Vaisnava Bible Study - Is Jesus Vaisnava?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

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?

 

But Christianity today universally accepts the old testament as the word of God. So it seems you are basically agreeing with Raghu that 99% of all Christians in the world follow a fake religion, as their religion in based on the old testiment. Also when you say you don't believe in the old testiment you are basically agreeing with Raghu that the bible is corrupted. The only difference in opinion seems to be the degree. He feels there is nothing valid, and you feel there are some things valid in the bible.

 

As far as I am aware (and I could be uninformed) there are no well known Christian groups that only accept the new testiment.

 

 

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.

 

Indra is not God, nor a perfect being. So there is no comparison. You would have to cite cases of Vishnu acting cruelly in order for there to be a valid comparison.

[RadheRade1657]

 

But Christianity today universally accepts the old testament as the word of God. So it seems you are basically agreeing with Raghu that 99% of all Christians in the world follow a fake religion, as their religion in based on the old testiment. Also when you say you don't believe in the old testiment you are basically agreeing with Raghu that the bible is corrupted. The only difference in opinion seems to be the degree. He feels there is nothing valid, and you feel there are some things valid in the bible.

 

He thinks that anyone who tries to follow Jesus' message is wrong and are following a fake being, while only providing evidence from atheist scholarship that can easily be applied to any god/form of God, not just Jesus, and then uses that as his reason for not following Jesus' message, since he can't be proved by atheist scholarship (while following Krishna, who also doesn't stand up to such atheistic scholarship). He's stated that the message of Jesus can't be considered as a valuable source of knowledge without ever stating why it's not. It's simple to see why the Old Testament isn't the word of God. Jesus, on the other hand, preached compassion and love of your neighbor as yourself, so I don't see how his message is 'corrupt' or non-valuable as Raghu has claimed. When I ask him to please quote a part of Jesus' message that supports his view, he can't find one and starts quoting the OT. So, if you take that away from him, what does he have left? Jesus' message. I want him to list the complaints he has with this message he's never read, and make cites in which his complaints are seen in the historical Jesus Christ's message.

 

 

As far as I am aware (and I could be uninformed) there are no well known Christian groups that only accept the new testiment.

The organized religion, in itself, doesn't acknowledge such a point of view, but there are many people within those relgious groups that see the Old Testament's many faults and deny it's validity.

 

 

 

Indra is not God, nor a perfect being. So there is no comparison. You would have to cite cases of Vishnu acting cruelly in order for there to be a valid comparison.

But the authors of the Vedas treated him as the ultimate reality and even praise him above all other gods in some hymns. How do we know this same misconception wasn't applied to Yahweh, if we want to go in that direction?

[HerServant]

Om namo bhagavate vasudevaya! I bow down again and again to the feet of Lord Jesus Christ, whose sandals are like a boat to cross the ocean of samsara.

 

I left this thread and forum with the full intent of never coming back. I have returned here at the direct request of Srila Prabhupada who appeared to me in a dream.

 

He made it very very clear that his followers (and movement) must be non sectarian. His body was very clean and radiant and I sat with him in a temple for a while.

 

But for those the hate on this forum and those who are harboring hate, Srila Prabhupada had this to say:

 

 

____________________ ______________________

 

nothing at all

[HerServant]

 

But Christianity today universally accepts the old testament as the word of God. So it seems you are basically agreeing with Raghu that 99% of all Christians in the world follow a fake religion, as their religion in based on the old testiment. Also when you say you don't believe in the old testiment you are basically agreeing with Raghu that the bible is corrupted. The only difference in opinion seems to be the degree. He feels there is nothing valid, and you feel there are some things valid in the bible.

 

As far as I am aware (and I could be uninformed) there are no well known Christian groups that only accept the new testiment.

 

 

 

Indra is not God, nor a perfect being. So there is no comparison. You would have to cite cases of Vishnu acting cruelly in order for there to be a valid comparison.

 

There is a reason it is called "New Testament". The Old Testament needs much scholarship to understand and much of it is allegory.

 

But read the Psalms and ask yourself are these inspirational. The Psalms teach to sing and praise the Glory of Gods name over and over. Is that not agreeable.

 

[HerServant]

 

 

Eternal and incarnate Wisdom, most lovable and adorable Jesus, true God and true man, only Son of the eternal Father and of Mary always Virgin, I adore you profoundly, dwelling in the splendour of your Father from all eternity and in the virginal womb of Mary, your most worthy Mother, at the time of your incarnation. I thank you for having emptied yourself in assuming the condition of a slave to set me free from the cruel slavery of the evil one. I praise and glorify you for having willingly chosen to obey Mary, your holy Mother, in all things, so that through her I may be a faithful slave of love.

 

But I must confess that I have not kept the vows and promises which I made to you so solemnly at my baptism. I have not fulfilled my obligations, and I do not deserve to be called your child or even your loving slave. Since I cannot lay claim to anything except what merits your rejection and displeasure, I dare no longer approach the holiness of your majesty on my own. That is why I turn to the intercession and the mercy of your holy Mother, whom you yourself have given me to mediate with you. Through her I hope to obtain from you contrition and pardon for my sins, and that Wisdom whom I desire to dwell in me always.

 

I turn to you, then, Mary immaculate, living tabernacle of God, in whom eternal Wisdom willed to receive the adoration of both men and angels.

I greet you as Queen of heaven and earth, for all that is under God has been made subject to your sovereignty.

I call upon you, the unfailing refuge of sinners, confident in your mercy that has never forsaken anyone.

 

Grant my desire for divine Wisdom and, in support of my petition, accept the promises and the offering of myself which I now make, conscious of my unworthiness.

 

I, an unfaithful sinner, renew and ratify today through you my baptismal promises. I renounce for ever Satan, his empty promises, and his evil designs, and I give myself completely to Jesus Christ, the incarnate Wisdom, to carry my cross after him for the rest of my life, and to be more faithful to him than I have been till now.

 

This day, with the whole court of heaven as witness, I choose you, Mary, as my Mother and Queen.

 

I surrender and consecrate myself to you, body and soul, with all that I possess, both spiritual and material, even including the spiritual value of all my actions, past, present, and to come. I give you the full right to dispose of me and all that belongs to me, without any reservations, in whatever way you please, for the greater glory of God in time and throughout eternity.

 

Accept, gracious Virgin, this little offering of my slavery to honour and imitate the obedience which eternal Wisdom willingly chose to have towards you, his Mother. I wish to acknowledge the authority which both of you have over this little worm and pitiful sinner. By it I wish also to thank God for the privileges bestowed on you by the Blessed Trinity. I solemnly declare that for the future I will try to honour and obey you in all things as your true slave of love.

 

O admirable Mother, present me to your dear Son as his slave now and for always, so that he who redeemed me through you, will now receive me through you.

 

Mother of mercy, grant me the favour of obtaining the true Wisdom of God, and so make me one of those whom you love, teach and guide, whom you nourish and protect as your children and slaves.

Virgin most faithful, make me in everything so committed a disciple, imitator, and slave of Jesus, your Son, incarnate Wisdom, that I may become, through your intercession and example, fully mature with the fullness which Jesus possessed on earth, and with the fullness of his glory in heaven. Amen.

[HerServant]

 

O Immaculata, Queen of Heaven and earth, refuge of sinners and our most loving Mother, God has willed to entrust the entire order of mercy to you. I, (name), a repentant sinner, cast myself at your feet, humbly imploring you to take me with all that I am and have, wholly to yourself as your possession and property. Please make of me, of all my powers of soul and body, of my whole life, death and eternity, whatever most pleases you.

 

If it pleases you, use all that I am and have without reserve, wholly to accomplish what was said of you: "She will crush your head," and "You alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world. " Let me be a fit instrument in your immaculate and merciful hands for introducing and increasing your glory to the maximum in all the many strayed and indifferent souls, and thus help extend as far as possible the blessed kingdom of the most Sacred Heart of Jesus. For wherever you enter you obtain the grace of conversion and growth in holiness, since it is through your hands that all graces come to us from the most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

 

V. Allow me to praise you, O sacred Virgin

R. Give me strength against your enemies

[shvu]

 

You still pontificating on this topic shvu?

 

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 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid" 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 -->

 

I read his case. He says Vaishnava has taken an unpleasant and regrettable sense being seen as another faction like Ganapathi worshippers, Muslims and Christians.I fail to see what is unpleasant about any of these names. And then he says this,

 

'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return.

 

By his own admission, he has clarified that the label Vaishnava is for Vishnu worshippers only. He never says the label applies to any form, anywhere as you are claiming.

 

Vaishnava = one who worships Vishnu or one of his forms.

Shaiva = one who worships Shiva or one of his forms.

 

X may be a devout catholic and and real devotee of Jesus. But he never worshipped Shiva in his life. Does that make him a Shaiva? The answer is NO.

 

Jesus may have worshipped some form God as was known to him in his time. Is there any evidence that this God was Shiva? Is there any evidence that this God was Vishnu? or Rama or Krishna? The answer is NO. It follows he was not a Vaishnava.

 

Simple Semantics as you can see. You cannot say all people in the world who believe in democracy are Americans. That is not the meaning of the word.

 

I understand what you are saying. Your logic is there is one God and anyone who worships that God in any name or form is a Vaishnava. But unfortunately - you can accept it or reject it - Vaishnava is just another sectarian label from India like Shaiva and the word was never meant to be used in such a generic sense and for that reason it cannot be used that way now. As an individual you can believe what you want, but you cannot expect to have everyone deviate from the norm. I do not see Bhakti Siddanta using it that way in your quote either.

 

Have you come across Bhakti Siddhanta and/or Prabhupada say all Shaivas who worship Shiva as the supreme Lord with love are actually Vaishnavas? Or that all people in the world who worship the supreme Lord in any form including Krishna are actually Shaivas? Or Shaivas = Vaishnavas?

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

He made it very very clear that his followers (and movement) must be non sectarian. His body was very clean and radiant and I sat with him in a temple for a while.

 

Good. If he indeed said that in your dream then why are you arguing for a sectarian label like Vaishnava? You are deviating from Prabhupada's vision by doing so and incurring some serious aparadha.

 

 

But for those the hate on this forum and those who are harboring hate, Srila Prabhupada had this to say:

 

That is baloney. So if someone offers the correct meaning of Vaishava, they become Prabhupada haters? You do not follow Buddhism. So are you a Buddhist hater?

 

You have to do better. I suggest you go back to bed and hopefully Prabhupada or Jesus will appear in your dream again and provide some clarity.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Have you come across Bhakti Siddhanta and/or Prabhupada say all Shaivas who worship Shiva as the supreme Lord with love are actually Vaishnavas?

 

This is a good point. It cannot be that anyone in the world who worships "God" is worshipping Krishna by another name. If that were true then those who worshipped Shiva as "the supreme person" were actually Vaishnavas worshipping Krishna by another name. And those that worship Kartikeyya (Muruga) as the Supreme Person are also actually Vaishnava's worshipping Krishna by another name.

 

There are in fact sects that accept Kartikeyya, or Shiva, or Durga as the Supreme Personality of Godhead - with their own versions of Vaikuntha, bhakti and eternal life. Now why are those people ridiculed by our Vaishnava acharyas, but we feel if you belong to any non-Vedic religion then you are "also worshipping Krishna". It doesn't matter that you eat cows, or that your religion has no concept of the soul, or that your religion curses other religions including Vaishnavism, or that in some religions the founders would kill all of you and break your temples if they were alive today. None of that matters... they are all Vaishnavas. But those who worship Shiva as the supreme personality of Godhead and follow Vedic culture, protect and worship the cow, etc., are demoniac mayavadis or whatever.

 

There is an obvious double standard, which is, if you happen to worship a non-Vedic "God" then it can be Krishna by another name, but if you worship any of the Vedic gods as supreme, he isn't the same one supreme God.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

This is a good point. It cannot be that anyone in the world who worships "God" is worshipping Krishna by another name. If that were true then those who worshipped Shiva as "the supreme person" were actually Vaishnavas worshipping Krishna by another name. And those that worship Kartikeyya (Muruga) as the Supreme Person are also actually Vaishnava's worshipping Krishna by another name.

 

There are in fact sects that accept Kartikeyya, or Shiva, or Durga as the Supreme Personality of Godhead - with their own versions of Vaikuntha, bhakti and eternal life. Now why are those people ridiculed by our Vaishnava acharyas, but we feel if you belong to any non-Vedic religion then you are "also worshipping Krishna". It doesn't matter that you eat cows, or that your religion has no concept of the soul, or that your religion curses other religions including Vaishnavism, or that in some religions the founders would kill all of you and break your temples if they were alive today. None of that matters... they are all Vaishnavas. But those who worship Shiva as the supreme personality of Godhead and follow Vedic culture, protect and worship the cow, etc., are demoniac mayavadis or whatever.

 

There is an obvious double standard, which is, if you happen to worship a non-Vedic "God" then it can be Krishna by another name, but if you worship any of the Vedic gods as supreme, he isn't the same one supreme God.

 

Jahnava Nitai Prabhu,

 

I could not have put it better. Please accept my prostrate obeisances in deference to your learning and wisdom. You are in fact a worthy heir to the rishis and munis of the yore.

 

Radhe Radhe

[HerServant]

 

Good. If he indeed said that in your dream then why are you arguing for a sectarian label like Vaishnava? You are deviating from Prabhupada's vision by doing so and incurring some serious aparadha.

 

 

 

Good. If he indeed said that in your dream then why are you arguing for a sectarian label like Vaishnava? You are deviating from Prabhupada's vision by doing so and incurring some serious aparadha.

 

 

 

 

That is baloney. So if someone offers the correct meaning of Vaishava, they become Prabhupada haters? You do not follow Buddhism. So are you a Buddhist hater?

 

You have to do better. I suggest you go back to bed and hopefully Prabhupada or Jesus will appear in your dream again and provide some clarity.

 

Cheers

 

Dear Cheers,

 

So let us all look at your response:

 

I said --

Quote:Originally Posted by HerServant

But for those the hate on this forum and those who are harboring hate, Srila Prabhupada had this to say:

 

 

And you replied:

 

 

That is baloney. So if someone offers the correct meaning of Vaishava, they become Prabhupada haters? You do not follow Buddhism. So are you a Buddhist hater?

 

I said Srila Prabhupada had nothing to say to "those harboring hate". You replied "That is baloney".

 

Case closed.

[matarisvan]

 

Dear Cheers,

 

So let us all look at your response:

 

I said --

 

 

And you replied:

 

 

 

I said Srila Prabhupada had nothing to say to "those harboring hate". You replied "That is baloney".

 

Case closed.

 

more nonsense from you as usual. shvu is not criticizing prabhupada. he is criticizing your nonsense about prabhupada haters. You conveniently cut out the rest of his response to distort his words. When you resort to cunningness it is sign you have nothing valid to say.

 

some excellent posts have been made above to clear up the issue of Jesus being vaishnava. let us hope that is enough and the christians have enough good sense to stop running in circles trying to catch their own tails.

[bhaktajan]

 

Originally Posted by HerServant . . . I have returned here at the direct request of Srila Prabhupada who appeared to me in a dream.

 

He made it very very clear that his followers (and movement) must be non sectarian. His body was very clean and radiant and I sat with him in a temple for a while.

 

But for those the hate on this forum and those who are harboring hate, Srila Prabhupada had this to say: nothing at all

 

It is the height of great mercy to "dream" of a saint!

 

I've waited now three decades to have dreams of the temple deities or even the temple lobby! Such dreams are rare and more rare!

 

My desires are full of lust and even there I have not dreams of lusty encounters.

 

You sat with Prabhupada in a dream? Hog wash! . . . Yes, I deny your subjective right and also your chance to claim to have had such a dream.

 

Yes, I don't know you, and I definitively denounce you for your claim to have had such a dream. I sorry to say that I do not allow even a moments' worth of belief in what you claim you dreamed.

 

the servant of Krishna's Servant,

Bhaktajan

[HerServant]

 

more nonsense from you as usual. shvu is not criticizing prabhupada. he is criticizing your nonsense about prabhupada haters. You conveniently cut out the rest of his response to distort his words. When you resort to cunningness it is sign you have nothing valid to say.

 

some excellent posts have been made above to clear up the issue of Jesus being vaishnava. let us hope that is enough and the christians have enough good sense to stop running in circles trying to catch their own tails.

 

What is your Vaisnava lineage? But on your side, whose Math and whose Sampradaya holds your position? Which guru? Which acharya?

 

On our side, we are taking from Srila Prabhupada's writings and lectures. That is in the open.

 

But your side (you and those supporting your position) .. each one of you refuses to disclose your sampradaya, your guru, and your math. It is all secret. Why is that?

 

I know why? Because you are ashamed. Because I will go to your guru and your math and they will caste you out.

 

So tell me, where in India you have your ashram and your guru.

 

We want to hear their position. Let them speak.

[theist]

 

It is the height of great mercy to "dream" of a saint!

 

I've waited now three decades to have dreams of the temple deities or even the temple lobby! Such dreams are rare and more rare!

 

My desires are full of lust and even there I have not dreams of lusty encounters.

 

You sat with Prabhupada in a dream? Hog wash! . . . Yes, I deny your subjective right and also your chance to claim to have had such a dream.

 

Yes, I don't know you, and I definitively denounce you for your claim to have had such a dream. I sorry to say that I do not allow even a moments' worth of belief in what you claim you dreamed.

 

the servant of Krishna's Servant,

Bhaktajan

 

You are a braying ass.

[HerServant]

 

It is the height of great mercy to "dream" of a saint!

 

I've waited now three decades to have dreams of the temple deities or even the temple lobby! Such dreams are rare and more rare!

 

My desires are full of lust and even there I have not dreams of lusty encounters.

 

You sat with Prabhupada in a dream? Hog wash! . . . Yes, I deny your subjective right and also your chance to claim to have had such a dream.

 

Yes, I don't know you, and I definitively denounce you for your claim to have had such a dream. I sorry to say that I do not allow even a moments' worth of belief in what you claim you dreamed.

 

the servant of Krishna's Servant,

Bhaktajan

 

 

 

[theist]

 

This is a good point. It cannot be that anyone in the world who worships "God" is worshipping Krishna by another name. If that were true then those who worshipped Shiva as "the supreme person" were actually Vaishnavas worshipping Krishna by another name. And those that worship Kartikeyya (Muruga) as the Supreme Person are also actually Vaishnava's worshipping Krishna by another name.

Not exactly. People can worship anything or anyone considering them God but that doesn't make that person or thing worshipped God. But if someone in their mind and understanding worships with the understanding that they are projecting their worship towards the One Supreme Being above all others and has no other conception than that then they are worshipping the person whom we call Krsna. And if they call that Supreme Lord by the name of one of his qualities like "the most merciful" or "the most powerful" or "the owner of everything" or "the most beautiful" or "the most attractive" then they all are speaking of the same Supreme Person.

 

"A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." Or is it not a rose unless I call a rose by it's sanskrit name? See the folly?

 

Now that doesn't mean they are empowered to speak on behalf of that Supreme Being and that is where the problem arises.

 

If I refer to this flower as paaTala or rose does it change the nature of the flower?

[matarisvan]

 

What is your Vaisnava lineage? But on your side, whose Math and whose Sampradaya holds your position? Which guru? Which acharya?

 

On our side, we are taking from Srila Prabhupada's writings and lectures. That is in the open.

 

You asked this of me and I already answered it with links. In any case if your opppoents in this thread quote a matha sampradaya and guru it will not make you change your mind. So way are you asking the question???

 

can you answer this question for me? why is it important for you to label jesus as a vaishnava? what happens if he was not one? I fail to understand this need. Do you see non vaishnava devotees as lesser people who are incapable of devotion?

 

please explain so we can understand your real need a little better. For now I cannot understand why you are dragging this on in spite of all the clear evidence laid out on this thread. If it is just an emotional need for you I understand and will not challenge your belief. But if it is anything else it would be good to know.

[HerServant]

 

You are a braying ass.

 

 

It is a very good thing for me that I didn't post my dream of Sri Chaitanya in Jharikhanda. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga!

 

Time for me to leave this place brother. All my love to you and the assembled devotees.

 

We are living in a very dark time. How is it Dear Krsna, that I have found myself so far away from home in this strange planet. Kindly let me accept the Mercy delivered by your Son Jesus.

 

Om namo bhagavate vasudevaya.

[gHari]

 

[...]

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

[...]

Wonderful. We have agreement at last. Discussion tabled. Merry Christmas.

 

Hare Krishna

 

I am that I am!

[theist]

 

It is a very good thing for me that I didn't post my dream of Sri Chaitanya in Jharikhanda. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga!

 

Time for me to leave this place brother. All my love to you and the assembled devotees.

 

We are living in a very dark time. How is it Dear Krsna, that I have found myself so far away from home in this strange planet. Kindly let me accept the Mercy delivered by your Son Jesus.

 

Om namo bhagavate vasudevaya.

Yes we must be careful who we share these most intimate things with. Hold them close to the vest lest the envious cast there eye upon your treasure.

 

I understand your feelings. Apparently through a shared prejudice our host allows the aparadha towards Lord Jesus Christ to stand. You will be missed. We may run into each other on other forums where I sometimes post as comradesoul. PM me if you are open to some private communication. I would love for you to have my email but I don't want to display it openly.

 

It is worthy of note that through the many tortuous pages of this thread no one has been able to find fault with the words of Jesus. They attack the old testament and the bible and christianity but remain silent on the character of Christ which was the stated point of this thread.

 

Jaya Jaya Yeshua! Jaya Jaya Krsna!

[theist]

 

But Christianity today universally accepts the old testament as the word of God. So it seems you are basically agreeing with Raghu that 99% of all Christians in the world follow a fake religion, as their religion in based on the old testiment. Also when you say you don't believe in the old testiment you are basically agreeing with Raghu that the bible is corrupted. The only difference in opinion seems to be the degree. He feels there is nothing valid, and you feel there are some things valid in the bible.

 

As far as I am aware (and I could be uninformed) there are no well known Christian groups that only accept the new testiment.

 

 

 

 

Christianity is not the topic. Jesus Christ is. Are you really thinking you are a vaisnava but Jesus Christ doesn't measure up JNdas? Surely you can't think like that.

[RadheRade1657]

Haribol!

I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to cause anymore of an upstart, but I found something kind of interesting that has a lot to do with this thread.

It's a lost gospel that talks about a man named Isha who came from Israel following a caravan going to India, studied in the Jagannatha Temple in Puri, was thrown out by the priests for associating too much with the "Shudras" (I like Gandhi's name for them better... Harijans... but I digress), and went into the mountains where he learned the message of the Buddha and, after leaving the Buddhist monastery, went to study and meditate with Shaiva gurus. It says that after he went back to the west, he was crucified and the heavens cried out and blackness covered the earth. It says that while he was interred, his guru came to him and raised him up, and he went back to India to initiate others in the cult of the Linga. It's in a Buddhist monastery in the Himalayas... kinda weird... Here's the document:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa1.htm

Another thing that I found very interesting was that there is a tomb of a certain Isha, who is regarded as a great prophet by the local people, in Kashmir (there's also a tomb of the Virgin in Pakistan called "Mai Mari da Ashtan"):

http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home.html

 

So maybe Jesus wasn't a Vaishnava after all... maybe he was a Shaiva! Or maybe, since he studied at the Jagannatha temple and studied with Shaiva gurus, he was something of a Vai-Shaiva (LOL).

Hare Krishna! Radhe Radhe!

[matarisvan]

 

Christianity is not the topic. Jesus Christ is. Are you really thinking you are a vaisnava but Jesus Christ doesn't measure up JNdas? Surely you can't think like that.

 

The topic is not Jesus Christ or his teachings or his character. The topic is "Is Jesus Vaishnava?". some one could have started a thread titled "is mohammad vaishnava?" and the arguments would be similar.

[raghu]

 

But Christianity today universally accepts the old testament as the word of God. So it seems you are basically agreeing with Raghu that 99% of all Christians in the world follow a fake religion, as their religion in based on the old testiment. Also when you say you don't believe in the old testiment you are basically agreeing with Raghu that the bible is corrupted. The only difference in opinion seems to be the degree. He feels there is nothing valid, and you feel there are some things valid in the bible.

 

By "valid" I am referring to acceptability as a source of right knowledge. The Bible is not valid as an *indepedent* authority. It may say a few nice things that anyone can agree with, but its being authored makes it subject to the possibility of having flaws and thus its contents are suspect. If a scripture contains some falsehoods, then it is useless as an independently authoritative scripture, since the reader would then have to use his own judgement in sifting out the true from the false, thus elevating his own sense of discrimination above the authority of the said scripture. This would obviate the need for calling it a scripture in the first place!

 

Everyone knows the Bible depicts "God" as partial and cruel, playing one race against another even by the most conservative of interpretations. But do any of the iskcon christians accept that this is true? Of course not.

 

Moreover, it is well known that the Bible is adulterated with beliefs of many post-Jesus followers - a fact which the iskcon christians agreed to rather explicitly. Of course, they couldn't agree for long, since that is the basis for rejecting its authority in the first place, and they simply cannot have any of that. Basically, they are confused, and all they know is that they must have appreciation for their precious Bible and Christianity even when they acknowledge all the problems of accepting Bible in the first place.

 

 

Indra is not God, nor a perfect being. So there is no comparison. You would have to cite cases of Vishnu acting cruelly in order for there to be a valid comparison.

 

This must be the second time I have seen iskcon christians making baseless accusations about the Vedas in order to bring them down to the level of the Bible. I question how people like Theist or gHari can make any claim about the Vedas when they seem so ill-informed about even Bhagavad-Gita, Bhagavata, Mahabharata, etc. And I again question why they make these claims without bothering to try and support them with facts. Perhaps it is because they can only dig up dirt by going to Islamic propaganda websites, as gHari hinted to earlier. That is truly pathetic.