does hinduism accept christ as a prophet/god

[Jainarayan]

No I meant he was being politically correct. I am not saying he spoke lies.

I understand. It was the time and place.

So if we have to gage Christ objectively, it has to be beyond what is written in Bible, to what he actually achieved.

I think it was far more than people realize. There's a lot more to be found in the gnostic gospels, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, for one, than in the four canonical gospels of the bible. A lot was kept out of the bible because it didn't fit into the Roman and Greek mindset. A lot of it was very eastern and mystical.

 

[Poeticus]

Well, I better become Christian, then.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Well, I better become Christian, then.

Amen.
God (mono) is good for ya, but will Hanuman ji would have to fight the Devil far ya?

 

[Jainarayan]

We're all incarnations, but not avatars.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, I better become Christian, then.

Oh heavens no! :faint:

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

We're all incarnations, but not avatars.

This is late night. And this is a good quote. Let us therefore distribute some Frubals among us. No one will know.

 

[Jainarayan]

Works for me, but I have to recharge to frubal you again.

 

[Poeticus]

Amen.
God (mono) is good for ya, but will Hanuman ji would have to fight the Devil far ya?

There is no God but God. Jeez.

We're all incarnations, but not avatars.

Is Jesus an avatar of "God"?

Oh heavens no! :faint:

I might as well if I want to be "saved". But, on the other hand, the "hell" of Islam is much better. Apparently, the majority of the "residents" in "hell" according to Islam are women. This means, I bring some Champagne and play Twister with da ladiezzz. Ya feel me?

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Okay, I will try to sum up:
1) Christianity courtesy Christ should not be not monotheistic (b'coz of Trinity), though the Church would have us believe something else.
2) Christ brought Dharmic ideas to those places. So, victory to Dharma!
3) In the Trinity we discussed about "Holy Spirit" being (should be) the Mother, or Devi.
4) Christ was politically correct in his sayings at places.
5) Church is the Devil.
6) Christ can be an Avatar that's the question. His being a teacher/ prophet is ruled out. Bible, even if the original one, is no Veda.
7) Avatar has to be Vishnu's.

Good night for now?

 

[Jainarayan]

Is Jesus an avatar of "God"?

I do not believe so.

I might as well if I want to be "saved". But, on the other hand, the "hell" of Islam is much better. Apparently, the majority of the "residents" in "hell" according to Islam are women. This means, I bring some Champagne and play Twister with da ladiezzz. Ya feel me?

I think they feed you bunches of grapes too. :yes:

 

[Poeticus]

I do not believe so.

Could he be an avatar of Lord Shri Vishnu?

I think they feed you bunches of grapes too. :yes:

:drool::drool::drool::drool:

 

[Jainarayan]

Okay, I will try to sum up:
1) Christianity courtesy Christ should not be not monotheistic (b'coz of Trinity), though the Church would have us believe something else.
2) Christ brought Dharmic ideas to those places. So, victory to Dharma!
3) In the Trinity we discussed about "Holy Spirit" being (should be) the Mother, or Devi.
4) Christ was politically correct in his sayings at places.
5) Church is the Devil.
6) Christ can be an Avatar that's the question. His being a teacher/ prophet is ruled out. Bible, even if the original one, is no Veda.
7) Avatar has to be Vishnu's.

Good night for now?

I do go with him being a teacher, and everything else is pretty much on target, imo.

 

[Jainarayan]

Could he be an avatar of Lord Shri Vishnu?

He could be. And I say that only because God can do whatever he needs or wants to do. There could be avatars of Lord Vishnu on earth now. If any time is adharmic, for the Lord to descend, this would be it. This time is even more adharmic than Judea in 4 BCE.

 

[Poeticus]

He could be. And I say that only because God can do whatever he needs or wants to do. There could be avatars of Lord Vishnu on earth now. If any time is adharmic, for the Lord to descend, this would be it. This time is even more adharmic than Judea in 4 BCE.

Is it okay to believe that Jesus was not an avatar nor an incarnation of "God"?

 

[Jainarayan]

Sure. Millions, maybe billions don't believe it. I always hedge and say 'could', 'might', 'may', etc. because I don't think anyone can really know one way or another.

 

[Maija]

What is this message you are talking that jesus taught and our ancient ancestor rishis did not? care to elaborate ? :sarcastic

I'm sure this was answered...

All I will add is that the relationship to Jesus that many of those raised in Christian homes who know embrace SD...

May be similar to say, a Hindu whose parents or parent had a different guru than your own. Your parent, regardless of your religion, is your first guru.

My mothers guru was Jesus, I heard the stories, learnt some of my own. I will always have respect and love for Jesus, just as someone may always respect their parents guru even now that they have their own.

Though the lessons of your parents guru may not be as close to your heart as the lessons from your choosen guru/ishta devata, they will never be any like untruth.

Your mind will not disrespect those lessons learnt, unless the person was discovered to be a fraud. Though they may not be present in my physical altar, in my mental or spiritual lineage of teachers and spiritual mentors they are most definitely present.

Just because I have learnt lessons that are more relevant and closer to a personal truth for me, does not mean that the lessons previously learned are invalid.

Now back to reading these hilarious posts !!

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste
I will like to end here with "personal opinion", according to which:

1) Avatar/ no Avatar is not an issue at all with native Hindus. They don't feel in any way a need to address this issue. The exceptions are when they come in contact with missionaries in India, and that is anyway a bad experience; Christianity to an outsider is hardly better than Islam, it matches in the hateful thoughts what other achieves in the hateful actions.

2) In this thread, however, we critically assesed Christ as seen from a Hindu pov, isolating the figure from the rest of the Christianity. In this, Christ was understood to have brought more polytheistic (Hindu) ideas to the west, which meant a big break in their traditional religious culture.

3) Jews have not felt any need either to "own up" or explain Christ, this more importantly so because he was one of them. This can be perhaps seen as their self-assurance about the ability of the Jewish race to be able to produce more such luminaries in future; this also denies Christ the importance attributed to him by the Christians. Hinduism, in a similar fashion, feels self-assured, not by the virtue of any racial identity, but by the richness and variety of their Thought-system and their Devas and Devis.

4) A religious argument can be made that a belief in Christ is a good starting point for a westerner, in an otherwise Abrahmic environment. If Satayuga is around the corner, and Hinduism, or the Sahaja Dharma, indeed becomes the VisvaDharma, then Christ would have played a part in that, surely.

5) Another issue is the second generations of western Hindus. Many times we take many things for granted. It is necessary therefore to "initiate" their children into Hanuman Ji, or Murugan (in fact this is something that is taken for granted in India, but here one has to do things consciously), and ofcourse Upanayana Sanskaras etc. So clearly Hinduism does have a practical aspect which needs some action as well as infrastructure; the image of Himduism as high philosophy where one can indulge oneself (or even in one Deity) is not true to its spirit.

6) From a purely spiritual perspective, Christ can be seen as the base, a starting point, for a future that is Dharma, in the West. So a convert should be welcomed, not rejected, if he brings along with him the Vedi (altar) of Christ with him. Indeed, Christ has been a starting point for Dharma, and because that means he brought about a radical departure in the pre-existing ways in those lands, he can be seen as Avatar, no harm in that. We can also make a comparison with the "starting points" of Dharma in India: Murugan in South, AsviniKumar in West, and Hanuman in East. And all of three are kind of more related to Shiva, not Vishnu. Vishnu brings miracle- a sharp departure. Shiva, on the other hand, makes a common man, a common bhakta, fight for Dharma and establish it firmly: this is how Dharma was established in the three corners of the Bharati's expanse.

pranam

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Remember how the Rig Veda has a full section that disses Zarathustra?
M.V.

Could you please provide quotes Ṛgveda-saṃhitā which mention "Zarathushtra"? Back in the early 1900-s, some Indologists felt that ज॑रूथम् (járūtham) may be linguistically related to 𐬰𐬀𐬭𐬀𐬚𐬎𐬱𐬙𐬭𐬋 (zaraθuštr&#333 as they both relate to age (the former refers to "making old" whereas the latter refers to an individual "with old camels"), however this theory had very little linguistic credibility and was quickly disregarded (refer to the work of Mary Boyce and Solomon Nigosian for more information in this regard).
The only other claim that I have ever hear of along those lines that posits that there is an allusion to Zoroastrianism/"Mazdayasna," comes from a linguistic misunderstanding regarding the following verse:

म॑न्दामहे द॑शतयस्य धासे॑र् द्वि॑र् य॑त् प॑ञ्च बि॑भ्रतो य॑न्त्य॑न्ना।
कि॑म् इष्टा॑श्व इष्ट॑रश्मिर् एत॑ ईशाना॑सस् त॑रुषञ्जते नॄन्॥१.१२२.१३॥

Transliteration:
mándāmahe dáśatayasya dhāsér dvír yát páñca bíbhrato yántyánnā।
kím iṣṭā́śva iṣṭáraśmir etá īśānā́sas táruṣañjate nṝn॥1.122.13॥

Translation: "We will delight (mándāmahe) in the ten types of nourishment (dáśatayasya dhāsér) whenever (yát) [they] bring (bíbhrato) the twice-five (dvír páñca) meals (yántyánn&#257. What can (kím) Iṣṭā́śva (lit. he whose horse is cherished) and Iṣṭáraśmi (lit. he whose harness strips are cherished) [do], when this (sas) shining master (etá īśānā&#769 prepares (añjate) men (nṝn) for battle/combat (táru&#7779?"

It is often alleged that Iṣṭā́śva in the above verse refers to Vištāspa (a follower of Zaraθuštra mentioned in the Gāthās), despite the fact the actual Saṃskṛtā form of the Gāthic-Avestan name Vištāspa (one with extended horses) would be Vīṣitā́śva, not Iṣṭā́śva (which means one whose horse is cherised). Vīṣita (extended) comes from vīṣati (to spread), which in turn comes from the root √viś, which meas to pervade. Iṣṭa (cherished/beloved), on the other hand, is related to icchati (to desire), which in turn comes from the root √iṣ, which means "to wish." As you can see, there are many patent fallacies in assuming that Zaraθuštra is mentioned anywhere in the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā.
Anyway, I really don't care if he was mentioned or not, I just find it odd how you were quick to believe a ridiculous theory like Zaraθuštra being mentioned (and mocked) in the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā, yet were staunchly against the (comparatively less absurd) idea that Ṛṣabha is mentioned in the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā. :thud:

 

[Poeticus]

Could you please provide quotes Ṛgveda-saṃhitā which mention "Zarathushtra"? Back in the early 1900-s, some Indologists felt that ज॑रूथम् (járūtham) may be linguistically related to �������������������� (zaraθuštr&#333 as they both relate to age (the former refers to "making old" whereas the latter refers to an individual "with old camels"), however this theory had very little linguistic credibility and was quickly disregarded (refer to the work of Mary Boyce and Solomon Nigosian for more information in this regard).
The only other claim that I have ever hear of along those lines that posits that there is an allusion to Zoroastrianism/"Mazdayasna," comes from a linguistic misunderstanding regarding the following verse:

म॑न्दामहे द॑शतयस्य धासे॑र् द्वि॑र् य॑त् प॑ञ्च बि॑भ्रतो य॑न्त्य॑न्ना।
कि॑म् इष्टा॑श्व इष्ट॑रश्मिर् एत॑ ईशाना॑सस् त॑रुषञ्जते नॄन्॥१.१२२.१३॥

Transliteration:
mándāmahe dáśatayasya dhāsér dvír yát páñca bíbhrato yántyánnā।
kím iṣṭā́śva iṣṭáraśmir etá īśānā́sas táruṣañjate nṝn॥1.122.13॥

Translation: "We will delight (mándāmahe ) in the ten types of nourishment (dáśatayasya dhāsér) whenever (yát) [they] bring (bíbhrato) the twice-five (dvír páñca) meals (yántyánn&#257. What can (kím) Iṣṭā́śva (lit. he whose horse is cherished) and Iṣṭáraśmi (lit. he whose harness strips are cherished) [do], when this (sas) shining master (etá īśānā&#769 prepares (añjate) men (nṝn) for battle/combat (táru&#7779."

It is often alleged that Iṣṭā́śva in the above verse refers to Vištāspa (a follower of Zaraθuštra mentioned in the Gāthās), despite the fact the actual Saṃskṛtā form of the Gāthic-Avestan name Vištāspa (one with extended horses) would be Vīṣitā́śva, not Iṣṭā́śva (which means one whose horse is cherised). Vīṣita (extended) comes from vīṣati (to spread), which in turn comes from the root √viś, which meas to pervade. Iṣṭa (cherished/beloved), on the other hand, is related to icchati (to desire), which in turn comes from the root √iṣ, which means "to wish." As you can see, there are many patent fallacies in assuming that Zaraθuštra is mentioned anywhere in the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā.
Anyway, I really don't care if he was mentioned or not, I just find it odd how you were quick to believe a ridiculous theory like Zaraθuštra being mentioned (and mocked) in the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā, yet were staunchly against the (comparatively less absurd) idea that Ṛṣabha is mentioned in the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā. :thud:

How long did it take for you to write that whole thing?

Edited to include:

The Rg-Vedic Battle of the Ten Kings and Varshagira Battle (the first on the Ravi banks in West Panjab, the second beyond the Bolan Pass in southern Afghanistan, after the westward expansion rendered possible by Vedic kind Sudas's victory in the first battle), were very definitely between Iranians and Vedic Indo-Aryans. The second of these battles is also alluded to in the younger Avesta, where the same battle leaders are mentioned: Rjashva/Arjasp and Somaka/Humayaka on the Indian side, Vishtaspa/Ishtashva on the Iranian side. RV 1:122:13 mentions Ishtâshva, the Sanskrit form of Iranian 'Vishtâspa', well-known as Zarathustra's royal patron: 'What can Ishtâshva, Ishtarashmi or any other princes do against those who enjoy the protection (of Mitra and Varuna)?' Thus the interpretation of Sayana and SK Hodiwala, as reported by Shrikant Talageri, The Rigveda, a Historical Analysis, p.215-221, and also followed, at least in the names given, by HH Wilson and KF Geldner in their RV translations. It is a rare treat in studies of ancient literature when a single event is reported in two independent sources, which moreover represent the two opposing parties in the event. - Dr. Elst

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

How long did it take for you to write that whole thing?

Edited to include:

The Rg-Vedic Battle of the Ten Kings and Varshagira Battle (the first on the Ravi banks in West Panjab, the second beyond the Bolan Pass in southern Afghanistan, after the westward expansion rendered possible by Vedic kind Sudas's victory in the first battle), were very definitely between Iranians and Vedic Indo-Aryans. The second of these battles is also alluded to in the younger Avesta, where the same battle leaders are mentioned: Rjashva/Arjasp and Somaka/Humayaka on the Indian side, Vishtaspa/Ishtashva on the Iranian side. RV 1:122:13 mentions Ishtâshva, the Sanskrit form of Iranian 'Vishtâspa', well-known as Zarathustra's royal patron: 'What can Ishtâshva, Ishtarashmi or any other princes do against those who enjoy the protection (of Mitra and Varuna)?' Thus the interpretation of Sayana and SK Hodiwala, as reported by Shrikant Talageri, The Rigveda, a Historical Analysis, p.215-221, and also followed, at least in the names given, by HH Wilson and KF Geldner in their RV translations. It is a rare treat in studies of ancient literature when a single event is reported in two independent sources, which moreover represent the two opposing parties in the event. - Dr. Elst

Did you even read what I wrote?
The majority of my post was spent showing that "the actual Saṃskṛtā form of the Gāthic-Avestan name Vištāspa (one with extended horses) would be Vīṣitā́śva, not Iṣṭā́śva (which means one whose horse is cherished)." Koenraad Elst never showed any linguistic analysis for his statement, whereas I indeed have. Hence, I am clearly not convinced...