Is bible a holy book?

[anadi 0]

Please bring evidence.

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada confirmed Christ as an empowered being, i.e. someone who has been sent by Krsna himself. Does this not automatically endorse the Bible? If not the New then definately the Old Testament.

 

Anadi - there is a reason why your old post got deleted. Learn the lesson. Stop Bible Bashing (literally).

[gopidust 0]

Srila Prabhupada said the bible is a third class meat eating sastra(in The Science of Self Realisation?). Anyway this is not to criticise it unnecessarily just to show that compared to the Bhagavatam it teaches "subreligious principles" like he also said. Again I remember the quotes but not necessarily where I heard or read them.

Kali yuga memory.

But there are probably some good things in there too if you can find them. But the Bhagavatam is the cream.

[anadi 0]

 

Learn the lesson. Stop Bible Bashing (literally).

 

 

 

We should better remain factul and present the facts:

 

Let's take the controversial point of the invented term of "monoteism" and "politeism" which "make" the vaisnavas politeist worshipers of idols!?

 

The story of Genesis, that Christian proselytizers love to advance (although it is part of the much older Jewist texts), is a complete and utter forgery. In that story we are led to believe that there was a single god. The earth was created in 6 days, etc. Not only has science proven the timeline to be completely false, the religious aspect is a complete fabrication. At the time that the Genesis story was supposed to have been written, the Hewbrew people were not "monotheistic". That's history. They believed there were many gods (or demi-gods) and Genesis proves it. The story actually goes back to before the Hebrews were a distinct people- and the story is not Hebrew in origin.

 

 

Pious Fraud in Translation

 

Let's take a look at the very first words of the book of Genesis. Note very carefully that the Hebrew culture, at the time of this writing, was not monothestic, but rather, polytheistic (veneration of demigods). Will the priest, minister or preacher tell you that? No. But you can find out for yourself with a simple dictionary.

 

The Hebrew word for God is el; the plural is elohim, gods. What is the first sentence in the Bible?

 

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).

 

Here is Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew (transliterated into the Latin alphabet, of course):

 

"Bereshith bara elohim," etc.,

In-beginning created (the) GODS! (the) heavens (the material paradise worlds, which has nothing to do with the spiritual world) and (the) earth."

 

 

When “Christians” speak about the heavens, they do not know that they point on these heavens which have been created, and whatever has a beginning has an end, the heavens are material. The spiritual world was never created and will never be destroyed. The truth is, the “Christians” have no information about the spiritual world, the realm of God.

 

In the same chapter the word "elohim" (gods) is used thirty times.

 

To clarify, here is the translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. Notice how Jewish and "Christian fathers! don't bother to tell you what the original text says. They would like you to believe that a single god created everything. (In fact the Supreme Lord is not directly involved in this part of creation, only His empowered representatives). But, they messed up big time and actually translated it properly. In plain English, the translation reads 'let us make man in our image':

 

Here are three examples of the Hebrew plural gods mentioned in Genesis: 1. "And-said elohim (gods), let-US-make man in-image-OUR, after-likeness-OUR" (1:26). (which implies the Hebrews knew about the existence of the demigods, and also implies that the Supreme Lord, Yahveh was not involved in the direct creation inside the material universe)

 

2. And when "adam" had eaten of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, "the Lord God" said, "Behold, the-man has become like one of US, to know good and evil" (3:27).

 

3. And when the Tower of Babel was being built: "The Lord [Heb. Yahveh] said ... Come, let US go down," etc.

 

When speaking of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh, elohim, (gods) is used in the Hebrew texts, The plural elohim is used 2570 times. It is always falsely translated to the singular "God", thus falsely making us believe that this text was written at a time when the Hebrew people were monothestic, when it clearly is the case (written at least 2570 times, no less!) that they WERE NOT.

 

In the three Genesis verses above, there are three different designations of the Hebrew deity or deities: elohim, (gods), falsely translated "God":

 

Lord God (Heb. Yahveh-elohim); and Lord (Heb. Yahveh). Yahveh is the proper name of the Hebrew God, which, in English, is Jehovah.

 

Yahveh-elohim is a Hebrew "construct-form" which is translated to "Yahveh-of-the-gods" but means The Lord of the Gods, which is pointing on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Invariably these personal names were falsely translated "Lord" and "Lord God," respectively, for purposes of pious fraud.

[Guest guest]

Again, what is your point??

 

You are obviously a Vaisnava - elevated to the highest plateform of learning and spirituality by merit of your past deeds. ACT IT. Why should you be bothered about the Bible or Christianity or any other religion for that matter? Concentrate on looking inward. Find faults in yourself, not anything/anybody else. Keep this forum clean!

 

 

[Guest guest]

I do certainly beleive that Jesus christ was a Jeeva thathva of Lord. Certainly whatever originally he spoke must be good for during that time and it would have take people towards God for sure. But unfortunately, original words of Jesus have been concocted by several popes and priests in course of time, as so we are not aware of what is original and what He did not speak. this is something the situation what many religions face including Hinduism in which there are certain things which are misinterpreted.

So the ideal would be to take the good things using our sixth sense given by Lord and follow the right path of religion rather than analysing if Bible is right or wrong.

Raghavan

[anadi 0]

Many people come in contact with the "christians" by the force of circumstances. As for example my sister, although took initiation from a bonafide guru, is married to an ardent christian. So how is it possible to argue with them, if you don't understand why their siddhanta is so wrong? Just present the facts.

 

 

Why should you be bothered about the Bible or Christianity or any other religion for that matter?

 

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, Srila Bhakti-Prajnana Keshava Maharaja, and Srila Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada faught also against the false siddhanta of sunya-vada and maya-vada which was prevailing in India. But in the west the so called "christianity" is prevailing.

[Guest guest]

 

So how is it possible to argue with them

 

 

Why bother? To save their souls from damnation? You're certainly not going to win his heart by saying that the books that he reads and the Popes that he follows are all wrong.

[gopidust 0]

Anadi don't preach to the faithless. You can quote the bible this way and that and they won't accept it. Just become fixed up in the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness yourself and maybe your example will help others to see how nice it is.

"One should not read too many books." This means books other than Srimad Bhagavatam, etc. If you want to read the bible to get something good out of it that is another thing, but not just to waste time trying to preach to the faithless. One time a devotee asked Srila Prabhupada can we read about the pastimes of Joan of Arc? Srila prabhapada said,"whatever is written about her is bhagavatam." so yes we can read it if we feel the attraction. Are you really attracted to the Bible or do you just want to fight? Perhaps you can find the good in the bible and use those quotations to preach with devotees have already compiled the good verses. There is a booklet called, you mean that's in the bible? by satyaraja.

 

[Guest guest]

"Srila Prabhupada said the bible is a third class meat eating sastra(in The Science of Self Realisation?)."

 

so it is sure that it is a shastra.. simply we have to read it at the light of srimad bhagavatam, bhagavad gita, chaitanya charitamrita and so on

[shambu 0]

I would like to object to the term "meat eating sastra." Sastra don't eat meat.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

The Science of Self Realzation:

 

The Bhagavad-gétä describes what class of food is first class, in goodness, and what class of food is in passion, and third class, in ignorance. We have to raise ourselves to the sattvic (goodness) platform of human civilization, then revive our transcendental consciousness, or Kåñëa consciousness. Everything is there in the çästras. Unfortunately, we do not consult them.

--

 

 

Çréla Prabhupäda: Jesus Christ said, “Thou shalt not kill.” So why is it that the Christian people are engaged in animal killing?

Cardinal Danielou: Certainly in Christianity it is forbidden to kill, but we believe that there is a difference between the life of a human being and the life of the beasts. The life of a human being is sacred because man is made in the image of God; therefore, to kill a human being is forbidden.

Çréla Prabhupäda: But the Bible does not simply say, “Do not kill the human being.” It says broadly, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Cardinal Danielou: We believe that only human life is sacred.

Çréla Prabhupäda: That is your interpretation. The commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.”

[Guest guest]

I would like to object to the term "meat eating sastra." Sastra don't eat meat.

 

it is an offensive term used by the offensive gopidust.. tell it to her

[shambu 0]

Furthermore Lord Jesus (who is accepted as a Shaktyavesavatara or divinely empowered incarnation throughout our Sampradaya) said:

 

"Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called God's children."

 

So don't make unnecessary quarrel here....

 

Did you actually read the Bible? I am asking this because you accuse "the Christians" of "wrong siddhanta." Siddhanta means conclusion. Jesus emphasized that the highest principle, the highest commandment, is to Love God. In this there is no difference with Gaudiya-siddhanta, or Gauranga-vada. Only the means by which to achieve this end may be different, and somewhat less clearly defined in Christian lore. Also the eternal difference between the living entity and the Supreme Lord is recognized by Lord Jesus, where He says: "Not my will but Yours will be done." So where is the "wrong siddhanta"? Actually among all world-religions no religion gets so close to Gaudiya-Vaisnavism in a sense as Christianity. Mayavada and sunyavada are there in abundance in the so-called "New Age"-movement, so maybe you'd better point your arrows in that direction if you want to argue and fight.

 

Actually it's true that the original Hebrews were not monotheistic, as you say. This is proven by the use of the word "Elohim" for God in the Torah. They were also worshipping images (later referred to as "idols") and stones, and mountains. Also they performed animal-sacrifices. We find exactly the same phenomena in the Vedas, that also accept a plurality of Gods, sometimes accepting Indra as supreme, sometimes Visnu, sometimes Shiva, and sometimes Brahman. So where is the difference, in essence? Pure monotheism wasn't introduced amongst the Israelians until Moses, who had the Golden Calf destroyed (a Vedic symbol).

 

By the way, many of the first-day Christians were vegetarians, and also believed in reincarnation. This has unfortunately all been wiped out by the Church-authorities, who indeed tried to obscure and destroy the pure teachings of Christ for the sake of money and power...

[anadi 0]

 

By the way, many of the first-day Christians were vegetarians, and also believed in reincarnation. This has unfortunately all been wiped out by the Church-authorities, who indeed tried to obscure and destroy the pure teachings of Christ for the sake of money and power...

 

 

So this fraud was transmited ... by the means of what they call bible?

 

What is Pious Fraud?

 

Pious fraud was a common technique employed by early Christian writers to make a point. Their intention was to convert anyone and everyone by any means available. One of the more persuasive methods was to write a text and falsely tell others that it was written in first person. For example, the four canonized gospel tales were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. That has been a well known fact for about 200 years. And to this day, no one knows who the gospel stories were written by. These texts are perfect examples of pious fraud. Pious fraud is the foundation of the deception known as Christianity and it continues to this day.

 

During the first couple of centuries of the Common Era the early Christian priestcraft, which would eventually become the early Catholic fathers, were in the process of assimilating religions from all over Europe. Ultimately the new religion become known as the Christian religion, or more accurately The Catholic Church. The Bible was put together by hundreds of people who were either at the head of the fraud or were pawns in its assembly. Once the original languages were translated into Latin, it was only a matter of time before the original language nuances could be discarded. Ever wonder why it was punishable by death to read the Bible during the Middle Ages? Punishable by death by the common folk to read it, that is. Well, the reason was that the priestcraft was well aware of the errors, inconsistencies and flat-out lies that riddled the Bible. If the common man found out, it could have been the death of the Church's authority, power and control over the masses. And since the original languages are rarely, if ever, used by those who read the Bible (well, those who actually READ it), the fraud is perpetuated.

 

When a pious fraud is knowingly perpetuated in the name of power and money, you have deception. Remember, 1700-2000 years ago, when these texts were being assembled into a 'new testament', the vast majority of humanity was illiterate. Science was not known. Demons rules the world. Anything could be put forth and said to be 'absolute truth' when it was in fact, completely fraudulent.

 

What is the implication of this? Wrong siddhanta pertaining

1. sambandha jnana - knowledge about

bhagavan tattva

jiva tattva

guru tattva

shakti tattva

maya tattva...

and their relations

2. abhideya tattva - knowledge about shuddha bhakti, the means to attain the goal

3. prayojana tattva - the goal, prema, pure love for bhagavan Sri Krishna or one of His expansions in the category bhagavan-tattva.

[shambu 0]

—Jesus Christ said, “Thou shalt not kill.” So why is it that the Christian people are engaged in animal killing?—

 

Srila Prabhupada is wrong here. Jesus Christ never said: "Thou shalt not kill." Why he is saying this? Probably he was more inclined to study Sanskrit on his Scottish Church College than to attend Bible-classes. Obviously this is one of the Ten Commandments of Moses. Jesus' mission was not to impose laws, but to fulfil the law, as He Himself declared. He represents the pillar of mercy, not the one of law. Laws had already been given when He came.

 

It really annoys me to read this argument over and over again, or to hear it from the mouths of immature bhaktas. "Thou shalt not kill" in the Bible actually applies to humans only. Bible is "mleccha-shastra" so it abounds with prescriptions of what meat can be eaten and which meat not. Furthermore in the same Biblical book there are many references on how to perform animal-sacrifice, as was the custom. So how you can reasonably assume that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" applies to ALL living creatures??? It is illogical. Sorry Prabhupada.

 

I want to challenge you in this connection to give me one reference from the Vedas where it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or it's equivalent. I know one statement, and I really don't know it's source, that reads: "Ma Himsat Sarva Bhutanam." This means: "Don't inflict unnecessary violence on any living entity." Unnecessary violence doesn't imply "no killing." In fact Lord Krsna, the Adi Purusa, is encouraging Arjuna on the battlefield to fight and Kill, even his own relatives. It is only the material body that's killed, He says, and goes on to describe the difference between body and soul. So my question is — why bother the poor Christians by imposing a commandment upon them "not to kill" when even such a rigorous "commandment" doesn't exist in the very high-class Vedic literatures? I don't understand. Ksatriyas are allowed to kill and eat meat - why not Christians? Better to point out to them in a friendly manner what are the specific advantages, materially and spiritually, of being vegetarian. Their Jesus tells them to be "meak of heart" —that would be a good encouragement to them not to kill innocent animals unnecessarily. Sorry for being so terribly offensive.

[shambu 0]

What is the implication of this? Wrong siddhanta pertaining

1. sambandha jnana - knowledge about

bhagavan tattva

jiva tattva

guru tattva

shakti tattva

maya tattva...

and their relations

2. abhideya tattva - knowledge about shuddha bhakti, the means to attain the goal

3. prayojana tattva - the goal, prema, pure love for bhagavan Sri Krishna or one of His expansions in the category bhagavan-tattva.

 

Your head is stuffed with words!

Doing too much reading lately?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

You just let everybody know why Anadi ji says the Bible is not good. etc.

[gHari 0]

When we squeeze out the essence of each school, we find the same truth. If we pride ourselves in our words and not the substance, then when our words are different from theirs, we conclude they must be wrong. The truth is that we are wrong - we are licking the outside of the honey jar, claiming to know the nature of honey, not realizing how their words are indeed describing honey perfectly too.

 

When I boil siddhanta down into simple words I find myself sounding more like Jesus than anyone. This is how to behave with your Christian family. Serve Sri Caitanya. It will be a good exercise to turn your jargon into simple words. Help them build their faith; no need to tear it down. 18.66 cuts through all the words and idioms and jargon; this is the essence of both schools; this is the essence of 'preaching'.

 

If they have to believe that Jesus is the only way before they will seek the Kingdom, then let them have that. You know in your heart your truth, and that is enough. Preach "Seek Ye First the Kingdom of God" which is actually 18.66 - make them better/real Christians. Perhaps when they become stronger they too will see beyond the words. But don't tread on their fragile faith - be glad they have any at all.

 

[Guest guest]

***Is bible a holy book?

 

Srila Prabhupada speak.

[gopidust 0]

If you had asked submissively why Prabhupada says Jesus says thou shalt not kill instead of jumping to your own conclusions you may have gotten the answer I did when I asked. The reason is that Jesus quoted the Old Testement during his lifetime and accepted it. The greek word is "kill" not "murder". Well in Greek murder was used for human beings and kill for all living creatures.

I am not sure about where it says bible is a meateating sastra but there are sastric books for meateaters how to sacrifice goats to Goddess Kali in India etc. Another quote is the bible is a book for meateaters. Does anyone know where these quotes are? I do not make things up like the early Christians to win anyone over. I just don't remember where I have read exact things written in the sastras since I have basically read the entire Caitanya Caritamrta, Srimad Bhagavatam, NOI, NOD, all the small books, etc. and Bhagavad-gita and heard a lot of classes on cd and live, and stories from devotees.

[Guest guest]

And even if there are refs to meat eating in the Bible or any other stories pertaining to it (e.g. Jesus helping the fisherman to catch fish) then we must remember context. Buddha preached according to time and place as did Jesus. Time and place is very important - in this case the place is very desert-like where pure vegitarianism for the entire population, who on the whole is poor, is virtually impossible.

[Guest guest]

 

Lord Jesus (who is accepted as a Shaktyavesavatara or divinely empowered incarnation throughout our Sampradaya

 

 

Throughout the Gaudiya Sampradaya? You're fooling yourself.

 

 

We find exactly the same phenomena in the Vedas, that also accept a plurality of Gods, sometimes accepting Indra as supreme, sometimes Visnu, sometimes Shiva, and sometimes Brahman. So where is the difference, in essence?

 

 

Many supremes according only to the judeo-. twisted interpretation of Vedas. And others like this fellow 'shambu' giving an inaccurate interpretation of the Vedas to establish his crooked point.

 

What authority on the Vedas says there are many supremes? People like 'shambu' have no concern with this. Their out only to satisfy their egos fooling themselves with crooked views of reality. They fool themselves . is connected to Gaudiya Vaishnavism more than it really is. And they enjoy all their inaccuracies and ignorance.

 

They might be getting some spiritual benefit but I don't know with all the shastra aparadha and what other offenses they commit. Other than for preaching purposes what's the use of connecting mleccha-dharmas to Vaishnava sanatana dharma?

[gHari 0]

You really think it affects what we do and why we do it moment to moment whether we believe this is true or that is true?

 

[Guest guest]

Geez-us