does hinduism accept christ as a prophet/god

[Jaskaran Singh]

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

Namaskār,

I was using a Greek transliteration, not Aramaic. Although it does seem like Jesus would have actually spoken a type of Judeo-Aramaic language which was used in Israel during that period, although I'm pretty sure the oldest Assakhta Pe****ta documents actually date considerably after the earliest Greek copies of the Gospel. I don't know Aramaic though, although I can understand some of the words by comparing them to Hebrew or Arabic and looking for cognates, although I'll probably mess up the translation that way. I should try that the Aramaic trans. of the verse I was talking about initially:

ܡܪܝܡ ܕܝܢ ܫܩܠܬ ܫܛܝܦܬܐ ܕܒܣܡܐ ܕܢܪܕܝܢ ܪܫܝܐ ܣܓܝ ܕܡܝܐ ܘܡܫܚܬ ܪܓܠܘܗܝ ܕܝܫܘܥ ܘܫܘܝܬ ܒܣܥܪܗ ܪܓܠܘܗܝ ܘܐܬܡܠܝ ܒܝܬܐ ܡܢ ܪܝܚܗ ܕܒܣܡܐ

ܡܪܝܡ (maryam) clearly refers to Mary
ܡ ܕܝܢ (dyn) I don't know what this means, maybe law or religion (like in Arabic din/دي&#1606?
ܫܩܠܬ (sheqlat) probably refers to bear or to have dominion over, like showlāt שׁוֹלֵט
ܫܛܝܦܬܐ (shātipt&#257 probably means box, like tebah (תֵּבַ֣&#1514 probably both coming from the same proto-Semitic root (t-b-t?)
ܕܒܣܡܐ (dabasm&#257 I have no clue what it means, maybe poison, like in Arabic? [basma/بسمة]
ܕܢܪܕܝܢ (denardīn) I have absolutely no clue what this means...

Yeah, this isn't exactly working out....lol.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste JasK

From what I can tell, Jesus was either divine, or he was one of the largest frauds in history.

True. I, for one, see the divine; others (Vinayaka for example, here) see a fraud. By fraud I mean, "there simply was no Jesus."

I suggest you read this link. I will be, however, interested to hearing about any counter views / rebuttals. One typical counter argument can be read here.

Not willing to go any further than this, I will reiterate my stand: "Christ is divine, yet there is a deep conspiracy (politics of war) regarding the Church- and thus Christianity- from its very foundation."

Christ does have a spiritual existence. But the dirty games the Church continues to play all over world needs to be exposed.

KT

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't know how jainArAyaN views it though, as he doesn't consider Jesus divine:

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. I'm going to give the Cliff Notes which reflect my opinions and beliefs only. I'll then call it a day in conversing with one whose mind is already made up. My only hope is that some lurker may get a spark of enlightenment. It may be my fault for trying to explain too much and not use the KISS method and have started with the Cliffs Notes version:

1. Jesus may or may not have been divine; no more or less divine than we are if one believes we are one with Brahman. The Jews didn't know it, we don't know it. However, he taught about the true relationship between God and man.
   
2. Jesus's message was to the Jews of First Century CE Palestine. He was not addressing North American natives, Hindus, Japanese, Chinese or Aboriginal Australians, but the Jews, in terms relevant to the times.
   
3. Jesus was astute enough to realize that the Pharisees, priests and others in power used the Jewish religion to control the masses and keep people in their places, as the ruling class saw it to be. This is not unlike what the organized churches have been doing for 2,000 years, and what the brahmins did with the Vedas.
   
4. Jesus used parables, hyperbole and metaphors of the time and place; however, the people, and even his close associates whom he taught individually were so indoctrinated by the ruling powers they didn't get it either.
   
5. Jesus was human, and as such had human emotions, including getting ****** off at those who desecrated God's house, and at those who simply failed to grasp the idea that all they had to do was love God and each other. It bears mentioning that Krishna lost his cool when he hurled a chariot wheel, and when Shiva lopped off his own son's head. So what do we make of that?
   
6. 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. - Matthew 5:17-18. Now what does this mean? "Till heaven and earth pass" was a phrase for indicating a very long, indeterminate time. Matthew 5 Barnes' Notes
   
7. One can choose to believe Jesus was enlightened and/or a prophet or not. It doesn't matter to me; I am not Christian, though I lived over half my life as a Christian. What rustles my jimmies is that one should delve into the true meanings of what Jesus said and why, by reading and studying the commentaries of religious, biblical and theological scholars, not the parroting, copying and pasting by anonymous internet personae who are not, and have never been Christian; who have no knowledge of it other than what they read; use irrelevancies and red herrings; and take out of context what they think supports their "case".

I don't think it can be any clearer.

 

[Jainarayan]

True. I, for one, see the divine; others (Vinayaka for example, here) see a fraud. By fraud I mean, "there simply was no Jesus."

There may have been no Homer or Lao Tzu either, but someone wrote in their names and created their personae.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. I'm going to give the Cliff Notes which reflect my opinions and beliefs only. I'll then call it a day in conversing with one whose mind is already made up. My only hope is that some lurker may get a spark of enlightenment. It may be my fault for trying to explain too much and not use the KISS method and have started with the Cliffs Notes version:

1. Jesus may or may not have been divine; no more or less divine than we are if one believes we are one with Brahman. The Jews didn't know it, we don't know it. However, he taught about the true relationship between God and man.
   
2. Jesus's message was to the Jews of First Century CE Palestine. He was not addressing North American natives, Hindus, Japanese, Chinese or Aboriginal Australians, but the Jews, in terms relevant to the times.
   
3. Jesus was astute enough to realize that the Pharisees, priests and others in power used the Jewish religion to control the masses and keep people in their places, as the ruling class saw it to be. This is not unlike what the organized churches have been doing for 2,000 years, and what the brahmins did with the Vedas.
   
4. Jesus used parables, hyperbole and metaphors of the time and place; however, the people, and even his close associates whom he taught individually were so indoctrinated by the ruling powers they didn't get it either.
   
5. Jesus was human, and as such had human emotions, including getting ****** off at those who desecrated God's house, and at those who simply failed to grasp the idea that all they had to do was love God and each other. It bears mentioning that Krishna lost his cool when he hurled a chariot wheel, and when Shiva lopped off his own son's head. So what do we make of that?
   
6. 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. - Matthew 5:17-18. Now what does this mean? "Till heaven and earth pass" was a phrase for indicating a very long, indeterminate time. Matthew 5 Barnes' Notes
   
7. One can choose to believe Jesus was enlightened and/or a prophet or not. It doesn't matter to me; I am not Christian, though I lived over half my life as a Christian. What rustles my jimmies is that one should delve into the true meanings of what Jesus said and why, by reading and studying the commentaries of religious, biblical and theological scholars, not the parroting, copying and pasting by anonymous internet personae who are not, and have never been Christian; who have no knowledge of it other than what they read; use irrelevancies and red herrings; and take out of context what they think supports their "case".

I don't think it can be any clearer.

I'm pretty sure this is turning into a big debate, which it isn't supposed. If you want a good source that is not found in the bible that some scholars believe to be the closest we have to the actual sayings of Jesus, than the Gospel of Thomas is a good start. Till then I don't think Hindu's need to recognize Christ, if God wanted people to have one religion, God would have only provided one religion.

 

[Vinayaka]

Till then I don't think Hindu's need to recognize Christ, if God wanted people to have one religion, God would have only provided one religion.

Thank you. :bow:

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm pretty sure this is turning into a big debate, which it isn't supposed.

I've already asked that it be moved. I hope it is.

If you want a good source that is not found in the bible that some scholars believe to be the closest we have to the actual sayings of Jesus, than the Gospel of Thomas is a good start.

Indeed, there is much in the four canonical gospels that is contradictory and confusing, lending itself to this sort of "discussion", using the term loosely. I think the early writers and editors of the canonical gospels had an agenda. The Gospel of Thomas is very mystical, with eastern philosophical leanings. Christianity is polluted by the writings of Paul (I can't bring myself to call him Saint Paul in ordinary writing) and by what the early church's agenda was... to control people.

Till then I don't think Hindu's need to recognize Christ, if God wanted people to have one religion, God would have only provided one religion.

Agreed, no one need recognize any prophet, divinity, deity, avatar, incarnation, etc. one does not want to. But we need to keep from strawmanning, taking things out of context and throwing red herrings around, not to mention downright deliberate fallacies or misinterpretations. But I think I said that before. :sarcastic Prisca theologia says that there is one common true thread that runs through all religions, given by God to man in antiquity.

 

[Vinayaka]

I've already asked that it be moved. I hope it is.

Me too. It should be in debates or comparative, but it's all good, in the grand scheme.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I've already asked that it be moved. I hope it is.



Indeed, there is much in the four canonical gospels that is contradictory and confusing, lending itself to this sort of "discussion", using the term loosely. I think the early writers and editors of the canonical gospels had an agenda. The Gospel of Thomas is very mystical, with eastern philosophical leanings. Christianity is polluted by the writings of Paul (I can't bring myself to call him Saint Paul in ordinary writing) and by what the early church's agenda was... to control people.



Agreed, no one need recognize any prophet, divinity, deity, avatar, incarnation, etc. one does not want to. But we need to keep from strawmanning, taking things out of context and throwing red herrings around, not to mention downright deliberate fallacies or misinterpretations. But I think I said that before. :sarcastic Prisca theologia says that there is one common true thread that runs through all religions, given by God to man in antiquity.

The clash is bound to happen. Christianity has been a very proselytizing religion (it may be growing out of it...the older a religion is the less likely it is to proselytize I think...just look at Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism and Zoroastrianism) And because of that some people will feel the need to defend their religion by attacking Christianity as some Christians have done to theirs as well.

It's a vicious cycle that I hope one day to be gone....

 

[Jainarayan]

I think Jesus's comment to "go make disciples of all nations" has been taken too far. He didn't say to **** people off in the process or slaughter them. It's forgotten that he said that if a town would have nothing to do with the disciples, they should even shake the dust of that town from their feet. I also hope that the evangelizing and proselytizing will stop. It's getting carried away in the US.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think Jesus's comment to "go make disciples of all nations" has been taken too far. He didn't say to **** people off in the process or slaughter them. It's forgotten that he said that if a town would have nothing to do with the disciples, they should even shake the dust of that town from their feet. I also hope that the evangelizing and proselytizing will stop. It's getting carried away in the US.

lol well he also said that it would be worst for them than Sodom and Gomorrah (but interpolations abound)...but that is only mentioned in Matthew and not in any other of the Gospels, especially Mark which is considered the most historically accurate.

Point is I wouldn't bother trying to debate Jesus with people, simply because we don't know what he actually said or didn't say.

I personally however like what James said about Religion (if James actually wrote it), Religion that is Pure and Holy before God is the religion that Helps the Widows and Orphans and tries to be perfect before God. That seems to be what all Religious do to me.

 

[Jainarayan]

lol well he also said that it would be worst for them than Sodom and Gomorrah (but interpolations abound)...but that is only mentioned in Matthew and not in any other of the Gospels, especially Mark which is considered the most historically accurate.

I was waiting for that to come up. :biglaugh: Yeah, it's not in the G.o.T. either. I think it's another metaphor for being lost, and not finding God.

 

[Vinayaka]

Christianity has been a very proselytizing religion (it may be growing out of it...the older a religion is the less likely it is to proselytize I think...

You haven't been to India lately I guess. Once we Hindus realised the harm it was causing to our families and society by 'divide and conquer' and the slow change method, we stood up and said something. This only created a more determined than ever proseletyser. So they may be less nasty in the west, but certainly not in the east. All the deceptive tactics, withholding of food, etc. continues. Fortunately some states have seen the wisdom in banning it.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=598

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You haven't been to India lately I guess. Once we Hindus realised the harm it was causing to our families and society by 'divide and conquer' and the slow change method, we stood up and said something. This only created a more determined than ever proseletyser. So they may be less nasty in the west, but certainly not in the east. All the deceptive tactics, withholding of food, etc. continues. Fortunately some states have seen the wisdom in banning it.

The Big Business of Evangelizing - Magazine Web Edition > February 1989 - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine

Yeah that's why I said may...it's a shame really. I see nothing with sharing faith Together, God is a being of unimaginable complexity...to assume that only one has the universal truth is to me to limit God...but here in the west there has been less proselytizing than before. Though I think they blame the liberal agenda and the gays for it lol.

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread Moved to Comparative Religion***​