Historicity of Jesus - 2

[dhu]

Ramana, the original post is here:



It is possible that the original Greek narrative consisted of Shem/Ham/Japeth and Moses (modeled as the anti-Cyrus). Upon this was interspersed the Roman narrative of the Patriarchs/12tribes and Jesus. Edomites (from the shadow Patriarch line) are, for example,specifically connected with Romans.

God again promises Abram a multitude of descendants during an episode in which Abram sacrifices to God, who also reveals to Abram the future enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, as well as their escape.[21]

As you can see, the post is incomplete because there is no indication that the (putative roman) patriarch line is counterposed or posited as the fulfillment of the (confirmed greek) Sham/Ham/japeth (seleucid/ptolemaic/greek) line. (There is, of course a forward connection of the Patriarch line to Moses' Exodus, indeed the dilemmas set forth by the two latter patriarchs (Jakob and Isaac) and their shadows (Esau and Ishamel) set the stage specifically for later conflict between the israelites and their various canaanite shadows...



My thought was that just as jesus is roman fulfillment of greek (anti-cyrus) Moshe, the Roman patriarch/12tribe line must be fulfillment of the tripartite shem/ham/japeth. The greek and roman are united however in their common opposition to cyrus an by extension, the orient...





--------------

I have outlined my view of the direction of further investigation here (the originating thread can be found on a blog:





The interventionist state is a direct transformation of the Christian Church. Dharma and Monotheism are, thus, only united as theism from the point of reference of the secular state. So, your claim of a symbiotic relationship between Dharma and Monotheism is made under the typical secular assumptions. Of course, it is another matter that the monotheists/seculars may end up getting acculturated by the heathens, instead of vice versa, but it cannot be claimed that Monotheism is a waystation to Dharmic sensibility. Native Americans were not culturally dispossessed as part of a symbiotic exchange.



Again, working with these categories of theism versus secular nontheism, right versus left, liberal versus conservative only serves to mask our perception of the colonial project. The diversity among the monotheisms is ideological; while among the heathens, diversity is cultural.



1857 was a failure of the missionary project in India and henceforth the Missionary efforts were confined to the peripheral “tribal areas” (Northeast), in addition to being transferred over to the Americans (Methodists, Baptists). At this point, the secular, liberal project gained currency (as a forced alternative) among the colonizer and Macaulayite education was instituted to alienate Indians from their traditions. What the missionaries could not accomplish was accomplished by the liberals/seculizers of the Empire.



If the native traditions are contextualized as ideological, if a certain community is described as the owners of the sankritic and the imposers of the culture on the basis of ideology and as the agents of historical and ideological change, then the rest will automatically be alienated from the culture. If India’s culture and the native response to colonialism is described as an instance of rightist (read bigot) ideology, then the populace will automatically lose its fervor for such an “enterprise.” The missionaries could not accomplish with umpteen convoluted argument about ‘original sin’ and the consequent need to be “saved” was accomplished by our beloved secular. The Liberals and Seculars have salted the field and the set the heathen civilization itself to wither away, merely by ‘norming’ one category of heathen against another and by describing the culture of India as ‘religious’ in the fashion of monotheism. The heathens’ response to Colonialism is thus a mere rightist and bigoted religious sentiment. The heathen concern has been trivialized by the liberal discourse as mere Religion.



That cultural diversity is a result of the imposition of ideology is the typical abrahamic claim; thus, they can deem culture itself as a manifestation of false religion and false belief!! The claim works only in the closed world of ideology but not in our real world where each being’s vyaktigatt dharma is unique!! Thus these fellows can further claim that any positive happening is due to the application of liberal principles and any untoward happening is due the absence of the same. If you are standing next to your mother and not killing her with your bare hands, it is due to your liberal principles!! They are merely redescribing a reality by christening it as an instantiation and implementation of the pet ideology!! And, in turn, these types of chimerical constructs are then used to describe the native heathen as irremediably repressive or unmindingly libertine, as the situation demands. That is Orientalism.



Said’s perspective was limited to the the modern liberal project; though he mentions KM Pannikar in the Introduction, because of conceptual constraints, he was unable to delineate the Monotheist origin of Orientalism. Islam as a colonizer in its own right thus escapes his scrutiny as well as the heathen survival narrative. In fact, the Enlightenment itself resulted as a way to cope with the inherent instability introduced into Protestantism by the “discovery” of heathens in the colonies (ghent group). This story is, of course, glossed as an internal development to Europe with the priests suddenly “wondering” about the ubiquitous pagan ruins in Greece. To admit the “heathen challenge” would automatically discredit the entire modernist movement as merely reactionary; for they blamed the Church for their plight while the native heathen was Orientalized (eg Rousseau’s Romanticist Noble Savage). The developments represented by Schopenhauer and Freud must be seen in such a light, as attempts to forestall the threat posed to the “ideology” prism itself by the heathen’s dynamic. These have been transformed into the the current appropriation of Buddhism and the Doniger type “analyses” (as described by Rajiv Malhotra). FW Engdahl even describes how the ‘saffon revolution’ in “Burma” was a Western-sponsored ‘color revolution’. The same has been described by Sandhya Jain for the Maoist “People’s Revolution” in Nepal .



Of course, they managed to produce some great art as well, but the magnificence of Chartres is not the heathen’s point of dispute; only colonialism (alienation from one’s Traditions). Shelley and the like are thus not being contested.



Twain, Thoreau, Emerson do represent a true heathen thread somehow transplanted into abrahamic absolutism, IMO, but these were eclipsed by the statist Whitman. No one denies the tragedy of conversion; we must cut relations with those who were once our own. In Sindh, when the time came to convert to the “liberator’s” Islam, the jatis chose certain sections which were to continue to remain Hindus, and these were protected by their muslim caste compatriots. But where are the Hindus in that land today? The break may be distant in time but it seems mandated nonetheless by the nature of the colonialist monotheist beast we’re confronting.