Tattva-viveka
jesus and his resurrection
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 26, 2009 2:19 am
I thought this BBC documentary on Jesus, which is in 3 parts, is a pretty good one and it challenges the resurrection of jesus.
But I think Bhrigu, who is much more knowledgeable than me on this issue, said that all documents and books of Jesus going to the East are bogus.
I don't really know if it is so easy to dismiss these claims because any empirical evidence against resurrection will not be admitted that easily and it will not be given a fair chance to survive.
The belief in resurrection is the central theme in christianity and it has to be guarded well. It is as crucial as GV's belief in Sri Chaitanya as Radha and KRsna combined.
Rathi Krishna Dasa - March 26, 2009 3:31 am
I know some scholarly, young devotees (read: those who are not Prabhupada's immediate disciples, getting PhDs.) would hold annual summer retreats and present and discuss papers. I went a few summers ago to one of these weekend retreats, also present was Jayadvaita Swami and my Guru Maharaja. That same year was the first time they invited an "outsider," Francis Clooney. At one point, a devotee asked him what he thought about Jesus of Nazareth going to study in India. He very humbly said he didn't buy it and that there was no real evidence and it was mainly speculation.
I remember being really impressed with Clooney and his company was well appreciated. Jayadvaita Maharaja told me that he was "the real thing" and thought highly of him after meeting him. He was very humble. After an introduction that was pretty much a rundown of his CV, he just said, "Call me Frank."
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 26, 2009 3:31 pm
I know some scholarly, young devotees (read: those who are not Prabhupada's immediate disciples, getting PhDs.) would hold annual summer retreats and present and discuss papers. I went a few summers ago to one of these weekend retreats, also present was Jayadvaita Swami and my Guru Maharaja. That same year was the first time they invited an "outsider," Francis Clooney. At one point, a devotee asked him what he thought about Jesus of Nazareth going to study in India. He very humbly said he didn't buy it and that there was no real evidence and it was mainly speculation.
I remember being really impressed with Clooney and his company was well appreciated. Jayadvaita Maharaja told me that he was "the real thing" and thought highly of him after meeting him. He was very humble. After an introduction that was pretty much a rundown of his CV, he just said, "Call me Frank."
Here the bigger question was about resurrection, not on the point of Jesus going to the East. That is how the documentary was set up. Also in the documentary only his going to the East after crucification was discussed. There was no mention of him studying there before. And the people in the documentary too were scholars, maybe not as big as Clooney. Generally, through my experience of academia I can see that a bigger degree does not mean that somebody is correct. Only the public perception of a person with a bigger degree is better. IT has nothing to do with the Absolute Truth. But as you point out Clooney is a very humble person, so he must have made his judgment to the best of his ability. But I am open to all possibilities. I don't really know which one is true and it is not relevant directly to my spiritual life so it does not matter that much.
But anyway Christians can always say that Jesus was resurrected on a transcendental plane which is not accessible to faithless like me. It is similar to the argument that for most people Krsna was killed like an ordinary person, though according to transcendentalists he just appears to leave his body like that. So I am sensitive to this argument of the Christians.
Rathi Krishna Dasa - March 26, 2009 3:37 pm
I understand that resurrection is the bigger concept. Just my habit of adding trivial things to threads.
As you have already stated, resurrection is the crux of Christianity. I personally find it hard to accept Christianity without the resurrection of Christ. It literally takes the divinity out of it for me. Without that, Christianity just turns into any other path of life that can be pious and beneficial but not necessarily satisfying.
Prahlad Das - March 26, 2009 6:06 pm
There were many other miracles attributed to Jesus' activities. Remove the resurrection and you will, likely, have another Muhammad, another Islam. As they said in the movie, regardless of whether or not Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God, people still would see a miracle in "automatic resuscitation", as people do today. If a person displays all the symptoms of death, yet re-animates it is considered, by most, a miracle.
Jesus' proposed divinity is not necessarily dependent on his resurrection. It is dependent on the faith that others have in him. Faith is of many levels.
In contrast, would our faith in Krsna, (or Mahaprabhu, for that matter) be any more diminished if it were found that Their miracles were the product of an "overly-enthusiastic" biographer?
The six opulences are found in the Supreme, therefore if one does not posses these opulences can they still be Supreme?
Gaurasundara Das - March 27, 2009 1:12 am
I read this on a blog recently:
"Does anyone understand what God really is? He is infinite in his wonder. But this little corner of God's infinite wonders is what has been given to us by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The Christians understood a little bit when their God died on the cross and they insisted, against all the naysayers and philosophers, that it was indeed God, who had indeed become man, and had indeed experienced the cruelty of crucifixation. And though he rose from the dead, it was his dying that was the real miracle. This too is a glimpse of rasa. What Christians call mystery, and what we call achintya"
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 27, 2009 3:01 pm
I read this on a blog recently:"Does anyone understand what God really is? He is infinite in his wonder. But this little corner of God's infinite wonders is what has been given to us by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The Christians understood a little bit when their God died on the cross and they insisted, against all the naysayers and philosophers, that it was indeed God, who had indeed become man, and had indeed experienced the cruelty of crucifixation. And though he rose from the dead, it was his dying that was the real miracle. This too is a glimpse of rasa. What Christians call mystery, and what we call achintya"
I really could not understand this well.
Atmananda Dasa - March 28, 2009 3:53 am
I read this on a blog recently:"Does anyone understand what God really is? He is infinite in his wonder. But this little corner of God's infinite wonders is what has been given to us by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The Christians understood a little bit when their God died on the cross and they insisted, against all the naysayers and philosophers, that it was indeed God, who had indeed become man, and had indeed experienced the cruelty of crucifixation. And though he rose from the dead, it was his dying that was the real miracle. This too is a glimpse of rasa. What Christians call mystery, and what we call achintya"
I agree with Gaura Vijaya. Can't make heads or tails out of this. 
Bhrigu - March 28, 2009 8:25 am
I guess what the author is trying to say that for God, what difficulty is there in rising from the dead? What is really amazing is that God truly died!
Madhukari Dasi - April 2, 2009 8:14 pm
There were many other miracles attributed to Jesus' activities. Remove the resurrection and you will, likely, have another Muhammad, another Islam. As they said in the movie, regardless of whether or not Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God, people still would see a miracle in "automatic resuscitation", as people do today. If a person displays all the symptoms of death, yet re-animates it is considered, by most, a miracle.
Jesus' proposed divinity is not necessarily dependent on his resurrection. It is dependent on the faith that others have in him. Faith is of many levels.
In contrast, would our faith in Krsna, (or Mahaprabhu, for that matter) be any more diminished if it were found that Their miracles were the product of an "overly-enthusiastic" biographer?
The six opulences are found in the Supreme, therefore if one does not posses these opulences can they still be Supreme?
By 'divinity' do you mean god-like? And a subjective quality?
Prahlad Das - April 2, 2009 11:31 pm
By 'divinity' do you mean god-like? And a subjective quality?
Yes to both.
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 4, 2009 4:15 am
I thought this BBC documentary on Jesus, which is in 3 parts, is a pretty good one and it challenges the resurrection of jesus.
But I think Bhrigu, who is much more knowledgeable than me on this issue, said that all documents and books of Jesus going to the East are bogus.
I don't really know if it is so easy to dismiss these claims because any empirical evidence against resurrection will not be admitted that easily and it will not be given a fair chance to survive.
The belief in resurrection is the central theme in christianity and it has to be guarded well. It is as crucial as GV's belief in Sri Chaitanya as Radha and KRsna combined.
go to george kimball . com he has good information on topics like this
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 4, 2009 4:25 am
I guess what the author is trying to say that for God, what difficulty is there in rising from the dead? What is really amazing is that God truly died! :Just Kidding:
What is more amazing is that the 7th day Adventist think that Jesus will come form the sky and raise all from the dead and take them with him to the Father almighty in the sky but before this happens one person will walk the earth and do these and other types of miracles and he will be the anti christ. Direct quote from a deacon in their church serving in Lodi
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 4, 2009 4:30 am
Pralad you are right for the supreme will posses all opulences and that is how we are able to tell that they are the supreme. The gosvamis proved that Sri Chatanya was by showing proof from the shastra and the vedas show that Krsna is by shastra proof also.
Gauravani Dasa - May 10, 2009 4:08 pm
In an effort to understand and connect with Christians on common ground, I have come to the following conclusions:
Christ is an expression of God's love for humanity. As Christ, God "experienced" suffering and death to absolve man of "original sin."
This seems to be a way to speak to a particular population within a cultural context; stating that God has suffered on our behalf will capture the attention of a particular psychology.
Once the scripture has your attention, it would seem natural to focus on the teachings of Christ, which are fundamentally about sacrifice and surrender to God. I remember GM stating that following dharma-sastra has a comparable effect.
Modern Western Christianity seems to focus on God's sacrifice to man rather than the application of Christ's teachings. Hence the extent of Christian practice is "professing" faith in Christ's divinity, as evidenced by his resurrection. A sincere inquiry into Christ's teachings would reveal that the point is sacrifice to God, which is in harmony with many faiths.
This reasoning seems to follow Krsna's statement in the Gita regarding the motivation of those who seek him.
Perhaps Christians are motivated by the thought that God would suffer for them and the application of the teachings would alter their motivation?
Is this line of reasoning reasonable and in line with our siddhanta?