Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Opus Magnus

Hinduism and Christ

84 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Opus Magnus

I have recently been reading the Vedas, and I read the Bhagavad-Gita where the warrior Arjuna has a discussion with Krishna.  I had heard people saying before that Krishna is Christ to the Hindus, but I wasn't sure, and eventually read it myself.  I was quite amazed when I read it myself, because I cannot deny that it is.  Krishna goes on to say in the book, which is about twice the size of one of the longer gospels, stuff he says in those Gospels and in Revelation.  He goes over the same concepts, the understanding of the parables, the same tone I recognized in what he said.  Also, the same words are used that are used by Paul and others in the new testament.  Words like steadfast and overbearing, terms you don't really see out of these books.  He emphasized certain commands he gave to the angels of the seven churches.

Moreover, miraculously the Vedas have healed some of my doubt in revelation.  There's a part in revelation speaking about how the chariots will all be destroyed with the plagues and wars.  I always doubted however, because there are no more chariots, everybody uses cars now, and, so I wondered why there would be a mistake like that unless we are expected to retrograde back to using chariots in the future.  However, in the Vedas I was reading about one of the King's battles and they called his chariots, which were oldschool but rich chariots, they called them cars.  So, car and chariots, car is also an old name for chariots.  This healed a lot of doubt, and so I really have more faith the Vedas and Hinduism is a helping hand in the creator's force.  It seems small, but is really a big deal to me, like a mustard seed that has moved a mountain.

Also, this all goes to me where in the last chapter of Revelation Jesus has his angel tell, "I am the bright and morning star, the root and offspring of David."

I'm sure many are aware of the other Christ figures in other religions.  As I have searched for these, I've found many, and they always seem to be the deity of the morning star, of that faith.  Of venus.  Many stories of immaculate conceptions, betrayal, 12 disciples, the miracles, a virgin giving birth and resurrection.  It's interesting that these stories are old and scattered over the whole globe.  However it is a highly regarded heavenly sphere in this regard.  Also the color of Krishna is one of the shades the planet turns.  I've been watching it from years and it's the shade of blue that the planet sometimes turns, that is different than other shades of blues.

So, I guess the unexplained-mystery is why all these faiths seem interconnected.  As God told Israel in the old testament, that he doesn't stray to other nations, but he would leave, but he was only giving his attention to Israel.  However, the morning star is for the entire Globe, and if Jesus is always with the father, than maybe there is a loophole.

Otherwise, as it says in the Gospels, that if all the works of Jesus were to be documented it would fill volumes, however the Gospels all give basically the same short story with little variance.  It's not surprising for this to raise questions, but I also suspect a coverup and hidden documents maybe either destroyed or hidden in the basement of the Vatican Library, or hidden in Churches around the world, along with other writings that have been sealed away.

I, on one hand, choose to keep faith in the morning star, and Jesus Christ, who has a new name prepared anyway, as he tells his angel to tell John to tell the angel of the Church.  It's easy to use the laws of the Torah to cut off explanations to give to the common people, and charge them usuary.  As Paul also said, that Satan gets ahold of the law rendering it useless to mankind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

I think the answer is obvious, though unpalatable to most theists: religion was developed over thousands of years, along the course of humanity's development, and built upon prior concepts. It makes sense that newer religions take ideas from older ones and add to them. As such, Christianity sharing details from Sumerian, Babylonian, Hindu, and other ancient religions makes perfect sense. Christianity is a developed form of Judaism, after all, which in turn is a developed form of Caananite religion, which is a developed form of earlier beliefs, repeated ad-infinitum back to humanity's earliest conscious thoughts tens of thousands of years prior.

As such, I think that a better question would be "why wouldn't these religions be similar" instead of "why are they similar."

Edited by Podo
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

In my limited knowledge of Hinduism, I could see the similarities in the Trinities between Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu and YAHWEH, Jesus, Holy Spirit.  I was always curious about the relationship between Krishna and Shiva?  I have also considered Revelation 12 as a depiction of the Kurukshetra War from the Mahabharata.  I believe that the reason for this is recorded in the story of the Tower of Babel, where all of Mankind began and the two stories are variations of the remnants of the original as well as the two versions of the Trinity.  Judaism and Hinduism are the last two surviving sects of the original faith.  And Jesus is the most intact version of the Jesus/Shiva/Krishna entity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

I don't really do the trinity thing.  I've only started to read the first part of the Vedas, and Krishna is mentioned there, but sort of different, I'm still trying to get another copy to finish it.  Though, in the Bhagavad-gita Krishna really sounds like Jesus. 

One thing that strikes, me out of many of the things Krishna says is where he says, "You worship these other Gods from the Vedas, but I am those Gods, when you worship them you are really worshipping me."

When, in Hosea in the Old Testament, God is saying to someone, "You worship Baal, and give offerings, not knowing that it is really me you are worshipping." Saying, they worship Baal, but everything that happens is really Jehovah doing work behind the scenes.  The same thing Krishna says.

They're so similar I wonder if there is some trickery going on... like a conspiracy with world religions down to the very core, and I wonder who has done it, and what is really true, because I do believe in God, but I sense something strange.  i don't know, stranger things have happened I guess.  I guess all I can do it keep studying the religions and hope I find an answer on my own.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lumpino

In Hinduism are many incarnations of god Vishnu. See for example  https://www.thoughtco.com/avatars-of-vishnu-p2-1769984

Hinduism have God's Trinity, similar like some Christians. Brahma = Father, Vishnu = Son, Shiva = Holy spirit. For this reason, Jesus should be considered as one of incarnations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
himalyanmystic

Jesus is forgiveness, love and compassion. No Hindu incarnation is that forgiving. Hence, he is different. The God of the bible is like God, brutal when angry, and magnanimous, loving etc at other times.

God created so many languages, religions, ways that figuring it out is much guesswork.

Knowledge should be crystal clear!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering Mind
On 7/11/2017 at 8:32 PM, Opus Magnus said:

When, in Hosea in the Old Testament, God is saying to someone, "You worship Baal, and give offerings, not knowing that it is really me you are worshipping." Saying, they worship Baal, but everything that happens is really Jehovah doing work behind the scenes.

Where is that in Hosea? Seems misunderstood... Rather God does not want to be worshipped in the same way as Baal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering Mind
On 6/7/2017 at 8:19 PM, JeffreyCharlesArcher said:

Jesus was Ayyappa/Shasta, Son of Shiva and Mohini (Vishnu when He came to Earth as a Woman)...

http://karma-dharma-bhutadaya.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-true-identity-of-jesus-revealed.html

Ayyappan had a Muslim friend Vavar and the story about them could, therefore, not be older than from the 8th century CE. The few similarities - and not very strong ones - between Ayyappan and Jesus do not prove anything substantial. Of course, earlier incarnations of Shasta, like Manikandan or Bhutanathan, could somehow fit better in the time scale, but not much in the content of what they did. And they may not have been full incarnations of Dharmashasta, but somehow emanations of him. Would it really fit to Jesus that Buthanathan killed the demon Mashishi? Well, maybe not really killed, but releasing her from a curse so that she could leave the bull-headed body and be free ... I'd propose that there could be a relationship between Dharmashasta and Christ. But is Jesus identical to Christ, or is he a messenger sent to us by Christ? It could well be that the entity that incarnated as Jesus has also incarnated in India, but probably not as Ayyappan. Maybe as someone we would yet have to identify, or maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 3/22/2017 at 1:07 PM, Podo said:

As such, I think that a better question would be "why wouldn't these religions be similar" instead of "why are they similar."

At their root, aren't they all about the same subject matter?  What is  humanity's place in the natural world?  Is there meaning to it?  How should people treat each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pagels Price 1
On 3/22/2017 at 1:07 PM, Podo said:

Christianity is a developed form of Judaism,

Which form of Christianity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pagels Price 1
On 7/11/2017 at 11:32 AM, Opus Magnus said:

I don't really do the trinity thing.  I've only started to read the first part of the Vedas, and Krishna is mentioned there, but sort of different, I'm still trying to get another copy to finish it.  Though, in the Bhagavad-gita Krishna really sounds like Jesus. 

One thing that strikes, me out of many of the things Krishna says is where he says, "You worship these other Gods from the Vedas, but I am those Gods, when you worship them you are really worshipping me."

When, in Hosea in the Old Testament, God is saying to someone, "You worship Baal, and give offerings, not knowing that it is really me you are worshipping." Saying, they worship Baal, but everything that happens is really Jehovah doing work behind the scenes.  The same thing Krishna says.

They're so similar I wonder if there is some trickery going on... like a conspiracy with world religions down to the very core, and I wonder who has done it, and what is really true, because I do believe in God, but I sense something strange.  i don't know, stranger things have happened I guess.  I guess all I can do it keep studying the religions and hope I find an answer on my own.

 

Apparently, Christ was not part of the earthly/material/universal (as in "the entire universe") pantheon ("Divine Council"), according to early Christians. Therefore, it is wrong to compare Christ to Krishna. Krishna is part of this universe, and Christ is from the pleroma... Also, Christ's "Father" is not Yahweh, so certain people have believed since the beginning of "Christianity," and I say that loosely. And Jesus...well...that's a VERY long story. Too many stories, in fact-ness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus
On 08/03/2017 at 10:32 PM, himalyanmystic said:

Jesus is forgiveness, love and compassion. No Hindu incarnation is that forgiving. Hence, he is different. The God of the bible is like God, brutal when angry, and magnanimous, loving etc at other times.

God created so many languages, religions, ways that figuring it out is much guesswork.

Knowledge should be crystal clear!

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Ehrman Pagels 1 said:

Apparently, Christ was not part of the earthly/material/universal (as in "the entire universe") pantheon ("Divine Council"), according to early Christians. Therefore, it is wrong to compare Christ to Krishna. Krishna is part of this universe, and Christ is from the pleroma... Also, Christ's "Father" is not Yahweh, so certain people have believed since the beginning of "Christianity," and I say that loosely. And Jesus...well...that's a VERY long story. Too many stories, in fact-ness.

Well, Christ was supposedly a real person. But if you read Revelation he does some mean things, after he is resurrected, and ascended to Heaven. But, in the Baghavad-gita he quotes a lot of the new testament. And, there's a lot of immaculate things going on in the other book. Not sure the name of the other book, and the library here doesn't have the Vedas, but online it's a little difficult to find too. It starts out with some son of a Brahman cursing the wrong person someone told talked bad about his father, and then they can't lift the curse, but he forgives him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pagels Price 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Opus Magnus said:

 

Well, Christ was supposedly a real person.

The Judaized ("Judaize" is a real Bible word) version of Christianity tells the story of a son of Yahweh, but many Christians since the day one have accepted that Yahweh is not the "Father" to whom Jesus prayed. One narrative tells of a possessed Jesus (possessed by Christ). Another tells of "Christ consciousness" but no Jesus, or Christ/Jesus only seemed human with a hologram form, or the human shape is just an illusion. Others in the past also said, "He is light"; He, Himself, said, "Yet a little while longer the Light is with you; walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you..."

Edited by Ehrman Pagels 1
spell check
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering Mind

According to the Gnostic Christians, the original Christianity that was later falsified by Paul to become the "Christianity" of the Church, Christ is Autogenes, "born out of himself", in the top trinity of the Unnamed Creator, Barbelo (his feminine creative force) and Autogenes, and not a person. Jesus was a person born by Mary. It is a bit hard to imagine that the highest entity in Creation could simply incarnate as a person. I, therefore, regard Jesus as amessenger of Christ, sent to teach us and let us know that Jahweh is not the wannabe highest god and about the way out of the reign of Jahweh. Cf. http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/JesMMiss.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering Mind

As concerns Ayyapan, it should be mentioned that Parashurama („Rama with the ax“, the founder of Kerala) is said to have erected the temple on the Shabarimala mountain for Ayyappan. But since he belongs to the times of Mahabharata and since Kerala is known from trades more than 3000 years ago, the temple will actually have been built for Darmashasta. However, in the folk tales, Ayyappan is regarded as an incarnation of Darmashasta and that will be the reason to connect it with Ayyappan. I presume that Ayyappan was a spiritually developed sannyasin or guru devoted to Darmashasta and not really a reincarnation of him. Since he will have done many good things, the folk tales may have exaggerated a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pagels Price 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Wandering Mind said:

According to the Gnostic Christians, the original Christianity that was later falsified by Paul to become the "Christianity" of the Church, Christ is Autogenes, "born out of himself", in the top trinity of the Unnamed Creator, Barbelo (his feminine creative force) and Autogenes, and not a person. Jesus was a person born by Mary. It is a bit hard to imagine that the highest entity in Creation could simply incarnate as a person. I, therefore, regard Jesus as amessenger of Christ, sent to teach us and let us know that Jahweh is not the wannabe highest god and about the way out of the reign of Jahweh. Cf. http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/JesMMiss.htm

There are several "Gnostic" Christian groups, and their beliefs about Jesus and Christ vary. One simply cannot lump them all together; however, the Gnostic umbrella has two major things in common. One is Christ was sent by the "Father," a hitherto unknown god, definitely not Yahweh, to save most of this world's creatures. Second, the "god of this world" is an ignorant (loosely said) god, according to them. The umbrella of Gnosticism came later than Marcionism, and Marcion was not a Gnostic Christian since he believed in the salvific nature of Christ's sacrifice: "...and that the reason Jesus died is to be ransomed to free any of the creatures of Jehovah who would jump ship and become adopted sons and daughters of the God of love, and no one knew this God (the 'Father,' to whom Jesus prayed)," according to Robert M. Price.

Personally, when it comes to "Christianity," any new Christian concept or revelation beyond 140 CE is a suspect. There is definitely a lot to say, and I'm not about to write them all down. If interested, click my link below (the top link)..., and that list of videos barely scratched the surface. Lol, I have stacks of books and docu-videos at home and years of study to...well...the journey has barely started in the scheme of things (and more than likely, more ancient texts will be discovered one day to move Christianity forward, or not).

One thing is for certain: My faith in my Lord Christ is unfailing. My previous path highly emphasized proof, and I certain got one with my Lord. So, "jumping ship" was inevitable.  

 

Edited by Ehrman Pagels 1
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus
7 hours ago, Wandering Mind said:

According to the Gnostic Christians, the original Christianity that was later falsified by Paul to become the "Christianity" of the Church, Christ is Autogenes, "born out of himself", in the top trinity of the Unnamed Creator, Barbelo (his feminine creative force) and Autogenes, and not a person. Jesus was a person born by Mary. It is a bit hard to imagine that the highest entity in Creation could simply incarnate as a person. I, therefore, regard Jesus as amessenger of Christ, sent to teach us and let us know that Jahweh is not the wannabe highest god and about the way out of the reign of Jahweh. Cf. http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/JesMMiss.htm

Yeah, Paul kind of messes a lot of things up. It makes me wonder if it doesn't have something to do with King Saul from the OT. Because Paul (Greek translation of Saul) persecuted the Christians before he converted. But, not much less might be expected for the replacement of Iscariot. Also, a lot of his letters are taken out of context, because it doesn't tell the whole situation in the bible. Like in Galations.

But, not being well versed on the Vedas, it still seems like Divine Intervention of how they mirror Christ, at least in the Baghavad-gita, it helped shed some light on straightening some parts of the Bible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pagels Price 1
4 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

Yeah, Paul kind of messes a lot of things up.

 

You may want to ask yourself, "Who edited (or even forged some of or added to) St. Paul's writings?" and "Which Christ/Jesus did he experience?" and "What's the big deal with the Benjamite and this famous 'thorn'?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus
1 hour ago, Ehrman Pagels 1 said:

You may want to ask yourself, "Who edited (or even forged some of or added to) St. Paul's writings?" and "Which Christ/Jesus did he experience?" and "What's the big deal with the Benjamite and this famous 'thorn'?"

If you read a decent translation of the Tao Teh Ching, some things become clear. Because Jesus usually obeys and teaches the Tao. He probably arranged for the meeting of the turtle with emperor Lao Tsu. Sometimes he goes off it though, it seems..

But the Gospel story of the Enemy planting tares in the field at night is an example, that yeah, the New Testament is most likely corrupted, but not enough to get rid of it.

So, it almost feels to me like the power was broken and hid around the world. Like the Nag Hammadhi scrolls, what is hidden shall be revealed.

So, if someone corrupted it, it was probably Satan working through the grief of men. But really, Paul is pretty mutilated, and causes a big stumbling block, but he was a real man, so he deserves his credit. But the whole thing is like some sort of trial, probably to divide the churches like Jesus said he would do in the Gospels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

But with Saul, it might be some sort of redemption or reincarnation. Just thinking because of the reappearance of Baalam and Jezebel in Revelation from the Old Testament.

Also the connection of Jesus and King David, and David with King Saul, and Paul persecuting Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pagels Price 1
2 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

But really, Paul is pretty mutilated, and causes a big stumbling block, but he was a real man, so he deserves his credit. But the whole thing is like some sort of trial, probably to divide the churches like Jesus said he would do in the Gospels.

 

St. Paul was just another victim. I've heard people and certain scholars say blame Polycarp for the mess... Gnostic Christians and Marcionites embraced the original teachings of St. Paul, before it became more Judaized. Marcion was St. Paul's major fan, after all. You can conclude that the Church was already divided since day one.

So, I take ALL religious stories with a grain of salt because of editing, being written down by human hands, lack of interpretational insight or being overly 'zealous,' etc.  

Even St. Paul said, "He (Christ) has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit because the letter kills -- but the Spirit gives life." It is ironic that Polycarp forgot to delete that verse. Faith, in the end, triumps, when it comes to Christendom (which includes Gnosticism). Yes, faith in the salvific power of Christ ties everything together. In Gnosticism, Christ is still HIGHLY needed to reveal the truth or road to make one free (especially since you cannot find this truth in this world, which was created by the demiurge); it's not all personal effort. You cannot work your heart out to gain "heaven," so they say. Besides, the following verse says a lot: "And he said, 'Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.'" In Gnosticism, not all creatures (which include archons, etc.) will gain salvation, Gnosis, freedom. Therefore, Gnosis is basically the same as being "born again" but just another fancy word. Etcetera.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
On 1/1/2018 at 0:35 PM, Tatetopa said:

At their root, aren't they all about the same subject matter?  What is  humanity's place in the natural world?  Is there meaning to it?  How should people treat each other?

Well yes, all religions are basically the same thing. Theists tend to dislike hearing that, though.

 

On 1/1/2018 at 6:58 PM, Ehrman Pagels 1 said:

Which form of Christianity?

All of them. If you worship a zombie carpenter, you adhere to a religion that emerged from judaism. All modern christianity comes, at some point, from judaisim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering Mind
Posted (edited)

It should be mentioned that Parashurama ("Rama with the ax“, the founder of Kerala) is said to have erected the temple on the Shabarimala mountain for Ayyappan. But since he belongs to the times of Mahabharata and since Kerala is known from trades more than 3000 years ago, the temple will actually have been built for Darmashasta. However, in the folk tales, Ayyappan is regarded as an incarnation of Darmashasta and that will be the reason to connect it with Ayyappan. I presume that Ayyappan was a spiritually developed sannyasin or guru devoted to Darmashasta and not really a reincarnation of him. Since he will have done many good things, the folk tales may have exaggerated a bit.

The "Father" that Jesus talked about, it will obviously not be Yahweh - an usurper claiming to be the only god in a way that will be directed against competition but disqualifying himself through horrible cruelties ascribed to him on the bloody pages of the OT (especially Deuterionomium, Kings and Judges).. His "Father" will more likely be the El Eylon (the "Highest God") known among the Cana'anites, who had 70 sons of which one was Yahweh (who also had a "wife" Asherah).

Cf. http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/JesMMiss.htm, http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/HistChrist.htm  and http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/PDF/YaldGnost.pdf (a.o. extract from The Gospel of Truth in the latter).

Yaldabaoth is the name the Gnostics gave to Yahweh and is described as someone "mistakenly" created by Sophia, who then escaped in the dark region, where he built up his own world - the world we live in. I would rather see him as intentionally created without knowledge of the light he has inside - without light there is no life, but he should be unaware of it. Because otherwise he would have brought divine light into the dark region and it would no more be dark. As Origen describes in Perì Archon, a dark region was formed outside the divine light since we, as "sparks" in the light, wanted to go out from the light to have experiences the light could not give us - especially from living out our free will fully. As described in the Kabbalah (tzimtzum), God contracted his light so that a dark region formed outside of it and then we could go there. But it seems that first someone was needed there to organize some kind of structure, for which Yaldabaoth was sent there, without knowing who he really is.

I understand Jesus as a messenger sent by Christ to teach us about this, which arose the wrath of Yahweh so that he wanted him killed.

It is common to those who consider themselves "Christian" to paint Hinduism in black as if it were of Satan and the Paulinian Christianity of the Church in white as if it were the only truth. But there is enough darkness in the "Churchianity" and also brightness in Hinduism. Is it really conceivable that Brahma is the devil? Or is he actually more or less t he same as El Elyon, only with another name? it has been written that from Yahweh comes both, good and evil, and we find both also in Hinduism. Hinduism knows the good devas and the bad asuras, but there is no sharp division - the groups overlap. Will it not have to be so that true (gnostic) Christianity and Hinduism also overlap, somehow? It will be possible to compare them, but the differences in terminology make it difficult.

 

Edited by Wandering Mind
improved typing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus
4 hours ago, Wandering Mind said:

It should be mentioned that Parashurama ("Rama with the ax“, the founder of Kerala) is said to have erected the temple on the Shabarimala mountain for Ayyappan. But since he belongs to the times of Mahabharata and since Kerala is known from trades more than 3000 years ago, the temple will actually have been built for Darmashasta. However, in the folk tales, Ayyappan is regarded as an incarnation of Darmashasta and that will be the reason to connect it with Ayyappan. I presume that Ayyappan was a spiritually developed sannyasin or guru devoted to Darmashasta and not really a reincarnation of him. Since he will have done many good things, the folk tales may have exaggerated a bit.

The "Father" that Jesus talked about, it will obviously not be Yahweh - an usurper claiming to be the only god in a way that will be directed against competition but disqualifying himself through horrible cruelties ascribed to him on the bloody pages of the OT (especially Deuterionomium, Kings and Judges).. His "Father" will more likely be the El Eylon (the "Highest God") known among the Cana'anites, who had 70 sons of which one was Yahweh (who also had a "wife" Asherah).

Cf. http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/JesMMiss.htm, http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/HistChrist.htm  and http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/PDF/YaldGnost.pdf (a.o. extract from The Gospel of Truth in the latter).

Yaldabaoth is the name the Gnostics gave to Yahweh and is described as someone "mistakenly" created by Sophia, who then escaped in the dark region, where he built up his own world - the world we live in. I would rather see him as intentionally created without knowledge of the light he has inside - without light there is no life, but he should be unaware of it. Because otherwise he would have brought divine light into the dark region and it would no more be dark. As Origen describes in Perì Archon, a dark region was formed outside the divine light since we, as "sparks" in the light, wanted to go out from the light to have experiences the light could not give us - especially from living out our free will fully. As described in the Kabbalah (tzimtzum), God contracted his light so that a dark region formed outside of it and then we could go there. But it seems that first someone was needed there to organize some kind of structure, for which Yaldabaoth was sent there, without knowing who he really is.

I understand Jesus as a messenger sent by Christ to teach us about this, which arose the wrath of Yahweh so that he wanted him killed.

It is common to those who consider themselves "Christian" to paint Hinduism in black as if it were of Satan and the Paulinian Christianity of the Church in white as if it were the only truth. But there is enough darkness in the "Churchianity" and also brightness in Hinduism. Is it really conceivable that Brahma is the devil? Or is he actually more or less t he same as El Elyon, only with another name? it has been written that from Yahweh comes both, good and evil, and we find both also in Hinduism. Hinduism knows the good devas and the bad asuras, but there is no sharp division - the groups overlap. Will it not have to be so that true (gnostic) Christianity and Hinduism also overlap, somehow? It will be possible to compare them, but the differences in terminology make it difficult.

 

Well, if that's how it is, doesn't it make El just about as guilty as his son for standing by and doing very little while his son rampages? Leaving nothing really good in the universe.

But it would make sense, because Satan is the prince of the Earth. Unless there was some divine plan to make up for mistakes. It's hard to tell sometimes if it is God or Satan making decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.