Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

[Znanna]

"Jesus" or "the Christ" ?

Isn't it perverse to confuse "man" with "Godz"?

The way to differentiate, IMO, is what is named and what is unspeakable.


ZN

[saidevo]

Namaste Znanna and others.

"Jesus" or "the Christ" ?
Isn't it perverse to confuse "man" with "Godz"?
The way to differentiate, IMO, is what is named and what is unspeakable.

We need to get a few things straight in a dispassionate, objective manner. Znanna's messages are always objective and dispassionate, sparkling in their brevity, and she keeps herself out of passionate debates unlike many of us.

1. If the term "Christ" is used for "Godz" as "what is unspeakable" as an equivalent/substitute for nirguNa Brahman, is there any verse in the Bible (OT/NT) that speaks about the nature of such nirguNa Brahman? I ask this question because the Christian God is believed to be the equivalent of only saguNa Brahman, a Personal God.

2. Christians believe Jesus (of Nazareth) as an incarnation of the Logos, the divine word of God. The Logos again is God manifested by speech: Logos derives from the Greek 'lego' meaning 'to say'. Hindu Upanishads speak of the universe as nothing more than manifestation of forms and names by Vac or speech over the Atman, which causes all the sorrow and sufferings in the world.

3. The term 'Christ' which is used by the Christians as a surname of Jesus (though it is a title) is derived from the Greek 'christos' which literally means 'The Anointed One'. Sarabhanga has pointed out in HDF how the Greek term itself derives from the Sanskrit 'kRSTa' meaning a ploughed field and a reference to the Christians of Jesus' times being mostly farmers.

The term 'anointment' has stark ritual and ceremonial connotations. Anointment with various substances (such as oil, fat and blood) was done in early history to preserve the dead bodies, to heal wounds, to muster courage and so on. In the Hindu ritual, anointment is done to the stone icons of personal gods in temples such as Anjaneya, Ganesha, etc., using oil, butter and sandal paste, as part of the daily rituals.

'Chrism' in Greek means 'perfumed oil'. 'Christos' in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil, and is thus a literal and accurate translation of 'Messiah'. Interestingly, while the cognates of the Greek term retain their positive meanings, the cognates of their original English adaptation deteriorated (like the Western culture and civilization) into negative connotations in such terms as 'grisly, grim, grime, gizm and grease'!

4. If Jesus was nirguNa Brahman, surely he must have expressed his intrinsic nature in such lofty terms as found for Brahman in the Hindu Upanishads or in the Bhagavad Gita, whoever his audiences were, for at least one or two of his twelve apostles must have advanced to the expected spiritual level. When Jesus says 'I and my Father are One', it seems to me, he still has the duality of manifestation in mind, because otherwise he would have said 'I am the Father' and 'You are also the Father'.

I have no grudge in accepting Jesus as an incarnation of saguNa Brahman, the Personal God, whether Jesus of Nazareth was historical or mythical. But I certainly think it is erroneous to get Jesus above the Trinity, more so when--as Christians believe--Jesus sits at the "right hand of God the Father" in the heaven after his ascension.

(Sources for the analysis: Wikipedia)

[atanu]

---
The way to Moksha is through Vishnu. Either you claim Lord Vishnu is supreme, or keep silent on who God is. ----

Namaste Sri Vaishnava,

Christians also believe in Jesus's saying: 'I am the way. I am the Light', as strongly as you believe.

How do you discriminate your and their beliefs and how do you prove that only your statement is true? How your attainements are superior in physical and spiritual realms?

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Saidevo,

Surely the Christian God is Jehovah (i.e. Yaweh, the Tetragrammaton YHVH) who is just as nirguNa and avyakta as the turya AUM.

YHVH (the Father) is equivalent with nirguNa nara, while Jesus (the Son) is equivalent with saguNa nArAyaNa.

When Jesus says “I and my Father are One”, he is speaking of his essential nature, his own AtmA.
The spirit of the Son is the same spirit of Father.
Jesus did not say “I and my Father are Two”, or “I and my Father are One and a half”.

Isha kRSNa and iSus (“ray of light”) kRSTis (“teacher”) would both agree that nArAyaNa and nara are one and the same sacred essence. Indeed, naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa, and the name of naranArAyaNa is effectively saying exactly the same thing as “I and my Father are One”.

And from the perspective of a ray of light, there is no difference between its self and its source (that apparent separation being imposed only by outside observers).

[sarabhanga]

And ...

Isha kRSNa was born among the pastoral yAdava clan, and
iSus kRSTis was born among the agrarian kRSTayas.

kRSTi refers to a member of the pañca kRSTayas ~ the five Aryan tribes, or (more generally) the inhabitants of cultivated lands.

And iSus (ray of light) is cognate with indu (drop of light).

iSus kRSTis was an indu, for sure.

[Sri Vaishnava]

Namaste,

The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore, although they have their arguments and reasoning, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy, deem these scriptures unacceptable. (Cc Adi. 17,169 purport)

~ Srila Prabhupada.

So the comparative position of Vasudeva Datta is millions of times better than that of Lord Jesus Christ. A Vaishnava is so liberal that he is prepared to risk everything to rescue the conditioned souls from material existence.

~ Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

Srila Prabhupada mentioned that the man-made Religions have a beginning. They are not eternal.

1) Jesus' name is not mentioned in the Shastras. He is no avatar.

2) Abrahamic Religions do have certain Vedic Influences. But that is because they are derived from Roman and Greek Mythologies, which in turn were derived from our Puranas. Lord Krishna indeed controls all that is Religion, but that doesn't mean the Religion is true.

Christ is borrowed from Kristos, which came from Krishna. But that doesn't mean Christ is Krishna.

The Concept of a dying and resurrecting god is not unique to Christianity.Pagan Religions have been incorporating it for ages. The story was probably ripped off from Pagans. Check this out:

Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, Son of Jupiter was begotten by intercourse with Semele and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce Wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?


3) Some people consider Siva or Brahma to be part of a Trinity, or as equal to Vishnu.Although I do not agree, I also do not mind that because both Siva and Brahma are names in the Vedic Literature that gives due importance to them. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the Vedic Scriptures, barring the controversial Bhavishya Purana.

4) Jesus did not preach, at any point, that one should even worship a God who is similar to Lord Vishnu or any other Deva. The Old Testament God was the one he believed in. And that God is tyrannical and most definitely was not Lord Vishnu, although Lord Vishnu ordains that all Religions are maintained by Him.

I am aware of the Abraham and Brahma, Om and Amen and other such hidden vedic similarities. But it is not our faith.

Jesus probably learnt some Hinduism and Buddhism. He spread some of it. Probably a Christian version of Sai Baba.

The Bible forbids worship of Images.

'He alone is the best devotee who sees his Adored One everywhere. For the devotee of Vishnu the Lord is omnipresent. He should see Lord Vishnu even in the images of Shankar, Devi, Ganesh and Surya etc. Likewise a devotee of Shankar, Devi etc. should visualize his Adored One omnipresent.'

I shall refrain from engaging in Vaishnavite vs. Shaivite debates.

Vaishnavites believe though, that 'Ishta Devta' pertains to only Lord Vishnu and His Devotees. Choose any Avatar for rendering devotional service.

However, Jesus is not part of the true Vedic History. He is a manufactured product of Kali Yuga. If you refer to Siva, Brahma, Devi, etc. as 'Ishta Devta', its fine, as they are a part of Vedic History and legitimate divinity.

I wasn't aware that jesus actually threw stones at women...where does it say that?

Read the antics of Jehovah in the Old Testament. Basically, 'God' is a spoilt child who throws tantrums if he doesn't get what he wants. Christians accept that he is the father, and Jesus as son, or both as the same. Whatever.

Christians also believe in Jesus's saying: 'I am the way. I am the Light', as strongly as you believe.

How do you discriminate your and their beliefs and how do you prove that only your statement is true? How your attainements are superior in physical and spiritual realms?

OK, let us assume that Jesus is Divine. Now, lets check Lord Krishna's crystal clear message. 'All Prayers Come to Me, Worship only Me, and you will come to Me'.

Jews don't accept Jesus was a prophet or god. Why must we go beyond the scope of what was given to us by the Supreme Lord?

Let us assume, although it is beyond the scope of the texts, that Jesus was an incarnation. But Lord Krishna was the Supreme Lord. And Krishna came here. He gave us a message. Clearly, Krishna is superior.

Lord Krishna is the truth. Because you yourself must know the divine revelations of the Vedas, the works of our Acharyas and the fact that our Scriptures are the oldest and have no origin.

Many of our Acharyas such as Shri Madhvacharya, Shri Chaitanya, Shri Ramanujacharya came in contact with people of other religions (mainly islam). None of the even bothered to study those religions. Although both Sankaracharya and Madhvacharya have named Buddha as an avatar, no Acharya has called Jesus one.

Christians believe Jesus is the 'way'. But that came long after many pagan myths had emerged, and most likely, it was a manufactured religion. Lord Krishna intended it to be, for He says in the Gita that He assigns different religions based on Sattvik, Rajas and Tamas qualities.

So it is likely that Jesus is not the only 'way', unless you say that everyone may have been christian in a previous birth, before becoming a Hindu. Then it is not the exclusive 'Way'. But Lord Krishna and the other Avatars of Vishnu came first, before anyone else.

Maybe, Christians die, and if they have remained true to their faith, they will be born again as devotees of Krishna.

In another 430,000 years, Jesus' name will be forgotten when Lord Kalki arrives.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Sri Vaishnava


" Read the antics of Jehovah in the Old Testament. Basically, 'God' is a spoilt child who throws tantrums if he doesn't get what he wants. Christians accept that he is the father, and Jesus as son, or both as the same. Whatever."

Maybe you are not acquainted with the fact that Jesus never called the almighty father by Jehovah . When Jesus wanted to call God he used the term Elloin which is the name in Aramaic for God in the Jesus tradition.

[Sri Vaishnava]

It is true, I am not acquainted with the Bible, although I like reading about Pagan Myths.

But Jesus, as well as Christians, accept the events of the Old Testament as the truth. Hence, the same God is also the God of the New Testament.

Here, you can see the reformation attempt by man. They decided to change the character of God from a jealous angry one to a kind and forgiving one. It is clearly a man-made product.

Worship Siva, Devi, Brahma, etc. I have no right to intrude. Worship even Jesus. The only thing that bothers me is Jesus being referred to as an avatar of the great Lord Vishnu, for he wasn't. The Scriptures would have given atleast one line of info. about him, if he was. After all, Christianity is a huge commodity in this age.

[atanu]

Namaste,

----
Maybe, Christians die, and if they have remained true to their faith, they will be born again as devotees of Krishna.

In another 430,000 years, Jesus' name will be forgotten when Lord Kalki arrives.

Namaskar Sri Vaisnava,

Though you extoll vedas, I did not see any vedic citation in your post.

Nevertheless, excellent arguments and citations. You leave no holes that any debate may be possible. And as allegory, who can engage evangelical christians??

--------------------

For Shri Yajvan,

I hope you get the beef that links/unlinks science and religion? I reiterate that scientists are better karma yogis than ------.

Om

[Sri Vaishnava]

Namaskar Sri Vaisnava,

Though you extoll vedas, I did not see any vedic citation in your post.

Nevertheless, excellent arguments and citations. You leave no holes that any debate may be possible. And as allegory, who can engage evangelical christians??

Please give me ONE Citation from the Vedas or Shastras that hint Jesus to be an avatar.

As for my point, How about the Bhagavad Gita for starters? Does Krishna mention anywhere that Salvation can be gained by any other God?

There is no need for Vedic Citation, because Jesus is not mentioned in the Vedas. If you believe Shiva is the way to Moskha, good, because Shiva is named in the Vedas. If it is through Devi, fine. My only problem is how Hindus attempt to absorb Abrahamic Faiths into their culture.

As you can see, Material Wealth is clearly present more in the West than in India. All the temptations of Samsara are more pronounced in the West (Though sadly, India is getting that way too).

True Spiritual Wealth is in the East.

As for comparing me to an evangelical christian, that is not even proper. It would seem that you misunderstand my intentions.