Christianity and The Truth

[CatsAndDogs]

I think you do point out one of the essential differences between the “East” and the “West.”

The east is more concerned with noumenon while the west is concerned with phenomenon.

I hope this is expressive of what I am trying to say. The east is concerned with reality as it is, which is beyond sense-perception, whereas the west is concerned chiefly with things that can only be perceived through the senses.

The east is primarily concerned with a vision of time that encompasses eternity while the west is concerned with a vision of time that can be directly comprehended.

You are “partially” correct. The characteristic difference between the “west” and the “east” is in our respective senses of what “time” is, and it’s connection to our respective meanings of “eternity”.

The reason that THE characteristic “symbol” of the “west” is the cross is that it defines a “point”. The reason that THE characteristic “symbol” of the “east” is the circle is that it avoids the need, and therefore “wisdom” of the “point”.

Time, to the “westerner”, is composed of three points. Now this, properly, is ONLY applicable to the Christian “west”, but as no part of the “west” makes any sense other than in relation to Christianity it does “not formally but generally” apply to ALL of the “west”.

These three points are:

1. the creation of the universe from nothing,
2. the incarnation of God as Jesus the Christ,
3. the end of the “death bound” time when Jesus comes again.

These three points define a line segment. They aren’t “linear” so much as “line-segmental”, being terminal at both ends by the will of God.

Eternity, to the “westerner”, comes in three versions:

1. the eternity as “lived in” (!?) only by God,
2. the eternity as “lived in” by the angels/demons,
3. the eternity as “lived in” by human persons after death.

The “circularity” of both “time” and “eternity” to the “east” is THE greatest “proof”, from the “western perspective”, that the “eastern view” is a magnificent elaboration of natural law which lacks the “terminating impetous” (a reason to “come to the point”) which ONLY true direct revelation FROM God in His being CAN provide.

In other words, natural law can be endlessly elaborated, just as any distance can be infinitely divided in half, but only God has the authority to pronounce “an end”, and avoid infinite elaboration. There is no REASON to stop elaborating if there is no “law giver” authorized to say, “ENOUGH already! THIS is the way it is!”

Eternity is infinity vast and is actually beyond comprehension. That is why I believe that the Vedic scriptures are indeed “Divine Revelation.” I believe that the knowledge contained in the “deposit of faith” contained in the Vedic scriptures is too comprehensive to be merely a product of limited human imagination.

It IS super comprehensive! And endlessly so. And that is why it is a wonderful example of a product of what humans do VERY well, which is to elaborate from the general to the specific via “investigative discovery” of an endlessly (infinitely) subtle area of inquiry.

The “eastern” elaboration is distasteful to the “westerner” because it’s TOO SUBTLE! We are a CRUDE people (or "crude-ish), and that is why we were amendable to what God had to say via the people He used as THE “(name removed by moderator)ut font” to tell us, specifically, “STOP!”

Why would He chose only a single people as His “font”? Because history is our, mankind’s, self-demanded “classroom” from which to learn what we need to learn, and the “in-deduceable hints” which only He can provide are “injected” into the “body” which is mankind, and not “diffused generally” into “every cell” because the GOAL of the injection is to offer the “body” the “learning experience” of matching the knowledge learned from the “individually accessable” natural law with the “learned from your brother” revelation, within the context of human misinterpretation of natural law (aka “bad” human cultural artifacts).

Just as the “east” has “gurus”, which are the “injection sites” of (hopefully correct) specific knowledge which other less-talented (in this realm) people are not given, mankind as a whole has it’s “injection site”, which is the line of the “people of God” (the Church since Abram).

Why a SINGLE injecion site? Because part of the process of our “education” is to get “protected truth” which needs be learned in a human way, from our brother.

I would like to address this issue of “Divine Revelation.” I think this issue is of paramount importance and is especially related to the original topic of this conversation.

I am not contesting that the truth contained in the Judeo-Christian tradition has been revealed by God as you claim. However I am strongly contesting your assumption that the Vedic/Dharmic tradition is something that has been fabricated by human reasoning without any Divine Inspiration.

I’m not saying that the “eastern” deductions of natural law are “human fabrications” which are not “from God”, as natural law is indeed FROM GOD. I’m saying that the hyper-elaboration OF that natural law by the “east” is super-complex (and potentially very beautiful) because the “east” has no need to stop elaborating.

It is simply a fact that the more complex a system is, the more prone it is to “incorrect interpretation”, and that is the danger which the “west” chooses to TRY to avoid, from painful past experience, by choosing to accept the self-reinforcing sense (facts which make sense) of God’s revelation given to His “injection site”, the Church from Adam and the other patriarchs to the Magisterium.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Ultimately God revealed Himself to the Hebrews and the (over the course of the history of this particular era) European nations by “descending” to earth in human form in the person of Jesus Christ.

I contend that God indeed “descended” to earth as Jesus Christ and that this is an extraordinarily unique event it the history of this time-frame. I mention “eras” and “time-frames” to highlight the difference between the Vedic world-view and that of the west, as spoken of above. I’ll get back to that point.

However, I must first make mention of my use of the word “descended.” My experience has been (and I believe this point has been made in this conversation as well) that Christian faithful often explain the difference between their faith and the faith of other religions in terms similar to this: “In our faith, God “reveals” himself and “descends” to earth to make knowledge of himself available to mankind. The ultimate revelation of God to his creatures is in the person of Jesus Christ. God made flesh.”

When we look at the vocabulary used in this statement and the vocabulary used when discussing the Vedic tradition, I posit that they are very similar and I believe it lends credence to my assertion that God indeed does manifest, reveal, and incarnate Himself to various people in various ways at various points of history.

Does any “rishi”, or “guru”, or “avatar” who is/was/will be an actual human person in the “east” claim to BE God?

Jesus was not he who was “revealed to by God”, but rather He WAS God personally, being the “interface” between God and His creation THROUGH which all things were created, who was incarnated IN TIME specifically for mankind’s benefit.

Why was this a singular event? Because God has ONE “interface” with mankind, and part of our job as mankind is to spread that knowledge to our brothers who are unaware of it.

Why not have several incarnations? Because God has deemed it OUR JOB to communicate to our brothers that which is important, and it would “make people lazy”, as it were, to spread that which is important to those who don’t know it if we have the “excuse” of, “It’s God’s job to tell our uniformed brothers about Him, so we can just keep to ourselves and not ‘violate them’ with truths which God will eventually tell them.”

The “west” considers mankind a universal family, while it “seems” the “east” considers mankind to be a loose confederation of “prefereably polite and agreeable” interconnected but ultimately isolated villages.

Now, the “west” that I allude to above is the CATHOLIC version of the “west”, and the current state of the “west” is far from being that unified. One of the things that the “west” has ALWAYS had to “battle with” is the tendency to prideful idolatry of “wants” due to being relatively good at bending the enviroment to our whims (might makes right), and that anti-family pro-polytheist ("Do as you can get away with according to your wants [idols]!) is the reason we’re (the “west”) is SO ineffective in being a good example of what what we KNOW God wants!

We are laughably bad at being good!

 

[wisdomseeker]

I don’t understand how this proves the Bible is true and other scriptures false.

Please elaborate.

If other religions teach this, and this is truth, then other religions are true.

I believe there is much confusion among religions due to the fact that our discussion has been more about proven which religion is true which is false. why one religion is true and the other is false.

the truth lies in one man and this man is called Jesus. Jesus said I am the truth. so the truth is not something but the truth is somebody. and there is how we know where the truth is.

the truth is not just something that we believe in but a Person which we believe because it is True.

i believe so many people choose to believe in some philosophy created by the minds of men. there are some truth to it which we believe it is also from God. but we make the mistake of believing on these philosophies of man and forget the Creator…of these philosophers.

we marvel at it. the great sayings. oh yep.

but none of them ever did what Jesus did. and never claimed what Jesus claimed. perhaps this is an starting point for someone to come to the Truth.

there is much i want to say. but it is enough for now.

:bowdown: :knight1:

 

[Neil_LA]

I believe there is much confusion among religions due to the fact that our discussion has been more about proven which religion is true which is false. why one religion is true and the other is false.

the truth lies in one man and this man is called Jesus. Jesus said I am the truth. so the truth is not something but the truth is somebody. and there is how we know where the truth is.

the truth is not just something that we believe in but a Person which we believe because it is True.

i believe so many people choose to believe in some philosophy created by the minds of men. there are some truth to it which we believe it is also from God. but we make the mistake of believing on these philosophies of man and forget the Creator…of these philosophers.

we marvel at it. the great sayings. oh yep.

but none of them ever did what Jesus did. and never claimed what Jesus claimed. perhaps this is an starting point for someone to come to the Truth.

there is much i want to say. but it is enough for now.

:bowdown: :knight1:

Granted, but you still don’t answer why the statements of Jesus saying that He is God are any more valid than the statements of Krishna in the Srimad Bhagavad-Gita saying He is God.

For instance:

Srimad Bhagavad Gita 10:3

sri bhagavan uvaca
yo mām ajam anādiḿ ca vetti loka-maheśvaram
asammūḍhaḥ sa martyeṣu sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate

" The Supreme Lord said: He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds — he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins."

Srimad Bhagavad Gita 10:8-13

sri bhagavan uvaca
ahaḿ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaḿ pravartate
iti matvā bhajante māḿ budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ (8)

mac-cittā mad-gata-prāṇā bodhayantaḥ parasparam
kathayantaś ca māḿ nityaḿ tuṣyanti ca ramanti ca (9)

teṣāḿ satata-yuktānāḿ bhajatāḿ prīti-pūrvakam
dadāmi buddhi-yogaḿ taḿ yena mām upayānti te (10)

teṣām evānukampārtham aham ajñāna-jaḿ tamaḥ
nāśayāmy ātma-bhāva-stho jñāna-dīpena bhāsvatā (11)

arjuna uvāca
paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma pavitraḿ paramaḿ bhavān
puruṣaḿ śāśvataḿ divyam ādi-devam ajaḿ vibhum (12)

āhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarve devarṣir nāradas tathā
asito devalo vyāsaḥ svayaḿ caiva bravīṣi me (13)

"The Supreme Lord said: I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me."

It seems to me that Krishna is indeed saying that He is God.

How is this different from Jesus saying He is God?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

It is my understanding that the Vedas are the oldest extant spiritual records available on earth (although I’m sure that some will contest that). The Vedas themselves proclaim that they are merely a continuation of more ancient revelation. The Vedic conception of time speaks not merely of one creation of the cosmos, but actually records manifold creations and dissolutions over a span of time, that while explained, defies comprehension.

The Judeo-Christian tradition speaks only of one creation and dissolution. These two perspectives of time and God aren’t, I believe mutually contradictory as some would assert. I believe that the scope of Vedic understanding can fully contain within it, the scope of Judeo-Christian understanding. This does not demean or belittle Judeo-Christian understanding.

The Church knows no “dissolution”. What God creates he does not “dissolve” or destroy. He DOES transform, but not destroy.

God, in His eternity, is capable of anything He likes. The “east’s” ability to “run” with that natural law fact and conclude that God CAN create as many “sub-eternities” (angelic/demonic and human-person type eternities) as He likes is perfectly correct!

And perfectly meaningless to humans, because we have been told by God personally that we humans will never “escape” our human-person type eternity.

It is simple conjecture on an obvious natural law fact (God’s omnipotence) which has no “governor” as to how far the conjecture can be taken because no authoritative “governor” exists which can make the pronouncement to STOP!

Extension of conjecture past what is authoritatively conjecturable is WASTE, though potentially “amusing” waste. It’s not harmful in itself, but gives people prone to misinterpretation yet another “lever” to pry up whatever their wants dictate, which could be harmful.

As you said above, people of the west do not have a need for a complex and detailed understanding of eternity. They are more concerned with the here and now. I propose that God gave what each people needed at each particular epoch.

Over that last couple of thousand years, the west has been ascendant, and the revelation of God though the Judeo-Christian “vocabulary” has been adequate. When one is focused “outwardly, “ one doesn’t need anything more than to be

Quote:
“spoon fed” to us in their essential simplicity

I guess my point is: If the Judeo-Christian explanation of God and eternity is adequate for you, that is very wonderful. I propose that for many people in today’s day and age it is no longer adequate and God , in His infinite mercy and compassion provides a more detailed revalation that might meet the needs of people to have communion with Him.

The need that all people have is the need for there to be a point to life as a human person.

To be able to create one’s own point to life, which is what infinite elaboration of natural law which is them misinterpreted in it’s “multiculturalism” is, is what not having a definitive authority to state where to stop “excuse making” leads people.

As long as the elaboration of natural law is not misinterpreted it is not dangerous, by which “danger” I mean the encouragement to “sin” and further create havoc which pushes universal “acting as ‘mankind’ in accord WITH correctly interpreted natural law and revelation” futher into the future.

The view that history is not a story (with a point) but a “turn of seasons” (with infinite cyclical inevitability and “pointlessness/endpointlessness”) encourages personal “enlightenment” (personal atomistic benefit) but discourages interpersonal “enlightenment” (benefit of mankind considered over benefit to self).

You overvalue the “needs of people of today’s day and age”. They are the same needs as people everywhere and everywhen. Any “truth” which contradicts revealed truth is not a truth, and the only “needs for communion” that those not-truths provide is the communion with error, which in the “west” is communion with non-God, who has many minions and has a particular name as leader of the pack.

One either believes that history has a point, or is a great neverending cyclical “droning mantra” whose “end”, at any point, is perfectly transitionally “smooth” with it’s subsequent “beginning”.

Elaboration of natural law without an authoritative “stop” will always lead to, at best, the infinite circle and lead away from the cross.

The cross can not be deduced from natural law. That is why it has been revealed to us, as a gift unfindable only God can give.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Granted, but you still don’t answer why the statements of Jesus saying that He is God are any more valid than the statements of Krishna in the Srimad Bhagavad-Gita saying He is God.

For instance:
" The Supreme Lord said: He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds — he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins."

Srimad Bhagavad Gita 10:8-13 :
"The Supreme Lord said: I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me."

It seems to me that Krishna is indeed saying that He is God.

How is this different from Jesus saying He is God?

Was Krishna an actual person?

Could it be that this text was “influenced” by judeo-Christian cross-pollenization? When were these texts written?

A non-person saying he is “God” is not equivalent to a person saying He is God.

 

[Neil_LA]

The Church knows no “dissolution”. What God creates he does not “dissolve” or destroy. He DOES transform, but not destroy.

God, in His eternity, is capable of anything He likes. The “east’s” ability to “run” with that natural law fact and conclude that God CAN create as many “sub-eternities” (angelic/demonic and human-person type eternities) as He likes is perfectly correct!

And perfectly meaningless to humans, because we have been told by God personally that we humans will never “escape” our human-person type eternity.

It is simple conjecture on an obvious natural law fact (God’s omnipotence) which has no “governor” as to how far the conjecture can be taken because no authoritative “governor” exists which can make the pronouncement to STOP!

Extension of conjecture past what is authoritatively conjecturable is WASTE, though potentially “amusing” waste. It’s not harmful in itself, but gives people prone to misinterpretation yet another “lever” to pry up whatever their wants dictate, which could be harmful.

The need that all people have is the need for there to be a point to life as a human person.

To be able to create one’s own point to life, which is what infinite elaboration of natural law which is them misinterpreted in it’s “multiculturalism” is, is what not having a definitive authority to state where to stop “excuse making” leads people.

As long as the elaboration of natural law is not misinterpreted it is not dangerous, by which “danger” I mean the encouragement to “sin” and further create havoc which pushes universal “acting as ‘mankind’ in accord WITH correctly interpreted natural law and revelation” futher into the future.

The view that history is not a story (with a point) but a “turn of seasons” (with infinite cyclical inevitability and “pointlessness/endpointlessness”) encourages personal “enlightenment” (personal atomistic benefit) but discourages interpersonal “enlightenment” (benefit of mankind considered over benefit to self).

You overvalue the “needs of people of today’s day and age”. They are the same needs as people everywhere and everywhen. Any “truth” which contradicts revealed truth is not a truth, and the only “needs for communion” that those not-truths provide is the communion with error, which in the “west” is communion with non-God, who has many minions and has a particular name as leader of the pack.

One either believes that history has a point, or is a great neverending cyclical “droning mantra” whose “end”, at any point, is perfectly transitionally “smooth” with it’s subsequent “beginning”.

Elaboration of natural law without an authoritative “stop” will always lead to, at best, the infinite circle and lead away from the cross.

The cross can not be deduced from natural law. That is why it has been revealed to us, as a gift unfindable only God can give.

I don’t follow what you are saying. What makes you say that Vedic revalation is any less of a revalation from God than Biblical revalation?

Please elaborate.

As for God not destroying and no dissolution, please read the Apocolypse of St John the Evangelist.

Revelation 21
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away**; and there was no more sea.

3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold,** I make all things new.** And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

 

[Neil_LA]

Was Krishna an actual person?

Could it be that this text was “influenced” by judeo-Christian cross-pollenization? When were these texts written?

A non-person saying he is “God” is not equivalent to a person saying He is God.

The Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Krishna an actual person 5000 years ago. 3000 years before Christ.

This is another example of Christians not being able to accept that they aren’t as unique as they would like to believe they are.

 

[Neil_LA]

The Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Krishna an actual person 5000 years ago. 3000 years before Christ.

This is another example of Christians not being able to accept that they aren’t as unique as they would like to believe they are.

I also draw your attention again to Srimad Bhagavad Gita 10:12-13 quoted above:

“Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me.”

This listing of sages (rishis - see previous posting about “rishi”)
is a listing of the sages that are indisputably authoritative according to Vedic tradition.

If these Rishis say that Krishna is God, I have no reason not to accept it as true.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Krishna an actual person 5000 years ago. 3000 years before Christ.

This is another example of Christians not being able to accept that they aren’t as unique as they would like to believe they are.

The Bhagavad Gita (and the much larger Mahabarata where the Gita is found) are not historical.

The Mahabarata was codified in final form circa 400-500 AD–earlier layers may have existed as early as 400 BC.

Claiming events that occured 3000 years prior to its composition with no continuity of a written historical record begs credulity–especially when events describe a magnified iron-age post 1200 BC Vedic civilization projected back into a primordial past–in other words, the epic is full of anachronisms of society and technology of the much-llater author’s time period and culture

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I don’t follow what you are saying. What makes you say that Vedic revalation is any less of a revalation from God than Biblical revalation?

Please elaborate.

It’s yet another of our “axioms” that only that revelation which came from the “line of the people of God”, of which the Vedic people(s) are not members, is direct revelation, and all other “revelation” is in fact deduction from natural law.

They are both from God, but one is “injected” info into mankind from the single source which He uses to give us that which we are incapable of getting via deduction from natural law.

As for God not destroying and no dissolution, please read the Apocolypse of St John the Evangelist.

Revelation 21
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away**; and there was no more sea.

“Passed away” means transformed into elsewhat. It is yet another “fact/axiom” that God doesn’t destroy, but rather transforms, that which He has created.

3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold,** I make all things new.** And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

“I make all things new” is the key to this. This is the transformation of that which was into that which is more fitting for the new situation. The universe was created FOR man as Adam was, and will be transformed into that which is more fitting for man as Jesus is.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Krishna an actual person 5000 years ago. 3000 years before Christ.

This is another example of Christians not being able to accept that they aren’t as unique as they would like to believe they are.

You accept that Krishna was a real person. We don’t. Why should we? That you accept that Jesus was a real person doesn’t obligate us in any way to “be agreeable” with you in your unsubstantiated (as far as I know) claims to be “nice”, and APPEASE you or anyone. As I’ve said, we are a rather “crude” people, compared to the “nicey nice” folks who worship “NICE” more than “TRUTH”.

We don’t overly care whether you think we’re “stuck up” or not. Show us that Krishna was a real person.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Granted, but you still don’t answer why the statements of Jesus saying that He is God are any more valid than the statements of Krishna in the Srimad Bhagavad-Gita saying He is God.

For instance:

Srimad Bhagavad Gita 10:3

sri bhagavan uvaca
yo mām ajam anādiḿ ca vetti loka-maheśvaram
asammūḍhaḥ sa martyeṣu sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate

" The Supreme Lord said: He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds — he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins."

Srimad Bhagavad Gita 10:8-13

sri bhagavan uvaca
ahaḿ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaḿ pravartate
iti matvā bhajante māḿ budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ (8)

mac-cittā mad-gata-prāṇā bodhayantaḥ parasparam
kathayantaś ca māḿ nityaḿ tuṣyanti ca ramanti ca (9)

teṣāḿ satata-yuktānāḿ bhajatāḿ prīti-pūrvakam
dadāmi buddhi-yogaḿ taḿ yena mām upayānti te (10)

teṣām evānukampārtham aham ajñāna-jaḿ tamaḥ
nāśayāmy ātma-bhāva-stho jñāna-dīpena bhāsvatā (11)

arjuna uvāca
paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma pavitraḿ paramaḿ bhavān
puruṣaḿ śāśvataḿ divyam ādi-devam ajaḿ vibhum (12)

āhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarve devarṣir nāradas tathā
asito devalo vyāsaḥ svayaḿ caiva bravīṣi me (13)

"The Supreme Lord said: I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me."

It seems to me that Krishna is indeed saying that He is God.

How is this different from Jesus saying He is God?

Jesus never directly said He is God. He always said my Father and I…
Jesus taught us to pray Our Father who art in Heaven.
He said if we dont forgive others God would not forgive us…

Now did krishna died for you that you may have eternal life?
did krishna made the Heavens and earth?
was krishna rejected by his own, beaten, humiliated before many then crucified?
there are much more…

 

[Neil_LA]

Jesus never directly said He is God. He always said my Father and I…
Jesus taught us to pray Our Father who art in Heaven.
He said if we dont forgive others God would not forgive us…

Now did krishna died for you that you may have eternal life?
did krishna made the Heavens and earth?
was krishna rejected by his own, beaten, humiliated before many then crucified?
there are much more…

Did Krishna make the heavens and earth? Um…yes…please read the Bhagavad Gita quote that you quoted in your post.

As for the other issues, I don’t see how that is relavent. Jesus and Krishna are two seperate forms of God. They have seperate attributes and activities.

You’re basically saying “Please believe what I say you should believe because I say that it is true.”

Why not believe in the Vedas and Krishna?

I’m not saying that you should…but I am saying “Please respect other revelation from God.”

 

[Neil_LA]

You accept that Krishna was a real person. We don’t. Why should we? That you accept that Jesus was a real person doesn’t obligate us in any way to “be agreeable” with you in your unsubstantiated (as far as I know) claims to be “nice”, and APPEASE you or anyone. As I’ve said, we are a rather “crude” people, compared to the “nicey nice” folks who worship “NICE” more than “TRUTH”.

We don’t overly care whether you think we’re “stuck up” or not. Show us that Krishna was a real person.

Show me that Krishna was NOT a real person.
Show me that Jesus was a real person.

 

[Neil_LA]

The Bhagavad Gita (and the much larger Mahabarata where the Gita is found) are not historical.

The Mahabarata was codified in final form circa 400-500 AD–earlier layers may have existed as early as 400 BC.

Claiming events that occured 3000 years prior to its composition with no continuity of a written historical record begs credulity–especially when events describe a magnified iron-age post 1200 BC Vedic civilization projected back into a primordial past–in other words, the epic is full of anachronisms of society and technology of the much-llater author’s time period and culture

Please cite sources for these claims. I am guessing that it is anti Hindu biased western scholars that make these allegations.

 

[Neil_LA]

It’s yet another of our “axioms” that only that revelation which came from the “line of the people of God”, of which the Vedic people(s) are not members, is direct revelation, and all other “revelation” is in fact deduction from natural law.
.

Since everyone wants ME to prove that the Vedas are as old as they say they are, please provide credible evidence that the Vedic peoples are not members of “the line of the people of God.”

I don’t believe that the Hebrew people CLAIMING that they are the “people of God” is clear, scientific, historical evidence that they ARE the “people of God.”

You take your scriptures at their face value, but you question me when I take my scriptures at their face value?

That is typical of the Christian double-standard…

 

[wisdomseeker]

Did Krishna make the heavens and earth? Um…yes…please read the Bhagavad Gita quote that you quoted in your post.

As for the other issues, I don’t see how that is relavent. Jesus and Krishna are two seperate forms of God. They have seperate attributes and activities.

You’re basically saying “Please believe what I say you should believe because I say that it is true.”

Why not believe in the Vedas and Krishna?

I’m not saying that you should…but I am saying “Please respect other revelation from God.”

and why the other issues are irrelevant?

i did not say anything of my own i am only quoting the SS.

show on the book of vedas that krishna did what Jesus did for us.

what you believe is that there are gods and not only one God.

Jesus says I am the way the Truth and hte Life. believe if you want to.

you also do nto believe one needs a savior to go to Heaven.

we do.

if krishna does not say we need a savior then he cannot be from God or God.

:bowdown:

 

[Neil_LA]

and why the other issues are irrelevant?

i did not say anything of my own i am only quoting the SS.

show on the book of vedas that krishna did what Jesus did for us.

what you believe is that there are gods and not only one God.

Jesus says I am the way the Truth and hte Life. believe if you want to.

you also do nto believe one needs a savior to go to Heaven.

we do.

if krishna does not say we need a savior then he cannot be from God or God.

:bowdown:

It doesn’t appear your are informed enough or are willing to become informed enough of my religion to be able to make any assumptions about what it says.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It doesn’t appear your are informed enough or are willing to become informed enough of my religion to be able to make any assumptions about what it says.

Tell me please if your vedas speaks of life after death or are they just concern with things of this life here?