Embedded Files
A dear friend and a learned author Kalavai Venkat has written an article in the following blog: http://indiafacts.org/a-caution-to-hindus-who-think-jesus-is-dharmic-or-a-saint/I really appreciate his efforts to study the Scriptures in Hinduism and in Christianity to write this blog. Since he requested me to write a rebuttal, I obliged him in a spirit of humility, not considering me as a scholar of the Christian Scriptures but as a layman who is still learning by way of simple truths of this life.
In the preamble to his article, the learned author writes as follows:
Normally, several well-known or otherwise Hindu gurus make some common claims about Jesus which typically go along these lines::
1. The most significant aspect of Jesus’ teaching was “living without prejudice, without seeing who is yours and who is not yours.”
2. His teachings have brought “much sacrifice, piety and love to the world, but the crux of his teaching is, “The Kingdom of God is within you.””
Now such Hindu gurus also disclaim that they are referring to a historical Jesus but to the alleged potential for the highest form of self-realization one has within. Therefore, let us set aside the question of historicity of Jesus and instead focus on the Jesus of the Bible since that book is presumably the source from where these Hindu gurus glean information about Jesus. I will show that such claims are factually incorrect and betray ignorance of Christian teachings.
My comments:
First of all, the views of the learned author on Jesus are based on what the Hindu gurus have perceived of Jesus, especially with reference to His doctrine, “The Kingdom of God is within you”. It is now clear that he starts writing on a subject which was articulated by some other learned teachers of the great religion of Hinduism whom he is referring to as Gurus. I presume that the author was never under the tutelage of one of these Gurus though he holds them in high esteem. For instance, I was under the tutelage of my office Guru P. Ananthakrishnan while working under him for five years. Since I know him intimately in his official and personal life, I can still stand with him and can acquiesce in his doctrines pertaining to ethics in management and administration which I personally witnessed in my career life.
I strongly deny in the first place the so-called teachings of Jesus as quoted by the Gurus.
The most significant aspect of Jesus’ teaching, according to you, was “living without prejudice, without seeing who is yours and who is not yours.” Can the author quote from the doctrines of the New Testament whether this was the teaching of Jesus? Does he know how the learned Gurus arrived at this faulty doctrine? The learned author is apparently basing his argument on a doctrine which is not in accordance with the Bible.
Nobody is born with a prejudice in this life. A child takes birth without any prejudice. But as the child grows, he or she gets his or her mind prejudiced by what he or she learns. The child grows seeing who is his or her i.e. parents and who is not his or her i.e. friends or acquaintances. This doctrine of living without prejudice is punctured now.
According to the Hindu Gurus, as quoted by the learned author, His teachings have brought “much sacrifice, piety and love to the world, but the crux of his teaching is, “The Kingdom of God is within you.””
I humbly feel that the learned author should have quoted from the Bible to prove this point of view about the Kingdom of God. If the mere teachings of Jesus have brought much sacrifice, piety and love to the world, then we should teach His doctrines right from the kindergarten to the University. But the teachers of Hinduism appear to relegate the doctrine of Jesus to the background.
The crux of His teaching is not this verse which has been quoted out of context here. In Luke 17th Chapter, this instance is mentioned. When asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs. Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Then He said to the disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.…
Why cannot we read the whole passage to come to a right conclusion? Can we read a letter written by our parents in between the lines and come to a wrong conclusion?
There are many translations to this particular verse. The Kingdom of God is in you or in your midst. The Pharisees were the religious fanatics who questioned the doctrines of Jesus, though Jesus quoted only from the Law of Moses and the prophets. If the Kingdom of God was in the heart of the Pharisees, then they would have accepted the doctrines of Jesus and would not been responsible for His crucifixion. Today, can the author say that the Kingdom of God is in the heart of a murderer who has not repented? Jesus said that the Kingdom of God would not be established by any sign. I would further elucidate this truth in an elaborate manner subsequently quoting all the relevant scriptures.
According to the learned author, the revered Hindu gurus also reportedly disclaim that they are referring to a historical Jesus but to the alleged potential for the highest form of self-realization one has within. Therefore, keeping in mind the argument of the learned author, let us set aside the question of historicity of Jesus and instead focus on the Jesus of the Bible since that book is presumably the source from where these revered Hindu gurus glean information about Jesus.
The learned author says, "I will show that such claims are factually incorrect and betray ignorance of Christian teachings".
Why cannot we debate on a historical Jesus based on the written history rather than on the alleged potential for the highest form of self-realization one has within? When the learned author was not a sishya of one of these Gurus, why do he fall in line with the lopsided conclusion of these Gurus?
If we set aside the question of historicity of Jesus and focus on the Jesus of the Bible, then the learned author, in my humble opinion, should quote from the Bible from its right perspective. Can we quote a single verse from the Bible about self-realization which is purely the Hindu doctrine and has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Bible?
If the revered Gurus of Hinduism have gleaned information about Jesus without depending on the history, then they should have analysed all the doctrines of the Bible, especially from the New Testament point of view. The source from these Hindu Gurus had based their views on Jesus should be the Bible, the Veda of the Christians. We find that none of the doctrines of the Bible, either the Law of Moses and the prophets or the New Testament books teach us on the self-realization at all.
In fact there are numerous references to the Jesus of the Bible in our ancient Hindu scriptures which I am not touching upon, in this forum.
The learned author claims here, “I will show.....” From where he will show? If not from the Bible or from the history, how can he enlighten us?
The whole writing of the learned author or his tall claim of exposing the falsehood of Jesus even not giving Him the status of a being dharmic or a saint falls flat when his basis of the argument is on the sand of the seashore which is not permanently seen by us in a particular place which we can frequent to see the same sand time and again. It is a dangerous preposition to prove a fact without going into the root of the study. The expositions of the doctrine of Christianity cannot be found on the passing or the changing quick sand heaped on the seashore. The Vedas of the great religion of Hinduism are like the vast seashore. For finding a particular heap of sand, we have to glean the entire seashore. If one learned Guru has found a particular heap of sand, his followers cannot find the same where the former had found it.
The author is most welcome to quote from the Vedas he learnt to prove that the Kingdom of God as propounded by Jesus is in all of us without repentance and without new birth. Jesus said that one has to be born in the Spirit to be in the Kingdom of God. I would now touch upon the doctrine of the Kingdom of God as propounded in the Christian Scriptures.
In Romans 14: 17, Paul writes about the Kingdom of God......”For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness,peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. It is established on righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit who is the Third Person of the Godhead in place of Jesus Christ who was taken into the Heaven after resurrection. Today it is the Holy Spirit, who is none but the Spirit of Christ who was sent in place of Jesus Christ.
It is not a visible Kingdom where we indulge in outward worship or in outward activities like drinking and eating, etc. but a spiritual kingdom of God about which Jesus said it is in you. To illustrate this truth, I quote a simple example. I studied my 10th Standard in a Brahmin school Madurai College High Schoolthrough Tamil Medium wherein I learnt about Kamba Ramayanam, Mahabharatham, Rakshiniyagandam written by GU Pope on the life of Jesus in Tamil. As we all know, Madurai, the seat of Tamil culture is in Tamil Nadu. If I tell a North Indian about the location of Madurai, I will tell him simply that Madurai is in Tamil Nadu. The North Indian friend has to show his inquisitiveness to go to Madurai to be in Madurai to know about Madurai rather than depend upon a video which presents only a part of Madurai. If I tell you that Madurai College High School is in Madurai, you have to visit this school personally to know whether the above subjects were taught to me during 1964. But they may not be able to tell you because there may not be records in their school. However, you have to depend upon my testimony that I studied these subjects in Tamil. You have to discover this fact on your own volition because you cannot depend on my word of mouth.
Similarly, Jesus said, “The Kingdom of God is in you”. It is described vividly in the Veda of Christians. Until and unless you discover this Kingdom in you, you cannot appreciate its existence. The learned author has to discover this kingdom in him by showing inquisitiveness to study it. He needs a base to begin this study. Since he has quoted the Hindu gurus who relied on the Bible to know about this kingdom, let us confine ourselves to the Veda of Christians.
The heart of Jesus' teachings centers around the theme of the kingdom of God. This expression is found in sixty-one separate sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. Counting parallels to these passages, the expression occurs over eighty-five times. It also occurs twice in John (3:3, 5). It is found in such key places as the preaching of John the Baptist, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near" ( Matt 3:2 ); Jesus' earliest announcement, "The time has come… The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" ( Mark 1:15 ; cf. Matt 4:17 ; Luke 4:42-43 );the prayer Jesus taught his disciples, "your kingdom come" ( Matt 6:10 ); in the Beatitudes, "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" ( Matthew 5:3 Matthew 5:10 ); at the Last Supper, "I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God" ( Mark 14:25 ); and in many of Jesus' parables ( Matthew 13:24 Matthew 13:44 Matthew 13:45 Matthew 13:47 ; Mark 4:26 Mark 4:30 ; Luke 19:11 ).
Jesus says in one place that the Kingdom of God is in you. However, in other places, He says that the Kingdom of God is near you for which you have to repent and believe the good news i.e. gospel. The same Jesus taught His disciples to pray to God, “Your kingdom come”. During the last supper, Jesus says that He would drink it anew in the Kingdom of God in a future tense.
It is a personal experience for the one concerned to know that the Kingdom of God is in him or in her in the same manner when I said that I studied certain religious texts in Madurai College High School. I studied the same as per my own statement. But you have to discover the truth whether I studied the same or not, though you know that this college is in Madurai. You have to physically visit this college to verify my testimony. If you show your inquisitiveness, the authorities of this school would confirm my statement. You would definitely find the said school and would know the truth. The Kingdom of God is like that. The Kingdom of God is a theological doctrine which you would find only when you experience it personally. One has to search for the truth in its original place in the same manner that you should verify my statement in the said college and not elsewhere. As such, the Kingdom of God as propounded in the Veda of Christians has to be searched only in its proper place and not in the manner the learned Hindu Gurus had attempted to understand the doctrine of the Kingdom of God by quoting a word of Jesus out of context leading to an erroneous conclusion that the Kingdom of God is all people who do not repent and accept the gospel.
The Kingdom of God did not come in the heart of Judas who betrayed Jesus for money. After betrayal, Judas did repent but took the extreme step of suicide because the Scriptures as prophesied in the Old Testament needed to be fulfilled. Without Judas, Jesus would not have been crucified on the Cross for the salvation of all including the Gentiles of the Old Covenant. Jews of the period of Jesus rejected Him so that the salvation for the Gentiles came through the Kingdom of God in the heart of the Gentiles. The Kingdom of God comes in a true spirit of repentance and of restitution. It does not come by outward sign.
The Kingdom of God comes into the heart of a believer who accepts Jesus Christ as the Lord and the Savior, according to the Bible or who is born again in the Spirit of God. It does not come with any outside sign but with the inside sign of repentance and of rebirth.
This clearly shows that the learned author is ignorant of the doctrines of the Christianity to prove that the claims on Jesus by the revered Gurus of Hinduism portraying Jesus as being Dharmic and of being a saint are wrong. The learned author talks about the so-called claims of Jesus in his prologue without studying the whole recorded history of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible Jesus is presented as merely being dharmic or being a saint. The Bible presents Him as the Saviour of the world and not as a saint.
Jesus, a highly prejudiced racist and misogynist
The learned author writes as follows:
Jesus was a thorough racist who was prejudiced against anyone that was not a Jew. The Bible (Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30) narrates a chilling episode. Jesus was a faith-healer. A Gentile (non-Jew) woman once begged him to cast away the demon that had possessed her daughter. Needless to say, demons do not exist and faith-healing is an act of fraud. These verses reveal that Jesus the faith-healer was no less a charlatan than today’s evangelical faith-healers such as Benny Hinn or Pope Francis that prey on the fear and ignorance of the gullible.
These verses also reveal the racist and prejudicial side of Jesus. He cold-heartedly told the woman that only the Jews were his children and that the Gentiles were dogs. He wouldn’t heal a dog. The desperate woman accepted her unexpectedly bestowed upon canine status and knelt down in front of Jesus in abject submission. She pleaded that he show the dog mercy. Only then Jesus relented. It would be extremely hard to find another religious figure that displayed such racism and prejudice as Jesus did toward a woman and her child in distress.
My comments:
The learned author while trying to expose the claims of Jesus without reading the gospel now turns to some preachers like Benny Hinn or Pope Francis.
Jesus was a faith healer? Can the author expound the term “faith healing” here? Healing means relieving a suffering or a sick person from a disease or pain. One gest healed by a medical treatment. The gospel tells us that Jesus cast out a demon from a Gentile woman. Jesus was a Jew by birth and the woman a Gentile by birth. Even Hinduism like Judaism teaches us about the elitist race i.e. Judaism or Brahminism. Jesus followed strictly the sundry laws in the old testament books to keep Himself away from the pollution of the sin of the heathens who worshiped the diverse gods other than the One God (Jehovah). The Old testament books similar to our Vedas prohibited the Jews, the elitist Levitical race from having any physical contact with the Gentiles who were non-Jews.
I am quoting the same passage in the Mathew gospel quoted by the learned author. Let us read the whole passage.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
“Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
From the above passage, Jesus is not proved as a faith healer but a healer or a doctor. Why should the learned author quote the heretical teachings by some Christian preachers or by the Pope of the Catholic Church instead of from the Bible?
Jesus was not sent to the Gentiles but to the lost sheep i.e. Jews. The Canaanite woman was not a Jew so as to be legally healed by a Jew. But Jesus broke this sundry law to prove that He was indeed the Messiah of not merely the Jews but also of the non-Jews.
The Canaanite woman had a great faith in Jesus, though Jesus was a Jew. She could perceive Him as the Messiah promised for the redemption. She addressed him “Lord”. Jesus said, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” In those days, the race of Gentiles was called heathen. As a Jew of the Old Covenant, He was not supposed to even talk to the Canaanite woman treated as Sudra in the Hindu Vedas. Jesus compared her to a dog because the dogs ate the crumbs during His time.
What is the basis of the learned author's argument that Jesus used the canine terminology in the context of a race? If you read the gospel, there are many instances of Jesus ministering to the non-Jews, i.e. Romans also.
The woman would not give up. “Lord, help me,” she begged. This is where Jesus went to the terminology “dogs”.
Healing of a sickness was likened to the bread in those days. It was called the bread of the children. Jesus healed all who came to Him for healing. All included Gentiles too. (Mathew 8:6). If Jesus had discriminated the Canaanite woman on account of her race, then He would have discriminated against those who came to him to be healed. Jesus never treated the daughter of the Canaanite woman as a dog which the learned author attributed to His racial aspersion.
Jesus did not treat the dogs as some inferior animal. Jews used to treat the domesticated dogs very well. The dogs usually eat the crumbs even if we feed them on our plates. “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” But the Canaanite woman was feisty and stubborn. The life of her daughter was at stake. She picked up his words and threw them right back: “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” When Jesus heard this, he said, “Woman, great is your faith!” But she hasn’t made any confession of faith. Jesus was humble enough to agree with her ultimately. This was His trait. Jesus is also known as the Son of Man in the New Testament. He had 100% attributes of a mortal man. He argued with a mortal woman and ultimately accepted her plea for healing her.
A faith healer is one who pretends to heal others by his tantric or magic powers. Jesus is not proved as a faith healer as the woman exercised her faith in the power of Jesus for healing her.
In the Cross, Jesus brought the Jews at par with the Gentiles. This is the crux of the doctrine of the New Testament. The crux of the message is not merely that the Kingdom of God is in us which the so-called pundits of the Hinduism always quote out of ignorance.
I do not want to waste my time in commenting on Benny Hinn or Pope Francis as the subject matter of our debate revolves on the Person of Jesus as revealed in the Scriptures.
Coming to the point of Jesus making the woman kneel down, Jesus never made her kneel down. She did on her own volition.
The views of the author
"As John Hartung decisively demonstrates in Love Thy Neighbor: The evolution of in-group morality, pp. 15-16, Jesus vowed to make the heathens kneel down before the Jewish-born Christians in abject submission. Jesus vowed (Matthew 5:17) to fulfill draconian and misogynistic biblical injunctions such as the one which requires a groom to drag his bride on the nuptial night and stone her to death on the suspicion that she may not be a virgin. Onlookers are urged to participate in this violent orgy.
Jesus told that only the Jews were his children and that the Gentiles were dogs.
These examples should make it clear to any reader that Jesus was a highly prejudiced racist and misogynist. Some Hindu gurus strangely, interpret these as teachings that call for “living without prejudice, without seeing who is yours and who is not yours.”
My comments:
Jesus never treated the dogs as inferior animals so as to condemn them as untouchables. According to the Old Testament, the Gentiles were known as heathen who worshiped other gods other than the Creator God. Jesus treated the children of the Canaanite tribe as dogs in regard to their habit of eating the crumbs which fell from the table and not in regard to their inferior race. Please note that the disciples of Jesus who treated the Canaanite woman on a lower racial pedestal took umbrage to the conversation of Jesus with that Canaanite woman. But Jesus overcame the racial prejudice against her and healed her daughter.
The whole borrowed argument of the learned author presenting Jesus as a highly prejudiced racist and misogynist does not stand on its own legs. His argument even does not stand on the crutches given by the learned Gurus of Hinduism who gave Jesus a place of sainthood in the galaxy of the religious saints of this world. The heretical doctrine of the author has no legs or the crutches to hold.
In Mathew 5:17, Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Jesus summed the Ten commandments into a single commandment of love which is loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself.
The author has quoted some passage from the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy wherein there was a reference to the punishment of an infidel woman. This is not of the Law of Moses. Of course, this is not the original thought of the learned author as he relied on the writing of John Hartung to prove that Jesus was a racist and a misogynist.
The Scriptures from the Bible may be quoted by the author to continue our discussion from his own argument rather than from the thread of someone else, be it Leo Tolstoy or any other historian.
Jesus, the Apocalyptic Prophet
The author has quoted as follows:
"Leo Tolstoy disliked core Christian teachings. However, instead of rejecting Christianity, he disingenuously exculpated it by selectively portraying the Sermon on the Mount as the epitome of the Christian message. As Bart Ehrman has shown (Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible, pp. 77-78), not only is the Sermon on the Mount a very late interpolation into the Bible but its message is not one of inward perfection as in the Yoga. Its message is apocalyptic; Jesus expected the end of the world to happen very soon. The verse actually means that the coming Kingdom of God is there and present among the Jewish Christians that were his contemporary followers. In this racist teaching, Gentiles are excluded from that kingdom. However, Tolstoy preferred to rather indulge in a sleight of hand than honestly interpret the verse".
My comments:
The sermon on the Mount is not the epitome of the Christian message. It is an instruction for holy and righteous living. The epitome of the Christian message is salvation from the sin through the atonement by the Blood of Jesus Christ. The author has again borrowed the thoughts of Leo Tolstoy or Bart Ehrman to come to the conclusion that that the Sermon on the Mount was a very late interpolation into the Bible. ......This New York Times bestseller reveals how books in the Bible were actually forged by later authors, and that the New Testament itself is riddled with contradictory claims about Jesus,,,,,,,”
The integrity of the gospel can be proved by the four accounts of the gospel presented by four gospel writers who perceived the Jesus of the Scriptures from different angles. All their accounts agree with the one and the same life of Jesus Christ. As eye witnesses, they presented Jesus from different perspectives. The life of Jesus is a recorded history.
If the author has undertaken a study or a research on his own, he is welcome to share the same with us rather than quote the writings of Leo Tolstoy or Hart Ehrman.
The learned author says that the Sermon on the Mount is not one of inward perfection as in the Yoga. Can he enlighten us whether he has attained inward perfection through the Yoga? If Yoga brings us perfection, what about the contemporary Yoga Gurus in our nation? Are they on the way to perfection if they have not already attained it?
The views of the author
"The result was a dishonest book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, in which Tolstoy gave the apocalyptic Jesus a complete botox-like makeover and transformed him into a contemplative teacher who sought perfection within as a Hindu yogi does. Many unthinking Hindus, starting with Mahatma Gandhi, have popularized this propagandist story without realizing that it serves to disarm and proselytize unsuspecting Hindus. In the article, Jesus Christ and the Impending Genocide, I have shown that the apocalypse entails the genocide of billions of non-Christians.. Is it too hard for Hindu gurus to comprehend that an anticipation of a violent, genocidal apocalypse as the end goal of religion is the very opposite of the peaceful inward perfection that characterizes yoga?
Lest one should think that Christian violence is merely fantastic and limited to prophesies, it is worth remembering that Christianity has been responsible for numerous genocides throughout history. In recent decades, the virtually complete annihilation of the Tutsi in Rwanda was the direct result of the hatred sowed and nurtured by the Church. In the words of Timothy Longman (Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda, p. 3), “People came to mass each day to pray. Then they went out to kill.”
My Views:
The learned author anchors his argument on a book written by Tolstoy which he himself claims to be dishonest in the first place. How is that one can come to a definite conclusion of honesty depending upon the honest aspects in part? This is like taking a part of venom from a food contaminated by the said venom and asking us to consume it. Can we remove the contamination by throwing away a part of the food perceived to be contaminated? We have to throw the whole stuff stock and barrel.
Jesus never sought or attained perfection as a Yogi of the Hinduism. He was born sinless and died sinless as per the New Testament books. He was perfect in His entire life as the sin did not overcome Him. Though He was tempted like all of us, He sinned not. According to Hebrews 4:15, For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin.
The learned author points his fingers at an article, Jesus Christ and the Impending Genocide, and claims that he has shown “ the apocalypse entails the genocide of billions of non-Christians.. "Is it too hard for Hindu gurus to comprehend that an anticipation of a violent, genocidal apocalypse as the end goal of religion is the very opposite of the peaceful inward perfection that characterizes yoga? "
I presume that the author refers to the final judgment as referred in the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation is an allegorical illustration of things to unfold in the history and it should not be literally interpreted. The signs and figures are symbolical.
Let him quote from the book of Revelation to argue in this forum. He is most welcome to do so.
The views of the author
"Lest one should think that Christian violence is merely fantastic and limited to prophesies, it is worth remembering that Christianity has been responsible for numerous genocides throughout history. In recent decades, the virtually complete annihilation of the Tutsi in Rwanda was the direct result of the hatred sowed and nurtured by the Church. In the words of Timothy Longman (Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda, p. 3), “People came to mass each day to pray. Then they went out to kill.”
Omer Bartov and Phyllis Mack show (In God’s Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century), Christianity has been culpable of many a genocide in the 20th century alone, most prominently the Holocaust of six million Jews. Nazis derived their anti-Semitism directly from the Bible. They subsidized the works of the demagogue Martin Luther and were inspired by the anti-Semitism that was inseparable from the Catholic and Protestant teachings. In the same anthology, Doris Bergen (Between God and Hitler: German Military Chaplains and the Crime of the Third Reich, pp. 123-134) shows that Christian chaplains rationalized the Holocaust.
Leo Tolstoy disliked core Christian teachings. However, instead of rejecting Christianity, he disingenuously exculpated it by selectively portraying the Sermon on the Mount as the epitome of the Christian message.
It is hard to fathom how Hindu gurus could interpret this history of religiously-inspired carnage and genocide as the ushering in of “love to the world.” It is best for these gurus to take such violent injunctions in Christian scripture at face value and not interpret them using Hindu lenses".
My comments:
If Nazis or the so-called followers of Jesus or the Christians who do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ indulge in violence and genocide, how can the author find fault with Jesus Christ and His teachings?
The author erroneously argues that the Hindu gurus are inspired by the doctrines of Jesus Christ. If they had been really inspired by the doctrines of Jesus Christ, then they would have presented Him as the Saviour of the world and not merely as a revered saint.
I did argue with some learned Sikh writers on their forum a few years ago about the violence mentioned in the Old Testament books. The following is the link.
https://sites.google.com/site/propheticschool/god
The ignorance of the colonized Hindu mind
The learned author has quoted as follows:
"Even a cursory knowledge of the Bible and Christian history would enable Hindu gurus to correct such deeply flawed opinions of Jesus. However, I would argue that the ignorance displayed in some cases is willful and representative of a behavioral pattern prevalent among the Hindus. Not only Hindu gurus but numerous Hindu religious leaders, activists, and intellectuals are guilty of fabricating this fantastic imagery of Jesus and propagating it.
In many popular books, some Hindu intellectuals assume the dual role of the Holy Ghost and the Holy Virgin, and miraculously give birth to an imaginary Jesus, endow him with dharmic attributes, and put him on a pedestal and some even announce that the Emperor Constantine seized “the dharmic message of Jesus and turned it into a political weapon.” Of course, this is a fantastic claim because there is nothing dharmic about racist teachings that foretell genocide. Bart Ehrman has resolutely shown (Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code) that Constantine neither knew much about Christian teachings nor modified anything. Such claims merely represent a Hindu tendency to exculpate Jesus by scapegoating someone else for the horrible Christian teachings. It needs to be repeated that the final aim and the core teachings of Christianity is to devour non-Christian faiths using every means, fair and foul including genocide".
My comments:
If the Hindu gurus are not able to correct such deeply flawed opinions of Jesus, I humbly request the learned author to discuss with me the deeply flawed opinions on Jesus by quoting from the Bible. He is also most welcome to quote from the Gayatri Mantra to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. I can quote some verse from the Gayatri Mantra to prove the virgin birth of Jesus and other facts concerning Jesus if the author accepts the interpretation given by us about the virgin mentioned in this prayer. However, let us not deviate from the debate into another doctrine in the Hindu Scriptures.
The author now refers to the book titled Da Vinci Code. I had written a blog long ago which is available in the following link:
https://sites.google.com/site/propheticschool/greatlie
I am referring only to my research papers without relying on the writings of other authors.
The views of the author:
"Christianity has been responsible for numerous genocides throughout history.
Why then do influential Hindus continually attempt to portray Jesus as dharmic and cast him in the image of a Hindu yogi in defiance of well-established facts? The reasons are two-fold:
1. Ignorance of serious scholarship that sheds light on the nature of Christianity and its violent history.
2. Some of these Hindu opinion-makers are representative of their followers: ill-informed, intellectually-lazy, and too eager to take the path of least resistance to acquire fanfare.
As a result of two centuries of Christian colonial rule, most urbanized Hindus have been sumptuously fed a sanitized image of Jesus and Christianity. Their colonized minds have yet to acquire a reasonable worldview and enlightenment. They often resort to censorship to silence an informed opinion that presents the inconvenient truth. This creates a self-serving mechanism that propagates absurd fantasies Such minds rejoice in the deluded belief that Jesus was a yogi".
My views:
If Christianity has been responsible for numerous genocides throughout history, how can the author justify that the doctrines of Jesus Christ lead to such genocides as Jesus Himself forgave His enemies on the Cross?
If the “influential Hindus continually attempt to portray Jesus as dharmic and cast him in the image of a Hindu yogi, how can you blame Jesus and His doctrines. Even if they continue to portray Him as a saint without accepting Him as the Saviour of the world, the truth of the gospel stands on its own legs for many centuries. All this shows that the Hindu Gurus are ignorant of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. The theme of the New Covenant is "salvation from the sin" and not attainment of self-realization by quoting Jesus out of context when He said, "The Kingdom of God is in you"
- Job Anbalagan
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse