The following is a comment by Jit on HC to my post 440, followed by my reply. I will delete his comment shortly as it is a violation of policy.
------------
All the points you make in your two paras are by themselves totally
correct. But that has nothing to do with the historicity of a jew named
Yeshua, who came to be known as Jesus (Yeshua-->Iesus-->Jesus).
Understanding that this Jew was a historical character does not negate
the fact that Christianity was a mistake, and that Christianity has
always been the tool of imperialism.
For christians, Jesus' alleged non-historicity does not do very much in
destroying credibility of their claims. It is in fact the psychological
evaluation of the biblical characters -- jesus and the other prophets --
that in reality has cracked the foundations of the church in the west.
That is the one which is the correct approach, and strategically the
most powerful polemic. And there is really no reason to believe that
Jesus and the other biblical prohets could not have been historical
persons, and that their preachings and dogmas were not written down by
scribes long after their death. That will be like saying that someone
called yeshua never existed, but those preachings and narratives in the
bible could have of someone who went by the name of yeshua.
There have been a lot of writers who came up with this theory of the
non-historicity of Jesus, much before Rajaram started, and in a much
more sophisticated manner. But till date that does not answer all
questions, and that is cetainly not the appoach that conributed to the
collapse of christianity in the west. Moreover, There are postmodern
christian movements who are very much christian and very much
evangelical christians, without bothering very much whether their jesus
christ was a real person or not. There are modern christian writers and
theologians who do not progress with a history-centric stance that was
traditionally typical of prohetic monotheism. Liberal christianity is a
method of biblical hermeneutics, an individualistic method of
understanding god through the use of scripture by applying the same
modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings. Liberal
christianity does not claim to be a belief structure, and as such is not
dependent upon any traditional church dogma or creedal staements. Unlike
conservative varieties of Christianity, it has no unified set of
propositional beliefs. The "liberal" brand of postmodern Christianity
denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any
preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of
Church dogma. A liberal christian may or may not hold beliefs in common
with traditional, orthodox, or even conservative christianity -- but
that is not mandatory, in fact that is rare.
The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical
criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural
hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as
non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a
collection of factual statements but instead documents the human
authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its
writingâwithin a historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian
theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather
create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender,
social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal
Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that
explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of
Christian understanding.
Rajaram's crude polemics will do nothing to stop the christian threat,
therefore. They will tell people like Rajaram -- "if the actual
historicity or the lack of it of your avataras, legendary saints, divine
beings and mythological characters, does not have any direct bearing on
the validity of your Hindu values and ideals as you claim, how does it
matter if for arguments ake we assuyme that christ never existed? They
will tell such uninformed poor strategists who dont bother to be
up-to-date -- "does you yoga sutras become invalid if it is by chance
proved that Patanjali did not exist? Were all of your charcters in
Ramayan and Mahabharat without exception historical? Were all of your
mythologies in your rig veda that you all rig non stop narration sof
historical events? are all the stories in all your puranas historical
without exception?"
That's what they will tell Rajaram. Then they will ask him to convert,
and take part in their mission. Because most them are as comfortable
with the proposition of jesus and the other prohet's non-historicity as
much as Rajaram is. Only, for them, it is a better choice and nothing
less than a much needed adjustment (a "liberation" theology, so to
speak) in the post-modern, globalization age, from the burden of the
dark and shameful record of christianity wich otherwise they would have
to bear as a leagacy from their forefathers.
These are the opponents of today. The ones who in the past tried to
force down true historical christianity down the throats of
non-christians everywhere with the sword or the gun, are dead and gone.
In these present times, its these who are doing all the work, through
postmodern churches. Did Rajaram, or his admirers know that nowadays
there is christian communism, christian democracy, the christian left
and feminist theology? that nowadays these "liberation theology"
christians have united with their erstwhile antithetical worldviews --
communism, socialism, democracy, feminist empowerment? Apparently not.
That is why Rajaram and his likes are stuck with outdated polemical
strategies.
-----------------
Thanks for your comments.
The historicity or ahistoricity of Christianity is irrelevant to the arguments
which can potentially proceed out of this specific research. In fact, I had
removed Rajaram's more blatant allegations of Jesus' ahistoricity from his
quote. Here is the full quote which I came across ( I had deleted the portions
<<indicated>> ):
"<<<<<<The Jesus of Christianity never existed!>>>> ....In summary, the whole of
Christianity, including the story of the crucifixion of Jesus is a later
fabrication, created to gain support of the Roman Empire...........{which}
fabricated large parts of the New Testament to destroy the Jews of Palestine who
were in a constant state of rebellion against the Romans. The <<<<mythical>>>>
Jesus was created to facilitate this process. The fact that the Gospels are a
late fabrication by authors who were agents of the Roman Empire becomes clear
upon examining their language and content."
Rajaram's analysis is significant (only) in that he is (somehow) able to
correctly localize the 'monotheist' error to the Empire rather than to some
nondescript and essentially powerless "tribe" in Palestine ( which is in fact a
colonized victim ). His polemical stance can definitely use more finesse. It is
unrealistic to expect perfect argumentation at every instance. We should take
the worthwhile argumentations and expand upon those specifically. To belabor the
obvious, just because Rajiv Malhotra has elaborated a not-so-perfect
'ahistoricity' framework for the heathen traditions, does not mean that we
should dismiss his 'Axis of Neocolonialism' or his analysis of a (fluid) caste
non"system". Removing the polemical portions of Rajaram's statement, what
remains is an acknowledgement of the imperialist structure of Christainty right
from its inception. Such an hazy acknowledgement can be further turned into a
rock solid proof with the current researches. Specifically, it needs to be
demonstrated to the deracinated and deculturated Macaulayite sepoy that :
the horrific Imperialism (genocidal and deculturating record) of Christianity
can be linked causally to the truth claims of Christianity. That is, the
Christians should not be able to claim that "this is not the real Christianity"
when confronted with Christian criminal history (as catalogued by Deschner,
Achebe, History of Hindu-Christian Encounters, et al). (Currently, they can
dissociate their 'ideology' from their actions, with ease and at their own
discretion).
There is only one way to do the above and that is to redescribe the truth claims
of Christianity as instances of propaganda. Behind the "peace" proclaiming
Messiah is the real "peace of the graveyard" of the fulfilling Conqueror. Behind
the "Good News" is the addendum and fulfillment of the "Good News of military
victory". What matters is not the "reality" of Messiah or Conqueror, but rather
the necessary relationship between them of apologist and imperialist. The
dynamics between the sepoy (Jesus) -who demonizes his own people as aggressors-
and the Empire (Titus) -who remains hidden and protected from scrutiny- is
explicated and made plain by this research. Liberation Theology, which proposes
that the native is oppressed by his ancestral practices and can be saved by the
colonizer's "religion", is not a new phenomenon. "Liberation" has been embedded
in Christianity since its advent. Liberalism, Orientalism, and all other sundry
secularized masks for imperial action are similarly derived. To show that
Liberation is a Euphemism for Imperial aggression, one has to show the
relationship between sepoy and master in Early Christainity itself. This is
what is missing from the current discourse.
The vile Jew crucifies his own spiritual Messiah while the physical Conqueror
remains hidden. We all know about the first part, but what about the second
part???
Psychological explanation of prophets as done by Somers and Elst will not lead
to success. That Jesus was a raving lunatic ("real" or imaginary) or that
Mohammad was a raving lunatic (and a pedophile to boot) is ad hoc and trivial
argumentation. At any rate, this same type of argumentation has been applied to
Ramakrishna, Rishis, Devas, and so on, by the Donigers. They will always counter
by saying that the prophets were agitated and violent because they were, after
all, pursuing the Truth. The only way to counter is to state that when they
meant "Truth", it was to degrade and demean the colonized subject; that it was
in fact insincere and propagandistic bombast. Raving lunatics can not forge
Monotheist Empires.
Bertrand Russell in fact accused Marx of insincerity in his expostion of the
doctrine of Communist Liberation while comfortably seated in Great Britain.
Even in the recent Nepali Color Revolution, we saw such instances of propagating
insincere "liberation" and "democracy" against the 'Hindu dictator" oppressing
his own people. This western propaganda emanated out of the same western
operatives who birthed Christian East Timor.
They have tried and will try to dismiss heathen Hindu narratives and practices
as similar instances of propaganda but the Ghent group has rightly described our
narratives as experiential narratives. Experience, whatever it may be, cannot be
propaganda. They will always apply "equal equal" tactic of blaming native
culture of the same crimes and disposition. We can cannot let opportunities go,
just to avoid approbation.
The confusion between the "domestication" of the native and his "liberation" can
only be swept aside by showing the imperial side of Christianity during its
birth moments. Such confusion ails all secular, Macaulayites, and sundry
quasi-christians. Also, we can get a good idea of the original inculturation
tactic and revisionist history tactics and make parallels to the current
colonial Macaulayite education project. The Aryan is the normed Indian, a
colonial construct posited as the agent of ideological-historical change in the
subcontinent and the foreshadow of the Empire. The Similarly, the Israelite is
the normed native Canaanite.
I urge you not to dismiss this work off hand. Please take the time to inquire
into the possibilities. There are two threads at India-forum on this topic.
The Ghent group has stated that all that is necessary to destroy Christianity
and expose the Monotheist error is to discover a people "without religion". To
forestall such a development in the European "encounter" with India, the
disparate traditions in india were systematized as the Religion of "Hinduism".
A false history was imposed as part of the colonial education project to support
this construct; the absence of which would have resulted in a repudiation of the
Monotheist error. And systematizing the native's "past" as "history" was
definitely a part of this preemptive project. So, in my view, Historicity was a
ruse necessary to hide a possibly more fundamental error. At any rate, when
historicity is referred to by Rajiv's group, they are referring to ideological
history, eg where South Indians are portrayed as fundamentally culturally and
ideologically antagonistic to North Indians. This is clearly colonial
revisionist history. A similar violation of the native culture by the colonizer
can be surmised in the "Israelite's" constructed opposition to the Canaanite.
------------
All the points you make in your two paras are by themselves totally
correct. But that has nothing to do with the historicity of a jew named
Yeshua, who came to be known as Jesus (Yeshua-->Iesus-->Jesus).
Understanding that this Jew was a historical character does not negate
the fact that Christianity was a mistake, and that Christianity has
always been the tool of imperialism.
For christians, Jesus' alleged non-historicity does not do very much in
destroying credibility of their claims. It is in fact the psychological
evaluation of the biblical characters -- jesus and the other prophets --
that in reality has cracked the foundations of the church in the west.
That is the one which is the correct approach, and strategically the
most powerful polemic. And there is really no reason to believe that
Jesus and the other biblical prohets could not have been historical
persons, and that their preachings and dogmas were not written down by
scribes long after their death. That will be like saying that someone
called yeshua never existed, but those preachings and narratives in the
bible could have of someone who went by the name of yeshua.
There have been a lot of writers who came up with this theory of the
non-historicity of Jesus, much before Rajaram started, and in a much
more sophisticated manner. But till date that does not answer all
questions, and that is cetainly not the appoach that conributed to the
collapse of christianity in the west. Moreover, There are postmodern
christian movements who are very much christian and very much
evangelical christians, without bothering very much whether their jesus
christ was a real person or not. There are modern christian writers and
theologians who do not progress with a history-centric stance that was
traditionally typical of prohetic monotheism. Liberal christianity is a
method of biblical hermeneutics, an individualistic method of
understanding god through the use of scripture by applying the same
modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings. Liberal
christianity does not claim to be a belief structure, and as such is not
dependent upon any traditional church dogma or creedal staements. Unlike
conservative varieties of Christianity, it has no unified set of
propositional beliefs. The "liberal" brand of postmodern Christianity
denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any
preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of
Church dogma. A liberal christian may or may not hold beliefs in common
with traditional, orthodox, or even conservative christianity -- but
that is not mandatory, in fact that is rare.
The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical
criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural
hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as
non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a
collection of factual statements but instead documents the human
authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its
writingâwithin a historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian
theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather
create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender,
social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal
Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that
explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of
Christian understanding.
Rajaram's crude polemics will do nothing to stop the christian threat,
therefore. They will tell people like Rajaram -- "if the actual
historicity or the lack of it of your avataras, legendary saints, divine
beings and mythological characters, does not have any direct bearing on
the validity of your Hindu values and ideals as you claim, how does it
matter if for arguments ake we assuyme that christ never existed? They
will tell such uninformed poor strategists who dont bother to be
up-to-date -- "does you yoga sutras become invalid if it is by chance
proved that Patanjali did not exist? Were all of your charcters in
Ramayan and Mahabharat without exception historical? Were all of your
mythologies in your rig veda that you all rig non stop narration sof
historical events? are all the stories in all your puranas historical
without exception?"
That's what they will tell Rajaram. Then they will ask him to convert,
and take part in their mission. Because most them are as comfortable
with the proposition of jesus and the other prohet's non-historicity as
much as Rajaram is. Only, for them, it is a better choice and nothing
less than a much needed adjustment (a "liberation" theology, so to
speak) in the post-modern, globalization age, from the burden of the
dark and shameful record of christianity wich otherwise they would have
to bear as a leagacy from their forefathers.
These are the opponents of today. The ones who in the past tried to
force down true historical christianity down the throats of
non-christians everywhere with the sword or the gun, are dead and gone.
In these present times, its these who are doing all the work, through
postmodern churches. Did Rajaram, or his admirers know that nowadays
there is christian communism, christian democracy, the christian left
and feminist theology? that nowadays these "liberation theology"
christians have united with their erstwhile antithetical worldviews --
communism, socialism, democracy, feminist empowerment? Apparently not.
That is why Rajaram and his likes are stuck with outdated polemical
strategies.
-----------------
Thanks for your comments.
The historicity or ahistoricity of Christianity is irrelevant to the arguments
which can potentially proceed out of this specific research. In fact, I had
removed Rajaram's more blatant allegations of Jesus' ahistoricity from his
quote. Here is the full quote which I came across ( I had deleted the portions
<<indicated>> ):
"<<<<<<The Jesus of Christianity never existed!>>>> ....In summary, the whole of
Christianity, including the story of the crucifixion of Jesus is a later
fabrication, created to gain support of the Roman Empire...........{which}
fabricated large parts of the New Testament to destroy the Jews of Palestine who
were in a constant state of rebellion against the Romans. The <<<<mythical>>>>
Jesus was created to facilitate this process. The fact that the Gospels are a
late fabrication by authors who were agents of the Roman Empire becomes clear
upon examining their language and content."
Rajaram's analysis is significant (only) in that he is (somehow) able to
correctly localize the 'monotheist' error to the Empire rather than to some
nondescript and essentially powerless "tribe" in Palestine ( which is in fact a
colonized victim ). His polemical stance can definitely use more finesse. It is
unrealistic to expect perfect argumentation at every instance. We should take
the worthwhile argumentations and expand upon those specifically. To belabor the
obvious, just because Rajiv Malhotra has elaborated a not-so-perfect
'ahistoricity' framework for the heathen traditions, does not mean that we
should dismiss his 'Axis of Neocolonialism' or his analysis of a (fluid) caste
non"system". Removing the polemical portions of Rajaram's statement, what
remains is an acknowledgement of the imperialist structure of Christainty right
from its inception. Such an hazy acknowledgement can be further turned into a
rock solid proof with the current researches. Specifically, it needs to be
demonstrated to the deracinated and deculturated Macaulayite sepoy that :
the horrific Imperialism (genocidal and deculturating record) of Christianity
can be linked causally to the truth claims of Christianity. That is, the
Christians should not be able to claim that "this is not the real Christianity"
when confronted with Christian criminal history (as catalogued by Deschner,
Achebe, History of Hindu-Christian Encounters, et al). (Currently, they can
dissociate their 'ideology' from their actions, with ease and at their own
discretion).
There is only one way to do the above and that is to redescribe the truth claims
of Christianity as instances of propaganda. Behind the "peace" proclaiming
Messiah is the real "peace of the graveyard" of the fulfilling Conqueror. Behind
the "Good News" is the addendum and fulfillment of the "Good News of military
victory". What matters is not the "reality" of Messiah or Conqueror, but rather
the necessary relationship between them of apologist and imperialist. The
dynamics between the sepoy (Jesus) -who demonizes his own people as aggressors-
and the Empire (Titus) -who remains hidden and protected from scrutiny- is
explicated and made plain by this research. Liberation Theology, which proposes
that the native is oppressed by his ancestral practices and can be saved by the
colonizer's "religion", is not a new phenomenon. "Liberation" has been embedded
in Christianity since its advent. Liberalism, Orientalism, and all other sundry
secularized masks for imperial action are similarly derived. To show that
Liberation is a Euphemism for Imperial aggression, one has to show the
relationship between sepoy and master in Early Christainity itself. This is
what is missing from the current discourse.
The vile Jew crucifies his own spiritual Messiah while the physical Conqueror
remains hidden. We all know about the first part, but what about the second
part???
Psychological explanation of prophets as done by Somers and Elst will not lead
to success. That Jesus was a raving lunatic ("real" or imaginary) or that
Mohammad was a raving lunatic (and a pedophile to boot) is ad hoc and trivial
argumentation. At any rate, this same type of argumentation has been applied to
Ramakrishna, Rishis, Devas, and so on, by the Donigers. They will always counter
by saying that the prophets were agitated and violent because they were, after
all, pursuing the Truth. The only way to counter is to state that when they
meant "Truth", it was to degrade and demean the colonized subject; that it was
in fact insincere and propagandistic bombast. Raving lunatics can not forge
Monotheist Empires.
Bertrand Russell in fact accused Marx of insincerity in his expostion of the
doctrine of Communist Liberation while comfortably seated in Great Britain.
Even in the recent Nepali Color Revolution, we saw such instances of propagating
insincere "liberation" and "democracy" against the 'Hindu dictator" oppressing
his own people. This western propaganda emanated out of the same western
operatives who birthed Christian East Timor.
They have tried and will try to dismiss heathen Hindu narratives and practices
as similar instances of propaganda but the Ghent group has rightly described our
narratives as experiential narratives. Experience, whatever it may be, cannot be
propaganda. They will always apply "equal equal" tactic of blaming native
culture of the same crimes and disposition. We can cannot let opportunities go,
just to avoid approbation.
The confusion between the "domestication" of the native and his "liberation" can
only be swept aside by showing the imperial side of Christianity during its
birth moments. Such confusion ails all secular, Macaulayites, and sundry
quasi-christians. Also, we can get a good idea of the original inculturation
tactic and revisionist history tactics and make parallels to the current
colonial Macaulayite education project. The Aryan is the normed Indian, a
colonial construct posited as the agent of ideological-historical change in the
subcontinent and the foreshadow of the Empire. The Similarly, the Israelite is
the normed native Canaanite.
I urge you not to dismiss this work off hand. Please take the time to inquire
into the possibilities. There are two threads at India-forum on this topic.
The Ghent group has stated that all that is necessary to destroy Christianity
and expose the Monotheist error is to discover a people "without religion". To
forestall such a development in the European "encounter" with India, the
disparate traditions in india were systematized as the Religion of "Hinduism".
A false history was imposed as part of the colonial education project to support
this construct; the absence of which would have resulted in a repudiation of the
Monotheist error. And systematizing the native's "past" as "history" was
definitely a part of this preemptive project. So, in my view, Historicity was a
ruse necessary to hide a possibly more fundamental error. At any rate, when
historicity is referred to by Rajiv's group, they are referring to ideological
history, eg where South Indians are portrayed as fundamentally culturally and
ideologically antagonistic to North Indians. This is clearly colonial
revisionist history. A similar violation of the native culture by the colonizer
can be surmised in the "Israelite's" constructed opposition to the Canaanite.