Not Convinced

[living_water]

But was Krishna conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born to Our Lady redeemed from sin at conception, did he live a perfect life, and was he innocently crucified in the heart of the greatest empire on earth and did he then bodily rise from the grave in the presence of hundreds of witnesses, so that as Paul says as he is being tried before the court, “these things did not happen in a corner?” and the world is witness?

Did Krishna offer his body and blood to his disciples?

 

[Neil_LA]

Neil what others are you speaking of and what evidence?
Thanks

Well, for starters the 10 incarnations of God as explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam.

In more recent times Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa who MANY people believe to be a Divine Incarnation.

Sure, they didn’t rise from the dead, but maybe different incarnations of God have different activities to perform.

 

[inJESUS]

I don’t necessarily agree with this. Technically, Christ did not have to be God to be raised from the dead.

When Peter said that “But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him” (Acts 2:24), that doesnt prove that Peter was claiming that Jesus was God.

the resurrection proves who Jesus says He is.

Regarding the resurrection, the Bible says the Father raised Jesus:

“Paul, an apostle–not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” Galatians 1:1

Jesus raised Himself:

Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’

and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus:
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." Romans 8:11

It is the Holy Trinity, One God. FOR WHATEVER THE FATHER DOES, THAT THE SON DOES LIKEWISE.

 

[living_water]

If God were going to come back in another incarnation besides Jesus, then why would Jesus tell his disciples that the Holy Spirit would be given them at His ascension, and why would he say, “lo I am with you even until the end of the age”, and why would he specifically warn against those who point out false Christs?

In other words, there is no need for another incarnation, because the Holy Spirit has been given.

God does not lie, so either Jesus was God, or was not, but the testimony of the Hindu incarnations are not compatible with what Jesus said,

 

[Neil_LA]

But was Krishna conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born to Our Lady conceived without sin, did he live a perfect life, and was he innocently crucified in the heart of the greatest empire on earth and did he then bodily rise from the grave in the presence of hundreds of witnesses, so that as Paul says as he is being tried before the court, “these things did not happen in a corner?” and the world is witness?

Did Krishna offer his body and blood to his disciples?

If you read the scriptures, Krishna did have a miraculous birth and no, he didn’t offer his body to his diciples. But who is to say he had to.

And who is to say that there weren’t MILLIONS of witnesses to Krishna’s activity? The scriptures say that there were.

As to St Paul saying that these thing didn’t happen in a corner: Um…they did happen in a corner. A corner of the world called Israel…and then Christianity spread to Europe…

But the Vedic culture has always existed.

I still haven’t been convinced that the Catholic Church is superior.

Thank you all for a most stimulating conversation.

I need to get some work done, so I must leave.

Thank you all so much!

God Bless!!!

 

[Margarite]

Why can’t God appear to different people in different ways at different times?

Catholics believe that he does. Just look at the hundreds of different types of statues we have of Jesus. I mean he has appeared to visionaries throughout the centuries and each time he is a little different, sometimes he comes as a child and other times as a man, but he always speaks the same truth and how could he not since he is Truth?

There is a diversity among humans in terms of race, culture, language, etc.
God created the diversity of the world, so He can appear in diverse ways.
God can do whatever he wants…

The Vedas are timeless…the Hebrew and Christian scriptures have a specific starting point. That’s not eternal in my estimation.

We believe that God always was and always will be, but that at one point in time he created us. We don’t know what happened before us except for the battle between the angels and the creation of the earth, but we know that God was there. The Hebrew and Christian scriptures basically only talk about what happened since man was created. God is timeless, but we humans are not. We have a beginning and an earthly end, though our souls will last for eternity.

I’m not saying that all religions are the same. I am just saying that TRUTH might be bigger than we think it is.

Truth cannot contradict itself. So it is only as big as it can be without contradicting itself. We Catholics agree that we know next to nothing about God, that he has hidden much from us, but showed us just enough to get to heaven.

If you really believe that GOD is ONE - how can any faith that professes GOD be not OF God?

I am not sure I understand your question, but I will try to answer what I think you said.
The protestants believe in one God, they believe in the trinity, they believe in Christ, but they do not have the fullness of the truth that God revealed to us.
The Mormons believe in God, but not in the same way that Catholics do, they believe that he is the most spiritually evolved because he started first on the path to perfection. They believe that eventually they will reach the same level of spiritual evolution and power as God the father, but since he started first he will always be better than them. This is untrue, if you believe that Christ and the Father are one and the same that both alway were, if the Father is better than the son, then the son must have started after the Father, and thus they could not have always been. So this truth is in contradiction to the Truth which the Catholic Church teaches, and so one must be right and the other wrong.
I hope this helped.

Saying that there is ONE GOD (Christian God) and ANOTHER GOD (Hindu or Muslim God) implies that there is MORE than ONE GOD…
How can that be true?

This is not true, there is only one true God, when we talk of the gods of others, we are simply talking of what they believe God to be.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Um…that seems to be avoiding the question. How do you KNOW?

Through the concept of ‘faith’. It is a knowing distinct from pure empiricism, and fostered by the advocate aspect of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. It is a gift from God essentially. You won’t know until you do.

I believe that Hindu worship and faith is more meaningful and more of a direct way of talking with God than Catholic worship.

It sounds as if you should explore that avenue in depth. See where it takes you. I, and many others who have spent time in Far Eastern thought and practice have ended up knowing the truth of Jesus Christ anyway. I had my deepest conversion encounter with Christ and Trinity while practicing Buddhist Meditation, after reading a Christian book about Eucharist and meditating on it’s ideas. God speaks to us in many ways. You will probably find the whole thing much easier if you pray and meditate. Also, when you read spiritual texts, do so with great discernment and thought. Communication with God opens up a link that is necessary for real spiritual progress.

How can you convince me otherwise? Come on…If you REALLY know that the Catholic Chuch is the TRUTH you must have a reason. What is the reason that the Catholic Church is the Absolute Truth?

Actually, we can’t convince you. That’s really God’s job. In our evangelism, and spreading the truth, we can simply present the facts that have been made known to us though tradition, the Word, and the Church, by the grace of God. You, as an individual with free will, need to take our information, as well as anything else you may confront, and use prayer and discernment to divine the truth. I have faith that in the fullness of time, you, and the greater percentage of all beings will find the same essential truth of the trinity, and they way established for us by God through Jesus Christ. It may not happen. Then, it will be between each individual, and God as to why this did not happen. What your individual culpability is. Even in ignorance, or with a seemingly innate inability to accept, it is wise to live in imitation of Jesus to the greatest degree that you are able. If nothing else, it’s advisable to adhere to the prime directives to love one another as one’s self, and to love God more so.

Peace on your journey,

Steven

 

[tomarin]

I’m not saying that all religions are the same.

I am just saying that TRUTH might be bigger than we think it is.

If you really believe that GOD is ONE - how can any faith that professes GOD be not OF God?

the truth is almost certainly bigger than we think it is, simply because as humans we don’t have the mental capacity to plumb the depths of god’s mind.

that doesn’t make the concept of a “god behind god” any less problematic, though. for one thing, why would he confuse us by establishing different religions that teach mutually contradictory things? there is also the problem of knowing, in the interest of pursuing this “god behind god” what parts of each religion are true and worthwhile and which should be discarded. a muslim isn’t going to want to keep the same things from christianity that a christian might, and vice versa. (of course some have tried this anyway, notably the people who started the Bahai faith.)

i think you are taking other religions’ claims too much at face value. just because muslims say that “there is one god Allah and Mohammad is his prophet” doesn’t necessarily make it so. and you are not expected to believe all of every religion, otherwise you would have a mental breakdown!

 

[NDfan]

Well, for starters the 10 incarnations of God as explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam.

In more recent times Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa who MANY people believe to be a Divine Incarnation.

Sure, they didn’t rise from the dead, but maybe different incarnations of God have different activities to perform.

OK so let’s say that GOD appeared those 10 times. Did the incarnations actually claim to be GOD? And did the incarnations reveal a plan for redemption?

 

[living_water]

ROME was NOT a corner. Have you read the Acts of the Apostles lately?

Who is he to say that he had to offer his body and blood to his disciples? Well, how else does he offer life?

Who would you rather follow? One who offers life, or one who offers wisdom? Can wisdom redeem you? This is the question- can you be redeemed, can you reach God through what Krishna (and many other Eastern religions offer) wisdom?

 

[Neil_LA]

ROME was NOT a corner. Have you read the Acts of the Apostles lately?

Who is he to say that he had to offer his body and blood to his disciples? Well, how else does he offer life?

Who would you rather follow? One who offers life, or one who offers wisdom? Can wisdom redeem you? This is the question- can you be redeemed, can you reach God through what Krishna (and many other Eastern religions offer) wisdom?

The Roman Empire only covered Europe, North Africa and part of the Middle East. That seems rather limited to me…

Krishna offers the Supreme Love of God. Much clearer and simpler than Jesus.

Krishna and Radha are Divine Sweetness. I don’t really see anything sweet about Jesus…

 

[Neil_LA]

OK so let’s say that GOD appeared those 10 times. Did the incarnations actually claim to be GOD? And did the incarnations reveal a plan for redemption?

Yes…read the Srimad Bhagavatam.

These incarnations taught that Devotion to God and Love are the way to redemption.

Why do we believe that we are such bad people that we need anything more?

Maybe people is the west are evil and needed Jesus to die violently on the cross to redeem them.

It doesn’t seem to have done much good…looking at history.

 

[living_water]

The crucifixion was a politically significant event known to the leaders of the Near Eastern ancient world, such as King Agrippa, who Paul testifies to in Acts Chapter 26.

25 Paul said: I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of truth and soberness. 26 For the king knoweth of these things, to whom also I speak with confidence. For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him. For neither was any of these things done in a corner. 27 Believest thou the prophets, O king Agrippa? I know that thou believest. 28 And Agrippa said to Paul: In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian.

And as for the West needing Jesus to be crucified, the West as we know it did not exist, so that must be something that is commonly said in the spiritual circles who deny the significance of the death and resurrection of Christ.

The heart of civilization, the ancient Roman empire, and the religious leaders of the day crucified Jesus. The violence of the crucifixion occurred because of *people. * Not Western people, people. The most civilized and religious of people committed violence. If that happened, does that implicate Christianity for having a violent religion, or does it implicate the hearts of men?

Maybe a better question is why would they crucify him? Why did they put this person to death? Did they put him to death because they were enraged that He revealed the inherent sinfulness of their own hearts?

As for “devotion to God and love are the way to redemption” this is what Jesus taught also, so what’s missing? What’s the real difference between the two?

I am asking you. What is the core difference between Jesus and Krishna?

 

[Ahimsa]

Hi

Why do people believe that the Bible, the Church and the Magestirium have the sole and exculsive possesion of “truth” and no other religions do?

Neil,

You’re dealing with Christian “ko-ans” here. To say that “the Bible, the Church and the Magisterium have the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession” is a ko-an. Such a statement is not understandable via reason, only via intuition, insight, and direct perception of reality.

Why is such a statement not understandable via reason? If you use reason to understand “the Bible, the Church and the Magisterium have the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession”, what is the result?

First, one must define one’s terms. The Bible is a collection of works, ok, but which form or translation of the Bible is being referred to? Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ, not to mention the Orthodox (and even *within *Orthodoxy, there are differences!). So, “Bible” must be defined, first. In this case, we can assume that the Catholic Bible is the one in question. But, then the question becomes: Which interpretation of the Bible is considered most correct?

That’s where the Church and the Magisterium come in. The C&M define which interpretations are correct. So, we can refine the statement to “the C&M have the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession”.

OK, so the C&M have its own interpretation of the Bible. But are these interpretations “Truth”? Well, depends on what you mean by “Truth”. If Truth is that which is eternal, or remains when everything else falls away, or that which is without birth and without death, then it seems clear that any “interpretation” of the Bible, or any set of words, concepts, ideas, or speech are not, in themselves, “Truth”, since words, concepts, ideas, and speech are themselves not eternal. In Genesis, God created by speaking. Yet, before there was the speaking, there was only God, so speech, or words, are not eternal, or Truth. Jesus Christ, as the “Word” of God, is the source of all words, and is thus not a “word”. The source of words cannot itself be a word.

If Truth is that which is eternal, can any human or human institution “possess” it? Obviously not. You can’t possess the eternal, because you yourself are not eternal. The C&M are not eternal, in the same sense that Truth is eternal. The Church, as the community of Christians, may exist forever, and it may be eternal-without-death, but its existence is totally dependent upon that which is eternal-without-birth-and-eternal-without-death. Likewise with the Magisterium – though, the Magisterium will no longer be needed at the Second Coming, so the Magisterium would have both a birth in time and a dissolution in time, making the Magisterium even less eternal than the Church.

So, we can refine our statement to “the Church has the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession.”

But as we saw before, the Church is composed of humans, and humans, by definition, cannot possess the eternal: the eternal possesses the human. So we can refine the statement further: “Truth has sole and exclusive possession of the Church and Truth possesses no other religion in that manner.”

Who, or what, exactly is the “Church”? The Church is the community of those who are possessed by Christ. And who is “Christ”? Christ is the Word of words, the Infinite Silence out of which sound, ideas, and concepts are produced; the Silence that interpenetrates all that exists. As such, Christ indeed “possesses” everyone and everything, even if no one notices, even if nothing seems so possessed. Thus, the Church, properly understood, includes everyone and everything in the cosmos and everyone and everything beyond the cosmos.

Thus, we can refine the statement: “Truth has sole and exclusive possession of the Church and no one and no thing can escape this possession – otherwise, Truth would not be Truth.”

As you see, if you try to rationally analyze the statement “the Bible, the Church and the Magisterium have the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession”, you enter into several conundra, into several problems, which doesn’t mean the statement isn’t true, but that its core meaning is not found via “rational” understanding, but is found via intuition and inner perception.

 

[Neil_LA]

The crucifixion was a politically significant event known to the leaders of the Near Eastern ancient world, such as King Agrippa, who Paul testifies to in Acts Chapter 26.

25 Paul said: I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of truth and soberness. 26 For the king knoweth of these things, to whom also I speak with confidence. For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him. For neither was any of these things done in a corner. 27 Believest thou the prophets, O king Agrippa? I know that thou believest. 28 And Agrippa said to Paul: In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian.

And as for the West needing Jesus to be crucified, the West as we know it did not exist, so that must be something that is commonly said in the spiritual circles who deny the significance of the death and resurrection of Christ.

The heart of civilization, the ancient Roman empire, and the religious leaders of the day crucified Jesus. The violence of the crucifixion occurred because of *people. * Not Western people, people. The most civilized and religious of people committed violence. If that happened, does that implicate Christianity for having a violent religion, or does it implicate the hearts of men?

Maybe a better question is why would they crucify him? Why did they put this person to death? Did they put him to death because they were enraged that He revealed the inherent sinfulness of their own hearts?

As for “devotion to God and love are the way to redemption” this is what Jesus taught also, so what’s missing? What’s the real difference between the two?

I am asking you. What is the core difference between Jesus and Krishna?

The Roman Empire was the core of WESTERN civilization…

China and India had GREAT civilizations LONG before ROME!!!

Jesus showed God’s love will suffer anything.

Krishna showed that God’s love is beautiful and sweet beyond anything.

 

[Margarite]

Krishna offers the Supreme Love of God. Much clearer and simpler than Jesus.
Krishna and Radha are Divine Sweetness. I don’t really see anything sweet about Jesus…

God is Love, but we rejected his love. God loves us so much that he came down and died for us. God could have forgiven our sins without dying on the cross, but he did it to show how much he loved us and to lead us by example. He was showing us that if necessary, we must died for our each other or for our faith. He led us by example by allowing himself to be baptized to, though, as John the Baptist said, he did not need to be baptized. This is the embodiment of love, that God would live 33 years on this earth with all the inconvenience of living here especially back then, that he would even die for us. How much more loving could you get?

Yes…read the Srimad Bhagavatam.
These incarnations taught that Devotion to God and Love are the way to redemption.

Love of what? Devotion to God how? Well, that is exactly what the Catholic Church is all about. A child learns that to get to heaven we must know, love and serve God. How is this different? It is just that the Church teaches how we can best know, love and serve God.

Why do we believe that we are such bad people that we need anything more?

How can you look at the world and say that it is good? I sin daily, and I don’t do bad things, yes, I do believe that people need saving because we can’t do it ourselves.

Maybe people is the west are evil and needed Jesus to die violently on the cross to redeem them.
It doesn’t seem to have done much good…looking at history.

Please don’t tell me that the 9-11 terrorists were westerners and please don’t tell me that you support their horrible acts. They were of Eastern decent and they did a horrible thing, they sinned.
People in the North, South, East and West sin and need salvation. That is why Christ came into the world. That is why we ask his mercy, that is why we pray for those who persecute us because we want them to be saved too.
I pray that this helps.

 

[Neil_LA]

Neil,

You’re dealing with Christian “ko-ans” here. To say that “the Bible, the Church and the Magisterium have the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession” is a ko-an. Such a statement is not understandable via reason, only via intuition, insight, and direct perception of reality.

Why is such a statement not understandable via reason? If you use reason to understand “the Bible, the Church and the Magisterium have the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession”, what is the result?

First, one must define one’s terms. The Bible is a collection of works, ok, but which form or translation of the Bible is being referred to? Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ, not to mention the Orthodox (and even *within *Orthodoxy, there are differences!). So, “Bible” must be defined, first. In this case, we can assume that the Catholic Bible is the one in question. But, then the question becomes: Which interpretation of the Bible is considered most correct?

That’s where the Church and the Magisterium come in. The C&M define which interpretations are correct. So, we can refine the statement to “the C&M have the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession”.

OK, so the C&M have its own interpretation of the Bible. But are these interpretations “Truth”? Well, depends on what you mean by “Truth”. If Truth is that which is eternal, or remains when everything else falls away, or that which is without birth and without death, then it seems clear that any “interpretation” of the Bible, or any set of words, concepts, ideas, or speech are not, in themselves, “Truth”, since words, concepts, ideas, and speech are themselves not eternal. In Genesis, God created by speaking. Yet, before there was the speaking, there was only God, so speech, or words, are not eternal, or Truth. Jesus Christ, as the “Word” of God, is the source of all words, and is thus not a “word”. The source of words cannot itself be a word.

If Truth is that which is eternal, can any human or human institution “possess” it? Obviously not. You can’t possess the eternal, because you yourself are not eternal. The C&M are not eternal, in the same sense that Truth is eternal. The Church, as the community of Christians, may exist forever, and it may be eternal-without-death, but its existence is totally dependent upon that which is eternal-without-birth-and-eternal-without-death. Likewise with the Magisterium – though, the Magisterium will no longer be needed at the Second Coming, so the Magisterium would have both a birth in time and a dissolution in time, making the Magisterium even less eternal than the Church.

So, we can refine our statement to “the Church has the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession.”

But as we saw before, the Church is composed of humans, and humans, by definition, cannot possess the eternal: the eternal possesses the human. So we can refine the statement further: “Truth has sole and exclusive possession of the Church and Truth possesses no other religion in that manner.”

Who, or what, exactly is the “Church”? The Church is the community of those who are possessed by Christ. And who is “Christ”? Christ is the Word of words, the Infinite Silence out of which sound, ideas, and concepts are produced; the Silence that interpenetrates all that exists. As such, Christ indeed “possesses” everyone and everything, even if no one notices, even if nothing seems so possessed. Thus, the Church, properly understood, includes everyone and everything in the cosmos and everyone and everything beyond the cosmos.

Thus, we can refine the statement: “Truth has sole and exclusive possession of the Church and no one and no thing can escape this possession – otherwise, Truth would not be Truth.”

As you see, if you try to rationally analyze the statement “the Bible, the Church and the Magisterium have the sole and exclusive possession of Truth and no other religion has such possession”, you enter into several conundra, into several problems, which doesn’t mean the statement isn’t true, but that its core meaning is not found via “rational” understanding, but is found via intuition and inner perception.

I’m still not convinced. I still believe that the Vedas are more authoritative than the Bible.

 

[Ahimsa]

The Roman Empire was the core of WESTERN civilization…

China and India had GREAT civilizations LONG before ROME!!!

Jesus showed God’s love will suffer anything.

Krishna showed that God’s love is beautiful and sweet beyond anything.

Suffering (Duhkha) via Compassion (Karuna) and Sweetness (Suhkha) via Wisdom (Prajna). Sounds like a winning combination to me.

 

[living_water]

The Roman Empire was the core of WESTERN civilization…

China and India had GREAT civilizations LONG before ROME!!!

Jesus showed God’s love will suffer anything.

Krishna showed that God’s love is beautiful and sweet beyond anything.

That statement doesn’t reflect a sound theological understanding of the difference between Jesus and Krishna.

In that time it may have been considered the west, but your statement was made in the context of present spiritual traditions, and the “need for the West to kill Jesus”.

I am saying that is not the point at all, the point is the question I asked, which you did not answer.

Why did they crucify Jesus?

 

[Ahimsa]

I’m still not convinced. I still believe that the Vedas are more authoritative than the Bible.

Do you find Jesus in the Vedas? Do you find Krishna in the Gospels?