KRSNA - as Vasudeva. to Vyasudeva

n9newunsixx5150 · Jul 23, 2003

@XianeX

quote:
"first paragraph -
I agree with just about everything (minus ego and krsna references) except your last sentence which may be indicative of yourself but definitely not me. I keep hearing you use the term ego. please define this "EGO"."

I have already defined false ego.
False ego is the idea that one is the body and all conceptions derrived of such. For example; when someone concludes that a material father must be the cause of the son. In all cases of birth and especially in the case of Krsna is this conclusion completely false. Body produces body. Body does not produce the soul. So Krsna, being purely spiritual, although He was born into the material world, existed as He appeared there prior to the event of birth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"second paragraph -
you still didn't answer my question. what you explained does not answer or rightfully approach my question at all"

OK...

"the absolute is subordinate to itself therefore so is it's constituencies but if it's constituencies are manifestations of the absolute is it actually subordinate or just in ordinance?"

Consider that the constituencies, although part of the absolute, are prone to forget that they are part. And because the absolute truth, Krsna, does not forget who He is and is conscious of all bodies at all times, we (His constituencies) are very much subordinate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"third paragraph -
how can I be the beginning of all things if I began with my father. if my father was first then I am subordinate an after effect. it doesn't take a genius to decipher the logic in that."

Well, you (spirit-soul) did not begin with your father. You, (flesh body) did begin with your father. It just depends on which aspect you abide by. The latter of the two is known as the false ego. If you understand that you are not the body then your logic goes out the window. The soul is not an "after effect". Especially not of the body. So, given this, and also realizing that Krsna had a purely spiritual body, it should be clear that Vasudeva could not have been the cause of Krsna. Vasudeva would have only been an immediate cause for the material body begotten, but since Krsna has not a material body the logic cannot even work in that aspect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"if krsna began with vasudeva (re-read the entire canto) then that means there was a time that krsna didn't exist. DUH!"

No. Krsna is not a product of the material body of Vasudeva. Krsna allowed Vasudeva to play His material father while Krsna appeared on this earth. Krsna does this for His devotees. In a somewhat similar manner He did it with Arjuna. Even though Krsna is God the absolute supreme person, he still chose to be a service to Arjuna by driving his chariot during the battle at Kuruksetra. In that instance it would appear that Arjuna was holding authority over Krsna. But, when one is in pure devotion with Krsna, Krsna will devote Himself to His devotee. And so it goes both ways. Such love is transcendental and cannot be had or understood by all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"therefore krsna CAN be a manifestation of the absolute but is not the all-pervading absolute."

He is forever manifest in His spiritual abode. And by His plenary expansions He resides within every entity down to each atom as the supersoul (paramatma). Just because Krsna appears in His original form on earth does not mean He is not still residing in His spiritual abode and within every entity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"how can a child "cause" his father (reread the canto)? thats just ridiculous. don't be so inane. that's so silly it isn't even funny"

Because Krsna is not material and therefore cannot be materially derrived from the material body of Vasudeva. Its not silly or ridiculous. It is simple and logical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"time is a facet of the absolute not the absolute so if krsna is JUST eternal time then in that he is limited"

I never said Krsna is JUST eternal time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"please. . . do me a favor give me a verse in the vedas which show that krsna existed BEFORE Vasudeva, and a verse that states that Krsna "placed" himself as son of Vasudeva."

I hope you can bare with me...
I do not quite have all the resources at this time given that I am on a naval ship in the middle of the ocean. I can refer you to Vyasadeva who can probably quote you a verse or two If you are in fact desirous to validate what I am saying.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"if you can't do these two things your argument has no legs."

Yes, but Vyasadeva has the resources more readily available.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n9newunsixx5150 · Jul 23, 2003

part 2...

quote:
"I place the absolute beyond all of your limitations."

Sure, but yet it was you who could not understand that even though Krsna appeared begotten by Vasudeva and Devaki, He can still be the all-pervading absolute. In this way it was you who limited the absolute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"my realization of truth and the absolute say that your mythological constructs diminish the greatness of what the absolute is."

Your realization is of your own concoction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"my understandings profess that you actually don't fathom the absolute because of your wish to iconify it. you wish to devote to the absolute in actions of futility."

My understandings profess that you actually only fathom the absolute to be impersonal because of your failure to reconcile how a person can be the source of all, remain all-pervasive despite His appearance as begotten by two of His consistuencies, and have a transcendental bodily form. Your realizaton of the absolute has its source in Krsna. From Krsna comes His impersonal effulgence known as brahmajyoti or brahman. For some reason you feel that for the absolute to ultimately be a person is limiting. I respectfully ask you to back that up with logic. I do not wish for you to tell me why it is not necessary for the absolute to be a person. I am asking you to explain to me why the supreme cannot be a person and why being such would be limiting the absolute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"my devotion to the absolute is testified by my existence therefore i needn't perform any action of futility towards the One because I KNOW that it is unecessary."

The absolute is known in 3 aspects. Bhagavan: the supreme person, Paramatma: the supersoul, and Brahman: the impersonal aspect. Of these three Bhagavan is the final word in the absolute truth, according to the Vedas. What you accept as absolute is correct but not complete. You do not see the benefit in devotional service and this is understandable because you only adhere to brahman conception. Whereas you believe that the final word is brahman and that Krsna is merely a temporary personal manifestation of the impersonal absolute, I, by the authority of the Vedas believe that Krsna is supreme and from Him comes His impersonal aspect, brahman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"devotionalism is practiced by those who perpetuate religions and doctrines."

Devotionalism is the final stage in religious practice. It is the final stage of Brahman realization.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"I will not practice a faith when I know that faith also is futile and does not edify the One. faith is for those who need to validate deities. the One is not merely Deity."

The One is supremely a Diety. this does not limit the absolute. Because from this Diety comes your brahman realization. Krsna did not come as a son or a servant of the absolute. He came and stated that He was the supreme. He said that the demigods and sages had their origin in Him. If you benefit partially from the words of Krsna but cannot accept the authority of Him when He states such, you mightaswell not even read them. If you cannot accept His word in whole, then why accept it in part? And who would you be to pretend authority when you decide which parts of the literature are acceptable as truth and which parts are not?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"krsna is a deity. in that he is beneath the absolute and is not worthy of my devotion."

Not according to the Vedas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
"If it is not required of me to pay devotion to the absolute why would i pay devotion to a shard?"

Of course, why would someone devote themselves to something which is impersonal? Once one understands from whence the impersonal aspect comes, they will eventually attach themselves to the supreme person. You have no right to judge people who are at the stage of devotion. If it is not for you to adhere to at this time, that is fine. If you had spoken with me only a year ago I would have completely agreed with you that the absolute being ultimately a person is ridiculous.

HERESY · Jul 23, 2003

EDJ SAID:

JESUS WAS NEVER "CREATED". HIS "FLESH" WAS CREATED BUT HE EXISTED BEFORE EVERYTHING ELSE. WHEN THE GREEK AND LATIN SCRIPTURES (AND OLD TESTAMENT) TALK ABOUT FIRSTBORN, CREATE OR MAKE DIFFERENT MEANINGS ARE RENDERED.

FOR EXAMPLE "FIRSTBORN" CAN MEAN FIRST BORN IN A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. IT CAN ALSO MEAN A "POSITION" OR "TITLE". THE WORD PROTOTOKOS IS THE PROPER WORD.

HERES AN OLD TESTAMENT EXAMPLE.

Gen 48:14 LISTS EPHRAIM AS THE YOUNGER OF TWO BROTHERS AND CALLS MANASSEH THE FIRST BORN.

COMPARE THAT TO EPHRIAM BEING CALLED THE FIRSTBORN IN Jeremiah 31:9.

THE FIRST EXAMPLE IS ONE OF CHRONOLOGY.
THE SECOND IS ONE OF RANK OR IMPORTANCE.

IF JESUS WAS INDEED THE "FIRSTBORN" AND "CREATED" (AS YOU HAVE SAID) THE WORD PROTOKTISTOS WOULD HAVE BEEN USED. WELL....IT ISNT.

@X YOU SAID

UNTIL YOU GET OVER THE FACT THAT GOD IS A "TITLE" OR POSITION YOU WONT MAKE ANY SENSE. GOD *IS* ONE. YOU DONT HAVE 3 GODS. YOU HAVE *ONE* GOD. READ THE SHEMA AND STUDY THE WORD "ONE".

IN BIBLICAL ACCOUNT YOU DONT HAVE MORE THAN ONE "DIETY" MAKING THE WORLD.

IN OTHER ACCOUNTS YOU HAVE ENKI AND NINHURSAG (ATRA HASIS/SUMERIAN) AND MARDUK AND TIAMET (ENUMA ELISH/BABYLONIAN)

BOTH SUMERIAN AND BABYLONIAN STORIES DIFFER IN HOW MAN WAS MADE,HOW THE WORLD WAS CREATED,WHO WAS INVOLVED ETC ETC ETC.

BTW MARDUK IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE. IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO FORBID THE WORSHIP OF MARDUK YET BORROW HIS "STORY".

IN THE GENESIS CREATION STORY NO FEMALE "DIETY" EXISTS OR PARTAKES IN CREATION.

FINALLY THE LANGUISTICS ARE DIFFERENT. I WONT GO IN DEPTH. I WILL ALLOW YOU TO SEARCH ON YOUR OWN.

STUDY THE TIME CONTEXT,HISTORICAL AND LANGUISTICS. YOU WILL SEE THAT THE BIBLE ISNT LACKING.

miggidy · Jul 23, 2003

XianeX said:

There's no proof that the Sumerian and Babylonian myths are older than the book of Genesis. It is only an assumption at this point because the oldest scripture found is from ancient babylon.
Which are the Sumerian tablets....
Yes they are older than the oldest Genesis scripture, but that doesn't mean it came first. You know what I mean?
People tend to jump into conclusions and make assumptions....

miggidy · Jul 23, 2003

Heresy man,

We need to chop it up bro,
I've been doing a lot of thinking....

I sort of disagree with some of this stuff you're saying.
About God being one and stuff.
He is one entity, and it's God the Father.
How ever Jesus and the Holy Ghost are seperate entities whom share the thrown.
Good so far but where we disagree is the part where Jesus has always existed. He has a father and son relationship with God.
Which means he was created.
This shit is hella deep and there's hella shit I want to point out.
But I think I know why the Apostles reffered to Jesus as their Lord. This whole thing's starting to look clearer to me....
It involves Jesus becoming our Lord, our God. Simply for the fact that he sacrificed his life for us. Kind of like his reward from God for dying for us. He's now in charge of us....
I could explain this shit better over the phone.

Shit's been on my mind for the last few months.
I think I'm on to something.....

XianeX · Jul 23, 2003

@ heresy - very interesting. I'll review. but I'm not sure in specificity what you want me to find in the liguistics. I know story wise they are different by great leaps and that the genesis version waters down and removes MANY of the details of the other myths. the "details" is where it lacks.

God is a title only in certain contexts (which we both may be familiar and aren't saying), this I agree to. but In that case god (as a title/position) is not the absolute which is my premise for this thread.

very interesting we may discuss this elsewhere that piqued my interest deeply. i'm starting to believe that you've stepped into a whole new level of understanding. we may be able to chop at different angles.

@miggidy - uh, you are incorrect. research.

miggidy · Jul 23, 2003

^^^^

I guess you didn't understand what I was tryin to say.

XianeX · Jul 23, 2003

@ 9165150 - (you people with the long ass double posts, shit!)
first if krsna is purely spiritual then he is limited in that he is not constuent to the material world. and do you mean spiritual by the western interpretation or "prana"-ic spiritual? also how can he be purely spiritual and be born into the material world. also if he has a material birth where does he reside???? or has he return to the spirit. if so how did he shed his material existance????

lol you still didn't answer my question WOW!!!

by material birth krsna is subordinate by your own words in that he is limited. he is subordinate in his material form meaning in that form he is not transcendental

even further than that where in the cantos did it say that vasudeva is other than transcendental in form. it is not mentioned anywhere that vasudeva is material. hmmmm in that case krsna was born sbordinate in transcendental form to vasudeva. once again krsna is limited.

where did krsna exist before his conception through vasudeva??? if you cant answer this you saying that he existed as a spirit/soul previous is with validation. also if he existed before vasudeva he'd be vasudeva and devaki as all pervading.

i do not accept krsna as the absolute. i can accept the concept of krsna as a manifestation of or in the absolute obviously

if i say i am a shard of the absolute how is the absolute impersonal to me????? LOL try again

logically there are many other forms than human or "person" why would I limit "LOGICALLY" that the absolute is a form that is most miniscule compared to the span of the universe PUHLEASE.

the absolute can be manifest in/as person but a person is miniscule and is incapable of containing the absoluteness of the One. in that the One is not limited but the vehicle.

think it is by my religious diligence into logic that I found the absolute. but i am not "in" a religion.

i've never said that the vedas are acceptable.
I have never expressed that I am a vedic authority.

you assume too much.

actually you are the one judging me. how funny.

i take what I wish and leave what I wish. such is my perogative.
logic is what i look for and i accept it when i find it and deject the rest.

where in the vedas does it say that krsna isnt a deity??? once again.

anyway. have fun with this post. i'm sure you'll have some time with it.

XianeX · Jul 23, 2003

@miggidy i did get your point but the facts by which you came to it was incorrect. but believe me i understand that neither of us can ACTUALLy prove which one was first. but by the facts that exist the genesis tale is the latter

miggidy · Jul 23, 2003

The latter?
Meaning older?

I thought the Sumerian scripts were much older.

HERESY · Jul 23, 2003

@MIGGIDY LEARN THE SHEMA. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ECHAD AND YACHID.

1.JESUS WAS *NEVER* "CREATED".Phil. 2:7-8

2.I AM NOT ENDORSING TRITHEISM, POLYTHEISM OR MODALISM.

3.IF JESUS HAS A STARTING POINT HE IS A LIAR FOR CALLING HIMSELF THE "ALPHA OMEGA" AND "THE BEGINING AND THE END"

4.JOHN 1:1-14 STATES THAT IN THE *BEGINING* WAS THE WORD AND THAT THE WORD WAS *WITH* GOD AND THAT THE WORD *WAS* GOD. VERSE 14 STATES THAT THE WORD BECAME FLESH.

5.JESUS NEVER *BECAME* GOD. HE IS GOD.

6.COL 1:16

7.I DONT SUPPORT ARIANISM

8.WHEN JESUS AID "THE FATHER IS GREATER" IS NOT IMPLYING GREATNESS AS IN BETTER OR MORE POWERFUL.

9.IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT JESUS IS A "CREATED" BEING YOU HAVE TO USE THE GREEK,LATIN OR HEBREW WORDS. WELL...WHEN YOU TRY TO USE THOSE WORDS TO MAKE IT FIT IT WONT.

10.IF JESUS WAS CREATED WHEN WAS HE CREATED AND BY WHOM? WAS HE CREATED WHEN HE WAS BORN? IF THATS THE CASE ALL THINGS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY HIM AND THROUGH HIM. IF HE WAS CREATED BEFORE THE WORLD THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ALL THINGS WERE NOT CREATED BY HIM AND THROUGH HIM. IT WOULD ALSO MAKE HIM THE BIGGEST LIAR MANKIND HAS EVER SEEN.

THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS *ONE*. YOU HAVE AN EXECUTIVE,JUDICAL AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

THE AMERICAN MILLITARY IS ONE. YOU HAVE ARMY,NAVY,AIRFORCE, MARINES AND COAST GUARD.

YOU ARE ONE. YOU ARE FLESH,SOUL AND SPIRIT.

GOD IS ONE.

:H:

XianeX · Jul 23, 2003

@miggidy i meant genesis is the afterward the sumerian is by far MUCH older

XianeX · Jul 24, 2003

HERESY said:

THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS *ONE*. YOU HAVE AN EXECUTIVE,JUDICAL AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

THE AMERICAN MILLITARY IS ONE. YOU HAVE ARMY,NAVY,AIRFORCE, MARINES AND COAST GUARD.

YOU ARE ONE. YOU ARE FLESH,SOUL AND SPIRIT.

GOD IS ONE.

:H:

brilliant

miggidy · Jul 25, 2003

XianeX said:

Yeah, around 500 years or so.

miggidy · Jul 25, 2003

@Heresy,

Then why do Jesus and God have a father and son relationship?

HERESY · Jul 25, 2003

JESUS AND GOD DONT HAVE A FATHER AND SON RELATIONSHIP. YESHUA (OR WHATEVER SPELLING YOU WOULD LIKE TO USE) AND YHWH (OR WHATEVER SPELLING YOU WOULD LIKE TO USE) HAVE A FATHER SON RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE OF THE *NATURE* THEY POSSESS AND YESHUA STEPPING *DOWN* AND BECOMING THE SERVENT.

miggidy · Jul 25, 2003

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Also have you heard of the code hidden in the Old Testament?
Take then names of certain characters of the O.T. and put their meanings together and it reads that God will send his son to die for our sins....

EDJ · Jul 25, 2003

XIANEX,
FIFTY FIRST OF ALL, THE HOLY (gHOST)SPIRIT IS NOT A PERSON BUT A FORCE, SO TO SPEAK TO IT IS NOT ACCURATE OR WISE.

XCONDLY,
LET'S gO OVER WHAT YOU STRESSED.

YOU STRESSED, "if god is One and needs nothing to validate his existance why would he need the help of jesus and the holy ghost when he can speak all things into existance"

(gOD) DON'T NEED SHIT BUT THAT'S HOW HE CHOSE TO MAKE THE WORLD. HE CREATED JESUS FIRST AND HE HELPED HIM MAKE EVERYTHANg ELSE. IF YOU QUESTION HIS WAYS THEN TAKE IT UP WITH CUZZ.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "take note that the genesis creation myth is YOUNGER than where it borrowed from which is the sumerian and babylonian creation myth where there was more than one deity responsible for creating the world."

HOW DO YOU FIgURE THAT IT BORROWED IT FROM N-E-WHERE? THE KNOWLEDgE THE BIBLE HAS WAS MOUTH TO MOUTH BEFORE IT WAS WRITTEN. IN THAT TIME SOMEBODY COULD OF SPUN THE STORY ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE WORLD FROM WHAT THEY HEARD.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I'm trying to remember if it was marduk or enliki (something like that) that created the world in a story almost Identical to that of genesis."

LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY WROTE DOWN WHAT THEY HEARD AND PUT A SIN TO IT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I would adjure you to study those creation myths in contrast to the bible in time context and in historical contexts. you may (indeed) find the bible lacking because of the facts those stories hold."

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. AND IN COMPARISON, THE OTHA STORIES FALTER IN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION, FACTS, AMONg OTHA THANgS.

HERESY,
YOU STRESSED, "JESUS WAS NEVER "CREATED". "

HOW YOU FIgURE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "HIS "FLESH" WAS CREATED BUT HE EXISTED BEFORE EVERYTHING ELSE."

YES, EVERYTHANg ELSE CREATED.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHEN THE GREEK AND LATIN SCRIPTURES (AND OLD TESTAMENT) TALK ABOUT FIRSTBORN, CREATE OR MAKE DIFFERENT MEANINGS ARE RENDERED. "

IS THAT SO? I'M INTERESTED IN THE gREEK RENDERINgS, BUT YOU CAN TRASH THE LATIN CAUSE I'M NOT INTERESTED IN A LAgUAgE THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN IN.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "FOR EXAMPLE "FIRSTBORN" CAN MEAN FIRST BORN IN A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. IT CAN ALSO MEAN A "POSITION" OR "TITLE". THE WORD PROTOTOKOS IS THE PROPER WORD."

IS IT?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "HERES AN OLD TESTAMENT EXAMPLE.

Gen 48:14 LISTS EPHRAIM AS THE YOUNGER OF TWO BROTHERS AND CALLS MANASSEH THE FIRST BORN.

COMPARE THAT TO EPHRIAM BEING CALLED THE FIRSTBORN IN Jeremiah 31:9.

THE FIRST EXAMPLE IS ONE OF CHRONOLOGY.
THE SECOND IS ONE OF RANK OR IMPORTANCE.

IF JESUS WAS INDEED THE "FIRSTBORN" AND "CREATED" (AS YOU HAVE SAID) THE WORD PROTOKTISTOS WOULD HAVE BEEN USED. WELL....IT ISNT."

BUT IN JEREMIAH 31:9 IT WASN'T MANASSEH SPEAKIN'. IT WAS (gOD) AND HE CALLED EPHRAIM "MY FIRSTBORN" AS TO BE THE FIRST AT SOMETHIN'. SO YEAH THE WORDS ARE USED DIFFERENTLY. AND THE WORD PROTOKITOS AIN'T USED WHERE AND IN WHAT INSTANCE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "1.JESUS WAS *NEVER* "CREATED".Phil. 2:7-8"
THAT TEXT DON'T PROVE YOUR CLAIMS. READ COL. 1:15

THEN YOU STRESSED, "3.IF JESUS HAS A STARTING POINT HE IS A LIAR FOR CALLING HIMSELF THE "ALPHA OMEGA" AND "THE BEGINING AND THE END"
TEXT PLEASE. DID JESUS ACTUALLY CALLED HIMSELF THAT AND gAVE HIMSELF THE REVERENCE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "4.JOHN 1:1-14 STATES THAT IN THE *BEGINING* WAS THE WORD AND THAT THE WORD WAS *WITH* GOD AND THAT THE WORD *WAS* GOD. VERSE 14 STATES THAT THE WORD BECAME FLESH."

YOU MUST'VE gOT THAT FROM THE KINg JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE CAUSE THEY MADE THAT TEXT TO FIT THEIR BELIEFS. THE WAY IT'S RENDERED, YEAH IT WOULD MAKE IT BELIEVABLE TO BELIEVE IN A TRINITY BUT IF YOU RESEARCH, YOU WOULD FIND THAT IT READ THAT "THE WORD WAS A gOD" INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU STRESSED.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "5.JESUS NEVER *BECAME* GOD. HE IS GOD."
HE NEVA BECAME OR WAS EVA.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "6.COL 1:16"
WHAT I READ WAS THIS, "BECAUSE BY MEANS OF HIM ALL OTHA THANgS WAS CREATED IN THE HEAVENS AND UPON THE EARTH, THE THANgS VISIBLE AND THE THANgS INVISIBLE, NO MATTER WHETHER THEY IS THRONES OR LORDSHIPS OR gOVERNMENTS OR AUTHORITIES. ALL OTHER THANgS HAVE BEEN CREATED THROUgH HIM AND FOR HIM"
SO WHAT I READ IS THAT JESUS MADE EVERYTHANg ELSE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "8.WHEN JESUS AID "THE FATHER IS GREATER" IS NOT IMPLYING GREATNESS AS IN BETTER OR MORE POWERFUL."

WHY NOT? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS SAYIN'.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "9.IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT JESUS IS A "CREATED" BEING YOU HAVE TO USE THE GREEK,LATIN OR HEBREW WORDS. WELL...WHEN YOU TRY TO USE THOSE WORDS TO MAKE IT FIT IT WONT."

I UNDA-STAND USIN' HEBREW AND gREEK, BUT FUK LATIN'. REgARDLESS, IN WHAT TEXT AND WORDS ARE YOU REFERRIN' TO?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "10.IF JESUS WAS CREATED WHEN WAS HE CREATED AND BY WHOM? "
HE WAS CREATED BY HIS FATHER YHWH BEFORE N-ETHANg ELSE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "WAS HE CREATED WHEN HE WAS BORN?"

AS A HUMAN, NO. HE EXISTED IN HEAVEN WITH YHWH.

THEN YOU STRESSED, ". IF HE WAS CREATED BEFORE THE WORLD THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ALL THINGS WERE NOT CREATED BY HIM AND THROUGH HIM. IT WOULD ALSO MAKE HIM THE BIGGEST LIAR MANKIND HAS EVER SEEN."

HOW IS THAT SO? HE HELPED CREATE THE WORLD. THRU HIM THE WORLD WAS CREATED.

HERESY · Jul 25, 2003

IM TIRED OF REPEATING MYSELF TO YOU OVER AND OVER EDJ

I THINK YOU SHOULD READ MY RESPONSES AND INFO POSTED.

FOR EXAMPLE "FIRSTBORN" CAN MEAN FIRST BORN IN A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. IT CAN ALSO MEAN A "POSITION" OR "TITLE". THE WORD PROTOTOKOS IS THE PROPER WORD.

IF JESUS WAS INDEED THE "FIRSTBORN" AND "CREATED" (AS YOU HAVE SAID) THE WORD PROTOKTISTOS WOULD HAVE BEEN USED. WELL....IT ISNT.

I DONT SEE WHY YOU WOULD ASK "HOW YOU FIGURE" WHEN I JUST EXPLAINED WHY. HERES AN EXAMPLE:

HERESY IS COOL.

DOES THAT MEAN HERESY IS COLD AND SHIVERING? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY DOESNT WANT SOMETHING ("IM COOL ON THE WEED")? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY IS WEARING SHADES AND LEANING TO THE LEFT IN A LEXUS?

ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE NOW?

SO STOP READING ENGLISH RENDERINGS OF THE BIBLE AND LEARN GREEK AND HEBREW (AND ARAMAIC).

I DONT KNOW IF YOU'RE BEING DUMB, SARCASTIC OR CONFRONTATIONAL. YOU LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF.

THE WORD FOR "FIRSTBORN" (MEANING CREATED) IS ***NOT*** USED WHEN APPLIED TO JESUS. I DONT KNOW WHY YOU WOULD ASK THAT WHEN I JUST TOLD YOU (IN THE OTHER POST).

KEEP THINKING THAT.

THE "FIRST-BORN" IN COL 1:15 DOES NOT USE PROTOKTISTOS SO YOU'RE WRONG.

AFTER THIS POST I NO LONGER WISH TO DISCUSS ANYTHING OF THIS NATURE WITH YOU. DONT EVEN REPLY MAN. WHAT YOU SEEK MAY BE FOUND IN REV 1:8 AND REV 22:13.

OK LETS CHANGE IT TO YOUR VERSION. IT STILL DOESNT DENY THE DIETY OF YESHUA. BTW YOU DONT KNOW *WHAT* IM READING.

YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE GREEK RENDERING THAT STATES JESUS WAS CREATED. END OF DISCUSSION.

ONCE AGAIN:

HERESY IS COOL.

DOES THAT MEAN HERESY IS COLD AND SHIVERING? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY DOESNT WANT SOMETHING ("IM COOL ON THE WEED")? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY IS WEARING SHADES AND LEANING TO THE LEFT IN A LEXUS?STUDY THE WORD GREATER IN GREEK AND HEBREW.

I ALREADY EXPLAINED.

NO HEBREW,GREEK,LATIN OR ARAMAIC VERSIONS WILL SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. YOU DONT HAVE ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS "JESUS WAS MADE BY YHWH". WHEN "CREATED", "BEGOTTEN" AND "FIRSTBORN" ARE USED FOR JESUS IT **DOESNT** MEAN THAT HE WAS CREATED , BEGOTTEN OR BORN. THOSE ARE ***TITLES*** AND ***DESCRIPTIONS***. PLEASE PICK UP A LEXICON (THEY ARE CHEAP) OR FIND AN ONLINE LEXICON. AFTER THAT STUDY. IF YOU DONT WANT A KJV VERSION OF THE BIBLE FIND A TEXTUS RECEPTUS OR SEPTUIGANT (CHECK SPELLING).

:SHAKING HIS HEAD:. MAN YOU DONT GET IT THATS WHY IM NOT GONNA DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU ANYMORE.

HOW CAN HE CREATE "ALL THINGS" IF HE IS CREATED? IF HE WAS CREATED ITS **IMPOSSIBLE** TO CREATE ALL. IF YOU CANT COMPREHEND THAT I DONT KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU.

ANYWAY I DONT FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING THIS ANY MORE. MUCH OF THIS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU IN *PAST* THREADS. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO ARGUE AND DEBATE WITH YOUR J.W DOCTRINE/DOGMA (WHICH IS VERY FLAWED). I DUST MY FEET THIS CONVO IS OVER.

:h:

PS EDJ I BET YOUR USING THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (A VERY FLAWED BOOK)

n9newunsixx5150 · Jul 26, 2003

@Xianex

Quote:
“first if krsna is purely spiritual then he is limited in that he is not constuent to the material world.”

Yeah, I guess that would mean that He is limited from being contaminated by material lust and He is not susceptible to disease, old age and death. You got me there. You basically just said that Krsna is limited from being limited. Therefore He is unlimited.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“and do you mean spiritual by the western interpretation or "prana"-ic spiritual?”

When I say that Krsna is purely spiritual I mean that He does not have a material body. The material body is prone to disease, old age and death. Krsna, being purely spiritual, is free from these things. Fuck an interpretation. This is what it means to be purely spiritual.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“also how can he be purely spiritual and be born into the material world.”

Obviously, if He is purely spiritual He was not born materially. It may have appeared to be a material birth, but it was not. God, with His immense incalculable power, can very easily put Himself into the material world without being Himself material. C’mon man, you could have figured that out by yourself!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“also if he has a material birth where does he reside????”

He does not have a material birth. He resides everywhere.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“or has he return to the spirit.”

He never left!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“if so how did he shed his material existance????”

Krsna does not have a material existence. Nothing to be shed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“lol you still didn't answer my question WOW!!!”

On the contrary, I answered your question twice in two different ways. Knock on wood! The answer is “SUBORDINATE”. I already explained the philosophy behind this at least twice before. It had something to do with quality versus quantity. Its like I keep throwing a ball at your head and telling you to duck, but yet you continuously let the ball hit you in the face while you keep asking me, “what should I do?” Fuckin’ duck!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“by material birth krsna is subordinate by your own words in that he is limited.”

Only by your own words was Krsna birthed materially.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“he is subordinate in his material form meaning in that form he is not transcendental”

Krsna does not have a material form. How can He have a material form if He is purely spiritual? It is quite appropriate and especially crucial that you learn to discern between matter and spirit if you are to actually converse about such topics. If Krsna is purely spiritual then there is no question of a material body.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“even further than that where in the cantos did it say that vasudeva is other than transcendental in form. it is not mentioned anywhere that vasudeva is material. hmmmm in that case krsna was born sbordinate in transcendental form to vasudeva. once again krsna is limited.”

Krsna is known by many different names by things He has done and things attributed to Him. One of the names He is known by is Vasudeva. The man who played Krsna’s father on earth was a man. Krsna’s earth father is eternally subordinate to Krsna. Now apply this to what you wrote above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“where did krsna exist before his conception through vasudeva???”

He exists within each living entity and He eternally resides in His spiritual abode, Goloka Vrndavana. Even while Krsna appeared on this earth did He reside in these places. And he resides in them now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“if you cant answer this you saying that he existed as a spirit/soul previous is with validation.”

Ok. He exists eternally in His eternal form. It is not a matter of Him previously existing as spirit-soul and then appropriating some material body. Given that His body is spiritual, meaning that it is eternal, He exists before and after His appearance on this earth in the same transcendental form.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“also if he existed before vasudeva he'd be vasudeva and devaki as all pervading.”

He lives within these two living entities as paramatma (supersoul), as He does in all living entities. But, Vasudeva and Devaki are still individuals subordinate to Krsna. Krsna has two types of expansions: His personal expansions, or God incarnations, (i.e.: Buddha is considered an incarnation of God), and He also has His separated expansions. We are His separated expansions. We are eternally subordinate to Krsna. Once again, I have already explained the philosophy of being subordinate on a quantitative level.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
“i do not accept krsna as the absolute. i can accept the concept of krsna as a manifestation of or in the absolute obviously”

And this is precisely why you have trouble understanding the philosophy of Krsna. This is why you seem to ask the same questions, merely in new ways, despite that the first time they were answered your whole speculative philosophy and logic was immediately condemned. How many more times can I get a clean face shot with this ball I keep throwing at you?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KRSNA - as Vasudeva. to Vyasudeva

Anti-feminist

Anti-feminist

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Anti-feminist