Lord Jesus Christ - Abandon all varieties of religion

[RadheRade1657]

 

Yes, but the Jesus thing is a bit complex. It's not just that we can't prove he exists...it's that we can prove that things attributed to him never happened at all.

 

Again, this doesn't mean that he didn't exist, but that obviously whoever wrote the Gospels (or whoever decided to edit them later) was rather untruthful.

 

What's the proof that none of these things happened? There's no evidence that Kansa massacred infants after Sri Krishna's birth, but we believe it happened. Some could say that the lack of evidence of this massacre makes it invalid, but we still believe it. There's no proof that Parashuram killed thousands of Kshatriyas. Or that there was ever a race of talking monkey-people that met Lord Rama and helped him rescue Sita Devi from a demonic king with ten heads. Does that make all of these stories untrue, just because there's no historical evidence for them?

So, what exactly is there that disproves Jesus? Lack of evidence? Well, this can be applied to any religious figure, so if one is going to take that point of view, then that person should be a Deist or Atheist. They're the only forms of belief that have any real basis in science or provable fact.

[mahak]

why is this a "believe in jesus" topic. Belief is very lame anyway, because believers all think they are God anyway. Just witness any believer. They all have god complexes.

 

No, this is about consciousness of the Supreme Lord, Krsna Consciousness. Lord Jesus acknowledged that a roman soldier occupying a foreign land had shown signs of God Consciousness despite not having all the beliefs that were fully present in Judea at the time.

 

I dont believe in ISKCON. I didnt believe in ISKCON even when I was operating within the foundation as a helper of my spiritual master in his preaching program of Krsna Consciousness. What Srila Prabhupada gave me was not belief in God. That was impossible, because god to me back then was just a banner for manifest destiny, zionism, brutal genocide of all those who refused to believe as religions do. Still is. Which I reject fully. While it can be said that some acaryas may say they are christian, jew, hindu, muslim, I say I am not any of these, because such designation dies with the body only to be born in another system where the former jew becomes a muslim palestinian or the former devout catholic becomes a brahmana of hindu persuasion.

 

Krsna Consciousness comes when all material considerations, including membership in nation, race, gender, religion, culture, etc, are renounced fully and only Krsna becomes the object to place ones attention on. This is Srila Prabhupadas teachings, not religion membership for salvation.

 

So, why not discuss the topic? Why all this believe stuff? There is no peace in such discussion of belief, because believers only fight and die. History has shown this statement to be a fact.

 

maghabe

[RadheRade1657]

 

why is this a "believe in jesus" topic. Belief is very lame anyway, because believers all think they are God anyway. Just witness any believer. They all have god complexes.

 

No, this is about consciousness of the Supreme Lord, Krsna Consciousness. Lord Jesus acknowledged that a roman soldier occupying a foreign land had shown signs of God Consciousness despite not having all the beliefs that were fully present in Judea at the time.

 

I dont believe in ISKCON. I didnt believe in ISKCON even when I was operating within the foundation as a helper of my spiritual master in his preaching program of Krsna Consciousness. What Srila Prabhupada gave me was not belief in God. That was impossible, because god to me back then was just a banner for manifest destiny, zionism, brutal genocide of all those who refused to believe as religions do. Still is. Which I reject fully. While it can be said that some acaryas may say they are christian, jew, hindu, muslim, I say I am not any of these, because such designation dies with the body only to be born in another system where the former jew becomes a muslim palestinian or the former devout catholic becomes a brahmana of hindu persuasion.

 

Krsna Consciousness comes when all material considerations, including membership in nation, race, gender, religion, culture, etc, are renounced fully and only Krsna becomes the object to place ones attention on. This is Srila Prabhupadas teachings, not religion membership for salvation.

 

So, why not discuss the topic? Why all this believe stuff? There is no peace in such discussion of belief, because believers only fight and die. History has shown this statement to be a fact.

 

maghabe

What else would you call faith in a deity other than 'belief'? Faith in the Atman? Faith in any non-physical, non-provable entity?

[cbrahma]

 

I'm not obsessively concerned with people not believing in Jesus. I just don't think it's appropriate to insult another's religious figure (especially when you believe in other, also non-provable religious figures).

I was not accusing you, I was supporting you.

Sorry for the confusion.

[RadheRade1657]

 

I was not accusing you, I was supporting you.

Sorry for the confusion.

Oh! So sorry cbrahma Ji! Thank you! Now that I re-read your statement, I understand what you were saying perfectly, and I totally agree. Being a Vaishnava should be about love and belief in God, not about non-belief in this and that. That's not what makes you a Vaishnava. Love for God and His Avatars is.

[tackleberry]

 

What else would you call faith in a deity other than 'belief'? Faith in the Atman? Faith in any non-physical, non-provable entity?

 

Veda is apoureshya, so what it says has to be accepted. Other books like bible are not, so their accounts of jeeesus etc. are mere fabrications. Therefore, your comparision with bogus faiths like C or Jeeesus is ridiculous.

[RadheRade1657]

 

Veda is apoureshya, so what it says has to be accepted. Other books like bible are not, so their accounts of jeeesus etc. are mere fabrications. Therefore, your comparision with bogus faiths like C or Jeeesus is ridiculous.

 

Oh yes, I'm sure that it is absolute fact that Indraaa Devaaa had to kill a draaagon so that the raaaiiin could come out of the great fiiirmaaament of the skyyy which "holds the waaatersss" back from the eeeaaarth. We don't have to accept the Vedas at face-value. To make such a claim is laughable at best.

Besides that, Mr. Vedantist, the Rig Veda says, "Truth is one, but is called by many names."

Oh, and thanks for teaching me that Jesus is now a faith! I never knew that before!

[tackleberry]

 

Oh yes, I'm sure that it is absolute fact that Indraaa Devaaa had to kill a draaagon so that the raaaiiin could come out of the great fiiirmaaament of the skyyy which "holds the waaatersss" back from the eeeaaarth. We don't have to accept the Vedas at face-value. To make such a claim is laughable at best.

Besides that, Mr. Vedantist, the Rig Veda says, "Truth is one, but is called by many names."

Oh, and thanks for teaching me that Jesus is now a faith! I never knew that before!

You've fallen into my trap, and revealed your filthy christian upbringing. Thank you!

[RadheRade1657]

 

You've fallen into my trap, and revealed your filthy christian upbringing. Thank you!

Oh, yes! You've just revealed my great secret that I was raised Catholic (something that I've talked about on several threads before this one)!

And, thanks for insulting the family that God chose for me to reincarnate into! You sound a little like Hitler. If you replaced "Christian" with "Jewish", you guys could be twins!

I still really don't know how one can truly accept everything in any religious scripture (the Bible, the Vedas, etc...). That doesn't mean there isn't wisdom to be found in these scriptures, but not everything in them is based in fact. That is, unless you really believe that the sky is a firmament holding back water from a flat earth (which is something in both the Vedas and the Bible) and that it's supported by seven white elephants which sometimes stomp to create earthquakes (which is in the Vedas).

[cbrahma]

takleb.'s rabid anti-christian stance is no secret. It is sectarian and totally unsupportable from a Vaisnava philosophical standpoint.

What great acarya indulged in such mindless sectarian persecutions?

One can discern the falsehood of his position simply by citing the qualities of a devotee

 

Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja, the author of Caitanya-caritamrta, says that all good qualities become manifest in the body of a Vaisnava and that only by the presence of these good qualities can one distinguish a Vaisnava form a non-Vaisnava. Krsnadasa Kaviraja lists the twenty-six good qualities of a Vaisnava: "(1) He is very kind to everyone. (2) He does not make anyone his enemy. (3) He is truthful. (4) He is equal to everyone. (5) No one can find any fault in him. (6) He is magnanimous. (7) He is mild. (8) He is always clean. (9) He is without possessions. (10) He works for everyone's benefit. (11) He is very peaceful. (12) He is always surrendered to Krsna. (13) He has no material desires. (14) He is very meek. (15) He is steady. (16) He controls his senses. (17) He does not eat more than required. (18) He is not influenced by the Lord's illusory energy. (19) He offers respect to everyone. (20) He does not desire any respect for himself. (21) He is very grave. (22) He is merciful. (23) He is friendly. (24) He is poetic. (25) He is expert. (26) He is silent."

 

 

[meenakshiamman]

 

What's the proof that none of these things happened? There's no evidence that Kansa massacred infants after Sri Krishna's birth, but we believe it happened. Some could say that the lack of evidence of this massacre makes it invalid, but we still believe it. There's no proof that Parashuram killed thousands of Kshatriyas. Or that there was ever a race of talking monkey-people that met Lord Rama and helped him rescue Sita Devi from a demonic king with ten heads. Does that make all of these stories untrue, just because there's no historical evidence for them?

So, what exactly is there that disproves Jesus? Lack of evidence? Well, this can be applied to any religious figure, so if one is going to take that point of view, then that person should be a Deist or Atheist. They're the only forms of belief that have any real basis in science or provable fact.

Well, this is simply my opinion. The Gospels put Jesus in an actual place and time, meeting with actual figures of the time. This makes it easier to go into surviving historical records and cross reference.

 

For starters, Jesus' birth story is rather easy to disprove.

 

It would've made absolutely no sense for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem. It would've made no sense for Joseph to have gone to his "ancestral" town to be taxed. (his father's town perhaps...but his distanced ancestral town?)

There is no record of a "worldwide" census, which would've obviously have been documented.

There are also conflicting scriptures that say Jesus was born in Nazareth or Galilee, even a scripture where people are mocking him, claiming he can't be the Messiah "because he wasn't born in Bethlehem"...which is it?

 

As for a virgin birth: Romans 1:3: "...Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

No such thing is listed in the earliest of Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Mark. If these are supposed to be biographical scriptures on Jesus' life, why would they not be mentioned?

None of the Gospels seems to even be able to agree on who Jesus was even related to.

Also, the idea of the virgin birth seems to come from a mistranslation of an older scripture which would've translated as "young girl" and not "virgin".

Some of the more miraculous aspects of Jesus' life seems to closely parallel the life of Krishna, as well as the God Horus and seemed to be an attempt to appeal to people of Pagan faiths.

 

Why also would Joseph have taken Mary to Bethlehem, obviously late in her pregnancy? Only men were taxed at the time.

 

The Gospel of Mark is almost completely compiled of re-written scriptures that were written many years before Mark. It is also quite anti-jewish, reflecting the sentiments at the time. This is the original of the four basic Gospels and the others reference it heavily.

 

The Gospel of Luke was apparently written as an argument against earlier Gospels. Supposedly it's author felt that previous Gospels were not "accurate" enough. Why then would all four of these Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) be included together and are supposedly complimentary?

 

It is believed by some that several parts of the Gospels have been a forgery, added later to the scriptures.

 

When we completely base our opinions of Jesus on these Gospels that are obviously not very trustworthy...then how can we believe in His existence?

 

Sorry for such a long post. I could've added much more to it, only I have to go to work.

[cbrahma]

 

Well, this is simply my opinion. The Gospels put Jesus in an actual place and time, meeting with actual figures of the time. This makes it easier to go into surviving historical records and cross reference.

 

For starters, Jesus' birth story is rather easy to disprove.

 

It would've made absolutely no sense for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem. It would've made no sense for Joseph to have gone to his "ancestral" town to be taxed. (his father's town perhaps...but his distanced ancestral town?)

There is no record of a "worldwide" census, which would've obviously have been documented.

There are also conflicting scriptures that say Jesus was born in Nazareth or Galilee, even a scripture where people are mocking him, claiming he can't be the Messiah "because he wasn't born in Bethlehem"...which is it?

 

As for a virgin birth: Romans 1:3: "...Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

No such thing is listed in the earliest of Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Mark. If these are supposed to be biographical scriptures on Jesus' life, why would they not be mentioned?

None of the Gospels seems to even be able to agree on who Jesus was even related to.

Also, the idea of the virgin birth seems to come from a mistranslation of an older scripture which would've translated as "young girl" and not "virgin".

Some of the more miraculous aspects of Jesus' life seems to closely parallel the life of Krishna, as well as the God Horus and seemed to be an attempt to appeal to people of Pagan faiths.

 

Why also would Joseph have taken Mary to Bethlehem, obviously late in her pregnancy? Only men were taxed at the time.

 

The Gospel of Mark is almost completely compiled of re-written scriptures that were written many years before Mark. It is also quite anti-jewish, reflecting the sentiments at the time. This is the original of the four basic Gospels and the others reference it heavily.

 

The Gospel of Luke was apparently written as an argument against earlier Gospels. Supposedly it's author felt that previous Gospels were not "accurate" enough. Why then would all four of these Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) be included together and are supposedly complimentary?

 

It is believed by some that several parts of the Gospels have been a forgery, added later to the scriptures.

 

When we completely base our opinions of Jesus on these Gospels that are obviously not very trustworthy...then how can we believe in His existence?

 

Sorry for such a long post. I could've added much more to it, only I have to go to work.

 

The historical discrepancies of the infancy narratives are a huge controversy which is hardly settled into anything like solid empirical fact.

Around these discrepancies those with anti-Christians sentiments circle like vultures hungry for the potential dissolution of Jesus' very existence.

 

History is hardly an exact science, and if fictionalized narratives were sufficent proof of one's non-existence, then anyone who writes a fictionalized autobiography (of which there are several examples) must be writing them as a fictional character.

In any case, logically, lack of evidence of birth does not call existence in to question. My mother's birth certificate seems to have been misplaced, impossible to obtain. Am I to conclude by that fact that she is a figment of my imaginary imagination?

 

BTW, the same dry academics who poke around in biblical discrepancies would be the first to consign the Gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam to allegorical fiction.

[bhaktajan]

 

with due respect...Lord Jesus is an incarnation of Indradeva

 

Sorry, I am just now coming late to this thread.

 

This you must, Godspeed, to expand further explain if you please [lest it has been do so in above postings].

 

I have thought that if Jesus's words/statements are correct then when it is written that 'Jesus does sits at the right-hand of his father' and 'Jesus will return' --I have always thought that MAYBE Jesus is a son of Lord Brahmaji, or if not then simply that Jesus was still living among the devas at the right hand of his father who would be the chief deva.

 

But this was just my secret speculation!!!

 

Have you a sloka reference to at least suggest Indra deva --as you say?

[meenakshiamman]

 

The historical discrepancies of the infancy narratives are a huge controversy which is hardly settled into anything like solid empirical fact.

Around these discrepancies those with anti-Christians sentiments circle like vultures hungry for the potential dissolution of Jesus' very existence.

 

History is hardly an exact science, and if fictionalized narratives were sufficent proof of one's non-existence, then anyone who writes a fictionalized autobiography (of which there are several examples) must be writing them as a fictional character.

In any case, logically, lack of evidence of birth does not call existence in to question. My mother's birth certificate seems to have been misplaced, impossible to obtain. Am I to conclude by that fact that she is a figment of my imaginary imagination?

 

BTW, the same dry academics who poke around in biblical discrepancies would be the first to consign the Gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam to allegorical fiction.

No, but there is other proof of your mother's existence. (Such as a photograph, her physical presence, written letters etc.)

 

I only focused on Christ's birth to use as an example. I could've used many more.

Still, the only evidence we have of Jesus' existence are the Gospels...and the Gospels are so untrustworthy that how can we really believe they were based on fact to begin with?

 

BTW, this is not in any way Anti-Christian. I was born into a strict Protestant family...I was told to take everything the Bible said at face value. So, to find later that so many errors existed, seriously changed my entire spiritual outlook.

This, however, does not mean that I disrespect Christians in any way and could easily worship Jesus just as much as I could worship Krishna or Lord Shiva.

[cbrahma]

 

Still, the only evidence we have of Jesus' existence are the Gospels...and the Gospels are so untrustworthy that how can we really believe they were based on fact to begin with?

 

That isn't true. There are many documents beside the canonic Gospels. Don't forget that they were written long after the fact through oral tradition.

What this means is the supposedly fictitious character was talked about in many different separated local areas, including Egypt. What is more suprising than the minor discrepancies are the similarities in the accounts, not to mention the way the disciples went through a major transformation after Jesus' death.

[RadheRade1657]

 

Well, this is simply my opinion. The Gospels put Jesus in an actual place and time, meeting with actual figures of the time. This makes it easier to go into surviving historical records and cross reference.

 

For starters, Jesus' birth story is rather easy to disprove.

 

It would've made absolutely no sense for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem. It would've made no sense for Joseph to have gone to his "ancestral" town to be taxed. (his father's town perhaps...but his distanced ancestral town?)

There is no record of a "worldwide" census, which would've obviously have been documented.

There are also conflicting scriptures that say Jesus was born in Nazareth or Galilee, even a scripture where people are mocking him, claiming he can't be the Messiah "because he wasn't born in Bethlehem"...which is it?

 

As for a virgin birth: Romans 1:3: "...Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

No such thing is listed in the earliest of Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Mark. If these are supposed to be biographical scriptures on Jesus' life, why would they not be mentioned?

None of the Gospels seems to even be able to agree on who Jesus was even related to.

Also, the idea of the virgin birth seems to come from a mistranslation of an older scripture which would've translated as "young girl" and not "virgin".

Some of the more miraculous aspects of Jesus' life seems to closely parallel the life of Krishna, as well as the God Horus and seemed to be an attempt to appeal to people of Pagan faiths.

 

Why also would Joseph have taken Mary to Bethlehem, obviously late in her pregnancy? Only men were taxed at the time.

 

The Gospel of Mark is almost completely compiled of re-written scriptures that were written many years before Mark. It is also quite anti-jewish, reflecting the sentiments at the time. This is the original of the four basic Gospels and the others reference it heavily.

 

The Gospel of Luke was apparently written as an argument against earlier Gospels. Supposedly it's author felt that previous Gospels were not "accurate" enough. Why then would all four of these Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) be included together and are supposedly complimentary?

 

It is believed by some that several parts of the Gospels have been a forgery, added later to the scriptures.

 

When we completely base our opinions of Jesus on these Gospels that are obviously not very trustworthy...then how can we believe in His existence?

 

Sorry for such a long post. I could've added much more to it, only I have to go to work.

Well, we really don't know when Jesus lived or when he really died. The Catholic Church decided those dates (as well as his age at death) in the 400's. So, it's hard to tell if there may have been a large census (maybe not the whole world, as the gospels claim, but maybe a large part of their world).

His ancestral town could've been his father's town. We don't know how far back the writer was going. My father is one of my ancestors. It could've meant it as the town he was born and raised in, which was later translated as "ancestral".

Yes. You are right about the two conflicting stories of the place of birth. But, you must remember that there is also a smaller town called Bethlehem right outside of Nazareth, so it could've been that they went to this small town to register.

Many people date the Srimad Bhagavata Purana to the Tenth century C.E. That doesn't mean it wasn't around before that. We don't know which gospels came first and which gospels came later.

Who are we to say that the virgin-birth didn't really happen just because the term "virgin" in the book of Isaiah may have meant "young woman" rather than "virgin" (something which is hotly debated by scholars on both sides of the debate) ? The birth of Jesus could still have been virginal, and later when the gospel writer (in this case, Matthew) looked for a prophecy to show that it had been foretold earlier.

Oh, please tell me that you're not taking from the one book, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors", which makes such ludicrous claims as Krishna having been crucified on a tree. You really can't trust that book as far as you can throw it... by a long shot.

We don't know how far along Mary was in her pregnancy. She could've been seven months along and delivered early. Besides that, if they did go to the smaller Bethlehem right outside of their town, then it wouldn't have been an arduous journey or anything.

How is the Gospel of Mark anti-semetic? And, even if it is a compilation of several sources before it, that adds even more credibility to the stories found therein. Showing that the stories were in circulation possibly even during Jesus' life.

The Gospel of Luke claims at it's beginning to be Luke's letter to a wealthy man who wanted to know of Jesus, not as a rebuttal to earlier gospels.

So what if Atheist scholars speculate that parts of the gospels are forgeries? The same scholars are also the ones that date the Srimad Bhagavatam at the Tenth century C.E. And I'm sure that they would consider the story of Sri Meenakshi Devi as implausable and try to point out inconsistencies in Her story.

[Dark Warrior]

 

 

Have you a sloka reference to at least suggest Indra deva --as you say?

 

Jesus has been called Indra, Brahma, Shiva, Siddha and even Vishnu. This is honestly getting out of hand.

 

He has no affliation with Vaishnavism. At best, he was a philosopher and mystic who has been deified.

 

You should listen to some Death/Black Metal bands. Most of these guys are pagans (nature worshippers, a direct result of Vedic Influence) and the main theme of their songs is ripping Christianity to shreds for ruining their culture.

[bhaktajan]

 

Jesus has been called Indra, Brahma, Shiva, Siddha and even Vishnu. This is honestly getting out of hand.

 

He has no affliation with Vaishnavism. At best, he was a philosopher and mystic who has been deified.

 

You should listen to some Death/Black Metal bands. Most of these guys are pagans (nature worshippers, a direct result of Vedic Influence) and the main theme of their songs is ripping Christianity to shreds for ruining their culture.

 

Slow down. I agree Jesus "was a philosopher and mystic who has been deified." But, he fits the description that Krishna states regarding adventing to preach dharma according to time and place.

 

Why have the Vaisnavas repeatedly neglect to explore the facet of the "Boddhisattva-sentiment" --Vaisnavas hold this sentiment very highly yet no one is addressing nor even meantioning it.

[AncientMariner]

 

Slow down. I agree Jesus "was a philosopher and mystic who has been deified." But, he fits the description that Krishna states regarding adventing to preach dharma according to time and place.

 

Why have the Vaisnavas repeatedly neglect to explore the facet of the "Boddhisattva-sentiment" --Vaisnavas hold this sentiment very highly yet no one is addressing nor even meantioning it.

 

 

I don't fit the qualifications to be considered a Vaisnava but I can appreciate your sentiment. I look at Jesus as an avatar for the most part.

[AncientMariner]

 

Jesus has been called Indra, Brahma, Shiva, Siddha and even Vishnu. This is honestly getting out of hand.

 

He has no affliation with Vaishnavism. At best, he was a philosopher and mystic who has been deified.

 

You should listen to some Death/Black Metal bands. Most of these guys are pagans (nature worshippers, a direct result of Vedic Influence) and the main theme of their songs is ripping Christianity to shreds for ruining their culture.

 

 

Most metal bands are really just doing it all for the nookie.

[GODSEED]

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄPRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREENITYÄNANDA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREESHIVASHIVÄY NAMAH

JAY JAY SHREEBHAGAVADA BHAKTA VRUNDA...

 

one of friends (who is generally very reliable on these issues), has informed me that in one book The True History and Religion of India, by HD sVÄMEE Prakäshänanda Sarasvatee, it has been proved that Jesus Christ is Indra deva, although i myself havent read it, i can suggest u visit its website

 

http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/18_comparisons_of.htm

 

http://www.thetruehistoryandthereligionofindia.org/

 

JAY JAY SHREEGAURANITÄII

[indulekhadasi]

Interesting, Godseed prabhuji.

This topic is quite mind boggling.

Jai Nitai!

indulekhadasi

[mahak]

Right on, AM. You are making sense, which means talkin heads has lost some of their lustre:) .

 

But you guys arguing about christianity missed the boat entirely. This topic has nothing to do with that bloody religion. But I will not reject Lord Jesus Christ just because some mleccas decide to use him as their banner of genocide, marching inot history with nothing but animal forms due to their incessant perversion with defending their lairs. But Im actually glad we have a demonstration here of what religion actually is, and perhaps get Krsnas drift when he advises Arjuna to abandon such materialistic desire.

 

Actually, I find myself agreeing often with those who vilify christianity. I see the same thing happening in a vedic sense, a large group have decided that Srila Prabhupada is somehow God, not even knowing empowerment from self determination, not knowing what shakti-avesa means. Krsna sends his devotee often to preach his glories, and such empowered folks have made their points, presented tattwa for the taking or rejecting as one sees fit.

 

Fools who like to turn their heroes into God are not just christians, but they do so quite blatantly, against Lord Jesus actual teachings on the subject. He tells them to pray as he does, hallowing the Name of His Father, and they reply that the father is the son, negating actual ideas of Vaisnavism. So, if one says Christianity is not vaisnavism, I agree. Christianity is a devil religion that even Lord Jesus rejects, teaching "There will be many who in my name will baptize, heal, etc, but I know them not for they fail to do the will of He who has sent me." The will of the Father is laid out clearly by Lord Jesus, both in the canon as well as extra-biblical documentation. (BTW, Jesus Christs actual existance is affirmed by secular documentation by the government of Rome, fanatic writers and record keepers. The christian version is fantastic, and full of control mechanisms, a perfect vehicle for power holders who maintain their power by crushing their people with views of a better afterlife while they such em dry right here and now.

 

However, Lord Jesus the person teaches that God exists as a person, whom we are missing and suffering because of such neglect of the sole purpose of life. He teaches a manner of linking up to Him, remembering Him, and the vehicle for such a practice is not joining a religion, but in accepting his justice and mercy and having full shelter in his Hallowed Names. To speak of the glory of God, His Alone, and to advise others to join in the utterance of his names, this is the work of a vaisnava. And by definition, a vaisnava is empowered by Visnu to rescue humankind from forgetfulness of our swarup. The purist always says that he did not teach full vaisnavism, but if a vaisnava understands that yuga dharma is not all that extensive due to our unfortunate plight as denizens of kali yuga, they may not be so willing to criticize. Some expect that Jesus should teach from the vedas or begin a program of deity worship, but these dharmas are for other ages anyway, not the perscribed method of self-realization for this age. Lord Chaitanya emphasizes the yuga dharma as not unlike Lord Jesus prayer he initiated disciples with. Accepting the will of God, Honoring his holy name, developing a huble attitude where others' offenses are minimal compared to our own, etc.

 

It is not the fault of Lord Jesus that the weapon used for his assassination has been adopted as the symbol of christ, and used still to this day as a weapon of assassination. While the christian world today is told of the terrorism of Islam, ti would take centuries for muslims to match the corpse count created by manifest destiny, the christian motto for their blood sport.

 

So, we can see from the content of this thread why religion is to be abandoned. There is no value in identifying with a religion, pledging allegiance to crosses, stars, crescents. The Supreme Lord has a realm unknopwn to the religionist, whom the very best may get to mormon heaven where they live a long time in full enjoyment of seemingly eternal youth and health. Because Death awaits, and the time spent getting good at religion results in a good birth, but good births are still followed by death.

 

I have never heard the Indra point before, because Lord Jesus never acted like the king of heaven. He acted more like creator, conquerer of death. Brahma sounds more like it, because Brahma is not as puffed up like the wielder of the thunder. He even refers to the kingdom of Indra passing away while his teachings never do.

 

BTW, back to the death bands and their druid roots. They dont hate Lord Jesus, they hate jerry falwell and pat robertson. The pagans I know all accept King Tut, Gilgamesh, and others of similar folklore handed down verbally for centuries to be the same story. Hercules is also a very similar story, the son of God taking birth as a human being to protect humankind from those who are the murderers (ala Mojo Jojo of Powerpuff Girl fame).

 

The worst thing about christianity is that they deny death even though no one gets out alive. Jesus is the very worst person to invite to a funeral, because the dead guy walks, ruining the whole thing. Just another silly religion, right up there with the other death monger religions jealous of those who dont care for them.

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[AncientMariner]

I have come to the conclusion there is always gonna be a section of the Hindu faith that either hates Jesus, are envious of him, are mad that Prabhupada didn't badmouth him, or mad that Prabhuapada compared him to Hindu avatars, or really believe he didn't exist. No big deal, these kinds of things are to be expected.

 

 

My brother always used to listen to the Talking Heads. I was into Iron Maiden at the time but the Talking Heads were pretty cool.

[meenakshiamman]

 

Well, we really don't know when Jesus lived or when he really died. The Catholic Church decided those dates (as well as his age at death) in the 400's. So, it's hard to tell if there may have been a large census (maybe not the whole world, as the gospels claim, but maybe a large part of their world).

His ancestral town could've been his father's town. We don't know how far back the writer was going. My father is one of my ancestors. It could've meant it as the town he was born and raised in, which was later translated as "ancestral".

Yes. You are right about the two conflicting stories of the place of birth. But, you must remember that there is also a smaller town called Bethlehem right outside of Nazareth, so it could've been that they went to this small town to register.

Many people date the Srimad Bhagavata Purana to the Tenth century C.E. That doesn't mean it wasn't around before that. We don't know which gospels came first and which gospels came later.

Who are we to say that the virgin-birth didn't really happen just because the term "virgin" in the book of Isaiah may have meant "young woman" rather than "virgin" (something which is hotly debated by scholars on both sides of the debate) ? The birth of Jesus could still have been virginal, and later when the gospel writer (in this case, Matthew) looked for a prophecy to show that it had been foretold earlier.

Oh, please tell me that you're not taking from the one book, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors", which makes such ludicrous claims as Krishna having been crucified on a tree. You really can't trust that book as far as you can throw it... by a long shot.

We don't know how far along Mary was in her pregnancy. She could've been seven months along and delivered early. Besides that, if they did go to the smaller Bethlehem right outside of their town, then it wouldn't have been an arduous journey or anything.

How is the Gospel of Mark anti-semetic? And, even if it is a compilation of several sources before it, that adds even more credibility to the stories found therein. Showing that the stories were in circulation possibly even during Jesus' life.

The Gospel of Luke claims at it's beginning to be Luke's letter to a wealthy man who wanted to know of Jesus, not as a rebuttal to earlier gospels.

So what if Atheist scholars speculate that parts of the gospels are forgeries? The same scholars are also the ones that date the Srimad Bhagavatam at the Tenth century C.E. And I'm sure that they would consider the story of Sri Meenakshi Devi as implausable and try to point out inconsistencies in Her story.

I will agree that perhaps these scriptures were based on a real person. However, we do not know if even the people writing these scriptures really knew him or not. Also, due to the many contradictions between them, we do not know which is truthful or not.

Therefore how can we even worship him or claim to know anything about him or his true teachings?

In order to do this would be to take all of the scriptures attributed to him at face value...even if you want to believe in a virgin birth, there are many other things to consider. Which do you take as fact or fiction? If these scriptures were not so inconsistent and contained so many contradictions (in facts) and had not so obviously been tampered with over time, perhaps there would be something left to have faith in.

 

In order to do all of the above, one would have to make up their own version of Jesus in their head for the purpose of worship. Which many have done.

 

As for Mark being anti-sementic, well, I will have to make a second post on that tomorrow. I think I'm too sleepy for this one tonight.

 

No, I have not read the book you mentioned. The above post was from many things that I've read over time and have been stored as a mish-mash in my head.

 

This is also not an attack on Christians (which I believe I stated above)...I respect Christians but am rather exhausted with the main idea that the Bible is without error or that Jesus is a cemented idea.