[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
-
From: l23@hopi.dtcc.edu (GERALD J. LA CORTE)
-
Date: 29 Aug 1996 21:59:50 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
-
References: <ghenDwHznC.9A0@netcom.com> <ghenDwLMnu.392@netcom.com> <ghenDwt2E2.MLD@netcom.com> <504jvn$b0m@news.ececs.uc.edu>
: Krsna or Christ, The Name Is the Same
As a former Christian activist and extremist I can say confidently that
isn't the case. Others have proposed that, only one of which was not
Indian or of Indian descent. While no longer Christian, I do respect
Jesus of Nazareth. In all honesty, Jesus was named Christ less so than
Ghandhi was named Mahatma because Kristos was a Greek word and Jesus lived
among Hebrew and Latin speaking people.
: Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, and Christos is the Greek
: version of the word Krsna. When an Indian person calls on Krsna, he
: often says "Krsta." Krsna is a Sanskrit word mean ing the object of
: attraction."
Kristos in old Greek meant savior. "Object of attraction" does seem to
have a similar meaning to myself than "savior". Unless Krishna actually
meant savior, you may need to re-evaluate your statement.
: When Jesus said, "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy
: name," that name of God was Krsta or Krsna. "Christ" is simply another
: way of saying "Krsta," and "Krsta" is another way of pronouncing
: Krsna.
At the time Jesus was speaking Hebrew (its thought to be his only
language because Roman authorities did not document him leaving or
entering the Palestine area). The Hebrew people had several names for god:
Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim, El-Shaddai. There was no Krsta. I don't think
Hebrew even had a "Kr" sound. The Hebrew word for savoir was messiah.
: Would you say that the above statement was made by a neo-advaitic swami
: with the best of intentions ? [I am not sure who made the above statements]
No, certainly not. The above statements were made by someone who put too
much credibility in non-scriptural New Age documents.
A while ago, while still a Christian, I was working with a group of
Indians. I was interested in finding out about the various avatars. They
had said that New Age was Hindu. I had made several more inquiries of
them and went to a New Age bookstore to buy a book which I hoped would
summarize the lives of the various Avatars. When I got to the bookshop,
they didn't know what the word avatar meant. * Point: New Age is not
Hindu. Opinion: New Age needs to be questioned at every step because they
frequently get bad or inaccurate teaching.
A while ago someone here started a thread because they had been disucssing
with some Americans parts of the Bhagvad-Gita. The Americans were under
the impression that it was a document telling of ultimate pacifism and
Krishna was telling Arjuna to flee the battle and become a hermit. (To
say the least, that was in none of the versions of the Gita that I read.)
This should show you the importance of using scriptural documents.
If we quote Krishna we should use Hindu scriptures. If we quote Jesus of
Nazareth we should use Christian scripture. I certainly would question a
quote of Rama or Krishna if it was given by a Buddhist, Christian, or
Muslim. Likewise, unless the person who quotes Jesus of Nazareth says
they are Christian _and_ attempts to follow the Bible, I wouldn't trust
them.
Bests,
Jay
