Broken up into two posts:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 20 2007, 08:09 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 20 2007, 08:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hollywood takes action hero Jesus to India
Film based on Aquarian Gospel to cover years left out of New Testament
Randeep Ramesh in New Delhi
Monday November 19, 2007
The Guardian
Hollywood is to fill in the Bible's "missing years" with a story about Jesus as a wandering mystic who travelled across India, living in Buddhist monasteries and <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>speaking out against the iniquities of the country's caste system.</span><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]75432[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->They are so pathetic. And pathetically desperate for converts they'll go to any lengths:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The result is the Aquarian Gospel, a $20m movie, which portrays Jesus as a holy man and teacher inspired by a myriad of eastern religions in India. <b>The Aquarian Gospel takes its name from a century-old book</b> that examined Christianity's eastern roots and is in its 53rd reprint.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christianism back to its old deceptions again. A century old book now becomes the basis for a movie on "christian truth" or, at least, truth for the unconverted. While the rest of the gullible catholic church in India cries hoarse against it because "it's heresy", the Pope probably secretly gave it the thumbs up. Anything is fair when it comes to christian conversion, even the church dropping its own principles like "sticking to actual biblical myth" and, instead, propagating very <i>modern</i> fictions about biblical characters that are contrary to the canonical gospels.
But a book aimed at a particular population - in this case, India's Hindus - is nothing new. Christianity gave rise to many bibles, gospels and chapters meant specifically for different peoples: to make them into future sheep. So there were gospels and chapters for ("of") the Egyptians, for ("of") the Hebrews, a chapter for the Romans, a bible or gospel for the Persians (Manichaens), one or more gospels for the Gnostics (so they would become gnostic christians), and more such. http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm#EarlyBiblesGospels
Not all of them actually wrote the stuff attributed to them, some were merely on the receiving end. I read somewhere that many of these - rather than having been written by the people in question as they purport to be - were written to be <i>intended</i> for them. (No idea now where I read it, will have to come back to this. Can't believe me until I find the proof to back up the statement.)
<b>ADDED:</b> Here's something on the canonical ones, though. It's not what I'm referring to, but still:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/fabrication.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Matthew": A Gospel for Messianic Jews
"Luke": A Gospel for Credulous Pagans
"John": A Gospel to Silence the Gnostics<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And Mark according to here even had jesus scoring a non-point against the Jewish Pharisees:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"That a Palestinian Jesus should floor Orthodox Jews with an argument based on a mistranslation of their scriptures is very unlikely."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back to the odious upcoming movie again:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"<b>We think</b> that Indian religions and Buddhism, especially with the idea of <b>meditation, played a big part in Christ's thinking</b>. In the film we are looking beyond the canonised gospels to the 'lost' gospels," said William Sees Keenan<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Buddhism is an Indian religion, so why write "Indian religions and Buddhism"? But never mind that.
Meditation does not exist in christianity, nowhere in the canonical gospels does jeebus meditate (other than in the English meaning of the word: to think).
Meditation in the meaning of the above excerpt refers to a form of Yoga - it's a deeply "pagan" religious practise of the "pagan polytheistic Hindoos". Yes, "idolatrous polytheists" - people whom jehovallah (non-existent jeebus' gawd) hates above everything else and whose practises he denounces. So even had jeebus existed and even had he gone to India, he would never - and I mean <i>never</i> - have practised meditation or spoken with Buddhists (more pagans of a different religion who did not recognise the petty creation that is jehovallah).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"We are looking at <b>new themes</b>. <b>In our story Jesus was loyal to the untouchables</b> [in India] and he <b>defended them with his life</b> by saying that everyone could read the Vedas [Hindu holy books]," said Mr Keenan, a "lapsed Catholic".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->New themes, very true. But "looking at new themes" is a falsehood. They are <i>making up</i> new themes: fictions which to jeebus - as per the canonical gospels, where he never uttered a word against the existing slavery - would be entirely alien.
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3c.htm#AncientSlavery
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Throughout the Bible slavery is as cheerfully and leniently assumed as are war, poverty, and royalty. In the English Bible there is frequent mention, especially in the parables, of "servants." The Greek word is generally "slaves."
Jesus talks about them as coolly as we talk about our housemaids or nurses. Naturally, he would say that we must love them: we must love all men (unless they reject our ideas). But there is not a syllable of condemnation of the institution of slavery. Fornication is a shuddering thing; but the slavery of fifty or sixty million human beings is not a matter for strong language.
-- The Story Of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Pointing to the sermon on the mount's "the meek shall inherit the earth" is fruitless, it wasn't there in the original bible.
But what do the moviemakers' mean with the "In our <b>story</b> Jesus was loyal to the untouchables and he <b>defended them with his life</b>" from above? With his <i>life</i>? What, now's he died/was murdered in India? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> What next: the evil Hindoos crucified jeebus for his telling "the untouchables" about the 20th century christian invention that is "dalit theology"? (EDITED: 20th century)
Oh, no wait. It says he told them that everyone could read the Vedas. So did he read the Vedas? I doubt it. Not only because I doubt Hindus of that time would have ever let a non-Hindu (especially the non-existent jeebus) have access to our texts; not only because I doubt a half-literate (if that) jeebus could have learnt to read Samskritam and happened to come across the Vedas in his local Walmart; but rather because, according to the babble, the non-existent jeebus of the gospels held up the Ten Commandments of his phather the gawd. Especially the first and foremost: Thou shalt have no other Gods before jehovallah. And the Vedas, <i>had</i> non-existent jeebus read it (or the nit-twits making this movie), is full of Gods and the Brahman underlying all. None of these Hindu Gods are in any way the same as jehovallah - the jehovallah who, as per the babble, recognises the existence of other Gods but doesn't want his flock to recognise them. So I AM SURE that non-existent jeebus-who-never-went-to-India nor anywhere thereabouts, WOULD NEVER HAVE TOLD anyone - "the untouchables" or otherwise - to go read the Vedas.
Who comes up with this ridiculous plotline anyway? And do they think India is peopled with half-wits? They seem to give their target audience no credit at all. Oh but I forgot - that's what "dalit theology" is all about: they condescendingly look down on their victims' intelligence.
Next to that, why would anyone think christianity's non-existent jeebus would have been sincere in his grand "caring about 'the untouchables'", when he demanded this of all his followers:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Luke 14:26) If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not the caring sort of person, is he. Why would such a guy - who wanted people to hate their own family - care about unrelated people? Had he existed, what an ingrate he must have been; and worse, to teach other people to be ingrates too!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The producers say they are hoping for commercial and spiritual gains.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No kidding. Of course, they're hoping for converts (spiritual gains) and money (commercial gains). Where the former will become an eternal source of the latter for them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 20 2007, 08:09 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 20 2007, 08:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hollywood takes action hero Jesus to India
Film based on Aquarian Gospel to cover years left out of New Testament
Randeep Ramesh in New Delhi
Monday November 19, 2007
The Guardian
Hollywood is to fill in the Bible's "missing years" with a story about Jesus as a wandering mystic who travelled across India, living in Buddhist monasteries and <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>speaking out against the iniquities of the country's caste system.</span><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]75432[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->They are so pathetic. And pathetically desperate for converts they'll go to any lengths:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The result is the Aquarian Gospel, a $20m movie, which portrays Jesus as a holy man and teacher inspired by a myriad of eastern religions in India. <b>The Aquarian Gospel takes its name from a century-old book</b> that examined Christianity's eastern roots and is in its 53rd reprint.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christianism back to its old deceptions again. A century old book now becomes the basis for a movie on "christian truth" or, at least, truth for the unconverted. While the rest of the gullible catholic church in India cries hoarse against it because "it's heresy", the Pope probably secretly gave it the thumbs up. Anything is fair when it comes to christian conversion, even the church dropping its own principles like "sticking to actual biblical myth" and, instead, propagating very <i>modern</i> fictions about biblical characters that are contrary to the canonical gospels.
But a book aimed at a particular population - in this case, India's Hindus - is nothing new. Christianity gave rise to many bibles, gospels and chapters meant specifically for different peoples: to make them into future sheep. So there were gospels and chapters for ("of") the Egyptians, for ("of") the Hebrews, a chapter for the Romans, a bible or gospel for the Persians (Manichaens), one or more gospels for the Gnostics (so they would become gnostic christians), and more such. http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm#EarlyBiblesGospels
Not all of them actually wrote the stuff attributed to them, some were merely on the receiving end. I read somewhere that many of these - rather than having been written by the people in question as they purport to be - were written to be <i>intended</i> for them. (No idea now where I read it, will have to come back to this. Can't believe me until I find the proof to back up the statement.)
<b>ADDED:</b> Here's something on the canonical ones, though. It's not what I'm referring to, but still:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/fabrication.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Matthew": A Gospel for Messianic Jews
"Luke": A Gospel for Credulous Pagans
"John": A Gospel to Silence the Gnostics<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And Mark according to here even had jesus scoring a non-point against the Jewish Pharisees:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"That a Palestinian Jesus should floor Orthodox Jews with an argument based on a mistranslation of their scriptures is very unlikely."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back to the odious upcoming movie again:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"<b>We think</b> that Indian religions and Buddhism, especially with the idea of <b>meditation, played a big part in Christ's thinking</b>. In the film we are looking beyond the canonised gospels to the 'lost' gospels," said William Sees Keenan<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Buddhism is an Indian religion, so why write "Indian religions and Buddhism"? But never mind that.
Meditation does not exist in christianity, nowhere in the canonical gospels does jeebus meditate (other than in the English meaning of the word: to think).
Meditation in the meaning of the above excerpt refers to a form of Yoga - it's a deeply "pagan" religious practise of the "pagan polytheistic Hindoos". Yes, "idolatrous polytheists" - people whom jehovallah (non-existent jeebus' gawd) hates above everything else and whose practises he denounces. So even had jeebus existed and even had he gone to India, he would never - and I mean <i>never</i> - have practised meditation or spoken with Buddhists (more pagans of a different religion who did not recognise the petty creation that is jehovallah).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"We are looking at <b>new themes</b>. <b>In our story Jesus was loyal to the untouchables</b> [in India] and he <b>defended them with his life</b> by saying that everyone could read the Vedas [Hindu holy books]," said Mr Keenan, a "lapsed Catholic".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->New themes, very true. But "looking at new themes" is a falsehood. They are <i>making up</i> new themes: fictions which to jeebus - as per the canonical gospels, where he never uttered a word against the existing slavery - would be entirely alien.
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3c.htm#AncientSlavery
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Throughout the Bible slavery is as cheerfully and leniently assumed as are war, poverty, and royalty. In the English Bible there is frequent mention, especially in the parables, of "servants." The Greek word is generally "slaves."
Jesus talks about them as coolly as we talk about our housemaids or nurses. Naturally, he would say that we must love them: we must love all men (unless they reject our ideas). But there is not a syllable of condemnation of the institution of slavery. Fornication is a shuddering thing; but the slavery of fifty or sixty million human beings is not a matter for strong language.
-- The Story Of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Pointing to the sermon on the mount's "the meek shall inherit the earth" is fruitless, it wasn't there in the original bible.
But what do the moviemakers' mean with the "In our <b>story</b> Jesus was loyal to the untouchables and he <b>defended them with his life</b>" from above? With his <i>life</i>? What, now's he died/was murdered in India? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> What next: the evil Hindoos crucified jeebus for his telling "the untouchables" about the 20th century christian invention that is "dalit theology"? (EDITED: 20th century)
Oh, no wait. It says he told them that everyone could read the Vedas. So did he read the Vedas? I doubt it. Not only because I doubt Hindus of that time would have ever let a non-Hindu (especially the non-existent jeebus) have access to our texts; not only because I doubt a half-literate (if that) jeebus could have learnt to read Samskritam and happened to come across the Vedas in his local Walmart; but rather because, according to the babble, the non-existent jeebus of the gospels held up the Ten Commandments of his phather the gawd. Especially the first and foremost: Thou shalt have no other Gods before jehovallah. And the Vedas, <i>had</i> non-existent jeebus read it (or the nit-twits making this movie), is full of Gods and the Brahman underlying all. None of these Hindu Gods are in any way the same as jehovallah - the jehovallah who, as per the babble, recognises the existence of other Gods but doesn't want his flock to recognise them. So I AM SURE that non-existent jeebus-who-never-went-to-India nor anywhere thereabouts, WOULD NEVER HAVE TOLD anyone - "the untouchables" or otherwise - to go read the Vedas.
Who comes up with this ridiculous plotline anyway? And do they think India is peopled with half-wits? They seem to give their target audience no credit at all. Oh but I forgot - that's what "dalit theology" is all about: they condescendingly look down on their victims' intelligence.
Next to that, why would anyone think christianity's non-existent jeebus would have been sincere in his grand "caring about 'the untouchables'", when he demanded this of all his followers:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Luke 14:26) If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not the caring sort of person, is he. Why would such a guy - who wanted people to hate their own family - care about unrelated people? Had he existed, what an ingrate he must have been; and worse, to teach other people to be ingrates too!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The producers say they are hoping for commercial and spiritual gains.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No kidding. Of course, they're hoping for converts (spiritual gains) and money (commercial gains). Where the former will become an eternal source of the latter for them.