-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Hebraic Theology Make More Sense in a Hindu Context?
- Thread starter wizanda
- Start date
That is a part of the whole thread, scholars and myself, believe that our modern translations of the word Elohim into God, Gods, etc are wrong, and this thread is questioning if it would make more sense as Avatars...
In other words most of the Bible is about an Avatar called YHVH to begin, and then Yeshua... Just like we find in a Hindu context.
People writing, and especially for the Divine will try to use the language available logically or in someway that is defined clearly...
Those who interpret it, are the ones who make silly illogical claims, that don't always add up contextually.
We have Esword Bible software to examine each usage of the word Elohim, and we can test what Hebrew was used...
We know that the God Most High is One, and thus if the word steps out of the boundary, and starts implying there are multiple Gods, then it hasn't always indicated singular, and that is a belief that doesn't match the text.
So as a quick example, as pondering my own logical evidence as saying it:
Genesis 5:22 After Methuselah’s birth, Enoch walked with God (H430 האלהים HaElohim) for three hundred years, and became the father of more sons and daughters.
So HaElohim should mean 'The Gods', it really doesn't make much sense translating it as, 'The God' in the sentence structure, etc.
In my opinion.
I would like to add the Rabbonic Judaism also believes in an unknowable apophatic God.
The God of the Baha'i Faith and Rabbonic Judaism is totally formless (?) and unknowable. From the Baha'i perspective, and mine there is a 'Source' some call God(s). The Tao of Taoism is also a 'Source' that is unknowable and formless (?). I actually question the use of "formless," because in and of itself it defines an attribute of the 'Source' that is unknown from the human perspective.
This description would make them lesser Gods arising from Brahman. This is the reason why I call Hinduism henotheistic. Some interpret Hinduism as monotheistic, and if this descriptive therefore Brahman would be a God.
Fishing for frog hairs in interpretation does not not make one's God not a God.
Allah is simple the Arabic word for God and not God. In Islam God is also a formless apophatic unknowable God.
Christianity, and ancient Judaism of the Pentateuch does describe God(s) and anthropomorphic, personal with cataphatic attributes. The Trinity with Jesus Christ as God is defining personal cataphatic attributes of God.
Last edited:
I know... I’m Hindu. Brahman is all there is. In the Bhagavad Gita both Krishna himself and Arjuna refer to Krishna as Brahman.
There are human views of an anthropomorphic of God(s). but having an anthropomorphic personal view of God does not define the 'Source' some call Gods(s).
What is God? God is a three letter word.
It gives me no great pleasure to point out just how wrong everyone’s understanding of Brahman is vis-á-vis “God”, and what Shiva, Vishnu, other “gods” and we are. It’s simply incorrect to draw a comparison between Brahman and the Abrahamic understanding of God and God’s manifestations.
YHVH is seen sitting on a throne in the Hebraic text, it has a face, and revealed everything through prophets, this isn't unknowable or formless... They might like to pretend it is formless, and the God Most High; yet the text says differently.
Just stick with Baha'i theology, as so far the texts globally don't add up with the presuppositions you've said about other religions.
Al-Ilah is questioned by many to mean 'The God' in Arabic.... Ilah can be seen as plural, so they created a single word to mean 'The ultimate formless God'.
It is true the Quran declares no one has seen Allah, that it is beyond the dimensions, and separate from creation...
Therefore they do say it is unknowable; though the only problem with that is, the Quran quotes the Biblical history as being the same deity, and don't differentiate between the God Most High (El Elyon) and the Elohim...
Thus sometimes ponder has the information been passed down from Rabbinic Judaism, to miss out on these same missed facts that should be known by anyone truly sent.
This is why trying to have a thread debating should we be using the terminology the Avatars for the Elohim; as the Hebraic beliefs which Baha'i seem to have just copied without checking the authenticity, is just a mess of theological conjecture on top of each other.
God/Allah/Brahman/CPU, should be used to describe the Source of reality that is formless, beyond human comprehension in many ways, and is universal...
Yet to do this, we have to undo all these knots in theological understanding, and admit that humanity has an evolving knowledge; where we were confused in the past with anthropomorphized ideas.
Agreed the modern Abrahamic religious beliefs do not fit with what is within the text, and thus we have to recalculate the data to question if there are flaws in our understanding; since there is only one reality, and one God...
We have to be open to that mankind is learning as we progress, and it is possible we have it confused in many ways.
In my opinion.
You are Brahman too!
Anyway, the Hindu Brahman is not at all like your God or Allah, however formless and 'apophatic' your God maybe. Brahman is not even a God - you can not worship him/it or relate to him/it. You may want to read Spinoza and his 'Substance' - Brahman is more like that.
With projection, anything is possible.
No matter how many frog hairs you splint to define your belief exclusive and separate form others, the Hindu Brahman remains a God by definition. I have read Spinoza, and this does not help your case. The fact that different religions define the 'Source' some call God(s) differently is a human cultural perspective, and the universal 'Source' some call God(s) or whatever is not dependent on egocentric definitions of the 'unknowable,' which try and define their religion unique above others.
Conditions as they are manifested don't simply embrace things which are foreign, in the same manner that the condition of being above water doesn't embrace or have the underwater environment.
You are assuming the text is accurate, and not a human view of what is God or God(s), which also may be the case with your ancient scripture. This is somewhat confusing and in contradiction of what you said in the following.
Demeaning sarcastic statements about the Baha'i Faith is not constructive in a dialogue. Actually the belief of the Baha'i Faith fits your following statement;
Al-Ilah is questioned by many to mean 'The God' in Arabic.... Ilah can be seen as plural, so they created a single word to mean 'The ultimate formless God'.
It is true the Quran declares no one has seen Allah, that it is beyond the dimensions, and separate from creation...
Therefore they do say it is unknowable; though the only problem with that is, the Quran quotes the Biblical history as being the same deity, and don't differentiate between the God Most High (El Elyon) and the Elohim...
They are not 'known' by anyone that they are truly sent. They may be believed by some that they are truly sent. That is the anecdotal problem with all religions based on scripture is that those that believe DO NOT know, but they believe in their interpretation of the scripture.
More unfortunate demeaning comments toward the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. As far as ancient scripture of any religion it is anecdotal as to whether it is authentic or not, and heavily open to interpretation including the scripture of your religion.
This my friend is the view of the Baha'i Faith which you previously demean and ridicule.
Yes, the Baha'i Faith does simply undoes the ancient egocentric knots of conflicting and diverse beliefs with a simle slice of the sword to cut the gordian knot. It is not a matter of necessarily being confused, but the ancient cultural perspective of when the scripture was written was limited be the fact that the ancient cultures considered themselves the center of the universe.
This is a yes and no paradox. If you had a deeper understanding of the history of Judaism and the Hebrew language you would realize that their view is evolving knowledge of God, and your interpretation of the text is not remotely accurate concerning the Jewish scholar understand of the their own language and text. The have not considered that Pentateuch text as literal revealed literal text for hundreds of years.
It is not only possible, but the most likely scenario concerning the ancient world view of ancient religions based on the view of the Baha'i Faith, which you demean with condescending comments, including yours. If you consider if from an objective perspective without an agenda from the perspective of any religious belief including yours and mine all our religious beliefs are problematic unless we can get a better understanding of God(?) from a universal perspective, which would be the nature of God if God exists.
Last edited:
Yes. The mahāvākyāni (great sayings) state:
- prajñānam brahma - "Prajñāna (consciousness, intelligence) is Brahman" (Aitareya Upanishad).
- ayam ātmā brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad).
- tat tvam asi - "Thou art That" (Chandogya Upanishad).
- aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad).
- brahma satyam jagan mithyā - "Brahman is real; the world is unreal" (Vivekachudamani of Adi Shankara).
- ekam evadvitiyam brahma - "Brahman is one, without a second" (Chāndogya Upanishad).
- so 'ham "I am He" - (Ishopanishad). I wonder if John Lennon was having an Advaitic moment on the acid trip that produced 'I Am the Walrus': "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together".
- sarvam khalvidam brahma - "All of this is Brahman" (Chāndogya Upanishad). My personal favorite.
That wasn't directed to the Baha'i faith, which have great respect for in its aspirations towards Oneness....It is the previous religious texts of Judaism, Islam, New Testament; that have not been constructively dismantled in advanced, and thus Baha'i builds on faulty foundations.
It isn't an assumption had a NDE, and God has spoken to me on a few occasions, and can completely understand what we find in numerous texts across the world, that Heaven can be perceived as a ThroneRoom... Once in a place beyond the dimensions, a perception will make things manifest in a place of pure consciousness.
In my opinion.
Your claim to me above or maybe the previous page was that these "learned" individuals don't think for themselves and now here you change the goal post by saying the question too much. So which is it do they no too much to too little? It isn't just learning the Hebrew language, or else what you first said would be true, but as Metis was saying they learn the language in regards to everything it has to do with sacred texts written that language.Not been to a synagogue yet; thanks for the idea.
Yeah partially aware of this; yet to think they've questioned ultimately everything, is a dangerous ideology to me...
We always should be open to questioning, just encase new information comes along, especially on anything prophetic or traditions passed down, that we just take for granted...
We see this with human nature, that something can be staring us in the face, and we miss it.
In my opinion.
Of course they think for themselves, and it is rational to question what previous scholars said on the subject; yet not to stick with it regardless of new facts coming along...
Both, too much grammar & history; with not enough coding & logic.
In my opinion.
You may not agree, but the foundations of the Baha'i are grounded in Rabbonic Judaism, and Islam concerning concerning the nature of God and Revelation from God.
[/quote]
It isn't an assumption had a NDE, and God has spoken to me on a few occasions, and can completely understand what we find in numerous texts across the world, that Heaven can be perceived as a ThroneRoom... Once in a place beyond the dimensions, a perception will make things manifest in a place of pure consciousness.
In my opinion.
[/QUOTE]Good thing you qualify you qualify this as my opinion, because your claim to talk to God is worth 2 cents and a pinch of salt. There are far too many such contradictory claims of conversations with to be of supporting substance in this discussion.