Christ In The Hindu [Archive] - TTonline.org - Trinidad & Tobago Online Community

brag

07-20-2009, 08:09 AM

"Christ has always been in the heart of the Hindu," says the Jesuit, Panikkar. Many Trinidad Hindus know that fully well. It is not uncommon to see a picture of Jesus in the homes and on the altars of most Hindus in Trinidad.

Hindus see Jesus as another Avatar of God. So the question may be why try converting Hindus to Christianity when they already acknowledge Jesus as another Avatar of God, without any disrespect to Jesus as they worship God in any of their favorite forms of God.

As a Hindu youth, I never denied being a Hindu and also a Christian in spirit which is what most Hindus are. For the greater part of my life I worshipped only in the Catholic Church and according to the Hindu tradition at home, but Hinduism remains my preferred religion with all its rich cultural trappings.

But in some narrow mindedness about God, some will try to say that we can't be a Chrisitian and a Hindu at the same time. It is either one or the other, always putting a liimit on the Spirit of God.

My brother once told me of a story about a Christian minister in Trinidad who said he could convert a Hindu Sadhu to Christianity. After many years of trying through discusssions, he dicided that the Sadhu had more understanding of God and religion of which he could never dream. He had to abandoned his cause in great respect for the understanding of God by the simple Sadhu.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/asian.htm

"The idea of the cosmic Christ which was emphasized during the W C C Assembly in New Delhi in 1961 has become prominent among liberal theologians in India. Raymond Panikkar in his book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism stresses that Christ already indwells the heart of a Hindu and that the mission of the church is not to bring Christ to the Hindu but to bring Christ out of him."...

Syncretistic Theology
Some Christian theologians and other religious thinkers have tried to syncretize Christianity with a national religion (Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam) in an attempt to contextualize theology into the national situation. The Programme Unit on Faith and Witness of the World Council of Churches (W C C) has sponsored a number of religious dialogues with the leaders of other living religions. Many of these dialogues have resulted in a mutual acceptance of each other's beliefs.
The scope of Hinduism and Buddhism is large enough to accommodate all other religions including Christianity. Sri Ramakrishna, founder of the Ramakrishna Mission, meditated on Christ, recognized Christ's divinity as an avatar (incarnation) of the Supreme like Krishna and Buddha, and encourages his disciples to worship Christ.. .

...Klaus Klostermaier, a Roman Catholic theologian from German, visited Vrindaban, one of the Hindu sacred places in India, to have dialogue with Hindu gurus. After his spiritual experiences with Hindu scholars he testified, "The more I learned of Hinduism, the more surprised I grew that our theology does not offer anything essentially new to the Hindu..."

M M Thomas, a prominent church leader both in India and in the W C C, expanded the cosmic Christ into a form of secular humanism. He interpreted salvation as man finding his true humanness so that it is no longer suppressed by social injustice, war, and poverty. Thomas said, "I cannot see any difference between the accepted missionary goal of a Christian Church expressing Christ in terms of the contemporary Hindu thought and life patterns and a Christcentered Hindu Church of Christ which transforms Hindu thought and life patterns within..."

brag

07-20-2009, 04:53 PM

Can the Archbishop's message be interpreted as a recognizition of Hinduism as another pathway to God or a softening of the Christian position of Christianity as the only way to God?

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7886

Archbishop sends message of reconciliation to Hindus for Diwali

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has sent an annual message to Hindu communities in Britain for Diwali, the 'festival of lights', which is also marked by Sikhs and celebrates the victory of good over evil and hope over despair.

In his message Dr Williams expresses his hope for 'reconciliation where there has been division and hurt', for 'peace and the rejection of all resort to violence' and the appreciation and enjoyment of each other's festivals 'as a common sign to the world of our commitment to mutual goodwill and faith in each other.

The Archbishop also refers to his forthcoming visit to the Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) temple near Walsall. Dr Williams has accepted the trustees' invitation to visit the temple as a sign of the 'celebration of friendship and the facing of challenges with hope' which was the theme of the Lambeth Inter Faith lecture given in April by the prominent Hindu scholar Professor Anantanand Rambachan.

The full text of the message is as follows:

To friends and co workers for peace in the Hindu communities -

As the progress of the year brings you once again to the festival of Diwali, I offer you my greetings and my warm wishes that this will be again a time of celebration and of renewal of goodwill and faith.

In both Christianity and Hinduism, we dedicate times of the year to the renewal of our lives and of our faith. We seek to reflect on what has gone before and to reconnect with the light which lies within us and which is at the heart of all that is. Christians know this as the Light of Light and can appreciate and share in the ways in which at Diwali you celebrate your awareness of the inner light. Together, and through the celebration of our festivals, we can increase our consciousness of the ways in which light can triumph over darkness and good over evil. We can recommit ourselves to be light in the world.

It was in this spirit that Professor Anatanand Rambachan spoke profoundly to Hindu and Christian leadership about 'Celebrating friendship and facing challenges with hope' in his Lambeth Inter Faith Lecture in May this year; and it was also in this spirit that Hindu leaders joined the bishops of the Lambeth Conference in witnessing to our common commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. How important it is in this Diwali and for Christians in the coming Advent and Christmas season, that we hold to this vision of justice and transformation for all, especially for the poor and excluded, in face of the present economic crisis in which the temptation is to fall back upon ourselves and our own interests at their expense.

It is in this spirit that I shall be visiting the Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple next month. I warmly welcome the invitation by the Trustees of the Temple, and at this time of year my visit will carry particular significance and many hopes for the year ahead.

My hope for this year ahead is that in this spirit of looking to the light, we shall be able to find reconciliation where there has been division and hurt; to work for peace and the rejection of all resort to violence; and that together we may appreciate and enjoy each other's festivals as a common sign to the world of our commitment to mutual goodwill and faith in each other.

brag

07-21-2009, 06:38 AM

The Brahman/Yahweh/Holy Spirit/Allah can move mountains. It has no race, no gender, no color, no religion and belongs equally to all or rather all belongs to it, like the Father's house with many dwelling places. "In my father's house there are many dwelling places. If that were not so, I would have told you." John 14:2. No exclusivity at all, for all an equal place.

http://www.leakespeak.com/2008/04/23/contextualization/

"The challenge for us Westerners in understanding contextualization is that we tend to divorce religion from culture. In our minds, Hinduism and Islam are religions people must leave in order to follow Christ, and we often presume they can do so without leaving their culture. The problem is that, for many people in the non-Western world, religion and culture cannot be separated. When people say they are Hindus or Muslims (or Catholics in Mexico, perhaps), they are not just stating their adherence to a particular religion, they are telling who they are. For non-Westerners, the physical and spiritual worlds are not separate; everything in life has a spiritual aspect to it. Westerners separate the two, and can therefore make a distinction between culture and religion, but for most non-Westerners, the two are inseparable."

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/476103/

"Cardinal Tauran, a godly man of deep reflection, has imparted a refreshing new perspective on the Vatican’s relations with Hinduism and other oriental faiths. In an interview last year, he had categorically stated that “he would be travelling to India soon and there he wanted to give this message that all religions are equal...We mustn’t get the impression there are first-class religions and second-class religions.” His remarks in Mumbai have created a sound basis for carrying forward the Hindu-Christian dialogue in a positive direction. The genuineness of the interaction was also evident from the fact that, after the first day’s closed-door deliberations, Cardinal Tauran led the Christian delegation on a goodwill visit to Mumbai’s famous Siddhivinayak Temple. This was followed by the Hindu delegation visiting the Holy Name Catholic Cathedral."

adeodatus

07-21-2009, 02:32 PM

Grace to all, and may the light of Jesus the Lord shine splendidly in our hearts.

I'll start with quoting you lower down the order.

The Brahman/Yahweh/Holy Spirit/Allah can move mountains. It has no race, no gender, no color, no religion and belongs equally to all or rather all belongs to it, like the Father's house with many dwelling places. "In my father's house there are many dwelling places. If that were not so, I would have told you." John 14:2. No exclusivity at all, for all an equal place.

Non sense! Jesus was never talking about different religions. You handled the text deceptively. Let me quote the full text.

In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John (14:2-6)

Jesus was talking to his DISCIPLES not people of different religions. Also he said that HE would come back and bring them ti that place HE PREPARED. Not surprisingly, the famous verse is mentioned that that very context "I'm the way the truth and the life" So, in fact, when read in it's entirety IT IS a claim of exclusivity! You are wrong about this passage.

Hindus see Jesus as another Avatar of God. So the question may be why try converting Hindus to Christianity when they already acknowledge Jesus as another Avatar of God, without any disrespect to Jesus as they worship God in any of their favorite forms of God.

Yes, Hindus do see Jesus as another Avatar of God. However, Jesus does not agree with Hindu teachings. Instead os suppositions let us hear what Jesus thought about himself in relation to man and God.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16) emphasis mine

Now, the God Jesus speaks about here is the God of the universe. Jesus, here is claiming to be God's ONE and ONLY Son. It then follows, that there is no other Son or Avatar of God that walked the earth.

No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (John 1:18) emphasis mine

Again, Jesus makes claim of exclusivity. Here, John claims that Jesus is the only begotten Son. And, this ONLY Son is at the Bosom of God. He goes so far as to say NO ONE has ever seen God at ANYTIME except Jesus, who alone, according to John has the authority to make God known to man.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18) emphasis mine

Again, incredible claims made here by Jesus. One is not condemned for not believing in God. One is condemned for not believing in Jesus! as teh only begotten Son. What an audacios claim to exclusivity made by Jesus.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."(John 3:36) emphasis mine

Another exclusive claim. Again, not my claim but Jesus'. Here, Jesus made it clear, NOT beleiving in him will have the wrath of God abide on that person. Another exclusive claim.

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."(John 6:40) emphasis mine

Another audacious claim. It is the historical Jesus' understanding that HE himself would raise up people at the grand resurrection at the end of the world. Another claim of exclusivity.

So, my friend, Hindus believe that Jesus is another avatar of God. However, the very Jesus you talk about DISAGREES with that. He never saw himself as one among many. He saw himself as the ONLY incarnation of God. If you disagree, then, it follows that you are indirectly calling Jesus a liar of epic proportion.

But in some narrow mindedness about God, some will try to say that we can't be a Chrisitian and a Hindu at the same time. It is either one or the other, always putting a liimit on the Spirit of God.

My friend, we did not say that, Jesus did. You cannot worship, follow and obey Jesus and at the same time worship follow and obey the Hindu tradition. Again, this is not what I said but, what Jesus said. A simple thing as what happens afterlife. Hindus believe in reincarnation Christians do not. How can one at the same time claim to believe two mutually exclusive beliefs? We are not putting a limit on God's spirit. Jesus claimed explicitly to be the ONE AND ONLY true way to God. We did not invent that claim. So, we are NOT narrow minded in believing that. Here is what Jesus said about your two servant theory.

"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."(Luke 16:13) emphasis mine

Now, he is talking here about money, however, it can be used for any divided loyalty! One cannot have 2 masters.Especially when the masters contradict each other when talking baout the same thing.

My brother once told me of a story about a Christian minister in Trinidad who said he could convert a Hindu Sadhu to Christianity. After many years of trying through discusssions, he dicided that the Sadhu had more understanding of God and religion of which he could never dream. He had to abandoned his cause in great respect for the understanding of God by the simple Sadhu.

This has nothing to do with anything. Was the minister even trained in his faith?

Can the Archbishop's message be interpreted as a recognizition of Hinduism as another pathway to God or a softening of the Christian position of Christianity as the only way to God?

So what if an Arch Bishop recognizes that? One Arch Bishop is not the full teaching office of the Church. So, it matters not what one Arch Bishop says or recognizes.

Cardinal Tauran, a godly man of deep reflection, has imparted a refreshing new perspective on the Vatican’s relations with Hinduism and other oriental faiths. In an interview last year, he had categorically stated that “he would be travelling to India soon and there he wanted to give this message that all religions are equal...We mustn’t get the impression there are first-class religions and second-class religions.” His remarks in Mumbai have created a sound basis for carrying forward the Hindu-Christian dialogue in a positive direction. The genuineness of the interaction was also evident from the fact that, after the first day’s closed-door deliberations, Cardinal Tauran led the Christian delegation on a goodwill visit to Mumbai’s famous Siddhivinayak Temple. This was followed by the Hindu delegation visiting the Holy Name Catholic Cathedral."

Again, one Cardinal is NOT the authority on what must and must not be believed in the Christian faith. So, it matters not what one Cardinal does. Or even 100.

brag

07-21-2009, 03:26 PM

adeodatus

07-21-2009, 11:01 PM

Perhaps you meant "inadequately", not deceptively.

Everywhere Jesus refers to His Father under whose direction He was teaching, never alone, but always on behalf of His Father. He never implied any monist philosophy anywhere. In his last moments on the cross, He cried out to the Father.

Yes this is true. Jesus always claimed he was under the guide of the Father. Jesus is both fully man and fully God. This is the mystery of what Christians call the "incarnation" We are aware however, that this term was used no where in Scripture. However, the concept is clear. Look, for example, as at how John the evangelist introduced Jesus Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:1)

God is three distinct persons. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. These three, though being separate are one. The three existed form eternity to eternity. A gruesome and inadequate example of this mystery is a three headed monster who are attached to one body (it's inadequate, yes)

Now, This Word that John refers to in his Gospel, is none other than the second person of this Triune God. In the Trinity, the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit, are distinct. This is how John can say "the Word was with God" God there means "the Father" and also at the same time say "The Word WAS GOD"

Now this is where Jesus comes in, and this is where the mystery of the Trinity and the incarnation becomes even more complicated.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.(John 1:14)

This is it, the incarnation. The word, the second person of the Trinity, full God, now beomce fully man. Jesus Christ then, was FULL GOD and at the same time FULL MAN. How does that work, I don't know. However, this was revealed.

So, this explains the verses where Jesus AS MAN is under the influence of the Father. And, AS MAN he needed the help and grace of the Father. And, why he cried out to the Father on the cross. Because, as MAN God indeed was his Father. The "word made flesh" is what makes the difference in your assement of Jesus words. A good example of this is Lazarus's' resurrection from the dead. As man Jesus wept for Lazarus, however, as the eternal God, he raised him from the dead. Hopes this helps.

Simple common sense would tell us that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are three different entities, but with my monist beliefs, I am willing to concede that all three are one, but not in the context of what you say about the three different personalities of the Trinity.

Personalities and persons are two different things. Personality has to do with emotional, behavioral, etc that characterize a unique individual. However a person is the individual, a human being for instance (However the difinition of a person is much deeper than "human or individual" hence the reason we can say the Trinity is made up of three distinct persons)

Take for example Rob and Roy. Rob and Roy are PERSONS (human) but their PERSONALITIES are different.

With this understanding, I NEVER said anything about the Triune God having different personalities. I said they are distinct PERSONS with, of course the SAME PERSONALITIES!

It can be no accident that Jesus spoke in his manner and with reference to three Gods, because He, His Father and the Holy Spirit as a dove are three separate persons. It could only mean that the real authority was always with the Father whose mansion had all kinds of rooms for all, not just one room for the chosen few of Jesus. Or was the Father referring to His mansion as some kind of drug rehabilitation center in Heaven, a contradiction about Heaven?

YES the Father was the authority. However, per my explanation of the Trinity, so was the Son and so was the Holy Spirit. The God head is made up of 3 distinct persons, all share equal authority, all are fully God.

Jesus was only carrying out the instructions of the Father, and assured his followers that He would be sitting on the right hand side of the Father to judge the living and the dead and in whom the Father was well pleased? He was the dearly beloved Son, in whom the Father entrusted much authority, but the Father was always fully in charge.

Yes, indeed Jesus was carrying on instructions, because as John said "the word BECAME flesh" The second part of the Trinity, was incarnated. This is the major interjection, that must be considered when discussing issues surrounding Jesus Christ and God. We are not dealing here with, just God walking the earth in ANOTHER FORM. The incarnation is Jesus Christ that is fully God AND fully man!

Any way you look at it, there are either three Gods or that Jesus preached Hindu monism. If not, Jesus and the Father are contradicting each other. Jesus said the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is One, and the Father maintains His independence claiming to be three different persons, one as the Father, another as the Son and a third as the Holy Spirit or Dove.

No contradictions, once you have knowledge about the Incarnation and the Trinity.

What it means is that someone dipped into Hindu philosophy without fully understanding monism and what the concept of the Hindu Trinity really means.

I won't say that. However, I don't know FULLY the hindu concept of the Trinity. Please post it, and I will be happy to compare it with the Christian concept.

The Father says bring them all to me in one of my many rooms. The son says my room is the only place and I am the only way, forget about what my Father said about His many rooms.

Again Brag, you are not reading into the text of the NT enough. Here is what God said about Jesus the man.

Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!" (Mark 9:7) emphasis mine

I am troubled now. Yet what should I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But it was for this purpose that I came to this hour. [28] Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it and will glorify it again."(John 12:27-28) emphasis mine

And his Apostle, Peter confirmed that GOD the FATHER SACTIONED the Son.

For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (2 Peter 1:17)

Also, do you want to know the PROOF that God AGREED and SANCTIONED everything Jesus said? The resurrection, that is the proof that God's seal of authority was placed on Jesus. So, we don't have any renegade Son here saying something different to the Father, in fact Jesus said

For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. (John 12:49)

So who really are the true Christians and true followers of Jesus, when everyday we see more Christians coming closer to Hindu positions and following all kinds of variations of Hindu beliefs.

We are? Really?

What authority now exists when the Church of England and a Cardinal, a representative of the Pope and the Vatican are leaning towards accepting more of Hinduism as a legitimate pathway to God? We welcome both trends with open arms as we are fast moving towards a world of total Sanathana Dharma.

I cannot answer for the Church of England. However, the Roman Catholic Church's authority is the POPE IN UNION WITH THE BISHOPS AND CARDINALS of the Church. Only when he is in union with the Church's teaching office, and speaking about faith and morals is he "infallible" authority. A cardinal, however HAVE NO authority to say what the Church should believe or not believe. So, as long as it was not said in a council setting, Vatican II, Council of Trent council of Nicea, then the word, or belief of a Cardinal or bishop means squat. So, the authority still stands as the POPE in UNION with the Bishops and Cardinals of the Church.

Peace be to you and yours.

Adeodatus.

brag

07-22-2009, 07:31 AM

My intention is never to undermine anyone's belief in God, but to take issue with any only-one- way-to-God position.

Here is my belief in a nutshell, and you can take issue with it or make it as complex as you want, but most Hindus are not buying into Jesus as the only way, and in fact, many non Hindus are already beginning to reject the only way position.

God so loved the world that He expressed himself as himself to love himself, first as sound or the word, OM or Brahma Shabda, and then as all material objects for the sake of loving himself, because there was no one to love. (The word made flesh is another concept borrowed from Hinduism.)

God expressed himself as an infinite multitude of beauties with no one way in thought, word and deed and no such thing as one way to so called salvation, but only recognition and acceptance of all as God.

In laws, God expressed Himself as Sanathana Dharma or the eternal truth, laws and powers of nature with no right or wrong or good or bad, but only recognition of the truth that He is all.

The backbone of Hindu belief is that God is eternal witnessing, neither rewarding nor punishing, with himself as Deity or functioning in all aspects of functioning, from the functioning of a speck of dust and sub atomic particle to the most complex planet in the cosmos. Man punishes and rewards himself by his own thought, word and deed.

God is also not the goal in Hinduism or Sanathana Dharma, but only understanding and living in harmony with the laws and powers of nature, because the Hindu knows he is already God. All he has to do is believe it and live it, for it is in belief and faith in the Self that the powers of man as God are realized.

adeodatus

07-22-2009, 02:27 PM

My intention is never to undermine anyone's belief in God, but to take issue with any only-one- way-to-God position.

Read, to take issue with the teachings of Jesus Christ, hence undermining a Christian's belief in what Jesus said and believed himself to be.

Here is my belief in a nutshell, and you can take issue with it or make it as complex as you want, but most Hindus are not buying into Jesus as the only way, and in fact, many non Hindus are already beginning to reject the only way position

This does nothing to the fact we're discussing, which is: Jesus SAID that he was the ONLY true way to God. To Jesus, there was no other way to the Father but through a belief in him. So, if you want to include the WHOLE Jesus Historical Jesus into your worldview, you must accept even his hard sayings of exclusivity, if you're picking and choosing the sayings of Jesus that you're gonna adhere to, then, you're not following Jesus, you're following Brag. The Other option then, is to reject the exclusivity claims of Jesus Christ all together as Atheists and liberals do. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

God expressed himself as an infinite multitude of beauties with no one way in thought, word and deed and no such thing as one way to so called salvation, but only recognition and acceptance of all as God.

Again, if you believe this, fine, however let it be known, that Jesus does not agree with this. So, how can you have the historical Jesus in your religious world view when HE HIMSELF said that he was the one true God? And that he was the ONE AND ONLY begotten Son? You can't have the two brag...sorry.

The backbone of Hindu belief is that God is eternal witnessing, neither rewarding nor punishing, with himself as Deity or functioning in all aspects of functioning, from the functioning of a speck of dust and sub atomic particle to the most complex planet in the cosmos. Man punishes and rewards himself by his own thought, word and deed.

The issue comes up again irreconcilable differences that both cannot be right.

(Jeremiah 44:29) And this shall be a sign to you, saith the Lord, that I will punish you in this place: that you may know that my words shall be accomplished indeed against you for evil.
emphasis mine

(Jeremiah 36:31) And I will punish him, and his seed and his servants, for their iniquities, and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Juda all the evil that I have pronounced against them, but they have not heard.
emphasis mine

(Jeremiah 25:12) And when the seventy years shall be expired, I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans: and I will make it perpetual desolations. emphasis mine

Irreconcilable...One is right, or both are wrong brag.

God is also not the goal in Hinduism or Sanathana Dharma, but only understanding and living in harmony with the laws and powers of nature, because the Hindu knows he is already God. All he has to do is believe it and live it, for it is in belief and faith in the Self that the powers of man as God are realized.

Again, this is irreconcilable with Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. So, how can they both be correct? Thank you Brag, you are making my point clearer and clearer.

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3) emphasis mine

peace of Jesus Christ be with you always.

brag

07-22-2009, 05:16 PM

Your entire argument is that one is right/true and the other is wrong and both cannot be right and wrong at the same time. Your argument is based solely on data you believe to be historical, yet all based on faith, since the argument still goes on as to whether there was indeed a Jesus which is neither here nor there. (See the writings of Mangasarian)

You are simply saying that other incarnations, also believed to be true by others in the same context of incarnation of God, and also historical, cannot be true. But that is your belief, and mine is that Jesus is not the only way, simply based on common sense.

The core of your argument is that there were no other incarnations of God prior to Jesus, and that you cannot accept any incarnations of God prior to Jesus since those were impossible, simply because Jesus said he was the life..... Yet when I pointed out that other incarnations of God referred to themselves as God in whom to take refuge, you reject that argument as if you know that was never said or was never true as having come from God.

When Jesus said He will come again, He also showed that incarnations of God in other forms were know before, and especially when they asked how they would know him, which means they accepted the power of God to come in any form he chose. But again, that is not acceptable to you because you would not accept that God can take other forms or had taken other forms before. I suppose you expect Jesus to come in His one and only original form know to man, the same man who cannot prove a one true form of Jesus. Yes, some Christians believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His coming again as an awakenig of God in the hearts of man, the same awakening we are witnessing more and more today.

So God is here among us today, but in another human form that we never anticipated. It is only sad that some will miss Him as they may be looking for Him as they believe they knew the form Jesus originally took.

Many Christians are still undecided about the corrrect form of Jesus when He incarnated some two thousand years ago. Can you imagine Christians acknowledging the forms of Rama and Krishna as other forms of God when they can't even agree on what Jesus looked like only two thousand years ago? Yet Hindus have no problem with the forms God took as Rama and Krishna some five and twenty thousand years ago respectively, based on history. The Akashic records also point to historical truths.

When Jesus asked the Apostles if they knew who He was, and which they understood in the context of reincarnation, He correctly acknowledged that Peter knew Him to be the incarnation of God and not a reincarnation. It simply means that both incarnation and reincarnation (Hindu philosophies) were both taught at the time of Jesus, and that some of the Apostles who were known to be lacking in common sense may not have known the difference.

It is difficultt to believe that God who creates and loves multiplicities and diversities ad infinitum is likely to give one pathway to salvation. Neither you nor I can prove or disprove that Jesus said any such thing about only one pathway.

You are simply taking it on faith that someone heard Jesus speak about an only pathway, and you cannot even prove it to be the true words of Jesus, written down some hundred and fifty to four hundred years later. No one can say for sure if it was the Apostle John or some other John who wrote the Gospel of St. John, simply because such proofs do not exist. Therefore, all that you say is based only on faith and the writings of theologians who are adept at explaining scriptures.

Please see how rigid barriers are being broken down between Hindus and Jews, the same Jews who gave us Christianity and called Idol worship abominable, now willing to accept Idol worship as acceptable and how trhey misunderstood multiple Gods in Hinduism.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... port-.html (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/01/the-first-hindujewish-summit-report-.html)

adeodatus

07-22-2009, 09:33 PM

Your entire argument is that one is true and the other is wrong and both cannot be right at the same time. Your argument is based solely on data you believe to be historical and true, yet all based on faith, since the argument still goes on as to whether there was indeed a Jesus which is neither here nor there for me.

My friend, have you noticed I NEVER said, when making my point on the irreconcilable differences of religions? Also, notice that I said that ALL COULD BE WRONG? My argument, in this case, is not based on the presupposition that Christianity is right. It is based on the LOGIC that once we have irreconcilable differences, when talking about the same thing, ALL CANNOT be right ONE must be right OR ALL WRONG.

The argument for Christianity being right, is for another post, if you want to start it please do. However, for the discussion at hand I'm not arguing from the presupposition that Christianity is correct. It is simple, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, all trip over themselves when describing the same Entity, GOD, so all cannot be right, but ALL CAN BE WRONG. This is my premise. After we admit this, we can move on, and examine all the revelation more closely.

You are simply saying that other incarnations also believed to be true by others in the same context of incarnation of God, and also historical, cannot be true. But that is your belief, and I have mine about Jesus not being the only way.

Good, again, it is your human right to believe what ever. However, JESUS said he was the only way to God. So, what you have to do, if you want to add Jesus to your world view, is accept HIS self understanding. Or else you're not accepting Jesus, but you are accepting what BRAG thinks about Jesus. There is a major difference.

The core of your argument is that there were no other incarnations of God prior to Jesus, and that you cannot accept any other incarnations of God since those were impossible, simply because Jesus said he was the life..... Yet when I pointed out that other incarnations of God referred to themselves as God in whom to take refuge, you reject that argument as if you know that was never said or was never true as having come from God.

Did Jesus said that he was the life alone? He said many things about the exclusivity of belief in him. Also, he did not just say he was the LIFE, the rest of it reads THE WAY and the TRUTH! I quoted TONS of other scripture verses, why ignore those? Also, if other incarnations of GOD said that THEY are the ONLY way to God, please post them. If Krishna etc made exclusive claims bring it to the board.

When Jesus said He will come again, He also showed that incarnations of God in other forms were know before, and especially when they asked how they would know him, which means they accepted the power of God to come in any form he chose. But again, that is not acceptable to you because you would not accept that God can take other forms or had taken other forms before. I suppose you expect Jesus to come in His one and only original form know to man, the same man who cannot prove a one true form of Jesus. Yet some Christians believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His coming again.

No brag, he meant that he WILL COME AGAIN. Not that he will be incarnated again, but that he will come again, as the man Jesus Christ. Here is what the Angel told the disciple in the book of Acts.

Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven?
This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come as you have seen him going into heaven. (Acts 1:11) emphasis mine

And then they shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with great power and majesty.
(Luke 21:27) emphasis mine

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." (I Thessalonians 4:16-17) emphasis mine

For as the lightening comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man." (Matthew 24:27) emphasis mine

He is coming back AS JESUS. How ever he ascended that's how he's coming back! Again, Jesus and his apostles said it, not us.

Many Christians are still undecided about the corrrect form of Jesus when He incarnated some two thousand years ago. Can you imagine Christians acknowledging the forms of Rama and Krishna as other forms of God when they can't even agree on what Jesus looked like only two thousand years ago? Yet Hindus have no problem with the forms God took as Rama and Krishna some five and twenty thousand years ago respectively, based on history. The Akashic records also point to historical truths.

I had this same discussion with another Hindu man. We would know when and how Jesus will return because HE TOLD US WHAT TO LOOK FOR. So even if we don't have the correct form (he was a man two eyes, two feet, two hands a nose, nothing out of the ordinary) we can STILL look for the signs of his COMING to know if it is indeed Jesus. It's like meeting someone you were chatting with over the internet, but you never saw. Even though YOU DO NOT know how he/she looks, if HE/SHE tells you, that they will be standing by the blue shop, wearing a blue pants and a blue shirt, with a blue shoe with blue socks at 10 am. Then, although you have no prior knowledge of what he/she looked like YOU CAN KNOW IT IS THEM when you see them. For they gave you signs to look for. This is the same with Jesus, though we may not know EXACTLY how he looked, we can spot him when he comes again, because he gave us sign to look for!

When Jesus asked the Apostles if they knew who He was, and which they understood in the context of reincarnation, He correctly acknowledged that Peter knew Him to be the incarnation of God and not a reincarnation. It simply means that both incarnation and reincarnation (Hindu philosophies) were both taught at the time of Jesus, and that some of the Apostles who were known to be lacking in common sense may not have known the difference.

I don't see what is your real point here. Even IF they believed in REINCARNATION, it is not something that the BIBLE TEACHES as doctrine. Nicodemus was puzzled at the term Born again thinking someone needs to reenter their mother's womb and be born again, but as we know, the Bible doe snot teach this also. And Jesus corrected them. So, I don't see a real point here.

It is difficultt to believe that God who creates and loves multiplicities and diversities ad infinitum is likely to give one pathway to salvation. Neither you nor I can prove or disprove that Jesus said any such thing about only one pathway.

I can have the SAME amount of certainty that Jesus said that, as anyone can be sure of ay other historically verifiable document. However I cannot prove that to you as how I can prove that the sun exists. In fact we cannot do that WITH ANYTHING that is CONSIDERED History. However, we can use the Historical method and determine with relative certainty, what was said in the past. This kind of certainty can be placed in the documents of the New Testament. The evidence of this, is the overwhelming amount of manuscripts we have,(over 20,000) And, all of them agree with each other in the range of 99.5% accuracy (this is not the only proof but a major one) So, we can be relatively sure this is what Jesus REALLY SAID!

So, in order to disprove the words of Jesus you must disprove the foundation they stand on. However you have NOT brought any arguments to disprove the veracity of the New Testament documents.

You are simply taking it on faith that someone heard Jesus speak about an only pathway, and you cannot even prove it to be the true words of Jesus, written down some hundred and fifty to four hundred years later. No one can say for sure if it was the Apostle John or some other John who wrote the Gospel of St. John, simply because such proofs do not exist. Therefore, all that you say is based only on faith and the writings of theologians who are adept at explaining scriptures.

150 years? 400? WOW Even SECULAR Historians place the LATEST Gospel (John) 90 YEARS after Jesus Christ. 400? Oh my, this is even crazier, the canon of SCRIPTURE was CLOSED by that time, so how can anything be written for the Bible after it was closed? Your Information amazes me. Pleace cite the sources that you got them from. Also Theologians DID NOT WRITE the Gospel of John or other Gospels. And ALL MY QUOTATIONS came from John or some other Gospel or an Epistle. You don't need to consult a theologian to understand what Jesus meant by his WORDS. Again, we have just as much as proof as we can have about ANY OTHER document of antiquity. Also, we have early leaders of the Church telling us who wrote what (not all but some) We have also the TESTIMONY of the Gospels them selves. So we can relatively be sure that the apostles wrote the Gospels they said they wrote.

Please see how rigid barriers are being broken down between Hindus and Jews, the same Jews who gave us Christianity and called Idol worship abominable, now willing to accept Idol worship as acceptable and how they misunderstood multiple Gods in Hinduism.

The Jews did not give us Christianity. Jesus gave us Christianity. God, CHOSE the Jewish people in the beginning that's all really. In fact most Jews REJECTED Jesus as the messiah, and up to this day some still do! They STILL AWAIT the messiah! The Jews gave us JUDAISM. Which is NOT Christianity. So, this is not pertinent to our discussion.

Grace and the Lord's peace be with you!