The Capture of Christianity

Murad (#78),

Your questions here rock too many boats. Account of Jesus surviving crucifixion attempts and eventually dying a natural death would send shock waves among the adherents of Jewish, Christian, and mainstream Muslim faith; each for a different set of reasons.

Back then, Jewish clergy in the court of Pointus Pilate (Roman judge who presided over Jesus’ trial) painted Jesus as an imposter and worthy of execution due to his Messianic claims. His survival would raise fundamental questions about validity of age-old Jewish claims and hence, the faith itself, as understood today. Similarly, Jesus’ survival would raise serious questions about the notions of Resurrection, his being Son of God, and his expected arrival – the crux of Christian beliefs of this day.

Jesus’ natural death would pose serious challenges to mainstream Muslims who too await his return. Since no new prophets can appear according to mainstream Islam, Jesus’ return is understood as the bodily descent of the same Jesus who lived 2000 years ago. The account of Jesus’ survival and natural death plays squarely in the hands of Ahmadi-Muslims, who have maintained this view ever since.

For these reasons, there has been much reluctance in uncovering details of Jesus’ life and death, from every quarter. However, with the passage of time, research and historical accounts are starting to converge and connect the dots. Evidence in favor of Jesus’ survival and natural death continues to become more compelling. In another hundred years, this particular interpretation may very well gain the status of what actually transpired.

As for Jesus being a Buddhist - that is somewhat of a different issue. There is evidence that when Jesus reached Kashmir, he was accepted as reincarnation of Buddha, who had passed away 500 years earlier, and foretold his reappearance 500 years after his death, in the form of bagwa materya (sp?) … which roughly translates as “light-skinned Messiah�.

#115 Posted by laddu on
It is just so different:-), A few Iranians that I know never talk about religion, while pakistanis are so much interested in religion but don't know what to say:-)

Raj Kareaga Khalsa aaki rahe no koi
khoaar hoae sabh milainge bachay sharan jo hoae

(I used to think it is" baki rahe na koi" and "paar huae to milenge":-))

Waheguu Ji Ka Khalsa
Sri Waheguru Ji Ki Fatah
ek omkar

Seems sikhism was a solid martial sect to give equal footing against Islamic warriors but still keeping it close to Hindu softness/openness when it comes to God....

Actually, lot is ok till you don't let God speak for himself.... Kuran could be dangerous only because of that and Gita would have been very dangerous if it was stupid.... Hindus should feel fortunate that Gita was written by an intellectual pehalvan of sorts... and plus it came along with Mahabharta.....but making God speak is always dangerous.... or it always has potential to go wrong, but it adds to drama and you can use "verily" "O! .." "Lo ...." "behold" and all other possible exclaimations...... think how good you will feel if you start speaking on behalf of God:-)

Think if God speaks like this:
O! Jang, Behold thine tongue?
Verily! I am the one who knows all reason
I gave you the 5 Ks and the turban
Verily! You come to me, when you've question

And then you are ever bound to binding of that book, because whole psychology is crippled (God is all powerful, all knowing and he said so)?

Non speaking God, makes life easier...

Re: # 113

"now, if you find some "alternative" stuff about great sikh gurus during your quest for truth in religions, you will see serious action imo."

Now you are talking like a khalsa........

Raj Karega Khalsa (on these Arabian Bedoiun)!!

Sat Sri Akaal ! (even if Allah were to send his murderers to kill us).

#113 Posted by jang on

right in that case, action may be good, but they will easily handle anything (in fact more hindus than Sikhs will do the "act")... but not everybody is handling the same ego with same intention. The religious ego in case of Islam gets hurt more deeply because even when you don't say what you have to say against Islam, muslims are already hurt by "that" all the time.. while in case of Hindus/Sikhs they can do some strong action "here", will feel they "won" (and not lose) and will forget that they are Hindus/Sikhs the moment they step out; even significant majority of Christians are of this type in USA. They get to know they are Christians only while in some particular state of mind at rare occasions. But majority of muslims seem to remember that they are muslim in all that they do and along with that they remember part of the "hurt" of being muslim:-)

There is not much "good" that you can feel if you have to remember all the time that you belong to a religion.


Till now Hindu ego doesn't have a group purpose and any group action emnating from it (everything mostly at individual level so far), but as you see from Malegaon etc, they may soon have a group ego that wants to protect itself from Islam (and fight with it). And when this large a group will think or act like this, it will be a lethal thing. If it so happens, you won't need nukes for destruction of south asia.

Write something on malegoan stuff so i can troll a bit there.

murad yar, there are christians but this is neither interesting not controversial..it has been chewed to death and resurrection.

now, if you find some "alternative" stuff about great sikh gurus during your quest for truth in religions, you will see serious action imo.

Don't be silly, Murad bhai. How would Hindus and Muslim move away from the mainly Hindu-Muslim perspective?

There probably are not many Christian chowkies, and some of chowkie christians simply may not find much in this article.

After all neither the argument that Paul made up his own Christianity, nor that Christ did not die on the Cross (or even that he went to Kashmir) is new to many Christians.

I do wish all of you could move forward from mainly Hindu- Muslim perspectives and let some Christian comments come through.

I cannot believe that there are no Christian viewers on Chawk.

Masanamuthu, you are absolutely right.

Somehow I very much wanted to see Murad bhai as an exception to a much broader rule - as someone who is actually interested in learning or genuinely discussing anything about either India or Hindus.

Take that unrealistic expectation away and we can actually benefit from Murad's bhai's Herculean efforts in two important ways: (1) We can consider Murad bhai's questions, and second, more interesting for me, (2) we can better understand how an Islamist's mind works.

all of Murad bhai's questions are valid. And he would be serving a great purpose if he chose to seriously and genuinely engage in discussions. That will help everyone.


Kaalchakra:

My point is 'why should the initiator of any discussion be unbiased and should genuinely engaged in discussions?'. It is not a one to one discussion. He can start the issue by raising some valid questions and let others discuss.

To clarify further, I have learnt a lot of stuff just by listening into other people's discussions. Laddu-ji openly claims to be a idolator and an anti-Islam guy. That doesn't make his questions any more irrelevant than the questions of closet Islamist Murad-ji.

IMHO, We need to figure out what makes sense out of these discussions.

#107 Posted by HP on
Ha ha:-)

I am a little confused.. for what should i give you more arguments? I reached siberia, caucas, 40,000 years old lands, birth place of white people and what not to get some arguments for you. How can you be so argument hungry?

Did I not ask you very straight forward questions? Upanishads, Bhagvad Githa, all linguistics of sanskrit, old or new sanskrit of rig-veda or Panini, that ancient mathematics all were written by desi Hindus, not Videshi Hindus (Aryans of Siberia Or caucas mountain). They didn't bring it in 1500Bc and showed it to world in 900BC or 500BC or whatever. Is that not sufficient for you to see how it differes from Islam and that "alien" stuff?

And you didn’t tell what you wanted to say with your copy pasted stuff?

Wait I will get some more, you just hint me where to keep them.

simpleton troll on trolly ready to roll

#104 Posted by pinku
"Kaal chakra, that was a plain stupid statement. Even if Aryans brought three page story of Indra and his boy friend from siberia or some cold mountain, Hindus don't show proud on that two page story??"

Anyone can have an opinion, but are yours informed? Prove it with substantiating arguments instead of your incessant trolling,gasbaggery. *crickets*.

#105 Posted by dost_mittar on
DM,

[[
I have never heard anyone question Jesus being a Jew. He was born a Jew and died a Jew, just as Gautam Buddha was born a Hindu and died a Hindu. Over period of time, the Christian sect became a religion, just as Budh Panth became became a separate "Dhamma" in due course.
]]


Only 500-IQ people can ask such questions and only they know what their intention is in asking such ultra high IQ questions. Further if you answer them, their ultra high IQ mind detects some impedance and go in ultra high silence (no current period), they basically start checking with God to know if your answer is correct and you know how long God takes to answer such intelligent questions?

murad:

"• Is there substance that the religion of Jesus has been captured by Paul?"

From what I have read and seen, this is true. One of the most important innovations of Paul was removing the requirement of circumcision to make Christianity more palatable to gentiles. In those days, circumcision was a painful thing and occasionally resulted in death as well and therefore a deterrent to more pagans converting to Christianity. Until Paul, Christianity was mainly a sect of Judaism. You could compare it to the initiation of 5Ks by Guru Gobind Singh; until then, Sikhs were considered only a sect of Hindus.


"Was Jesus really a Jew and why has Christianity become a Gentile faith?"

I have never heard anyone question Jesus being a Jew. He was born a Jew and died a Jew, just as Gautam Buddha was born a Hindu and died a Hindu. Over period of time, the Christian sect became a religion, just as Budh Panth became became a separate "Dhamma" in due course.

#93 Posted by KaalChakra on November 7, 2008
[[
Ok, here we go. This is where we got sucked into that discussion:

"Vedic religions are as alien to India as Abrahamic religions"
]]

Kaal chakra, that was a plain stupid statement. Even if Aryans brought three page story of Indra and his boy friend from siberia or some cold mountain, Hindus don't show proud on that two page story??


Hindus show proud on what they didin India, they created those Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabhrat, Ramayana (two page story?) and created an excellent language (Sanskrit), the Sanskrit that Panini wrote was written in India. There is no sanskrit old or new known outside of India, not even a monkey sanskrit is known outside of India.


What percentage of Hinduism/Hindu scriptures that 2 page story can be? All religions got that flood story from somewhere, let's imagine they got it from outer space, so we will start calling that all religions are same and we got them from outer space, doesn't matter if it is just one para-story? what percentage is that commonality in religion???


For Islam, first it was copied from Christianity/Judaism in Arabia itself, secondly what percentage was added in India, after bringing it to India, create a language likeSanskrit and start writing and make sure it is as good as Sanskrit and the Hindu text and do it in India or Pakistan to make it equally alien????

Does it not show, how big is the diference in degree of alination for Islam and Hinduism. How can you make perfectly stupid comment that Hinduism is alien as Islam. Doesn't matter what Hindus know before they come to India, Hinduism is what they created, developed, lived in India. You have to be able to deceive your own mind to say such things.

masanamuthu, all of Murad bhai's questions are valid. And he would be serving a great purpose if he chose to seriously and genuinely engage in discussions. That will help everyone.

That's true of almost all his stands. Take the important one of eating beef. Now, it is VERY helpful to tell people that eating beef was not ALWAYS as big a deal for Hindus as it became at some point in time. It will help open up people's minds. I say that as someone who is a vegetarian and comes from a family of vegetarians.

But we all go from truth to tragedy when Murad bhai begins to imply that Hindus prohibited cow-slaughter and eating beef owing to some ill-will and as means of oppression against Muslims.

Chances are, actual historical situation was just the opposite. But whatever that was can be easily sorted out by some discussions, if knowing the truth was our primary concern.

But we ought to still keep an open mind, and if and when Murad bhai chooses to answer simple questions, we should be willing to modify our opinions.

Sure, we should have an open mind. On the other hand, one can be a closet Islamist and ask valid questions. We can accuse him of hypocrisy, but that doesn't make the questions invalid.

For example, some one could believe that virgin birth to be true, but ridicule the claim that Muhammad went to heaven to meet Allah on a buraq and vice versa.

I think people who are religious don't see the hypocrisies of their positions by themselves.