But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

[Ben Masada]

sorry, ben, but that quite simply doesn't make sense; if the "world to come" is the grave (normally, the word used for that would be "sheol") then why the fuss about the righteous of all nations inheriting a portion in it - if we all go "without distinction", why are the sages obviously making a distinction about something that is described as a desirable attainment? we have a number of statements about people who are "denied a portion in the world to come" - are you suggesting that the unrighteous don't die? that seems manifestly nonsensical to me.

It makes sense to me. Although I am ready to change my mind if any other saying makes more sense than what I understand to make sense.

World is a place for many people. Sheol is a place for many people. Therefore, sheol can be taken as a world. It means that sheol is the world to come in opposite to the actual world we live.

Regarding the world to come as a desirable attainment, read Ecclesiastes 4:1-4. It is, indeed, sometimes a desirable attainment. Talking about the violent way for many to live, especially if we consider our own history, "from the hands of our oppressors comes violence, and there is none to comfort us. So, those now dead, I declare more fortunate in death than are the living to be still alive. And better off than both is the yet unborn, who has not seen the wicked work that's done under the sun." There you have sheol as sometimes a desirable attainment.

And for your last question above, there is no need to answer. You have the daily evidence that ALL
die righteous and unrighteous, whose death neutralizes the condition of both, righteous and unrighteous.
Ben

 

[bananabrain]

World is a place for many people. Sheol is a place for many people. Therefore, sheol can be taken as a world. It means that sheol is the world to come in opposite to the actual world we live.

ok, but sheol is *never* used as synonymous with the world to come. it is the *grave* in particular, the end-of-life, a place of stasis and imprisonment as opposed to a new life - see psalm 49:15-16 here, also jonah's description of his time in the fish as the "belly of sheol". i think your reasoning that it is a "world" is weak. you might have a case for calling it "the underworld", but that is clearly not what the sages mean by the world to come, which is generally speaking a good thing and something to be sought. as for your quote from kohelet, i think it is quixotic in the extreme, something i expect from him but not as a serious statement of what we actually *aspire* to.

And for your last question above, there is no need to answer. You have the daily evidence that ALL die righteous and unrighteous, whose death neutralizes the condition of both, righteous and unrighteous.

er.. that's my point. nobody can argue against the fact that both the righteous and unrighteous die, so if the unrighteous do not "inherit the world to come", it cannot mean death, or it would mean that the unrighteous do not "inherit" - in other words, die. your point of view is therefore quite illogical in my opinion and violates the plain meaning of the text.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

well, perhaps, but i don't think what happened to the guy was remotely funny. i mean, i can understand why it did, but in many ways his outlook was premature; it would be unexceptional post-enlightenment and would perhaps have enabled him to remain within the non-orthodox but of the community, which of course wasn't possible back then.

I, for my part, was amused by Spinoza's statement, not by his plight. I am sure, to put it in Yankee parlance, that it did suck for him to be excommunicated from the Jewish community. I can think of a few others who, in times past, suffered that unenviable fate as well. But yes, in some respects, things have progressed since his time, that much seems sure.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

if the unrighteous do not "inherit the world to come", it cannot mean death, or it would mean that the unrighteous do not "inherit" - in other words, die. your point of view is therefore quite illogical in my opinion and violates the plain meaning of the text.

The first rule of spiritual life is:
"You are not this body, You are spirit-soul"

When Jesus rose from the dead it taught that we are not the body but spirit soul.
--In my accessment this is the sum and substance of his buisness here on earth 2000 years ago.

Thus, any simply and uneducated common person living in the Roman empire and throughout the known world at that time would be forced to reconcile that 'the soul is not temporal but transcendental, etc etc etc.,

There was more to Jesus's knowledge and mission, but he said that he could not yet reveal, at that time and place.

"We are not the body we are spirit souls"
--everyone in history up until the present is beholding to Jesus for this revelation.

This maxim is the basis for democratic thought.

Jesus's pastime was to publically cleans the sins that resulted in generations of humanity NOT KNOWING that the soul is made of spirit and the body is made of Earth (matter).

Why assume that the knowledge of the souls' after life was common concensus?
Why not concider that real atheism existed to a much higher degree then than we've ever seen in modern times. The past histories of antiquity are filled with greater hitlers than we've seen. And it despotic self-declaired-godhood-ism may be older than the first professions.

The rule of thumb has been written:
God advents and preaches, as per "Time and Place" ---as per the conditions of the persons living in that "Time and Place".

IMO Jesus died to be risen again ---thus the overt lesson played out by Jesus's Teaching by example.

 

[Saltmeister]

no, this is really a false dichotomy you're setting up here. shammai was anything but corrupt, as the court described in the NT obviously is.

I didn't at all mean that Shammai was corrupt, only that his ideology went a bit too far (well, perhaps for that poverty-stricken generation). Even if most of the damage was at the hands of its own followers, I think he was indirectly responsible for a lot of it. I'm aware that not all of the blame should be laid on this one man, that there's a difference between "Shammai" and "Beit Shammai." He seems to have lived well into Jesus' adult life and would have seen many of the things that happened during the lifetime recorded in the Gospels.

Apart from which part of the ideological spectrum his views generally fell on, it's also a matter of what he did not teach. Hillel, like Jesus taught people to love their neighbour, to be humble, to not judge others. There is no mention of Shammai teaching these things. He obviously didn't consider it important enough to actively teach his followers to love others, to be humble, to not be judgmental, etc. I think his followers likely became quite arrogant and self-righteous because of the absence of such teachings in his school. Shammai himself probably spent too much time shut inside a room full of books to know what was happening around him and what his followers were doing.

I think these teachings are really important, even though they're really simple. I think they teach people to be "religious" without being obnoxious and arrogant. Being religious is important. Shammai considered it important to be religious. But Hillel added something to that. He added love, humility and compassion to the pursuit of religious ideals. Look at today's fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. What are they missing, as they try to impose their values on the rest of society? Are they going too far?

I think religion is a two-way street. We should take God's word seriously, but we can't expect others to do always that. Any attempt to convey religious values on others should only be done through gentle suggestions. The emergence of secular democracy makes it inappropriate to impose religious values on others. Most of the time, religious people should mind their own religion. On the other hand, liberal democracy can be quite permissive and I think there is too much consumerism. I think there needs to be something to control that. The Western world has become too materialistic and self-indulgent. I think there is a time and place to be "religious."

I recall not so long ago reading somewhere something about Shammai's teachings being valid for the next age (the messianic age), but not for this one.

if that were the case, you'd expect to find more mention of him; as far as we can see, he simply wasn't that big of a deal. if you watch the scene in "life of brian" where brian is hiding amongst all the other messiahs in the market, that is far closer to how we see things.

I didn't mean that popular, obviously not popular enough to be noted in talmudic commentaries, but popular enough for the movement to have gained enough recruits to spread across the Roman Empire.

ok, but this is typical rabbinic hyperbole and is not meant as overarching criticism of shammai.

Well, I think I started using a bit of my own hyperbole there.

i think you've misunderstood. if that were the case, why would the Temple cult have been documented in such loving detail in order to restore it one day? the change was a matter of pragmatism in the face of force majeure - after the Temple was destroyed, the factions that couldn't cope with the lack died out; those that survived were those who were able to find a way to do without it - for the time being.

It wasn't talking specifically the Temple cult. I actually don't know enough about the Temple cult to say anything positive or negative about it. I don't know what kind of spirituality the Temple represented and how it will be re-established in the messianic age. The Gospels don't provide many details about it. Apart from the incident with the money-changers, Jesus didn't seem too fussed about the Temple cult. I've read that work is under way to re-establish that ancient system, starting with a formation of a modern Sanhedrin (in 2004 it seems). Once again that good ol' Maimonides has a hand to play in this as he had a theory on how such a sacred body as the Sanhedrin would be reconstituted -- beginning with the appointment by the people of a president and then for the other members to be "ordained" by God.

What I meant by the "system" that existed back then that people turned against was that created by the followers of Shammai passing the so-called "18 ordinances." I don't know specifically what these 18 ordinances were, but I have to assume they had pretty nasty consequences on the society back then -- based on online commentaries I have found through Google searching.

 

[Ben Masada]

ok, but sheol is *never* used as synonymous with the world to come. it is the *grave* in particular, the end-of-life, a place of stasis and imprisonment as opposed to a new life - see psalm 49:15-16 here, also jonah's description of his time in the fish as the "belly of sheol". i think your reasoning that it is a "world" is weak. you might have a case for calling it "the underworld", but that is clearly not what the sages mean by the world to come, which is generally speaking a good thing and something to be sought. as for your quote from kohelet, i think it is quixotic in the extreme, something i expect from him but not as a serious statement of what we actually *aspire* to.

er.. that's my point. nobody can argue against the fact that both the righteous and unrighteous die, so if the unrighteous do not "inherit the world to come", it cannot mean death, or it would mean that the unrighteous do not "inherit" - in other words, die. your point of view is therefore quite illogical in my opinion and violates the plain meaning of the text.

The Psalmist in Psalm 49:15,16 is referring to a temporary escape from death in view of life danger. And the grave or sheol cannot be compared to an imprisonment because it must be perceived by the dweller of it and the dead can no longer enjoy that perception. (Eccl. 9:5)

Now, for the sages identification of the world to come as a good thing or something to be sought, it is perfectly in accordance with the Scriptures which assert that those who are already in sheol are more fortunate than are the living to be still alive. And better still than both are the unborn who have not seen the wicked work that is done under the sun. (Eccl. 4:2,3) That's what the sages mean by the world to come as a good thing worth being sought for.

And for inheriting the world to come, what do you have in mind? According to Genesis 2:7, when man was formed from the dust of the earth, the Lord breathed in his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul. To become is to be. It means we are living souls, which also means that soul is the combination of body with the breath of life, which returns to God Who gave it as the body goes back to the dust. That's the end of the soul as the combination is undone. What is it in your opinion that inherits the world to come? It smells Hellenistic doctrine to me.
Ben

 

[bananabrain]

I didn't at all mean that Shammai was corrupt, only that his ideology went a bit too far (well, perhaps for that poverty-stricken generation).

the idea was that he was too strict for his standard to be effectively maintained and, unlike hillel, failed to speak to people in a way they could understand. i don't think you can speak of an ideology here, only a degree of stringency. it is for such reasons that when a halakhic decision is at issue, the halakhah goes with hillel as the more lenient. this does not imply that shammai is a) wrong or b) *overly* strict, let alone corrupt; he's just not to be preferred to hillel - although there are i think 18 types of case where you do go with shammai.

Even if most of the damage was at the hands of its own followers, I think he was indirectly responsible for a lot of it. I'm aware that not all of the blame should be laid on this one man, that there's a difference between "Shammai" and "Beit Shammai."

if that were the case, he'd come in for a lot of criticism for this; you will note that in the literature, beit hillel invariably come off best.

Apart from which part of the ideological spectrum his views generally fell on, it's also a matter of what he did not teach.

i'm not sure that's a great argument; i'm sure shammai didn't teach computer-aided design, but you can hardly blame him for that.

Hillel, like Jesus taught people to love their neighbour, to be humble, to not judge others. There is no mention of Shammai teaching these things. He obviously didn't consider it important enough to actively teach his followers to love others, to be humble, to not be judgmental, etc. I think his followers likely became quite arrogant and self-righteous because of the absence of such teachings in his school.

the most important saying recorded of shammai is from the tractate "sayings of the fathers" (pirqei 'aboth) in the mishnah:

"Make the study of the Torah your chief occupation; speak little, but accomplish much; and receive every man with a friendly countenance"

this doesn't sound much like the picture you paint.

Shammai himself probably spent too much time shut inside a room full of books to know what was happening around him and what his followers were doing.

not if he was, as it would appear, the nasi (president) of the sanhedrin, where part of the job involves wide knowledge of the world outside the library.

The emergence of secular democracy makes it inappropriate to impose religious values on others. Most of the time, religious people should mind their own religion. On the other hand, liberal democracy can be quite permissive and I think there is too much consumerism. I think there needs to be something to control that. The Western world has become too materialistic and self-indulgent. I think there is a time and place to be "religious."

hmm, that starts to feel a little bit too dichotomous to me. religion has an important role in promoting freedom, liberation and challenge; that includes the promotion of democratic values, at least for the religion i'm a member of.

Apart from the incident with the money-changers, Jesus didn't seem too fussed about the Temple cult.

that's a funny little incident to us. the thing is, you needed the money-changers in order to give the right type of sacrifice; if you needed to offer a pigeon as a sin-offering they acted like a sort of ATM to enable you to get the "right change"; the way the gospels present the incident it is as if the idea of money being anywhere near religion is anathema, whereas we don't see it like that at all; the Temple and the priests and levites had an important function as a sort of treasury for charitable funds. it's almost like getting annoyed with the church warden for taking round the collection plate, because "money and G!D don't go together". for us, clearly money is necessary if "good works" are to be financed.

The Psalmist in Psalm 49:15,16 is referring to a temporary escape from death in view of life danger.

i can't see where you're getting that idea from in the text. the text is describing how you can't buy your way out of death, nor can riches and success protect you from the righteous judgement of G!D.

And the grave or sheol cannot be compared to an imprisonment because it must be perceived by the dweller of it and the dead can no longer enjoy that perception. (Eccl. 9:5)

but 9:3 appears to say that "the hearts of men are full of evil and desecration is in their hearts throughout their lives AND AFTERWARDS AMONG THE DEAD", which would contradict this sentiment. (i also think it's possible you're being misled by a literal reading. it seems to me that "dead" actually refers to "morally dead", i.e. evil people, whereas "living" refers to those who are morally and spiritually righteous.)

Now, for the sages identification of the world to come as a good thing or something to be sought, it is perfectly in accordance with the Scriptures which assert that those who are already in sheol are more fortunate than are the living to be still alive. And better still than both are the unborn who have not seen the wicked work that is done under the sun. (Eccl. 4:2,3) That's what the sages mean by the world to come as a good thing worth being sought for.

ok, i now understand the case you're making here, but i really think you're totally barking up the wrong tree. koheleth notwithstanding, the fact remains that the sages disagree with you. they *do* uphold the ideas that both a) the "world to come" exists and b) it is desirable and worth attaining. having done a bit of digging, i can see that actually beit shammai (rather ironically) come down in support of this idea that it was better not to be born:

For two-and-a-half years, the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel debated. These [b.shammai] said, "It is better for man not to have been created than to have been created"; and these [b.hillel] said, "It is better for man to have been created than not to have been created."

BT Erubin 13b

but this still doesn't get you to a place where "sheol" can be identified with "'olam ha-ba" without an awful lot of circumstantial similes being drawn. i'm not remotely convinced by this as an argument, as you can tell.

And for inheriting the world to come, what do you have in mind?

actually, i'm not that sure, but i do know it isn't what is meant by "she'ol" - by all means show me where the sages - not koheleth! - use she'ol as synonymous with "'olam ha-ba" and you'll make your case, but until then, you are making an argument that relies on a concept being linked to a term that as far as i am aware, is never linked to that by the sages and, even from the kohelet and tehillim quotes, certainly doesn't refer to "'olam ha-ba".

It means we are living souls, which also means that soul is the combination of body with the breath of life, which returns to God Who gave it as the body goes back to the dust. That's the end of the soul as the combination is undone.

again, you're being awfully categorical about something you cannot possibly know, which is a matter of theological speculation in which a number of reasonable options are possible. the way i'd approach this conundrum is to suggest that the individual soul is made up of a number of different elements (nefesh, ruah, neshamah according to the standard 3-tier model, although there is a kabbalistic 5-tier model as well) of which one element, probably the neshamah, "returns to G!D Who Gave it" whereas the other two bits get recycled, the nefesh via the energy transferred during the decomposition of the body and the ruah via the continuing intangible impacts of that transmigration (my actions affect the world after i move on) - they don't come together as a threesome again, but the neshamah gets returned for another gilgul as appropriate; in fact, i understand there's a whole theory of how this works which breaks down each piece of souls into further portions, each of which leads an independent transmigratory existence. you'd have to ask a knowledgeable kabbalist or hasidic rabbi for further understanding of this, i think.

What is it in your opinion that inherits the world to come? It smells Hellenistic doctrine to me.

hmm, that's a new one. i actually don't know what does the inheriting, i really hadn't thought about it, but i hardly think you can sneer at it as "hellenistic doctrine" - don't take it up with me, take it up with haza"l, the rishonim and the aharonim - go on, tell rambam that "'olam ha-ba" is hellenistic, i dare ya!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

i can't see where you're getting that idea from in the text. the text is describing how you can't buy your way out of death, nor can riches and success protect you from the righteous judgement of G!D.

See verse 16. "The Lord will save me from the power of sheol," which means death. Therefore, what I said stands.

but 9:3 appears to say that "the hearts of men are full of evil and desecration is in their hearts throughout their lives AND AFTERWARDS AMONG THE DEAD", which would contradict this sentiment.

I don't know wherefrom you got "and afterwards among the dead." The text says, "Hence the minds of men are filled with evil, and madness is in their hearts during life; and afterwards they go to the dead." It means the mad and evil ones live their lives thus and at the end they go to the dead.

ok, i now understand the case you're making here, but i really think you're totally barking up the wrong tree. koheleth notwithstanding, the fact remains that the sages disagree with you. they *do* uphold the ideas that both a) the "world to come" exists and b) it is desirable and worth attaining. having done a bit of digging, i can see that actually beit shammai (rather ironically) come down in support of this idea that it was better not to be born:

Only Christian sages disagree with me. I don't find disagreement in our sages. Unless you take them literally for what they say.

actually, i'm not that sure, but i do know it isn't what is meant by "she'ol" - by all means show me where the sages - not koheleth! - use she'ol as synonymous with "'olam ha-ba" and you'll make your case, but until then, you are making an argument that relies on a concept being linked to a term that as far as i am aware, is never linked to that by the sages and, even from the kohelet and tehillim quotes, certainly doesn't refer to "'olam ha-ba".

Are you suggesting that I should not listen to the Scriptures but to the midrashim of the sages? That's a no no. And I do agree with the sage's midrashim but not on a literal basis.

... probably the neshamah, "returns to G!D Who Gave it" whereas the other two bits get recycled, the nefesh via the energy transferred during the decomposition of the body and the ruah via the continuing intangible impacts of that transmigration (my actions affect the world after i move on) - they don't come together as a threesome again, but the neshamah gets returned for another gilgul as appropriate;

The term "neshamah" for the breath of life which returns to God Who gave it is nothing more than an ebelishment. Neshamah here means breath of life and nothing else. And the idea to return for another gilgul is absolutely inappropriate. Even if you believe in the Christian resurrection of the dead
you will be in trouble to explain it vis-a-vis gilgul.

hmm, that's a new one. i actually don't know what does the inheriting, i really hadn't thought about it, but i hardly think you can sneer at it as "hellenistic doctrine" - don't take it up with me, take it up with haza"l, the rishonim and the aharonim - go on, tell rambam that "'olam ha-ba" is hellenistic, i dare ya!

Here you should wait till the fat lady sings before shouting vitory if you haven't yet read the Rambam's "Guide for the Perplexed". Good luck!

Ben

 

[Saltmeister]

So, in Matthew 12:40 Jesus is rather talking about what he had come into this world to do? What did Jesus come into this world to do, would you enlighten me with?
Ben

It's more or less what I had been talking about up to that post -- but perhaps I didn't make that clear.

The religion of Jesus (Christianity) has more or less been a religion for the Gentiles. Jesus' mission was to recruit followers among his own people who would then go out into the rest of the Roman Empire to preach to Gentiles.

Just like Jonah preached to the people of Nineveh, Jesus' followers would preach to the Gentiles in the rest of the Roman Empire. This is where Jesus' mission matches that of Jonah's -- his mission was to preach to a large group of Gentiles, tell them about the "God who made everything" and get them to repent of their sins. One difference, however, was the scale of the mission. Jesus' mission was to recruit people to preach to the whole world, rather than just one city.

This was the sign of Jonah. Just like the people of Nineveh repented, the Gentiles in the whole world have been repenting for 2,000 years.

 

[Lunitik]

Jesus' crucifixion was as much symbolic as literal...

The process of full enlightenment is a type of death, and Jesus goes on crying out for the father, wanting to avoid this torture. Many go on saying it is to fulfill prophecy, but this is simply not how prophecy works, they have seen the future and saw his agony. This is the last stand of the ego... then finally he surrenders, "in your hands I commit my soul", then "it is done".

In enlightenment, there is a similar process called the dark night of the soul, it is a peak of utter fear. If you can permit it, your soul and ego leaves through your navel. It is the same process, and then Jesus returns in a spiritual body, this is the energy surrounding an enlightened man.

For me, then, he was crucified to set an example. He has also been crucified to show how many will cling to his ego and identifications rather than look at truth, for me, if Jesus returned at this time, Christians would respond just as Jews did all those years ago. People are more interested in the fable than the reality which is represented, for most, religion serves as a social convention, but they are not interested in the real thing at all. With the reality before them, they cannot bend it as they wish, this is not acceptable for most people.

As a new manifestation of truth comes into the world, always the status quo will fight him. Once he is dead, now they will switch sides and become the priests of the new community. It is the same sort of minds, just with new clothes. It is always the case, always the exoteric becomes unmeaningful but always the masses go to it.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

The mind says things like:

Jesus' crucifixion was as much symbolic as literal...

The intelligence says things like:

you're being awfully categorical about something you cannot possibly know, which is a matter of theological speculation in which a number of reasonable options are possible.

I do not mean any of this symbolically.

 

[Lunitik]

I do not mean any of this symbolically.

Intelligence says nothing at all because it understands nothing said is going to be accurate. Please understand, we are on an internet forum, but even the Bhagavad Gita cannot give you true understanding - it merely points to truth, you will have to look for yourself at where it points, else you will be left with vain imaginings alone.

What I have said serves a purpose, what you have said is simply an attempt to argue, THAT is something of the mind, needing to show you are correct. I have no interest in being correct, my interest is solely in delivering others to the ultimate.

You have not yet realized you are not the doer, you insist there remains responsibilities for you in this life. This shows you have understood nothing of what Krishna speaks in the Holy Gita. Please, tell me what my display name "Nimitta Matra" means, for it comprises the whole Holy Gita if you can understand.

Meditation and realization of this leads to Madbhava.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Intelligence says nothing at all because it understands nothing said is going to be accurate. Please understand, we are on an internet forum, but even the Bhagavad Gita cannot give you true understanding - it merely points to truth, you will have to look for yourself at where it points, else you will be left with vain imaginings alone.

What I have said serves a purpose, what you have said is simply an attempt to argue, THAT is something of the mind, needing to show you are correct. I have no interest in being correct, my interest is solely in delivering others to the ultimate.

You have not yet realized you are not the doer, you insist there remains responsibilities for you in this life. This shows you have understood nothing of what Krishna speaks in the Holy Gita. Please, tell me what my display name "Nimitta Matra" means, for it comprises the whole Holy Gita if you can understand.

Who needs a Bonefide Guru from an authenthic orthodox Disciplic Succession to learn the essence of the Bhagavad-gita . . . when you have Lunitik to explain it for us?

Oh, and Why was Christ Crucified?
Lo the interest to solely deliver others to the ultimate.

 

[Lunitik]

Who needs a Bonefide Guru from an authenthic orthodox Disciplic Succession to learn the essence of the Bhagavad-gita . . . when you have Lunitik to explain it for us?

Oh, and Why was Christ Crucified?
Lo the interest to solely deliver others to the ultimate.

Succession means moving away from direct experience, it means you have learned it from a man, not from God yourself. How foolish is man that he go to another blind man to gain sight? Worse yet that he reject one who sees because he holds the blind higher now... this is not as it was intended. The only true Guru is God himself, all else are at best his vessels, his lamps shining his light into the world, at worst egoistic charlatans.

I have pointed out the significance of Jesus' crucifixion, the pointer to what all must go through eventually. The moment he says "I commit my spirit", he has become fully enlightened, "it is done" shows this. All will have to be crucified to be resurrected in truth, to realize their own divinity, to experience Madbhava all must die to themselves, must put aside their own lives and live in Brahman. Ego identifies with both Hindu and Christian, you cannot be either, for these merely attempt to express your own truth, the nature of your own being if you can see. Instead we go on worshiping the form and calling it authentic religion, blasphemy.

This is not from studying the Gita, this is from direct experience, the book is dead, only experience is an alive phenomenon. Do not rely so much on a book, else you will be as dead as it is. With all your being, ask God to guide you home and it will be so. You will have to leave yourself to approach him though.

 

[Lunitik]

Christianity says the same:

Brahman = Holy Spirit, that which resides in all
Nimitta Matra = drop your individual will and do the Will of God
Madbhava = Be perfect, even as the father is

Just to bring this back on topic.

 

[mojobadshah]

Who needs a Bonefide Guru from an authenthic orthodox Disciplic Succession to learn the essence of the Bhagavad-gita . . . when you have Lunitik to explain it for us?

Oh, and Why was Christ Crucified?
Lo the interest to solely deliver others to the ultimate.

If Jesus was the only begotten son of God. Then, seriously, what the heck are the rest of us. Gimps? It makes absolutely no sense. They say that Zarathushtra was the son of God, but then again the Zarathushtrians proclaim that God is our Father. Hence, we are all sons of God. Islam proclaims the same ideology. If Jesus was the only son of God does that mean that only Jesus had a soul? If Jesus was the only one with a soul, then we're all saved, because we never had a soul to carry our sins to begin with. Or was Jesus not the only son of God. If he wasn't the only son of God then his death was no big thing. Because he's not the first one to have died in the name of God and he definitely won't be the last one.

If it wasn't Zarathushtra who was the first one to have sacrificed his life for the higher purpose of professing the good religion to the world, it was most definitely the ancient Aryans. If you really want to know what Jesus went through try looking at the world through the Aryan's heart and you'll know. The only person who could relate to you at that point is not even a fellow Aryan, but only a fellow champion of the good faith. You will say to yourself "if Jesus did really live he could relate." Jesus claimed to be the son of God. The Aryans, or believers, on the other hand, know the historical truth: that if it wasn't Zarathushtra, it was definitely the Aryans who first conceived of one God.

Maybe Jesus was Zarathushtra and Zarathushtra was Jesus just as in Solomon of Hilat's account in 1222 and maybe it was Zarathushtra who sent the Magi to seek out Jesus just as the Aramaic Bible states.

The most hurtful thing about all of this is that the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) were the first monotheists and they saved the Jews, and the were at war with the Romans, and thousands of years later both the Jews and the Romans in so many words stole their religion, and for the large part people turn to look the other way. Or they claim not to care, but if they didn't then why don't more people know the truth.

 

[mojobadshah]

Like why do I have to constantly be telling people that the Irano-Afghans (Aryans), who have this great history, are not Arab because of the chauvainists who would prefer to propagate the myth of the Aryans then the historical Aryans who founded the good faith, and established the first world-superpower, Persia? And then you hear about people wanting to bomb places like Iran and go to war with Iran, but they don't even UNDERSTAND who they are!!! Show me and the world you know all what I'm talking about first, before you threaten to put human lives into harms way. You know what I'm saying?

 

[Lunitik]

If Jesus was the only begotten son of God. Then, seriously, what the heck are the rest of us. Gimps? It makes absolutely no sense. They say that Zarathushtra was the son of God, but then again the Zarathushtrians proclaim that God is our Father. Hence, we are all sons of God. Islam proclaims the same ideology. If Jesus was the only son of God does that mean that only Jesus had a soul? If Jesus was the only one with a soul, then we're all saved, because we never had a soul to carry our sins to begin with. Or was Jesus not the only son of God. If he wasn't the only son of God then his death was no big thing. Because he's not the first one to have died in the name of God and he definitely won't be the last one.

If it wasn't Zarathushtra who was the first one to have sacrificed his life for the higher purpose of professing the good religion to the world, it was most definitely the ancient Aryans. If you really want to know what Jesus went through try looking at the world through the Aryan's heart and you'll know. The only person who could relate to you at that point is not even a fellow Aryan, but only a fellow champion of the good faith. You will say to yourself "if Jesus did really live he could relate." Jesus claimed to be the son of God. The Aryans, or believers, on the other hand, know the historical truth: that if it wasn't Zarathushtra, it was definitely the Aryans who first conceived of one God.

Maybe Jesus was Zarathushtra and Zarathushtra was Jesus just as in Solomon of Hilat's account in 1222 and maybe it was Zarathushtra who sent the Magi to seek out Jesus just as the Aramaic Bible states.

The most hurtful thing about all of this is that the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) were the first monotheists and they saved the Jews, and the were at war with the Romans, and thousands of years later both the Jews and the Romans in so many words stole their religion, and for the large part people turn to look the other way. Or they claim not to care, but if they didn't then why don't more people know the truth.

You have forgotten, perhaps, that Hinduism and Zarathushtrianism share a common ancestor along with Mithraism. All three speak of Mitra, so it is strange you are preaching to the most active line today relating to your words - as he is a Hindu. Hinduism is also an Aryan religion, but your words are perfectly true. Why have we continued to segregate based on petty differences? Why do we proclaim this man as special and others as something less? We deny ourselves our birthright by proclaiming that only certain people are born with this. You yourself have clung to Zarathustra though, while he has clung to Krishna and the Christians have clung to Jesus, we do not see this is all the work of Satan, the adversary, the mind. I do not know why truth has been revealed to me, but in that revelation I know that all are correct and that everyone worshiping these men share the same potential. We ought to collaborate on truth without clinging to this or that, but instead we try to show what is different because our ego's are fueled by it. We need to be looking at what is similar, irrelevant of names and titles, that all might advance to the goal that has never been other than the case. We stifle ourselves only, because each has excelled in a particular aspect of truth.

Perhaps Aryans are the first to proclaim a single God, perhaps not, for the peak of human consciousness is oneness. I find it difficult to believe that only a single people could have realized this, but certainly Aryans have become the most significant of those proclaiming oneness. Certainly, this is the meaning of Brahman in Hinduism and Dharmakaya in Buddhism, this experience of absolute oneness. Why can other tribes and the like not have found the same truth independently though? It simply wreaks of pride for me...

Let me ask, do you think God is Persian? Do you think your being is Persian, or is it merely your identification? If it is the latter, then it is simply fuel for your ego. With even of a drop of ego, divinity is impossible, if you are there at all why will God come and knock? God is when you are not.

 

[Lunitik]

Truth must be one since there is only one existence, when will man understand?

The various religions, the various branches of science, all are seeking the same... I have said it before, but why didn't we listen to Pythagoras? He has warned against proliferation of these, do you not see it is mind that differentiates? All is one and one is the all, why can't man drop his pettiness?

This all used to be included under the banner of philosophy: love of wisdom. In truth, love is the peak of wisdom, but when we started involving the ego only stupidity ensued.

 

[mojobadshah]

Truth must be one since there is only one existence, when will man understand?

The various religions, the various branches of science, all are seeking the same... I have said it before, but why didn't we listen to Pythagoras? He has warned against proliferation of these, do you not see it is mind that differentiates? All is one and one is the all, why can't man drop his pettiness?

This all used to be included under the banner of philosophy: love of wisdom. In truth, love is the peak of wisdom, but when we started involving the ego only stupidity ensued.

It is said that philosophy or the "love of wisdom" was an offshoot of the worship of Ahura Mazda the "Lord of Wisdom." And involving the ego is the American way.