PDA

View Full Version : [SOLVED] an Avatar of Brahman?



Frank
Wednesday, August 7th, 2002, 02:58 PM
What if Jesus was born a jew and was actually an avatar from God; however, the Father whom he speaks of is not the tribal God, Yaweh, but the inexplicable THAT which is above dicothomies,Brahman (for example)? Suppose the purpose of Jesus's birth were to free the jew from his worship of the demigod Yahweh and expouse him to the greater Truth of a God of Truth and Love?

Rahul
Wednesday, August 7th, 2002, 05:04 PM
The father all European Christians know in the Graeco-Roman Christianity was derived and inspired by the Sky god in various Aryan cultures. Now to understand and know the Sky god, we need to go on with a quest, and not get obsessed with the tales of jewish superstitions.

Know 'our' original sky father-that which exists here and in all the universes, that which is unlimited joy, and that which is not a "bound morality".

We can realise him, but we don't know him yet. But any christianity will, no doubt, convolute 'that' and have Jesus firmly established in our lores, probably bringing other repressing influences/forces.

Same holds true for an excessive appeal towards other later Vedanta "prophets" and Gautama etc.

Frank
Wednesday, August 7th, 2002, 05:23 PM
I agree that because of the influence of the Bible most "Christians" think of God the Father as the tribal god of the jews, Yahweh. However, many of the early gnostics proposed exactly what I just asked.

I must confess my ignorance concerning Vedic Gods. However, I know that much of what I have read in the Vedas in English I can put alongside the words of Jesus and they harmonize better than the words of Jesus harmonize with the actions of Yahweh.

Rahul
Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 03:42 PM
You are indeed a proud Aryan. And it seems only justified the way you see IE in your life, doesn't matter where you were born or whatever you ever thought. It is natural.

kaleun
Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 05:27 PM
The Yahweh of the Jews was a very demanding, jealous God. The NT God is one who loves mankind.
The two don't really go together and I think you need to look on Yahweh as a tribal God with a special covenant with the Jews - not as the omnipotent all-wise God that other religions have. After all, if you are going to have a God, then there can only be one, and that one must be all-powerful, all-wise and so on. Once you narrow God's view to one special group and select them for his favours then he is no longer a Supreme Being. And note too, that the Jewish Yahweh is male; and the true Jewish man thanks his God each morning that he was not born female. So Yahweh ignores half of his chosen people as well as all the non-Jews in the world.

As for the New Testament, that was produced to advertise Jesus and the Christian religion that Paul wanted to proclaim to the world. Watching some of the recent programmes on TV it seems to me that he more or less invented a cult for his own self-aggrandisement and to gain power for himself.

To go off at a slight tangent, here is a thought to consider: why should this Supreme Being always be thought of as male? Without a father there may be no creation; but without a mother there is no birth. It is just as logical to choose a Goddess to worship. Or do we choose a male God because we are not civilised? Still fighting each other all over the world. What Goddess would approve of war? What mother wants to see her offspring destroyed?

davison6
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Frank
What if Jesus was born a jew and was actually an avatar from God; however, the Father whom he speaks of is not the tribal God, Yaweh, but the inexplicable THAT which is above dicothomies,Brahman (for example)? Suppose the purpose of Jesus's birth were to free the jew from his worship of the demigod Yahweh and expouse him to the greater Truth of a God of Truth and Love? The Bible itself offers a clue that this is exactly what happened. When criticized for consorting with prostitutes and publicans, Jesus said that as doctors visit the sick, so he came to the sinners. What else could explain Our Lord's deigning to be born amongst the world's greatest evil. Apparently he gave up on them when he said that they belonged to their father the devil.

davison6
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by kaleun
The Yahweh of the Jews was a very demanding, jealous God. The NT God is one who loves mankind.
The two don't really go together and I think you need to look on Yahweh as a tribal God with a special covenant with the Jews - not as the omnipotent all-wise God that other religions have. After all, if you are going to have a God, then there can only be one, and that one must be all-powerful, all-wise and so on. Once you narrow God's view to one special group and select them for his favours then he is no longer a Supreme Being.Really? How so? If God is omnipotent, what would stop him from being unfair and selecting a single group? For that matter, why must there only be one deity, and why must a deity be omnipotent. To the pagans, deities were much more powerful than us but not omnipotent.


As for the New Testament, that was produced to advertise Jesus and the Christian religion that Paul wanted to proclaim to the world. Watching some of the recent programmes on TV it seems to me that he more or less invented a cult for his own self-aggrandisement and to gain power for himself.And in the process he also infected it with his own twisted views on sex.


To go off at a slight tangent, here is a thought to consider: why should this Supreme Being always be thought of as male? Without a father there may be no creation; but without a mother there is no birth. It is just as logical to choose a Goddess to worship. Or do we choose a male God because we are not civilised? Still fighting each other all over the world. What Goddess would approve of war? What mother wants to see her offspring destroyed?Why is it a male God's fault if we are still at war? True, we have all that testosterone, but wouldn't a deity be able to control that? Or are You creating God in your own image so that You may knock him down and create Goddess in your fantasy's image? If logic is what You want, consider this: a Divine Couple embracing and complementing each other.

kaleun
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by davison6

Or are You creating God in your own image so that You may knock him down and create Goddess in your fantasy's image? If logic is what You want, consider this: a Divine Couple embracing and complementing each other.
I'm not creating any god, nor a goddess; I merely put forward a hypothesis. As for a Divine Couple, the Egyptians had a basic Divine Family of Father, Mother and Son. This was twisted into the Judeo-Christian father Son and Holy Ghost (with the Virgin Mary replacing Isis).
But just what is the point of having a God if he/she/it is not omnipotent? And as for many gods, one could argue that these are all aspects of the One; seen in different forms by different groups according to what they wanted their god to be?

Naro626
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 07:26 PM
And in the process he also infected it with his own twisted views on sex.

What are these twisted views you speak of?

88and308
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 11:38 PM
It's kind of interesting now, to me--with hindsight I can see that the OT God is "Jealous and vindictive" (or whatever was used to describe Him--I forget now) and the NT God is "loving and caring"

The OT God is a jewish god, with jewish covenant (as opposed to Hebrew to not offend our CI brothers) while the NT is a Christian God, with a new covenant.

Jews=jealous and vindictive

Whites=loving and caring

A pattern is here, if one's eyes are open.

I wonder how CI fits into the scheme of things...at any rate, the Bible and its teachings have been corrupted beyond redemption, imo.


As for the New Testament, that was produced to advertise Jesus and the Christian religion that Paul wanted to proclaim to the world. Watching some of the recent programmes on TV it seems to me that he more or less invented a cult for his own self-aggrandisement and to gain power for himself. And in the process he also infected it with his own twisted views on sex.

Paul (Saul) was a jew. Isn't he the only one who put in opinions on sex in the Bible (NT)?

davison6
Thursday, August 22nd, 2002, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by kaleun
I'm not creating any god, nor a goddess; I merely put forward a hypothesis. As for a Divine Couple, the Egyptians had a basic Divine Family of Father, Mother and Son. This was twisted into the Judeo-Christian father Son and Holy Ghost (with the Virgin Mary replacing Isis).Pretty good answer, Egyptian religion is known to have influenced the ancient Hebrews in many aspects. SOme also wonder if Akhenaton's religious revolution didn't influence their concept of Yahweh. However, it did sound as if You were creating your own image of God.


But just what is the point of having a God if he/she/it is not omnipotent?This is where it sounds like You are creating your own image of God. If God created us and not the other way around, then God is as he is whether or not there is any "point" that we can see to His being that way.


And as for many gods, one could argue that these are all aspects of the One; seen in different forms by different groups according to what they wanted their god to be?Actually, this is an old concept long held by many pagans, particularly the Druids. They seemed to be more at home with it's ramifications than most early Christians, who were always seeking to drive out earlier forms of worship.

davison6
Thursday, August 22nd, 2002, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Naro626
What are these twisted views you speak of?Basically, the view that sex was sinful, and that woman was evil.

davison6
Thursday, August 22nd, 2002, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by 88and308
It's kind of interesting now, to me--with hindsight I can see that the OT God is "Jealous and vindictive" (or whatever was used to describe Him--I forget now) and the NT God is "loving and caring"Jealous was one of the exact words used to describe Yahweh, and vindictive isn't at all off the mark. The Christian Jehovah was somewhat milder, being described as "forgiving", and also as having such love for the world as to send His only begotten Son. But it is Christ Himself who is clearly the embodiment of love. In Catholicism, both Christ and Mary intercede with Jehovah on our behalf.


The OT God is a jewish god, with jewish covenant (as opposed to Hebrew to not offend our CI brothers) while the NT is a Christian God, with a new covenant.Quite correct. Jesus called the Jews "sons of your father, the devil" and abrogated the Covenant with them. He then made a New Covenant with the Gentiles.


Jews=jealous and vindictiveAnd destructive! Look what they did at Sabra and Chatila!


Whites=loving and caringWe civilized the world and set it free. And look what we get in return!


A pattern is here, if one's eyes are open.Yeah, we're nice to everyone, and everyone shits on us. Let's go and recolonize the third world. Then instead of their trash coming to our countries, we can send our young people to finish their education with a tour of duty as administrators somewhere.


I wonder how CI fits into the scheme of things...at any rate, the Bible and its teachings have been corrupted beyond redemption, imo.Their teachings are a flat contradiction of the New Testament, as they believe that the original covenant was never abrogated and no New one was made. They teach that a Semite named Abraham was our ancestor and that the modern Jews are demons who somehow switched places with us. Yeah right, and the negroes are fallen angels:rolleyes: As this would make unabsolved savages of our Aryan ancestors I regard Christian Identity as heresy and don't care who gets offended.


Paul (Saul) was a jew. Isn't he the only one who put in opinions on sex in the Bible (NT)?Certyainly the most prominent one. He was followed by a whole host of Early Church Fathers who spouted even more nonsense on the subject.

kaleun
Thursday, August 22nd, 2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by davison6

Actually, this is an old concept long held by many pagans, particularly the Druids. They seemed to be more at home with it's ramifications than most early Christians, who were always seeking to drive out earlier forms of worship.

Gods like the "forest and hearth" godlets of the Slavs, the leshy, the rusalki and others who simply existed, some good, some bad, some neutral spirits as opposed to gods who might bring education and civilisation.

Now, to extend the topic, but at a slight tangent, with the "many gods, or godlets" idea.
Thinking back to the Egyptian legends of the Gods coming to Earth to bring civilisation, teach writing (Thoth), farming, cultivation and what have you, there are other civilisations with similar legends.
Which brings in another idea; were these actually gods or more technically advanced humans? When the Spaniards landed in South America they were thought to be gods because there was a legend of white gods.
This takes us into a very different world; a different theme; more speculation, but one that might fire a few imaginations ... Just how many civilisations have been destroyed? ones about which we know nothing?
Franz

Rahul
Thursday, August 22nd, 2002, 05:37 PM
Christianity destroyed clans rather than enforcing any glorious expansionism.

Same I see in the ruin of the Aryaverta. And I see Hinduism and Christianity of the modern times as perpetual slaves of the ZOg world order.

Hinduism: For the Capitalist Jew.
Buddhism: For the Spiritual Jew(j/k).

Cheers!

Rahul
Thursday, August 22nd, 2002, 05:37 PM
Christianity destroyed clans rather than enforcing any glorious expansionism.

Same I see in the ruin of the Aryaverta. And I see Hinduism and Christianity of the modern times as perpetual slaves of the ZOg world order.

Hinduism: For the Capitalist Jew.
Buddhism: For the Spiritual Jew(j/k).

Look for the order.

davison6
Friday, August 23rd, 2002, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by kaleun


Gods like the "forest and hearth" godlets of the Slavs, the leshy, the rusalki and others who simply existed, some good, some bad, some neutral spirits as opposed to gods who might bring education and civilisation.

Now, to extend the topic, but at a slight tangent, with the "many gods, or godlets" idea.
Thinking back to the Egyptian legends of the Gods coming to Earth to bring civilisation, teach writing (Thoth), farming, cultivation and what have you, there are other civilisations with similar legends.
Which brings in another idea; were these actually gods or more technically advanced humans? When the Spaniards landed in South America they were thought to be gods because there was a legend of white gods.
This takes us into a very different world; a different theme; more speculation, but one that might fire a few imaginations ... Just how many civilisations have been destroyed? ones about which we know nothing?
Franz The quantity of legends, the commonality of motifs, and the historical proof offered by not one but two major pre-Columbian civilizations regarding the Spaniards as returning gods makes near certain that we are missing several chapters of prehistory. Incidentally, the white men as returning gods legends were not confined to the major civilizations. In my native Puerto Rico, the Taino tribe of the Arawak Indians also regarded them as gods. In order to determine if they were gods or not the high chief of the island, Agueybana asked chief Urayoan (an elder chieftain respected for his wisdom) to find out. Urayoan had his men offer to carry a young Spaniard, Diego de Salcedo, across a river and then suddenly drown him. They waited for a day and a night but he didn't revive so they concluded the Spaniards were men and revolted. Much less known, but fortunately preserved in a collection of legends published by the University of Puerto Rico, is the legend of Cemi Faraguvaol who predicted that white men would come from the unknown sea and the Tainos would all perish (which they did).

kaleun
Friday, August 23rd, 2002, 02:29 PM
Just how much then of prehistory is missing?
There are cities under the sea of which we have buildings but no written records. No metal artefacts, naturally - they all rot away (e.g. tanks from WW2), so no evidence is possible of advanced civilisation.
So there may have been civilisations long before any of the ones we know, all drowned or destroyed by some cataclysm. (As actually suggested by the Egyptians to, I think, Herodotus).
Before I take this any further - there's a lot more to discuss - should it be moved to its own thread?

Ederico
Friday, August 23rd, 2002, 07:56 PM
Yes please always start new threads instead of taking threads off-topic so that we might retain a sensible amount of order in the forums.

Start a thread on possible vanished Civilisations, I am sure it will be interesting.

davison6
Monday, August 26th, 2002, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Nazzjonalista
Start a thread on possible vanished Civilisations, I am sure it will be interesting. And send me a PM, otherwise I might miss it.