Jesus , Krishna- which of the two is the supreme-god?

[Jedster]

Namaskaram Ji



I am not sure why we are so worried by the use of the term prophet as it simply means one who speaks the word or will of God , ...
1.a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

in the case of Krsna it is God appearing to speak the word of God ,

this may appear prophetic from outside but isnt the most important thing the fact that these revelations are accepted to be the word of God .....?

Who is 'we', I am not worried and clearly neither are you

I am trying to understand this person by his own standards.
Anyway, I won't labour the point.

It seems neither he nor anyone else can answer my simple question.

 

[Kirran]

I am too confused there seem to be too many contradictions and confusions

firstly the claim that Vaisnavas are not monists ???

secondly Hinduism is not a revealed religion , its primary Sruti texts are not Sruti ???

Some Vaishnavas are monists, to varying degrees, some are not

The OP has shown many examples of using the term revealed religion in the sense it is used within his form of Islam. This is what is being argued against, as it's an imperialistic narrative.

Many Hindus understand their faith differently. Throughout its history there have been many traditions which have not been centred on the Vedas, in particular among tantrik groups, agamic groups, the bhakti movement, the Sant Mats...

 

[Tabu]

The ahmediyas sees Krishna as a prophet, and so do the monotheistic Sikhs, Arya Samajis and Prajapita Brahmakumaris

Brahmakumaris do not view Krishna as a Prophet/Messenger.
He is the first prince of Satyug ( The Golden Age) - The new world which will be established after the destruction of the old world(Kalyug).
Satyug is a blissful period where there is no need for a Messenger ,book or devotion as there are no confusions , crimes or worries in that period. The light of the souls is complete(satopradhan) , they are 16 celestial degree full deities and the light of their souls is sufficient enough to guide them.
Brahmakumaris also believe that Princess and Prince Radhe and Krishn become the rulers Lakshmi Narayan ( L N are titles for the empresses & emperors who rule the golden age) . The combined form of LN is called Vishnu who is depicted with four arms.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, I know all this and have spent much time with Ahmadis.

The unsanswered question(at least twice) from me to @paarsurrey goes like this:

Ahmadis say Krishna was a prohpet. Fair enough, I understand it is his belief.
Ahmadis(as do most Muslims (afaik) say that a prophet alway brings a book ('revealed scripture') Fair enough, I understand it is his belief.

So my question is "what book did Krishna bring, & prove from said book that Krishna is a prophet?
This question is of the same fashion that is being asked by him of all other religions, so I am asking him by his own standards.
.
Just as he wishes to know how others arrive at their belief, I would like to know how he arrives at his.
After all, isn't the purpose of this forum, one of promoting mutual understanding and not one of prozelitation?

He chooses to ignore these and many other questions.

My source is Quran/Islam/Muhammad. Please
Regards

 

[Kirran]

My source is Quran/Islam/Muhammad. Please
Regards

So no reason any non-Muslim (or indeed non-Ahmadi) would believe any of these things you are arguing they should?

 

[paarsurrey]

So no reason any non-Muslim (or indeed non-Ahmadi) would believe any of these things you are arguing they should?

I don't force on anybody.
Regards

 

[Kirran]

I don't force on anybody.
Regards

Did I say you did? It's just that your "rational arguments" hold no weight when they rest on the infallibility of a particular book and teacher which those you're arguing with give no especial credence to.

 

[paarsurrey]

Namaskaram Ji

it may interest you to know that Buddhists in Tibet and Ladhak also accept that Jesus visited this area and possibly is burried here , and they have no benifit to promote either Christianity or Islam they are simply observing historical accounts .

Please elaborate and provide links if possible.
Thanks and Regards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

for many years it has been simply a pilgrimage site respected equaly by the local muslim comunity , ....what I find interesting is that it has been respectfully maintained and only recently has it become anything more than local knowledge , ..in otherwords I dont think that the locals have promoted it as a tourist attraction, it is still a very modest and simple place .

It's a reference to the fact parrasurvey and sovietchild keep on and on about making a buck off of idols and yet ignore the billions of dollars obtained thanks to pilgrimages to the Kaaba.

For the record, I believe that Krishna/Vishnu and Siva are the same God, as is the God of the Abrahamics. It is the names that are different, as well our understandings of it. Of course not all people believe as I believe. Some people believe it is all different Gods, some don't. The planet is a diverse and wonderful array of beliefs.

I believe in one divine reality, though there are lots of "usernames".

 

[Aupmanyav]

it may interest you to know that Buddhists in Tibet and Ladhak also accept that Jesus visited this area and possibly is burried here , and they have no benifit to promote either Christianity or Islam they are simply observing historical accounts .

I know Ratiben. There also the some Buddhists think that such a story that Jesus learnt his philosophy from Buddhists will enable them to get more converts from Christianity. That is why this story is promoted.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So my question is "what book did Krishna bring, & prove from said book that Krishna is a prophet?

Speaking for Paarsurrey. Krishna brought 'Gita'. Since Paarsurrey's God is Allah of Al-Quran, Krishna cannot be the one. Now, since Paarsurrey is addressing Hindus here, he has kindly agreed to give Krishna the status of a prophet. All Hindus should be thankful to Paarsurrey for his magnanimity. Krishna is not even a Mahdi because that distinction, for Paarsurrey, belongs to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (PBUH) of District Gurdaspur, Indian Punjab.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahmakumaris do not view Krishna as a Prophet/Messenger.

Brahmakumaris (and Brahmakumars) are not exactly Hindus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't force on anybody. Regards

"I only try to pester". Good. This must be his God's command.

Say, "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
Surah Al-Kafirun, Al-Quran Al-Karim

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ji ,

Who is 'we', I am not worried and clearly neither are you

no I'm not worried , but it seems that some Islamaphobes disslike the use of the word prophet as if , and perhaps they fear that Islam attempts to bring all divinity down to the level of the prophetic rather than accknowledging the divine , ...
personaly I think this is an un neccacary fear , ....

I am trying to understand this person by his own standards.

again and I can only speak from a personal perspective , .....why can we not take a question on face value ? ...why must we constantly suspect malicious intent , ...infact if we answer any question as it appears on the surface we discuss on the level which we enter the conversation , ...if there is malicious intent then it falls flat on its face and the conversation lifts it self above any low level to where ever we wish to take it , .....

It seems neither he nor anyone else can answer my simple question.

sorry prabhu , ...which is the question that has been egnored ?

 

[Jedster]

Namaskaram Ji ,
....

sorry prabhu , ...which is the question that has been egnored ?

See Aupmanyav post 232

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe in one divine reality, though there are lots of "usernames".

Yes, another great way to put it. Still, understandings of what that reality is varies.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ji

Some Vaishnavas are monists, to varying degrees, some are not

please , please , ...Vaisnava are devotees of Visnu as supreme personality ! .... if there are variations then these are minor variations such as Vishtadvaita , ''qualified non dualism'' , ...Achintya-Bheda-Abheda , ''inconceivable one-ness and difference'' , .....Shuddadvaita , "pure non-dualism", and Dvaitadvaita , even here Brahman is the sole cause .....but I do not see the word dualism mentioned here any where ??? .....if Vaisnava are any other than Monists then this is due to ignorance and purely not understanding their own tradition , ....

The OP has shown many examples of using the term revealed religion in the sense it is used within his form of Islam. This is what is being argued against, as it's an imperialistic narrative.

imperialistic narative ?? ....can we not take words at face value , revealed means revealed , here in this debate Vinyaka Ji said hinduism is not a revealed religion , .....this veiw cetainly dosent speak for many Vaisnava and other Hindu who regard the primary texts as Sruti , ...of divine origin ....revealed !

Many Hindus understand their faith differently. Throughout its history there have been many traditions which have not been centred on the Vedas, in particular among tantrik groups, agamic groups, the bhakti movement, the Sant Mats...

no religion is free from differing standpoints , ....

 

[Kirran]

Namaskaram Ji


please , please , ...Vaisnava are devotees of Visnu as supreme personality ! .... if there are variations then these are minor variations such as Vishtadvaita , ''qualified non dualism'' , ...Achintya-Bheda-Abheda , ''inconceivable one-ness and difference'' , .....Shuddadvaita , "pure non-dualism", and Dvaitadvaita , even here Brahman is the sole cause .....but I do not see the word dualism mentioned here any where ??? .....if Vaisnava are any other than Monists then this is due to ignorance and purely not understanding their own tradition , ....

Well, Dvaita Vedantins?

imperialistic narative ?? ....can we not take words at face value , revealed means revealed , here in this debate Vinyaka Ji said hinduism is not a revealed religion , .....this veiw cetainly dosent speak for many Vaisnava and other Hindu who regard the primary texts as Sruti , ...of divine origin ....revealed !

It's only because we know from the context of the poster what they mean by this - it's trying to subsume Hindu history into the Ahmadi Islamic narrative. I totally admire your taking it at face value here - me and Vinayaka only differ on account of having spent far too much time on RF

no religion is free from differing standpoints , ....

Very true!

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ji

See Aupmanyav post 232

So my question is "what book did Krishna bring, & prove from said book that Krishna is a prophet?

this is a false question you know that Krsna spoke the Gita , ...you know also that within the Gita Krsna says (as I have said before) ... He spoke this imperishable science to Vivisvan, ....
thus he reveals the eternal truth spoken time and time over at the begining of each era , .....

this I have allready told for the benifit of those wanting to listen , ...but no , ....some here would rather than learn prefer to play silly b****** playing with the word prophet , ...but Krsna is not a prophet , he is supreme lord hovever he may propesise should he wish , ....


Now perhaps we should concentrate on the question of Jesus , ..Krsna who is the supreme lord , who is the eternal God of all gods ?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Jesus , Krishna- which of the two is the supreme-god?
Please
Regards

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not the supreme-god.
But when Jesus spoke to me, such subtle points were not so important to him.

Its strange because I had made a far more serious study of the Bhagavad Gita
and considered myself a pagan who believes in reincarnation and many gods at the time.

I had rejected most of formal Christianity due to it being used as a weapon against me by awful people.
And so the only religious contact I have comes from a narrative which I had quite a
deep suspicion of at the time. And at the same time I had quite a liking to many other narratives,
like Hindu and Norse and Greek. So after that I can only accept that the Christian
version is the true version. I did take a number of years of thinking about it after
experience John the Baptist and Christ before I reached this conclusion.

So if my visions of Christ and John are not real experience, then why do I not have visions of Thor or Poseidon or Krishna?
I still think that the Bhagavad Gita is of higher artistic merit than the Bible; as is the Norse and Greek narratives.
So it makes no sense for the visions to come from my subconscious.

Jesus must be the real one.