Is bible a holy book?

[Guest guest]

the gopis didn't have a guru yet they are the best of all devotees - pure and utter love for Krsna.

[gHari 0]

What bothers me is that all this speculation is being presented as though one is an expert and qualified to reach or even agree/disagree with such conclusions. We are not so unsophisticated and foolhardy, despite having encountered many such divergent views of the Bible, Christ, Gaudiyas, Caitanya and even Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

[anadi 0]

Another fraud, the "Revelation of John"

 

Nr.3

 

 

The end of the world must come at some time. Presumably that it might be "soon."

Prologue

1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

The first sentence could scarcely be clearer in telling the reader that this is the "Revelation Of Jesus Christ." Then Jesus sent an angel to John with the message of “Revelation” so that John will record it and bare testimony of it, but here the revelation is declared to be God's revelation to Jesus. The testimony is that of "Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw (he is more modest in the Greek than our Christian translators suggest, for he does not vouch for "all things that he saw" but "as much as he saw)." But as previously mentioned, this “Revelation” is nothing but a compilation of previous apocalyptic doctrine modified by the Essenes and later by the “parents of the church”, what to say that this was later called the “Revelation of John”.

 

In other words, this is not, as it is offered to the faithful, a mysterious vision of the distant future sent by Jesus through an angel, as a messenger, to a loyal disciple, and sold as the own vision of the disciple John.

The declaration is that things must "shortly come to pass" and "the time is at hand," and the prologue tells us that this is "prophecy." Jesus thought these things were at hand then!

And from that time on it is taught like this.

The End of Time is near, Jesus ist ... the salvation and the only son of God.

[gHari 0]

Burn easily.

 

This is like the anti-Bhaktisiddhanta fellas who come here with their mental platform jibberish, expecting us to waste our time to acknowledge, research and refute their fanciful claims. Of course, if we don't, we somehow become implicated in their offenses.

 

To that end, I say now to any Christian or Jewish readers: the obvious immaturity of some of the uninformed ideas and attitudes presented here are not universal among Vaisnavas. I dare say only one with no exposure to those traditions could be so impertinent and callous. I dare say you will never find a Christian who embraces Vaisnavism to subsequently decry Christ. It just isn't possible - unless the person was simply a poseur from start to finish, whose devotion itself was myth and will remain myth from start to finish.

 

Anadi, if you are trying to assert a position about this other religious heritage, it only makes sense to establish it in a forum of their scholars. We have not necessarily devoted ourselves to resolving the apparent paradoxes of their faith.

 

You are challenging children to a debate about rocket science. What kind of big man is that? The big man doesn't even have the credentials to agree or disagree with the textbooks he quotes. What kind of big man is that? It is a little boy in his daddy's shoes. Anyone can see that. Why can't you? But maybe you can; thus explaining why you will not debate grown-ups.

 

[Guest guest]

Haribol. A swan is one who can drink milk only, even if mixed with polluted water, only the milk is drunk. Paramahamsa means swan-like, meaning that the Vaisnava is one who can glean bhakti yoga from any source.

 

I agree with gHari here, and ask the christian browser to disregard the opinion of one who may not even know what he is discussing here. The Vaisnava acts according to the principle laid down by Lord Chaitanya, meaning "we welcome the religious impulse in mankind". Srila Bhaktivinode, a great leader in our line, states that "party spirit is the enemy", meaning that no spiritual purpose is established by discriminating for sectarian reasons.

 

The beginner always become a bit sectarian, but this is due to immaturity, not self-realization. Maturity means that one does not make an enemy out of one with a different viewpoint, rather finds common ground for all parties to experiance the universiality of Krsnas desire that we remember our identity, and return to the nectarian service which is the nectar for which we are all axious for.

 

Jesus Christ had such maturity. His disciples were worried about the competition, but Lord Jesus told them that if these folks outside His camp were not preaching in opposition to his mission, then they were with Him.

 

The Vaisnava, headed by stalwarts in maturity like Srila Bhaktivinode and Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami, also teach that the messages of love of god have value, even if outside. Srila Vyasadeva also confirms in Srimad Bhagavatam, that those messages that glorify the name, fame, associates, etc of the Supreme Lord are readily acceptable to those who are thoroughly honest, even if such descriptions are IMPERFECTLY composed.

 

So the vaisnava, if he wishes to become mature and rid himself of the hinderances of party spirit, a third class trait that is the cornerstone of fanaticism, will aspire to become paramahamsa, and accept all that which glorifies the Supreme Lord, in all his forms, in all his characteristics, etc.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

“There are countless individual jivas, and they have innumerable

varieties of adhikAra, which have been divided into three broad

categories according to their primary characteristics: karmaadhikAra,

eligibility for pious action leading to material gain, jnanaadhikara,

eligibility for knowledge leading to liberation, and premaadhikara,

eligibility for unalloyed loving service to Bhagavän. The

Veda-sastra specifies these three types of eligibility and establishes

proper codes of behavior for those in each of the three groups. The

dharma that the Vedas have thus prescribed is known as vaidhadharma.

“The tendency by which a person is compelled to adopt this

vaidha-dharma is known as vaidhi-pravRtti, the proclivity to follow

the religious codes of sastra. Those who are altogether lacking in

the tendency to follow the rules of sastra are thoroughly avaidha,

opposed to the injunctions of sastra. They are engaged in sinful

activities, and their lives are given over to avaidha-karma , actions

that defy the regulations of sastra. Such people are excluded from

the jurisdiction of the Vedas and are known as mlecchas, people

counting as uncivilized, of non-Äryan behaviour.”

 

From Jaiva Dharma Ch3, Naimitika Dharma is to be relinquished

 

 

Srila Bhaktivedanata Aranya Maharaja says, Srila Jiva Gosvami says that the nature of the living entity which is overburden with papa, sins, is that the living entity cannot make the right decisions in his life, which is confirmed in Vaivarta Purana:

yavad papaystu malinam hridayam taved eva hi

The living entity cannot know what is sastra, scripture.

na shastre sad buddhi hi syat sad buddhi hi sad guroh tatha

He will belive in a book, and he will call it shastra, but this book doesn’t give him proper information about reality. (He will think that veda is politeymus and idol worship and) he will select some religios books which are not shastra “na sad buddhi hi”, which means his intelligence is misdirected and “sad guroh tatha” which means, he will choose a teacher, but his teacher is not qualified, his teacher is also in illusion, under the control of sins, and when he sees a sad guru, he thinks, that person doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

These are symptoms of those who are heavily overburden with sinful reactions.

[anadi 0]

previous post by anadi

[Guest guest]

is so boring. Why bother, it is the epitome of impersonalism, my shastra is better than your shastra. Plus, it makes no sense if its not corrected, because the numbers and stuff means nothing.

 

Lets all take off our holy masks and just speak confidentially, share the prasadam of our realization, otherwise, there is no discussion, just bible bangin with an oriental flavor. as in JIVE dharma.

 

mahaksadasa

[anadi 0]

"my shastra is better than your shastra"

 

Sorry, the true is, the bible is no shastra, is a fake sastra.

The living entity will belive in a book, and he will call it shastra, but this book doesn't give him proper information about reality. this must be clear.

In that book the reality is completely distorted.

The old "testament" is a forged copy of some old jewish and other texts, + extra modified over the ceturies + fraudly translated. And the new testament is a collection of 13 letters of Paul to different churches and other texts that comply with the Paulus doctrine, + extra modified over the ceturies + fraudly translated, excluding the little transcendental knowledge that was to be found in the early christian gnostic books generally destroyed (as their followers too) by the "fathers of the ortodhoxy".

 

 

just speak confidentially

 

 

This could be done more in private than in a open forum.

 

 

the prasadam of our realization

 

 

According one's power of his bhajan one can see one's realization.

The matter of fact everybody speaks or "quotes" according his reallization, according the power of his bhajana.

anadi

[Guest guest]

This is the problem. Perhaps you forgot to read my posts about the bible not even being a book, rather a concoction of a political nature, devised by constantine.

 

The teachings of Lord Jesus Christ comes from accounts written by others, some are represented in the bible, most are not even included in the canon.

 

The four gospels were created two hundred or so years after Lord Jesus appearance, but they were written from earlier accounts, "Q", and others. There is enough validity in these teachings, enough that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami and Srtila Bhaktivinode Thakur acknowledged Lord Jesus' Vaisnava status.

 

I was not stating bible was shastra, I was making a point about the duel between ones data base versus anothers data base, neither knowing what is being spoken about, only madly throwing untasted quotes around.

 

later, mahak

[Guest guest]

Sorry if I did not understand your point.

But I think I was talking about the bible as a sastra, not about Jesus as vaisnava.

 

please accept my humble obeissances.

anadi

[gHari 0]

Seems someone was talking about Jesus being vaisnava (referring to him as a myth created from the Essene ideals - who knows what demon was quoted saying it). I am seriously quickly losing faith in big vaisnavas and their big gurus - big words, but just self-important bozos like everybody else.

 

[Guest guest]

If Jesus was or not a myth is not the topic of the thread.

 

The point is that bible is a political plagiarism. You cannot tell it every one. But you can prove that what the "christians" quote as evidence from that book, they accept as sastra, is sheer fraud.

Their set of evidence based on quotes from that book cannot be accepted as such.

 

Let's take the "Revelation of John".

Is this authentic? Read your pros and my cons.

 

"Apocalypses are always written as pseudepigraphs, books written in the name of an earlier figure and not under the author's own name. By chosing an authoritative figure of the past, the author can give his book kudos and he can also make prophecies within the text that he knows have already happened, thus giving the false author prophetic credentials for prophecies as yet unrealised. Christians, of course, tell us that this apocalypse is an exception—the author really is who he claims to be! It is just another example of Christian gullibility and special pleading. All other examples are forgeries, except their own!

 

The fate of John the Apostle, is that he was killed with or after his brother in the brief reign of Agrippa. He never appears again in Acts after his brother's reported death. Later Christian tradition about John is contradictory but has it that he lived to over 100 years old. The legend was obviously necessary to account for the late appearance of the fourth gospel and Revelation.

It has long been speculated that the author was a John the Elder who was a disciple of John the Apostle.

 

The bulk of Revelation is an Essene apocalypse from the time of Jesus or just afterwards. It tells us what Jesus expected at the time and it tells us a little about what happened at the time. The confusion has arisen because some Christian editors took it in the years up until about 100 AD and made some quite unsubtle Christian additions and alterations. They are often cosmetic, quite distinctively Christian relative to the Jewishness of the rest, and often betray later time clues.

Thus, the messianic name Jesus Christ only appears three times in this book, all in the first five verses, and the name Jesus alone only appears twelve times in 400 verses. Every appearance is in the obviously added prologue and epilogue or in a few cosmetic additions in the body of the book.

The prologue ends at verse 3 and the Revelation should begin but we find inserted seven letters to churches in Asia, of a rather different nature. The message of Revelation 1:3 is that of Luke 11:28, less succinctly expressed:

Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

 

At verse 1:10, the letters have been slipped in. The Watcher speaks of being "in the spirit" on the "Lord's Day," but the "Lord's Day" he meant was the day he was about to describe—the day of the Vengeance of God. Christians seem to think he meant it was Sunday! He is actually taking the reader directly into his vision as the other references to the spirit (Rev 17:3; 21:10) prove, if the great voice that he hears is not sufficient evidence."

 

How do you explain "he was taken in the spirit", and was he, Jesus or John, taken to Indra, to Yamaraja or to Narayana in the spiritual world, or somewhere else, and bring some evidence for your choice.

[anadi 0]

by anadi

[theist 1]

 

Seems someone was talking about Jesus being vaisnava (referring to him as a myth created from the Essene ideals - who knows what demon was quoted saying it). I am seriously quickly losing faith in big vaisnavas and their big gurus - big words, but just self-important bozos like everybody else.

 

 

Like this copy and paste routine where the person doesn't even credit his source. And he calls others a fraud? Such gall.

 

 

[theist 1]

Hamsadüta: Not yet. No.

 

Prabhupäda: Why? You do that. They should be given that. You should avoid chanting, every one of you, ten kinds of offenses. The first offense is to decry the scriptures, Vedas. To accept authority of Vedas. Not to accept or decrying scriptures. Vedas means the book of transcendental knowledge. Not only Bhagavad-gétä, even Bible or Koran, they are also, although Bhagavad-gétä... Higher or secondary or primary, that is different. But whenever there is information of God, that is scripture, recognized. So we are concerned with the Vedas. So anyway, other scripture which is giving information of God scientifically or accepted by persons, that is also Vedas. One should not blaspheme the Vedas. This is first offense, to blaspheme. And satäà nindä, those who are preaching the message of God, they should not be blasphemed.

[Guest guest]

Points are being made, though. Ive always thought it was important to know that Lord Jesus Christ is not properly represented by that which is known as the Bible. Anadi makes some valid points about this fact, the politicization of the Paulist viewpoint, which is the basis for todays christianity.

 

One is hard pressed to find vaisnavism in the christian popular philosophy. There is blatant impersonalism there, a merging of father and son that completely destroys the basis of Vaisnavism. To say the father is the son, this destroys the relationship between the father and the son, which is a RASA-killer. So, the vast majority who reject Lord Jesus by denying "He Who has sent Him", commit the greatest blasphemy as stated by Lord Jesus Himself, they fail to to the will of the father and take the sweet yoke of love of the father from the son, so Lord Jesus says they never existed, they are erased from the book of life. So we see Lord Jesus has the same ideas of the danger of Mayavadism as our Srila Prabhupada has, spiritual suicide and loss of spiritual identity.

 

But Jesus is quite well presented by the scribes of the day. Matthew and Luke were books rewritten from "Q", the basis for early theology of thos who followed Lord Jesus, not just where Paul preached his roman version based on hallucination, but in Iraq, Abyssinia, France, even the New World (according to many scholars, even non mormons=;-). His Vaisnavism comes thru quite clearly. Srila Prabhupada consulted with a theologian disciple who had access to extra-biblical (those not approved by Constantine or the council of trent), and made comments based on aquarian gospels. Other devotees have noted the vaisnavism represented in the teachings of Didyamous Thomas. I myself was floored by the Kebra Nagast, the story of the successor kings of King Solomon and Queen Mekeda, in which the demigod Gabriel appeared to the wise Solomon to describe the journey of the pearl, how God reveals His actual self to mankind.

 

So, anadi, I offer you my respects, and I appreciate your commentary. The science of love of god is universal and is controlled by God Himself anyway he chooses. thru the valid vedic version, or from the secluded arafian triangle where his empowered representative makes appearance to a wise king lamenting his vanity.

 

We must remember Vedavyasadevas lamentation at his imperfect veda, and Naradas perfect nectar of instruction about those works that glorify the Supreme personality of Godhead are heard joyously by those of clean heart, thoroughly honest folks, even if such works are imperfectly composed. Vyasadeva made the vedas perfect, but this did not bring him pleasure, but Naradas instruction linked Veda Vyasadeva to the Parampara, the root of the tree, to Krsna Himself.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

I mentioned earlier that Christianity is in danger of being totally swamped by mayavada philosophy. Jesus clearly spoke from a platform of oneness and difference. Followers of Lord Caitanya would do well to help protect their younger brothers and sisters in their budding theism by explaining this subtley in a way that will be acceptable to them.

 

What is the goal of preaching? To confront or inspire? To display some dominance or to serve by uplifting another on the path towards God?

 

Always we must check our motives.

[Guest guest]

If not for inspiration, then it is better to remain silent, worship the deity, and eat prasadam.

 

Srila Prabhupada sets the great example in all of this, for his speaking brought life, not fighting. He taught us this as well, istagosthi is the discussion between devotees in compliance with the confidentiality mentioned in NoI. NoI doesnt authorize discussion for sport, where only winners and losers are present, discussion is Krsna Katha, pleasurable, and if there is disagreement, humble persuasion is the standard of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. Never is a display of great erudition against a perceived lesser know3ledgable person acceptable in Sri Chaitanyas movement, who sets the greatest standard in His siksastakam prayers.

 

The greatest teachers have their podiums below the straw in the street, not on the lofty minerets.

 

Hare Krsna, theist, your servant and braddah, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

A proverb or verse or something is in my memory, not sure from where, but I believe in the truth of it.

 

"To one who much has been given much will be required."

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Ghari: So siddhanta, jnana is not a requisite to please Krsna

 

 

I'm a ragatmika bhakt. I don't need to follow any rules, any conclusions, no. I'll just worship how I please, accept only what I like. What I don't like I'll give myself a perverted understanding of that fits into my view of things. Half accept it.

 

Ragatmika I am. I am that I am.

[gHari 0]

<blockquote>Consider the fellow who could not read the Gita properly but who kept trying anyway. Lord Caitanya was very pleased with him. So siddhanta, jnana is not a requisite to please Krsna. </blockquote>

 

Seems to make sense here. Cheating your mind ends up cheating your heart; or was it the heart that cheated the mind? Methinks maybe the heart was the cause, given the rude presentation.

 

What was it that pleased Lord Caitanya about the poor fellow reading the Gita? So what is the requisite for pleasing Krsna?

 

Happy Janmastami

 

[Guest guest]

Nice perverted understanding there. You chrixans are in the exact same position as the poor fellow sincerely trying to read gita. Both being exposed to the teachings for the same amount of time, not knowing what is siddhanta yet. Truly trying to submit to Krishna. Yes, same situation. This establishes that siddhanta is not needed to please krishna very nicely.

 

What is the requisite for pleasing Krsna? Nope not clinging onto ignorance. News flash. Not cheating oneself. The sincere poor fellow is doing the best he is capable of and Krishna will guide him.

 

You sahajiyas on the other hand don't want Krishna, his devotees or shastras to guide you, rather worship in your own way. Half-accepting things to your liking.

 

CC Madhya 24:40- When one is attracted to Krishna on the transcendental platform, there is no longer any logical argument on the basis of revealed scripture, nor are there considerations of such conclusions. This is His transcendental quality that is the essence of all transcendental sweetness

 

 

[gHari 0]

Chant and be happy.

 

 

Guest, you speak as though you think you know me. Surely such an old acquaintance should sign his name?

 

Then are we to accept on your word that 18.66 was a lie - another of those white lies, for preaching purposes?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes you got it! Gita is a lie, my exact words. Krishna, Prabhupada, Bhaktisiddhanta, Bhaktivinode...all liars. That's what I said. You chrxans have a perfect understanding of what is preaching and what actual siddhanta is. Bravo!

 

You know what, I will chant Christ and be happy. The messiah was greek you know. Greek Christos is same as Krishna. Yes this is the way, I become gopi and reach goloka in no time. Iesous Christos please have mercy on my soul, bring me to supreme father. Make me gopi just like you. Did I get it right? Good siddhanta? Or wait, that's not important.