The Astral Pulse

World Cultures, Traditions and Religions => Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! => Topic started by: Lighthouse on June 27, 2004, 12:20:09

Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Lighthouse on June 27, 2004, 12:20:09
Volcomstone...

I have actually heard this before, that he went to learn from many masters and I also heard that there was a man in Indian history who'se name sounds like Jesus, (something like Eesus or something else, sounding like Jesus but not quite)  I'll research it a little more when I get a chance [:)]

I've also heard the after he was resurrected,  he went to India... Who knows!  Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking post.

Kerri
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: volcomstone on June 26, 2004, 17:09:13


just a thought,   jesus disapeered when he was 13 ish

no one knows what happened to him, but after he returned he healed people with light./


maybe he went to india and became a yogi?

yoga master jesus.

no insult to anyone, but water walking, light healing, etc etc

where all very much described in the hindu scriptures the rg veda and upanishads,

way before jesus was but a twinkle in jehova's eye.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: aryanknight666 on October 27, 2004, 19:55:48
A carpenter from 2000 years ago most certainly could not by any means travel to india and all around the world. There is no jesus, not even historical jesus, just a few historical people slightly like him which the myth of jesus has been built from and also many many male godmen/supermen/saviors of pagan religions and other religions which predate christianity.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Gandalf on October 29, 2004, 14:32:18
A carpenter from 2000 years ago most certainly could not by any means travel to india and all around the world. There is no jesus, not even historical jesus, just a few historical people slightly like him which the myth of jesus has been built from and also many many male godmen/supermen/saviors of pagan religions and other religions which predate christianity.

Actually this is wrong. The roman empire allowed a high degree of movement and I can give you numerous inscriptiory evidence from tomb stones that show individuals, including many craftsmen and traders who have settled in flung regions of the empire and beyond; such as On Hadrian's wall in England/Scotland, you can read the tomb stone of an inidvidual who originally came from Palmyra in the Syrian desert. Many are soldiers who of course were transfered to various regions of the empire but many craftmen and other traders/merchants also moved around and there is plenty of epigraphic evidence to support this (tomb stones mainly).
The roman road network , unsurpassed until today, was the backbone that allowed this mobility.

India was a well known and connected area bordering the empire, and was well known since alexander's day, esp among the merchant community and it is not unlikely that someone from Judea could end up in India, a far shorter distance that Syria to Scotland I might add.

Douglas

PS whether 'Jesus' actually went there or not is a different question.
As an interesting note, It is either Suetonius or Tacitus who mentions that an official delegation from the king of India, including a Brahman priest visited the court of emperor Augustus in the late 1st century bce
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Islamis4u on November 01, 2004, 01:48:03
What about Moses(peace be upon him)? Did he travel to India and learn how to part the Red sea? lol.

The miracles that Jesus(peace be upon him) performed do not signify that he was God and they do not signify that he went to India or to some mystics and asked them how to perform such acts. Many prophet performed miracles.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 02, 2004, 22:53:29
There is actually no evidence that Jesus travelled anywhere outside of his local region. There is only speculation.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 03, 2004, 15:59:44
Quote from: Islamis4uWhat about Moses(peace be upon him)? Did he travel to India and learn how to part the Red sea? lol.

Bless evangelicals.  I come here not to insult any great sages of any tradition,but rather take their blessings or curses as they see fit.  I do believe that ALL of humanity creates great sages, and it is the influence of all of humanity that refines our minds and methods that creates THE ONE.  

Of course, with that being said and having taken the blessings of all sages, the Old testament is also known as the 5 books of Moses, Moses was said to be adopted by the Pharoah of Egypt around 1500 bce -- guess what Indians were there TOO :shock:


Mitanni
Mitanni in the news

The Mitanni were a people of Indic origin who ruled a vast kingdom (with a common Hurrian population) in West Asia in the second millennium BC. Mitanni arose near the sources of the Khabur River in Mesopotamia sometime after 1500 BC. It was a feudal state led by a warrior nobility. The kingdom ruled northern Mesopotamia (including Syria) for about 300 years, out of their capital of Washshukanni, (or Wassukkani, or Vasukhani, meaning "a mine of wealth.") Their warriors were called marya, which is the proper Sanskrit term for it.

By approximately 1350 BC, the Mitanni kingdom had weakened, and had become practically dependent on the Hittites, then under the rule of Shuppiluliuma I. Assyria, previously under Mitanni control, was able to assert its independence during the reign of Ashuruballit I in approximately 1330 BC.

They seem to have venerated Vedic deities and their nobility used Indo-Aryan names, and worshipped Indo-Aryan gods. In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, Indic deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. A text by a Mitannian named Kikkuli uses words such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, round). Another text has babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita, grey), and pinkara (pingala, red). Their chief festival was the celebration of vishuva (solstice) which was common in most cultures in the ancient world. Some people believer that it is not only the kings who had Sanskrit names; a large number of other Sanskrit names have been unearthed in the records from the area; other point out that over interpretation of ancient names is a an issue that must be taken into account.

Chronology of Mitanni rulership
Kirta 1500 BC-1490 BC
Suttarna I 1490 BC-1470 BC
Baratarna 1470 BC-1450 BC
Parsatatar 1450 BC-1440 BC
Saustatar 1440 BC-1410 BC
Artatama 1410 BC-1400 BC
Suttarna II 1400 BC-1385 BC
Artashumara 1385 BC-1380 BC
Tushratta 1380 BC-1350 BC
Mattivaza 1350 BC-1320 BC
Sattuara I 1320 BC-1300 BC
Vashasatta 1300 BC-1280 BC
Sattuara II 1280 BC-1270 BC
The name Sutarna I means ("good sun"). He was followed by Paratarna I ("great sun"), Parashukshatra ("ruler with axe"), Saukshatra ("son of Sukshatra, the good ruler"), Paratarna II, Artatama or Ritadhama ("abiding in cosmic law"), Sutarna II, Dasharatha, and finally Mativaja (Matiwazza, "whose wealth is prayer") during whose lifetime the Mitanni state appears to have become a vassal to Assyria.

The daughter of the King Tushratta (Tushyaratha or Dasharatha), Princess Tadukhipa, became the second queen of Akhenaten; the daughter of King Artatama was married to Thutmose IV, Akhenaten's grandfather; and the daughter of Sutarna II (Gilukhipa) was married to his father, Amenhotep III, the great builder of temples who ruled during 1390-1352 BC ("khipa" of these names is the Sanskrit "kshipa," night). In his old age, Amenhotep wrote to Dasharatha many times wishing to marry his daughter, Tadukhipa. It appears that by the time she arrived Amenhotep III was dead. Tadukhipa married the new king Akhenaten and she became famous as the queen Kiya (short for Khipa).




Quote
The miracles that Jesus(peace be upon him) performed do not signify that he was God and they do not signify that he went to India or to some mystics and asked them how to perform such acts. Many prophet performed miracles.

I disagree, Jesus was the first of the Adamic race to attain to becoming a son of God... -- he also said we are all sons/daughters of God and it is not a sin to say that you are. you should not take that away from him.  

And of course he did not need to go to India, Buddhist sages were sent to the middle east as missionaries and had a tremendous amount of influence (as did the Egyptians and other religions)there as they have had a tremendous amount of influence in modern day Europe and America in restarting the meditative teachings.

PS... Krishna parted the Yamuna river when he was just  a wee baby... :shock:
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 03, 2004, 20:38:34
kalratri,

QuoteJesus was the first of the Adamic race to attain to becoming a son of God

I disagree. He was the Son of God prior to coming in human flesh; he was not a regular human who attained any higher level of spirituality. He was God in the flesh, God Incarnate.

Quotehe also said we are all sons/daughters of God and it is not a sin to say that you are. you should not take that away from him.

The sense in which the Bible refers to humans as sons of God is very different from the sense in which Jesus is referred to as the Son of God. Sons/daughters of God are only those who accept Christ that are sons/daughters of God:

John 1:12, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name."

This verse also shows that becoming a son/daughter of God is not something that we can attain on our own.

And Jesus was not influenced by Buddhism; his teachings run very contrary to Buddhism and other eastern religions.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 04, 2004, 08:30:34
Quote from: exothenkalratri,

QuoteJesus was the first of the Adamic race to attain to becoming a son of God

I disagree. He was the Son of God prior to coming in human flesh; he was not a regular human who attained any higher level of spirituality. He was God in the flesh, God Incarnate.


'
Here I would have to disagree with CHURCHIANITY, as opposed to what Christ himself stated.

 He said you can insult Jesus the man, but NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT.  He called himself "son of God" a blasphemy in "synogoguanity", but reminded the Jews that the Bible states , WE ARE ALL SONS OF GOD (ben elohim) and that we all have the power to attain Christhood... I hope I don't have to post the exact scriptural passage.  Jesus became the Christ and he said through the great Christ all pervading spirit, you too can become an immortal by following his path.

St. Paul redefines Christhood in yin/yang terms (where there is no more Jew/gentile or opposites), another very strong influence from the east.

Quotehe also said we are all sons/daughters of God and it is not a sin to say that you are. you should not take that away from him.
Quote
The sense in which the Bible refers to humans as sons of God is very different from the sense in which Jesus is referred to as the Son of God. Sons/daughters of God are only those who accept Christ that are sons/daughters of God:

John 1:12, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name."



HIM, that is not Jesus the man (he himself said you can insult me, but not the Holy spirit), it was Jesus who is the Christ all pervading spirit.  That holy spirit gives the right to all to be sons and daughters of God.  
Churchianity generally confuses Jesus the Man with Jesus the Christ.  Once Jesus became the Christ, one cannot say what became of Jesus.


Quote
This verse also shows that becoming a son/daughter of God is not something that we can attain on our own.

And Jesus was not influenced by Buddhism; his teachings run very contrary to Buddhism and other eastern religions.

[/quote]

Jesus the Man didn't attain it on his own either, he himself gave credit to John the Baptist for what he became.

For further influence, Saint Barlaam and Joshaphat was actually the story of the Buddha, he literallly became a Christian saint and was cannonized in the Catholic church. :shock:


As I said, people were not isolated, everyone influenced everyone else, for anyone to say that somehow "Adamic" religions are without influence is silly.  I guess for evangelists, if you except influence, than you cannot go around calling other peoples "sons of God" demons now can you?
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 04, 2004, 13:27:03
Quote from: exothenkalratri,

QuoteJesus was the first of the Adamic race to attain to becoming a son of God

I disagree. He was the Son of God prior to coming in human flesh; he was not a regular human who attained any higher level of spirituality. He was God in the flesh, God Incarnate.


I agree with this point, since he had an extraordinary birth.  He was a natural, an evolved spirit. But even those kind of spirits forget they are like God and have human doubts that need a teacher to dispel, in this case John the Baptist.

You forget, Mary was only human, it was her faith that gave her Jesus.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 04, 2004, 21:16:20
kalratri,

QuoteHere I would have to disagree with CHURCHIANITY, as opposed to what Christ himself stated.

Yeah, I see that a lot in here. Yet, no one has ever provided one good reason as to why their interpretation is correct over Christianity's. Why is your interpretation of what Christ said true and Christianity's (the religion started by the followers of Christ 2000 years ago)?

QuoteHe said you can insult Jesus the man, but NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT. He called himself "son of God" a blasphemy in "synogoguanity", but reminded the Jews that the Bible states , WE ARE ALL SONS OF GOD (ben elohim) and that we all have the power to attain Christhood.

I disagree. First, Jesus called himself the Son of God and Son of Man, both used of the Messiah. The Bible does use the term "sons of God" for both men and angels, but it is only in the sense of righteous humans and angels. Jesus is the "one and only" or "only begotten" Son of God; this the Bible, and Christ, make clear. If one looks at the usage of the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus, something significant is said or done in the context. This is not the case with "sons of God," since in the Bible it is used only for those who represent God in some way.

Second, Jesus never taught that we all have the power to attain Christhood. That notion is simply absurd and would have been completely foreign to both Jews and Jesus and his followers. The very term "Christ" means "Messiah" or "anointed." The Bible is clear that there is, was, and can be only one Messiah.

QuoteJesus became the Christ and he said through the great Christ all pervading spirit, you too can become an immortal by following his path.

He said nothing of the sort. I should think that you need to start posting verses to back up what you're saying. Jesus was the Christ before entering time in human flesh and said that through belief in him alone can one be saved. We cannot in any way save ourselves through enlightenment or spiritual evolution.

QuoteSt. Paul redefines Christhood in yin/yang terms (where there is no more Jew/gentile or opposites), another very strong influence from the east.

But there is no eastern religious influence there. He is not speaking of opposites, he is simply stating that in Christ all are equal before God. Gentiles refers to either Greeks or, more often, to those who are not Jews. But Jews and Gentiles who are in Christ are not opposites.

QuoteThat holy spirit gives the right to all to be sons and daughters of God. Churchianity generally confuses Jesus the Man with Jesus the Christ. Once Jesus became the Christ, one cannot say what became of Jesus.

Again, how do you know that Christianity is confused and you are right? Jesus always has been and will be Jesus the Christ. If you read John 1:12, which I posted, you will notice that it is only to those who believe in Christ that become sons and daughters of God.

QuoteAs I said, people were not isolated, everyone influenced everyone else, for anyone to say that somehow "Adamic" religions are without influence is silly.

And Christians were severely persecuted because of their beliefs and influence in the Roman Empire. They refused to bow to the Emperor and the many gods of the Empire. The Judeo-Christian traditions are vastly, irreconcilably different from every other religion and belief system.

QuoteHe was a natural, an evolved spirit.

Jesus is/was not an evolved spirit. Spiritual evolution runs counter to everything that Jesus taught. He was God in the flesh. And by God I mean a wholly other, sovereign, personal, omnipotent, omniscient being. God is a being that commands our worship, it is not something that any single person can hope to become. It is not a consciousness that pervades everything. God is separate and distinct from his creation, but he is involved in it.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Berserk on November 05, 2004, 21:58:54
The legend of Jesus traveling to India is accepted by no modern critical scholar, Christian or non-Christian.   The reason for this is simple.  No new reliable tradition about the historical Jesus is available after the second century; and the legend of His India visit is only traceable to the Acts of Thomas, which was written in the third century.     The Acts of Thomas is totally legendary and hence historically worthless.   If you doubt this, just try to read it!  

The Acts of Thomas records a ficticious scene where Jesus carves up the world for His disciples to evangelize.   Thomas receives India as his missionary assignment.   Jesus later appears in spirit, not in flesh, in a few scenes in India, but these tales inaugurate the misconception that Jesus traveled to India.  

The twelve apostles were uneducated men who spoke Aramaic and, in some cases, a little Greek.  Even then, Peter needed an interpreter on Greek-speaking soil.    Greek was the lingua franca throughout most of the Mediterranean world and this fact made the incredible expansion of first century Christianity possible.  

The only basis for the tradition that Thomas traveled to India is the possibly reliable tradition that he went as far as eastern Syria and was buried in Edessa.  But Syria was still part of the Mediterranean world and Thomas would have no trouble communicating with the locals there.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Gandalf on November 06, 2004, 08:06:39
ultimatly it comes down to your own personal belief, if you want jesus travelling to India then go for it.
Those like Exothen are never going to accept anything other than their set doctrine and indeed the indicator that it so conditions their perception can be clearly seen by the tell tale perception that theirs is 'the most logical' and that others are 'illogical', cf  Exothen's favourite Chesterson quote mentioned earlier, which sums up this view perfectly, and is SO common throughout so many religions.

Interestingly, as an aside, the problem with this quote is that it just says 'belief in 'god', now I assume that this individual means the christian conception of god, but theirin lies the problem, the fact remains that there are many conceptions of what 'god' is, which Chesterson will not like as they will conflict with what he feels is the most 'logical conception' ie his version of christianity. Infortunatly the 'most logical' approach is also forwarded by many other religions including the other middle-eastern ones like judaism and Islam, both of which state they are the more logical (as well as other branches of christianity), so you will all just continue going round in circles infinitum ad nausium! (such is the legacy of the greek influence on monotheistic belief ie theology, very clever but all it does is chase shadows).

At the end of the day Exothen and myself have to agree to disagree as neither of us will convine the other.

However, concerning the Jesus travelling to India thing, I think we both can agree on this one. Although it IS technically possible for a Judean citizen to travel to India, for reasons I talked about earlier, there is just not enough historical evidence that he did so. However we know so little of his life since most of his 'non-messiah' life is excluded from the accounts and we have very litle sense of jesus the man. so we dont know what he was doing a lot of the time, esp. his teenage years. So it cant be proved that he DIDNT go to india, so ultimalty as stated, it rests on belief, and if you like this idea then its up to you, trying to 'prove or 'disprove' such ideas historically is not really going anywhere.

My feeling though is that this idea has come around by those who wish to make eastern traditions and middle-eastern traditions compatible, wheras I think they are separate tradtions.

Douglas
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 06, 2004, 19:49:31
Okay, quotation time Exothen:

1) Churchianity claims Christ is THE ONLY son of God, here is what Jesus the Christ said:

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken:do ye say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God?" (Darby Translation)


Here are more old testament translations:

A few more: "Ye are the children of the Lord." Deut 14:1 "And (God) will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." II Cor 6:18 "Ye are sons of the Living God." Hosea 1:10 To Solomon God said: "He shall be my son and I will be his Father." I Chron 22:10.


So I guess you can follow an apostle of Christ, or Christ himself.  The choice is yours.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Gandalf on November 06, 2004, 21:08:25
thats the problem with relying on some written texts written yonks ago... anyone can quite easly read into it whatever they like... and they frequently do...

However, if they insist...

Doug
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 06, 2004, 22:07:12
Of course the RUMOR that every prophet starting from Moses somehow went to India is quite old and generally it is pushed by non-Indians...in the  book called "The Kuzari" about some Rabbi in the 8th century who converted King Bulan to Judaism and his arguments...in which the Jewish Rabbi gives an "analogy" of Jewish prophets going to India, where the King of India is likened to God himself

first essay, 109-5:

We site the following analogy: a group of kinsmen became stranded in the
desert.  One of them found his way to India.  He was received by the king of
India with honor and greatness, because the king realized that he was a
member of the group, and that the father of this group used to be one of the
kings close friends.  The king gave him precious gifts to bring back to his
kinsmen in the desert.  He also dressed him in beautiful clothing and sent
along with him some of his distinguished attendants.  It never would have
occurred to anyone that these important attendants would ever depart from
the king, and certainly not that they should travel to the desert.  The king
charged the man w/ a set of commands and made a pact with him to pledge
fealty to the king.  The man then traveled back to his kinsmen in the desrt,
accompanied by the Indian representatives.  His friends were overjoyed upon
the arrrival of this entourage, and they built a palace for these
distinguished attendants to live in.  The rest of the group then sent a
delegation back to India to see the king.  They were now able to reach India
w/o any trouble through the help of the king's representatives, who showed
them the closest and straightest path.  It was then that they realized that
it is in reality quite easy for anyone who so desires to reach India, as
long as he commits himself to the service of the king and appropriately
honor's the kings messengers when they are sent to him.   The had no reason
to question the need to serve the king, because  it was obvious to all that
the purpose was to become close to the king, and closeness to the king was
the greatest good.

[6] In this parable, the group of kinsmen are the jewish people.  The first
of them who went to India is Moses.  The subsequent delagator is the rest of
the Jewish prophets.  The Indian representatives of the king are the divine
presence and the angels.  The beautiful clothing is the spiritual light taht
rested upon Moses soul as a result of his prophcies as well as the physical
light taht radiated from his face.  The precious gifts sent by the king are
the 2 tablets that contained the 10 commandments.   :wink:  :twisted:
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 07, 2004, 02:07:53
Gandalf,

Quoteultimatly it comes down to your own personal belief, if you want jesus travelling to India then go for it.

Isn't it you that claims to be a historian? Is this how you determine what is historical and what isn't: :? Jesus travelling to India, even according to you, is a claim without evidence.

QuoteThose like Exothen are never going to accept anything other than their set doctrine and indeed the indicator that it so conditions their perception can be clearly seen by the tell tale perception that theirs is 'the most logical' and that others are 'illogical'

And yet you post this:
QuoteHowever, concerning the Jesus travelling to India thing, I think we both can agree on this one. Although it IS technically possible for a Judean citizen to travel to India, for reasons I talked about earlier, there is just not enough historical evidence that he did so.

Given all the evidence, it is more plausible to believe what I do, it is more reasonable, yet you criticize me for claiming it do be so. One cannot just go saying that history is subjective so believe what you want. Neither you nor anyone else has given one single decent reason to believe that Jesus ventured outside of Jewish territory.

So, please tell me Gandalf, who is being more logical?


kalratri,

Quote"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken:do ye say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God?" (Darby Translation)

As Gandalf said, people often read into the texts what they want. Nothing like quoting Scripture without understanding what is even being said.

Joh 10:34  Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
Joh 10:35  If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--
Joh 10:36  do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'

First, Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6, but look at verse 7 also:

Psa 82:6  I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
Psa 82:7  nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince."

Second, notice that in verse 36 Jesus says how much greater is he than the "gods" of verses 34 and 35.

Third, the Bible does refer to men as "sons of God" or in this case just "gods," but only of rulers, kings, and judges. This is only because they are appointed by God to rule and judge. The Jews knew this and seemed to have no problem with it.

Fourth, the problem arises when Jesus says that he is the Son of God. The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming equality with God, as seen in the context of John 10:

Joh 10:30  I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31  The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32  Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

The phrase "Son of God" carries a much different connotation and weight when used of Jesus instead of mere men.

QuoteA few more: "Ye are the children of the Lord." Deut 14:1 "And (God) will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." II Cor 6:18 "Ye are sons of the Living God." Hosea 1:10 To Solomon God said: "He shall be my son and I will be his Father." I Chron 22:10.

Exactly. And this supports what I quoted from John 1:12. Only those who believe have the right to become sons and daughters of God. Believers are said to be co-heirs with Christ. Every verse you gave pertains to either the Jews and/or followers of Christ.

There is, and ever will be, only one God:

Isa 44:6  Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
Isa 44:7  Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.
Isa 44:8  Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:5  I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Isa 45:6  that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isa 45:21  Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22  "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9  remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Gandalf on November 07, 2004, 07:32:27
As Gandalf said, people often read into the texts what they want. Nothing like quoting Scripture without understanding what is even being said.



Yes but I include you in this as well, wheras you of course do not, since you believe that you and those whom you support have the 'correct' interpretation. However others also have differing interpretations which they beleive is the 'correct' one.

That is why there are so many christian factions all arguing that they are correct and firing shots at eachother, I dont think there is another mainstream faith system so fragmented and argumentative as the christian one, but as i said thats what happens when you rely on old texts written thousands of years ago for your belief system.. its subjective, I wont get bogged down with which intepretation is more 'logical', I'll leave that to you.

history is only partially similar to this: history is about trying to find the most 'likely' facts for real world events; it uses a logic based system, but is still subjective, so is theology, but in theology you are all arguing for the most logical point in an argument which is all based on belief, which is then tested against other beliefs.. it cant stand outside of theology only on its own terms.. while this has some similarity to history, history is at least based on real events in the real world, a fact that no reasonable person is going to have any beef with.
Thats what annoys me about Islam, they are big on this 'logic' deal, they say it has 'proofs' which any rational minded individual can find out to indicate that it is the most rational and therefor factual religion.... hmm I dont think so.

As for history, interpretation of this is subjective as every historian knows.

I was just indicating my 'hunch' which any historian is allowed to have, as long as they dont state it as fact ie most supported by evidence.


I accept this and dont see any evidence that jesus went to india, however this issue is not just a secular historical one, it is also a belief issue which is a different ball game entirly in my view. We simply dont know enough about him.
Logic doesnt come into it and trying to 'prove' religious beliefs logically is going to be shot down in flames... keep the 'logic' of your particular religion' within theology debates, it doesnt stand outside of that.
Title: jeezuz
Post by: fuji257 on November 07, 2004, 12:50:59
I think everyone agrees that there is not enough PHYSICAL evidence to support Jesus going to India.  According to PHYSICAL evidence - he did not.

There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest/support he did.

Anecdotal evidence creates theories.  To prove theory, physical evidence is sought.  At this time, concrete physical evidence has NOT been produced - - but that does NOT make the theory (anecdotal evidence) invalid.  There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence, but until physical evidence is produced it will remain a theory.

Some people believe theories (evolution) others do not, and thats OK.

For me, the anecdotal evidence is enough.  I personally believe that if there was a historical Jesus he either went to India to learn or was heavily influenced by religions/lifestyles of that region.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 07, 2004, 15:06:42
Gandalf,

Quotehistory is only partially similar to this: history is about trying to find the most 'likely' facts for real world events; it uses a logic based system, but is still subjective....

I accept this and dont see any evidence that jesus went to india, however this issue is not just a secular historical one, it is also a belief issue which is a different ball game entirly in my view.

But if Jesus was a historical figure and history tries to find out the most likely facts, then we can know things about Jesus and what is most likely to be true about him. Although both history and theology can subjective, that doesn't mean that one cannot know anything obective about them.


fuji,

Quoteif there was a historical Jesus he either went to India to learn or was heavily influenced by religions/lifestyles of that region.

But that is the whole point: Jesus' teachings contradict the religions of the far east. Was he ignorant of them? Maybe not. Was he influenced by them? Unlikely.

Jesus quotes from a passage that has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which shows that he was a least in part familiar with the writings of the Essenes. Jesus was very much a Jew and this is reflected in his teachings.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 07, 2004, 16:09:04
Exothen,


Hmm, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

Now of course, Jesus said  simply'before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham...So I never disagreed, Jesus attained higher than other descendants of the Adam...(there are non-Adamic humans more ancient, Aryans are one of them)



Quote

Third, the Bible does refer to men as "sons of God" or in this case just "gods," but only of rulers, kings, and judges. This is only because they are appointed by God to rule and judge. The Jews knew this and seemed to have no problem with it.


No SOME of the jews seem only to have a problem when the Roman Emperor who ruled an empire vaster than any Jewish king or anyone else call themselves Gods or sons of Gods...

Quote

Fourth, the problem arises when Jesus says that he is the Son of God. The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming equality with God, as seen in the context of John 10:

Joh 10:30  I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31  The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32  Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."


Now please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..

Quote

The phrase "Son of God" carries a much different connotation and weight when used of Jesus instead of mere men.


Nah, you're just making that up...you're saying Jesus was a blasphemer AND Jewish ---one of them is wrong.  Either Jesus wasn't Jewish since he goes further and actually says he is one with God, a very Hindu thing to say or he's Jewish and refuses to claim such a "blasphemous" thing.  Which one is it?

QuoteA few more: "Ye are the children of the Lord." Deut 14:1 "And (God) will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." II Cor 6:18 "Ye are sons of the Living God." Hosea 1:10 To Solomon God said: "He shall be my son and I will be his Father." I Chron 22:10.

Quote
Exactly. And this supports what I quoted from John 1:12. Only those who believe have the right to become sons and daughters of God. Believers are said to be co-heirs with Christ. Every verse you gave pertains to either the Jews and/or followers of Christ.


But again according to Jews, Christ went too far, ... so he wasn't Jewish any more now was he and if he had a virgin birth, his father wasn't Jewish either as many Jews to this day attack...again to claim one is "ONE WITH GOD" is an eastern, a HINDU concept not supported by semitic religions.  SO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

:lol:  and please do tell me where you find returning hate with kindness in Jewish scriptures?...loving compassion are Buddhist concepts.  To deny major eastern influence in the middle east is akin to the same claim made by some others that Jesus went to India.  The fact that Hindu kings ruled some major kingdoms in the middle east from the time of Moses is enough to suffice.  Besides the fact that BUddhist missionaries were sent to the middle east during the reign of Indian Emperor Ashoka.  To deny such historical evidence is just as silly.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 07, 2004, 17:42:57
kalratri,

QuoteHmm, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

You're getting nowhere actually. Do not misconstrue what I say to fit what you believe. I made it clear that although the phrase "sons of God" is used of humans, it has a very different connotation than the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus.

QuoteNow of course, Jesus said nothing of the sort that he is greater, he simply said "before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham

You're twisting what the Bible says. Jesus clearly says "before Abraham was I am." As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "I am" is comes from Exodus 3:14:

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'""

Jesus is clearly using the name of God, which the Jews would have recognized, to make the distinction between the previous temporary existence of Abraham and his own eternal pre-existance. Jesus is God in the flesh, so only he can make such a claim. The Jews recognized this as claiming equality with God and picked up stones to stone Jesus.

QuoteNow please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..

Just because it appears to be something similar to something a Hindu would say doesn't mean that he was teaching Hindu philosophy.

QuoteNah, you're just making that up...you're saying Jesus was a blasphemer AND Jewish ---one of them is wrong. Either Jesus wasn't Jewish since he goes further and actually says he is one with God, a very Hindu thing to say or he's Jewish and refuses to claim such a "blasphemous" thing. Which one is it?

I said that the Jews recognized Jesus' statement of equality with God. They recognized that he was claiming to be God, that is, Yahweh and so they accused him of blasphemy.

If you're not going to bother studying something that you seem to think you know lots about, then I'm not going to help you. Either study up on what I suggested or your opinion on the matter is useless.

QuoteSO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

Not at all, that is absurd. His teachings fly in the face of Hinduism. Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, claimed to be one in essence and nature with God, that is, God in the flesh.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 07, 2004, 21:27:15
Quote from: exothenkalratri,

m, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

You're getting nowhere actually. Do not misconstrue what I say to fit what you believe. I made it clear that although the phrase "sons of God" is used of humans, it has a very different connotation than the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus.


I don't miscontrue anything, YOU WERE WRONG AND SCRIPTURES PROVED IT.  Jesus claimed to be the highest attainer amongst the Jews, BUT DID NOT DENY THAT THERE WERE OTHER SONS OF GOD.  You WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  You claimed Jesus claimed the sole mantel of being the son of God.



QuoteNow of course, Jesus said nothing of the sort that he is greater, he simply said "before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham
You're twisting what the Bible says. Jesus clearly says "before Abraham was I am." As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "I am" is comes from Exodus 3:14:

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"" ''


Shame on you!  Hindus and Buddhists have libraries and libraries of revealed scripture AND YOU GUYS HAVE ONE BITTY BOOK and you can't even understand one little book properly.  
Yahweh, the divine name actually means , " I will be who I will be"...

And you said you study?

Quote

Jesus is clearly using the name of God, which the Jews would have recognized, to make the distinction between the previous temporary existence of Abraham and his own eternal pre-existance. Jesus is God in the flesh, so only he can make such a claim. The Jews recognized this as claiming equality with God and picked up stones to stone Jesus.


Jews were NEVER expecting a man to claim YAHWEH (GOD)status.  THAT WAS NOT A PART OF JEWISH TRADITION.  They were expecting someone like King David to rule Israel.   SURPRISE!  Jews to this day don't except Jesus as the Messiah.


QuoteNow please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..


Just because it appears to be something similar to something a Hindu would say doesn't mean that he was teaching Hindu philosophy.


Oh I agree, but just because he wasn't teaching Hindu philosophy doesn't mean he wasn't indirectly influenced by it.  Hindu influence, as well as Egyptian, Roman etc. influence was quite strong in the middle east as it was the international cultural/trade capital in those days.  I simply stated Hindu and other religous influence was there from the beginning.  JESUS DIDN"T NEED TO GO TO INDIA.



Quote

I said that the Jews recognized Jesus' statement of equality with God. They recognized that he was claiming to be God, that is, Yahweh and so they accused him of blasphemy.


Yes and it was blasphemous according to Jewish tradition where being a son of God is acceptable, but GOD?  No.


Quote
If you're not going to bother studying something that you seem to think you know lots about, then I'm not going to help you. Either study up on what I suggested or your opinion on the matter is useless.
SO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

Not at all, that is absurd. His teachings fly in the face of Hinduism. Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, claimed to be one in essence and nature with God, that is, God in the flesh.

Oh really? Could that be the Avatar concept of Hinduism? Now take your own advice and study a little before you make comments that display your gross ignorance and lack of knowledge of history and world religion.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 07, 2004, 21:45:25
Quote from: kalratri
Quote from: exothenkalratri,

m, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

You're getting nowhere actually. Do not misconstrue what I say to fit what you believe. I made it clear that although the phrase "sons of God" is used of humans, it has a very different connotation than the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus.


I don't miscontrue anything, YOU WERE WRONG AND SCRIPTURES PROVED IT.  Jesus claimed to be the highest attainer amongst the Jews, BUT DID NOT DENY THAT THERE WERE OTHER SONS OF GOD.  You WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  You claimed Jesus claimed the sole mantel of being the son of God.



QuoteNow of course, Jesus said nothing of the sort that he is greater, he simply said "before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham
You're twisting what the Bible says. Jesus clearly says "before Abraham was I am." As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "I am" is comes from Exodus 3:14:

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"" ''


 Hindus and Buddhists have libraries and libraries of revealed scripture AND YOU GUYS HAVE ONE BITTY BOOK and you can't even understand one little book properly.  
Yahweh can mean several things including   " I will become who I will become"...Now that doesn't fit in too neatly with what Jesus said , now does it?

And you said you study?

Quote

Jesus is clearly using the name of God, which the Jews would have recognized, to make the distinction between the previous temporary existence of Abraham and his own eternal pre-existance. Jesus is God in the flesh, so only he can make such a claim. The Jews recognized this as claiming equality with God and picked up stones to stone Jesus.


Jews were NEVER expecting a man to claim YAHWEH (GOD)status.  THAT WAS NOT A PART OF JEWISH TRADITION.  They were expecting someone like King David to rule Israel.   SURPRISE!  Jews to this day don't except Jesus as the Messiah.


QuoteNow please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..


Just because it appears to be something similar to something a Hindu would say doesn't mean that he was teaching Hindu philosophy.


Oh I agree, but just because he wasn't teaching Hindu philosophy doesn't mean he wasn't indirectly influenced by it.  Hindu influence, as well as Egyptian, Roman etc. influence was quite strong in the middle east as it was the international cultural/trade capital in those days.  I simply stated Hindu and other religous influence was there from the beginning.  JESUS DIDN"T NEED TO GO TO INDIA.



Quote

I said that the Jews recognized Jesus' statement of equality with God. They recognized that he was claiming to be God, that is, Yahweh and so they accused him of blasphemy.


Yes and it was blasphemous according to Jewish tradition where being a son of God is acceptable, but GOD?  No.


Quote
If you're not going to bother studying something that you seem to think you know lots about, then I'm not going to help you. Either study up on what I suggested or your opinion on the matter is useless.
SO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

Not at all, that is absurd. His teachings fly in the face of Hinduism. Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, claimed to be one in essence and nature with God, that is, God in the flesh.

Oh really? Could that be the Avatar concept of Hinduism? Now take your own advice and study a little before you make comments that display your gross ignorance and lack of knowledge of history and world religion.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Gandalf on November 08, 2004, 08:05:03
Exothen I also dont see any connection between Jesus and eastrn traditions  which we both think is a good thing but for different reasons.

Personally I dislike middle-eastern religion in all its facets, ie judaism, christianity and Islam and I would rather they had stayed in the seething poisoned chalice of the region in which they originated, rather than infecting the rest of us.. but of course that is my opinion.

You have a different view which holds these doctrines above and beyond others including eastern ones which again I respect your view..

but I like the idea of the eastern traditions that are untouched; I find them so refreshing in today's world.

Each to their own I always say and I think that most reasonable people, including most moderate christians and muslims would agree with. unfortunalty muslims and chrisitans have that irittating facet built into their doctrine which insists they activly try to convert as many people as possible, which really starts to p**s people off, esp when your standing n the occult section of a bookstore as a responsible adult and you turn around to find a group of people praying at you and thumping tomes of new testement lore....
ok I exagerate, but not by much...
Cant we leave people to believe what they want?

Doug
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 08, 2004, 13:25:25
kalratri,

QuoteYou WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Are you even interested in finding the truth or are you just trying to win an argument?

QuoteYou claimed Jesus claimed the sole mantel of being the son of God.

Again, you are twisting what I have said. Anyone can go back and look at what I have posted. I clearly stated that the Bible does use "sons of God" in reference to men and angels. I also clearly stated that the phrase "Son of God" carries a very different connotation when applied to Christ. This is something that one could easily find out with some studying.

Perhaps I should put it this way: Jesus is the "one and only" Son of God, the "only begotten" Son.

If you want to ignore that the use of "sons of God" simply refers to those who are representatives of God, anointed by him to carry out tasks (usually kings and rulers), then go ahead. But quit twisting what I am saying.

QuoteShame on you! Hindus and Buddhists have libraries and libraries of revealed scripture AND YOU GUYS HAVE ONE BITTY BOOK and you can't even understand one little book properly.

So what? What is your point (besides showing your poor reasoning)?

QuoteYahweh, the divine name actually means , " I will be who I will be"...

Again, so what? They say the same thing.

QuoteJews were NEVER expecting a man to claim YAHWEH (GOD)status. THAT WAS NOT A PART OF JEWISH TRADITION. They were expecting someone like King David to rule Israel. SURPRISE!

Again, so what?

QuoteJews to this day don't except Jesus as the Messiah.

You should have said "many Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah." There are Messianic Jews that do accept Jesus as the Messiah.

QuoteYes and it was blasphemous according to Jewish tradition where being a son of God is acceptable, but GOD? No.

And here your argument comes undone, by your own words. You are essentially conceding what I have said all along: that when Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, it carries a different meaning than when "sons of God" is used of humans.

The Jews knew what "sons of God" meant and weren't bothered by its use, as John 10:34-35 states. But they also knew that when Jesus used "Son of God" for himself, he was claiming equality with God, so they accused Jesus of blasphemy, as stated in John 10:33, 36.

QuoteNow take your own advice and study a little before you make comments that display your gross ignorance and lack of knowledge of history and world religion.

If you want to be immature in your debating, go somewhere else.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 08, 2004, 13:30:25
Gandalf,

QuoteCant we leave people to believe what they want?

I can't. While I respect a person's right to believe what they want, I cannot sit back when someone twists what the Bible says to support beliefs which are completely contradictory to it.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Gandalf on November 08, 2004, 13:43:08
ok, but if that person's beliefs have nothing to do with the christian bible then you dont have any beef with it in that case?

Concerning the bible: I know where you are coming from but is it not the case that people can read the same line from the bible and come to a completely different interpretation of it, which can lead to problems? Its just that i bet there are others out there who disagree with some of your views on a text as strongly as you might disagree with theirs... this must contribute to all the factionalism that you get within christianity.. of course you get it in other religions as well, its just that christianity seems to have turned this into a fine art!  I dont think there is any other mainstream religion which is split into so many different factions, all vehemently opposed to one another.

As a matter of interest what branch would you consider yourself as? and i dont' mean 'the truth' or some other such answer, but rather what real world category of christianity do you generelly identify with?

Doug
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 08, 2004, 14:11:53
Gandalf,

Quoteok, but if that person's beliefs have nothing to do with the christian bible then you dont have any beef with it in that case?

On the one hand, no, I don't have a beef with it. But on the other hand, Jesus did command the disciples to preach the gospel everywhere and to everyone. It is hard when one believes they have the Truth, as I believe I do, and that truth is exclusive of all other religions. If what the Bible says is true, then there are a lot of people in a lot of trouble and they need to hear what the Bible says so they can be saved.

Having said all that, I am trying not to shove Christ down anyone's throats, but I am compelled to speak the Truth whenever the opportunity arises.

QuoteI know where you are coming from but is it not the case that people can read the same line from the bible and come to a completely different interpretation of it, which can lead to problems?

In many cases, yes. However, there are some fundamental truths which define Christianity and all Christians believe. Some Christians call these the "essentials" while remaining doctrine is often termed "unessential," for salvation that is.

There are general rules of biblical interpretation and exegesis (getting the meaning from the text) that help determine the interpretation of the texts. While this really cuts down on the disagreements, some continue to use poor interpretive skills or purposely twist the Bible to support erroneous beliefs.

Am I claiming that I've got it all right? Not at all. I am open to correction, but until good evidence is given as to why I shouldn't hold to a certain position, I have no reason to abandon what I believe.

QuoteIts just that i bet there are others out there who disagree with some of your views on a text as strongly as you might disagree with theirs... this must contribute to all the factionalism that you get within christianity..

Don't I know it. I mod at a Christian board where the fur really flies. I disagree with people and people disagree with me. Although this contributes to most of the factionalism in Christianity, some of it is just Church government and structure. Yes, Christians can be very petty (in case you hadn't noticed).

QuoteAs a matter of interest what branch would you consider yourself as? and i dont' mean 'the truth' or some other such answer, but rather what real world category of christianity do you generelly identify with?

Evangelical Protestant, but more specifically, Pentecostal. But I have stepped back a bit due to my disagreement with some practices and beliefs of Pentecostals in particular, and some Evangelical beliefs in general.

Thanks for the friendly discussion. :)
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Gandalf on November 08, 2004, 21:17:46
yeah no problem, i guess that Chesterson quote you have will always irritate me but I can live with that, and is probably a good reason for you to keep on using it.. :wink:

I am curious about one thing however: I am interested in and practice astral projection, (the board kind of gives that away!) and you use this board as well. What are your views on AP and how does it fit in with your beliefs? Is it compatible in any way or out of the question for someone in your position?

Doug
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 08, 2004, 22:02:32
Quite honestly Gandalf, I don't know what astral projection is or how it is done. If you remember, way back when, I was invited to these boards by a user who had a revelation of Christ while taking part in a Shaman ritual. He used to post vehemently against Christianity on a Christian site I mod at, but when he came back from a week in the Rocky Mountains and shared his experience, he was a completely changed, and scared, person. A couple of months after that, he stated he had become a Christian.

Anyway, you probably remember his attacks against "New Age" philosophy and zeal for Christianity which got him booted from these forums. I just stuck around because I see a lot of incorrect things said about Christ and the Bible. Plus it gets to be very pointless and frustrating debating Christians over doctrinal issues.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: Gandalf on November 09, 2004, 07:52:27
I do remember him Exothen, although from what I remember there were good reasons for taking that action although it was unfortunate.

From what I remember though he was posting countless messages IN CAPITALS on ALL the forums, basically screaming at everyone that they were under the thrall of satan etc..
The result of this debacle was the creation of the christian forums on this board so you can say that it resulted in a positive step from one point of view. The idea was that people with christian concerns/interests would have a place to debate/make their case with others and with those who were interested enough to take a look.

This guy was way over the top however, and eventially became unmanageble, but perhaps this was due to inexperience, since as you said, he had only recently had his revelation... perhaps he would learn from the experience here and take a more measured, reasonable approach in the future.

Doug

PS for the record 'Astral projection' is the the practice of training yourself to leave your physical body and roam in spirit form, whether in the physical world of 'higher' levels of reality.
You might have heard of this in related experiences known as 'Out of body expeiences', which is the same thing except that this happens randomly during a serious accident or during an operation for example, both of which suggest that it is a perfectly natural occurance. Whether you should activly 'train' yourself to leave the body by choice is another matter however and perhaps not everyone would agree with this practice.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 09, 2004, 14:31:20
Quote from: exothenkalratri,

QuoteYou WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Are you even interested in finding the truth or are you just trying to win an argument?

I know in the neo-religious traditions of the middle east, you are supposed turn off your brain and just believe, but that's not the eastern way.  You must not just read, you must also have correct understanding.

But it seems you are not after the truth, but simply after continuing to believe what you believe.



QuoteYou claimed Jesus claimed the sole mantel of being the son of God.
Again, you are twisting what I have said. Anyone can go back and look at what I have posted. I clearly stated that the Bible does use "sons of God" in reference to men and angels. I also clearly stated that the phrase "Son of God" carries a very different connotation when applied to Christ. This is something that one could easily find out with some studying.




You clearly stated this AFTER I had to find the exact verse.  And again, Jesus who attained the Christ hood, did NOT redefine the "son of God" title, he claimed he was GOD.  That is the difference and that is why it is said that the "sons of God" will die like men, but those who follow his path will be everliving...i.e. immortal.

Quote

Perhaps I should put it this way: Jesus is the "one and only" Son of God, the "only begotten" Son.


There you again.  First of all, Jesus was not THE son of God, he claimed he was "ONE WITH THE FATHER" or one with God, that is why he is beyond other "sonS of God".  Second of all, Jesus said that the son of God is not exclusive and he was NOT the only son of God, sons of God are mortal and die like men, but since he became one with God he was immortal.
Thirdly, the claim of being "ONE WITH GOD" or "ONE WITH THE WAY" is largely found in eastern traditions from Hinduism to Taoism. So the church is wrong once again, since thousands upon thousands of people besides Jesus have become "ONE WITH GOD"....So Jesus is not the ONLY one.  The concept of Avatars, or "God becoming flesh" is quite ancient.



QuoteShame on you! Hindus and Buddhists have libraries and libraries of revealed scripture AND YOU GUYS HAVE ONE BITTY BOOK and you can't even understand one little book properly.

So what? What is your point (besides showing your poor reasoning)?
[/quote]

I'm just amazed that you and many other evangelists keep saying the same things even after you are wrong... :lol:
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 09, 2004, 15:04:51
Quote from: exothenQuite honestly Gandalf, I don't know what astral projection is or how it is done. If you remember, way back when, I was invited to these boards by a user who had a revelation of Christ while taking part in a Shaman ritual.

Er, okay so he had a revelation in a shaman ritual, so did he get any revelation of Christ in a church ritual...?

I was lucky enough and saw the solar Christ after falling asleep in my house after chanting Hindu mantras...so any doubt on whether or not Jesus actually became the "Christ" or resurrected became erased.  So I always pay my respects to all these immortals.  Since Christ is relatively easy to see, it means he is the most easily pleased of all dieties and is willing to help you in every way to go higher...so I guess you can say he is one of my "gurus"...

Getting a revelation simply means that your spiritual method is good enough to purify you to have visions of immortals,angels, boddhisatvas  etc. but again visions are very basic, you have to continue...it also has nothing to do with following any specific religion. If you get caught up in "OOH I SAW CHRIST, HALLELUJAH! " than that's the end of your spiritual progress.  

Again, I'm not against followers of Christ and his true teachings, but evangelists, now they are another story.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 09, 2004, 16:52:26
kalratri,

QuoteI know in the neo-religious traditions of the middle east, you are supposed turn off your brain and just believe, but that's not the eastern way.

That is not it at all. The Bible commands people to think and use reason, not to turn off one's brain. But this is so with eastern religions. Is that not the whole purpose of meditation: to forget everything, empty one's mind and become one with the universe?

QuoteBut it seems you are not after the truth, but simply after continuing to believe what you believe.

This, of course, implies that I don't have the truth and you do, which proves that you are just trying to win an argument.

QuoteFirst of all, Jesus was not THE son of God, he claimed he was "ONE WITH THE FATHER" or one with God, that is why he is beyond other "sonS of God".

Are you reading what I'm posting?

Joh 10:36  do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

What else do you want? Clearly Jesus said he is the Son of God. He also says that the Father "sanctified" him, which means "to set apart" or "make holy." This also shows that the phrase "Son of God" meant something much different when used of Jesus. Jesus also states that he was sent by the Father into the world.

QuoteSecond of all, Jesus said that the son of God is not exclusive and he was NOT the only son of God, sons of God are mortal and die like men, but since he became one with God he was immortal

I take it that you haven't studied what I suggested? The use of the phrase "sons of God" as it applies to men, only meant that they were righteous representatives of God; it is used of kings and rulers anointed by God. The Jews as a whole were to make the one and only God, Yahweh, known to the rest of the world. You would know this if you studied what I suggested.

QuoteThirdly, the claim of being "ONE WITH GOD" or "ONE WITH THE WAY" is largely found in eastern traditions from Hinduism to Taoism.

So what? The use of it by Jesus is a claim of equality with God - he was one in essence and nature. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was God in the flesh, God incarnate. This is the very opposite of what eastern traditions believe.

QuoteSo the church is wrong once again, since thousands upon thousands of people besides Jesus have become "ONE WITH GOD"....So Jesus is not the ONLY one.

Well, Jesus and the Bible are in strong disagreement with you.

QuoteThe concept of Avatars, or "God becoming flesh" is quite ancient.

So what?

QuoteEr, okay so he had a revelation in a shaman ritual, so did he get any revelation of Christ in a church ritual...?

Not as far as I know, but his revelation was very much in agreement with Christian theology. He used to be quite like you actually - strongly disliked Christianity, was into all the eastern philosophy and spiritual practices, like AP (which is why he was a member here). And I'm quite certain that he isn't the only one who has had revelations of the real Satan and real Jesus.

QuoteI was lucky enough and saw the solar Christ after falling asleep in my house after chanting Hindu mantras...so any doubt on whether or not Jesus actually became the "Christ" or resurrected became erased. So I always pay my respects to all these immortals. Since Christ is relatively easy to see, it means he is the most easily pleased of all dieties and is willing to help you in every way to go higher...so I guess you can say he is one of my "gurus"...

Then that was not the Christ of the Bible that you saw (and there are no other Christs). If you want to disagree then explain how others' spiritual experiences don't match up with yours, and then read the following:

Rev 1:12  And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13  And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Rev 1:14  His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15  And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Rev 1:16  And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Rev 1:17  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev 1:18  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

QuoteAgain, I'm not against followers of Christ and his true teachings, but evangelists, now they are another story.

And again, you suppose that you have the truth while Christians do not. On what basis do you believe that your interpretation is correct and the Church's wrong? The Church has been around for 2000 years, before the writing of the NT. As such, their interpretation has much support, yours does not.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: kalratri on November 16, 2004, 16:01:48
Hello again Exothen,

Sorry for my late response, but I had a holiday and was too busy :D ...


Quote from: exothenkalratri,

QuoteI know in the neo-religious traditions of the middle east, you are supposed turn off your brain and just believe, but that's not the eastern way.

That is not it at all. The Bible commands people to think and use reason, not to turn off one's brain. But this is so with eastern religions. Is that not the whole purpose of meditation: to forget everything, empty one's mind and become one with the universe?


Ooooh, I'm impressed, you have some basic "reading" knowledge of eastern theology.  But Eastern theology can never be confused for semitic tradition since eastern theology is based on pure reason and very advanced meditative techniques which further hone that reasoning ability.  The concept of "no mind" or "empty mind" is a useless idea until it's actually experienced.  This concept can come AFTER reasoning or without any reason.  It depends on how naturally spiritually advanced you are.  There are several Zen tales of even illiterates attaining Nirvana before Zen masters.  But I will not go further in explaining this.  

So yes, spiritual PRACTICE is considered far superior to intellectualization in eastern tradition, it has such advanced spiritual techniques that even today no semitic tradition meditator matches up with a Buddhist or Hindu or Taoist one.  In fact there are NO meditation books on how to meditate in the semitic traditions.  It is inner knowledge, the east has made it into a science that even "idiots" can see "God"...


QuoteBut it seems you are not after the truth, but simply after continuing to believe what you believe.


This, of course, implies that I don't have the truth and you do, which proves that you are just trying to win an argument.

Well when someone proves someone wrong on a basic premise, then either you admit you were wrong and start studying more or you can be like yourself and continue the way you are going.  We all have a choice.

You clearly stated that Jesus was the ONLY son of God, you can go back and see the version I posted from another translation which states he was A son of God.  But you are insistent and say that He was the ONLY one.  Again you are wrong.  So I might have the whole truth but I do know basic Christianity better than you, a hard headed evangelist.

QuoteFirst of all, Jesus was not THE son of God, he claimed he was "ONE WITH THE FATHER" or one with God, that is why he is beyond other "sonS of God"

Are you reading what I'm posting?

Joh 10:36  do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?


Again that might be just one translation, I had another translation where he said he is A SON OF GOD, not THE son of God.  Again, before Christ resurrects he cries "elohi, elohi why have you forsaken me" in Hebrew of course which was a part of the psalms I beleive.  Again, if you say he WAS GOD then you have to tell me why he had to say this.  How could God forsake Himself -- was he talking to himself?



QuoteSecond of all, Jesus said that the son of God is not exclusive and he was NOT the only son of God, sons of God are mortal and die like men, but since he became one with God he was immortal

I take it that you haven't studied what I suggested? The use of the phrase "sons of God" as it applies to men, only meant that they were righteous representatives of God; it is used of kings and rulers anointed by God.

No it wasn't.  Genesis also states that there were daughters of Adam who married the Elohim and became "ben elohim"...they were giants on earth.  So No they were not just talking about rulers and kings.  It is just like Jesus the Christ who was fathered by the "Elohim"... So your 2000 year old church is either very wrong or can't see the truth and doesn't want to or both.

Quote
The Jews as a whole were to make the one and only God, Yahweh, known to the rest of the world. You would know this if you studied what I suggested.


Yahweh was not the ONLY god, again even the Jews admit this in the Bible and mention that there are other Gods but only Yahweh for the Jews since he gave them the 5 books of Moses.  The Elohim are another set of Gods...so you ARE WRONG AGAIN!!! Yahweh was a war God found amongst canaanites whereas the Elohim were related to El, I believe YAhweh was a son of El, but I would have to look it up.  So that means you either don't know enough middle eastern history or you just like misrepresenting other people's religions to suit your inadequacies.  Yahweh is simply another name of the ONE...just like Elohim and El are.



QuoteThirdly, the claim of being "ONE WITH GOD" or "ONE WITH THE WAY" is largely found in eastern traditions from Hinduism to Taoism

So what? The use of it by Jesus is a claim of equality with God - he was one in essence and nature. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was God in the flesh, God incarnate. This is the very opposite of what eastern traditions believe.


How silly, Apollo and a whole host of others were "sons of Gods" way before Christ.  Eastern traditions never had sons of Gods only Gods...sorry, I'm afraid our meditative techniques only generates Gods who encompass the entire universe in their body, no sons of Gods.  So that would mean that Christ was their Son.... :shock: that's cool... :D

QuoteSo the church is wrong once again, since thousands upon thousands of people besides Jesus have become "ONE WITH GOD"....So Jesus is not the ONLY one

Well, Jesus and the Bible are in strong disagreement with you.

No, I'm afraid Jesus disagrees with you and the modern misrepresentation of him by the church.  

QuoteThe concept of Avatars, or "God becoming flesh" is quite ancient.

So what?

QuoteEr, okay so he had a revelation in a shaman ritual, so did he get any revelation of Christ in a church ritual...?

Not as far as I know, but his revelation was very much in agreement with Christian theology. He used to be quite like you actually - strongly disliked Christianity, was into all the eastern philosophy and spiritual practices, like AP (which is why he was a member here). And I'm quite certain that he isn't the only one who has had revelations of the real Satan and real Jesus.

He was like me? er, yeah.  No he couldn't be like me.  I am not experimenting with religion, I have a very wonderful religion THE MOST ANCIENT RELIGION...your 2000 year old church still can't match...whose purfying practices makes me see many of the immortals in very little time.  And I never said strongly disliked Christianity or Christ, as I said I appreciate anyone willing to undergo that spiritual transfiguration.  I only disagree with SOME members of the church who insist on reducing Christ to a fast food religion -- 1 billion served and counting-- and NOT ONE IMMORTAL ...

within the framework of 2000 years of church, Hinduism and Buddhism and Taoism has made over 100 immortals at the same level of Jesus the Christ according to our records -- some even exceeded him .... walking on water, healing, committing bodily suicide...it's like old news... :roll:  Of course we also had many more miracles... higher "miracles" than anything in the Bible, of course to us it's just Yoga.... :D Even today, there are more Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists who can perform more miracles than most Christians/Jews/muslims...

the proof is in the pudding, after Christ, how many immortals has the church produced.

[
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: exothen on November 23, 2004, 22:16:27
I, too, am just recovering from being very busy and don't feel up to posting a response. I'll post when I feel recovered, whenever that will be.
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: pmlonline on December 07, 2004, 17:48:31
QuoteYou clearly stated that Jesus was the ONLY son of God, you can go back and see the version I posted from another translation which states he was A son of God.

Hasn't the Bible lost much meaning over the centuries?  We see the words of Christ in the Bible, but what did he really say.  That is, what were the exact words of Christ?  Was there someone standing next to Christ writing down his every word?  I think when the first time camera is revealed to the world that many will be surprised to hear the exact translated words of Christ over 2000 years ago.  A present the Bible contains 66 books but had over 70 originally.

Also we are dealing with a Divine being, Christ.  So what does that mean?  Divine words from a Divine being are deep.  How about this ... Christ was the only son of God just as Buddha was and so are you.  At the Divine level, all things are one.  Within each Soul there is a Spark of Divinity.  :-)

Love & Peace,
Paul
Title: jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)
Post by: NickJW on February 13, 2005, 01:05:11
Quote from: exothenkalratri,

QuoteYou WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Are you even interested in finding the truth or are you just trying to win an argument?

QuoteYou claimed Jesus claimed the sole mantel of being the son of God.

Again, you are twisting what I have said. Anyone can go back and look at what I have posted. I clearly stated that the Bible does use "sons of God" in reference to men and angels. I also clearly stated that the phrase "Son of God" carries a very different connotation when applied to Christ. This is something that one could easily find out with some studying.

Perhaps I should put it this way: Jesus is the "one and only" Son of God, the "only begotten" Son.

If you want to ignore that the use of "sons of God" simply refers to those who are representatives of God, anointed by him to carry out tasks (usually kings and rulers), then go ahead. But quit twisting what I am saying.

QuoteShame on you! Hindus and Buddhists have libraries and libraries of revealed scripture AND YOU GUYS HAVE ONE BITTY BOOK and you can't even understand one little book properly.

So what? What is your point (besides showing your poor reasoning)?

QuoteYahweh, the divine name actually means , " I will be who I will be"...

Again, so what? They say the same thing.

QuoteJews were NEVER expecting a man to claim YAHWEH (GOD)status. THAT WAS NOT A PART OF JEWISH TRADITION. They were expecting someone like King David to rule Israel. SURPRISE!

Again, so what?

QuoteJews to this day don't except Jesus as the Messiah.

You should have said "many Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah." There are Messianic Jews that do accept Jesus as the Messiah.

QuoteYes and it was blasphemous according to Jewish tradition where being a son of God is acceptable, but GOD? No.

And here your argument comes undone, by your own words. You are essentially conceding what I have said all along: that when Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, it carries a different meaning than when "sons of God" is used of humans.

The Jews knew what "sons of God" meant and weren't bothered by its use, as John 10:34-35 states. But they also knew that when Jesus used "Son of God" for himself, he was claiming equality with God, so they accused Jesus of blasphemy, as stated in John 10:33, 36.

QuoteNow take your own advice and study a little before you make comments that display your gross ignorance and lack of knowledge of history and world religion.

If you want to be immature in your debating, go somewhere else.

lol how hilarious, Exothen has been proven wrong like usual, except this time he can't even come up with a decent come back. "So what, so what".
Boy aint this guy smart, about as smart as a rock.
Finally someone has got this moron to shut up.
Good work Kalratri! :D