I and My Father are One

[satay]

namaste,

If possible, it would be nice to continue discussion (from the 'Why' thread) of this famous verse from the bible.



John 10:30, “I and My Father are one.”

What could possibly mean by this statement of Jesus? I would like for you to tell me when Jesus refers to Himself with “I”, does it reflect his lower “I” or the higher “I“ from Ramana’s “I –I”?

There are many verses that clearly show the consciousness in Jesus is in union with the supreme Consciousness.



I read the previous verses than 10.30 and some verses proceeding this as well.

It seems to me that Jesus is not actually saying "he and father are one" in the sense that rsi says "Aham Brahamasmi".

It seems that jesus means to say that 'he' and the 'father' are 'one' in 'purpose' i.e. their 'purpose' is one. And what is that purpose? Read verses starting from about 10.20 John.

I and My Father are one perhaps in the Dharmic context but that's not how John means it, at least that's my understanding.

[Znanna]

Namaste,

I'm no Xn or Hindu to give authoritative anything, but whatever LOL


When there is NO DIFFERENCE between One and Other ... then there is somewhat of an unhindered clarity, seems to me.

Many Xns have quite disparate interpretations of above referenced - seems it depends on one's point ov view.


ZN

[sarabhanga]

In the beginning was vAk, and vAk was with yahva, and vAk was yahvI.

In the beginning, yama was with yamI, and the yamau was yahvI.

All things were made by her; and without her was not any thing made that was made.

In her was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

That was the AtmA, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become nArAyaNAs, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of nArA (yahvI).

And vAk was made flesh, and dwelt among us (yeSu), and we beheld his yajña as yahva, the only begotten of yahvI, full of shiva and satI.

And of his bRMhaNam have all we received, and namaH shivAya (grace for grace).

No man hath seen nara at any time, the only begotten nArAyaNa, which is in the bosom of yahvI, he hath declared him.

[ScottMalaysia]

It seems that jesus means to say that 'he' and the 'father' are 'one' in 'purpose' i.e. their 'purpose' is one.

In John 17:21, Jesus prays "That they [his followers] all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

He is praying that his followers may be one, i.e. one in purpose, and not divided.

This verse is used by Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus Christ is God (in fact they believe him to be Michael the Archangel), to refute Jesus' statement "I and My Father are one" as being a reference to the Trinity.

[saidevo]

Namaste.

In common English, 'are one' is a phrase used to indicate similarity rather than unity. The English phrase that indicates unity is 'are one and the same'.

A Christian common who is not familiar with Hinduism, Dvaita or Advaita is likely to interpret the line "I and My Father are one" in John 10:30 in two ways:

• Jesus is God in flesh, so he and the Father make up "one God"--when this line is read in isolation, out of context.

• Jesus and God are one in purpose (as Satay says), thoughts and desire--when this line is read in association, in context with those preceding and following.

In isolation, out of context, the line "I and My Father are one" is a good line for a Christian to meditate upon. But no Christian common would dare to extrapolate this line to mean that he/she, like Jesus, 'is one' with God, because then there would be no further need for Jesus to let him/her commune with God!

Secondly, the Bible and the Church have drummed for centuries to the Christian commons that God is Supreme, Jesus is His only son, Christian humans are His children, and other humans are the children of the Devil. Therefore no Christian common even if he/she is familiar with Dvaita and Advaita, would dare to read more into the line, even in meditation, let alone expression in speech and writing.

Compare this line where Jesus talks only about himself with the teachings of the Rishis in the Hindu Upanishads. Unlike Jesus, the Rishis have boldly declared for the whole mankind--not just for the Hindu faithfuls--the great sayings such as 'aham brahma asmi' (I am Brahman), 'tat tvam asi' (That thou art), 'prajnAnam brahman' (you are Brahman in consciousness). It will be helpful if someone could point out that Jesus unambiguously exhorts his followers that they, he and God are one and the same, in the Bible.

Many Bible commentators/annotators do not read the Advaitic meaning in the declaration of Jesus 'I and my Father are one', as can be vefiried from many Bible Websites. It is in fact pointed out that "he who plants and he who waters are one" (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV) is translated as "he who plants and he who waters have one purpose."; and that Jesus "uses the concept of 'being one' in other places, and from them one can see that 'one purpose' is what is meant." (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=102)

Thus it seems to me that the Advaitic extension the neo-apologetics try to provide for Jesus's declaration in John 10:30 is a clear case of extrapolation, usually done with a purpose and an agenda, not to recognize Hinduism as a parent dharma of Christianity but to rule it out.

[saidevo]

Namaste.

"I and my Father are one", John 10:30. This line that Jesus says in context, is highlighted as the chief message of Jesus. Is there any other message he gave to the Christian world, and what meanings do they lend to?

I have underlined the key expressions in the following quotes from John, NT for analysis:

10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

What is the message in the line "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers."? Isn't it one of the instances where Jesus sows hatred against people of other faiths?

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

How can a man be 'saved' when he goes 'in and out' of Jesus, the door? Is it indicative of the concepts of 'karma and rebirth'? If a man who enters by 'the door' to the heavens comes back, what does it say of the efficacy of 'the door'?

10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

There we have the seeds of the mission of Jesus: in other 'folds', the 'sheep' are guarded by 'wolfs'; the wolfs must be destroyed, the sheep released and brought under the Christian fold.

[Znanna]

How can a man be 'saved' when he goes 'in and out' of Jesus, the door? Is it indicative of the concepts of 'karma and rebirth'? If a man who enters by 'the door' to the heavens comes back, what does it say of the efficacy of 'the door'?


Namaste,

If one considers the Christ (Jesus) as process rather than incarnation specifically, then it makes sense, at least to me :)

Perhaps it is because I have somewhat of a shamanistic pov ... time to me is not linear, rather holographic, so it is not a matter of past-present-future, but more of simultaneity.

When there is no difference (one and the Same) time and space have no relevance.

The "door" is that which is opened on top the head, in prayer, I think. YMMV.

Love,
ZN

[saidevo]

Namaste ZN.



The "door" is that which is opened on top the head, in prayer, I think. YMMV.


If the 'door' is the sahasrAra chakra that opens on top of head in prayer and meditation, Jesus would have referred to other 'doors' within the 'house' of the body--the other six chakras--too. Do we find any such references in the Bible?

If on the other hand, the 'door' is the opening the soul passes through when it leaves the body:

According to Hinduism, the prANa (which carries the Jiva) would leave (at the time of death) through one of the nine holes in our body. Depending on which hole it leaves through, the next birth would be decided! For yogis, a tenth hole would be formed in the head (at the apex), the Jiva will leave through it and reach lofty worlds. This path is known as the archirAdi mArga (the path of light). For the jIvan muktas who are jnAnis, the prANa would shrink in the Atma, without leaving through any of the ten holes. (Explanation of Sri Muralidhara Swamiji)

Christian religion is meant for the 'farmers and shepherds' at which level the Church wants to keep their 'flock' at all times, lest individual, independent, inquiry might see the Church, Jesus and Christ in perspective. Some Christian scholars and neo-apologetics familiar with the ancient religions and Hinduism try to read their concepts in the Bible, which in my opinion, only makes the Bible more hotchpotch than it is and confuse the Christian commons.

[Znanna]

Namaste, saidevo,


While there are references to "temple" in the Biblical scripture and derivative debate relative to whether the "body of Christ" is physical or virtual or whatever, I'd say my extrapolation was JMO (as usual). To me, the heart of Christianity is lost on most self-averring Christians, whatever.

As more of a shamanistic sort, I'm accustomed to entering and leaving body/s through many means. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with any orthodoxy :)

Remember, I'm a chaos mage, no evangelical!

Love,
ZN

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~


In common English, 'are one' is a phrase used to indicate similarity rather than unity. The English phrase that indicates unity is 'are one and the same'.


Namaste saidevo
There is a conundrum here as I see it. There is a sender and receiver , yes?. To the person that wrote this ( I and my Father are one) vs. the person that experinced one-ness this saṃghaṭṭa, union.
Unless the author ( the recorder of this sentence mentioned) completely comprehends this experience of this level of Being, sattā, what could he write? How can express this level of existence Jesus experienced and proportedly said? What could he record while existing in duality?

I am my Father are one - for the recorder,this saying would most likely think, Jesus is saying he is the Lord
Would the recorder even have a inkling of advayatā ?
Is there other documents that perhaps the recorder could use as a reference to suggest (perhaps) Jesus was alluding to advayatā ?
Or was the recorder spiritually informed to discern the difference between duality and non-duality? These are the initial thoughts that came to mind. This , the recorder is steeped ( most likely?) in duality. Could he really write/appreciate/comprehend advitīa message if handed to him? If he did then he could perhaps frame the sentence in such a way that would avoid any mis-understandings.


pranams

sattā सत्ता- Being or Existence
saṃghaṭṭa संघट्ट- union

[saidevo]

Namaste.

Let us check the English-translated verses of the Bible to see if the expression "one and the same" occurs anywhere and then try to compare the meaning given to them with the Advaitic meaning sought to be read here in the expression "I and my Father are one".



Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/ (target expression underlined):

Genesis 41:25
New International Version
Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, "The dreams of Pharaoh are one and the same. God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do.

King James Version
And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.

Genesis 41:26
New International Version
The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good heads of grain are seven years; it is one and the same dream.

King James Version
The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one.

Numbers 15:29
New International Version
One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

King James Version
Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

Romans 9:10
New International Version
Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.

King James Version
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;


Let us notice that the King James Version uses only the word 'one' instead of the expression "one and the same" in all the above quotes. Let us also note that all the quotes refer to 'wordly' (as against 'spiritual') affairs.

Now, this is interesting:



1 Corinthians 12:11
New International Version
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

King James Version
12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.


Let us notice that the KJV uses the word "selfsame" for this last quote, which refers to the 'Spirit'. Webster's New World Dictionary gives the meaning of this word as: 'exactly the same; identical; (the) very same'.

Now, this is the translation of various editions of the famous quote "I and my Father are one" in John 10:30:



Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
10:30 egw kai o pathr en esmen

Latin Vulgate
10:30 ego et Pater unum sumus

Bible in Basic English
10:30 I and my Father are one.

King James Version
10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

American Standard Version
New International Version
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation

10:30 I and the Father are one.


Let us note that the KJV does not use the word "selfsame" to qualify the word "one", and therefore the meaning is 'wordly and dvaitic'--'one in purpose', as Satay has stated.

The Greek word that means 'same' is transliterated as idios; the Greek expression for 'identical' in transliteration is taftosimos, entelos o idios. In Latin, the equivalent expression for 'same/identical' is idem eadem idem. Obviously, we find none of these words in the Greek and Latin versions of the supposedly Advaitic quote of Jesus given above.

In the immediately preceding verse, Jesus speaks of himself and his Father only in Dvaita:

10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. (A note to this verse says: "Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is greater than all.")

The Jews Jesus spoke to consider his claim to be God blasphemous and prepare to assault him with stones for such claim "that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (10:33)." To this Jesus replies, "...because I said, I am the Son of God? (10:36)."

10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
10:38 that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Curiously, Jesus has only contradicting statements in the Bible about whether he is one with God, son of God or neither. Some quotes:



Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/jesus_God.html
Yes, Jesus is God.

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 10:30-31
I and my Father are one.

John 14:9
He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

No, Jesus is not God.

Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

John 14:28
My Father is greater than I.

John 20:17
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

1 Corinthians 11:3
The head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.


To me, what ensues such contradictions can only be among one or more of the following:

• If Jesus existed and was Son of God, he spoke whatever he said about him only in Dvaita, for the Jewish commons and nobles of his day were not in a position to understand Advaita.

• If Jesus existed and was steeped in Advaita, he would have exhorted unequivocally, as do the Rishis of our Upanishads, that every man and woman was God at their core and that God is immanent as the substratum in every atom of the universe, teeming with his lifeforce. For a teacher believed to have been trained in India, there would have been no need to dilute or mince words, specially when he speaks about himself.

• Jesus did not exist historically. The Gospel writers came up with their own, different versions of the mythical Jesus, hence the contradictions.

[saidevo]

Namaste ZN.



While there are references to "temple" in the Biblical scripture and derivative debate relative to whether the "body of Christ" is physical or virtual or whatever, I'd say my extrapolation was JMO (as usual). To me, the heart of Christianity is lost on most self-averring Christians, whatever.


As for me, I am prepared to read between or into the lines of the Bible, if the Church would acknowledge it to be based on the timelessly ancient scriptures of Sanatana Dharma (as Sarabhanga endeavours to show) and the wisdom of the other ancient religions.



As more of a shamanistic sort, I'm accustomed to entering and leaving body/s through many means. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with any orthodoxy :)


Everyone of us leave our body in deep sleep. The more spiritual like you may do it at will. If the 'door' Jeus refers to is the 'door' of entry into other 'states of existence', fine. Because some people say the doctrine of karma is found in the Bible, I tried to find an instance of it in the 'door'.



Remember, I'm a chaos mage, no evangelical!


Your 'chaos' is controlled within the framework of Advaita. I understand that you can never be 'evangelical', thank you.

[saidevo]

Namaste Yajvan.



This , the recorder is steeped ( most likely?) in duality. Could he really write/appreciate/comprehend advitīa message if handed to him? If he did then he could perhaps frame the sentence in such a way that would avoid any mis-understandings.


I think you may be right in your conclusion. The recorder here is John the Apostle, who was among the closest to Jesus, and yet, he was 'steeped in duality'. But then in any of our Hindu teachings of Advaita, has a guru said, "I and my Father are one" with the implications "What about you?", "That does not, however, include you", etc.

[nirotu]

Many Bible commentators/annotators do not read the Advaitic meaning in the declaration of Jesus 'I and my Father are one', as can be vefiried from many Bible Websites. It is in fact pointed out that "he who plants and he who waters are one" (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV) is translated as "he who plants and he who waters have one purpose."; and that Jesus "uses the concept of 'being one' in other places, and from them one can see that 'one purpose' is what is meant." (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...owpage&pid=102 (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=102)) Dear Saidevo:

Trying to provide an interpretation from “Unitarian Church” followers website only serves your purpose. By the way, how is the very thing you have accused me of doing (partial quoting or misquoting) different from your response here? Trying to use Unitarian Universalist to interpret Jesus is like asking Srla Prabhupada to interpret Sage Shankara. You should also have picked a verse from “Jehovah Witness” to validate Unitarians!


"I and my Father are one", John 10:30. This line that Jesus says in context, is highlighted as the chief message of Jesus. Is there any other message he gave to the Christian world, and what meanings do they lend to?I think these and other statements of Jesus identifying Himself with the divine may refer back to John 7:26, “. . .Have the authorities (rulers) really concluded that he is the Christ?” (KJV) When you follow along from there you will find subsequent chapters deals with his identity and also the unbelief of Jewish Pharisees.

Read along chapter 8, where a woman caught in adultery was brought before him. John 8:5, “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” (KJV)

Pharisees were of the opinion that none other than God only can forgive others sins. Thus, they thought Jesus would also go along with Moses. The major problem they had with Jesus was his declaration that he had the right to forgive sins. However, this episode of woman caught in adultery clearly points to the fact that Jesus really is Messiah with the right to forgive sins.

His statement is followed by another question from the audience, “who are you?” Now if you look into chapter 4 of John’s Gospel, you see that he goes on to talk about just what he has been claiming.

Chapter 4: A Samaritan woman at the well: Jesus asks for water to be drawn to quench his physical need (thirst). The conversation leads into transformation.

John 4:25, “The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.” (KJV)
John 4:26,”Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” (KJV)

Is he considered a liar in saying the above?
If so, he could very well have saved his own neck by extending lies further and by recanting everything in front of Pharisees and Pontius Pilate.

Is he considered a lunatic?
Well, if so, he would not have challenged authorities on scriptural grounds. Even the highest Pharisee, Nicodemus, had to admit and give in.

Is he then considered, the Lord?
Well, I did not see any other choice left for me?

It does not matter to me how you want to interpret the above statement of Jesus, but to me, it is a clear declaration of who he really is. When Jesus told the Jews that "I am", He could back it up beyond their wildest dreams. But they didn't know that (or willfully did not want to know); they thought he was just a man, and in that case he was committing blasphemy and deserved to die. In doing so, they all suffered more in their ignorance than Jesus suffered on the Cross.


Unlike Jesus, the Rishis have boldly declared for the whole mankind--not just for the Hindu faithfuls--the great sayings such as 'aham brahma asmi' (I am Brahman), 'tat tvam asi' (That thou art), 'prajnAnam brahman' (you are Brahman in consciousness).

It will be helpful if someone could point out that Jesus unambiguously exhorts his followers that they, he and God are one and the same, in the Bible.
This is where I do beg to differ with your assessment. This, very statement, has caused a great theological divide, which for centuries has separated those seeking to love, and those seeking to become, the Absolute Truth.The claim to be God is as serious an offense to many Vaisnavas as it would be to many in the Abrahamic traditions.

No living being can claim the identity of the Divine. The fallacy in Advaitic statement begs this question: How can you claim to be an object of your vision?

Blessings,

[nirotu]

My extra key stroke duplicated the previous post... sorry

[Znanna]

Namaste,

The topic, here, parallels debate from Christians themselves ... another board where I am longtime member which is populated predominantly by "conservative Christians" has been debating off and on this topic for years. In fact, there's a similar thread running there right now.

There is a study of the Bible, where the numeration of the words used supposedly gives an internal consistency to usage, which is not occluded by numerous translations over the years. (Perhaps our brother Arjuna could provide a reference for this?) I've not seen a comprehensive analysis based on it, however, beyond popular "prophetic" analysis such as "The Bible Code." It would seem to me that parsing the text, if one had extra time on their hands, using such a methodology might at least show consistency (or lack of same) in the commonly referenced phrases in John etc.

My own take on it, is that the Christ is not "a" person but Spirit which resides in all. Thus, the phrase "through me" takes on a more process-oriented rather than idolatrous mode of interpretation. Not to be smarmily new-agey or anything, but the notion that the Christ resides in all, and only needs acceptance and surrender, is the way I see it.

That said, to me, the notion of defining Godz seems to be ironically perverse.


Love,
ZN
/One in Many, Many in One

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu.



No living being can claim the identity of the Divine. The fallacy in Advaitic statement begs this question: How can you claim to be an object of your vision?


1. Advaita is not about any living being claiming the identity of the Divine. It is rather about the Divinity 'claiming' its identity with all beings, living and the so-called non-living. The 'non-living' have already submitted to that 'claim', so are in harmony with the Divine. Only the 'living' are vacillating, since most of them identify their selves with the ego, mind and body.

As Bhagavan Das explains in his book The Science of Peace, the Self-aham in every point of space and time dynamically negates the This-etat, resulting in the cycle of creation and destruction of the universe. The negation is for the Self to claim its identity with the This, the Not-Self, which is the universe. The Self always wins and asserts It-Self in silence, dissolving the Not-Self into It-Self.

2. Self in Advaita is not an 'object of vision'. It is the be-all and end-all of all endeavours. We 'claim' our Self everytime we have deep sleep, though the awareness does not linger. All 'sAdhana' is for the continued retention of the awareness of the Self and keep the ego in subordination to it, even as we go about our daily life.



Trying to provide an interpretation from "Unitarian Church" followers website only serves your purpose. By the way, how is the very thing you have accused me of doing (partial quoting or misquoting) different from your response here? Trying to use Unitarian Universalist to interpret Jesus is like asking Srla Prabhupada to interpret Sage Shankara. You should also have picked a verse from "Jehovah Witness" to validate Unitarians!


As a Hindu, I am not conversant with the sects, divisions, trends and debates of Christianity, except for some popular ones. I neither find the time nor have the necessity to go into them. Does any Christian sect claim that Jesus and the Bible teach Advaita?

Incidentally, I have not quoted partially or misquoted some verses in John, but only indicated a different interpretation of some.



It does not matter to me how you want to interpret the above statement of Jesus, but to me, it is a clear declaration of who he really is.


It was you, Nirotu, who claimed that Jesus taught Advaita; and now you talk about the 'fallacy' in Advaita!

Whether he is historical, mythical or fictional, it is not my intention to deny divinity to Jesus. Like most Hindus, I view Jesus primarily as a 'guru'; and guru is divine in Hinduism. In the teaching 'I and my Father are one", I view Jesus to be an avatara of God, the 'Word' in 'Flesh', a Son to the Father, as he himself admits in John 10:36.

This is pure Dvaita with no trace of Advaita here or possibly elsewhere in the Bible. Bible does not teach Advaita, in my opinion, for the simple reason, it differentiates between God, His Son, the people, the animals and birds and the inanimate.



The claim to be God is as serious an offense to many Vaisnavas as it would be to many in the Abrahamic traditions.


The man of Abrahamic tradition desires a place in God's House. The Vaishnava desires a place in God's Body as a cell with individuality. The Advaitic Saiva desires to submit and seek his entire identity with God. Whether God created or projected or is dreaming up this universe, it is not only that there can be nothing apart from Him, but also that He is everything--not just in everything. For the Jivas, I think, it is only a question of seeking to be at Home, in the Body or remain in Self and be both.

[Znanna]

Namaste,

I've asked and received permission from RJC (the author of the comments below) to crosspost them here from the other board I mentioned above. He speaks to Satay's OP better than I ever could. His view represents one predominantly mainstream Christian POV. The other POVs I would describe as being trinitarianism and unitarianism.


There are two points of discussion here between us in the ongoing bigger thread theme that seeks to provide biblical proof that Jesus is God. Obviously the thread concept is to prove a relationship such as trinity although not including the holy spirit as part of this discussion in the OP.

I joined in the discussion to relate the function of the Christ as evidence reflecting that Jesus was placed for a specific purpose on this earth by the force of God to accomplish restoration of what was lost in Eden. Jesus as a faithful sinless man could accomplish manifesting God’s righteousness in the provision to allow mankind a way to approach God and subsequently accomplish an everlasting salvation. The point is self-evident to those of some perception. If Christ was to act as a mediator between man and God than he certainly is not the God to whom he presents the request for mercy.

Now following my initial presentation in post 65, Kris asked my response to a typical trinity argument in that I had said "He was raised by God not by his own power." My next post, amply clarified the temple was indeed those ones that were considered a “house or temple built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone.” Next were verses specifically stating Jesus was raised up by God. That of course is a simply enough presentation to establish the simply truth. However, because some people are confused in their minds as to the nature of Jesus before, during and after his earthly sojourn the verses become something unnecessarily complex, convoluted in their minds.

So then two points of trinitarian confusion come to the forefront. The erroneous idea the a dead person can raise himself from the dead. Secondly in the John verse that Jesus as God is a physical body in his temple of his physical body, which is the nonsensical argument going on here. How convoluted is that, as it makes no sense.

Scripture repeatedly states God raised up Jesus. So any misconception as to how Jesus was raised to life is without question. No where does the bible state that Jesus was the God that was raising himself up. Only through mental manipulation inspired by past Babylonian philosophy are such erroneous precepts conceived.

Jesus presented the concept that the temple was his disciples and thereafter in prophetic comment allowed the world to know he would cause to be raised up, this temple, that he had begun building. If the Jews were to destroy the temple by his death, his faithfulness and loyalty to his God would warrant the firm re-establishment of that temple including himself as the foundation cornerstone for his “God to inhabit by spirit.”

Obviously his disciple did not understand the prophetic fulfillment of his word until later times following his death. It is my belief that they did not fully understand the matter until the first key of the kingdom was used on the day of Pentecost following Christ’s death
Quote:
John 14:26 But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things and bring back to YOUR minds all the things I told YOU.
So, thereafter, these anointed understood the covenant for a kingdom and their authority to function as the source of God’s now established true form of worship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bookworm
I'm glad that in Post 84 you acknowledge that, upon my further consideration, I now properly have read with understanding your statement of belief regarding the nature of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Unfortunately, the position you take is not in accord with the meaning of "resurrection" as it is used in the Bible; therefore, you do not meet the requirements specified in Romans 10:9, 10, which is a very dangerous position to remain in! I urgently suggest you carefully reconsider your position, and correct it, for to be mistaken here on this point means to forfeit all.

Quote:
Romans 10:9-10 For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.
Now who is it that is saying God raised Jesus from the dead as Lord? That is my public declaration here while all the time you deny that God raised up Jesus and contend Jesus raised himself. I would think your threats of condemnation in which you point a finger really reflex that the rest of the fingers on that hand point toward yourself.

Now, bookworm, you want to divert to a resurrection of a discussion on resurrection in which you believe you have understanding. To resurrect these matters requires our mental perception that we are resurrecting a matter of judgment and thereafter may find a need to raise up a conclusion. Do you understand my play on the words. If you do not then it would be a perfunctory, non-productive exercise. Study the Greek words in this verse.
Quote:
1 Corinthians 15:13 If, indeed, there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised up.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do YOU not know that YOU people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in YOU? 17 If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] YOU people are.

1 Corinthians 6:14 But God both raised up the Lord and will raise us up out of [death] through his power.

1 Peter 3:18 Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.

Ephesians 1:22-23 He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.
__________________
_________
The wicked is a ransom for the righteous one; and the one dealing treacherously takes the place of the upright ones. - Proverbs 21:18


ZN

[atanu]

In the beginning was vAk, and vAk was with yahva, and vAk was yahvI.

In the beginning, yama was with yamI, and the yamau was yahvI.

All things were made by her; and without her was not any thing made that was made.

In her was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

That was the AtmA, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become nArAyaNAs, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of nArA (yahvI).

And vAk was made flesh, and dwelt among us (yeSu), and we beheld his yajña as yahva, the only begotten of yahvI, full of shiva and satI.

And of his bRMhaNam have all we received, and namaH shivAya (grace for grace).

No man hath seen nara at any time, the only begotten nArAyaNa, which is in the bosom of yahvI, he hath declared him.


Namaste All,


The following citations from Arthur Osborne's "Be Still, It Is The Wind That Sings"

"Be Ye Therefore Perfect Even As Your Father Which Is In Heaven Is Perfect"

The above coupled with "Only God is Good" (St. Mark, X,18) suggests to me that by denying the possibility of attaining the perfection that is pure Good (Shiva), Christ's purblind followers have degraded their religion.

Christ surely enjoins attainment of perfection. The Being, the Spirit, is One; therefore you cannot be other because there is no other; therefore if you realize your true Self, you realize your identity with One, the Father, and are perfect.

Some Christian teachers who became perfect and taught so were nearly excommunicated. Eckhart said "Thou shalt lose thy thy-ness and dissolve in his his-ness; then shall be his mine, so utterly one mine that thou in him shalt know eternalwise his is-ness, free from becoming, his nameless nothingness.

The protestant mystic Boehme said " God has become that which I am and has made me that which He is." Tauler said "When through all manner of exercises the outer man has been converted into the inward man, then the Godhead nakedly descends into the depths of pure soul, so that the Spirit becomes one with Him."

Most Christians, I feel are steeped in materialism and fail to comprehend the all pervading spirit, very similar as most Vaishnava's who forget the ultimate meaning of Vishnu as all pervading and ascribe Him a localized four armed body. In my opinion, Shri Sarabhanga's post says it all.

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Nirotu,

Nirotu, please note that no advaitin desires to become one with Ishwara (which is an impossible task) but desires to know the Self, since it is a scriptural injunction as the highest Good. The self only will come to realise/know Ishwara, so one must know the self ultimately, wherein the seer and the knower exist. Moreover, Advaita vada never says that the Self-Brahman is the object of vision. OTOH, following Vedanta, it teaches that the Self is the vision of the vision and mind of the mind.


Om

[atanu]

If Christ was to act as a mediator between man and God than he certainly is not the God to whom he presents the request for mercy.

Now following my initial presentation in post 65, Kris asked my response to a typical trinity argument in that I had said "He was raised by God not by his own power." My next post, amply clarified the temple was indeed those ones that were considered a “house or temple built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone.” Next were verses specifically stating Jesus was raised up by God. That of course is a simply enough presentation to establish the simply truth. However, because some people are confused in their minds as to the nature of Jesus before, during and after his earthly sojourn the verses become something unnecessarily complex, convoluted in their minds.

So then two points of trinitarian confusion come to the forefront. The erroneous idea the a dead person can raise himself from the dead. Secondly in the John verse that Jesus as God is a physical body in his temple of his physical body, which is the nonsensical argument going on here. How convoluted is that, as it makes no sense.

Namaste All,

Actually Advaita Vedanta does not hold even the notion of two independent powers that a notion of dead resurrecting the dead will be entertained at all. These arguments are based on confusion that Jesus the body was the Christ. To say "He was raised by God not by his own power", is IMO, a natural common error that tends to ascribe independent power to a physical body. It is a very subtle point. Though the esteemed poster above is saying the correct thing yet he is saying it with an inverse logic, assuming that flesh can have any power of its own. In fact, Shri Nirotu's arguments, I find of this nature.

These arguers do not comprehend that God is pure knowledge and one who knows this becomes That; as the Vedic saying "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman".

Many Indian sages have amply made clear to the devotees that the body they see is not the Guru. Thus, a confusion as to 'the dead raising up the dead' does not arise. There is only one consciousness. The forms and names are many. Some forms are destined to be Narayana forms, yet Narayana is not the form. Narayana para. Shri Krishna saying "Submit to me, I will grant Jnana" and Jesus saying "I am the way" are equivalent and same, IMO...

Om

[atanu]

Namaste All,

The Vedic dictum "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman" and "Be Ye Therefore Perfect Even As Your Father Which Is In Heaven Is Perfect" both teach the finality.

A frog in a well imagines the well to be the limit of the Universe. Similarly, egos are limited to their sensual experiences of waking, dreaming, and sleeping and do not even wish to grant the truth of possibility of yogis transcending the states to Turya. Such egos will naturally be indignant when someone appears to teach "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman", imagining that another Brahman is created. No. Brahman is EKO. The knower of Brahman becomes the EKO, though for the onlooker (like me and Nirotu) the Guru is just another body.

This is the source of much confusion and vehemence of the likes of Shri Nirotu (and most dvaitins), who imagine that they follow Christ (or Krishna) in toto, yet actually are not able to surrender to the teaching ""Be Ye Therefore Perfect Even As Your Father Which Is In Heaven Is Perfect". These high priests do not wish to acknowledge that true Jnanis are of superior experience and are truly EKO. They do not wish to surrender to the teaching of saints who have been graced by the Turya. Who is opposing the surrender? An Advaitin or a Nirotu? They also mistakenly surmise that it is not possible for a Jnani to exercise Godly powers. Actually, a Jnani -- a perfect being, a knower of Brahman --has no independent power to exercise any independent Godly powers -- since Brahman is the only reality. From time beginning lessly, Ishwara exercises all powers and it is not going to change now or ever.

An Advaitin, knowing this, does not aspire to become another Ishwara but aims to know the immortal and fearless Self, which is a highest valid goal as taught in the Upanishads.

Om Namah Shivaya

[nirotu]

It was you, Nirotu, who claimed that Jesus taught Advaita; and now you talk about the 'fallacy' in Advaita!

This is pure Dvaita with no trace of Advaita here or possibly elsewhere in the Bible. Bible does not teach Advaita, in my opinion, for the simple reason, it differentiates between God, His Son, the people, the animals and birds and the inanimate.

Dear Saidevo:

I guess we have different understanding of Advaita, then.

While the emphasis of Sage Shankara has been on the “Jnana”, the absolute “knowledge”, I view devotion and surrender to God is more essential. Because, it is only through that does one attain a complete knowledge. Ultimately, man is to be freed by the abundance of God’s grace and compassion in that he pours wisdom and prudence. You will agree with me that Grace has been there for all eternity and waiting for a yearning invocation from man. I do believe all Vedantins affirm that belief.

My Father, the Cosmic Consciousness, who emanated the Christ Consciousness and manifested in me – that is why Jesus could say, I and My Father are one. Just as the distinction between Jesus and the Father is only a part of the whole experience (Dvaita), his unity with the Father – a unity due not to Jesus’ mission or purpose on earth, but in the last analysis based on being - “I and My Father are one” (Advaita), completes that experience. It is all because, it has roots beyond human condition.

The entire mission of Jesus was centered on one single purpose – that is to unite us with the Father in Love. When that occurs, the absolute is felt as a boundless spirit, pervading the whole Universe and flooding the soul of man. Such a unity is “advaita” with none like it! As Radhakrishnan puts is, “Because, to have one’s heart and mind absorbed in love seems to invert the mystery of the Universe.” Also, as S. S Raghavachar puts it so aptly, ”Greater the love of man to God, the greater is the space for God’s self-imparting grace.” The last word in the journey of God is “Arul”, “compassion and grace”. (Raghavachar –On Saiva-siddhanta, VA and Dvaita. Ed. Donald Bishop 1975).

For that reason, I would not characterize Jesus as “confirmed Advaitin”, because, in Him you will find both Dvaita and Advaita, which enable every one to progress spiritually. The Advaita and Dvaita Vedanta are both off-shoots of Veda, and the philosophers had only the benefit to mankind in mind when they wrote it, therefore, I find both Advaita and Dvaita are successive stages of realization. In my view, this is true to Jesus as well as to Ramana Maharishi. Therefore, it grieves me just as much to think Jesus did not know Advaita as it would be to think Ramana did not know Dvaita.


Any way, thanks for an interesting discussion.

Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Saidevo:

I guess we have different understanding of Advaita, then.

While the emphasis of Sage Shankara has been on the “Jnana”, the absolute “knowledge”, I view devotion and surrender to God is more essential. -

Dear Nirotu,

See, you prove what we are saying. You somehow miss the point that there can be many levels of enlightenment for Jivas. You show a great intransigence in the matter by imposing your requirement on others. You have assumed that Advaita restricts one from bhakti marga, whereas,Advaita Guru, Shankara was a great bhakta himself. You think that you alone know about true bhakti and true intent and true marga (which by the way is Jesus alone for you). You also fail to come down from your high teacher position and accept that some teachers have attained a state were there is no avidya and thus 'No Second'.

You can read a discussion wherein an English priest tried to convert Shri Ramana -- implying all the time that Shri Ramana required saving.

Leave these decisions to God please. Atanu deciding what is suitable for 'Nirotu or others' is not surrender.

Om

[jaggin]

namaste,

If possible, it would be nice to continue discussion (from the 'Why' thread) of this famous verse from the bible.



I read the previous verses than 10.30 and some verses proceeding this as well.

It seems to me that Jesus is not actually saying "he and father are one" in the sense that rsi says "Aham Brahamasmi".

It seems that jesus means to say that 'he' and the 'father' are 'one' in 'purpose' i.e. their 'purpose' is one. And what is that purpose? Read verses starting from about 10.20 John.

I and My Father are one perhaps in the Dharmic context but that's not how John means it, at least that's my understanding.

I read verses before and after but found nothing to support your view. I think you will have to be more explicit about what you think the context is saying.

[jaggin]

Namaste.

Let us check the English-translated verses of the Bible to see if the expression "one and the same" occurs anywhere and then try to compare the meaning given to them with the Advaitic meaning sought to be read here in the expression "I and my Father are one".



Let us notice that the King James Version uses only the word 'one' instead of the expression "one and the same" in all the above quotes. Let us also note that all the quotes refer to 'wordly' (as against 'spiritual') affairs.

Now, this is interesting:



Let us notice that the KJV uses the word "selfsame" for this last quote, which refers to the 'Spirit'. Webster's New World Dictionary gives the meaning of this word as: 'exactly the same; identical; (the) very same'.

Now, this is the translation of various editions of the famous quote "I and my Father are one" in John 10:30:



Let us note that the KJV does not use the word "selfsame" to qualify the word "one", and therefore the meaning is 'wordly and dvaitic'--'one in purpose', as Satay has stated.

The Greek word that means 'same' is transliterated as idios; the Greek expression for 'identical' in transliteration is taftosimos, entelos o idios. In Latin, the equivalent expression for 'same/identical' is idem eadem idem. Obviously, we find none of these words in the Greek and Latin versions of the supposedly Advaitic quote of Jesus given above.

In the immediately preceding verse, Jesus speaks of himself and his Father only in Dvaita:

10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. (A note to this verse says: "Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is greater than all.")

The Jews Jesus spoke to consider his claim to be God blasphemous and prepare to assault him with stones for such claim "that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (10:33)." To this Jesus replies, "...because I said, I am the Son of God? (10:36)."

10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
10:38 that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Curiously, Jesus has only contradicting statements in the Bible about whether he is one with God, son of God or neither. Some quotes:



To me, what ensues such contradictions can only be among one or more of the following:

• If Jesus existed and was Son of God, he spoke whatever he said about him only in Dvaita, for the Jewish commons and nobles of his day were not in a position to understand Advaita.

• If Jesus existed and was steeped in Advaita, he would have exhorted unequivocally, as do the Rishis of our Upanishads, that every man and woman was God at their core and that God is immanent as the substratum in every atom of the universe, teeming with his lifeforce. For a teacher believed to have been trained in India, there would have been no need to dilute or mince words, specially when he speaks about himself.

• Jesus did not exist historically. The Gospel writers came up with their own, different versions of the mythical Jesus, hence the contradictions.

Jesus can no more be one and the same with the Father than Jesus could be one and the same with Yahweh speaking out of the burning bush. Although God is the same, His manifestation is different. To say the Jesus is one and the same with the Father would be to ascribe to the Father a physical body which He does not have.

I do not find any contradictions. There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus is God in the flesh including verses that you have already mentioned.

As for those who mention the one in purpose concept it is out of context with these verses. Obviously God in the flesh must be one in purpose with God the Father since they are one person.

[saidevo]

Namaste Jaggin.

It was not intention to deny divinity to Jesus, only that he was in Advaitic unity with his Father. I have already expressed it as below:



Whether he is historical, mythical or fictional, it is not my intention to deny divinity to Jesus. Like most Hindus, I view Jesus primarily as a 'guru'; and guru is divine in Hinduism. In the teaching 'I and my Father are one", I view Jesus to be an avatara of God, the 'Word' in 'Flesh', a Son to the Father, as he himself admits in John 10:36.

This is pure Dvaita with no trace of Advaita here or possibly elsewhere in the Bible. Bible does not teach Advaita, in my opinion, for the simple reason, it differentiates between God, His Son, the people, the animals and birds and the inanimate.


Now, after coming across the Website relating to the Atwell's book 'Caesar's Messiah', and the discussions in the forum there, I tend to think that what he says about Jesus and the Gospels might perhaps be the nearest to the truth.

What I take exception is the extrapolation that Jesus or the Bible knew about and talks Advaita, on par with what the Hindu Upanishads say.

[rcscwc]

In the beginning was vAk, and vAk was with yahva, and vAk was yahvI.



Whom are you kidding, Mr. Void Essence??
In the beginning was Prajapati, with Him was His Word, the word was AUM.

I have seen this and its variants in Upanishads, Brahmanas etc. Nowhere have seen yahva.

Stop deluding yourself.

[chandu_69]

Actually the Issue is much simpler.Jesus acknowledges Father is above Him whatever that means.( Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.)



The principle of Salvation in christianity rules out any ambiguity of Advaitan thought.

Doctrine of Salvation in christianity:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The road to salvation is Jesus..no confusion there.

[atanu]

I have seen this and its variants in Upanishads, Brahmanas etc. Nowhere have seen yahva.

Stop deluding yourself.

Why do we parade our ignorance again and again? Not Shri Sarabhanga but many Hindu sages and philosophers have noted yahva in Veda. There is a post, which you can search for and below, I give the Sanskrit meaning of yahva, which is indeed a word for Mahat/Indra/Agni/Soma in the Vedas.

1(mwd)yahvamf(%{I4})n. restless , swift , active (applied to Agni , Indra and Soma) RV. ; continually moving or flowing (applied to the waters) ib. (= %{mahat} Sa1y.) ; m. = %{yajamAna} , a sacrificer Un2. i , 134 Sch. ; (%{I}) f. du. heaven and earth RV. ; pl. the flowing waters (with %{sapta} , `" the seven great rivers "') ib. (cf. Naigh. i , 15).

2(cap)yahvaf. {I3} youngest, newest, always young or fresh (of Agni = {ya3viSTha}, of the waters etc.). f. {I} pl. flowing water.--------------------------
yahvI also is from the Vedas.
Jews/Christians/Muslims worship yahva, which is continually moving and also the most HIGH El Elion.

Om Namah Shivaya

[saidevo]

Namaste Atanu.

Some recap on the term 'yahva' from HDF and elsewhere:



From The Nighantu and the Nirukta: The Oldest Indian Treatise on Etymology
By Lakshman Sarup:
(http://books.google.com/books?id=0l2UOabkPTIC&pg=RA1-PA133&lpg=RA1-PA133&dq=%22nighaNTu%22+yahva&source=bl&ots=tFvHloRMop&sig=OBRN4hb6YQANR5SW5DuWh1SF84w&hl=en&ei=vMCMSqoNhtWQBa7guSM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=yahva&f=false)

"Being invoked thou art to be praised and worshipped. O come united with the Vasus. O great one, thou art the sacrificer of the gods. As such, O excellent sacrificer, do thou sacrifice to them, by us." (Aitareya BrAhmaNa,ii.1)

The word 'yahva' is a synonym of great, i.e. gone (_/ya), and invoked (_/hu). As such, O excellent sacrificer, do thou sacrifice to them, incited by us. Incieted, impelled or implored. Excellent sacrificer, the best sacrificer.

Note:
yahva iti mahato nAmadheyam, Yaska: Nirukta 8.8

*** *** ***

Sarabhanga in HDF (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2696&page=14):

From Bal Gangadhar Tilak ~ “Vedic chronology and Vedanga Jyotish” (1925)
Jehovah is undoubtedly the same as the Chaldean Yahve.

The word Yahu, Yahva, Yahvat, and the feminine form Yahvi, Yahvati occur several times in the Rigveda: and Grassmann derives them from the root Yah = to hasten, or to drive quickly. The Nighantu also tells us that the word Yaha means water, or strength; while the adjective Yahva means ‘great’. Yahva in this sense is applied in the Rigveda to Soma, to Agni, and to Indra.

Moses may have borrowed it from the Chaldeans, yet the Chaldean tongue, in which various other cognate forms of the word are wanting, cannot claim it to be originally its own.

*** *** ***

From Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha, and Christ unveiled
By Acharya S
http://books.google.com/books?id=rey19p_ycHUC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=%22yahva%22+veda&source=bl&ots=83G3Lgdpr_&sig=xKUZen4jMDoer8g8ZqjVxfUbips&hl=en&ei=bcKMSuXuB8mIkQXv9LE2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false

This book around pages 119 and on, traces the correlation between the names Yahweh, Jahve, Jovia, Jove, Jupiter, Melek, Melech, Molech, etc., El/Bel/Baal Shaddai, Iao, and so on and so forth.

*** *** ***

The relationship between Soma and Agni is traced in this work:
Original Concept of Soma by P.V.Sharma
http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b5f_109.pdf

*** *** ***

From the article "How Old Is Indian Writing?" by Subhash Kak
http://subhash-kak.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/12/how-old-is-indian-writing.htm

Regarding the similarities between Brahmi and early Semitic scripts, it should be noted that Indic kingdoms, in which Sanskrit names were used, were prominent in West Asia in the second millennium BC. Just as in the Vedic system, the Ugaritics, a people closely related to the Phoenicians and the Hebrews, have 33 gods. More importantly, Yahvah, the name of the God in the Judaic tradition, occurs as an epithet for Agni in the Rigveda a total of 21 times (yahva in RV 10.110; yahvah in RV 3.1, 3.5, 4.5, 4.7, 4.58, 5.1, 7.6, 7.8, 9.75, 10.11; yahvam in RV 1.36; 3.3; 4.5; 5.16; 8.13; 10.92; yahvasya in RV 3.2 and 3.28). Indus ideas on writing may thus have, through the agency of the powerful Mitanni kingdom of Syria, been influential in the various Semitic traditions of the second and first millennia BC.

*** *** ***


Probably every Hindu would agree that the term and god Yahva is of Rig Vedic origin, but how does it correspond to Jesus? If you check the "Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?" thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/archive/index.php?t-2696.html), you would find that Sarabhanga tried to take a shot at finding Jesus in the Rig Vedic text, saying, "jeSus does appear (along with yahva and kRSTa) in Rgveda 1.36." ["satvaM no adyasumanA ihAvitA bhavAvAjeSusantya"], this was refuted by you, Satay and even Norotu and later Sarabhanga went to great length analyzing the phrase 'vAjeSu' but none of us were convinced of the connection he tried to get.

Are you still not sure that Rig Veda predicts the coming of Christ, or else how would you relate Yahva, Jesus and Agni inasmuch as:

Agni is the sacrificer, it never gets sacrificed except at the time of Pralaya when it is absorbed into water (which in turn into space); whereas Jesus sacrificed himself giving rise to the Christian belief that he took away all their sins with him. Did Jesus sacrifice himself so his followers would know and appreciate their original god Yahva (alias Agni) better? But today's Christians say that only Jesus is the way to salvation?

[rcscwc]

You can "apply" anything to anything. I will aply geomeyrt to you.



Why do we parade our ignorance again and again? Not Shri Sarabhanga but many Hindu sages and philosophers have noted yahva in Veda. There is a post, which you can search for and below, I give the Sanskrit meaning of yahva, which is indeed a word for Mahat/Indra/Agni/Soma in the Vedas.
1(mwd)yahvamf(%{I4})n. restless , swift , active (applied to Agni , Indra and Soma) RV. ; continually moving or flowing (applied to the waters) ib. (= %{mahat} Sa1y.) ; m. = %{yajamAna} , a sacrificer Un2. i , 134 Sch. ; (%{I}) f. du. heaven and earth RV. ; pl. the flowing waters (with %{sapta} , `" the seven great rivers "') ib. (cf. Naigh. i , 15).
2(cap)yahvaf. {I3} youngest, newest, always young or fresh (of Agni = {ya3viSTha}, of the waters etc.). f. {I} pl. flowing water.--------------------------
yahvI also is from the Vedas.Jews/Christians/Muslims worship yahva, which is continually moving and also the most HIGH El Elion.

Om Namah Shivaya

Lols.
Do you mean Chinese were extolling yhwh when they used the term for fire?

You mean Parsis, Fire [Agni] worsippers were worshipping yhwh?

You mean Indra is expansion and extension of Ra? Is Usha an extension of Isis?

Atanu can be broken up like this.

A tan u. TAN is abbreviated TANGENT, and its value is available at right(eous) angle. Moreover, a tangent just glances off a curve, never coming near its focus. You can draw infinite number of tangents to a circle, and yet not describe a circle. Circle is defined by a line passing through it CENTRE, a VYASA. To hit the core you must be a vyasa, a diameter.

A tangent you (are).
***
You know what allaah means? I will tell you.

It is an arabic word, and I will use only arabic terminology, not Sanskrit.

Al means THE. Has it any meaning? Neyet.

La again has no meaning in arabic.

Ah means expression of pain, even in arabic. So what does allah mean.

Something meaningless which gives you pain.


I raped Hebrew for Sarbhanga, but rest assured I have I have done it in this case.
What happened to the UNMOVED MOVER of Augustine and Aquinas? What about the First of Kalam? Are you even conversant with them?

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu.

Some recap on the term 'yahva' from HDF and elsewhere:

Probably every Hindu would agree that the term and god Yahva is of Rig Vedic origin, but how does it correspond to Jesus? If you check the "Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?" thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/archive/index.php?t-2696.html), you would find that Sarabhanga tried to take a shot at finding Jesus in the Rig Vedic text, saying, "jeSus does appear (along with yahva and kRSTa) in Rgveda 1.36." ["satvaM no adyasumanA ihAvitA bhavAvAjeSusantya"], this was refuted by you, Satay and even Norotu and later Sarabhanga went to great length analyzing the phrase 'vAjeSu' but none of us were convinced of the connection he tried to get.

Are you still not sure that Rig Veda predicts the coming of Christ, or else how would you relate Yahva, Jesus and Agni inasmuch as:

Agni is the sacrificer, it never gets sacrificed except at the time of Pralaya when it is absorbed into water (which in turn into space); whereas Jesus sacrificed himself giving rise to the Christian belief that he took away all their sins with him. Did Jesus sacrifice himself so his followers would know and appreciate their original god Yahva (alias Agni) better? But today's Christians say that only Jesus is the way to salvation?

Namste saidevo ji,

I agree and this was our contention with Shri Sarabhanga, who was linking shift of some Vedic sage westwards with drying up of Saraswati River. He also inferred Agni bowing down to yahva. I felt it comical that agni was bowing down to agni. (Though, it is true that agni is actually existent in all three phenomenal stations and also in the Turiya as the will of the Supreme. So, Agni is immortal and can bow to each other.)

Personally, I am averse to link scripture with any history -- since such can be done in any way desired. Scripture is timeless, teaching of eternal categories and of what is beyond.

Regarding Jesus being the only way, I read a news item in Times of India of 18.08.09 that more than 60% in USA now do not believe it.

On the other hand, we also know that without propitiating Vignesvara -- son of Shiva, grace of God is impossible to get. WE also have 'Param Gatim', which is not different from "I AM the way". "I Am" is yahva, which is Mahat, Vishnu and Param Gatim. I understand now that till a man comprehends that God is something beyond which nothing is possible, this haggling will continue for that man. Especially for those who confound beings with bodies and do not know the spiritual light/energy nature, such confusion will continue.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

[chandu_69]

While some Hindu 'intellectuals' were twisting the Tetragrammaton yhwh the jewish scholars are still unsure about it's English pronunciation.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/glossY.html

YHWH (Yahweh)
The sacred name of God in Jewish scriptures and tradition; also known as the tetragrammaton. Since Hebrew was written without vowels in ancient times, the four consonants YHWH contain no clue to their original pronunciation.

A somewhat wider acceptation to it's origin is explained below.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton)
Hebrew Letter name Pronunciation י Yodh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodh) "Y" ה He (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_%28letter%29) (pronounced "hey") "H" ו Waw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vav_%28letter%29) "W" or placeholder for "O"/"U" vowel (see mater lectionis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis)) ה He (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_%28letter%29) "H" (or sometimes silent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_letter) at the ends of words)

[chandu_69]

Jesus it appears has some confusion about his status:

At one place he says father is greater than him

John 14 :28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

john10:29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

john:20-17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

[chandu_69]

The Biggest problem with John's revelation is that
They are after the death of Jesus.

Jesus while he was alive was himself disillusioned with FATHER:

The Jews taunted him to get down from the cross to prove his claim of SON OF GOD.

Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.


Now comes the breaking of Jesus bubble.


Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

[rcscwc]

Hari Om

I am my Father are one - for the recorder,this saying would most likely think, Jesus is saying he is the Lord
Would the recorder even have a inkling of advayatā ?
Is there other documents that perhaps the recorder could use as a reference to suggest (perhaps) Jesus was alluding to advayatā ?
Or was the recorder spiritually informed to discern the difference between duality and non-duality? These are the initial thoughts that came to mind. This , the recorder is steeped ( most likely?) in duality.



It is no difficult to know that OT is purely a dualist faith. God and man are two different objects and the twian shall never meet. It pays for Yhwh to keep humans in bondage. For that purpose he imposed covenant after covenant, without ever revealing the objective thereof. Like a typical bonded slave, man too is in dark.

Xianity too is not free of duality. God and Son are not congruent. This has been emphasised repeatedly by the xian thinkers. This duality cannot be erased without obliterating the Son.

[rcscwc]

In the beginning was vAk, and vAk was with yahva, and vAk was yahvI.

In the beginning, yama was with yamI, and the yamau was yahvI.

All things were made by her; and without her was not any thing made that was made.

In her was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

That was the AtmA, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become nArAyaNAs, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of nArA (yahvI).

And vAk was made flesh, and dwelt among us (yeSu), and we beheld his yajña as yahva, the only begotten of yahvI, full of shiva and satI.

And of his bRMhaNam have all we received, and namaH shivAya (grace for grace).

No man hath seen nara at any time, the only begotten nArAyaNa, which is in the bosom of yahvI, he hath declared him.
Balderdash

[ranjeetmore]

In the beginning was vAk, and vAk was with yahva, and vAk was yahvI.

In the beginning, yama was with yamI, and the yamau was yahvI.

All things were made by her; and without her was not any thing made that was made.

In her was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

That was the AtmA, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become nArAyaNAs, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of nArA (yahvI).

And vAk was made flesh, and dwelt among us (yeSu), and we beheld his yajña as yahva, the only begotten of yahvI, full of shiva and satI.

And of his bRMhaNam have all we received, and namaH shivAya (grace for grace).

No man hath seen nara at any time, the only begotten nArAyaNa, which is in the bosom of yahvI, he hath declared him.


what is this ?? What is your source ?

[sanjaya]

what is this ?? What is your source ?

It's the first few verses of the Gospel of John, but with some Greek words replaced with Sanskrit words. Honestly I'm not sure why anyone would want to portray Christianity as so similar to Hinduism. Yes, there are a few similarities, but there are a lot of differences too. There are many things in John's Gospel that disagree with Hindu teachings. I'm all for tolerating and respecting other faiths. But at the end of the day I believe that when Hinduism says something different than another religion, Hinduism is correct and the other faith is not. An informed Hindu can't engage in radical universalism without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

[jaggin]

It's the first few verses of the Gospel of John, but with some Greek words replaced with Sanskrit words. Honestly I'm not sure why anyone would want to portray Christianity as so similar to Hinduism. Yes, there are a few similarities, but there are a lot of differences too. There are many things in John's Gospel that disagree with Hindu teachings. I'm all for tolerating and respecting other faiths. But at the end of the day I believe that when Hinduism says something different than another religion, Hinduism is correct and the other faith is not. An informed Hindu can't engage in radical universalism without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Are you saying that Hinduism doesn't believe that God can conjoin a body as in Krishna? I would be interested in seeing differences clearly spelled out in another thread but I doubt that you can prove that your understanding is the best one although I can see why you would want to perceive it that way.

[sanjaya]

Are you saying that Hinduism doesn't believe that God can conjoin a body as in Krishna?

Not at all. But there are some differences. In Christianity, theologians place enormous significance on the incarnation of God the Son. Evangelicals are fond of saying that God "stepped into human history." In Hinduism people tend to not see this as a unique event as Christians do, since God has become incarnate as a man on many different occasions. Sri Krishna even says that he will do this whenever there is a decrease in righteousness and an increase in unrighteousness in the world.


I would be interested in seeing differences clearly spelled out in another thread but I doubt that you can prove that your understanding is the best one although I can see why you would want to perceive it that way.

I definitely do not claim to have a superior understanding of Hinduism. On the contrary, I am probably one of the least knowledgable posters on this forum. That's part of the reason I'm here to begin with.