does hinduism accept christ as a prophet/god

[Ekanta]

In Brahma sutra we read about people born with a divine mission. I regard Jesus not as a full avatar, but as such a person.

People with a Mission
3.3.32. Those who have a mission to fulfil continue in the corporeal state as long as the mission demands it.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

You're speaking to the wrong person. Go convince Sayana, Geldner, Wilson, and Elst. Elst is just following the translation of the first three, as per his remarks.

What are you talking about? None of them translated Iṣṭā́śva as "Vištāspa"? Sāyaṇamādhava never "translated" the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā (and Zoroastrianism isn't mentioned at all in the Sāyaṇabhāṣya), so how is that (i.e. that "RV 1:122:13 mentions Ishtâshva, the Sanskrit form of Iranian 'Vishtâspa"), Sāyaṇamādhava's conclusion?
Here is Horace Hayman Wilson's translation:

I'm sorry, but I don't see any mention of Vištāspa or Zaraθuštra here...
On the other hand, both Śrī Rāmānujācārya and Śrī Madhvācārya state that Vṛṣabha as refers to Ṛṣabha (at least once) throughout their commentaries (the Vedārthasaṅgraha and Ṛgbhāṣyam respectively). If anyone is relying on pseudo-scholarship here, it's you, as it's a clear double-standard to take the position that Iṣṭā́śva is the same as Vištāspa (despite the fact that the Gāthic and Saṃskṛtā words are not etymologically related) and also take the view that the term vṛṣabha is never used to refer to Ṛṣabha[muni] throughout the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā (despite the fact that the latter is merely the Jaina Prākṛtā form of the former, both referring to a "bull," as well as the fact that many vedāntinaḥ have noticed and explicitly stated the association). Apparently it's okay to misinterpret a text in order to bash another unrelated religion (in this case, Zoroastrianism), but it's not okay to view the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā as having hymns which praise Ṛṣabha, an avatāra of Śrī Viṣṇu, despite the fact that Śrī Kṛṣṇa states "वेदैश्च सर्वैर् अहम् एव वेद्यो" ["I (अहम&#2381 {am} surely (ए&#2357 the object of knowledge (वेद्य&#2379 of all the Veda-s (वेदैश्च सर्वैर&#2381"] in the Gītā. I really don't know what to say...
Anyway, I think I should start an ongoing thread with a translation of verse from Madhva's Ṛgbhāṣyam; until now, I never really realized the paucity of English information on the internet regarding the four main Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya's views on karma-kāṇḍa (in part due to the reluctance to translate texts). Seriously, I'm not exaggerating in the least bit; there's more information in English regarding Kaśmīr Śaiva/trika views on Veda Saṃhitā-s (which is really pathetic, as most parādvaita-vādinaḥ place the majority of scriptural emphasis on their own Āgama-s).

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Namaste.

Personally, I see Lord Jesus as a 'holy sage' or just another enlightened Master.

I don't see him as being a 'prophet' or God Himself and as for being 'the Son of God', it's like us all being 'children of God'. No distinction exists there.

I have much respect for Jesus and his teachings, but the last time I even made just a brief, passing reference to him, I was severely admonished and banned from the Hindu group I belonged to...their intolerance was palpable.

They told me that Hindus don't acknowledge/accept Jesus as even existing, let alone anything beyond that.....this attitude has changed a lot over the past 20 years or so.

Before, I was used to Hindus being tolerant of other beliefs...now, things are very different.

I was told that 'Abrahamic Faiths' don't see any of our deities/holy people as being 'God' so why should we reciprocate it?

So, to answer the question posed in the title in one word....no.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Vinayaka]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why a person gets offended when another person expresses an opinion. I'm not offended that someone believes in Christ, yet people take offense when I say I don't.

It seems to me a very one way discussion.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't see him as being a 'prophet' or God Himself and as for being 'the Son of God', it's like us all being 'children of God'. No distinction exists there.

If one keeps with the true definition of 'prophet': one who speaks for God or reveals truths, it might be argued then that Jesus is a prophet. He did, after all, teach the true nature of God, which is not the "believe in me or you'll burn in Hell" bull ****. Rather, that we are one with God, God's "kingdom" is within us and being devoted to God is the way to reach him. Sound vaguely familiar? However, I think enlightened teacher is a good common ground way of looking at it.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

If one keeps with the true definition of 'prophet': one who speaks for God or reveals truths, it might be argued then that Jesus is a prophet. He did, after all, teach the true nature of God, which is not the "believe in me or you'll burn in Hell" bull ****. Rather, that we are one with God, God's "kingdom" is within us and being devoted to God is the way to reach him. Sound vaguely familiar? However, I think enlightened teacher is a good common ground way of looking at it.

Namaste.

I agree with this.

Only positive things can come from a teacher saying that 'God is Love' and to 'turn the other cheek' and stuff like that.

I think Jesus had a very positive message to deliver that was somehow overlooked in the process.

I guess it was my fault for discussing this on another forum where certain discussions were disallowed (not as part of the rules).

It was said to me 'Sanatana Dharma is complete within itself, so why should Christ even be brought into it?'

Yeah...I wasn't allowed to discuss 'comparative religions'...I wasn't allowed to discuss personal opinions...it was all basically 'let's just study Scriptures only and give discourse on them'.

It's better...much better that I am here now. I feel a bit more 'free'.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

I agree with this.

Only positive things can come from a teacher saying that 'God is Love' and to 'turn the other cheek' and stuff like that.

I think Jesus had a very positive message to deliver that was somehow overlooked in the process.

I guess it was my fault for discussing this on another forum where certain discussions were disallowed (not as part of the rules).

It was said to me 'Sanatana Dharma is complete within itself, so why should Christ even be brought into it?'

Yeah...I wasn't allowed to discuss 'comparative religions'...I wasn't allowed to discuss personal opinions...it was all basically 'let's just study Scriptures only and give discourse on them'.

It's better...much better that I am here now. I feel a bit more 'free'.

Om Namah Shivaya

Well, not to violate any rules here about bashing other sites, which I won't do by mentioning names, I'll simply make an observation. I think you know of what I speak. If a site doesn't want a topic discussed, it should not have an area for that subject. And if the subject comes up in other areas, the post(s) should be removed. It's poor moderation to do otherwise.

It's true a moderator or administrator cannot police his or her site 24/7, but there is the report function if the topic is so offensive to the membership. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. A further observation is that you don't keep opening a jar if the contents are rancid, just to complain it's rancid. You throw the jar away. That jar was left there to be continually opened and complained about.

Fwiw if anyone cares what I think, I think this thread should actually be in the Comparative Religions section.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Well, not to violate any rules here about bashing other sites, which I won't do by mentioning names, I'll simply make an observation. I think you know of what I speak. If a site doesn't want a topic discussed, it should not have an area for that subject. And if the subject comes up in other areas, the post(s) should be removed. It's poor moderation to do otherwise.

It's true a moderator or administrator cannot police his or her site 24/7, but there is the report function if the topic is so offensive to the membership. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. A further observation is that you don't keep opening a jar if the contents are rancid, just to complain it's rancid. You throw the jar away. That jar was left there to be continually opened and complained about.

Fwiw if anyone cares what I think, I think this thread should actually be in the Comparative Religions section.

Namaste.

Yes, we are on the 'same page' here and I also will not mention any other sites by name or break the rules here.

Those words were also said to me: "you are either part of the solution or part of the problem' and I was permanently banned for being a 'troublemaker' and 'inciting anti-Hindu sentiment'...I mean, wtf?

That was not my intention, but it came off that way...

.....at least you all know now.

Every 'good post' I made and everything I posted that contributed positively was totally overlooked....which made me wonder how much of it was actually 'censorship' and how much of a 'problem' was I really creating by mentioning Jesus' name?

In the end, I just consoled myself with the notion: "we don't like you and we couldn't come up with a decent, logical reason to ban you, so this will do...we'll just call you a 'troublemaker' and that will be justification enough".

I agree this should be moved to the 'comparative Religion' Forums and I will speak no more about this.

I don't want to be a 'troublemaker' here and I shall now just toss that tin away.

Om Namah Shivaya.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste.

I agree with this.

Only positive things can come from a teacher saying that 'God is Love' and to 'turn the other cheek' and stuff like that.

Well, not necessarily, especially if that same "teacher" says stuff like...

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." - John 8:44

Or

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." - Matthew 10:34-35

 

[Jainarayan]

Metaphors the people of the time understood. Please do not throw passages around that are out of the context of the time and place. There are plenty of Hindu scriptures, like the laws of Manu and the animal sacrifices in the Vedas that are just as violent, but you'd say "oh they are just metaphors". Let's not be two-faced especially when one sees only the superficialities.

 

[Vinayaka]

It's been a long time, but here we go again.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, because people talk out of their butts. Sorry, but that's the brutal honesty and I call it out when I see it. It may seem that I always defend Christianity, but besides having a knowledge of it that few others here, who have never been Christian or studied it have, it goes further than that. People who have no knowledge of any other religion or culture spout what they think they know. In a poor attempt to one-up, he showed a profound ignorance of the texts, and was simply parroting what others say. He can no more speak on the gospels and their meanings than I can speak on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and its meanings. This is the sort of thing that gives the internet a bad name and propagates memes. I anxiously await Jaskaran Singh's understanding of the real meanings behind his cherry-picked verses. I can give the meaning and the context.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Yes, because people talk out of their butts. Sorry, but that's the brutal honesty and I call it out when I see it. It may seem that I always defend Christianity, but besides having a knowledge of it that few others here, who have never been Christian or studied it have, it goes further than that. People who have no knowledge of any other religion or culture spout what they think they know. In a poor attempt to one-up, he showed a profound ignorance of the texts, and was simply parroting what others say. He can no more speak on the gospels and their meanings than I can speak on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and its meanings. This is the sort of thing that gives the internet a bad name and propagates memes. I anxiously await Jaskaran Singh's understanding of the real meanings behind his cherry-picked verses. I can give the meaning and the context.

The "ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do..." verse was merely an ad-hominem attack upon the Jews that disagreed with his claims to divinity. If you read the Gospel of John, you would notice that he indirectly claims to be divine various times and when he was essentially ignored by the masses, he lashed out, a characteristic of a senile, narcissistic individual. From what I can tell, Jesus was either divine, or he was one of the largest frauds in history. The latter seems more reasonable. In any case, I am under no obligation to accept him as divine, nor am I forced to respect him as a teacher or a prophet. I don't see how one can claim that "the lusts of your father [i.e. Satan] ye will do" could be considered "metaphorical."

 

[Jainarayan]

If you knew what you were reading you would know he was addressing the Pharisees, who were corrupt and lorded control over the people. The pharisees corrupted use of the law. Jesus told them they adhered to only the letter of the law and forgot the meaning and mercy of it. They were liars, he called them liars, vipers and workers of iniquity; common metaphor was these evils came from the "evil one". It had nothing to do with his claim to be God or divine because he made no such claim. At his trial when asked if he was the son of God he said "you have said it". That was no claim to divinity because he said we are all children of God. So your "logic" is not only flawed, but non-existent. Jainarayan 1. Jaskaran 0.

In Matthew Jesus knew his message would cause divisions. It was not his mission to bring peace but to restore man's relationship with God, something that would go against the control the pharisees had over the Jews. Jainarayan 1. Jaskaran 0. It seems you are 0 for 2. It was not even a good try.

I don't care what you believe or don't, but don't run off at the mouth when you don't know what you're talking about. Btw these are the very same sorts of things the Buddha railed against about misuse of the Vedas by the brahmins of the time.

 

[Jainarayan]

Additionally, i'd like to know why there are commentaries and interpretations, innumerable ones, of Hindu scriptures. I don't think anyone on Earth can take them at face value. Even then some of the translations use grammar and syntax that are contradictory. The Bhagavad Gita itself has contradictory translations and interpretations. "Remove the speck from thine own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from thy brothers eye".

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

If you knew what you were reading you would know he was addressing the Pharisees, who were corrupt and lorded control over the people.

Did the Perushim or Zedukim ever compare non-Jews to dogs as your "Guru" Jesus did?
"Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's [i.e. the Israelites]] bread, and to cast it to dogs." - Matthew 15: 25-26
If you operate under the presumption that he did not claim divinity (as you seem to do), then you cannot take the above verse to refer to him "testing her faith." If he was merely a "teacher" or "prophet," then this would reflect on nothing but his own egotistic views of the superiority of his own ethnicity, as dogs were among the most reviled creatures in first-century Judea.

The pharisees corrupted use of the law. Jesus told them the adhered to only the letter of the law and forgot the meaning and mercy of it.

From a strictly historical perspective, the Ivrim who lived post-Babylonian exile were far less barbaric than those who lived during the time of Moshe, as the post-Babylonian period consisted of the establishment of a Sanhedrin which was able to determine the judicial penalties with regards to the mitzvot and Halakha. Hence, I find it hard to believe that they were being less compassionate than the Yehudim that lived during the time of Moshe, who were viewed as barbaric even by the Kanaanim (who themselves engaged in somewhat barbaric practices such as the sacrifice of little children to Moloch). In any case, Jesus could not be viewed as a paragon example of morality, unless you consider cursing trees to wilt, rejecting his mother Mary ("O Woman, what have I to do with you?") and comparing non-Jews to dogs as compassionate actions. He did engage in some actions which were commendable, such as feeding the 5,000 or preventing the adulteress from being stoned, but that does not excuse his hypocrisy (that's assuming he did reprimand the Perushim for not following the compassionate nature of the Tanakh, lol).

They were liars

I don't know about them, but Jesus certainly was a liar:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

It had nothing to do with his claim to be God or divine because he made no such claim.

That's your emotionally-driven opinion; I think any sane individual who is familiar with first-century Judaic culture would agree that statements along the line of "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." qualifies as claiming divinity. Regardless, if you read what I wrote, that, in itself, is not the reason why I disqualify him from being a enlightened teacher. Rather, it was his derogatory, overtly sentimental lashing-out which causes me to consider him to be a highly-flawed individual.

At his trial when asked if he was the son of God he said "you have said it". That was no claim to divinity because he said we are all children of God.

What an aśuddha-vākyam! If he considers me a "child" of "God" [daitya HaShem], then I wan't nothing to do with that individual. :run:

So your "logic" is not only flawed, but non-existent. Jainarayan 1. Jaskaran 0.

You're doing a "point-counter" now? Wow, I would expect you to act a bit more mature.

In Matthew Jesus knew his message would cause divisions. It was not his mission to bring peace but to restore man's relationship with God, something that would go against the control the pharisees had over the Jews.

So you admit that his message was causing discord amongst the Jewish community at the time, am I right? I don't see how this goes against my initial citation of the verse.

Jainarayan 1. Jaskaran 0. It seems you are 0 for 2. It was not even a good try.

Again, this arbitrary point counting seems a bit immature for a person of your age. The fact that you even have to resort to making such statements seems to exemplify nothing but your insecurity.

I don't care what you believe or don't, but don't run off at the mouth when you don't know what you're talking about.

I could say the same about you and your view that Jesus never claimed divinity.

 

[Jainarayan]

For not caring who or what Jesus was, that was quite the hissy fit full of inaccuracies and irrelevancies, not to mention name-calling. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". "Even the devil can quote scripture to his purpose". You can have the points because nothing will convince you that you have no idea what you're talking about. GJDM. :clap

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Namaste.

Wow, I didn't expect this to turn into such a heated debate.

I don't know much about Jesus at all really and yeah, I just tend to concentrate on his positive aspects.

I know he chucked a 'hissy fit' in the marketplace, abused people there and threw property around.

I know he used expensive oils and balms to massage others with (as Judas pointed out)...actually, Judas pointed out a lot of Christ's 'weaknesses'...and Judas was the 'bad dude'.

Jesus may/not have been the 'son of God' or even 'Divine'...one thing I know is that he was still only human and subject to all the failings that 'being a human' entails - even the holiest of sages has done a few 'questionable things' in their lives.

Probably I am just taking it all 'as a whole' instead of breaking it all down...but I also know that everything has to be taken in context and there must have been a reason for Jesus to behave this way.

I don't condone/worship Jesus or anything like that...I am just saying.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I don't know much about Jesus at all really and yeah, I just tend to concentrate on his positive aspects.

One can focus on the positive qualities of anyone (even Hitler), but that doesn't make everyone a "enlightened" teacher as jainArAyaN is trying to make Jesus into.

I know he chucked a 'hissy fit' in the marketplace, abused people there and threw property around.

Yes, he did, although most Christians don't consider it to be sinful and view the event as a form of divine judgement. I don't know how jainArAyaN views it though, as he doesn't consider Jesus divine:

I know he used expensive oils and balms to massage others with (as Judas pointed out)...actually, Judas pointed out a lot of Christ's 'weaknesses'...and Judas was the 'bad dude'.

That was actually Mary of Bethany who messaged him, then Judas was like "diá tí toúto tó mýron ouk epráthi̱ triakosío̱n di̱narío̱n kaí edóthi̱ pto̱choís? (why didn't you sell the myrrh for three hundred dinars and give it to the poor?), to which Jesus responded saying "áfes a̓f̱tí̱n, ína eis tí̱n i̱méran toú entafiasmoú mou ti̱rí̱si̱ a̓f̱tó" (forgive/permit her, so that she can keep it for the day of my burial).

Jesus may/not have been the 'son of God' or even 'Divine'...one thing I know is that he was still only human and subject to all the failings that 'being a human' entails - even the holiest of sages has done a few 'questionable things' in their lives.

I never disagreed with that, although I would like to state that since no scripture mentions Jesus, I think we can all agree that it should be perfectly okay for different Hindus to hold different views regarding him. You and jainArAyaN can take the view that he was a saint and/or enlightened teacher, vinAyaka can take the view that he never existed, and I can take the view that he was a fraud. :yes:

Probably I am just taking it all 'as a whole' instead of breaking it all down...but I also know that everything has to be taken in context and there must have been a reason for Jesus to behave this way.

I take the view that he was a narcissist who craved attention, so started claiming divinity, and was hence turned in and later crucified, only to become viewed as a divine figure due to the "devotion" of the Twelve Apostles and Paul.

I don't condone/worship Jesus or anything like that...I am just saying.
Om Namah Shivaya

Even if you did have an altar or worship him, that's honestly not any of my business, nor would I consider you non-Hindu. If you engaged in the septem sacramentorum, or something along that line, for example, then I would consider it to be highly unorthodox and/or outright strange, but I still wouldn't be in a position to decide whether your were "Hindu" or not.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Namaste.

I am not about to argue with anybody who can speak/quote Arameic.
:run:

Seriously though, I think I have read the Bible like...twice in my life and I couldn't get past all the 'begetting' and the parables...

I shall stick to the Hexateuch...much easier that way. lol

As for Jesus, I really don't give him much consideration at all and I don't think about it, generally. I think 'benefit of the doubt' fits here.

I fully realise I am a Hindu and Jesus wasn't...and I seriously doubt that Jesus would agree with me worshiping my Lord, Bhuteshwar...seriously.

You are correct though and Jesus can be seen as being very vain at times and I don't know how much of what happened was 'lost in translation' by the time King James commissioned the reprint....

Om Namah Shivaya