted here with the appropriate section in bhaviSya purANa (pratisarga parva, 4th khaNDa, 2nd adhyAya).

 

Strangely enough, I could not find these verses in the position they were supposed to have occupied, bhaviSya purANa 1.4.19.20+. The actual verses there have nothing to do with this whole "Iza-mahIza" thing.

 

So, thinking perhaps my edition was somehow numbered differently than the one quoted here, I proceeded to look up the verse index for the first verse quoted from this section: "ekadA tu shakadhisho..."

 

I could not find that either.

 

Despite a fairly thorough search, I could not find these verses ANYWHERE in the bhaviSya purANa.

 

So, aside from being very roundabout in describing a person who could be Jesus (but nevertheless not saying anything about him being an avatar), aside from the fact that these verses are NOT from the Vedas, but from a not-very-well-regarded purANa, the fact remains that THESE VERSES DO NOT EXIST.

 

I am very chilled at the thought that someone might be fabricating these verses and passing them off as a "bhaviSya purANa" for the sake of promoting some sectarian interest. Perhaps these individuals thought that by providing some random verse numbers, no one would think to check up on this "evidence." Well, I just did. And as I said before, these "Jesus" verses do not exist.

 

 

[gHari 0]

Perhaps this was facetious or sarcastic, not stupid. Still, no one listens to such arrogant twits:<blockquote>Sooner or later, I suppose this forum will eventually endorse the old "Krishna is a Hindu god" spiel using the same logic. </blockquote>

One need only to state that the Vedas do not foretell of a Jesus avatara. All the emotional aggressive baggage around that statement needs to be dealt with or at least kept caged within the cynical heart it terrorizes.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Perhaps this was facetious or sarcastic, not stupid. Still, no one listens to such arrogant twits:

Sooner or later, I suppose this forum will eventually endorse the old "Krishna is a Hindu god" spiel using the same logic.

 

One need only to state that the Vedas do not foretell of a Jesus avatara. All the emotional aggressive baggage around that statement needs to be dealt with or at least kept caged within the cynical heart it terrorizes.

 

 

 

Well, that's exactly what I did say. And in response to that one of your devotees accused me of the attitude of "its not in my book there it cannot be," in a posting entitled "blinders on."

 

You put words in other people's mouths and knock down strawmen. Then when they respond in kind, you get angry.

 

Here is another example: "And your supposition is stupid, your ridicule arrogant. No one listens to someone like that. Just a little feedback, sport." This little tidbit was in response to my objection of someone's characterization of the Vedas as a "book" for a specific sectarian group. Even though that characterization is incorrect, I am the villain for objecting to it, not the person who made the remark. Sure, I was sarcastic... to make a point. A point which was apparently lost on you.

 

This shows that Truth is less important to you than getting others to agree with your opinion, regardless of its rightness or wrongness. This is why it is impossible to have a dialogue with you iskcon types -- you even say things your own guru does not say, but you get so attached to what you say that you start to attribute it to your guru or to the Vedas, without even stopping to find the proof, and then you pull out your flamethrowers when someone has the audacity to disagree.

 

Anyway, there I go again, being offensive. Let me just summarize my position, and you can respond if you want explaining how arrogant and evil I am until you are red in the face. That way, you need not concern yourself with the actual issues raised:

 

1) Vedas do NOT say Jesus is an avatar.

2) BhaviSya purANa does NOT say Jesus is an avatar.

3) BhaviSya purANa does not even explicitly mention Jesus; it mentions someone named Iza, whom you are interpreting to mean Jesus. It does not even say that this Iza is an avatar of anyone.

4) Even that section describing Iza is nowhere to be found in the bhaviSya purANa, contrary to what is claimed by you.

 

Now, before some strawman hacker responds that I must hate Jesus or that I am claiming he is or is not someone special, let me just say that I don't care about all that. All I am saying is that the Vedas and PurANa-s do not speak of him, whomever he may be, avatar, prophet, or whatever.

 

Thank you for your kind attention. You may flame me now.

 

[Kulapavana 0]

I agree. Instead of wasting our time debating inferior religious traditions (I might add: further corrupted by Time) we should concentrate on our own tradition we have the priviledge to serve Krishna in.

[gHari 0]

<blockquote>Sooner or later, I suppose this forum will eventually endorse the old "Krishna is a Hindu god" spiel using the same logic. </blockquote>

Guest, do you not see the word 'suppose"? This is a supposition, which for some unknown reason you have applied to everyone on this forum.

 

This is not some ordinary venue on the God-forsaken internet. You will treat vaisnavas with respect if you have any humility.

 

[theist 1]

You have run the same line ad nauseum everytime somebody glorifies Christ or quotes Prabhupada glorifying Christ. Some of us are very tired of your schtick.

 

Here is a copy of my short post which you misunderstand and mis-characterize.

 

 

blinders on [re: Guest]

04/10/04 08:31 PM Edit Reply

 

"its not in my book there it cannot be"

 

Avatars are more numerous than the waves of a river.

 

How does one know? We hear from one who knows.

 

 

Note the quotation marks in the first line.

 

The second line is in reference to a well known verse in the SB.

 

The third line explains(again)where we draw our authority to say Christ is a Shaktyavesa Avatar.