Was Jesus' Resurrection a Sequel?

[raghu]

from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820685,00.html?cnn=yes

 

A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.

 

<!-- Begin Article Side Bar --><!-- Begin Article Side Bar Copy -->

The ink-on-stone document, which is owned by a Swiss-Israeli antiques collector and reportedly came to light about a decade ago, has been dated by manuscript and chemical experts to a period just before Jesus' birth. Some scholars think it may originally have been part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a trove of religious texts found in caves on the West Bank that were possibly associated with John the Baptist. The tablet is written in the form of an end-of-the-world prediction in the voice of the angel Gabriel; one line, for instance, predicts that "in three days you will know evil will be defeated by justice."

 

 

 

Such "apocalypses," often featuring a triumphant military figure called a messiah (literally, anointed one), were not uncommon in the religious and politically tumultuous Jewish world of 1st century B.C. Palestine. But what may make the Gabriel tablet unique is its 80th line, which begins with the words "In three days" and includes some form of the verb "to live." Israel Knohl, an expert in Talmudic and biblical language at Jerusalem's Hebrew University who was not involved in the first research on the artifact, claims that it refers to a historic 1st-century Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C., and should read "In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you." If so, Jesus-era Judaism had begun to explore the idea of a three-day resurrection before Jesus was born.

 

This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up? But, as Knohl told TIME, maybe the Christians had a model to work from. The idea of a "dying and rising messiah appears in some Jewish texts, but until now, everyone thought that was the impact of Christianity on Judaism," he says. "But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus." If so, he goes on, "this should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."

 

Not so fast, say some Christian academics. "It is certainly not perfectly clear that the tablet is talking about a crucified and risen savior figure called Simon," says Ben Witherington, an early-Christianity expert at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. The verb that Knohl translates as "rise!," Witherington says, could also mean "there arose," and so one can ask "does it mean 'he comes to life,' i.e., a resurrection, or that he just 'shows up?' " Witherington also points out that gospel texts are far less reliant on the observed fact of the Resurrection (there is no angelic command in them like the line in the Gabriel stone) than on the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus' post-Resurrection self. Finally, Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.

 

Knohl stands by his reading. "The spelling and the phrasing is unique," he told TIME, "but it is similar to to other texts found around the Dead Sea." Yet for now, at least, Gabriel's Revelation must take its place among a slew of recently discovered or rediscovered objects from around the time of Jesus that are claimed to either support or undermine Scripture but are themselves sufficiently, logically or archaeologically compromised to prevent their being definitive. In 2002, a bone-storage box with the legend "James Son of Joseph Brother of Jesus" bobbed up that seemed to buttress Jesus' historicity while at the same time suggest that the Catholic teaching that he had no true brothers was false — but the Israeli Antiquities Authority declared the inscription as a forgery (although various experts continue to disagree). In 2007 the Discovery Channel aired a documentary (funded by Titanic director James Cameron) that purported to have located the "Jesus Family Tomb" in the Israeli suburb of Talpiot, with bone boxes with the names "Jesus Son of Joseph,Mary" and one of the names of Mary Magdalene. If the ossuaries were for the gospel Jesus, his mother and Mary Magdalene, then the implications for Christianity would be dire; but despite considerable initial hoopla, the idea is regarded by many as speculation.

It remains to be seen whether Gabriel's Revelation, and especially Knohl's interpretation, will weather the hot lights of fame. Even the authors of its initial research seem a little dubious about his claims that it is a dry run for the Easter story. But, as often happens in such cases, they seem better disposed to a slightly toned-down assertion: in this case, that the Gabriel tablet does indicate a very rare instance of the idea that a messiah might suffer — a notion introduced in Judaic thought centuries before by the prophet Isaiah but which supposedly went out of style by Jesus' time. If that more modest theory gains traction, it will forge a link between a trend in first-century Judaism and one of Christianity's galvanizing thoughts — that God might throw in his lot with a suffering or even murdered man — that could contribute to a growing mutual understanding.

[Dark Warrior]

Behemoth's songs are also quite cool in this context. 'AntiChristian Phenomenon', 'Slaying the Prophets of Isa', 'Christians to the Lions', 'Sermon to the Hypocrites', 'Christ-Grinding Avenue', etc. Blackened Death Metal at its best.

 

Just kidding, of course. In truth, I could care less whether Jesus is mythological or historical. Whether He did miracles, or resurrected is not the concern of Vedantins. Christianity has as much relevance to Vaishnavism as does Shaivism or Buddhism, ie, nothing.

[Bishadi]

 

Behemoth's songs are also quite cool in this context. 'AntiChristian Phenomenon', 'Slaying the Prophets of Isa', 'Christians to the Lions', 'Sermon to the Hypocrites', 'Christ-Grinding Avenue', etc. Blackened Death Metal at its best.

 

Just kidding, of course. In truth, I could care less whether Jesus is mythological or historical. Whether He did miracles, or resurrected is not the concern of Vedantins. Christianity has as much relevance to Vaishnavism as does Shaivism or Buddhism, ie, nothing.

 

when of the dark, in the dark, representing the dark; very little light shines

 

the candle shines no more; recylce the wax

[Bishadi]

it can be shared that a 'resurrection' could be assimilated from the Osirus/Isis of Egyptian Pharonic story where Seth kills Osirus and Isis revives him and the conceive a child; Horas.

 

But it seems by combining much of written knowledge; perhaps in the 1st century; he was considered dead; but maybe he was not.

 

Biblically; Jesus was taken down from the cross after 6-9 hrs.

 

And from what I read; back then people were buried alive by accident; yet Jesus was placed in an tomb uncovered (no soil covering body) and then was not in his chamber after three days.

 

Just ideas

[raghu]

There is abundant evidence to suggest that much of the Jesus myth is a fiction synthesized by people living after the time of jesus, and which bears little resemblance to the historic Jesus. Yet many of these ideas are cherished Christian ideas, i.e. the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin, the idea that he is the son of God, the idea that he was resurrected after 3 days, etc.

 

Iskcon devotees, who tend to fall all over themselves in their efforts to praise Christianity and Christian ideas, tend to be rather clueless about to fact that Christianity is not at all what they think it to be. What do iskcon devotees say when the "messiah" whom they think is a "shaktyavesh avatar" is not even regarded as a messiah by many Jewish sects? What do they say when they try to explain away "Jesus as son of God" references only to find that there are even Christian sects that do not accept this idea?

 

By and large it seems the only think they can do is to start using ad hominem attacks against the person who brings these uncomfortable truths up.

[Bishadi]

 

There is abundant evidence to suggest that much of the Jesus myth is a fiction synthesized by people living after the time of jesus, and which bears little resemblance to the historic Jesus. Yet many of these ideas are cherished Christian ideas, i.e. the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin, the idea that he is the son of God, the idea that he was resurrected after 3 days, etc.

And what about the faith with a girl and a bunch of arms or that blue guy with what was the story saying 16000 girl friends, no wonder they call him a God.

 

 

Iskcon devotees, who tend to fall all over themselves in their efforts to praise Christianity and Christian ideas, tend to be rather clueless about to fact that Christianity is not at all what they think it to be.

and vice versus to be fair

 

 

What do iskcon devotees say when the "messiah" whom they think is a "shaktyavesh avatar" is not even regarded as a messiah by many Jewish sects? What do they say when they try to explain away "Jesus as son of God" references only to find that there are even Christian sects that do not accept this idea?

and you should see the divesity that came from Hindu as well. Keep a man busy most his life with the diversity upon each hemisphere.

 

 

By and large it seems the only think they can do is to start using ad hominem attacks against the person who brings these uncomfortable truths up.

 

kind of a bummer when all each need to be is honest first and sort out what is truly compassionate and leave out the rest for story telling....

 

seems that is all much of how stories are observed is often loosing the meaning in the conveyances and interpretations; where one may consider the idea literal they missed much of the wisdom. Or who knows maybe all the religions are 100% fibs?

 

Lessons are what each religion can provide; recognizing them can be biased and varied.

 

If you really want a question to ponder; if Jesus was said to die for all the sins of mankind, what happens now? (Per the scriptures; he didn't stay dead)

[raghu]

By all means feel free to recant your belief in Vaishnavism if you wish.

 

I was referring to those individuals who professed to be Vaishnavas and yet also claimed to believe in the authenticity of Christianity, even though the historic Christianity appears to be a man-made conglomeration of ideas that are not even universal across the entire Christian spectrum.

 

Kinda dumb, don't you think, for iskcon devotees to nod with great zeal about how they agree with the Jesus as son of God stuff, even though there are Christians who don't accept that?

 

Hmm, come to think of it I'm beginning to think that you aren't even grasping the point of this. Never mind...

[Dark Warrior]

The main thing that I find so hypocritical about these Hare Christnas, is that they ridicule everyone who believes that the Puranas are history, and yet force people to accept that Jesus really resurrected and really did miracles. In fact, I wouldn't even mind this 'Jesus was a Vaishnava' nonsense if they actually had *some* attraction for the real Vaishnavism.

 

There are some ISKCON people I know, who, despite believing Jesus was a 'bonafide' guru, still do not obsess over it and follow Krishna dutifully. The difference here is, while they still hold some of those 'Jesus is a Vaishnava' beliefs, they do not force non-vedantic doctrines as 'original sin' into Vaishnavism, as Hare Christnas do. Nor do they keep glorifying Jesus and Christianity on a regular basis. These people are OK because they simply follow Srila Prabhupada, and have no idea of sastra.

 

Believing all words of Srila Prabhupada is not a crime. However, Hare Christnas say that Krishna's rasa lila is mythological and allegorical, but the Bible is a historical account. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

In any case, there have been Shaivites, Jains and Buddhists who have done miracles and attained heights of mysticism. Doesn't mean they were divinely inspired, does it? Same goes for Jesus. IMO, even if he had resurrected historically, it still doesn't prove anything.

[Amlesh]

 

The main thing that I find so hypocritical about these Hare Christnas, is that they ridicule everyone who believes that the Puranas are history, and yet force people to accept that Jesus really resurrected and really did miracles. In fact, I wouldn't even mind this 'Jesus was a Vaishnava' nonsense if they actually had *some* attraction for the real Vaishnavism.

 

There are some ISKCON people I know, who, despite believing Jesus was a 'bonafide' guru, still do not obsess over it and follow Krishna dutifully. The difference here is, while they still hold some of those 'Jesus is a Vaishnava' beliefs, they do not force non-vedantic doctrines as 'original sin' into Vaishnavism, as Hare Christnas do. Nor do they keep glorifying Jesus and Christianity on a regular basis. These people are OK because they simply follow Srila Prabhupada, and have no idea of sastra.

 

Believing all words of Srila Prabhupada is not a crime. However, Hare Christnas say that Krishna's rasa lila is mythological and allegorical, but the Bible is a historical account. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

In any case, there have been Shaivites, Jains and Buddhists who have done miracles and attained heights of mysticism. Doesn't mean they were divinely inspired, does it? Same goes for Jesus. IMO, even if he had resurrected historically, it still doesn't prove anything.

 

I do admit that most of iskcon Devotees don't know the real meaning of Vaishnavism. That does not mean that these followers have understood what Srila Prabhupad had said.

 

Isckon and Srila Prabhupad are 2 different entities. Not everyone has understood his intent. Theist and cBrahma give reverence to Srila Prabhupad but they themselves are not attached to Iskcon.

 

Don't mix up things dude.

 

If you want to prove something then you cannot generalise things according to the behaviour of majority of Isckon devotees and place it as what SP has explained.

 

Dude, wake up...

 

And if you want to challenge SP's teaching then dude, I'll never paticipate on your fest.

 

Challenging your knowledge will be challenging another Vaishnava Acharyas teaching, which is less than a Vaishnava act.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Theist and cBrahma give reverence to Srila Prabhupad but they themselves are not attached to Iskcon.

 

It doesn't matter what they follow. Bottom line is, they claim to be Vaishnavas, and yet do not even know what Vaishnavism is. Whether they belong to ISKCON or not is irrelevant.

 

 

And if you want to challenge SP's teaching then dude, I'll never paticipate on your fest.

 

Challenging your knowledge will be challenging another Vaishnava Acharyas teaching, which is less than a Vaishnava act.

 

First of all, debating is not an unhealthy practice. Maintaining respect to acharyas is important, but that doesn't mean their philosophy is correct. I have the utmost respect for Sri Chaitanya or Sri Madhva, but that doesn't mean we cannot debate with Gaudiya Vaishnavas or Tattvavadis.

 

Srila Prabhupada's most essential teaching is surrender to Krishna. Accepted.

[Amlesh]

 

It doesn't matter what they follow. Bottom line is, they claim to be Vaishnavas, and yet do not even know what Vaishnavism is. Whether they belong to ISKCON or not is irrelevant.

 

 

So go and correct them with a stick 1 by 1 but don't mix up things.

 

Infact your answer to my points are irrelevant.

 

 

First of all, debating is not an unhealthy practice. Maintaining respect to acharyas is important, but that doesn't mean their philosophy is correct. I have the utmost respect for Sri Chaitanya or Sri Madhva, but that doesn't mean we cannot debate with Gaudiya Vaishnavas or Tattvavadis.

 

If yours is correct then congrats for others let them be stupid.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada's most essential teaching is surrender to Krishna. Accepted.

 

Atlast...

[Dark Warrior]

 

So go and correct them with a stick 1 by 1 but don't mix up things.

 

Amlesh, first of all, I never mix up anything. Its you who has been blabbering incessantly about Jesus being a pure bhakta, about me 'disrespecting' Mirabai, and other such nonsense.

 

You mix up a completely irrelevant religion like Christianity with Vaishnavism, and then accuse me of mixing up stuff. Way to go.

 

I asked you some very relevant questions in the other thread about Christianity. I bolded those questions, yet, you haven't answered them. Instead, keep yammering something about 'ego'.

 

 

Infact your answer to my points are irrelevant.

 

Your very belief, along with Theist and cBrahma's beliefs, is irrelevant to Vaishnavism. Then what's the point?

 

 

 

If yours is correct then congrats for others let them be stupid

 

This statement clearly exposes how ignorant you are of Vedanta, or exactly what constitutes polemics. Congratulations.

[Amlesh]

 

Amlesh, first of all, I never mix up anything. Its you who has been blabbering incessantly about Jesus being a pure bhakta, about me 'disrespecting' Mirabai, and other such nonsense.

 

Jesus being a pure bhakta are rambles for you.

I didn't say disrespect, but misconceptions.

 

 

You mix up a completely irrelevant religion like Christianity with Vaishnavism, and then accuse me of mixing up stuff. Way to go.

 

Again, out of topic, my point was mixing Bhakta's behaviour and judging Guru's teachings.

And Dark, you are not still getting it, I've never said mixing Vaishnavism and Christianity, which can never be the case.

 

I said using vaishnavism as the standard meter to see the degree of religiosity present in Christianity.

Dude understand my points well before blabbering.

 

 

I asked you some very relevant questions in the other thread about Christianity. I bolded those questions, yet, you haven't answered them. Instead, keep yammering something about 'ego'.

 

 

Sometimes silence is an answer, unlock it. I'll use your own words to describe you..."Your understanding can be compared to pouring water in a sieve."

 

 

Your very belief, along with Theist and cBrahma's beliefs, is irrelevant to Vaishnavism. Then what's the point?

 

You like to make yourself happy by quoting the right thing at the wrong time and wrong circumstances.

 

You seem to be holding the reserved rights for Vaishnavism, which I say is not the case. You might be well armed with Knowledge, but in terms of Realised knowledge, a long way to go [don't forget to take your compass].

 

 

This statement clearly exposes how ignorant you are of Vedanta, or exactly what constitutes polemics. Congratulations.

 

Thanks, it's something I'm already aware of. Say something new Dude.

 

By the way, how come you know Vedanta, but still can't see Jesus is the Son of GOD where even by Dog is the Son of Hari.

[bija]

 

I said using vaishnavism as the standard meter to see the degree of religiosity present in Christianity. by amlesh

 

Well said.

 

To call us HareChristnas is incorrect. We worship Krsna...and perform bhajan toward Him alone. The only disqualification to be classed as vaisnavas is our purity (we aspire)...not adherence to book knowledge (used to degrade us). This is the mistake of dark warrior.

 

Christ called the only unforgivable sin 'blasphemy of the holy spirit'. We should heed his wisdom...and never condemn the work of supersoul in the heart of man. Supersoul (internal guru) will complete the perfection...in due course. Such is the kindness of God.

[Amlesh]

Yep, he even said Hate the sin not the sinner.

 

His degree of surrenderness spoke by itself, no need to hear from you Dark.

[bija]

 

he even said Hate the sin not the sinner by amlesh

Indeed. As Krsna looks upon his external energy from a distance...the wise person understands the above message of Jesus. In this way we can walk in the world as a peaceful man. Infact Vaisnavism will clear all discrepancy in the mind of those who study bible.

[Amlesh]

 

Indeed. As Krsna looks upon his external energy from a distance...the wise person understands the above message of Jesus. In this way we can walk in the world as a peaceful man. Infact Vaisnavism will clear all discerepancy in the mind of those who study bible.

 

Yep, but in any case bible is incomplete but has a bit of Bhakti in it. What you've said is true though.

 

Only after studying Gita, Ramayana and Srimad Bhagwatan [with Hari's Grace] that Gyan comes to its end and Bhakti in completeness starts.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Jesus being a pure bhakta are rambles for you.

I didn't say disrespect, but misconceptions.

 

Pure bhakta of which God? Answer this one. If he was a Shaiva, then he, along with other Shaiva Bhaktas, are not Vaishnavas.

 

 

 

Again, out of topic, my point was mixing Bhakta's behaviour and judging Guru's teachings.

And Dark, you are not still getting it, I've never said mixing Vaishnavism and Christianity, which can never be the case.

 

Saying that Christianity is a 'bonafide' path or an 'element of Vaishnavism' is completely against the teachings of Vedanta. Bhakti is not the criterion for being 'bonafide'. Bhakti to Sri Hari is the main thing that counts.

 

 

I said using vaishnavism as the standard meter to see the degree of religiosity present in Christianity.

Dude understand my points well before blabbering.

 

I understand what you say. However, answer this - Shaivism has more bhakti in it than Christianity. Then, why don't we use Vaishnavism as a 'standard meter' to judge the degree of 'religiosity' in Shaivism?

 

Stop ducking the issue.

 

 

 

Sometimes silence is an answer, unlock it. I'll use your own words to describe you..."Your understanding can be compared to pouring water in a sieve."

 

To a Vedantin, silence means lack of ability to put up a coherent theory. Logic and reasoning is the only tool that works in Vedanta. Coupled with a knowledge of sastra.

 

 

 

You like to make yourself happy by quoting the right thing at the wrong time and wrong circumstances.

 

You seem to be holding the reserved rights for Vaishnavism, which I say is not the case. You might be well armed with Knowledge, but in terms of Realised knowledge, a long way to go [don't forget to take your compass].

 

Definition of Vaishnavism is something anyone can understand. 'Worship of Vishnu, while considering that any other 'bhakti' path is useless'.

 

We differentiate between even Vishnu and Shiva. What to talk of other religions.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, it's something I'm already aware of. Say something new Dude.

 

By the way, how come you know Vedanta, but still can't see Jesus is the Son of GOD where even by Dog is the Son of Hari.

 

And once again, you are quite stupidly quoting this nonsense.

 

A shaivite considers that God is Shiva. So, if Jesus was a Shaivite, he would consider himself to be 'Son of Shiva'.

 

Shaivism is not Vaishnavism. Your point?

[Dark Warrior]

 

To call us HareChristnas is incorrect. We worship Krsna...and perform bhajan toward Him alone.

 

Sorry. A true Vaishnava does not perform bhajans to Devas. Similarly, a true Vaishnava does not say Jesus was a bhakta.

 

 

The only disqualification to be classed as vaisnavas is our purity (we aspire)...not adherence to book knowledge (used to degrade us). This is the mistake of dark warrior.

 

Vaishnavas are not classified by 'purity' alone. Indra, for instance, is known to have lust and greed for power. Yet, whenever he is in trouble, he only goes to Vishnu for help.

 

Indra, thus, is a Vaishnava, despite his faults. Because he goes to Vishnu, and not other Devas, for help.

 

The basic criterion for Vaishnavism is, 'Worship of Vishnu'.

 

Bija, for the last time, stop viewing Vedanta with a semitic view. The Vedas are not 'bookish knowledge'. Every Acharya, Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, etc. clearly says that something is valid only when it is validated by the Vedas.

 

The semitic religions place great emphasis on personal experience. Jesus was divine because he performed miracles. Mohammed saw an angel in a cave, so he is a messiah. Nonsense.

 

Vedas are apaurusheya. Hence, they constitute the final authority in Vedanta. Personal experiences are valid only in light of Shruti.

[Amlesh]

 

I understand what you say. However, answer this - Shaivism has more bhakti in it than Christianity. Then, why don't we use Vaishnavism as a 'standard meter' to judge the degree of 'religiosity' in Shaivism?

 

Stop ducking the issue.

 

 

Who said I limit it with Christianity.

 

 

A shaivite considers that God is Shiva. So, if Jesus was a Shaivite, he would consider himself to be 'Son of Shiva'.

 

Shaivism is not Vaishnavism. Your point?

 

Then I would have called Jesus as the Grandson of God. In any case, whether he would have chosen Popeye as His God, he would have been related with Vishnu.

 

Hari is the thread that links all the pearls.

[bija]

 

A true Vaishnava does not perform bhajans to Devas. by dark

Which deva are you referring to here? You were not meaning Krsna is a demigod I hope.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Who said I limit it with Christianity.

 

A shaivite is not considered a Vaishnava. A Christian is not a Vaishnava.

 

Shaivism is denounced as a path that will not lead to moksha. Same goes for Christianity.

 

 

 

Then I would have called Jesus as the Grandson of God. In any case, whether he would have chosen Popeye as His God, he would have been related with Vishnu.

 

Hari is the thread that links all the pearls.

 

The idiocy has reached new levels.

 

For that matter, a dog, a cat, Hiranyakasipu and ravana are Vaishnavas in their original nature. But a dog, a cat or Ravana won't get moksha, and the paths they follow are not authentic.

 

A Shaiva refuses to acknowledge that Hari is supreme. Understand? So, if Jesus was a Shiva Bhakta, he wuldn't worship Hari.

 

Which makes the Bible a Tamasic scripture.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Which deva are you referring to here? You were not meaning Krsna is a demigod I hope.

 

*Sigh* A Hare Christna teaching me Vaishnavism. Terrific.

 

Anyone who worships Shiva, Durga, kali, Indra, etc. along with Vishnu is not a Vaishnava. Eka Bhakti to Vishnu alone is Vaishnavism.

 

Worshipping Jesus as a pure bhakta without sastric pramana, is equivalent to demigod worship. Or worse, as Jesus is not even in sastra.

[bija]

 

*Sigh* A Hare Christna teaching me Vaishnavism. Terrific. by dark

lol:P....I can see you have a sense of humor (I like that). Even if you are serious about me being an inferior:rolleyes:.

[Amlesh]

 

A shaivite is not considered a Vaishnava. A Christian is not a Vaishnava.

 

Shaivism is denounced as a path that will not lead to moksha. Same goes for Christianity.

 

I would like to become Vaishnava someday, but I'll never ask for Moksha.

What do you understand by the term Moksha, my dear bookish fellow.

 

 

The idiocy has reached new levels.

 

For that matter, a dog, a cat, Hiranyakasipu and ravana are Vaishnavas in their original nature. But a dog, a cat or Ravana won't get moksha, and the paths they follow are not authentic.

 

A Shaiva refuses to acknowledge that Hari is supreme. Understand? So, if Jesus was a Shiva Bhakta, he wuldn't worship Hari.

 

Which makes the Bible a Tamasic scripture.

 

You are champion in taking an issue to that level.

 

Concerning a path being authentic or not and correpondingly lead to Moksha, is something even the ignorant Iskcon devotees know, but my dear friend, not knowing that Krishna is behind all religions is the greatest goof.

 

He is the cause of all the causes.