Redbull me on hinduism

They did.

ancient-origins.net/history/hidden-beliefs-covered-church-resurrection-and-reincarnation-early-christianity-006320

The first symbol of Christianity used by Jesus' followers was also a swastika. Get learned bro.

"Neoplatonism" is just a freemason term for religious universalism. The idea of all material existence originating from a single source predates Plato by millenia. Most religions believe in a universal super consciousness that created our universe.

Love, light and truth will shine through the darkness.

>There is one supreme God and many extensions that we would call demi-gods
Except for all the Hindus that don't believe that. You don't get to take an aspect of what some people from multiple religions and folk practices believe and act like everyone believes that. It's like claiming that all Christians are Mormons.

>ancient-origins.net/history/hidden-beliefs-covered-church-resurrection-and-reincarnation-early-christianity-006320

Hey man, just got in the thread and don't really know much about the subject here to question whether you are somewhat right or wrong, nor could I do the same about that article in particular. I used to read a lot of Ancient Origins articles and really like some of them, but one day I encountered an article about something that I really knew very well and it baffled me on how much wrong they were, deriving ideas from sources I knew were debunked (translation errors and things like that). Ever since then, I don't trust them about anything. Maybe, even me not knowing anything about this subject, I'd recommend a review on all information that you might get from there.

>Neoplatonism" is just a freemason term for religious universalism.
I don't know what this has to do what he was saying. He was arguing that your assertion that all religions say the same thing on a metaphysical level are the same is false. I don't see how your response has anything to do with that.

>They did.
>proceeds to use a bunk site
Can you provide a single piece of evidence for this by someone with a PhD in a related field that was released in a peer reviewed setting?

Go ahead, have the thread then.

The correct name for them are devas. Some represent forces of nature. like Indra, Agni, and Soma while others represent moral values like Adityas, Varuna and Mitra. Hindus worship these and others like Ganesh, Shiva, and Brahma.

Fine look up the lost gnostic gospels of Jesus. I'll give you two pieces talking about reincarnation from the Book of Thomas.

"Watch and pray that you may not be born in the flesh, but that you may leave the bitter bondage of this life." (Book of Thomas the Contender)

"When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will bear!" (Gospel of Thomas)

Bonus from the Secret Book of John:

All people have drunk the water of forgetfulness and exist in a state of ignorance. Some are able to overcome ignorance through the Spirit of life that descends upon them. These souls "will be saved and will become perfect," that is, escape the round of rebirth. John asks Jesus what will happen to those who do not attain salvation. They are hurled down "into forgetfulness" and thrown into "prison", the Gnostic code word for new body. The only way for these souls to escape, says Jesus, is to emerge from forgetfulness and acquire knowledge. A soul in this situation can do so by finding a teacher or savior who has the strength to lead her home. "This soul needs to follow another soul in whom the Spirit of life dwells, because she is saved through the Spirit. Then she will never be thrust into flesh again." (Secret Book of John)

But it isn't false. Did you read the rest of what I said?

It's true. All of it.

>Fine look up the lost gnostic gospels of Jesus. I'll give you two pieces talking about reincarnation from the Book of Thomas.
An early church heresy that never grew is not accurate for mainline christianity at all.

>believing in mainstream Christianity
>(((heresy)))
well there's your problem

Why would you believe in a religious doctrine that's been modified over a dozen times by the corrupt men that rule our material world? You have to look back, far back for the truth.

>>believing in mainstream Christianity
>>(((heresy)))
what?

Why would you trust people that modified the Bible thousands of years after Jesus died? Wouldn't it make more sense to follow what Jesus and his disciples actually believed? Are you keeping up with me? I don't want to lose you.

>The correct name for them are devas
This has nothing to do with what I said. I said that not all Hindus believe what you say they do.

>Fine look up the lost Gnostic gospels of Jesus
I asked for peer reviewed texts posted by people with PhDs. That's not what you gave me.

>before the 12th century, Christianity even believed in reincarnation
A minority of Christians from sometime in the late 1st century and early 2nd century until around the 4th century were Gnostics. I can't speak for all possible types of Gnosticism because it was a varied system of belief that took inspiration from multiple traditions and is a term not used by people at the time but I don't see how the mainstream of Gnosticism has anything to do with reincarnation. Citing the existence of Gnostic texts does not prove your point.

Ok but like why do you think the church has been modified and why do you think the (((secret gospel))) has any more validity than the compiled books

>Why would you believe in a religious doctrine that's been modified over a dozen times by the corrupt men that rule our material world?
Gnosticism arose in the late 1st century to hte early 2nd century. All the works of the New Testament had already been written before Gnosticism came about. I'm not saying that mainstream Christianity today isn't the result massive modification but the idea that Gnosticism is the purest form of the religion is hogwash.

There are many different branches of Hinduism but the main ones at least believe in one all powerful God named Vishnu. The degree to which they believe in the devas varies to the extent of what divine benefits they want to reap when they perform their rituals.

>wanting some jerkoff PHD input over the literal word of Jesus Christ
>wew

Dude stop posting before you go to hell.

I am simply using them as an example for religious universalism. The earliest texts of Christianity line up with every other religion like Hinduism and Native American religons. I personally believe in the Vedic texts myself.

I'm not saying it's the pure Christianity but it's the closest thing there is to it. The Dead Sea Scrolls is the oldest artifact we have and that has the Book of Enoch and Book of Giants that really get into some interesting topics. The New Testament was also heavily modified after its inception. The original Bible is conveniently lost forever so we will never know the purest form of Christianity.

Hinduism is what's left of the Indo-European pagan religion brought by the Aryan tribes that settled in India.

this

>I'm not saying it's the pure Christianity but it's the closest thing there is to it
Not it isn't. The entirety of the New Testament existed before any of the texts you are talking about. Considering how amazingly different most of the later texts are from the earlier canonical texts it makes no sense to assume the later texts are more accurate.
>The Dead Sea Scrolls
Has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Neither does the Book of Enoch.
>The New Testament was also heavily modified after its inception
We base our best translations of the Bible upon the oldest editions that we find of Biblical texts. Everything we have from the New Testament comes from sources that predate the existence of Gnosticism. We have no way of knowing what sort of modifications the texts underwent because if they did go through massive modification we have no evidence of it. Whatever modifications that happened after the earliest sources don't matter (such as the second ending to Mark) because we are able to undo them.
>The original Bible
There is no original Bible. The codification of the texts that would constitute the Bible has nothing to do with any of the texts itself. To talk of an original Bible is completely anachronistic and makes zero sense.
>we will never know the purest form of Christianity
No we won't, but if that is what you are trying to get at then the closest thing you will have will be the New Testament and not the later non-canonical Christian texts.
>wanting some jerkoff PHD (sic)input over the literal word of Jesus Christ
Why do you post this in regards to Hinduism when I ask for PhDs in regards to your claim that Christianity until the 12th century had a doctrine of reincarnation?
>Convenient
The majority of all written works on paper don't survive. That isn't convenient, it's a fundamental fact about paper.

>There are many different branches of Hinduism but the main ones at least believe in one all powerful God named Vishnu
I basically agree with You talk about a particular aspect of modern Hinduism and then speak as if all Hindu's for several thousand years believed what that segment does. I'm glad you are adding some qualifiers to your statements but I think you need more. For me to not have a problem with what you said you would need to say something like a large part of intertwined religions that make up Hinduism share this conception of the supreme God with a tradition that goes far back, but these are not the only traditions with others that deny this aspect that exist today and have always existed, and that these numbers, especially in the past are more than significant to prevent blanket statements about Hinduism and talk of a supreme God.

Edit: When I said 'The entirety of the New Testament existed before any of the texts you are talking about' I was talking about Christian apocrypha, not the older apocrypha that you mentioned.

>vishnu
>one all powerful god

You don't know what you're talking about.

Regionally it varies which of the three main gods people emphasize, but it's not accurate to say "the main ones" believe vishnu is supreme as that's only one branch.

>We base our best translations of the Bible upon the oldest editions that we find of Biblical texts.

That's not really true. Most bibles have extended verses in the gospel we know weren't originally there (end of mark for example, also if I recall correctly we know some things were added to ...matthew? directly from other books)

>Not it isn't. The entirety of the New Testament existed before any of the texts you are talking about.
The New Testament did exist but is vastly different to what exists today. The KJV is not what was written 2000 years ago. To imply that it is is complete nonsense. We do not know what it was in it's original form.
>The Dead Sea Scrolls has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Neither does the Book of Enoch.
How in the heck does the oldest version of the bible on record have nothing to do with the bible? Wanna back that one up there chief? Just because you say it doesn't doesn't make it so.
>We base our best translations of the Bible upon the oldest editions that we find of Biblical texts.
The Book of Enoch and Giants existed in the bible at some point but now doesn't. You cannot refute this statement. It was taken out at some point. Literal books were deleted from the scriptures. There is your modification. You're really going to trust the intentions of man over Jesus Christ? You're pretty naive. Also wanna explain you feel the need to modify the word of God at all? Like what does man know that God doesn't? Got something to hide chaim?
>There is no original Bible. To talk of an original Bible is completely anachronistic and makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense. The source of which the Bible is based on, the original bible or no, is no longer in existence and we must base our understanding of Christianity on the modified versions made by men. The oldest of which is The Dead Sea Scrolls which you handwave away for some reason. You got some texts you've been hiding older than the scrolls? Please share.
>No we won't, but if that is what you are trying to get at then the closest thing you will have will be the New Testament and not the later non-canonical Christian texts.
The New Testament, as it currently exists, is NOT the oldest. That would be The Dead Sea Scrolls which contains The New Testament... and also The Book of Enoch and Giants
>Why do you post this in regards to Hinduism when I ask for PhDs in regards to your claim
Why do you use an appeal to authority like PhD's? If Jesus and his apostles had PhD's would you stop wasting your time with grasping at straws? How about reading the actual texts?
>The majority of all written works on paper don't survive.
The same way we have other written documents from thousands of years ago. Some information is preserved and some destroyed. The ones that make those decisions are for the most part not the ones you want making that decision.
>the rest of your shitpost
Buddy stop getting caught up in semantics. The Vedas is the oldest piece of spiritual knowledge that Hinduism is based on. We live within the Kali Yuga so over time the word of God will become distorted. I implore you seek more knowledge instead of casting doubt because you have very little understanding of this topic.

Hinduism is just a term for the pagan practices that originated in the Indian subcontinent, nothing more. You can't say stuff like "Hindus believe in X" because there's way too much diversity, and there's no philosophical consistency amongst all the different schools

>Most bibles have extended verses in the gospel we know weren't originally there
I said best translations, not most, not most popular but best. As I said before none of it matters anyway because whatever is done with subsequent versions the originals are still there and available.

>the pagan practices that originated in the Indian subcontinent,
They were brought in, see:

Those main gods are extensions of the one supreme consciousness that is given many different names based on regional cultures. They are all describing facets of the supreme being. I used the name Vishnu because it is the most popular in India. Names are just describing ideas larger than our material existence. You are the one that doesn't know what they're talking about.

Some practices and beliefs did, not all. My only quibble with is that I would have said that Hinduism are the pagan practices that originated in India or have become so entwined with Indian beliefs. The Indo-Eurpoean religion has been so utterly changed by it's integration into the faiths of the Indian subcontinent that what the vast majority of what people believe is far more Indian than Aryan.

Nah, the Vedas were composed in northwestern India, and the vast majority of the texts and practices originated within India.

If you want, you could think of it Hinduism as another branch of Indo-European paganism, while the Greek, Roman, Celtic, and Nordic religions constitute the other

That still doesn't address these criticisms of your characterisation of Hinduism.

Why do you prefer the new over the old? You telling me historians know more than Jesus? Big if true.

It's because Hinduism, at its core, is a monotheistic and polytheistic religion. There is the existence of an infinite number of gods, because they are extensions of the One which is infinite. These gods are just representations of the pieces of God. None of them are wrong.

The Indo-Eurpoean religion has been so utterly changed by it's integration into the faiths of the Indian subcontinent that what the vast majority of what people believe is far more Indian than Aryan.
That's unlikely, and what qualifies as "Indian" is not here either. It was preserved by the upper classes that mixed with the natives and instituted the caste system so they wouldn't mix more.

I don't really understand your comment. I am specifically supporting the idea of choosing the earliest sources in regards to understanding Jesus. If by older you mean things like the Book of Enoch and the like they have nothing to do with Jesus because they were composed before he existed.

>You telling me historians know more than Jesus? Big if true.
I really don't understand where you are getting any of this from.

They have everything and more to do with Jesus my friend.

I'm getting at you cherry pick the revisionist pieces of the scriptures because you have a bias for them. To discount these pieces of holy doctrine shows your true intent. May God have mercy on your soul.

You didn't address any of those criticisms. Some people from some fuck off fishing village at the very bottom of the continent that have developed some fetish worship and don't believe in any of the normal Hindu gods and have no conception of God are Hindus. Hinduism isn't just the modern major branches.

>That's unlikely
Whether or not it's unlikely doesn't matter. Go read a book about the reconstructed Indo-European religion European and compare it to any of the modern major branches of Hinduism.

>The Bible is revisionist scripture
And I'm done.

Hinduism is literally one of the last surviving remnants of those Indo-European belief systems.

I see you ran out of bullshit to spew and have to resort to misconstruing my argument. Good, hopefully you will see the light. The KJV is revisionist as well as all bibles on record.

Alright so you're pretty dense. I'm sorry I'll try to break that down. That fetish worshiping village is worshiping the part of God that that fetish represents. God is so big that it is impossible for us to grasp His magnificence so people worship their version of parts of God that would bestow on them material and spiritual gains. Worshiping those deities is, by extension, worshiping God to a smaller scale.

This is a non sequitur that doesn't change anything that has been said.

>That fetish worshiping village is worshiping the part of God that that fetish represents
My example explicitly precludes the idea of them believing in God and because Hinduism isn't a religion but a family of different religions and beliefs you can't ignore those people. Even if this God did exist many Hindu's don't believe in him which is why you can't make the statement that Hindu belief boils down to God.

>The KJV is revisionist as well as all bibles on record
>I'm getting at you cherry pick the revisionist pieces of the scriptures because you have a bias for them.
>To discount these pieces of holy doctrine shows your true intent
Your position makes no sense. You love the dead sea scrolls when they are just early surviving books of the Old Testament which you just trashed as being revisionists.
I only discounted the Book of Enoch because it isn't pertinent to Jesus. It has nothing to do with ones religious belief. The book itself isn't interested in Jesus at all. Post quotes directly from the text that show it is more relevant to Jesus than the Gospels if you think it is.
And anyway the Book of Enoch is in some bibles which makes it revisionist.

>people fell for the gnostic's bait
KEK

>no true Scotsman fallacy
Dude those religions and beliefs all express qualities of the One divine consciousness that lets those concepts, that those deities represent, exist. They worship one of the arms of God, and therefore worship a piece of God. Whether they recognize that it is an arm they are worshiping is up to them.

>muh current year book
And it makes perfect sense, you purposefully fail to see reason. You cannot update the word of God like it's the fucking iTunes TOS. My argument is The Dead Sea Scrolls is the closest thing we have to the word of God left by Jesus, which strangely enough has spiritual elements reminiscent of every other religion on Earth. Personally, I don't follow this doctrine because yes, it too is revisionist, but it is the closest thing there is thematically to what the founders of Christianity wanted. Diluting a religion, especially back then, takes generations of effort. The Dead Sea Scrolls is just a few centuries older than Christ. I think the Vedas is closer to the truth and even that is missing a lot of information. I go wherever the truth is most fully intact. The Book of Enoch and Giants is pertinent in a grander sense. Jesus stood for the truth and taking these pieces out is an offense to the truth, and therefore an offense to Jesus. The Bible of today is missing key pieces of these spiritual themes that people need to ascend. If you're still wasting your time with the KJV then yes that version of the book of Enoch is revisionist. Seek better spiritual resources lad!

>no true Scotsman fallacy
That wasn't the no true Scotsman fallacy at all. I don't even understand how you can to that conclusion.
>Whether they recognize that it is an arm they are worshiping is up to them
Let me repeat the exact same thing I said before because you didn't this didn't change anything and my point still stands. We aren't talking about what it true. So let's for the sake of argument say you are right and that while they don't know it they worship God. It doesn't matter. We are talking about what the people themselves believe. They do not believe in him and religions are defined but what the adherents of them believe. Whether or no it is true doesn't change the fact that it is factually incorrect to say that Hinduism can be defined as a belief in a unifying God. If you continue to say they really do believe your argument boils down to I am right and people who disagree with me are mistaken. An argument where it is impossible for you to be wrong is a terrible argument.

>muh current year book
>You cannot update the word of God like it's the fucking iTunes TOS
I have been saying the opposite of this for the whole argument.

>but it is the closest thing there is thematically to what the founders of Christianity wanted
>My argument is The Dead Sea Scrolls is the closest thing we have to the word of God left by Jesus
No it isn't. It's further removed from Jesus than the texts that come directly after him, written about him. It's a great way of understanding Judaism but without Christian texts we know nothing about Christianity. Without the Bible we know almost nothing about Jesus. How could you possibly say that we should discount all Christian texts and rely on older works written before he was born?
It's like saying seeing a design for an ancient chariot will help you understand modern cars more than the designs for some classic ferrari.
Asides from that we know that the Gospel of Mark for example was composed at the latest 40 years after Jesus' death, so there is a limit to the amount of times the text can be distorted. With books like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the book of Enoch we have no idea how long the traditions of those texts where and how much they have changed. We also know from historical evidence that the Book of Enoch was written by and extreme sect and that the book doesn't reflect mainstream Jewish thought.

>If you're still wasting your time with the KJV then yes that version of the book of Enoch is revisionist.
Can you for a second stop begin so antagonistic so you can stop misinterpreting my position. You somehow seem to keep coming to the opposite conclusion of my arguments. Why are you mentioning the KJB when my whole point has been specifically to use the oldest sources available? I even explicitly mentioned that the Book of Enoch is in certain Bibles.

In my opinion it's important to keep in mind that Hinduism is one branch of the larger South East Asian religious tradition, together with Buddhism and Jaïnism. Unlike Buddhism Hindus believe in 'something', being generally understood as the divine. But they themselves are divided into what that means.

Something that is generally noticed about Asian religious traditions is that they are content with the huge variety of interpretations and approaches living together. Which stands in contrast with Western/Semitic dogmatic approaches.

When Hindus believe that there is only one God, which most of them do, then they disagree on which God image they should direct their prayers to. Is Vishnu the primary God, or is it Shiva, or is it the 'mother Godess', another popular tradition. Some think it's best to pray to a handful of them, just to be sure.

Some Hindus believe that the divine and the soul is one, others believe these two things are completely separate, which is more akin to the Western/Semitic religious view. Others believe that the two are separate but one, which you may also find in certain Christian interpretations.

Some Hindus reject that certain rituals like reciting mantras, washing yourself in 'holy water', offering to the Gods have any effect at all. Others do believe in these practices, practices which from our perspective, and the perspective of many Hindus, seem irrational and 'pagan'.

And if we do include Buddhism and Jaïnism, which I think you should, then they don't even agree whether God exists at all.

Somehow, someway, this variety is to them acceptable. Why? The answer to this question, is I think the most important one, if we wish to understand what makes our traditions so different to theirs.

I think the answer is that Asian religions ask fundamentally different questions of life. They ask how do I escape the suffering which is life. We on the other hand ask, How will I be saved? We ask not how to escape suffering, but what it means.

So, keeping in mind their belief in reincarnation, it makes sense for there to be so many ways and practices competing in general harmony. Because in the end they all try to achieve the same thing, to be released from suffering. It is why Hindus see the Buddha and Jesus divine or enlightened. Because it's is obvious to them that these men 'knew' something about the divine. They just haven't figured out personally yet what it was exactly.

An important consequence of this worldview, is that Asian traditions are considered 'spiritual'. Because they tend to believe that knowledge of the divine (or in Buddhist tradition, knowledge of the illusion of the self), is the key to escape this miserable dance. Generally understood as enlightenment. It might be partly the reason why they have a strong tradition in math because some thinkers long ago reasoned that, when there is only one thing, and it is God, then science, being knowledge of reality, will bring me closer to God.

continued.

In contrast to Hinduism our traditions seem more 'rooted in life'. Judaism and Islam is filled with rules about life. When to eat, when to drink, how to sleep. They are practical, not in the sense of offerings to the Gods like in Hinduism, but in the sense that they order your life. Like Tevye says in "Fiddler on the Roof", "thanks to our traditions we have kept our balance for many many years."

And also in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism our traditions are more moralistic. We wish our souls to be saved by means of good deeds. Christianity is probably the ultimate realization of this concept. Jesus tells us to renounce wealth, renounce the obsession with petty rules and not to know God, but to love God. There is a reason why martyrs in the style of father Damien and Bernardo Tolomei are plentiful in Christian tradition. They are in a sense literal disciples of Christ.

Hindus in modern times, like Gandhi, have however approached Hinduism from a similar perspective. They reasoned for example that if God is all, than we can through charity and love of other people also reach enlightenment. There are two views on this matter, one claims that Hindus learned about Christianity and reformed Hinduism on Christian principles. Most of these reformers were in fact educated in British universities. Others claim that this was a natural development of existing Hindu traditions.

In my opinion they are both true. Hinduism has a tradition of morality and loving thy neighbor as one path to enlightenment. But I believe spiritual knowledge still enjoyed a privileged role as a means to enlightenment in most of Hinduism's history.

That article is absolute bullshit

>Clement of Alexandria - a disciple of the apostle Peter
Clement was born in the mid 2nd century, Peter would have been dead before he even had a chance to meet him.

Also, it keeps saying "X church father said Y" but never cites any of their works.

Cool post

>It might be partly the reason why they have a strong tradition in math because some thinkers long ago reasoned that, when there is only one thing, and it is God, then science, being knowledge of reality, will bring me closer to God.

The most characteristic path to spiritual knowledge of the East Asian traditions is of course meditation. Kind of forgot to mention that.

>Something that is generally noticed about Asian religious traditions is that they are content with the huge variety of interpretations and approaches living together. Which stands in contrast with Western/Semitic dogmatic approaches
While this is true I'm not overly fond of your explanation as to why. It isn't Hinduism being strange in it's versatility, it's the strangeness of the Abraham faiths. Having a fluid and accepting religious beliefs is default, it doesn't make all that much sense to get upset over the things that a Christian might. The Abrahamic faiths are absolute. There is no room for any other belief system, and excluding Judaism both believe in eternal punishment and reward based on your adherence to an orthodoxy. These are what make them intolerant. Without them there is no reason to care if someone believes something different.

>While this is true I'm not overly fond of your explanation as to why. It isn't Hinduism being strange in it's versatility, it's the strangeness of the Abraham faiths. Having a fluid and accepting religious beliefs is default, it doesn't make all that much sense to get upset over the things that a Christian might. The Abrahamic faiths are absolute. There is no room for any other belief system, and excluding Judaism both believe in eternal punishment and reward based on your adherence to an orthodoxy. These are what make them intolerant. Without them there is no reason to care if someone believes something different.

I meant to say that it is strange from our perspective, which is shaped by Western/Semitic religions. I suppose a more fluid approach to religious beliefs is more 'natural', but it's hard to say if that's a better approach or not.

Is this /x/ or Veeky Forums i don't know, i love both and love this.

>but it's hard to say if that's a better approach or not
Considering the rarity of religious violence in open systems compared to absolute ones I would say it is definitely a better approach. Even in the modern world the religious violence committed by open systems strongly tends to be against absolute religions because those religious by their very nature oppose what they believe.
Look at Rome, been around for eight, nine hundred years with almost no religious violence of any kind and then as soon as Christianity becomes the state religion a whole bunch of people die because they have different ideas about the substance of Jesus.

It just seems like the one guy who believes every religion is a manifestation of the true God is the only /x/ sort here.