Ecumenism: Diplomacy or Sincere Exchange?

[chandu_69]

 

Whether Mary should have been a virgin or not, is beside the point. Anyway, this is still an ongoing debate. The point is, that Matthew accepted Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament. If you accept the gospel of Matthew, you accept that Christ is God.

 

That statement of yours is much clearer.

 

 

 

Again, the point is how (in this case) Mark understood the specific situation: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?". To be forgiven by ordinary men, is obviously not the same as being forgiven by God. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Jesus Christ to die on the cross for the sins of all mankind.

 

Now, that is completely different from what Hinduism teaches.That God has to die for the sins of Humans has no place in hinduism in general or vaishnavism in particular.So, any parallels drawn b/n christianity and hinduism is spurious and invalid.

 

And the most important point i keep mentioning is the Punishment for unbelief, which you try to duck by saying that eternal punishment doesnt exist.That eternal punishment exists for unbeleif is directly evident from jesus sayings.

 

 

When John the apostle fell down to worship the angel, the angel refused to accept worship, saying, "You must not do that!...Worship God!" (Revelation 22:8-9).

I missed that.

 

But here is another angel that accepts worship.Probably this angel is on a higher plane.

 

Acts 27:23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve.

 

Detailed commentary is available on what it means to serve.Acts 27:23 Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me

 

 

And Jesus is not refusing to accept the title "Good," but rather is questioning the young ruler's motives ("Why are you calling me good?"). And if He is accepting the title "Good" as applicable to Himself - and indeed, elsewhere specifically applies it to Himself - and God alone is "good" in these terms, Jesus is implicitly declaring His own Deity. For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Mark 10:18

That is right.Jesus is giving a clear demarcation between him and father.

 

 

 

Jesus was talking here about knowledge of the end of times. I don’t deny there is a difference between the Father and the Son. In the Christian Trinity, Father and Son are different, but they are both God.

 

That is the difference b/n Krishna and Christ.

Krishna says he is the creator and he knows everything while Jesus makes it clear that he has his own limitations vis-a-vis Father(God).

 

 

Ultimately everything is consciousness or knowledge. So, any difference between the Father and the Son must be in terms of consciousness or knowledge.

True.

 

 

I already made it clear that the Christian panentheistic concept of God is similar to the Vashnava concept of God. Consequently, if Christ is God and Jesus was His avatar and His Son, then it follows that Christ is Krishna and Jesus is at the same level as Krishna avatar.

You are contradicting your self after a few lines.You agreed that Jesus has limitations(By his own admission) while krishna was explicit that he is not bound by any limitations.

 

Btw, panentheism has no place in mainstream christianity or it's root, Judaism.

 

 

Let’s take this comparison one step further. Melvin and I more or less agreed in another thread: Brahman is the Father, Vishnu/Krishna is the Son, and Consciousness/Paramatma is the Holy Spirit. So, the difference between the Father and the Son in Christianity, might be similar to the difference between Brahman and Krishna in Vaishnavism..

 

Melvin changed his opinion.Check his post no 64.

 

 

 

 

First of all, I didn’t state that Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah. The fact that people thought Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah, or any other ancient prophet, indicates that reincarnation of ordinary men was commonly accepted in those days, and it also was implied in Jesus' question. Back then, of course, no one suspected that Jesus was in fact an incarnation of God.

No, it indicates that common man's perception about God's prophets/messengers/spirits.

 

The bible in no uncertain terms denies reincarnation.

 

I have nothing more to add.

[primate]

 

That statement of yours is much clearer.

 

Well, it can equally be said that if you accept Christianity, then you accept that Jesus is God. Among religious scholars the consensus is that according to Christian scripture Jesus Christ is God. So, either you reject this altogether, or you accept it. There is no middle way. As the renowned Christian writer C.S. Lewis observes:

 

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher

…

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to" (Mere Christianity, p. 56).

 

Since you appear to be willing to accept the divinity of Jesus, but not the equality of Christ and God, then what kind of divinity do you have in mind? Are you suggesting that Jesus was a demigod?

 

 

Now, that is completely different from what Hinduism teaches.That God has to die for the sins of Humans has no place in hinduism in general or vaishnavism in particular.So, any parallels drawn b/n christianity and hinduism is spurious and invalid.

 

Here you have a point. Perhaps it helps to know that in certain kinds of Judaism, the death of a righteous man brings forgiveness of many. This may be related to Karmic rule in Hinduism, in which a precise balance between good and bad Karma is maintained. The death of a righteous man could bring about much negative Karma, which must then be compensated by collective positive Karma. This might be the actual mechanism by which the death of Jesus Christ took away the sins of all mankind. But I’m sure you will not accept this.

 

 

And the most important point i keep mentioning is the Punishment for unbelief, which you try to duck by saying that eternal punishment doesnt exist.That eternal punishment exists for unbeleif is directly evident from jesus sayings.

 

I already argued in post #68 that this popular conception of hell as a place of eternal torment, is based on the practice of ignoring separate Greek words in the English translation of the original Christian texts. Even the Roman Catholic Church nowadays accepts this. The punishment you speak of must be understood as a state of separation from God. This fully agrees with the Vedic concept of 'mode of ignorance' and the resulting (endless) cycle of material birth, sickness and death. In this context, I also argued in posts #68 and #70 that reincarnation was an important part of early Christianity and that references to reincarnation can still be found in the New Testament. So, as far as I’m concerned, this matter is closed.

 

 

You are contradicting your self after a few lines.You agreed that Jesus has limitations(By his own admission) while krishna was explicit that he is not bound by any limitations.

 

Btw, panentheism has no place in mainstream christianity or it's root, Judaism.

 

I argued in post #56 and #58 that Christianity does propound a panentheistic or monistic theist concept of God, in which everything is created and maintained by Christ and everything exists in Christ. It’s evident that in this sense Christ is on exactly the same level as Krishna.

 

Now, Jesus as Christ avatar has limitations, whereas Krishna avatar has not, as per your conviction. But there is ground for debate here. According to legend Krishna died because a hunter shot him in the foot after mistaking him for a deer in the woods. And the need to do battle and other descriptions of the Mahabharata epic indicate that Krishna avatar was subject to human limitations:

 

 

According to Mahabarata Drona Parva (182.41-43), Krishna , incarnate God, loses sleep over the threat to Arjuna’s life. He worries, as any other human being would do, over the possible death of his best friend, the man whom he loves above all else. He worries that he might fail in the mission he has set for himself. And worrying, he says: “I do not think it is so important to save my father, nor my mother, nor you my brothers, nor even my own life, as it is to save Arjuna in this war.”

 

What we see here is the distress, the torment that only a human being can feel – and not God. And the intense relief only a human being can feel when a terrible calamity has been averted on the brink of its happening. God does not lose sleep over the death of a mortal. God does not dance for joy when that mortal is pulled out from the jaws of death. Only a human being does. And if it is God who does these, it is God who has come under the limitations of being born a human being.

 

Krishna: Human Limitations of Incarnated God : Krishna: Human Limitations of Incarnated God, satya chaitanya blogs on sulekha, Religion blogs, satya chaitanya blog from india

 

 

 

No, it indicates that common man's perception about God's prophets/messengers/spirits.

 

The bible in no uncertain terms denies reincarnation.

 

I have nothing more to add.

 

Again, I argued in post #68 and #70 that this view is inconsistent with many passages in the bible that only make sense in the context of reincarnation.

[chandu_69]

 

Well, it can equally be said that if you accept Christianity, then you accept that Jesus is God. Among religious scholars the consensus is that according to Christian scripture Jesus Christ is God. So, either you reject this altogether, or you accept it. There is no middle way.

 

We are not talking about beliefs here.This i made it clear several times.

 

The issue you raised is Krishna is same as christ.

And i countered that by quoting Jesus wherein he says He is less than his father(Which you agreed).

Jesus is dependent on His Father(Old testament God) by his own admission ,while Krishna says He is Independent.

 

This is not about Beliefs of People but about how Jesus and Krishna Describe themselves.

 

If that doesn't settle the matter for you I have nothing further to add.

 

 

Since you appear to be willing to accept the divinity of Jesus, but not the equality of Christ and God, then what kind of divinity do you have in mind? Are you suggesting that Jesus was a demigod?

 

This is again repetition of what i said earlier.I have no opinion On Jesus's divinity or the lack of one.

 

 

I already argued in post #68 that this popular conception of hell as a place of eternal torment, is based on the practice of ignoring separate Greek words in the English translation of the original Christian texts.

 

There is no confusion in the statement of Jesus On eternal punishment.

 

Jesus’ statements on Everlasting punishment In hell

This is the fate of people who don’t serve his disciples/apostles(Jesus says he sends them..(details in the chapter matthew 25)

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

This particular statement is clear even in original greek.

The word aionios stands for eternal/everlasting.

Check the explanation at the bible site:

Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

 

 

Now, Jesus as Christ avatar has limitations, whereas Krishna avatar has not, as per your conviction

 

Conviction has no place here.It is all about how Krishna and Jesus explain about themselfes.

 

The point is Jesus's limitation is set by His father(Matthew 24:36 :But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.) The limitation of Jesus the christ, is applicable even while he is in heaven with Father...End times...

 

The limitations of Krishna on earth is set By krishna himself.Krishna is Bound by his own rules while Jesus is bound by the rules of Father.

[primate]

 

...

The limitations of Krishna on earth is set By krishna himself.Krishna is Bound by his own rules while Jesus is bound by the rules of Father.

 

This statement of yours tells me that you still don’t quite understand my argument. Christ (or the Son) is God. The Father is also God. In this sense Christ and the Father are One. When the limitations of Jesus Christ avatar are set by the Father, they are set by God. And in this sense they are also set by Christ. I think I made it clear that there really are no ontological differences between Christ and Krishna, and between Jesus Christ avatar and Krishna avatar. Actually, I think the Christian version sounds more logical. How can Krishna avatar be limited, when he sets his own limits?

 

You stubbornly hold on to your own ideas of Christian hell. You’re free to do so. But hell as a place of eternal torment is officially not a part of Christianity. I argued how reincarnation and karmic law can conveniently be an alternative interpretation of your concept of hell, and how this is compatible with both (early) Christianity and Vaishnavism/Hinduism!

 

In conclusion, I suggested a possible unification of Christianity and Vaishnavism. You may have noticed that I needed to explain more ideas and concepts of Vaishnavism within the Christian context, than vice versa. So, I don’t understand your apparent resentment about the whole idea. You (as a Hindu/Vashnava?) should be quite pleased with it..

[chandu_69]

 

 

You stubbornly hold on to your own ideas of Christian hell. You’re free to do so. But hell as a place of eternal torment is officially not a part of Christianity

 

Now this is the easy part.Here is the official position of Vatican.

Eternal hell: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

 

Quote

 

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

 

 

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.

Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire. . "617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

 

Unquote...

My comments//The opinion of the Vatican is that separation from god is a bigger punishment than getting burned in The lake of fire Eternally.Vatican, even for a moment doesn’t deny Eternal punishment for those who refuse to believe in Jesus.//

The protestants also affirm the idea of eternal punishment in hell.

 

 

In conclusion, I suggested a possible unification of Christianity and Vaishnavism. You may have noticed that I needed to explain more ideas and concepts of Vaishnavism within the Christian context, than vice versa. So, I don’t understand your apparent resentment about the whole idea. You (as a Hindu/Vashnava?) should be quite pleased with it..

You keep posting somebody's opinion on this matter.Your opinion is neither supported by the official mainstream christian position nor the Bible.So far you haven't quoted anything from bible that supports your ideas.

I don't feel particularly happy in pursuing unrealistic ideas:P

[sant]

Chandu are you going to criticise chritianity on two thre lines and demean the whole faith.

[primate]

 

...

So far you haven't quoted anything from bible that supports your ideas.

...

 

I quoted many instances in the Bible that support my ideas. What exactly do you mean?

[chandu_69]

 

I quoted many instances in the Bible that support my ideas. What exactly do you mean?

 

Two major points here

1)Reincarnation of Humanbeings

and

2) Eternal hell

 

 

1)Reincarnation:You said in Post 70 That Matt. 16:13-14 and Matt:26:52 make sense if only reincarnation is taken into account.There might be plenty of Biblical quotes which may not make sense at first glance but nobody suggested to use ideas from Hinduism.

Later you said in post 75 “people thought that Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah” and “commonly accepted by people of those days”.This assertion of yours has no biblical support.

 

You have no counter to Hebrews 9:27 that explicitly prohibits reincarnation of human beings.

 

In post 68 you mentioned Exodus 3:13-14 supporting reincarnation but it is meant for god/god(s)/Holy spirits and not for human beings .

 

2)Coming to “eternal hell” your argument about faulty translation and “main stream Christianity” opinion with regards to “eternal hell” are thoroughly debunked with biblical quotes in post 78 and Vatican’s explanation in post 80 .

Your claim that Exod. 21:24-25 which advocates an eye for an eye is similar to law of karma is unsustainable as Karmic law is not Implemented by human beings but they suffer the consequences of their actions(Karma); whereas Exod. 21:24-25 suggests explicit human action of retaliation /reparation.

[primate]

 

1)Reincarnation:You said in Post 70 That Matt. 16:13-14 and Matt:26:52 make sense if only reincarnation is taken into account.There might be plenty of Biblical quotes which may not make sense at first glance but nobody suggested to use ideas from Hinduism.

 

The fact that nobody suggested this before, is not an argument against the validity of the proposition. Actually I’m not the only one who concludes that these verses only make sense in the context of reincarnation, see e.g.: Reincarnation and the Bible; REINCARNATION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

 

 

Later you said in post 75 "people thought that Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah" and "commonly accepted by people of those days".This assertion of yours has no biblical support.

 

This is the second time that you misrepresent my sayings on this point. I already corrected you in post #75, where I said exactly the same as in post #70. I didn’t state that Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah! The fact that people thought Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah, or any other ancient prophet, indicates that reincarnation of ordinary men was commonly accepted in those days, and it also was implied in Jesus' question.

 

As I stated in my post #68, in the first five hundred years of Christianity, reincarnation was most certainly on the main stage of Christian theology. The idea of hell as some sort of eternal punishment came about after the Church banned the teaching of reincarnation as heretical in 553 CE at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, when it condemned Origen and his teachings, and had to come up with some way to explain how God's justice could possibly work.

 

 

You have no counter to Hebrews 9:27 that explicitly prohibits reincarnation of human beings.

 

Hebrews 9:27 (King James Version)

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

 

Thus, after death you will be judged. That’s not incompatible with the notion of reincarnation.

 

 

In post 68 you mentioned Exodus 3:13-14 supporting reincarnation but it is meant for god/god(s)/Holy spirits and not for human beings .

 

So now you agree that this verse actually implies reincarnation! Your subsequent suggestion that this would only be meant for god(s), most certainly cannot have any Biblical support. According to the Bible there is only one God.

 

 

2)Coming to "eternal hell" your argument about faulty translation and "main stream Christianity" opinion with regards to "eternal hell" are thoroughly debunked with biblical quotes in post 78 and Vatican’s explanation in post 80 .

 

As I stated in my post #68 Most biblical scholars believe hell to be a symbol of eternal separation from God and God's presence. Pope John Paul II declared that, while Scripture uses the image of place in relation to eternal damnation, what is really involved is a state of self-exclusion from God. The following is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church:

 

 

The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell' (n. 1033). (John Paul II, General Audience of 21 July 1999)

Catholic Culture : Library : Hell Is the State of Those Who Reject God

 

Hell in Christian beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Now, as argued in my post #77 This 'state of separation from God' is fully compatible with the Vedic concept of 'mode of ignorance' and the resulting perpetual cycle of material birth and death, which can only be ended by submission to God (or Krishna-consciousness). Vedic literature even speaks of hellish planets where souls that are unwilling to accept God as supreme being reincarnate.

 

 

Your claim that Exod. 21:24-25 which advocates an eye for an eye is similar to law of karma is unsustainable as Karmic law is not Implemented by human beings but they suffer the consequences of their actions(Karma); whereas Exod. 21:24-25 suggests explicit human action of retaliation /reparation.

 

Of course it does not. I suggest you reread the argument in post #70, where the symbolism of this and other verses is clearly explained, as well as their ultimate implication of karmic law and reincarnation. Many people obviously do not "reap what they sow" in this life, or "live by the sword and die by the sword" in this life. In order for such claims to be true, some form of karmic law and reincarnation must be true. I don’t see any way around it.

[chandu_69]

 

The fact that nobody suggested this before, is not an argument against the validity of the proposition. Actually I’m not the only one who concludes that these verses only make sense in the context of reincarnation, see e.g.: Reincarnation and the Bible; REINCARNATION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

 

I am not discussing the validity of reincarnation.I am merely saying Bible doesn't support the theory of reincarnation.Plain and simple.

 

The link you gave describes Augustine's thoughts.There is nothing to suggest that Augustine interpreted Biblical material to support his theory of reincarnation.

 

I would address the first verse Deuteronomy. 18:10-11, NIV

"who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead".

 

One should know a bit about Judaism to understand this verse.

Judaism says The spirit of the dead persons is alive awaiting Judgment day.This doesnt suggest that the dead are going to reappear in bodies.

 

 

 

 

This is the second time that you misrepresent my sayings on this point. I already corrected you in post #75, where I said exactly the same as in post #70. I didn’t state that Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah! The fact that people thought Jesus was a reincarnation of Elijah, or any other ancient prophet, indicates that reincarnation of ordinary men was commonly accepted in those days, and it also was implied in Jesus' question.

I accepted your correction.What are you complaining at?.

 

 

As I stated in my post #68, in the first five hundred years of Christianity, reincarnation was most certainly on the main stage of Christian theology

.

 

Not at Main centre stage.There are only few people who suggested reincarnation.And that suggestion was shotdown by Majority because it doesnt have Biblical support.

 

Reincarnation is a topic of far reaching Implications and if the Bible(Old and new) wants to take a stand it will say clearly in no uncertain terms.Augustine didn't use biblical material to suggest reincarnation.He was only trying to rationalize "God is Good" doctrine.

 

 

The idea of hell as some sort of eternal punishment came about after the Church banned the teaching of reincarnation as heretical in 553 CE at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, when it condemned Origen and his teachings, and had to come up with some way to explain how God's justice could possibly work.

It was dubbed heretical because Bible didnt say it.Simple.

 

 

 

Hebrews 9:27 (King James Version)

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

 

Thus, after death you will be judged. That’s not incompatible with the notion of reincarnation.

 

"Once to die" ;That is the key phrase.

 

 

So now you agree that this verse actually implies reincarnation! Your subsequent suggestion that this would only be meant for god(s), most certainly cannot have any Biblical support. According to the Bible there is only one God.

But there is also Jesus, Elijah: the sons of god and holy spirits....

Holy spirits appear at the bidding of God(As per bible).Holy spirits appearance and disappearance is as per wishes of god.

 

Not a single instance in entire Bible about Human beings taking rebirth.

 

 

 

As I stated in my post #68 Most biblical scholars believe hell to be a symbol of eternal separation from God and God's presence. Pope John Paul II declared that, while Scripture uses the image of place in relation to eternal damnation, what is really involved is a state of self-exclusion from God. The following is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church:

That is a Big lie of yours.Are you suggesting Vatican doesn't represent Roman Catholic Church?.

 

Are you this dense?

 

 

 

Now, as argued in my post #77 This 'state of separation from God' is fully compatible with the Vedic concept of 'mode of ignorance' and the resulting perpetual cycle of material birth and death, which can only be ended by submission to God (or Krishna-consciousness). Vedic literature even speaks of hellish planets where souls that are unwilling to accept God as supreme being reincarnate.

You can argue till eternity quoting some Heretics(lol) but the statements of Jesus regarding eternal punishment are not disputed by Vatican.

 

The Vatican position is " separation from Jesus is a bigger punishment compared to eternal Punishment in hell fire".

 

Btw, "perpetual cycle of material birth and death" is not same as Burning in lake of fire.Many people would like to relive their Lives if there is a chance.I dont think there is anybody who loves to get burned in a lake of fire.

 

Many people obviously do not "reap what they sow" in this life, or "live by the sword and die by the sword" in this life. In order for such claims to be true, some form of karmic law and reincarnation must be true. I don’t see any way around it.

That is an issue you have to take up with Main stream christian scholars and see if this argument of yours is accepted.

 

Good Luck.

[chandu_69]

Here is a repetition of Vatican's Position on eternal hell.

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

 

Quote

 

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

 

 

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.

Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire. . "617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

 

Unquote...

[primate]

 

I am not discussing the validity of reincarnation.I am merely saying Bible doesn't support the theory of reincarnation.Plain and simple.

 

And I am saying, the Bible does support the theory of reincarnation. Although it doesn’t explicitly state that reincarnation is true, many passages logically imply that reincarnation must be true. Probably there are no explicit statements in the Bible about reincarnation because (as argued) it was considered common knowledge in early Christianity. Worst case scenario is that such statements have been removed from the Bible after the Church banned the teaching of reincarnation as heretical in 553 CE at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. However, that seems unlikely and, in the light of the foregoing, unnecessary.

 

 

The link you gave describes Augustine's thoughts.There is nothing to suggest that Augustine interpreted Biblical material to support his theory of reincarnation.

 

No. These are the views of Ethan Walker III on reincarnation and Christianity, and the teachings of Origen.

 

 

I would address the first verse Deuteronomy. 18:10-11, NIV

 

"who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead".

 

One should know a bit about Judaism to understand this verse.

 

Judaism says The spirit of the dead persons is alive awaiting Judgment day.This doesnt suggest that the dead are going to reappear in bodies.

 

I don’t know what this means. Anyway, we are not discussing Judaism here. We are discussing Christianity and Vaishnavism.

 

 

I accepted your correction.What are you complaining at?.

 

If you accepted my correction, I have nothing to complain.

 

 

Not at Main centre stage.There are only few people who suggested reincarnation.And that suggestion was shotdown by Majority because it doesnt have Biblical support.

 

Reincarnation is a topic of far reaching Implications and if the Bible(Old and new) wants to take a stand it will say clearly in no uncertain terms.Augustine didn't use biblical material to suggest reincarnation.He was only trying to rationalize "God is Good" doctrine.

 

It was dubbed heretical because Bible didnt say it.Simple.

 

Again, I do not agree. The Bible supports reincarnation by implying reincarnation.

 

 

"Once to die" ;That is the key phrase.

 

But there is also Jesus, Elijah: the sons of god and holy spirits....

 

Holy spirits appear at the bidding of God(As per bible).Holy spirits appearance and disappearance is as per wishes of god.

 

Not a single instance in entire Bible about Human beings taking rebirth.

 

All that Hebrews 9:27 states is that you die (once) and then you are judged. It doesn’t say anything about what happens next. Probably, you will reincarnate and live an entire other life and die (once), after which you will (again) be judged, etcetera. Anyway, if Hebrews 9:27 is your hard evidence that reincarnation is not supported by the Bible, then I’m not convinced.

 

 

That is a Big lie of yours.Are you suggesting Vatican doesn't represent Roman Catholic Church?.

 

Are you this dense?

 

I beg your pardon? Are you suggesting that this July 1999 statement of Pope John Paul II is not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican on the ontological status of Christian hell?

 

 

You can argue till eternity quoting some Heretics(lol) but the statements of Jesus regarding eternal punishment are not disputed by Vatican.

 

These are simply not explicitly disputed, because that would be unnecessary. Eternal punishment is understood as a state of separation from God.

 

 

The Vatican position is " separation from Jesus is a bigger punishment compared to eternal Punishment in hell fire".

 

Exactly!

 

 

Btw, "perpetual cycle of material birth and death" is not same as Burning in lake of fire.Many people would like to relive their Lives if there is a chance.I dont think there is anybody who loves to get burned in a lake of fire.

 

Who is talking about a lake of fire (Or eternal darkness, for that matter)?

 

 

That is an issue you have to take up with Main stream christian scholars and see if this argument of yours is accepted.

 

So, finally you admit that you cannot answer the question how people can "reap what they sow", and/or "live by the sword and die by the sword", without some form of karmic law and reincarnation..

[chandu_69]

 

Who is talking about a lake of fire (Or eternal darkness, for that matter)?

Jesus, Apparently.You are unnecessarily wasting bandwidth $$ of this site.

 

I have already posted this and the vatican affirmation twice.

 

Matthew 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

 

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-8.htm

[chandu_69]

 

Are you suggesting that this July 1999 statement of Pope John Paul II is not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican on the ontological status of Christian hell?

 

That is correct.The vatican apparently doesn't approve the "personal opinion" of Pope john paul 11 as evident from the webpage link i gave above in post 86.

 

The present Pope also disagrees with Pope john paul 11.

The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns

 

The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns - Times Online

 

Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.

[primate]

 

Jesus, Apparently.You are unnecessarily wasting bandwidth $$ of this site.

 

I have already posted this and the vatican affirmation twice.

 

Matthew 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

 

 

 

Most biblical scholars believe this to be a symbol of eternal separation from God and God's presence. The book of Revelation contains the image of a "lake of fire" and "burning sulphur" where "the devil, the beast, and false prophets" will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Revelation 20:10) along with those who worship the beast or receive its mark (Revelation 14:11).

 

The New Testament also uses the Greek word hades, usually to refer to the temporary abode of the dead (eg. Acts 2:31; Revelation 20:13). Only one passage describes hades as a place of torment, the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus here depicts a wicked man suffering fiery torment in hades, which is contrasted with the bosom of Abraham, and explains that it is impossible to cross over from one location to the other. Some scholars believe that this parable reflects the intertestamental Jewish view of hades (or sheol) as containing separate divisions for the wicked and righteous. In Revelation 20:13-14 hades is itself thrown into the "lake of fire" after being emptied of the dead.

 

Hell in Christian beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

So tell me, what do you think? And be careful about actually 'wasting bandwidth on this site'..

[primate]

 

That is correct.The vatican apparently doesn't approve the "personal opinion" of Pope john paul 11 as evident from the webpage link i gave above in post 86.

 

The present Pope also disagrees with Pope john paul 11.

The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns

 

The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns - Times Online

 

Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.

Let’s agree then that there is much controversy regarding the concept of "hell" in Christianity, even among different Popes.. It is a fact, however, that the term "hell" is used as a rendering of the Greek word "hades" or (in the Old Testament) the Hebrew word "sheol", which both simply mean the "grave". A second Greek word, tartaros, which has also been translated into the English word "hell," occurs only once in the New Testament, (II Peter 2:4) and does not refer to humans, but to the restrained condition of fallen angels. Its meaning, translated into English, is "darkness of the material universe," or "dark abyss," or "prison." Finally the term "hell" is used as a translation of "gehenna". This Greek word, as all authorities admit, is derived from the name of the narrow, rocky Valley of Hinnom which lay just outside Jerusalem. It was the place where refuse was constantly burned up. Trash, filth, and the dead bodies of animals and despised criminals were thrown into the fires of gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnom. Ordinarily, everything thrown into this valley was destroyed by fire, completely burned up. Therefore, Christ used "gehenna" to picture the fate of unrepentant sinners, at the final day of judgement, when the dead are resurrected from their graves, and a lake of purifying fire will engulf the Earth.

 

The popular idea of hell as a place where sinners go directly after death to be tormented by fire clearly originated from these mistranslations. In most of the passages of the New Testament where we see the word "hell," the original Greek word is not gehenna but hades. So, according to the Bible when people die they go to the grave and remain in an oblivious state until the end of times. Then they will be judged, and only when they do not repent at that point, they will be completely destroyed in the lake of fire. This is called second death.

 

The idea of an ever-burning "hell" is a pagan myth and superstition. It is merely a fable that has crept into Christianity. God has no desire to torment or to torture anyone. God is love. He created us mortal for our own good. He will condemn no one because of ignorance, and will see to it that every single one will ultimately learn the truth and have a real chance for salvation. But if God granted eternal life to those who persistently rebel and fail to develop righteous character, they would simply bring misery on themselves as well as others for all eternity. Certainly the kindest thing God can do, for all involved, is not to allow such a rebel to continue living. So God will simply put the incorrigibly rebellious to eternal death - not mercilessly torture them forever.

 

What Is Hell?

[primate]

Hindu Puranas have been very clear on the question of heaven and hell. Writers of law-books or Smritis, like Yajnavalkya and Vishnu, have given serious description of the various hells and the various pleasures of heaven. Yogi Yajnavalkya mentions 21 hells in his law book, viz., Raurava, Kumbhipaka, Maharaurava, Tamisra, Andha Tamisra, etc. The author of Vishnu Smriti also has written the same thing. A hell is a region of sharp, severe, intense pain. The evil-doers suffer for a period. Bad action is worked out in that state and then the evil-doers come back to earth-plane. They get another chance.

 

The Ruler of Hell is Lord Yama. He is assisted by Chitragupta. Hell is a particular locality which is walled off from the surrounding regions of space by the messengers of Yama. Sinners get a thick body called Yatana-Deha when they are punished. The punishment in hell is not remembered by the soul when it is reborn. The punishment in hell is reformatory and educative. The permanent educative effect remains in conscience. The innate fear which some souls feel at the sight of temptation of sin is due to the finer development of conscience in the furnace of hell-fire. This is the permanent gain acquired by the soul. The soul is reborn with keener conscience after being purified by hell-fire. He can make better use of his faculties in the next birth.

 

Lord Krishna says in the Gita: Triple is the gate of this hell, destruction of the Self lust, anger and greed; therefore let man renounce these three (XVI-21). You do various wicked deeds when you are under the influence of anger, lust and greed. If you control these three evil Vrittis, you enjoy everlasting peace. Cultivate the opposite virtues: forgiveness, purity and generosity; these evil traits will die by themselves.

 

Lokas Or Planes: Hell Or Naraka

[primate]

BTW, the Vatican position appears to be that both accounts are true, i.e., "hell is a state of eternal separation from God (John Paul II)" and "the fires of hell are real and eternal (Benedict XVI)". The same article that you quoted Pope Benedict XVI from, also states:

 

 

Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in "straightfoward" language "like a parish priest". He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a "state of eternal separation from God", to be understood "symbolically rather than physically".

 

The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns - Times Online

 

 

This means that according to the Vatican, "a state of eternal separation from God" is symbolism for "a real eternal fire". Somehow this doesn’t make sense..

[bhaktajan]

SEEKING ADVISE:

 

If I present myself to the public media [ie: Tele, Newsprint, Radio] to debate topics like 'Cow-protection', 'Vegetarianism', 'Meditation', 'Yoga' etc:

 

How should I (I am an Iskcon Hare Krishna Devotee) present myself?

Do I say, 'I am an Orthodox-Hindu'?

 

Which Title is the least denominational --yet presumably accepted as authentic? Keep in mind that I would assume that I would be heavy-handed and unbending and thus old-school Orthodox.

 

Please advise.

[primate]

 

SEEKING ADVISE:

 

If I present myself to the public media [ie: Tele, Newsprint, Radio] to debate topics like 'Cow-protection', 'Vegetarianism', 'Meditation', 'Yoga' etc:

 

How should I (I am an Iskcon Hare Krishna Devotee) present myself?

Do I say, 'I am an Orthodox-Hindu'?

 

Which Title is the least denominational --yet presumably accepted as authentic? Keep in mind that I would assume that I would be heavy-handed and unbending and thus old-school Orthodox.

 

Please advise.

(Gaudiya) Vaishnava of course.

[theist]

 

SEEKING ADVISE:

 

If I present myself to the public media [ie: Tele, Newsprint, Radio] to debate topics like 'Cow-protection', 'Vegetarianism', 'Meditation', 'Yoga' etc:

 

How should I (I am an Iskcon Hare Krishna Devotee) present myself?

Do I say, 'I am an Orthodox-Hindu'?

 

Which Title is the least denominational --yet presumably accepted as authentic? Keep in mind that I would assume that I would be heavy-handed and unbending and thus old-school Orthodox.

 

Please advise.

 

People are always seeking a label to place on me and causing a similar problem. I just tell them I am a soul trying to live a God conscious life and learn about God. I mention that for learning about the personal attributes of God i find the teachings of Srila Prabhupada to be astonishing and so concentrate there while making it clear I am not a member of any religious institution or personal disciple of his.

 

I also make it very clear I am not a Hindu or Christian or any such thing.

 

People feel they need categorize everyone they meet so they can call upon their preconceived vision of what you are as a means of relating to you. Of course then they are not relating to you at all but as a part you are playing according to their pre-determined script which they carry in there head.

 

We all do this as it is the way of the material world of names and phantom forms.

[theist]

Primate,

 

I take eternal fire to refer to material desires. Eternal damnation is to be eternally afflicted by these incessant desires driving us deeper into madness while never finding any satisfaction.

 

Eternal damnation then can be seen as synonomous with "eternally conditioned" for to be condition to material life is clearly a damned state of being.

 

What the Popes or other Christians think it means may be something quite different.

 

I am convinced one cannot make much sense philosophically of the Bible until one has read Vaisnava literature, and then it just opens up.

[primate]

 

Primate,

 

I take eternal fire to refer to material desires. Eternal damnation is to be eternally afflicted by these incessant desires driving us deeper into madness while never finding any satisfaction.

 

Eternal damnation then can be seen as synonomous with "eternally conditioned" for to be condition to material life is clearly a damned state of being.

 

What the Popes or other Christians think it means may be something quite different.

 

I am convinced one cannot make much sense philosophically of the Bible until one has read Vaisnava literature, and then it just opens up.

Agreed!

[bhaktajan]

 

Originally Posted by bhaktajan

If I present myself to the public media [ie: Tele, Newsprint, Radio] to debate topics like 'Cow-protection', 'Vegetarianism', 'Meditation', 'Yoga' etc:

 

 

Thank you master Thiest & Master Primate.

 

But you have answered my request in phlisophical terms.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I am referring to the following types of persons that I want to approach to press upon them topics from the Vedic POV:

 

Dear Mayor of the City,

I am a "_________" so, accordingly I am expressing my views as based on the Vedas of ancient India . . .

 

or,

 

Dear Congress member, or,

Dear Television News Person, or,

Dear Local Council member, or,

Dear Police Chief member, or,

 

I'm seeking a secular [non-sectarian] nomenclature for a non-accredited Scholar/activist/self-motivated spokesman of societal Issues from the Vedic POV ---without the stumbling-blocks of disparagement by the secular party that I will be approaching.

 

If I explain Important issues [in a comprehensible & competant way] I do not want to be ignored because I am precieved as a religionist-propagandist ---even before I am given a listening audience.

[primate]

 

Thank you master Thiest & Master Primate.

 

But you have answered my request in phlisophical terms.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I am referring to the following types of persons that I want to approach to press upon them topics from the Vedic POV:

 

Dear Mayor of the City,

I am a "_________" so, accordingly I am expressing my views as based on the Vedas of ancient India . . .

 

or,

 

Dear Congress member, or,

Dear Television News Person, or,

Dear Local Council member, or,

Dear Police Chief member, or,

 

I'm seeking a secular [non-sectarian] nomenclature for a non-accredited Scholar/activist/self-motivated spokesman of societal Issues from the Vedic POV ---without the stumbling-blocks of disparagement by the secular party that I will be approaching.

 

If I explain Important issues [in a comprehensible & competant way] I do not want to be ignored because I am precieved as a religionist-propagandist ---even before I am given a listening audience.

A Christian = A (Gaudiya) Vaishnava, as far as I'm concerned..