Historicity of Jesus - 2

Husky · 10-03-2009, 02:08 PM

I think this is related -

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/09/rah...cky-wicket.html
QUOTE Ashok Kumar said...

Â Â It seems Rahul's chamchas had failed him very miserably in this case.
Â Â Aren't they supposed to plan/choreograph everything as to who are gonna ask questions and what are the questions. And if needed rent a crowd to ask only the prepared questions.

Â Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudience
Â Â The term also has use in a political context, when politicians seed press conferences, 'town hall' meetings, and similar events with an audience that is generally supportive of their political party, while denying access to supporters of opposing political parties.

Â Â Are Rahul's chamchas so incompetent that they can't even orchestrate these PR stints?
Â Â Is such incompetency inevitable when "negative selection" is the fundamental principle of recruitment.

Â Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_sele..._%28politics%29
Â Â The person on the top of the hierarchy, wishing to remain in power forever, chooses his associates with the prime criterion of incompetence - they must not be competent enough to remove him from power. The associates do the same with those below them in the hierarchy, and the hierarchy is progressively filled with more and more incompetent people.

10/01/2009 12:38 PM
Blogger Deva said...

Â Â Great comment.

Â Â Negative selection is reserved for the natives. They are intelligent enough to know the colonizer wants sepoys and, thus, they will never tire from promoting the foreign agenda with utmost zeal. Thus, this idiotboy Rahul dutifully escorted Miliband on a poverty tour in Amethi and gave his "support" (thumbprint) to the nuke "deal".

Â Â When possible, they will also "positively select" the colonizer: Rajiv succeeded in this while Nehru failed with Edwina. With time, they seem to be getting better with the positive selection!!!!!!!

Â Â 10/01/2009 2:07 PM

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-13-2009, 09:51 PM by dhu.)

QUOTEJudith - You are all a confused lot. I am clear in what I state and please try to be clear. Your question is fine. I do not have a choice for what my child or grand child chooses. The point here is that, my will to convert to whatever I choose should not be imposed to my children. In other words, the premise of the conversion is to get one generation in and the rest will follow. I hope you are with me so far .. Let the individual convert, but let the next generation not follow that cult or organization or religion by default. Give them the time to decide. Then only can we deem this as a free will. Your's was not a freewill towards your faith. You whole generation was dumped into the "institution". Do you get me now.

QUOTEAnand Dsilva - Those youth that you point too, misguided according to you -Don't they mean anything to you ? or are they just those "Hindu's" for you? The problem with you christians is the perpetual justification that you are better than the rest. You are the most educated and the righteous. Stop the condescension and get ready for some butt kicking..

QUOTEMr. Jude - We may not know the true reason for your ancestors converting, but there is a common consensus based on the history available. The conversion was a few generations ago and you do not agree, but you are willing to buy into a book written thousands of years ago and marketed as god's book?

The world will end, we are living in a planet where the core is cooling and it is a matter of time. I agree. However before it cools completely, I just want to clarify that Hinduism is not a faith based religion, nor is it a cult based entity. If you are a nature lover, can you be a fanatical nature lover .. no .. those two will never go together. The difference between you and I is that I am what I am and you are what your faith is. I am quite appalled that you being an Indian and studied there do not understand the fundamentals of Hinduism. If the world does not exist why should I cease to exist. Am I not part of the dharma or God? If I cease to exist he ceases to exist. I am quite clear about it .. Are you ? 

QUOTEJude -- you are a fanatic and you would not give up your religion - simple. Your forefathers has sold your soul..

You do have a point about ancient civilizations perishing with the advent of christianity. Doen't this tell you anything??? This is what we hope to prevent in India. We will break up your grandiose plan of having the pillar of christianity around the globe.

There are certain things that you do not get. Let me explain in simple terms. If I were to wipe any association to religion and culture and simply enjoy living with nature or let us say "believe" in nature, then does this belief system have a beginning or an end. Christianity has a beginning and thus an end too. But the fundamental concept of every belief is immortal. What I am saying is that the institution is man made .... It needs maintenance, which are people like you .. I hope you get my point .....

QUOTEMr CDsouza - I like your statement about "That means Hindus were also converted from some other religion. Otherwise why is it identified as Hinduism???"

You really do not understand Hinduism. There is no Adi (beginning) to hinduism. It is as old as the universe. Eg. as Gandhiji said, truth or dharma is nothing new. It is as old as the universe. In other words, truth is dharma or God or whatever you call it.

Since we are all using Breathing exercise, let me use it here also -- why is it called Breathing, it must have been converted from something else ... hmmm.. this does not make sense right??

I would sincerely request you to stop the medication.. Stick to walking and eating at home.

ramana · 10-13-2009, 10:10 PM

This is a post by BRF member Anujan in the Nukkad thread.....

QUOTEWell thanks for the encouragement. Let me do my bit to keep Rakshaks off the "Phorum Feedback" dhaagaÂ

This is rant no 1, to be followed by rant no 2 (I feel rant no 1 gives background for rant no 2. I have already posted parts of rant no 1 before -- but still I repeat)

(MKG-ji's words)

Quote:
(Missionary, paraphrased) "You cannot understand the beauty of our religion...Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless...How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. ...Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace."

(MKG-ji) 'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.'

This is a profound point. As a background -- most non-status quo religious (except for maybe, the eastern dharmic religions), seek to sharply define what they are and why they are different and better than current prevailing practices. Same thing with Xtianity and Islam.

If I am a Jew, why should I convert ?

The rational argument could be "You need to change your worldview, and adhere to a new set of ethical and moral codes --- like not stealing, not killing etc --- to get rewarded". But then two effective counters could be (a) My own religion asks me to not steal and not kill, why should I convert to yours ? and (b) Okay, let me not steal and not kill, but also, let me not believe in your god. This is a severe weakness in religions which rely on proselyting to survive. Secondly, as ethical and moral beliefs become well understood, it becomes harder to start a religion (As in, my ethics are rooted in Indian Penal Code, why should I become a Xtian ?).

To counter that, Xtians came up with several doctrines, we shall visit one important doctrine called as "Sola Gratia" -- or the doctrine of "by grace alone". What it says is that, humans are born sinners. They are condemned to hell. No matter what you do (even if you live your life in 400% completely ethical and moral manner) you are going to hell. Now how can that be ? That is because you carry the blood of your forefathers, who trace their lineage to Adam who committed the original sin. The sin flows from father to child, through the semen, making you a sinner condemned to hell the moment you are born (this has profound implications, see footnote later, but continue reading). So no matter how moral or ethical life you live after that, you are still condemned, unless you believe in Jesus.

Thus, you cannot go to heaven, unless you believe. Your actions are inconsequential. Xtianism, in its very root, if it subscribes to this doctrine is a system of faith rather than a system of morals or ethics.

Hinduism on the other hand, takes a radically different approach. Your soul (jeevatma) gets born again and again in cycles, till you become perfect in action and in mind, till you attain salvation. It does not matter, in a sense, if you believe in a God. Adherence to Dharma takes precedence over faith (I am well aware of "Charanaagati" but thats for later). You are not condemned to everlasting suffering if you were born to a sinner. You are not condemned to everlasting suffering if you *are* a sinner (Ravana goes to heaven eventually) provided you reform your ways. In this sense, hinduism, is a system of ethics rather than a system of faith.

This is what the exchange between MKG-ji and the missionary starkly brings out

Missionary: "Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless... Only he who accepts (Jesus) can have eternal peace"
MKG-ji: "I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself"

Footnote:

1. This sin of the father, condemning the children to everlasting suffering has no contemporary in modern law (you cannot be imprisoned if your dad steals) or in Dharmic religions (You are not a sinner if your father is).
2. Since it is required for Jesus to be sinless, he was not created from the Semen of man. He was born of a virgin
3. If Adam didnt exist, there is no original sin, there is no automatic condemnation to hell and the theological basis of the religion collapses. Hence the much takleef with evolution.



Good summary of the issues. I used to wonder at the takllef about Darwinism and Evolution in the South.

By same token the Out of India would be major takleef.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia

And recall the furore with Jimmy Carter whether he was guilty of thinking about sin!

ramana · 10-14-2009, 02:54 AM

QUOTE("Anujan")<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("SwamyG")Anujan saar: Can you cite references for the forced conversion on Gandhiji? TIA.

MKG-ji did something stunning that few people realize.

You should realize that Indian independence was as much an ideological struggle as it was a political and social struggle. During the heydays of Imperialism, it was quite fashionable to find theological and "Moral" basis for perpetrating imperialism and colonialism. They were commonly justified as "White man's burden". It is in many ways quite aptly summed up by Kipling's poem

"Take up the White Man's burden/Send forth the best ye breed/.../Your new-caught, sullen peoples,/Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden/The savage wars of peace/.../Watch sloth and heathen Folly/Bring all your hopes to nought."

In essence, Kipling exhorts his countrymen and Europeans to take up the white man's burden, to civilize the half-devil and half child orientals. To wage savage wars to bring peace (wow !), even though in the short term the lazy heathen (kuffars) might frustrate progress. This interpretation served the purpose splendidly, with colonialism providing fodder for economic growth of the west, while also providing a theological basis and opportunities for the clergy. "White man's burden", not only alludes to the big task of social and economic emancipation of the orientals, but also to the "burden" of ensuring their religious (and hence moral) advancement (into Christianity).

MKG-ji, even though secular in his political outlook and beliefs made no bones to hide the fact that his ethical and moral beliefs arose from his religious conviction. He stunningly demonstrated that ethics rooted in oriental theology, gave rise to values such as non-violence and non-cooperation with evil, thereby demonstrating the superiority of eastern ethics over the (hollow) claims of refined moral and ethical beliefs of the west.

In refining his moral and ethical beliefs, MKG-ji consulted not just the Hindu holy books, but also the Koran and the Bible -- but instinctively realized that he was a Hindu. (Why ? read next post) The Christians who were (a) amazed at this stunning setback for all to see (Independence of 1/4 of humanity led by a man who based his principles on ethics is bound to be noticed by people. Especially when Europe with all their claims of ethical superiority were busy gassing the Jews and killing one another) (b) Saw a great opportunity to gain influence in India by claiming their leader as one of their own and Â© Not really familiar with the framework through which Hindu thought progresses (see next post), made several entreaties to MKG-ji, claiming that since his beliefs were Christ-like and since he himself admitted that some of his beliefs originated from the Bible, he should convert.

{ramana: I sawa beautiful icon in Berkely which depicted Gandhiji as Christ! Not being well off I put off acquiring it to find out it was sold out.}

MKG-ji famously rebuked them.(his words)

QUOTEI disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never be to undermine another's faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith. This implies the belief in the truth of all religions and respect for them. It again implies true humility, a recognition of the fact that the divine light having been vouchsafed to all religions through an imperfect medium of flesh, they must share in more or less degree the imperfection of the vehicle.

On top of it wrote things such as (his words)

QUOTE"A Satyagrahi aims at conversion of the opponent's heart by making him aware of his ill will or inhuman behaviour through self-suffering. Satyagraha aims at winning over the opponent by love and gentle persuation and by arousing in him a sense of justice rather than forcing him to surrender out of fear."

He was talking of converting the west <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /> There are several accounts from MKG-ji himself about his experiences with missionaries. Some of the exchanges are remarkable, and reveal the supple intellect of the Mahatma. MKG-ji recounts an incident (so "me" in this context=MKG-ji, since these are his words)

QUOTE(From a missionary)Â 'You cannot understand the beauty of our religion. From what you say it appears that you must be brooding over your transgressions every moment of your life, always mending them and atoning for them. How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God's infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restlessness is yours, and what a promise of peace we have.'

The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied:

'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.'Â (Anujan's comment: this is a very profound point, more profound than most realize. Probably requiring an entire post. Please let me know if there is interest)



PS> Dont really know if I should bore the rakshaks with my rant which I intended for "see next post"

</div>

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-25-2009, 09:45 AM by dhu.)

Shadow Warrior:

QUOTEreligion of Love sees Devils everywhere and Gods nowhere
oct 23rd, 2009

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: K

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics...ma_Vennari.html
http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/060304rit.asp
"We have to face the fact that Christianity has been and remains a cult of devil-worship. That is why its adherents see only devils and demons wherever they go. There is no other explanation for the hallucinations of Varthema and Company. The fact that the Devil is described as God in the Bible should make no difference." http://www.bharatvani.org/books//hhce/Ch3.htm

Reminds me of the well-known jeebusian preoccupation with satanic cults: these cults have never been unearthed to date.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-30-2009, 11:10 AM by dhu.)

WHY TERRORISTS BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM
Jakob De Roover, S.N. Balagangadhara
QUOTEFor decades, Pakistan gave financial, logistic and moral support to armed Islamic militants, who were sent out to infiltrate and destabilise Kashmir and India. As the recent attacks on the army headquarters and police compounds show, these militants have now turned against their former masters.

This is not a unique case. During the Cold War, the US government decided to support the Afghan resistance against the Soviet invader with weapons and money. President Reagan said that the Mujahideen were `freedom fighters' and `the moral equivalent' of the American Founding Fathers. These deeply religious heroes charmed the Americans with their brave struggle against the Soviet unbeliever. Some fifteen years later, the romance was over: the horror of 9/11 led to the war in Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, dictator Zia-ul-Haq also supported the Afghan resistance during the 1980s. Meanwhile, he `Islamised' state institutions and enabled Muslim fanatics to penetrate the army. After his death, Pakistani rulers began to use Islamic militants as pawns in the conflict with India. Particularly the army and its infamous intelligence services, the ISI, applied this tactic systematically. Many Pakistanis viewed this as a heroic struggle against the heathen nation of India, much like Americans defended the support to the Mujahideen in the name of safeguarding the free world and the struggle of God against atheism. Today in Pakistan, the former heroes have also turned against the state that nourished them. After the USA, the Pakistani people will be the next victim of Jihad.

Why do terrorists bite the hand that feeds them? This tendency is intrinsic to the internal logic of terrorism. Typical to terrorism is its transformation of crime into moral heroism. It re-presents criminals â who kill and maim innocent people â as heroes, saints and martyrs. This lies at the heart of all terrorist movements: they call upon a powerful moral message to justify their crimes and characterise these as exceptionally praiseworthy acts. For the Rote Armee Fraktion and the Red Brigades, it concerned the toppling of the oppressors of the proletariat; the Zionist terror brigades struggled for a homeland for the Jewish people; Al Qaeda fights for the will of Allah. Each of these movements shares two aspects: they attracted people who were deeply concerned about some cause and wished to `fight' for it; and they soon sank into a variety of forms of crime, from murder to drug trade, in the name of this cause.

This is not a coincidence. In fact, all such movements are parasitic upon the morals of a specific community. Terrorists invoke the moral values of some community (say, the Muslim community or the communist international) only to abuse these as a justification for the most horrible atrocities. Thus, they are subversive in the most harmful way: they feed on a specific people and then turn against that people by committing crimes in the name of its moral values.

Consequently, terrorists always end up attacking the communities that sustained them at some point. Whether it concerns Pakistan or the USA, each state that supports a terrorist movement will eventually pay the price. These two countries pursued their `national interest' so fanatically and unscrupulously that they sent out heavily armed Islamic militants to undermine the enemy. When a country's foreign policy detaches itself from all moral considerations in this way, then it inevitably creates a fertile soil for terrorism â a form of crime that does not honour its master.

ramana · 10-30-2009, 09:13 PM

The whole thing is a messed up reaction against women. Let me explain myself. They think that 'fall of man' from Garden of Eden was due to Eve being tempted by the serpent. What the heck do they mean by that? What serpent? What snake? its the sexual impulse. What they are saying is that after "God" created Adam and Eve, they started creating the population to fill the world. This couldnt have happened without the serpent! And this caused the "wrath" of God and He threw them out of Eden.

All Western intellectual thought is to search for this idyllic Eden: Utopia, Communism, Planet X, and what not.

The Virgin birth of Jesus is again another symptom of this. By making Jesus not of man they are atoning for the serpent's temptation and want to regain Eden.

So they create a misogynist world view and suppress the females. Early Christianity and Islam are examples of this. In fact even in sci-fi they do this with clones, robots to have a Eve less world. Eg. Lord Of the Rings and Star Wars.

The Renassiance was used to depict the female form onto an earlier Greek and Roman sculpture and paintings. Then came Enlightenment and all other movements which resulted in gradual liberation of Eve.

dhu · 11-08-2009, 10:43 AM

QUOTE'Islam an Indic religion, India a sacred land of Islam'

PATNA: God is one. So, the people of the world, professing different religions, are the same offering obeisance to the one and the same God in
their own words in different languages. And, this is what Yajurveda, Brahmsutra and Quran have mentioned, claimed Syed Tariq Abdullah Engineer, president of the World Organisation of Religions and Knowledge.

He was delivering a talk on The Conception of Harmony from Vedas to Quran organised by the Temple of Understanding, an inter-faith global organisation, here on Saturday.

Engineer said Islam can be called an Indic religion and India a sacred land of Islam. He said Prophet Mohammad used the word Hind with respect by saying: "Hind ke taraf se jannat ki khushbu aati hai (The scent of heaven comes from India)."

He went on to say that in India there is Sanatana Dharma and in ancient time there was no mention of the word Hindu. "I am Sanatana. I am a Muslim living in Hindustan, which is a sacred land visited by Adam from heaven. The name of Adam finds mention in all religious scriptures."

When all the religions say that God is one, then where is the difference, Engineer argued, giving a call for promoting international brotherhood and harmony, the very essence of all religions. There is one religion of one God whose manifestations are different according to different tongues, he reasoned.

QUOTEbarbarindian
First establish a theological reference, then claim the whole land. Same strategy plays for Jerusalem.

ramana · 11-16-2009, 01:26 AM

Two books by Ahmed Osman:

QUOTE Ahmed Osman, "The Hebrew Pharaohs of Egypt: The Secret Lineage of the Patriarch Joseph"
Bear & Company | 2003 | ISBN: 1591430224 | 208 pages | PDF | 18,9 MB

A reinterpretation of Egyptian and biblical history that shows the Patriarch Joseph and Yuya, a vizier of the eighteenth dynasty king Tuthmosis IV, to be the same person

â¢ Uses detailed evidence from Egyptian, biblical, and Koranic sources to place Exodus in the time of Ramses I â¢ Sheds new light on the mysterious and sudden rise of monotheism under Yuya's daughter, Queen Tiye, and her son Akhnaten â¢ New Edition of Stranger in the Valley of the Kings

When Joseph revealed his identity to his kinsmen who had sold him into slavery, he told them that God had made him "a father to Pharaoh." Throughout the long history of ancient Egypt, only one man is known to have been given the title "a father to Pharaoh"-Yuya, a vizier of the eighteenth dynasty king Tuthmosis IV. Yuya has long intrigued Egyptologists because he was buried in the Valley of Kings even though he was not a member of the Royal House. His extraordinarily well-preserved mummy has a strong Semitic appearance, which suggests he was not of Egyptian blood, and many aspects of his burial have been shown to be contrary to Egyptian custom.

As The Hebrew Pharohs of Egypt shows, the idea that Joseph and Yuya may be one and the same person sheds a whole new light on the sudden rise of monotheism in Egypt, spearheaded by Queen Tiye and her son Akhnaten. It would clearly explain the deliberate obliteration of references to the "heretic" king and his successors by the last eighteenth dynasty pharaoh, Horemheb, whom the author believes was the oppressor king in the Book of Exodus. The author also draws on a wealth of detailed evidence from Egyptian, biblical, and Koranic sources to place the time of the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt during the short reign of Ramses I, the first king of the nineteenth dynasty.

and

QUOTE Ahmed Osman, "Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion"
Bear & Company | 2005 | ISBN: 1591430461 | 304 pages | PDF | 14,1 MB

Contends that the roots of Christian belief come not from Judaea but from Egypt

â¢ Shows that the Romans fabricated their own version of Christianity and burned the Alexandrian library as a way of maintaining political power

â¢ Builds on the arguments of the author's previous books The Hebrew Pharaohs of Egypt, Moses and Akhenaten, and Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs

In Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion author Ahmed Osman contends that the roots of Christian belief spring not from Judaea but from Egypt. He compares the chronology of the Old Testament and its factual content with ancient Egyptian records to show that the major characters of the Hebrew scriptures--including Solomon, David, Moses, and Joshua--are based on Egyptian historical figures. He further suggests that not only were these personalities and the stories associated with them cultivated on the banks of the Nile, but the major tenets of Christian belief--the One God, the Trinity, the hierarchy of heaven, life after death, and the virgin birth--are all Egyptian in origin. He likewise provides a convincing argument that Jesus himself came out of Egypt.

With the help of modern archaeological findings, Osman shows that Christianity survived as an Egyptian mystery cult until the fourth century A.D., when the Romans embarked on a mission of suppression and persecution. In A.D. 391 the Roman-appointed Bishop Theophilus led a mob into the Serapeum quarter of Alexandria and burned the Alexandrian library, destroying all records of the true Egyptian roots of Christianity. The Romans' version of Christianity, manufactured to maintain political power, claimed that Christianity originated in Judaea. In Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion Osman restores Egypt to its rightful place in the history of Christianity.


Download both from depositfiles and rapidshare repositories.

ramana · (This post was last modified: 11-18-2009, 03:24 AM by ramana.)

Dhu,
QUOTE(dhu @ Jun 2 2009, 09:32 PM)added a sidebar.Â

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEChristianity is Roman War Propaganda against the Jews (and, by extension, all natives). Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jewish Temple within one generation and this was realized by the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius who destroyed the Temple and razed Jerusalem in the First JewishâRoman War.

Jesus and Titus are mirror images; the mock Messiah Jesus, who is abandoned and vilified by his own people foreshadows the conqueror and benign Savior, Titus.

This arrangement is the prototype for the sepoy apologist demonizing and disarming the native on behalf of the Empire. Additionally, the sepoy Messiah masks the Conqueror's identity.

The mock Messiah vilifies his own people as intolerant (Jesus thrashes the greedy Jews in their own Temple; Gospels are highly anti-semitic), while giving a free pass to the colonial entity (Jesus absolves Pilate of any crime while the Jews take the blood of their own Messiah "upon their heads and upon their children").

Indeed, it appears that the Gospels are a blueprint for the deculturating Colonialism synonymous with Monotheism.



[right][snapback]98245[/snapback][/right]
</div>

What if we replace Jesus with Gandhi and the colonizer with the Islamic horde? Can we explain the events of 1947?

My point is was Indian partition inevitable or was it a Biblical outcome of the education of the freedom movement leaders?

G.Subramaniam · 11-18-2009, 06:37 AM

Gandhi belonged to the Pranami sect, which also venerates the Koran

ramana · 11-18-2009, 11:49 AM

QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 10 2009, 12:02 PM)askwhy is a bit like the truthbeknown site ("acharya s"). It is a few truths mixed with a lot of fancies.
It's not scholarship, but rather 'new agey' writing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 9 2009, 10:10 PM)So there are two theories of Moses -Egyptian (Freud in his book Moses and Monotheism) and this one which says he is a fictionalized alter ego for Zoraster.[right][snapback]99580[/snapback][/right]Michael Kalopoulos' site has another theory on Moses and all the OT patriarchs. Site is called thegreatlie.com or something.

ADDED:
Hey, apparently it's only in archive now?
http://web.archive.org/web/20080117095858/...reatlie.com/en/
via http://freetruth.50webs.org/A1.htm

But Kalopoulos has a book: Biblical Religion, the Great Lie
Sample chapters (PDF) linked off http://web.archive.org/web/20080117095858/...reatlie.com/en/

His new site looks totally different and is entirely in Greek now (it says "No translations available"):
http://www.greatlie.com/en/
[right][snapback]99594[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Thanks Husky. It does have a very logical take on the whole Bible. Will try to buy from Amazon.

**acharya** · 11-18-2009, 11:53 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Nov 17 2009, 09:49 AM)Dhu,

What if we replace Jesus with Gandhi and the colonizer with the Islamic horde? Can we explain the events of 1947?

My point is was Indian partition inevitable or was it a Biblical outcome of the education of the freedom movement leaders?
[right][snapback]102615[/snapback][/right]


Everything is based on Jesus and biblical reference.

Only Gandhi(Jesus Like) was allowed to survive and obtain freedom
This act was supported by the christian nation of USA which helped and protected Gandhi from the colonizing powers

HareKrishna · 11-18-2009, 12:19 PM

From the book "Reiki -between myth and reality" by Ovidiu Dragos Argeseanu.

Coming back to reiki and what i belive must be known.
Reiki came from the idea of curing by palm aplication,just as Jesus Christ did it(put his hands on the sick people).This model was lost in time and rediscovered by Mikao Usui.
He start to whit total fasting.My opinion is that he want it to fast for 40 days just like other initiates like Eliah,Solomon,Moses and of course our savior Jesus .
But he keep only 21 days.
Maybe because the inner light of asiatic people is smaller the ours(christians?euros?).They worship dragons and gods so their road thoard the light was a little longer.
I think Usui grow just as much as was necesary for non-christian people.

Conclusions from this text:Jesus invented Reiki,Usui just rediscovered.Asians are less enlighten the christians.They worship gods so thats not so good.

dhu · 11-19-2009, 03:01 AM

QUOTE(acharya @ Nov 18 2009, 11:53 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ramana @ Nov 17 2009, 09:49 AM)
What if we replace Jesus with Gandhi and the colonizer with the Islamic horde? Can we explain the events of 1947?
My point is was Indian partition inevitable or was it a Biblical outcome of the education of the freedom movement leaders?
Everything is based on Jesus and biblical reference.
Only Gandhi(Jesus Like) was allowed to survive and obtain freedom
This act was supported by the christian nation of USA which helped and protected Gandhi from the colonizing powers</div>

They seem to have created a messiah persona out of Gandhi (may or may not be related to the real Gandhi), this Gandhi was wronged by the native Hindus represented by Godse. The similarity to the colonial genesis of a mock messiah Jesus is very striking. Obama similarly had to denounce Rev. Wright. An now they are issuing international sepoy awards in the name of Gandhi, and Gandhi has become the colonizer's favored saint. Any native resurgence can be immediately countered by demonizing it as a deviant to the Indian norm of nonviolence set by the Apostle of Peace.

General Smuts seems to have been involved in setting up the UN. Does he have some connection to the Americans?

ramana · 11-19-2009, 03:14 AM

Its amazing you bring in Gen Smuts and Gandhi in same post. I was told to look for his role in deifying Gandhi in South Africa. We should pursue this in the Gandhi thread.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 11-19-2009, 03:21 AM by dhu.)

Ramana,

you're the one who mentioned Smuts. Also this was touched in a post here

dhu · 11-19-2009, 03:29 AM

I remember one comment by Dr. Elst that Godse's assassination of Gandhi was quite nonsensical. Paraphrasing.. It is like getting beaten up by bullies and coming home and punishing your father.. In this case, the sepoy substitutes as the father.

ramana · 11-19-2009, 03:35 AM

QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 18 2009, 09:51 PM)Ramana,

you're the one who mentioned Smuts. Also this was touched in a post here
[right][snapback]102652[/snapback][/right]


I forgot all about the Smuts linkage. BTW that blog reads like one of our IF folks created it. Somehwere I said the INC were the new Romans/seculars and this blog says the same thing. Man are we in trouble. the big thing is Indians have not been taught to look at things from historical prespective and apply old lessons to new situations.

dhu · 11-21-2009, 10:47 AM

Sanghparivaar:

QUOTEThe Blue God of Judaism
November 20th, 2009
Source: HPI

USA, November 19, 2009: The God that Jews worship is as blue as the Hindu God Shiva, the supreme being in Shaivism, the oldest sect within Hinduism, says Rabbi Robert dos Santos Teixeira, LMSW.

In some ways, the ancient Hebrews were more similar to modern-day Hindus than Jews. They acknowledged the existence of deities other than YHWH (Yahweh) and, like their neighbors, looked to a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses to satisfy their individual and collective needs; their principal God, however, became and remained YHWH, the fierce warrior who freed them from slavery in Egypt. He once had an effable name, a masculine body, and a female companion.

Examination and discussion of biblical, talmudic, midrashic, and mystical texts reveal that the body of the Lord is blue. The fact that the Hebrew term used to describe the Lordâs blue body comes from Sanskrit, as do other Hebrew terms associated with him, is nothing short of amazing and invites further exploration of the many similarities between Judaism and Hinduism, particularly Shaivism.

Posted in Hindu Press International

Login




Remember me Lost Password?