-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Hebraic Theology Make More Sense in a Hindu Context?
- Thread starter wizanda
- Start date
Profound Realization
Active Member
In my opinion:
In Hinduism there is one ultimate manifestor of reality (Brahman), and then representatives that have been seen in physical form called Avatars (Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Krishna, etc).
According to a growing number of scholars, when we examine the earlier Biblical text, there was one God Most High, who divided the nations among the Elohim, and gave YHVH Elohim the nation of Israel as his people (Deuteronomy 32.8).
This then makes loads more sense of why the early Christian church accepted a concept of Yeshua Elohim being a son of the God Most High (El Elyon - Luke 1:32), and God Almighty (El Shaddai - Revelation 21:22).
In Revelation 4:4 there are 24 Elders sitting around the Throne of God Almighty, with the Lamb being one of them in Revelation 5:6.
These are thus similar to the 24 Elders/Avatars/Elohim, who have come here in different forms for us to understand the divine.
To me anything that is seen in a physical form is not the God Most High, which is like a CPU processing and creating reality; thus it is impossible for it to have walked with Adam, to have wrestled with Jacob (Israel), and to have eaten with Abraham.
There are scriptures that say YHVH Elohim is the one who created reality, and the Lord is One; this is similar to what Brahma did in terms of creating realities design, and how Krishna says the same thing in the Gita, that it is One God, yet it recognizes that Brahman is the ultimate formless source of reality.
So basically have the Jews after the Babylonian exile confused everyone with their concepts that Elohim can be seen both plural and singular depending on context, when really it was meaning Avatars all along?
This is my understanding of Oneness, God Most High/Brahman is One, the ultimate source of reality; with everything stemming from it, and the representatives recognize that the CPU is the source of all that exists.
In my opinion.
I cannot blame “Jews” for confusing anyone, each individual is responsible for their own confusion by being a follower of said system, and not seeking for internal, independent, intuitive truth.
There are essentially endless amounts of indoctrinating systems in place, and they all start by the personification/anthropomorphism of different people and places in texts, in an outward fashion of form rather than the people and places as symbols for an inward fashion.
Babylonian exile itself is taken literally, but essentially means the internal exile from confusion. Babylon meaning a confused state of mind.
To me, they are all perceived as the same thing. The country “Israel” didn’t even have its literal country name until far later after the texts were written. Is Ra Elohim. “Is” being the moon/female(subconscious) and “ra” being the sun/male(conscious.)
Same with the word, “Jew.”
Abraham is essentially A Brahman. Eating with A Brahman also occurs internally.
Jacob’s wrestling match was internal, and it’s where any oneness takes place... within the Pineal gland in between the skull where the conscious and subconscious merge into one.
To summarize, all of these symbols in my perception are symbolic for the inner workings of consciousness that transpire objectively inside any human being. All in their own language. The confusion and divide is self-inflicted through the personification, anthropomorphism of places and people not meant to be taken as literal, outward in form, and historical.
Last edited:
Clearly then you should know a lot more than you do.
The avatar concept is unique to Vaishnavism, and non-existent in Saivism, and Shaktism. Smartism, because it encompasses all 3 schools sort of, is okay with it.
Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, as is Rama, and several others.
Shiva is God to Saivites, like Vishnu is to Vaishnavites, but has no avatars. But more recently some folks, with the mix and match of concepts throughout all of Hinduism, have superimposed the Vaishnava concept of avatara onto other sects. It's not traditional in any sense, but it's what happens with mixing stiff all around.
Just adding a link ... Krishna Janmashtami - Wikipedia
Difference in views of beliefs is not necessarily a reflection of a lack of knowledge. If you object please be specific.
I've been through this before with people to the point of questioning them about stuff. Then they google the information, and respond, claiming they knew it all along. So I'll wait until you say something more specific. For now it's mostly (I think) that somehow Hinduism is similar to Abrahamism in the nature of God, and it simply isn't. Very different paradigms, as I keep mentioning in the Great Beings thread.
Claiming you learned stuff at Hindu temples is suspect as well, as Hindu temples generally don't have pundits lecturing. Do you understand Hindi? If there are lectures, it's often in Hindi. If I asked you which temples you've been to, you could simply google a few.
Yes I have read the Gita.
The God of Judaism is indeed an unknowable God. I believe this evolved in conflict with the polytheism of Ugarit, Canaanite and Babylonian cultures, and early cultural descriptions of a hand's on knowable God. Strict Monotheism wins out after the exile. The Babylonian culture was also evolving to Zoroastrian Monotheism at the time of the exile.
In the Baha'i view the Avatars are Manifestations of God, and not Gods. Yeshua (Jesus) is considered an Avatar as are Adam, Abraham, Zarathustra, Krishna and Moses.
YHWH (actually a rather unknown early etymology
possibly a descriptive word of a place to worship God in it earliest representation on an ancient tablet) and El Elyon God on most high) is descriptive of God and not really a name of God nor a Manifestations of God.
I do not equate Yeshua (Jesus) in this way.
I believe the Progressive Revelation is the process of spiritual evolution of humanity and actually Creation/evolution is the same basic process throughout our physical existence. Part of this evolving process of revealing and restoration of Monotheism of an unknowable God over various forms of polytheism.
I consider most of the many variations Hinduism (Vedic) belief systems are henotheistic or some polytheistic.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
About stuff?!?!? How convoluted. You will probably go through this many more times, as with all others who egocentrically assert their religion unique, different, and above others. This view very much justifies the Humanist view that all the diverse conflicting religions are the product of human imagination and fears of the unknown.
You have not asked me which temples I attended, nor who I discussed, which is a meaningless line of reasoning just trying to demean me and not address specifics in a dialogue.
Nothing specific here to respond to. My sources if I use them are well grounded in academics whether I google them or not.
I believe that the assertion that the religions of the world are very different paradigms is a fallible egocentric human view trying to justify their religion above others.
Last edited:
You're right. You might know a way more than I think you do. We've never discussed specifics so I don't actually know. Hindus are tolerant almost to the extreme. We've welcomed all other faiths with open arms into India, for example, often to escape persecution. Early Jews, early Christians, the Dalai Lama, and more.
So which Hindu temples of North America have you been to? What goes on in a Hindu temple?
How about in India? Where have you been?
Last edited:
Tolerance is fine and dandy, but not necessarily the solution when one believes that they are separate and unique form other beliefs.
I have visited a number of Hindu Temples over the years, but I am not sure where this is going, because visiting temples and dialogueing with Hindus in and o itself is not meaningful.
I visited Hare Krishna Temples (first near Moundsville, WV near where I worked. I worked with the Soil Conservation Service, USDA and knew some personally over time trying to help them with their farming and conservation in the difficult circumstances of West Virginia Hills. I visited the Jian Temple in Washington DC. I most often visit on holidays like Ahimsa Day and listen lectures on vegetarian food and experience their food, which I love.
When I visited the Baha'i Temple in India I visited several Temples as a part of a group of Baha'is as guests.
Since I was close to Buddhism for many years and studied the Arts of the Way (Martial Arts) before I became a Baha'i, I also became intimately involved with different Buddhist sects.[/quote]
Last edited:
True tolerance respects diversity, and doesn't look for uniformity. It's to each his own, truly.
Hare Krishna isn't exactly representative of all of Hinduism, but it is one sect. Jainism is a separate religion form Hinduism, but that's okay too.
Nor is Delhi very representative of India. It's like St. Louis representing America. Kind of, but more time that that would be needed to get a really decent grasp.
What exactly is meaningful then? Anything?
Yes, Indian vegetarian food is full of flavour.
I think part of the reason we Hindus get defensive is that we are kind of tired of having to correct so many misconceptions.
Tolerance is superficial when 'to each his own' is the standard of the walls between religions.
There are hundreds of variations of theVedic belief systems. To say one is not representative of Hinduism is a rather egocentric judgement of those who believe differently even within the diversity of one's own religion. Sounds similar to the problems within the contentious diversity within Christianity when one believes their own version is representative of the religion.
Never said New Delhi was representative of anything. I have had more than fifty years of investigation and dialogue with believers of different including different Vedic variations, In reality nothing (shunya) is enough, but than again maybe not. All I can say is I have made a sincere effort over more than fifty years to understand what and how different religions and why they believe. An interesting conclusion is that one's 'sense of belonging' leads to an emotional attachment from which people justify many many different conflicting beliefs.
[/quote]
What exactly is meaningful then? Anything?[/quote]
From my Buddhist perspective ahunyata do
Not unusual from any on of the many different religious beliefs that assert that, because you believe differently your view is brushed off as misconceptions, that is of course unless you believe as I do.
Last edited:
If you're meaning Rabbinic Judaism, and not the Biblical deity I'd agree... This is because the Lord according to the text, has turned his face away from them (Isaiah 59:2), and has hidden himself from them (Hosea 5:5-6).
There is a point there, yet i see it differently based on the texts... During the Babylonian exile, they heard of polytheistic religions, and thus decided that they were going to be stricter monotheists, not realizing they were already henotheist to begin.
So instead of recognizing that their deity was part of the pantheon, they elevated their deity to being the supreme Godhead; when it was stating it was a Elohim, and thus a son of the God Most High (El Elyon) in a council of Elohim (Psalms 82:1).
Aware of Baha'i beliefs, not read as much of the texts; yet understand much of the concepts... We've got to be careful tho not to allow the presuppositions of Baha'i to come before what is stated in each individual religious text.
Thus in the Biblical text Yah-Havah means Lord to Be, who said he would visit his people personally, and be their king... So Yeshua claiming he was their Lord means in terms of knowable, would equate that as being quite open.
Whereas when we asked this question on the forum, most Hindus saw them self as monotheistic, which says a lot about the comprehension.
Then that would be to take a Baha'i perspective over what is prophesied within the Biblical text... Yeshua said he came to bring destruction (Matthew 10:34).
Now agreed we should not enforce uniformity; yet when we find we're all only in one reality together, with only One Source, then we shouldn't ignore when it does have similarities that help us define what is really going on.
We should examine within its own context, and then be willing to question all probabilities to be consistently logical... So to be careful not to be like the blind men touching different parts of the elephant, and then arguing it doesn't feel the same, when it is all interconnected.
In my opinion.
Last edited:
In my opinion:
In Hinduism there is one ultimate manifestor of reality (Brahman), and then representatives that have been seen in physical form called Avatars (Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Krishna, etc).
According to a growing number of scholars, when we examine the earlier Biblical text, there was one God Most High, who divided the nations among the Elohim, and gave YHVH Elohim the nation of Israel as his people (Deuteronomy 32.8).
This then makes loads more sense of why the early Christian church accepted a concept of Yeshua Elohim being a son of the God Most High (El Elyon - Luke 1:32), and God Almighty (El Shaddai - Revelation 21:22).
In Revelation 4:4 there are 24 Elders sitting around the Throne of God Almighty, with the Lamb being one of them in Revelation 5:6.
These are thus similar to the 24 Elders/Avatars/Elohim, who have come here in different forms for us to understand the divine.
To me anything that is seen in a physical form is not the God Most High, which is like a CPU processing and creating reality; thus it is impossible for it to have walked with Adam, to have wrestled with Jacob (Israel), and to have eaten with Abraham.
There are scriptures that say YHVH Elohim is the one who created reality, and the Lord is One; this is similar to what Brahma did in terms of creating realities design, and how Krishna says the same thing in the Gita, that it is One God, yet it recognizes that Brahman is the ultimate formless source of reality.
So basically have the Jews after the Babylonian exile confused everyone with their concepts that Elohim can be seen both plural and singular depending on context, when really it was meaning Avatars all along?
This is my understanding of Oneness, God Most High/Brahman is One, the ultimate source of reality; with everything stemming from it, and the representatives recognize that the CPU is the source of all that exists.
In my opinion.
I believe when you do a multi-faith consideration of the Absolute, you get a better understanding of the Most High, or Brahman.
This assumes that the older texts are an accurate reflection of Revelation of the nature o God, and do not reflect an ancient view of henotheistic knowable Gods including animism, and not Revelation. I believe the evidence indicates that ancient scripture reflects a human view of the time of Gods, and progressive Revelation corrects flawed ancient human views of Gods and animism. Also human and animal sacrifice are described in the Old Testament, and this also reflects an ancient human view o appeasing Gods.
Yes, ancient Judaism was henotheistic, but you are assuming the fallible human view of the time was based on the reality of a henotheistic nature of the Divine was a hierarchy Gods.
I believe the Monotheistic reality of the unknowable God is the ultimate reality and progressive Revelation is the evolving process of the spiritual evolution of humanity.
Your neglecting the reality that these henotheistic views of God and references you are using are originally ancient cultural beliefs of Canaanite, Ugarit, and pre-monotheistic Babylonian beliefs. As Revelation progressed through Abraham and Moses, the Divine reality on an unknowable God replaced and rejected human fallible human views of animism, henotheism, and sacrifice.
This assumes ancient texts are an accurate reflection of the spiritual reality of God, Creation and Revelation, which the evidence indicates this is not true. The ancient religious texts are indeed a edited compilation of ancient mythology, and diverse and conflicting reflecting human views at the time and not accurate scripture. This is abundantly clear in Genesis, which does not remotely describe the reality of the history of our universe, earth and humanity, but ancient mythology of Canaanite, Ugarit, and Babylonian texts and cultures.
Actually no, not necessarily a physical personal visiting of God, but the Avatar (Yeshua - Jesus) which is the Manifestation of God and not a personal knowable God.
What people call them selves is not necessarily so, like Christians, who believe in Tritheism, and a other lesser Gods such as Satan the Devil, and Mary the mother o God, and bride of God, claim to be monotheistic, but the reality is that both Christian and Vedic religions describe a pantheon of Gods, which is at minimum henotheistic.
This decidedly a one quote over simplification of the message of Jesus Christ, and prophesies, which is much more involved topic. Taking all of the prophesies and text in account this not a description of the Messiah (Avatar) that is the medium of Revelation from God.
Nor should we consider nor assume that the ancient scripture of the different religions reflects an actual reality, of the nature of the Divine, nor the relationship of humanity and our physical existence with the Source, some call God(s).
This is in reality what I am asking you to do and not rely on what you believe is necessarily an accurate description based on ancient scripture, which is problematic based on the evidence.
Considering the reality of the evidence concerning ancient scripture it is of very poor provenance, authorship, and it was edited and redacted from different sources over time.
Agreed, but I appeal to more universal reality of the Most High God through all religions in progressive Revelation, and not just one ancient religion or another.
Last edited:
Whereas when we asked this question on the forum, most Hindus saw them self as monotheistic, which says a lot about the comprehension.
In my opinion.
I certainly can't recall that ever happening, but it could be. My take is that henotheism (given they understand the difference between monotheism and henothism) or 'I don't care' would be the most common response. The Hindu active membership on this forum is way down these days.
How is that really possible when, as far as I know, Judaism encourages learning Hebrew?Unfortunately with religious presuppositions these don't always need to be based on logic, and thus it is possible to show flaws between what the sacred text actually says, and what a tradition believes.
Isaiah 29:9-14 WEB Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. (10) For Yahweh has poured out on you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, the prophets; and he has covered your heads, the seers. (11) All vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is educated, saying, “Read this, please;” and he says, “I can’t, for it is sealed;” (12) and the book is delivered to one who is not educated, saying, “Read this, please;” and he says, “I can’t read.” (13) The Lord said, “Because this people draws near with their mouth and honors me with their lips, but they have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which has been taught; (Matthew 15:7-9) (14) therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men will perish, and the understanding of their prudent men will be hidden.”
In my opinion.
It isn't an assumption, more of an assessment; Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled in reality, and can be shown in history taking place... Thus to be logical in my opinion, we have to consider the prophets as having some knowledge within an infinite perspective.
Also take into account the Bible is has an evolution, where El meaning God, became a physical representative to Moses in the being Yah-Havah (Lord to Be) Elohim; which then later became the Lord that Saves (Yehoshua Elohim)......
So there is reason to question an evolving concept, and then the same happens in the 24 incarnations of Vishnu, with one of them being deemed the Buddha and another Krishna, so we have some of the most succinct theology from divine representatives.
Now I'm completely open to new Elohim/Avatars coming along, and making sense within that already existing framework, that is built on solid foundations.
This is like a history view, yet without taking into account the religious ideology of reality, that we are going through ages of enlightenment, and deluge.... So it is possible at the beginning of time we're more connected, and slowly we become more confused.
Think we're saying the same somewhere, just from a slightly different angle... Personally think we can read Yah-Avah Elohim as an Avatar Biblically, it is within a form in Biblical text; it says it will visit his people, they just didn't realize, so it was foretold before it happened.
God Most High/Brahman (unknowable as some call it) to me is the CPU which manifests reality, the Word is code, and the Elohim/Avatars are projected into the reality.
This from what is in ancient text, has been understood... We just had no way to conceptualize a artificial environment until computers came along to experience it.
Thus as far as aware the only time we see the CPU is at Mahapralaya, aka Judgement day....Or what sounds like, from many eschatologies globally, a possibly a reformatting of the hard drive we're on, to a better reality operating system.
In both religions, they have an ultimate Source of creation, and then beings made within it.... That isn't henotheism on its own; it is henotheism when some might follow the representatives more than the One ultimate Source.
Yes sorry forgive me skated over it; there is a vast array of data on Yeshua's fulfillment's of prophecy, and have been online discussing it, and which Biblical text are corrupt, as long as this site has been about.
The destruction we can clearly see the first time he came, where the 2nd temple destruction happened because of them ignoring the visitation, prophesied in Zechariah 11, that for 30 pieces of silver they'd sign their own divorce decree as well, and we've seen the last two thousand years of Jewish exile, so it is no joke in terns of real occurrences.
When Yeshua comes back the next time, he said it is on the clouds, when the skies have been darkened, and the stars fallen, thus as we face total annihilation, and to save those who are worthy.
So think the telling people to be righteous characters is an amazing summary of Oneness; yet the actual Gospel (Good news/tidings) he taught, was that there will be the coming of the Kingdom of God, i.e. Satya Yuga, Messianic Age, the Age of Godliness, etc.
Oh agreed, and entirely open to the text having all sorts of errors in translation, typos, etc, which is why willing to explore many versions, and the language to check.... Yet do find consistency in some ancient concepts, not in the religious applications always.
In my opinion.