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

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ji

Well, Dvaita Vedantins?

you are missing my point the point is Monism Dvaita Vedantins still hold Visnu as supreme , their difference is over the beleif in the oneness of Jiva and supreme , ......

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

you and vinayaka , .....(who refuses to reply in defence of his contradictions, and who has chosen to egnore me due to my defending the OP's question as posibly valid and worthy of discussion), ...are missing the oppertunity to golrify our own religion prefering to denigrate others , ...certainly yes you have spent too much time on RF and have aquired the bad habbit of assuming the worst rather than looking to find something positive in all situations , ...what is to be gained by constantly slaming others if you dont like the tone of some ones posts just do what I am about to do , ....go play some Bhajan , .....

Why waste my time here amongst people who want only to shoot down the opposition , this is the behavior of fools and Bullies , .....better not to be part of it , ......

I came here to Glorify Krsna and share Gita if no ine is interested in establishing the relationship between Krsna and Jesus then better I leave , ....

Very true!

yes sadly so , ....

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not the supreme-god."

So, one thinks that Jesus is not the Supreme God.
Then who is the Supreme God of Jesus? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Namaskaram Ji

you are missing my point the point is Monism Dvaita Vedantins still hold Visnu as supreme , their difference is over the beleif in the oneness of Jiva and supreme , ......

you and vinayaka , .....(who refuses to reply in defence of his contradictions, and who has chosen to egnore me due to my defending the OP's question as posibly valid and worthy of discussion), ...are missing the oppertunity to golrify our own religion prefering to denigrate others , ...certainly yes you have spent too much time on RF and have aquired the bad habbit of assuming the worst rather than looking to find something positive in all situations , ...what is to be gained by constantly slaming others if you dont like the tone of some ones posts just do what I am about to do , ....go play some Bhajan , .....

Why waste my time here amongst people who want only to shoot down the opposition , this is the behavior of fools and Bullies , .....better not to be part of it , ......

I came here to Glorify Krsna and share Gita if no ine is interested in establishing the relationship between Krsna and Jesus then better I leave , ....

yes sadly so , ....

The Forum is for everybody. You are a nice and polite poster. Please stay on, no need to go.
Regards

 

[Kirran]

go play some Bhajan ,

Alright, I'll do that ratiben!

Please, don't feel you need to leave.

 

[miodrag]

What kind of utter nonsense is this? By what basis or justification you are limiting the term Hindu to Vaisnavism may I ask?

But I am not, that was my whole point. Hinduism is so diverse, I mentioned Advaita, then there are secular Hindus, then those worshiping 5 deities equally, just in case... and so on. I presented a Vaishnava teaching, being as Hindu at least as any other belief. And I presented the concept of Bhagavan as the superior concept of God; now you may call that a Vaishnava concept or more generally a Hindu concept - it is up to you, I don't mind. I do not advocate neither Vaishnavism nor Hinduism here, but a concept.

 

[Kirran]

those worshiping 5 deities equally, just in case...

Just to clear this up - it's not "just in case", it's recognising many faces on God which are equally valid to worship.

 

[miodrag]

Just to clear this up - it's not "just in case", it's recognising many faces on God which are equally valid to worship.

Vishnu, Shiva, Surya, Ganesh and Kali - they are not even the same tattva. Worshiping them as equal is a poor theology at least.

 

[ratikala]

Alright, I'll do that ratiben!

Here is one for you I hope you like , ...

please see 1m.16 sec Sundara Nataraja wears Krsnas peacock crown , ...how nice , .....Sundara Nataraja !

Please, don't feel you need to leave.

when this becomes a pleasent place again I will return , ...

when men treat eachother as they should , ....when they realise that God lives in the heart of all beings and the hatred and suspicion stops then I will return , ...when Hindus behave in a peacfull manner and set an example to the rest of the religious comunity then I will come back , ....

 

[Kirran]

Vishnu, Shiva, Surya, Ganesh and Kali - they are not even the same tattva. Worshiping them as equal is a poor theology at least.

If you say so.

Here is one for you I hope you like , ...

please see 1m.16 sec Sundara Nataraja wears Krsnas peacock crown , ...how nice , .....Sundara Nataraja !

Please, don't feel you need to leave.

when this becomes a pleasent place again I will return , ...

when men treat eachother as they should , ....when they realise that God lives in the heart of all beings and the hatred and suspicion stops then I will return , ...when Hindus behave in a peacfull manner and set an example to the rest of the religious comunity then I will come back , ....

I have to go to bed now, so I'll put that bhajan ready for tomorrow, thanks!

And how are people meant to realise those things without you around to help uplift us, eh?

 

[miodrag]

The difference is that in the Abrahamic religions, God spoke in his own voice to his prophets, establishing all the laws and commandments in conversations. Though Sri Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita, it's one of myriad Hindu scriptures. And not all Hindus accept it or other scriptures, or even that Krishna is God. The rishis transcendentally, not audibly heard the Vedas after meditations over the course of years, and maybe centuries. There was no voice that laid out the entire religion in a short period of time. It may seem like a small difference, but it's really not that small. I hope that helps.

Hinduism is complex, with many different and contradictory beliefs. Vaishnavism is a part of Hinduism; in Gita Krishna said: "sambhavami yuge yuge" - I come millennium after millennium - to reestablish religion. It is up to Him if He does it directly or indirectly, still it remains that Hinduism is a revealed religion. What you say about rishis being the revelators can be also said for twelve mahajans, there are twelve authorities for spreading religious principles, yet not one of them is God Himself (bhagavan svayam) as was said in Bhagavatam and understood by Gaudiyas - that Shiva also is not a vishnu-tattva. So, even Vyasa is not among those twelve, and yet theology insists on shruti or revelation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, one thinks that Jesus is not the Supreme God. Then who is the Supreme God of Jesus?

You have your God. Christians have their God. Hindus have their Gods and Goddesses. You cannot prove your prophets, Mahdis or God. People have already mentioned that they do not take what Quran, Mohammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said to be a proof. What exactly are you after? What have you been trying to prove here except your own ignorance (Jahalat)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just to clear this up - it's not "just in case", it's recognising many faces on God which are equally valid to worship.

Vishnu, Shiva, Surya, Ganesh and Kali - they are not even the same tattva. Worshiping them as equal is a poor theology at least.

Kirran, many people believe in a number of Gods and Goddesses, not just one. Miodrag, that is just one Hindu view. There are many others. There are even those who deny the existence of Gods and Goddesses, soul or re-birth (that is my view, and I am a staunch Hindu).

.. still it remains that Hinduism is a revealed religion.

That again is one view. Does not go for all people.

 

[arthra]

the promised Shah-Bahram

Please attend to the prophecy of Shah-Bahram mentioned above, by Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 35.
in the thread post #1 "Zoroastrianism: And the promised Shah-Bahram"

“When a thousand two hundred and some years have passed from the inception of the religion of the Arabian and the overthrow of the kingdom of Iran and the degradation of the followers of My religion, a descendant of the Iranian kings will be raised up as a Prophet” (Zoroaster, Dinkird)
Zoroastrian Prophecies: | Iranian.com
Zoroastrian - Prophecies - Mission of Maitreya
Has the Promised Shah-Bahram come? Who is he and how? Please see the Zoroastrians point of view in post #6 of friend MD .

Thanks sand regards

Well as a point of clarification it appears you have somehow written above that there is a reference by Abdul-Baha in Paris Talks p. 35 to a prophecy of Shah Bahram. The reference I made above by Abdul-Baha concerned Krishna and I'll repeat the quote here:


Abdu'l-Bahá said: The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God's prophets have brought the message of love. None has ever thought that war and hate are good. Every one agrees in saying that love and kindness are best.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 35)

Do Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies of the coming of Shah Bahram or Saoshyant? Yes we do. There's an article online you can access:

Baha'u'llah as Zoroastrian savior

Regarding the Denkard there is an online site that says:

The DENKARD is a ninth century encyclopedia of the Zoroastrian religion, but with extensive quotes from materials thousands of years older, including (otherwise) lost Avestan texts. It is the single most valuable source of information on this religion aside from the Avesta.

Denkard -- A 9th Century compendium of Zoroastrian wisdom

 

[Jedster]

Namaskaram Ji



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 ?

You can tell that to paarsurrey.
I am quite familiar with the Gita. I wanted to know how paarsurrey arrived at his conclusion that Krsna is a prophet, in case you didn't get that already.
I shall not be participating in this thread anymore.

Peace

 

[paarsurrey]

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

I believe that both Jesus and Krishna were both truthful prophets/messenger of god not god at all. They both received Word of Revelation from G-d.
They guided their people to G-d
Jesus as mentioned in Quran as a messenger/prophet of G-d.
Krishna is mentioned in a Hadith.
This elevates both to an illustrious status.
Regards

 

[ajay0]

Brahmakumaris (and Brahmakumars) are not exactly Hindus.

How can you state that , considering your own position as an atheist !

The brahmakumaris are a monotheistic sect that worship Shiva alone.

 

[LuisDantas]

How can you state that , considering your own position as an atheist !

The brahmakumaris are a monotheistic sect that worship Shiva alone.

How would being an atheist have any consequence there?

 

[ajay0]

````

How would being an atheist have any consequence there?

Orthodox, conservative hinduism does not accept the position of atheism. But this is not the case in unorthodox hinduism, where anyone can claim to be a hindu whether atheist or on the basis of being born in India.

The brahmakumaris can thus be accepted as hindus on the orthodox position as worshippers of Shiva or the unorthodox position as well considering that they are a relatively new sect .

The point presented here is to avoid discrimination of any sort as such rigid guidelines are absent in modern Hinduism.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

I believe that both Jesus and Krishna were both truthful prophets/messenger of god not god at all. They both received Word of Revelation from G-d.

So right there you are saying that your own OP makes claims that you do not agree with.

And in so doing, you also arbitrarily decide to challenge the belief of the 30% or so of people who believe that Jesus was a god in human form. And the 10% or so who believe that Krishna was a Deva.

That is before attempting to convincing people that the God of Ibrahim totally exists, despite you having just challenged them in their belief that Jesus is an aspect of that God. And that it turns out that the Qur'an, unlike everything else, is truthful and eternally reliable.

Honestly, I don't know why you even see a point to it.

They guided their people to G-d

That is wrong when the Bahai say it. It is no more truthful when the Ahmadiyya say it.

Jesus as mentioned in Quran as a messenger/prophet of G-d.
Krishna is mentioned in a Hadith.
This elevates both to an illustrious status.
Regards

... for those who take the Quran and that specific interpretation of that specific Hadith as authoritative.

Meanwhile, literal hundreds of millions more people never saw the need of that kind of support before deciding that both are indeed illustrious. They just won't do so in a way that coincides with your goals.

 

[LuisDantas]

````


Orthodox, conservative hinduism does not accept the position of atheism. But this is not the case in unorthodox hinduism, where anyone can claim to be a hindu whether atheist or on the basis of being born in India.

The brahmakumaris can thus be accepted as hindus on the orthodox position as worshippers of Shiva or the unorthodox position as well considering that they are a relatively new sect as well.

The point presented here is to avoid discrimination of any sort as such rigid guidelines are absent in modern Hinduism.

Disagreement is not discrimination.