Historicity of Jesus - 2

[Husky]

Sanghparivaar:

The 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 Lord�s 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

[right][snapback]102700[/snapback][/right]

Absolute and utter nonsense.



First the easy stuff:

If Yahweh is supposed to be blue: What a great coincidence, join the club:

- There are many blue Gods in many religions in the world. (E.g. Japan, some Pacific Islands religions)

- There are a number of blue Gods in Hindu Dharma. Not the least Mahavishnu, but also IIRC among the Navagrahas, etcetera.

- Moreover Shiva comes in many colours. In some forms only his *neck* is blue (hence he is *Neelakanta* because the poison he selflessly swallowed to protect the world from it, was stopped there and so his body didn't turn blue beyond his neck), in other manifestations he is described as being other colours including fair. And colour is not all that varies, as he has several different forms like the 5 headed one (whereas Mahavishnu is described as the God with one thousand heads), and then there is his formless form as well, of course (the ShivaLingam is the focal point for and represents the formless Shiva).

- Shaivism is not the "oldest sect within Hinduism". That statement (its phrasing, the ideas it conveys, the very assumptions it makes) is wrong in multiple ways.





Next - trivial word games aside (such as how "the term to describe Yahweh as being blue seems a bit like Samskritam") - comes character:



- Yahweh is the God of the Jews: Jews alone are his chosen people. The covenant binding his followers to him is the mandatory circumcision (the covenant on the male binds their females). He is NOT the God of anyone else.



In contrast, Shiva is Pashupati, the Lord of all Creatures. All creatures are naturally bound to Shiva (and there is no way to become unbound) - since he, and my Mother, made them.



- The Judaic scriptures are the source for working out the character of the Judaic God. It is also there in the OT that christianism copied in large part: Yahweh disapproves in the extreme of polytheism and idolatry. (The rest of Yahweh's character can be read in the same scriptures.) He declares himself a Jealous God and will brook no competition in allegiance.



Yahweh's character has No Remote Resemblance to Shiva. Shiva is well-described in all our scriptures and the sacred stotras made about him by various Hindu sages and Gods.

Shiva is NOT a jealous God, an idea wholly alien to Shiva and illogical to his nature, just as it is alien to the nature of all Hindu Gods. (Jealousy is a notion that makes no sense: why would Hindu Gods be jealous, what would the Hindu Gods be jealous of, when all is contained in them?) Just as how Mahavishnu is not jealous: e.g. Krishna in the Gita says whatever God one may be devoted to, it is ultimately to him that the devotion goes. Likewise, Shiva is pleased with devotion rendered by creatures to all the eternal Gods. In fact, he encourages mankind to worship his wife, Mahavishnu/Rama, Lakshmi, Murugan, Ganapathi, etcetera with as much devotion as rendered him.



And Shiva is very much worshipped by what the anti-idolatry religions call "idolatry". One of Shiva's own forms, the naturally-manifesting ShivaLingam, is meant for worship by all his creatures. It is the way to Shiva.



If there is going to be a recognition of similarity between Shiva and other peoples' Gods (let alone an identification with other Gods) it will be with the Kamisama, the Gods of the Daoists and the Gods of the Hellenes, that of the Native Americans and similar. They are all described similarly to Shiva, Vishnu, Indra, Skanda, Ganapathi, Surya, etcetera. For instance:

[color="#0000FF"]Seneca:

"We recognize Zeus as the ruler and guardian of the universe, as the PSYCHE (soul) and the PNEUMA (breath) of the KOSMOS, principally responsible for its creation and to whom all names are fitting. If you wish to refer to Him as MOIRA, you are not wrong. It is He, from whom everything depends, the cause of causes. If you wish to call Him PRONOIA (Providence) you are equally correct. It is He whose SOPHIA (Wisdom) provides for our world. If you desire to call Him PHYSIS (Nature), again you are not mistaken. It is He from whom everything was born and from whose breath we have Life. If you want to call Him Universe, again you are not wrong, as He is all that you see around you, He who exists within everything of the mundane, He who defends Himself and all which is within Him."[/color]

Any traditional Hindu can recognise the above God (Zeus) and understand the one describing him (the Hellene, Seneca). It is familiar.



No traditional Hindu understands Yahweh's character let alone identifies any of our Gods with him. Repeat: Yahweh is a tribal God - God of the Jews alone. He is their chosen God, they are his chosen people. He is a Jealous God (his own words in Judaic scriptures), who most severely punishes "idolatry" and "polytheism" (as mirrored in his actions and condemnation against them in Judaic scripture).



The "Sangh parivaar" (if that was indeed them) - and HinduismToday definitely - are not only hopelessly confused and misleading others with their confusion, but they don't know the Hindu God of whom they speak if they were ever capable of identifying the God described in the OT with any of the Gods of the Hindus (their statement: "invites further exploration of the many similarities between Judaism and Hinduism, particularly Shaivism").

It *is* possible ("benefit of the doubt" type conjecture) that the ancient Gods of the Canaanites - like the ancient Gods of the Arabians - are like our Gods (and the Greek and Japanese Gods) in character. One doesn't *know* that this is the case. But if so, at some point in history, the Judaic God diverged from the Canaanite ones just as the islamic allah has nothing but the name in common with the Arabian God of the same designation. This doesn't mean *Judaism* is similar to Hindu Dharma, because Judaism is not the Canaanite religion.





Finally, I always make it a point to never lend any iota of credence to people who have never seen the Hindu Gods - or even any Gods, for that matter - talking about the Hindu Gods. (They only make themselves look preposterously silly in their total ignorance. But they *are* a source of boundless entertainment for this reason.)

One would think that seeing the Gods (Hindu Gods are not invisible and unknowable - unlike some others) was the *first* requirement in being able to pronounce true or false statements regarding predicates concerning our Gods.

[dhu]

New discovery links ancient Egypt and Jordan valley site
<img src='http://www.ablogabouthistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/jordanvalley1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Looks like the Ankh with the Sceptre of Set.

[acharya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlEW319RzAU



My lectures are primarily from a biblicial perspective Christians have been greatly deceived for centuries by Christianity -- the religion forced upon Blacks in slavery by the abominable slave master. This speechk is a must read for all people of African ancestry 12 years old and above.



To all of you that commit adultery and say no one can be perfect, to all of you that sell drugs and say I got to eat. To all of you that keep lying, stealing and cheating. I say until once you come into this truth you are suppose to be a new person. You put off the old man

Matthew 5: [48] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

James 1: [4] But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

From the following we learn that Biblical prophets were perfect:

...Noah was a just man and perfect in his generation, and Noah walked with God. (Gen 6:9)

There was a man...whose name was Job and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. (Job 1:1)

[dhu]

QUOTE : A myriad myriads, or one hundred million, was left as the largest named number by the Ancient Greeks and is also the largest named number in the Bible.

[dhu]

Who Was Jesus' Grandfather?

What the two genealogies of Christ, found in Matthew and Luke, are really trying to say.

Grant Osborne

Few aspects of the Bible seem less relevant to daily life than genealogies. Yet for Gospel writers Matthew and Luke, they were absolutely essential for understanding Jesus.



Genealogies fulfilled multiple purposes in the ancient world. Society was organized around kinship patterns, so every family needed lists that described their ancestral pedigree. Such family trees determined a person's social relationships. For instance, two families planning the marriage of their children would compare family lines to check kinship ties to ensure the two were "compatible." And rulers used genealogies to justify their power, rank, and status.



So why are the genealogical trees in Matthew and Luke so different? Matthew begins his Gospel with Jesus' genealogy, while Luke places it, strangely, between Jesus' baptism and temptation. Matthew has an ascending list, moving from Abraham up to Jesus, while Luke has a descending list, moving from Jesus down to Adam. Matthew's list is partial; Luke's is complete. And most significantly, while the two lists are virtually identical from Abraham to David, they diverge greatly from David to Jesus.



Several solutions have been proposed to explain the differences. Martin Luther said that Matthew gives Joseph's line and Luke Mary's line. Others, such as Tertullian, reversed this. Yet the explanation fails in both directions, because the Gospels clearly state that they are listing Joseph's line (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23). Julius Africanus proposed that Matthew follows Jesus' natural descent and Luke his legal descent. Neither Gospel indicates such an approach, though, and it is best to allow the authors to speak for themselves.

A Closer Look



Examining each genealogy closely reveals the authors' different purposes. Matthew's list resembles those used by rulers to justify their rank and status, and by families to determine connections to a common ancestor. Matthew arranges his genealogy into three groups of 14 names each. In Jewish gematria—a kind of numerology stemming from the fact that letters of the Hebrew alphabet were also numbers—names have numerical value. The three consonants for David add up to 14. So Matthew underscores Jesus' kingly ancestry by working in groups of David, or 14.



Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Savior whose pedigree demonstrates his claim to be the Son of David and royal Messiah.[size="4"] Another unique feature of his genealogy is the presence of four women—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Each had a scandalous aspect of her life, thus paving the way for Mary as an unwed mother. And all were (or were married to) Gentiles, foreshadowing the Gentile mission so important in Matthew's gospel.[/size]



Luke, on the other hand, begins his genealogy with "the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" (3:23), and concludes with "the son of God" (3:38). At Jesus' baptism, God declares Jesus "my Son" (3:22), and Jesus' temptation begins with Satan recognizing him as "the Son of God" (4:3). Placed between Jesus' baptism and temptation, Luke's genealogy is meant to proclaim that Jesus is, indeed, God's only Son.



Luke does not group the names like Matthew does but provides a simple succession of ancestors. The list contains many more common names (some of which we know nothing about) and seems to underscore Jesus' humanity as well as his divine sonship. Moreover, by going all the way back to Adam (the ancestor of all humanity), Luke maintains a universal thrust, emphasizing that Jesus came for all mankind. The list ends with Adam, and then Luke moves into the story of Jesus' encounter with Satan in the wilderness, in which Jesus rises above temptation as Adam did not. The message is clear: In Jesus, all human beings find their sins overcome.



Are there difficulties in reconciling the genealogies? Can they be harmonized? The answer in both cases is yes. Matthew's and Luke's lists stem largely from Old Testament genealogies (see Gen. 10-11 and 1 Chron. 1-3) and Jewish sources, and the differences between the names occur largely because each evangelist was selective in whom he included.



After Nathan in Luke's account and after Zerubbabel in Matthew's, no names adhere to other biblical passages, but few doubt that both lists are following traditional sources. We may never know whether Jesus' paternal grandfather through Joseph was Jacob (Matt. 1:15) or Heli (Luke 3:23b), and it could well be that they were brothers, with Heli the uncle and legal line of Jesus and Jacob the physical line. Either way, each genealogy reveals something about Jesus.



Grant Osborne is professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.

[dhu]

a comment :

White Guilt Fantasy



Avatar is a classic scenario you've seen in Hollywood epics from Dances With Wolves, Dune, District 9 and The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member.



If we think of Avatar and its ilk as white fantasies about race, what kinds of patterns do we see emerging in these fantasies?



A white man who was one of the oppressors switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior.

These are movies about white guilt. Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color - their cultures, their habitats, and their populations.



The whites realize this when they begin to assimilate into the "alien" cultures and see things from a new perspective. To purge their overwhelming sense of guilt, they switch sides, become "race traitors," and fight against their old comrades. But then they go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed.



This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. It's not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it's not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It's a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.

[Kevat]

LOL. I've never thought about that, but it makes soo much sense. This would make for a great psychological article.



Doesn't it piss you off that even while trying to do something nice, they gotta make themselves look better than the colored people? Why can't the hero just be a normal "avatar" in the movie? Why does the "white" hero in every such movie HAVE to become the leader? As if the colored people have no leader of their own...

[dhu]

[quote name='Kevat' date='23 December 2009 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1261569472' post='103096']

Why can't the hero just be a normal "avatar" in the movie?

[/quote]



Astounding observation. So they have presented a colonial messiah 'going native' rather than an Avatar.

[Guest]

One reason being, the audience could associate with the "hero".

[rhytha]

Yes, we need to understand that Avatar is for the US and european market, you would'nt want a product which does'nt connect with thier markets, right?



But in District 9 (Awesome movie though, i highly recommend it) there can be a black protognist. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Apocalypto had a local hero as per the storyline though <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mellow.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':mellow:' />

[ramana]

This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. It's not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it's not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It's a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.

What the British led Macaulayization did was to achieve this with native people re-made in tehir own image. They are still Gungadins but are really the new oppressors.

[acharya]

[quote name='ramana' date='09 January 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1262977602' post='103421']

What the British led Macaulayization did was to achieve this with native people re-made in tehir own image. They are still Gungadins but are really the new oppressors.

[/quote]



It is actually one party which has been designed to do exactly like the white oppressor

[dhu]

There is a black actor Will Smith who has multiple messiah movies out:

-I Am Legend (where he sacrifices himself for the continuation of the white race, plus there are blatant christist references)

-Some movie where he plays a savior IRS agent (really!)



Now there is another messiah movie with a black actor: The Book of Eli.



The trend continued with an Indian as the Messiah in Slumdog.



So they are contracting out the messiah role. and have advanced themselves to quasi-anticolonial roles as in Avatar, which is a recasting of pocahontas, phineas fogg, last samurai, dances with wolves, etc.

[dhu]

Berossus: Oannes - man in fish suit.

OT: Ioannes(Jonah) - man vomited out by fish at lord god's command.

[acharya]

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2007/02/125048.pdf



THE SECRET TEACHINGS OF ALL AGES

by Manly P. Hall

[1928, copyright not

renewed]



NUMEROUS volumes have been written as commentaries upon the secret systems of philosophy

existing in the ancient world, but the ageless truths of life, like many of the earth's greatest thinkers, have

usually been clothed in shabby garments. The present work is an attempt to supply a tome worthy of

those seers and sages whose thoughts are the substance of its pages.



Work upon the text of this volume was begun the first day of January, 1926, and has continued almost

uninterruptedly for over two years. The greater part of the research work, however, was carried on prior

to the writing of the manuscript. The collection of reference material was begun in 1921, and three years

later the plans for the book took definite form. For the sake of clarity, all footnotes were eliminated, the

various quotations and references to other authors being embodied in the text in their logical order. The

bibliography is appended primarily to assist those interested in selecting for future study the most

authoritative and important items dealing with philosophy and symbolism. To make readily accessible

the abstruse information contained in the book, an elaborate topical cross index is included.

I make no claim for either the infallibility or the originality of any statement herein contained. I have

studied the fragmentary writings of the ancients sufficiently to realize that dogmatic utterances

concerning their tenets are worse than foolhardy. Traditionalism is the curse of modern philosophy,

particularly that of the European schools. While many of the statements contained in this treatise may

appear at first wildly fantastic, I have sincerely endeavored to refrain from haphazard metaphysical

speculation, presenting the material as far as possible in the spirit rather than the letter of the original

authors. By assuming responsibility only for the mistakes which may' appear herein, I hope to escape the

accusation of plagiarism which has been directed against nearly every writer on the subject of mystical

philosophy.

Mystic Christianity

THE true story of the life of Jesus of Nazareth has never been unfolded to the world, either in the

accepted Gospels or in the Apocrypha, although a few stray hints may be found in some of the

commentaries written by the ante-Nicene Fathers. The facts concerning His identity and mission are

among the priceless mysteries preserved to this day in the secret vaults beneath the "Houses of the

Brethren." To a few of the Knights Templars, who were initiated into the arcana of the Druses,

Nazarenes, Essenes, Johannites, and other sects still inhabiting the remote and inaccessible fastnesses of

the Holy Land, part of the strange story was told. The knowledge of the Templars concerning the early

history of Christianity was undoubtedly one of the main reasons for their persecution and final

annihilation. The discrepancies in the writings of the early Church Fathers not only are irreconcilable,

but demonstrate beyond question that even during the first five centuries after Christ these learned men

had for the basis of their writings little more substantial than folklore and hearsay. To the easy believer

everything is possible and there are no problems. The unemotional person in search of facts, however, is

confronted by a host of problems with uncertain factors, of which the following are typical:

According to popular conception, Jesus was crucified during the thirty-third year of His life and in the

third year of His ministry following His baptism. About A.D. 180, St. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, one of

the most eminent of the ante-Nicene theologians, wrote Against Heresies, an attack on the doctrines of

the Gnostics. In this work Irenæus declared upon the authority of the Apostles themselves that Jesus

lived to old age. To quote: "They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that

which is written, 'to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that He preached for one year

only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful of their own

disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary

and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He

excelled all others. For how could He have had His disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He

have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptised, He had not

yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who

has mentioned His years, has expressed it: 'Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,'

when He came to receive baptism); and, (according to these men,) He preached only one year reckoning

from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who

had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,

and that this extends onward to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth

year a man begins to decline towards old age, which Our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office

of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John,

the disciple of the Lord, (affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained

among them up to the time of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles

also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the'(validity of) the

statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never

saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

Commenting on the foregoing passage, Godfrey Higgins remarks that it has fortunately escaped the

hands of those destroyers who have attempted to render the Gospel narratives consistent by deleting all

such statements. He also notes that the doctrine of the crucifixion was a vexata questio among Christians

even during the second century. "The evidence of Irenæus," he says, "cannot be touched. On every

principle of sound criticism, and of the doctrine of probabilities, it is unimpeachable."

It should further be noted that Irenæus prepared this statement to contradict another apparently current in

his time to the effect that the ministry of Jesus lasted but one year. Of all the early Fathers, Irenæus,

writing within eighty years after the death of St. John the Evangelist, should have had reasonably

accurate information. If the disciples themselves related that Jesus lived to advanced age in the body,

why has the mysterious number 33 been arbitrarily chosen to symbolize the duration of His life? Were

the incidents in the life of Jesus purposely altered so that His actions would fit more closely into the

pattern established by the numerous Savior-Gods who preceded Him? That these analogies were

recognized and used as a leverage in converting the Greeks and Romans is evident from a perusal of the

writings of Justin Martyr, another second-century authority. In his Apology, Justin addresses the pagans

thus:

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union,

and that He, Jesus Christ, Our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into

heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of

Jupiter. * * * And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different

from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury

is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with

those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated."

From this it is evident that the first missionaries of the Christian Church were far more willing to admit

the similarities between their faith and the faiths of the pagans than were their successors in later

centuries.

In an effort to solve some of the problems arising from any attempt to chronicle accurately the life of

Jesus, it has been suggested that there may have lived in Syria at that time two or more religious teachers

bearing the name Jesus, Jehoshua or Joshua, and that the lives of these men may have been confused in

the Gospel stories. In his Secret Sects of Syria and the Lebanon, Bernard H. Springett, a Masonic author,

quotes from an early book, the name of which he was not at liberty to disclose because of its connection

with the ritual of a sect. The last part of his quotation is germane to the subject at hand:

"But Jehovah prospered the seed of the Essenians, in holiness and love, for many generations. Then

came the chief of the angels, according to the commandment of GOD, to raise up an heir to the Voice of

Jehovah. And, in four generations more, an heir was born, and named Joshua, and he was the child of

Joseph and Mara, devout worshippers of Jehovah, who stood aloof from all other people save the

Essenians. And this Joshua, in Nazareth, reestablished Jehovah, and restored many of the lost rites and

ceremonies. In the thirty-sixth year of his age he was stoned to death in Jerusalem * * *"

Click to enlarge

THE ROUND TABLE OF KING ARTHUR.

From Jennings' The Rosicrucians, Their Rites and Mysteries.

According to tradition, Arthur, when a boy of fifteen, was crowned King of Britain, in A.D. 516. Soon after his

ascension to the throne he founded the Order of the Knights of the Round Table at Windsor. Thereafter the

Knights met annually at Carleon, Winchester, or at Camelot, to celebrate Pentecost. From all parts of Europe

came the brave and the bold, seeking admission into this noble order of British knighthood. Nobility, virtue, and

valor were its requirements, and those possessing these qualities to a marked degree were welcomed to King

Arthur's court at Camelot. Having gathered the bravest and noblest Knights of Europe about him, King Arthur

chose twenty-four who excelled all the others in daring and integrity and formed of them his Circle of the Round

Table. According to legend, each of these Knights was so great in dignity and power that none could occupy a

more exalted seat than another, so when they gathered at the table to celebrate the anniversary of their foundation

it was necessary to use a round table that all might occupy chairs of equal importance.

While it is probable that the Order of the Round Table had its distinctive rituals and symbols, the knowledge of

them has not survived the ages. Elias Ashmole, in his volume on the Order of the Garter, inserted a double-page

plate showing the insignia of all the orders of knighthood, the block set aside for the symbol of the Round Table

being left blank. The chief reason for the loss of the symbolism of the Round Table was the untimely death of

King Arthur upon the field of Kamblan (A.D. 542) in the forty-first year of his life. While he destroyed his bitter

enemy, Mordred, in this famous battle, it cast him not only his own life but the lives of nearly all his Knights of

the Round Table, who died defending their commander.

[acharya]

(1) Adam directing Seth how to reach the Garden of Eden.

(2) Seth placing the three seeds from the Tree of Life

under the tongue of the dead Adam.

(3) The Queen of Sheba, refusing to place her feet upon the sacred tree,

forded the stream.

(4) Placing the sacred tree over the door of Solomon's Temple.

(5) The crucifixion of Christ

upon a cross made from the wood of the holy tree.

(6) Distinguishing the true cross from the other two by testing

its power to raise a corpse to life.







In his article on the Cross and Crucifixion in the Encyclopædia Britannica, Thomas Macall Fallow casts

much light on the antiquity of this ideograph. "The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-

Christian times, and among non-Christian peoples, may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of

nature worship."

Not only is the cross itself a familiar object in the art of all nations, but the veneration for it is an

essential part of the religious life of the greater part of humanity. It is a common symbol among the

American Indians--North, Central, and South. William W. Seymour states: "The Aztec goddess of rain

bore a cross in her hand, and the Toltecs claimed that their deity, Quetzalcoatl, taught them the sign and

ritual of the cross, hence his staff, or sceptre of power, resembled a crosier, and his mantle was covered

with red crosses." (The Cross in Tradition, History and Art.)

The cross is also highly revered by the Japanese and Chinese. To the Pythagoreans the most sacred of all

numbers was the 10, the symbol of which is an X, or cross. In both the Japanese and Chinese languages

the character of the number 10 is a cross. The Buddhist wheel of life is composed of two crosses

superimposed, and its eight points are still preserved to Christendom in the peculiarly formed cross of

the Knights Templars, which is essentially Buddhistic. India has preserved the cross, not only in its

carvings and paintings, but also in its architectonics; a great number of its temples--like the churches and

cathedrals of Christendom--are raised from cruciform foundations.

On the mandalas of the Tibetans, heaven is laid out in the form of a cross, with a demon king at each of

the four gates. A remarkable cross of great antiquity was discovered in the island caves of Elephanta in

the harbor of Bombay. Crosses of various kinds were favorite motifs in the art of Chaldea, Phoenicia,

Egypt, and Assyria. The initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece were given a cross which they

suspended about their necks on a chain, or cord, at the time of initiation. To the Rosicrucians,

Alchemists, and Illuminati, the cross was the symbol of light, because each of the three letters L V X is

derived from some part of the cross.

[dhu]

[url="http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jan/11/slaves-didnt-build-egypts-pyramids.htm"]Slaves didn't build Egypt's pyramids, say archaeologists[/url]

[ramana]

Hindu:



Avatar has racist message?

Since the film opened to widespread critical acclaim three weeks ago, hundreds of blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have made claims such as that the film is “a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people” and reinforces “the white Messiah fable.”



The film’s writer and director, James Cameron, says the real theme is about respecting others’ differences.



In the film (Warning: spoilers ahead) a white, paralysed Marine, Jake Sully, is mentally linked to an alien’s body and set loose on the planet Pandora. His mission: persuade the mystic, nature-loving Na’vis to make way for humans to mine their land for unobtanium — a mineral worth $20 million per kilo back home.



Like Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves and Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai or as far back as Jimmy Stewart in the 1950 Western Broken Arrow, the hero (Sully) switches sides. He falls in love with the Na’vi princess and leads the bird-riding, bow-and-arrow-shooting aliens to victory over the white men’s spaceships and mega-robots.



Adding to the racial dynamic is that the main Na’vi characters are played by actors of color, led by a Dominican, Zoe Saldana, as the princess. The film also is an obvious metaphor for how European settlers in America wiped out the Indians.



Robinne Lee, an actress in such recent films as Seven Pounds and Hotel for Dogs, said that Avatar was “beautiful” and that she understood the economic logic of casting a white lead if most of the audience is white.



But she said the film, which remained No. 1 at the box office domestically for the fourth straight weekend with $48.5 million and is second among all-time top-grossing films worldwide, still reminded her of Hollywood’s “Pocahontas” story — “the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the savior.”



“It’s really upsetting in many ways,” said Lee, who is black with Jamaican and Chinese ancestry. “It would be nice if we could save ourselves.”



Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of the sci-fi Website io9.com, likened Avatar to the recent film District 9, in which a white man accidentally becomes an alien and then helps save the aliens, and Dune (1984) in which a white man becomes an alien Messiah.



[size="5"]“Main white characters realise that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, aka people of color ... (then) go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed,” wrote Newitz, who is white. “When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way?” [/size]

and

There are many ways to interpret the art that is Avatar.



What does it mean that in the final, sequel-begging scene, Sully abandons his human body and transforms into one of the Na’vi? Is Saldana’s Na’vi character the real heroine because she, not Sully, kills the arch-villain? Does it matter that many conservatives are riled by what they call liberal, environmental and antimilitary messages?

[size="5"]

Is Cameron actually exposing the historical evils of white colonisers? Does the existence of an alien species expose the reality that all humans are actually one race?[/size]



Although the Avatar debate springs from Hollywood’s historical difficulties with race, Will Smith recently saved the planet in I Am Legend and Denzel Washington appears ready to do the same in the forthcoming Book of Eli.



Bogle, the film historian, said that he was glad Cameron made the film and that it made people think about race.



“Maybe there is something he does want to say and put across” about race, Bogle said. “Maybe if he had a black hero in there, that point would have been even stronger.”

Wiki page says a couple of sequels are planned.

[ramana]

Vatican Slams Avatar

Huffington Post



Vatican thinks Cameron is promoting new age "nature worship".

[ramana]

Hindu reports

Bible written earlier than thought

An Israeli researcher has deciphered the earliest known Hebrew biblical inscription which “proved” that the Bible had been written hundreds of year earlier than thought.



It also testified that the Kingdom of Israel existed in 10th century BCE.



Previously, a wide range of respected academics had insisted that the Bible could not possibly have been written before the 6th century BC due to widespread illiteracy, but Gershon Galil from the University of Haifa in northern Israel proved them wrong.



Prof. Galil, who deciphered the inscription made in ink on a small piece of clay, said: “It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BC and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.”



The earliest known inscription was found in the Elah Valley south of Jerusalem in 2008 but the language used in it could not be deciphered at the time, Jerusalem Post reported.



“This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah (“did“) and avad (“worked“), which were rarely used in other regional languages,” Prof. Galil said.



Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah (“widow“) are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages, the researcher said.



This stands opposed to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research, which would not have recognised the possibility that the Bible or parts of it could have been written during this ancient period.



Prof. Galil said, the inscription, which was discovered a year and a half ago in a provincial town in Judea, explains that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers.



He said that this inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.



“It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BC, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel.”



“The present inscription provides social elements similar to those found in the biblical prophecies and very different from prophecies written by other cultures postulating glorification of the gods and taking care of their physical needs,” Prof. Galil explained.



He added that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.

But he addresses the antiquity of the parts of the Old Testament only yet the news story depicted as if the whole OT and NT are ancient. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />