Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 121

Thread: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

  1. #21
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Namaste Sarabhanga.

    I have no qualms in accepting your way of recognizing the Trinity in Christian theology, which probably is the esoteric truth. Yet, it is strange that as a God-incarnate Jesus says two directly opposite things!

    In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and my father are one."

    According to Matt 27:46 Jesus cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

    How does one reconcile these two statements?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Namaskar Sri Vaisnava,

    Please do not take offence. I am pointing to similarity in faith and not to you. It does not matter to me whether Jesus was an incarnate or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava View Post
    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?
    Is there any hint in Vedas that Shri Krishna is an incarnation? Only from Vedas please, no smriti, purana, or itihasa. I do not know it myself, so I am asking you.

    If you say Lord himself says so in Gita, a Christian will point to Bible. These are conflicts of 'my faith' vs. 'their faith', which have no objectivity and no resolution.


    --- If you believe Shiva is the way to Moskha, good, because Shiva is named in the Vedas.
    This was not your earlier stand.

    True Spiritual Wealth is in the East.
    I agree but I will fail to substantiate it, if my claims are not different from claims made in the name of Christ. It will be words against words.

    Om
    Last edited by atanu; 02 November 2007 at 08:23 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuno Matos View Post
    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.
    Namaste Nuno,

    Subtly you bring out a simple yet the most fundamental point that nameless God's name is flavoured differently in different cultures.

    Svet. Upanishad

    V-14: That Supreme Divinity who created both Life and Matter, who is the source of all arts and sciences, who can be intuited by a pure and devoted mind – realizing Him, the blissful the incorporeal and the nameless, one is freed from further embodiment.
    -----------------
    The Self, who is absent from no place and no time and who has no second, is transcendentally good shivo and all pervasively immanent visno. This is universal, whatever name one uses.

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~
    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    --------------------

    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
    Yes, I see... devata are being picked as if they were a football team, I only root for my home team. My team is the one I adore, so that infers your team in inferior. Looking for the differences vs. the simularitiies increases mayiya mala.

    pranams,
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #25
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~
    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo View Post
    Namaste Sarabhanga.
    I have no qualms in accepting your way of recognizing the Trinity in Christian theology, which probably is the esoteric truth. Yet, it is strange that as a God-incarnate Jesus says two directly opposite things!

    In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and my father are one."

    According to Matt 27:46 Jesus cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

    How does one reconcile these two statements?
    Namste Saidevo,sarabhanga, et.al.

    Yes I see your point... I have pondered this in the past, yet I see Chirst's resolve. You will find with some research on this matter, Jesus the Chirst was reciting prayers. .This is from Psalms 22.1 i.e. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?".

    We need to tell the whole story, yes? So lets finish his dialog. After he says this, he is seconds away from dropping the body. He then says

    "Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit". This is also a quote from Psalm 31:5, the impending departure from life, and a statement of trust in the Father. This does not sound like a being that infers he has been forsaken.

    Now that said, I have great respect for Jesus the Christ. Am a Christian, nope. I also respect the Buddha, am I a Buddhist? Nope. Great people on this earth is what bhu loka needs. I applaud all those that support Dharma and the goal of improving the human condition. I am ok with great people [mahatma] coming from real estate other then India. All of them are part and parcel Brahman.

    He who rules his spirit has won a greater victory than the taking of a city- Jesus

    references to help: http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Psalm%2022.htm
    http://biblia.com/jesusbible/psalms1.htm#Psalm%2022


    pranams,
    Last edited by yajvan; 02 November 2007 at 08:10 PM.
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  6. #26
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Namaskar Sri Vaisnava,Is there any hint in Vedas that Shri Krishna is an incarnation? Only from Vedas please, no smriti, purana, or itihasa. I do not know it myself, so I am asking you.
    Namaste,

    Why do you want to restrict it to the Veda? I was talking about the fact that Jesus is not mentioned in puranas as well. In any case,

    "The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)

    Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 'I am Sama Veda'. So know Krishna, you know Veda.

    The Puranas are authentic, written by Vyasa.

    When I say 'Scripture', I refer to the Bhagavad Gita and the Puranas as well. The Incarnations are not mentioned in Veda because the object of Veda is to offer details on the Divinity. The Vedas are concerned with hymns for the Devas and the nature of the Brahman.

    The purpose of the Puranas is to mention the Pastimes of the Lord, ie, His incarnations.

    The Vedas mention that Brahman is Sriman Narayana, anyway. And Krishna was Narayana Incarnate.

    Nowhere in the Vedas or Puranas is Jesus mentioned.

    If you say Lord himself says so in Gita, a Christian will point to Bible. These are conflicts of 'my faith' vs. 'their faith', which have no objectivity and no resolution.
    You miss my point. My argument is not toward Christians. If they believe in Jesus, it is their faith. My argument is towards Hindus who consider Jesus to be an Incarnation of Krishna.

    Hindus follow Bhagavad Gita. The Charama Sloka in Gita says, 'Abandoning all Religions (Dharmas), Surrender to Me alone. I will release you from all Sins. Do not fear.'

    So, Christians can believe in Jesus. Not Hindus. The reason is this - The bible may contain some vedic truths. That doesn't mean it is Veda. the reason it contains truths is because the Veda has covered all possible truths. Even if a new religion is fabricated by man, most likely the truth may be in the Veda as well. But it was ordained for Christians by Krishna Himself. Not for Krishna Devotees.


    This was not your earlier stand.
    I do not believe Shiva is the way to Moksha. If others believe it, fine. You don't understand my point - I am saying, do not consider Jesus an incarnation of Vishnu. It is against Vaishnava Theology. If you want to worship Jesus, be a Christian. If you want to worship Krishna, be a Vaishnava. Do not be a Christianized Vaishnava.

    I have no argument against those who claim Shiva is superior to Vishnu. Although I do not believe it, they are also following Vedic Scripture, so that is their interpretation. My interpretation is that Vishnu is Supreme. So, that is not my problem.

    My argument is against those who believe that Jesus is Krishna. If they believe Shiva is supreme, I don't care. Just don't equate Vishnu with an Abrahamic God. Undoubtedly, the Abrahamic Religions derive from Veda, but they do not become Vedic simply because of that.

    Jesus is for those who follow the Bible, or the Koran. Not for those who strictly adhere to the teachings of Krishna. Vaishnavas should adhere to the Bhagavatam and the Bhagavatam has given the names of the major Avatars.

    I agree but I will fail to substantiate it, if my claims are not different from claims made in the name of Christ. It will be words against words.
    Again, I am not targeting Christians. Only those believers of Vishnu who also claim that Jesus is Krishna.

    that Supreme Divinity who created both Life and Matter, who is the source of all arts and sciences, who can be intuited by a pure and devoted mind – realizing Him, the blissful the incorporeal and the nameless, one is freed from further embodiment.


    I have no problem if people regard Mahadeva Shiva as God, for I respect Rudra very much. I just do not consider him as God, according to my Sampradaya's Vedic Interpretations.

    Doesn't mean Brahman is Incorporeal or Nameless. It means that His form and names are beyond all Material Imperfections. His Body is completely aloof from Material Conceptions, hence Materially incorporeal. The Vedas clearly say Brahman is Sriman Narayana and if you want, I can provide the verse. That itself is a name, isn't it? Then how come He is nameless?

    Yes, He can exist as a formless entity, because He is capable of anything. But His true form is Personal and Transcendental.

    The Vedas are Mystic Sciences. We cannot take them literally.

    He has plenty of transcendental names. The Vishnu Sahasranama gives a 1000 of them.

    His body, the four armed One with the Lotus, Chakra, Conch and Mace is transcendental. It is not a material body because He has no feelings that we have.

    Self, who is absent from no place and no time and who has no second, is transcendentally good shivo and all pervasively immanent visno. This is universal, whatever name one uses.


    Shiva here does not mean Mahadeva Shiva. The term Shiva means 'Auspicious'. Hence, it means the Self is eternally auspicious.

    Vishnu means all-pervading, a term given only to Sriman Narayana. Hence, Sriman Narayana is Vishnu and He is Siva (auspicious), but Mahadeva Siva is not Vishnu.

    In fact, Brahman, called Sriman Narayana, is also called 'Siva' in the Vishnu Sahasranama. Siva is His name because He is the most auspicious of all. The Mahadeva Shiva has named himself after the Brahman.

    Mahadeva has names like Siva, Rudra, etc. But they are not his unique names. Narayana and Vishnu are unique names. And applied only to Brahman.

    In the words of Srila Prabhupada, Vishnu is like Milk and Shiva is like Yoghurt. Milk can become Yoghurt, and Milk is the originator of Yoghurt. But Yoghurt, although having some Milky properties, cannot become Milk.

    That is why Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 'I am Sankara'. But Sankara does not say, 'I am Krishna'.
    Last edited by Sri Vaishnava; 03 November 2007 at 05:16 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Namaste Yajvan, Saidevo, et al.

    “He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction, overcomes death by destruction, and obtains immortality through the true cause.” The penultimate words of the Isha provide the theme for Ishus’ crucifixion.

    It is said that, as the mortal life of iSus kRSTi (“Jesus Christ”) was ending, he uttered the words of an ancient psalm:

    “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”

    And, likewise, the Isha Upanishad closes with the prayers of a dying man:

    “My breath reach everlasting Air! In ashes let my body end.
    OM! Mind, remember thou me; remember thou my sphere; remember thou my deeds.”

    And the sage is quoting the last lines from the ancient Yajurveda (“sacrificial revelation”).

    My breath reach everlasting Air! In ashes let my body end.
    OM! Mind, remember thou me; remember thou my sphere; remember thou my deeds.
    By goodly path lead us to riches, Agni, thou God who knowest all our works and wisdom.
    Remove the sin that makes us stray and wander: most ample adoration will we bring thee.
    The Real’s face is hidden by a vessel formed of golden light.
    The Spirit yonder in the Sun, the Spirit dwelling there am I.
    OM! Heaven! Brahma!

  8. #28
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Delve into Philosophy very deeply and you will see a connection in everything. I do not see much connection in this, as you do.

    Jesus did not mention the Vedas. He did not mention Vishnu, Siva, Brahma, etc. He did not say he believed that the Upanishads contain secret truth. So, that makes him non-vedic, or as someone who wanted to fabricate his own teachings.

    I said earlier, even if the Bible is a truth, it is only so because the Vedas have covered all aspects of the truth. Any truth thought up by man will not be novel or unique, because the Vedas possess all forms of truth.

    Therfore, if I say, 'Oh, the Universe was created by Narayana' without looking or reading the Vedas, it is still not unique, as it was already mentioned in the Vedas.

    Philosophical similarities does not make Jesus an avatar. In fact, there is enough proof that Buddhism was the major religion Christianity borrowed from, along with a few Pagan Myths.

    However, Christians can woship Jesus, for he is their God. Hindus should worship their own, not because of 'our god vs. your god' thing, but because we know for SURE that the Vedas are the truth. Christianity is a mordern religion and definitely we shouldn't compromise ours to accomodate some other faith. When we have the WHOLE truth, why bother about the partial and incomplete truth in Christianity?

    The Bhagavatam says, 'Liberation is achieved by chanting the names of Narayana'. The Biblical God's names are different, and hence will not provide Liberation. Only the given names of Narayana are potent.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Namaste Sri Vaishnava

    Quote Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava View Post
    Why do you want to restrict it to the Veda? I was talking about the fact that Jesus is not mentioned in puranas as well. In any case,
    ----
    Nowhere in the Vedas or Puranas is Jesus mentioned.
    Smriti, Purana and Itihsa are not shrutis that's why. Also, as per Christians, Vishnu is not mentioned in Bible. Also, show me from Vedas, where Shri Krishna is mentioned as Param Atman? Is it not just faith against faith as to what consitutes shruti?


    "The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)
    That is not what Chandogya says. Please. "– name alone is all this. Worship the name." The name is known as OM.


    The Vedas mention that Brahman is Sriman Narayana, anyway. And Krishna was Narayana Incarnate.
    Yes? Please show me the word Sriman Narayana from Veda Samhitas. I can show you from Vedas that it is Vishnu who is incarnate of Atman, called “I”.

    Narayana is a name of Nara, from the time Nara creates waters. Narayana is BrahmA. Nara, the primeval Atman is ONE, who is named Narayana when it creates waters (Virya-Narah-Jivas-Atanu and you also etc.), since Nara is then the abode of this Virya.


    And in this regard, it surprises me why Bhagawan of Vedas is not acceptable to you whereas only a part of Puranas is?

    Shri Rudram 1.10

    pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |
    yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

    O Bhagavan! You are endowed with great lordship and worship (by others).
    Untie the bow string from the two ends of Your bow. Abandon the arrows in Your hand.

    Shri Rudram 1.9

    namo astu nIlagrIvAya sahasrAxAya mIDhushhe |
    atho ye asya sattvAno .ahaM tebhyo .akaraM namaH ||


    May my salutations be to the blue-throated, He who has a thousand eyes
    and who showers/fulfills (all desires of His devotees) as Parjanya.
    Also, I bow to His followers, the pramatha- gaNas




    I have no problem if people regard Mahadeva Shiva as God, ---- I just do not consider him as God, according to my Sampradaya's Vedic Interpretations.
    That shows that you do not follow the Vedas, which sing hymn to Mahadeva-Rudra Shiva as Bhagawan. Since Vedas are sanatana, so Bhagawan mentioned there is sanatana and not time constrained.


    His body, the four armed One with the Lotus, Chakra, Conch and Mace is transcendental. It is not a material body because He has no feelings that we have.
    Where is this transcendental body mentioned in Vedas? (Please realize that it is a conceptualization to help focus, love, and meditation).

    Shiva here does not mean Mahadeva Shiva. The term Shiva means 'Auspicious'. Hence, it means the Self is eternally auspicious.


    That is good. "---the Self is eternally auspicious". So, one name eminently suitable eternally and unique to Self is SHIVA -- the Good.

    Who can ever say that the God I believe in is not Good? Is Narayana bad? Whereas Narayana refers to name of Nara, where Nara creates and becomes abode of many.

    The Good is God.

    Vishnu means all-pervading, a term given only to Sriman Narayana. Hence, Sriman Narayana is Vishnu and He is Siva (auspicious), but Mahadeva Siva is not Vishnu.
    Yes. Rudra never sleeps and never becomes another. It is Rudra’s consort (the pure awareness called Girija) that has become the Maya for some. Why should Eko Lord have a need to pervade anything?


    In fact, Brahman, called Sriman Narayana, is also called 'Siva' in the Vishnu Sahasranama. Siva is His name because He is the most auspicious of all. The Mahadeva Shiva has named himself after the Brahman.
    You should say ‘BrahmA called as Sriman Narayana by my sampradaya’. This is correct. It is acceptable to me.


    Narayana and Vishnu are unique names. And applied only to Brahman.
    All words are Unique. Mental acrobatics does nothing to prove that only such and such name is applied to Brahman.

    What is the need to apply any name to Brahman? Unfortunately Vedas do not record such unique logic. I see many people with names like Vishnu or Narayana. Hehe.

    In the words of Srila Prabhupada, Vishnu is like Milk and Shiva is like Yoghurt. Milk can become Yoghurt, and Milk is the originator of Yoghurt. But Yoghurt, although having some Milky properties, cannot become Milk.
    In the words of Sage Svetasvatara, Shiva is like Ghee hidden in milk, the essence hidden everywhere. Whom should I believe, Prabhupada, who calls other sages rascal etc., or Sage Svet?

    That is why Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 'I am Sankara'. But Sankara does not say, 'I am Krishna'.
    Krishna also says “--- among Adityas I am Vishnu”. Sage Kapila also says so in Bhagavatam. Every Self Realised sage is entitled to say so. And every Self Realised sage is non-different from sanatana Bhagawan Sambhu.

    Every Self Realised sage is Narayana – the abode of All – and then Eko, when Shivam is known.

    Shankara even by mistake does not become another, so he cannot say “I am so and so”. He remains Atman.

    Regards

    Om

    Note: It seems that the post has trolled itself. So, there might be a need to separate out threads.
    Last edited by atanu; 03 November 2007 at 12:24 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356

    Re: Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava View Post
    Delve into Philosophy very deeply and you will see a connection in everything. I do not see much connection in this, as you do.

    Jesus did not mention the Vedas. He did not mention Vishnu, Siva, Brahma, etc. He did not say he believed that the Upanishads contain secret truth. So, that makes him non-vedic, or as someone who wanted to fabricate his own teachings.

    I said earlier, even if the Bible is a truth, it is only so because the Vedas have covered all aspects of the truth. Any truth thought up by man will not be novel or unique, because the Vedas possess all forms of truth.

    Therfore, if I say, 'Oh, the Universe was created by Narayana' without looking or reading the Vedas, it is still not unique, as it was already mentioned in the Vedas.

    Philosophical similarities does not make Jesus an avatar. In fact, there is enough proof that Buddhism was the major religion Christianity borrowed from, along with a few Pagan Myths.

    However, Christians can woship Jesus, for he is their God. Hindus should worship their own, not because of 'our god vs. your god' thing, but because we know for SURE that the Vedas are the truth. Christianity is a mordern religion and definitely we shouldn't compromise ours to accomodate some other faith. When we have the WHOLE truth, why bother about the partial and incomplete truth in Christianity?

    The Bhagavatam says, 'Liberation is achieved by chanting the names of Narayana'. The Biblical God's names are different, and hence will not provide Liberation. Only the given names of Narayana are potent.
    Namaste Sri Vaishnava,

    Do you really think that God belongs to Hindus and to Indians? Why cant God incarnate in other parts of the world ( even the universe)?

    Name of God is not important while chanting. All names in vedas refer to Vishnu only. So every name is auspicious. Bible is not composed in sanskrit. Aramic was the native language of Jesus, and hence he cannot be expected to call God by the same names - but does it change the God? In Tamil also you call Vishnu as tirumaal - is it found in Vishnu Sahasranama? So why do use that tamil name to denote vishnu?

    God is known by his names that denote a specific quality of God. The name is only a symbol. It does not represent God any bit more than a stone represents God. The meaning of the word is what matters. Sometimes, the peculiar word structure in a mantra formed by its bIja is the potency. The name Jehovah means "I am that I am" or "he who will be, is, and has been". These names are roughly equivalent to the sanskrit names of 'ahaM brahmAsmi' and 'axara' , both denote Vishnu only. So the power of chanting lies not in the name itself - but the meaning of the word, its deeper significance and the faith with which one goes about it.

    I am not saying that Jesus is an avatar. There is no proof for us. But there is no reason to disbelieve on the grounds that he talked about some other god. If jesus really existed, and he did teach something, then his god and your god are the same.
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •