Vaisnava Bible Study - Is Jesus Vaisnava?

[theist]

 

Herodotus the Greek from the 5th century BC is the first known person to write about seven wonders. But he did not say wonders, it was more like a "must-see" recommendation for travellers and it was also not about the entire world either; just the mediterranean region. Since then, several such lists have been drawn, the only two common factors being the number seven and the Great Pyramid. Recently a new list was made which does not have the pyramid.

 

The Greeks believed the number seven was magical, which may have been the the basis or else it was just simply because the first list had 7 places.

 

And finally the amazon, the canyon, the sun, the moon, etc do not figure in the list as they are not man made structures.

 

Cheers

 

Amazing. There is an answer for everything. Maybe there should be a new list say 21 wonders of the world 3x7 being 21. Must admit 7 is by far my favorite number. Maybe I was a slave in Greece in the recent past.

[raghu]

 

You should know that anecdotal evidence is not the same as empiric evidence.

 

To prove that the Bible has been altered and adulterated, you need an "original" copy (whose authenticity can be verified) to compare with current editions. Lacking that, all you have is blustering assertions.

 

We really aren't making much effort to grasp the obvious today, are we?

 

The Bible has been changed over the years. This is an obvious fact to anyone who has bothered to study the subject even superficially, and even Christian scholars will admit to it when pressed.

 

However, feel free to continue proposing the absurd. If you truly believe that the Bible we have today is the original one, despite the multiple different editions and versions to date, then that is your right.

 

 

As always, your "reasoning" can be equally applied to Vedic scriptures. Do you have Lord Brahma's copy of the Vedas and Upanishads? How do you know the shastras as we know them have not been polluted over the years? You don't, do you?

 

Murali, if you truly are a Vaishnava, then you should already know the answer to that question. If your guru couldn't trouble himself to explain the ABC's of Vaishnava Vedanta to you, then what kind of guru is he?

[raghu]

 

raghu, I don't say this lightly. You are a fool. It was RadheRade who asked you for proff of where JESUS'S teachings had been corrupted and you failed to produce. Instead you chided him about his english for some reason. When I pointed this out to you, you present a quote from me, out of context, about how I don't accept the Old Testament as a pure scripture. Another dodge.

 

Someone starts a thread to glorify a devotees devotional service and here you come to piss on his sacrifical fire. Simply a disturbance and nothing more. Please pull your head back into your box schoolboy we have no desire to join you in there. We want to cultivate bhakti free from temporary religious designations.

 

Theist,

 

I can go on making simple, factual statements, and you can go on insulting me to cover up your inability to produce sensible answers to pointed questions about your religious faith. The bottom line is that you are obviously having trouble comprehending what you have written on this thread, to say nothing of comprehending what others have written. This makes it unlikely that you can join anyone in any intelligent discussion, as you seem perenially incapable of offering an original thought on anything beyond a limited and stereotyped set of cursory quips. To date, these programmed responses seem limited to the following key phrases/tactics: (1) "we are transcendental to all religions," (2) accusing anyone you don't like of dodging your questions, (3) grand statements about the religious unity of Vaishnavism and other religions, (4) "Hinduism" or references to Indian ethnicity as a sarcastic explanation for why someone would disagree with you, (5) ad hominem attacks, (6) more ad hominem attacks. Given this extremely limited repertoire of pre-arranged replies, are you certain you aren't a 'bot programmed by some bored CS grad student?

 

For someone who claims to have no interest in discussing this matter with me, you have an uncanny ability to continue returning to the thread with absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute.

 

As far as your alleged interest in cultivating bhakti "free of material designations," I do applaud that. If you are truly serious about cultivating real bhakti, then take up the next logical step, and accept initiation from a qualified Vaishnava guru and study sastras under him. Only by accepting a guru will your many misconceptions get burned away, and you do seem to have a great many misconceptions on some very basic points.

[raghu]

 

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/5/en

 

 

 

Are you thoroughly honest?

 

I don't understand why you think this says what you are claiming that it says. I suppose an explanation is forthcoming, but for now it simply begs the question.

 

Also, and I am sure you probably have some misunderstanding of this as well, but Vedas are not considered to be original works of Sri Vedavyasa by anyone. Even Puranas are not accepted as independently authoritative if they disagree with shruti. Being authored by a "divine being" does not constitute valid pramana. Buddha is Vishnu-avatara but that does not make His teachings about shunyavada correct, for example.

[raghu]

 

Christ's message is the same as Krsna's,

 

And here we come again, full circle.....

 

How do you even know what Christ's message is???

[raghu]

 

I meant it in this sense:

"immoral or dishonest: immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain"

 

Then you also are having trouble with elementary reading comprehension. Learn to use context cues to determine the meaning of a word with multiple dictionary meanings. From context it is *obvious* what I was talking about when I said "corrupted."

 

A lot of the useless arguing here can be avoided if persons such as yourself, Theist, Murali, ghAri, etc could suppress your knee-jerk instincts to disagree and instead take the time to understand what is being written *in* *plain* *English.*

[raghu]

An attempt to bring this discussion back on track (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible):

 

Bible refers to the collections of canonicalreligious writings of Judaism and of Christianity.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[1]</SUP> The books that are considered canon in the Bible vary depending upon the historic tradition using or defining it. These variations are a reflection of the range of traditions and councils that have convened on the subject.

The Jewish version of the Bible, the Tanakh, is divided into three parts: the Teaching, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Christian version of the Bible includes books of the Tanakh, but includes additional books and reorganizes them into two parts: the books of the Old Testament primarily sourced from the Tanakh (with some variations), and the 27 books of the New Testament containing books originally written primarily in Greek.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[2]</SUP> Some versions of the Christian Bible have a separate Apocrypha section for the books not considered canonical by the tradition or sometimes the publisher.

 

And from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus):

 

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a GalileanJew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman GovernorPontius Pilate because of an accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-3>[4]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-4>[5]</SUP> Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate<SUP class=reference id=_ref-5>[6]</SUP> or completely inaccurate.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-6>[7]</SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP>These are just a few of the many examples one could cite to cast doubt on the attempts of some gaudiya vaishnavas to definitively say anything about the Bible, Christianity, or Jesus. By the way, these are not from Jihadi websites - they are fairly neutral in origin and the points they make are also known to Christian believers who graduate from seminary. </SUP>

[theist]

Raghu, you really need a new shtick. You have worn this one out and your act is being canceled.

 

Bye bye

[RadheRade1657]

 

Then you also are having trouble with elementary reading comprehension. Learn to use context cues to determine the meaning of a word with multiple dictionary meanings. From context it is *obvious* what I was talking about when I said "corrupted."

 

A lot of the useless arguing here can be avoided if persons such as yourself, Theist, Murali, ghAri, etc could suppress your knee-jerk instincts to disagree and instead take the time to understand what is being written *in* *plain* *English.*

 

I made a simple statement. I said, "I don't think Jesus' message is corrupt." You replied to it and started putting words in my mouth. Just because someone's message is distorted for anothers ulterior motives doesn't mean that that's what the messenger intended to happen. Also, here's a new definition of corrupt that I don't think you knew:

"spoil text with copying errors: to make undesirable changes in meaning or errors in a text during copying"

I don't see how his message has been corrupted in this way either, since none of the things he says in the Gospels are corrupt. So, how have they been corrupted according to this definition?

Why don't you open up a copy of the New Testament and read Jesus' message *in* *plain* *English*, and then get back to us when you've actually read his message and have taken the time to understand it (which you obviously haven't done, since you can't even point out which part of it is so corrupt when asked)?

This thread is supposed to be about Jesus the person and his message, which you haven't commented on at all, other than saying that it's not a valuable source of information, while not providing your reasoning behind this view (since you can't, because you obviously haven't ever read the message of Christ).

[RadheRade1657]

 

And here we come again, full circle.....

 

How do you even know what Christ's message is???

 

Probably because he's actually read Christ's message, unlike you (who passes judgment on something you haven't even read).

[gHari]

 

[...]



^{These are just a few of the many examples one could cite to cast doubt on the attempts of some gaudiya vaishnavas to definitively say anything about the Bible, Christianity, or Jesus.}[...]

Words are not the only way to know a thing. Just ask Krsna.

 

It's not worth the effort anymore. I am satisfied that any Christians who read this thread will know that one group here has no idea what they're talking about. And they will recognize that even in their own church some people will just not get it, despite all their reading and quoting with high scholarship. Somehow they will just continue licking the outside of the honey bottle but never taste the real thing.

[RadheRade1657]

 

An attempt to bring this discussion back on track (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible):

 

Bible refers to the collections of canonicalreligious writings of Judaism and of Christianity.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[1]</SUP> The books that are considered canon in the Bible vary depending upon the historic tradition using or defining it. These variations are a reflection of the range of traditions and councils that have convened on the subject.

The Jewish version of the Bible, the Tanakh, is divided into three parts: the Teaching, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Christian version of the Bible includes books of the Tanakh, but includes additional books and reorganizes them into two parts: the books of the Old Testament primarily sourced from the Tanakh (with some variations), and the 27 books of the New Testament containing books originally written primarily in Greek.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[2]</SUP> Some versions of the Christian Bible have a separate Apocrypha section for the books not considered canonical by the tradition or sometimes the publisher.

 

And from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus):

 

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a GalileanJew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman GovernorPontius Pilate because of an accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-3>[4]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-4>[5]</SUP> Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate<SUP class=reference id=_ref-5>[6]</SUP> or completely inaccurate.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-6>[7]</SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP>These are just a few of the many examples one could cite to cast doubt on the attempts of some gaudiya vaishnavas to definitively say anything about the Bible, Christianity, or Jesus. By the way, these are not from Jihadi websites - they are fairly neutral in origin and the points they make are also known to Christian believers who graduate from seminary. </SUP>

 

LOL... Plenty of scholars also say that Krishna never existed, or, if he did, was a tribal hero who was later deified. I'm sure that if you went to one of these Atheist scholars and told them half of the stories of Sri Krishna's life, they'd laugh in your face (esp. his youthful pastimes, such as the Rasa Lila, the raising of Govardhan Hill, and the humbling of Kaliya). I can't believe you're using what Atheist scholars have said to support your view when they also don't believe in Krishna or any other form of God and make it their life-mission to disprove the existence of such beings! All religious belief is based on faith. You can't disprove the life of Krishna or the life of Jesus by saying that there's not enough historical evidence to support them. That doesn't make either life any less true. Likewise, you can't "definitively say" that Krishna existed either. Krishna and Jesus belong to the realm of faith. You can't prove them physically because you can't prove God physically. And, just because you can't prove their pastimes physically (Jesus- Virgin birth, Sermon on the Mount, Crucifixion, etc... Krishna- Rasa Lila, Govardhan Hill, subduing of Kaliya, Putana, and Trinavarta, etc...) doesn't mean they didn't happen. (Oh, and, BTW, the source you cite is less than scholarly. Anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia. I've edited articles on it before. Anyone can. It doesn't matter if you're a 3rd grade school boy or a college professor. Anyone can edit it. For all you know a "Jihadi" wrote it!)<OH, do. to hard not It?s before. articles edited I?ve please. they article any edit and Wikipedia on go can Anyone scholarly. than less is quote you source the BTW, and,>

But, even if Jesus' life wasn't exactly as it is set out in the Gospels, how does that affect his message? His message remains the same. You still haven't answered why it should not be considered a valuable source of knowledge. What does Jesus say that's so corrupt and horrible that we have to throw him and his message down the garbage disposal? Will you please stop pussyfooting around and quoting Atheists and answer that question?

[RadheRade1657]

Hey Raghu, since you love quoting Atheist scholarship so much, I found these articles about an Atheist scholar just for you!:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/July/subcontinent_July618.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Sharan_Sharma#Political_controversies ((Wikipedia! Your favorite less-than-reliable source!))

 

Oh no... according to your logic, Sri Rama and Sri Krishna don't exist anymore, because some Atheist scholar who has a college degree says that They never existed! Looks like you shouldn't worship Them anymore since we can't prove that They absolutely existed with physical evidence and have to rely on faith (which you criticize us for doing with Jesus... I sincerely hope you're not a hypocrite)!

[gHari]

 

And here we come again, full circle.....

 

How do you even know what Christ's message is???

So you are suggesting that the people who corrupted the words of Jesus have substituted those of Krsna from the Bhagavad-gita into hundreds of spots in the New Testament? Or perhaps they substituted their own evil fantasies for the words of Krsna too?

[RadheRade1657]

 

So you are suggesting that the people who corrupted the words of Jesus have substituted those of Krsna from the Bhagavad-gita into hundreds of spots in the New Testament? Or perhaps they substituted their own evil fantasies for the words of Krsna too?

 

Exactly! If someone can't accept the words of Jesus in the Gospels as the actual words of the historical Jesus, how can they possibly accept the words of Krishna in the Gita as the actual words of the historical Krishna (and vice versa)?

[indulekhadasi]

 

Exactly! If someone can't accept the words of Jesus in the Gospels as the actual words of the historical Jesus, how can they possibly accept the words of Krishna in the Gita as the actual words of the historical Krishna (and vice versa)?

 

There can be so much historical evidence and stuff to prove things but when it comes to Krishna Consciousness, faith is the basis.

[RadheRade1657]

 

There can be so much historical evidence and stuff to prove things but when it comes to Krishna Consciousness, faith is the basis.

 

Haribol Indulekha Ji!

That's exactly what I'm saying. Faith is the basis of all religious belief (Krishna Consciousness, Buddhism, Christianity, etc...), but Raghu says that it's wrong to make definitive statements about Jesus (since there's no physical evidence that he existed). But, I mean, if we want to go by physical evidence alone, then it's also not appropriate to make definitive statements about Lord Krishna. We love and believe in Krishna based on faith. So why is it wrong to love and believe in Jesus based on faith as well?

Radhe Radhe!

[theist]

 

Haribol Indulekha Ji!

That's exactly what I'm saying. Faith is the basis of all religious belief (Krishna Consciousness, Buddhism, Christianity, etc...), but Raghu says that it's wrong to make definitive statements about Jesus (since there's no physical evidence that he existed). But, I mean, if we want to go by physical evidence alone, then it's also not appropriate to make definitive statements about Lord Krishna. We love and believe in Krishna based on faith. So why is it wrong to love and believe in Jesus based on faith as well?

Radhe Radhe!

 

Yes. I find it frustrating and amusing when the person telling me there is no proof Jesus existed then tells me he accepts the reality of Varaha lifting the earth from the Garbhodaksaya ocean with His tusks.

[RadheRade1657]

 

Yes. I find it frustrating and amusing when the person telling me there is no proof Jesus existed then tells me he accepts the reality of Varaha lifting the earth from the Garbhodaksaya ocean with His tusks.

 

LOL... agreed! Or that Parashuram killed all the Kshatriyas, that Sri Ram broke a huge bow in half, etc... We accept all of these stories based solely on faith... we have no physical evidence that they happened... and that's fine, but, according to Raghu, it's somehow wrong to accept the stories of Jesus based solely on faith. Why? Well... I guess he'll have to answer that sooner of later (unless he just keeps pussyfooting around and making random atheistic quotes).

[raghu]

It is simply impossible to respond to the large volume of irrelevant and off-topic banter. Certain individuals continue to demonstrate a great prejudice against the use of their mental faculties. When challenged to do so, their insecurities manifest themselves, and they take solace in setting up strawmen and knocking them down, patting themselves on the backs all the while. Trying to have a discussion about history and religion with these people is like singing classical music to a herd of monkeys.

 

Let us just bring up the undisputed facts and leave it at that:

 

1) There are numerous versions of the Bible which differ from each other in content. There is no objective way to conclude which one is supposedly the "original" Bible representing what Jesus taught.

 

2) The Bible as we know it is not the original writing of Jesus or even of one writing during the time of Jesus. It is a hasty reconstruction of what Jesus was deemed to have taught by widely divergent (and mutually antagonistic) parties at the 4th century Council of Nicea.

 

3) Points #1 and #2 cast doubt on the authority of the Bible even from a Christian perspective, for they obviously refute the idea that the Bible survives as a single, unaltered edition from the time of Jesus to today.

 

Even though we have no reliable account of the historic Jesus or an unblemished recording of what he taught, certain individuals continue to maintain that Jesus was undoubtedly a pure devotee of Vishnu and his teachings were in some sense simplified Vaishnavism.

[shvu]

This discussion is digressing into something else.

 

The original topic of the thread was "Is Jesus a Vaishnava?" It is irrelevant if Jesus existed or not. if he did not, he was not a Vaishnava, and even if he did exist, simple semantics say he was not a Vaishnava as made very clear several times on this thread.

 

Now certain recent Gurus from the Hare Krishna sect have chosen to provide their own definition of a Vaishnava which has been interpreted by western Hare Krishnas to incude Jesus under the Vaishnava umbrella.

 

But as someone clarified above, such a deviation from the established understanding of the term Vaishnava is acceptable only to those who accept the words of these Gurus over the traditional and widely accepted meaning of Vaishnava. Otherwise these deviations are worthless. Specifically, by their own explicit admissions, the Hare Krishnas have made it clear that the meaning of Vaishnava as seen by them comes from Bhakti Siddanta Saraswati and Prabhupada. They should obviously have no problems accepting that this unique case will only be accepted by their fellow men and will be **rejected** by the majority of Vaishnavas in this world (and everyone else).

 

In short, Jesus can be a Vaishnava only to those who accept the words of Bhakti Siddanta and Prabhupada over everyone else, including earlier Gurus in their line and standard dictionaries. To the rest of the world, he is not a Vaishnava. Matarisvan made a brilliant point that they should label Jesus a "Hare Krishna" if they want him to be part of their group, in which case no one would have objected.

 

Case closed.

[raghu]

Some wonder why we should bother about the beliefs of certain so-called Vaishnavas. If they want to believe that Jesus was a great avatar and that Christianity was a great religion, shouldn't we leave them to their beliefs?

 

Unfortunately, ignorance does not lead to true knowledge. It only breeds more ignorance. The belief in Jesus as a pure Vaishnava leads foolish people to propose increasingly ludicrous ideas in order to reconcile this theory with fact. Here are numerous examples of this point culled from these very forums and elsewhere:

 

1) Because Jesus is a pure Vaishnava, his teachings (i.e. Christianity) are also valid in their own context.

 

2) Since Christianity is a valid religion and Christian scriptures do not forbid cow-slaughter, cows need not be regarded as sacred by everyone - it is ok for Christians to kill and eat cows because their religion is bona fide and does not forbid this.

 

3) Because Christianity is valid, it is acceptable for Vaishnavas to cozy up with the Christians while being extremely hostile to other Hindus. Thus, in iskcon a very pious brahmana who is vegetarian, a teetotaler, and who does his sandhya vandana religiously every morning during the brahma-muhurta is regarded with contempt and derision if he is not a Vaishnava, while a hamburger-eating Christian who is attracted to drinking liquor and watching nonsense on television is seen as a peer and treated as an equal.

 

4) Because nothing can be known conclusively about Jesus and Christianity due to the historic reality of Christianity, iskcon followers must now assert that nothing can be known about Vaishnava Vedanta either. We can't really "know" anything, they say - one of the cardinal teachings of ATHEISM.

 

5) Christians preach the idea that one must have "faith," and that the validity of belief is directly proportional to the strength of one's "faith" in it. Consequently, iskcon vaishnavas who are very taken with Christianity preach the same thing - we shouldn't question stupid ideas masquerading as Vaishnavism - we have to just have "faith" in them.

 

6) Since Bible is considered valid pramana by iskcon vaishnavas, and Bible is clearly not apaurusheya, the whole concept of apaurusheyatva is abandoned and unappreciated by iskcon vaishnavas. Iskcon vaishnavas consequently accept many degraded literatures as religious scriptures, such as Koran which teaches its followers to violently suppress all other religions and even Kama-Sutra which teaches people about prostitution and enjoying the senses without restriction. I have personally witnessed that some iskcon people think very highly of Kama-Sutra and think that because Vedanta-Sutra and Kama-Sutra both end in "Sutra," therefore Kama-Sutra is one of the "bona fide" kama-shastras of post-Vedic literature. This is the logical result of watering down Vaishnava standards of epistemology with Christian ideas on what constitutes scripture.

 

7) Since Bible is bona fide even though it preaches hatred of certain ethnic groups and depicts a "God" who is partial and cruel, the Vedas must also have mantras that depict God as partial and cruel, because after all Vedas can't be any better than Bible! So iskcon people will happily go to Jihadi website and lookup where those cruel Veda mantras are so that they can smear the Vedas and satisfy their Christian insecurities.

 

8) Since Christianity is a "bona fide" religion and its followers identify themselves as disciples of Christ, so it is also ok for Vaishnavas to just identify themselves as disciples of some guru with whom they have never had contact and not go through the process of actually submitting to a qualified, living guru (case in point, most of the so-called "vaishnavas" who have been flaming me who are not even initiated).

 

9) Jesus is an incarnation of Sri Balarama!

 

10) Because other Vaishnavas do not accept iskcon's theories about Christianity and Islam, iskcon followers treat those sampradayas and their followers as less enlightened. I have personally seen iskcon people who have not even read one shloka out of bhagavad-gita but will nevertheless criticize stalwart Vaishnava acharyas like Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Ramanuja.

 

11) "Falldown from Vaikuntha" Does this nonsense sound familiar? Sure it does - the Christians also have their concept of "Fall from Heaven" or "Fall From Grace." This is yet another way in which sympathy with Christianity leads one to adopt beliefs that are not in line with pure Vaishnavism.

 

12) Not only other sampradayas, but even iskcon vaishnavas disrespect any gaudiya vaishnava gurus who do not agree with their Jesus theories. The Narasingha Swami whose writings I quoted here was denounced as a "fool" by certain so-called Vaishnavas who are not even initiated.

 

13) Many Vedic practices such as archana, yagna, tapasya, etc are denounced as sectarian "Hindu" rituals because Christianity has no room in its worldview for them. Even much of the Vedas is regarded by iskcon christian sympathizers as too "Hindu" for their taste - real Vaishnavism is then regarded as something completely beyond the Vedas.

 

14) Since Christianity is supposed to represent "abridged Vaishnavism" or just essentials of Vaishnavism, Bible is given great weight by iskcon vaishnavas while Vedas are denounced as ritualistic writings of Hindu priests. The Bhagavata Purana by contrast treats the Vedas as devotees of Sri Vishnu!

 

15) Jesus is the "Holy Spirit" of God and he suffered and died on the cross. Therefore, God incarnates in a body of flesh and blood - one of the disgusting and offensive tenets of mayavada!

 

There are so many misconceptions resulting from the unholy union of gaudiya vaishnavism with christianity and it is impossible to do justice to all of them. Suffice it to say that Christianity's influence on iskcon/gaudiya vaishnavism leads to many people propagating ideas in the name of vaishnavism that have nothing to do with vaishnavism.

[RadheRade1657]

 

Let us just bring up the undisputed facts and leave it at that:

 

1) There are numerous versions of the Bible which differ from each other in content. There is no objective way to conclude which one is supposedly the "original" Bible representing what Jesus taught.

 

2) The Bible as we know it is not the original writing of Jesus or even of one writing during the time of Jesus. It is a hasty reconstruction of what Jesus was deemed to have taught by widely divergent (and mutually antagonistic) parties at the 4th century Council of Nicea.

 

3) Points #1 and #2 cast doubt on the authority of the Bible even from a Christian perspective, for they obviously refute the idea that the Bible survives as a single, unaltered edition from the time of Jesus to today.

 

The only difference between one version of the Bible and another are:

a) Some include Apochryphon in the Old Testament (the one that doesn't deal with Jesus, so it doesn't have any affect on him or his teaching),

b) The way the language is used. The King James Version and other older versions use more formal language, while the New International Version uses less formal language,

c) The church that hires a company to print their 'version' of the Bible (basically asking for them to put "Catholic Bible", "Baptist Bible", etc... on the cover, while not changing the contents).

That said, none of these have a direct affect on the overall message that Jesus taught.

 

But, just so you know, you're logic (once again) can easily be applied to Sri Krishna and His Lila:

 

1) There are multiple translations of the Bhagavad Gita which differ from translation to translation and guru to guru. Each translation and guru claim to be teaching exactly what Krishna meant. Anyone can claim that this means that Krishna's message changes from translation to translation (especially if they haven't read His message, like how you haven't read Jesus'),

 

2) The Srimad Bhagavata Purana is not the original writing of Krishna (written by Krishna). Neither is the Mahabharata (which includes the Gita). It could easily be claimed that they are hasty reconstructions by people who lived some 200 years after Krishna (and that's according to the orthodox Hindu timeline... most atheist scholars estimate that the Mahabharata was written around 700 BCE (some claim that the Bhagavad Gita was added into it later (circa 550 BCE), as well), and that the Srimad Bhagavatam was written in the 9th or 10th century CE).

 

3) Points #1 and #2 could easily be used by atheist scholars to claim that Sri Krishna never existed and that His teaching should be considered the collective words of translators and gurus over the ages.

[RadheRade1657]

 

1) Because Jesus is a pure Vaishnava, his teachings (i.e. Christianity) are also valid in their own context.

His teachings are valid. Modern Christianity isn’t always a valid path (Spanish Inquisition, etc…). But, Hinduism isn’t always a valid path either (attacks on Muslims, etc…) if you want to judge only by what it’s followers do.

 

 

2) Since Christianity is a valid religion and Christian scriptures do not forbid cow-slaughter, cows need not be regarded as sacred by everyone - it is ok for Christians to kill and eat cows because their religion is bona fide and does not forbid this.

Just because Jesus didn’t expressly mention the killing of cows doesn’t mean that all Christians are cow murdering maniacs. I know many Christian vegetarians. They think that several of Jesus’ teachings and Biblical passages validate their view.

 

 

3) Because Christianity is valid, it is acceptable for Vaishnavas to cozy up with the Christians while being extremely hostile to other Hindus. Thus, in iskcon a very pious brahmana who is vegetarian, a teetotaler, and who does his sandhya vandana religiously every morning during the brahma-muhurta is regarded with contempt and derision if he is not a Vaishnava, while a hamburger-eating Christian who is attracted to drinking liquor and watching nonsense on television is seen as a peer and treated as an equal.

I don’t treat Shaivas, Shaktas, Advaitans, or, for that matter, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Taoists any differently than I would anyone else. I have friends from all these groups, and I treat them all equally. I treat people the way I treat them based on their personality, not their religion. You, on the other hand, seem to have a stereotype about Christians and hate them based on your own logic. I know this may come as a shock, but many Hindus smoke bhang, eat chicken and fish, and sit around watching nonsense all day. I think we should all treat everyone equal, regardless of religion or lack-thereof.

 

 

4) Because nothing can be known conclusively about Jesus and Christianity due to the historic reality of Christianity, iskcon followers must now assert that nothing can be known about Vaishnava Vedanta either. We can't really "know" anything, they say - one of the cardinal teachings of ATHEISM.

It’s true! No one can physically or historically prove ANYTHING that is based in faith! We can provide as much evidence about Jesus as we can about Sri Krishna… which is slim to none. If you reject Jesus based on lack of historical evidence, then how can you accept Krishna or Rama, when They also can’t be proven physically or historically? And, you claim that we take too much from atheists? Ha! That’s a laugh! You’re the once that LOVES quoting atheist scholarship all the time in order to disprove others religious beliefs!

 

 

5) Christians preach the idea that one must have "faith," and that the validity of belief is directly proportional to the strength of one's "faith" in it. Consequently, iskcon vaishnavas who are very taken with Christianity preach the same thing - we shouldn't question stupid ideas masquerading as Vaishnavism - we have to just have "faith" in them.

I hold my beliefs on my own accord. It isn’t just blind faith.

 

 

6) Since Bible is considered valid pramana by iskcon vaishnavas, and Bible is clearly not apaurusheya, the whole concept of apaurusheyatva is abandoned and unappreciated by iskcon vaishnavas. Iskcon vaishnavas consequently accept many degraded literatures as religious scriptures, such as Koran which teaches its followers to violently suppress all other religions and even Kama-Sutra which teaches people about prostitution and enjoying the senses without restriction. I have personally witnessed that some iskcon people think very highly of Kama-Sutra and think that because Vedanta-Sutra and Kama-Sutra both end in "Sutra," therefore Kama-Sutra is one of the "bona fide" kama-shastras of post-Vedic literature. This is the logical result of watering down Vaishnava standards of epistemology with Christian ideas on what constitutes scripture.

 

“Apaurusheya” means “un-authored”. It applies only to the Vedas. The Bhagavata Purana is claimed by Hindus to have been written by Vyasa, and the Mahbharata is said to be dictated by Vyasa and written down by Sri Ganesh. Does that mean that we shouldn’t accept them either, since they aren’t apaurusheya either? There are many scriptures that any Hindu can accept within Hinduism that don’t have to be accepted by all devotees as well! Why can’t the Kama Sutra and Koran go right up there with the Skanda Purana, the Linga Purana, the Devi Mahatmaya, and all the many other scriptures that make Hinduism as diverse as it has come to be?

 

 

7) Since Bible is bona fide even though it preaches hatred of certain ethnic groups and depicts a "God" who is partial and cruel, the Vedas must also have mantras that depict God as partial and cruel, because after all Vedas can't be any better than Bible! So iskcon people will happily go to Jihadi website and lookup where those cruel Veda mantras are so that they can smear the Vedas and satisfy their Christian insecurities.

I don’t believe in the Old Testament (it has nothing to do with Jesus’ message). Why don’t you start using the message of Jesus to attack those who believe in Jesus, rather than the message of Yahweh in the Old Testament? Oh, and, yes the Vedas often do portray very cruel incidents acted out by Indra and friends. Sorry if you don’t want to read the whole scripture. I’ve only read the Rig, and it’s, not only overtly sexual in many places, but also very war-like.

 

 

8) Since Christianity is a "bona fide" religion and its followers identify themselves as disciples of Christ, so it is also ok for Vaishnavas to just identify themselves as disciples of some guru with whom they have never had contact and not go through the process of actually submitting to a qualified, living guru (case in point, most of the so-called "vaishnavas" who have been flaming me who are not even initiated).

I don’t claim to be anyone’s disciple. I’m a devotee of Krishna… that’s it.

 

 

9) Jesus is an incarnation of Sri Balarama!

 

Hmmm… I didn’t realize that everyone on this thread made that claim. I know I never did.

 

 

10) Because other Vaishnavas do not accept iskcon's theories about Christianity and Islam, iskcon followers treat those sampradayas and their followers as less enlightened. I have personally seen iskcon people who have not even read one shloka out of bhagavad-gita but will nevertheless criticize stalwart Vaishnava acharyas like Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Ramanuja.

 

I’ve seen you criticize Jesus’ message and his followers without even reading even one word of his message!

 

 

11) "Falldown from Vaikuntha" Does this nonsense sound familiar? Sure it does - the Christians also have their concept of "Fall from Heaven" or "Fall From Grace." This is yet another way in which sympathy with Christianity leads one to adopt beliefs that are not in line with pure Vaishnavism.

The Christian “Fall from Heaven” describes the fall of Satan from Heaven into Hell. It has nothing to do with human souls. The “Fall from Grace” describes the human condition as some Christians claim was caused by Adam and Eve on EARTH. The fall of us jivas from Vaikuntha describes how our souls have fallen into worldly bodies. All three concepts are completely different and can hardly be compared to each other. Maybe you should try to learn a little bit more about each of these concepts before grouping them together.

 

 

12) Not only other sampradayas, but even iskcon vaishnavas disrespect any gaudiya vaishnava gurus who do not agree with their Jesus theories. The Narasingha Swami whose writings I quoted here was denounced as a "fool" by certain so-called Vaishnavas who are not even initiated.

You do know that gurus, while self-realized people, are still just that, people… right? And it’s okay to find fault in human teaching (believe it or not).

 

 

13) Many Vedic practices such as archana, yagna, tapasya, etc are denounced as sectarian "Hindu" rituals because Christianity has no room in its worldview for them. Even much of the Vedas is regarded by iskcon christian sympathizers as too "Hindu" for their taste - real Vaishnavism is then regarded as something completely beyond the Vedas.

I don’t have a problem with any Hindu rituals (other than certain temples that still practice animal sacrifice according to VEDIC injunctions). I perform puja and have much respect for brahmacharyas and the like that practice tapas. Stop applying what a minority thinks to the majority.

 

 

14) Since Christianity is supposed to represent "abridged Vaishnavism" or just essentials of Vaishnavism, Bible is given great weight by iskcon vaishnavas while Vedas are denounced as ritualistic writings of Hindu priests. The Bhagavata Purana by contrast treats the Vedas as devotees of Sri Vishnu!

 

There is much wisdom in the Vedas, but there IS also much ritualistic nonsense, such as sacrifice to Indra (which Sri Krishna Himself criticized!), violence, and overt sexuality.

 

 

15) Jesus is the "Holy Spirit" of God and he suffered and died on the cross. Therefore, God incarnates in a body of flesh and blood - one of the disgusting and offensive tenets of mayavada!

 

Take a look at Gnosticism. The Gnostics didn’t think that Jesus took a human body, but was rather role-playing on the cross. It’s like how when Krishna was hit by the arrow that killed Him, He took a form that looked like He was bleeding. That’s what early Christians believed. Besides that, Jesus never claims to be the “Holy Spirit of God”. He claims to be the son of God. Once again, read the message of Jesus and then get back to us on why you hate him and why his message is so terrible and must be discarded.

[theist]

You still pontificating on this topic shvu?

 

 

In short, Jesus can be a Vaishnava only to those who accept the words of Bhakti Siddanta and Prabhupada over everyone else, including earlier Gurus in their line and standard dictionaries. To the rest of the world, he is not a Vaishnava. Matarisvan made a brilliant point that they should label Jesus a "Hare Krishna" if they want him to be part of their group, in which case no one would have objected.

 

Case closed.

I notice you never responded to my posting of Bhatisiddhanta's definiton of a Vaisnava which I posted in response to you.

 

Why don't you show the flaws in his definition if you can find any. If you can't then I invite you to slip nack into your cave and try to figure out if you are an impersonalist or a vaisnava.

 

I'll post again for your convienience. As they say, put up or....

 

 

From his booklet Vaisnavism Real and Apparent.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> <center>Real Vaishnavism

 

</center> The word 'Vaishnavism' indicates the normal, eternal and natural condition, functions and devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the Supreme, the All-per- vading Soul. But such an unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense has been attributed to the word as to naturally make one understand by the word, Vaishnava (literally a pure and self- less worshipper of Vishnu), a human form with twelve peculiar signs (Tilaka) and dress on, worshipping many gods under the garb of a particular God and hating another human form who marks himself with different signs, puts on a different dress and worships a different God in a different way as is the case with the words 'Shaiva', 'Shakta', 'Ganapatya', 'Jaina', 'Buddhist', 'Mohammedan', 'Christian' etc. This is the most unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense of the word, 'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return.

 

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->