Though Jesus' left hand has two fingers curled inwards, Mary's left hand is far more tell-tale. And look at the entire style of the image: look at Mary's right foot, how it is resting on something and what it's resting on.
The copy-cat depiction of jeebus was for several reasons:
- in the first place, there never wasa jesus of the gospels (neither of the canonical nor of the apochryphal gospels). He was made up and could therefore metamorphose easily into whatever form was the current trend ('orthodoxy'). And that's why today's WASPys have an Oryan-looking jeebus and why 'dalit theology' teaches that jeebus was 'a dalit too'. Yech, more christian marketing.
- in line with their wishes to make christianity 'catholic', they needed to make jeebus and his religion appeal to as many people of the old world as possible. So they needed jeebus to look like the personal Gods of the unconverted. Often this only angered the adherents of the Old Religions, just like today's inculturation by the Catholic Church angers us.
- after the forcible conversion of the empire, vast numbers of those who had superficially converted went back to the old traditions and real Gods and so these traditions had to be appropriated as being Christian and these Gods were made into Saints.
Hence the sacred Roman day of celebrating Love (15 Feb, the religious festival of Lupercalia) had to be taken over by Christianity, since the Christos couldn't stop the Romans from cherishing their former traditions. Christos therefore invented another lame saint 'Valentine', and then pretended it had nothing to do with Lupercalia by moving it to 14 Feb. Nevertheless, the love-letters, the flowers - all of it was done by Romans for centuries before the plague of christianism.
And many of the Roman and Greek Gods were renamed as Saints because they people would not give them up, just like the christoterror later did with the rest of Europe's Gods. (Examples at http://freetruth.50webs.org/C1.htm )
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 4 2006, 09:50 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 4 2006, 09:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Visual proofs of the impact of Bauddha influence upon development of early Christianism.
Left: 100 BC Buddha from Gandhar; and Right: Christ from a 4th century sarcophagus:
As per my knowledge, an image of Christ was developed only after discovery of shroud of turin (whatever farce that is). Does this mean that there were statues and pictures of Christ much before that?
11-07-2006, 01:11 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2006, 05:28 PM by Husky.)
Sorry to divert this thread from your question, Ashyam. Just wanted to write the following and this seems like the best place to put it.
Like islam, christianism is not going to stop trying to claim Indians in its harvest for souls. This is because the church claims India and its people - and the recent Thomas-in-India tale allows them to base their false claim on this foundation: 'Apostle X preached in unconverted country Y? Then Y belongs to christianity'.
We either accept it and go the way of the other unfortunate Dodos or we do something about it. We have 2 options:
(a) Do nothing, let things just go on as they are. Christianism (terrorism) wins, we lose
(b) Do something. Two possible outcomes, we either lose (quite possible considering the mammoth we are facing) or we win.
Hoping (a) is ruled out.
The question is how to oppose christianism. It's a ~1700 year old monster. It's swallowed everything in its wake, and won - with the exception of its battle against islam, which, because it's the same as christianism, became a two-way terrorist battle. Islam happened to win Turkey and many middle-eastern countries that had been forcefully made christian earlier. Christianity won back Spain and other southern parts of Europe. But a history of violent conversion which cannot be suppressed forever, leads to people wondering and finding out the truth. It seems that muslim Algerians are converting to christianism in huge numbers every year (exchanging one prison for another).
The islamic way of 'fighting' christianism is not an option. It is not only despicable, but their victories are also only temporary. Just like christian victories are (christians converting to islam here, there and everywhere).
The most wasteful thing we can do in this matter is to ignore history and reinvent the wheel. That's why we need to study history, particularly the history of the rise and rise of christianism. Throughout history, people - entire populations down to small communities - have opposed christianism in various ways, some more successful (never fully successful) than others.
We must study where they failed, when and how they made chinks, what opportunities they missed to pierce the armour of christianism and which prevented them from dealing the death blow to this dangerous terrorist ideology. If we do not spend time in preparation, we will doubtlessly fail. If we prepare and fail any way, maybe some other nation can learn from our mistakes and drive the final stake through its heart.
From what I've read, the best bet is to study Rome, because when Rome came under christian domination, it had imperial backing with which it destroyed Greece and then later western and eastern Europe and eventually the people of the American continent and Africa, and then it also also terrorised Asia. The opposition to christianism in Greece and the remainder of Europe (and even within Rome) could not contend with the imperial power that christianity had obtained in Rome. That is why both small and large-but-unorganised revolts against christianism were all crushed in time. After christianism was established as the only power, we see the crusades and inquisitions take place to crush all further dissent.
But it is in Rome that the death knell of Europe was sounded and nowhere else. Through Constantine christianism was made a world religion - without the imperial power it got then, it might very well have become extinct. But that doesn't mean that when christianism gained this absolute power in the 4th century, it's fate became immediately certain.
Because, and here I think is the key to the problem, there was another important, significant opposition - one which ultimately failed, to the utter detriment of all the world. If Constantine is the most important man of christianism (even the non-existent jesus was a nobody when it came to making it a world religion), the most important man in opposing it was Emperor Julianus.
Until the recent centuries (and perhaps even today), the man whose memory sent shudders down every branch of the holy Roman and even reformed churches, is the man whose actions they would like all others to forget. European history is written by christianism, because christianism won. And that is why we hear and know so little of the other key player in christian history: the man the church scornfully calls Julian the Apostate.
Flavius Claudius Julianus, one of the nephews of Constantine, survived the purges of Constantine and those of Constantine's son (who murdered many of the nephews). Julian, raised christian by his converted terrorist family, hated christianism, more so than even the Stoic emperors who had preceded Constantine. For Julian came after Rome's civilisation had been dreadfully damaged by this destructive religion. He knew it was both false and would be the very death of the empire unless it was ended. He also knew that imperial power was everything to emerging christianism. He reasoned correctly that imperial power could likewise be everything to the Old Religion, and to restore the empire and free it from christianism.
In short, what Julian did and did not do, from what I've been able to read:
(a) He never persecuted a single christian. He did wholly the opposite: he insisted they should not be harmed. This was both to show the humane and pluralistic ways of the truly superior Old Roman Religion (as opposed to the christian cruelty of the christian emperors who had come before) and to avoid satisfying the christian clamour for martyrs. Because, of all things, christianity loves martyrs best. It needs them to prove their religion is the True Religion. If they are not persecuted, it means people don't care about their petty little religion. And not caring means disinterestedness. No martyrs means no sobstories and no propaganda. The church always boasts - falsely, as has been shown by christian historians - that 'the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church'.
When christian soldiers were caught conspiring against Julian's life, he spared their lives. It bothered the church no end: everyone in the empire found out that the evil christians had planned to kill the well-loved Julian and that the great-hearted Julian - of the Old Religion, champion of all of the Old Religion - had let go these instruments of the petty, murderous religion.
(b) He wrote and encouraged writing the truth about christianity, exposing all its lies. Remember this was the fourth century. Everyone was still aware of the fraud of christianism's origins. The vast amount of forgeries that would create and 'prove' its beginnings were yet to take place in the coming centuries. In the 4th and 5th centuries, all the non-Christian Romans made fun of the religion that was so inconsistent as to have innumerable versions of christ's life ('documented' in the innumerable gospels that the church would thereafter suppress because of the ridicule) floating about. The Romans also knew of the unprecedented immorality encouraged and even instilled by christianity; they knew of its intolerance as it couldn't stand other christian sects but murdered them out; they remembered its treatment of the Old Religions and of civilisation.
Even in the second century, Celsus and others had already written against the lie of christianity. Knowing the damaging effects that such writings had upon christianism, Julian wrote and inspired other great authors to research and write about christianity. The effects were staggering.
( c) He not only got verifiable literature exposing christianity circulating. He also set about physically disproving the religion. Christianism hinged on the temple of Jerusalem never being rebuilt. So he ordered it to be reconstructed - something that sent terror into the heart of the church. Unfortunately, the temple was not rebuilt as there was trouble. The church would embellish this as the christian god's supernatural way of preventing the construction, but fraud was ever their line.
For a short time, there was some promise of revival. Julian had plans to try again to get the temple in Jerusalem built, he had plans to further publicise the literature against christianity, educating all of the empire on the vast fraud (christianity) doing the rounds; plans to unify the empire and diverge from the path to demise that christianism had set it on.
He was murdered. The church claimed it was the Persians. But all suspected it was a christian plot, and the church practically admitted it.
Julianus became emperor at 29 and was murdered within 3 years. He had already done so much damage that the church spoke his name in fearful whispers amongst themselves and loudly in hatred in public. Had he lived, there would be no christianity today. There would also not have been any islam (an unfortunate child born of an accidental mutation of the christian meme - mohammed obviously modelled his carrot-and-stick religion on the successful formula of the christian precedent; no christianity would have meant no inspiration for mohammed).
After Julian's assassination, the Romans patiently waited for another man of the Old Religion to come to free their nation from christian terrorism. Such a man never materialised, since of course the church had learnt its lesson. It was a 'miracle' they had escaped Julian - he could have destroyed it all; christianity had just survived. Never again.
The rest is history. One christian emperor after another, the fall of Rome, the conversion of all of Europe, the rise and rise of christian and church power. A monopoly over all the world known to them.
What we can learn from Julian is:
(1) Not to fail - we need more than one man or woman in power. We need non christians (non-christoislamics) in power. We need to keep fighting and not give up and wait around for someone reliable to replace Sonia. No one may come if we do nothing. Voting right is the first step.
(2) And the methods he used to fight christianity were the only ones that ever worked. That is, (a) and (b) above (( c) is not really an option). Throughout history, writings showing the false underpinnings of christianity have been the only means to dent christianism's hold over the world. The church has always suppressed such writings - it destroyed ('lost') all such works by Roman writers, it burnt heretical works when the church came into absolute power, then it had a forbidden index to prevent people from reading such works, and today it sternly discourages its flock from finding out the truth.
In the present, the media is another outlet where christian lies continue and facts are prevented from making an appearance. Hence the thomas myth and even the tale of jesus' visit to Kashmir continue to get coverage in India, whilst discoveries in archaeology and research in biblical scholarship that show how christian origins are entirely manufactured are not even discussed.
To destroy the christian meme, we need to disseminate factual information to the masses, starting with relatives and close friends. When they know the facts, christianity will not be an option for them.
(3) Not to trust christian organisations when their whole goal is to destroy hinduism and replace it with their terrorist religion. Its followers are also the people who keep donating to such organisations.
Husky, completely agreed. Also let us study how Japan avoided getting converted.
To operationalize the defence of Hinduism, I think the following steps should be taken, considering that I am not very hopeful to see a pro-Hindu government in some time to come.
a) first thing that needs to be done is to control, manage and leverage the media. No matter howmuch truth and content you, me and like-minded people have, since we dont have the backing of media, this information would not reach out to people.
b) making pseudo-Hindus real-Hindus. Traditionally, and I consider it a strength and not really a weakness, not ever Hindu was supposed to be very religious. It was a matter of choice. Religion was available when an individual was ready as per his cycle of Karma and Dharma. But now, the Christianism (and Ismalism) are targeting this Hindu population which is on the margins of Hindu religion. People who dont have deep roots into Hinduism are easy prey. So we need to really bring into Hindu fold all the marginal populace.
c) Swamis of different sects are who are doing and will do the (b). That is why christian missionary-backed media and governments are all out to molest or malign the Swamis. We have to safeguard the Swamis and their sects.
d) Unity. Hindus are least united. Disunity is one of the biggest tools in the hands to missionary. Stop infighting. All eastern religions must unite. No more debating amongsth Hindu/Bauddha/Jain/Sikh. Show tolerance and acceptance to all eastern faiths.
e) Create parallel infrastructure to missionary instruments. 'Social service', 'health care', 'education', 'financial support', etc are the tools they use in the backward and weaker sections of our society. Now that God has given back Hindus enough wealth, let us take care of our own weaker brothers and sisters. This will break the arms of missionaries. (Again, if there were a pro-Hindu governments, these NGOs can be checked. But dont count upon Govt).
f) Create superstructure of reverse conversions. Shuddhi movements must be started and faithfully carried out. They should have overall well-laid plan, and not just a flash in the pan.
Hope the following won't be considered a waste of bandwidth.
Was trying to find out the ground conditions in Rome at the time, though it's hard to get a proper feel for the situation in which christianism made so much headway there. Felt a few things were somewhat reminiscent of the state of India today. The following is from Joseph McCabe's 'The Story of Religious Controversy':
(1) Vague similarity. Reminds me a little of votebank politics and a hint of the appeal of the idea of secularism (towards intolerant christianity, I mean, since the Romans were already tolerant of religions in general):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Diocletian and his colleague had abdicated in 304, and Galerius, now promoted to be emperor in the east, with Constantius {Constantine's father} as emperor in the west, prevented the young Constantine from obtaining the rank of Caesar.
I will not drag the reader through the details of the bloody civil wars that followed upon this multiplication of ambitions, but the question of sparing or favoring the Christians of the empire now became, to use modern language, a plank in the political platform. Religious writers affect to see in this a confirmation of their very large figures of the number of Christians. It proves nothing of the kind. In a contest which seems fairly even and uncertain the support of any fanatical minority is useful. Moreover, there was the air of political wisdom which a man might have in proposing to put an end to religious, dissensions in the hard-pressed empire. It would appeal to educated pagans.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(2) Somewhat similar to laws favouring minority religions in India (and reservations based on caste) which are driving a wedge into Indian society:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But Constantine immediately went beyond this declaration of religious neutrality and evinced an attitude of what is now called benevolent neutrality. In the same year, 313, he exempted the Christian clergy from municipal offices. In the Roman administration these local functions, so far from being paid, were extremely costly and onerous to the citizens who were compelled to discharge them, and there was a very general attempt to evade them. Exemption was regarded as so valuable a privilege that the Christian clergy now discovered a remarkable number of "vocations" to their body, and great disorder ensued in the municipal administration, I leave it to the Catholic historian Count Beugnot ("Histoire de la destruction du paganisme" I, 78) to estimate the result:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The effect of this measure was soon felt. On all sides one saw crowds of people make for the churches who were moved not so much by conviction as by the hope of reward; and this first favor granted to Christianity admitted to its bosom guilty passions which had hitherto been foreign to it, passions which had speedy and pernicious consequences. The complaints of the municipal bodies and the disorder that followed in the administration of the provinces soon compelled Constantine to modify the privilege.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This, in fact, was Constantine's invariable experience when he listened to clerical suggestions of legislation in their favor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(3) Bribery to convert (this was during Constantine's time, because Christian emperors after him issued severe decrees to persecute the Romans of the Old Religion):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From the first Constantine had, apart from his unsuccessful decrees, showered wealth and privileges upon the Church. A stream of gold flowed from the palace, and new churches, of a more attractive nature, began to rise. At court and in the army the best way, if not the only way, to secure promotion was to become convinced by the brilliant evidence of the religion. Even ordinary citizens were rewarded with a baptismal robe and a piece of gold. Villages were raised to the rank of cities if all their inhabitants exchanged Jupiter for Christ. In ten years imperial gold had done more than the blood of all the martyrs, the miracles of all the saints, and the arguments of all the apologists.
Except that wealth continued to reach the Roman clergy, the progress of the Church in the west was now suspended. The city of Constantinople was dedicated in 330. The world had at least a Christian metropolis; and it was a superb city. Already, as I said, more than three fourths of the Christians were in the ignorant east, and they were now encouraged to attack pagan temples and openly ventilate their scorn. Few pagans could get advancement in the east. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
11-07-2006, 06:35 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2006, 06:37 PM by Husky.)
Post 23 (Bodhi):
Agree with all your points.
Not sure what we can do about the media, though. The main English-language papers are purposefully lying all the time. No journalistic outlet could get all the information wrong all of the time precisely when it concerned Hindus. It points to a wilful smear and disinformation campaign.
Hindus need to set up more media outlets (in English too) that report only the truth, whatever the truth might be - as long as it is verified and is not manufactured 'fact' (the kind the unreliable newspapers like to bandy around).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Traditionally, and I consider it a strength and not really a weakness, not ever Hindu was supposed to be very religious.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
About your point (d), I agree. Though there are philosophical differences, they never created an insurmountable disagreement like doctrinal differences do in christoislamism. We've all generally accepted the differences between the Dharmic religions. Differences exist in all things in the world, so too in spiritual paths, so that has been fine with all of us.
The animosity we see on-line today has been created by the meddlesome colonials and missionaries and the untruths in history books. The colonials needed to project internal enemies to foster division and take focus away from their own activities, the missionaries need(ed) it for their divide-and-conquer routine, the history books need it to malign Hinduism and instill guilt about non-historical events.
Concering (f), Hinduism needs to be well-organised. Not a hallmark of old religions, I'm afraid. Old religions are a personal matter and not businesses or organisations, that's why this is going to problematic. We need to approach it differently. Hinduism itself ought not to be changed, of course, but our way of dealing with the problem of christoislamism (which is highly organised) has to change. Like you said, organised shuddhi movements are essential.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also let us study how Japan avoided getting converted.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes. I think one of the factors was that they knew a thing or two about war tactics, that's why they instantly recognised christianism's attempts at cultural domination.
If you speak to Japanese today, many dislike christianism still. They know it very well, even though they haven't had christian friends. We have a lot to learn from them.
11-22-2006, 10:30 AM (This post was last modified: 11-22-2006, 10:32 AM by Husky.)
Roman civilisation was both destroyed and replaced by christianism.
Yet that's another thing christianity definitely learnt from its conquest of Rome: not to implicate itself in the destruction of a civilisation.
In this day and age, where tv and print media can record events for posterity, that will only cause automatic reverts.
That's why christianism will use 'secularism' (pseudo-secularism) in its attempt to kill off Dharmic religions in India and then hope to replace it with christianism, all the while pretending the latter had nothing to do with the former (the destruction of Indian civilisation).
Of course, that's also the reason why communism and islam are banking on p-secularism too: they have their own predictable objectives on what they hope will replace Hinduism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
To Our Venerable Brothers, the Patriarchs, Archbishops and
Bishops and other Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Holy See.
Venerable Brothers, Health and Apostolic Benediction.
The Orient, courageously and successfully explored by the Portuguese, is coveted by many today for its lucrative trade. We, however, have a more noble purpose in mind. We reflect upon those immense regions of the Indies where for many centuries men of the Gospel have expended their labor. Our thoughts turn first of all to the blessed Apostle Thomas who is rightly called the founder of preaching the Gospel to the Hindus. Then, there is Francis Xavier, who long afterwards dedicated himself zealously to the same praiseworthy calling. Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion. In the footsteps of this holy man followed numerous priests, secular and religious, who with the authority and permission of the Holy See strove untiringly to preserve and promote the Christian mysteries and institutions introduced by Thomas and renewed by Xavier. To this day, they are continuing these noble efforts; nevertheless, in the vast reaches of the earth, many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstition! How very great a field, especially in the north, lies yet uncultivated to receive the seed of the Gospel!
....
....
Pondering these needs, We place our trust in Our Savior who alone knows the exact circumstance and time to bestow his light; he is wont to direct the mind and hearts of men by divine inspiration. But, assuredly, We ought to exert every possible effort to convert such a great part of the world. We have been searching for possible ways of better organizing and expanding Christianity in the East Indies, we have decided upon certain measures to help achieve Our goal.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, on the 24th day of June, in the year 1893, the sixteenth year of Our pontificate.
11-24-2006, 08:21 AM (This post was last modified: 11-24-2006, 08:27 AM by Husky.)
Crossposting
<!--QuoteBegin-sankara+Nov 22 2006, 07:09 PM-->QUOTE(sankara @ Nov 22 2006, 07:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Controversy over Pope's St Thomas remarks among Kerala Christians</b>
Â
November 22, 2006 16:45 IST
Controversy is raging in the Christian community in Kerala following recent remarks by Pope Benedict XVI that <b>St Thomas had preached Christianity in "western" India from where it spread to other parts of the country, fuelling a debate whether or not the apostle had come to southern India.</b>
The community in Kerala believes that St Thomas came to this part in AD 52 and had established seven and half churches.
The community considers St Thomas as the 'Father in Faith' of Christians in India.
The present Pope, in a pronouncement at St Peter's Square in Vatican recently, spoke of St Thomas the apostle, seemingly taking away from him the traditional title 'Apostle of India'.
Though he did not actually use the expression 'Apostle of Pakistan', what he said may seem to imply it, said an article by George Nedungatt, a faculty member of the Oriental Pontifical Institute, Rome, in Satya Deepam, a mouthpiece of the Syro-Malabar church.
The article said the Pope's predecessors had on several occasions referred to St Thomas as the Apostle of India.
However, differing from this view, Pope Benedict feels the area St Thomas evangelised was not south India, but what he called "western India" corresponding roughly to today's Pakistan, said the article.
The Pope, addressing a vast crowd at St Peter's Square, is said to have stated, "Thomas first evanglised Syria and Persia and then penetrated as far as western India from where Christianity also reached south India".
According to the Pope, <b>while north-western India was evangelised by St Thomas, south India was not evangelised by him.</b>
He does not specify who first preached the gospel in south India; whether it was some disciple or disciples of the apostle himself or others in the post-apostolic age or later, the article said.
As the Pope sees it, south India was not evangelised by St Thomas, but by Christians from north-western India, seemingly at a later priod.
<b>"The Thomas Christians of south India, both Catholic and others are not likely to be thankful for this papal statement. </b>This is a clear departure from the pronouncements of his predecessors," the article said.
Church sources say there is scholarly debate on the evidence on whether St Thomas came to India and Kerala.
Historical proofs are the Gospel of St Thomas and Act of Thomas, the sources said. From these there are evidences that St Thomas came to India. But it is not clear whether he had come to western India or south India, the sources said adding, the geography of the country was different earlier.
Several Popes have asserted the origin of south Indian Christianity from the Apostle Thomas. Pope John Paul V in 1606 erected the diocoese of San Thomas of Mylapore "because there lay buried the body of St Thomas," the article said.
Establishing the hierarchy of the Latin Catholic church in India in 1886, Pope Leo XIII referred to India as having first received the light of the gospel from Apostle Thomas.
During the apostolic visit to India in 1986, Pope John Paul II visited the Mylapore tomb (in present day Chennai) and in a brief discourse, he is said to have cited the words of Apostle Thomas to his companions, it said.
In 1990, while raising the Syro-Malabar church as a major archepiscopal church, Pope John Paul II wrote that this church "as the constant tradition holds, owed its origin to the preaching of Apostle St Thomas."
The article said the Pope may have stepped on unfamiliar ground. The evangelisation of south India by north Indian Christianity is a new theory.
The Pope has 'ignored' the Indian tradition about the evanglisation of south India by Apostle Thomas and sets aside the clear and repeated statements of his predecessors supporting the tradition.
"In short, he denies the apostolic origin of the churches of the Thomas Christians by excluding Apostle Thomas from the evangelisation of south India," it said.
In 2002, the 1,950th anniversary of St Thomas' arrival in Kerala was celebrated by the Sryo-Malabar church in which the papal delegate had participated, sources pointed out. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]61145[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The 'Roman' church is still lying - there were never any apostles, including Thomas. So no, non-existent Thomas did not come to India (S, N, E or W).
Question is, why has the church changed its tune - as indicated by this papal message? What does he have planned for W India?
Since the church has already inoculated the S with the christian disease, does it now plan to claim W India as christianity's lawful place for preaching (since now the tale is that 'apostle thomas came to W India') and so try and turn the states there into another Kerala?
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Nov 24 2006, 08:21 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Nov 24 2006, 08:21 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Question is, why has the church changed its tune - as indicated by this papal message? What does he have planned for W India?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is more likely that Pakistan, currently the center of hardcore islam and the source of islamic terrorism in the world, is christianity's target. By portraying the region englufing the present day Pakistan as an once-christian region, the church is setting the ground for active proselytization there. By feeding stories of this kind, similar to the tactics they used in south India to make christianity culturally acceptable - by making it part of the local heritage - they are aiming to pave the way for christianizing Pakistan and the neighbouring regions.
South India is already a done deed. They have achieved what they set out to do - that is christianize the states (particularly TN and Kerala) in a big way; now their target is western India, particularly those areas considered resistent to the regular christian proselytisation - through monetary enticement. The first step is of course to change the region's history, and make it a christian one.
May this is not the right thread but i need help.
I consider my self an ex-christian and i dont know now which religion is true.
Let me tell you a short story of my life.At the age of 6 i was wondering why the people die.After a while i start to study religios books.I had read many religios books(id stop counting at 200) especialy christian books ,and i become a christian my self.At first i was very entusiast and idealist.That books seems to have answer to almost any problem .I was entusiast especialy by the lifes of monks and saints and by philosophical teachings from there.But after a while ,I started to feel the fear of eternal hell,an infinite more fear comparative whit fear of death.And while study more and more i started to have doubts.The religios problems rezolved lead to more problems whit no answer.At first i didnt want to have doubts,i belive they was temptations who test my faith,and i didnt want to upset God whit my unbeliving.BUt i started to know that are many religions and i was thinking how this people belives are so diferent(other gods ,other dogmas).And even in christianity are so much types of sects and heretics.Even more,christians didnt behave nice whit non-christians as i read in history books.So i thinking ,what if im in the wrong religion and i gona go in hell because i dont know what to belive.
I had a disease back then and i start to have panic attacs(hours and days of pure terror),i was belive that i gona die and go in ETERNAL hell.I realy dont want to go there.I cant imagine something more terible.My state i can describe whit Jesus words on the cross"MY God why you had leave me".I had fell the lonliest man in the world and nobody can help me.
Sure,i think ,i made some bad things and i deserve to be punish(even milions of years) and i didnt deserve to be in heaven.But why to go in hell for the eternal torture?Now i laugh of my fear of inexistence,the fear of hell is infinite much hellish.I wish nobody such thing,not even to criminals.
I leave in a secular place and people think that im a mad man .For my huge fear i didnt succed to do nothing..
Please dont laugh of me,is the last thing i need now.But more i need an advice.
What to do?I dont know what the truth is and i dont know what to do .If anyone can give me an advice ,please do.
Honsol, there is no eternal hell, it is an absurd concept to begin with, how can you be punished forever for a limited number of sin's that you committed and God if heshe/it exists is not some sadist who takes pleasure in torturing people I am sure and if he/she/it is like that then there is no point in worshipping such a being, millions of people lived and died without being Christians, even today majority of the world is not Christian and will never be, does that the majority of human beings are going to hell simply because they did not believe in Jesus?, how is that any different from some tyrant or bully beating you up and torturing you because you refused to obey him?, I never fear about eternal hell because I believe that there is no such thing, just because the Bible says something doesn't mean its true, the Bible also says many things that have been proven to be false. So just forget all this mumbo/jumbo of hell and try to live a normal life.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pope confirms the Myth of St. Thomas
11/23/2006 6:27:42 AMÂ H.Balakrishnan
Pope Benedict XVI reiterated the Vaticanâs stand on the Myth of St. Thomasâs arrival in Kerala, came as a blow to their followers in Kerala.
Pope Benedict XVI comes off as one who doesn't hold back his punches.In the present case,the Pope was only repeating what the Vatican had stated on 13 NOV 1952,namely, the landing of Saint Thomas at Cranganore in 52 C.E. was 'unverified'.
Many Christian historians,scholars and theologians have for long doubted the veracity of Saint Thomas ever having visited India.Thus,the renowned English historian,Sir Arnold Toynbee had written:<i>'The mission and death of St. Thomas in India was probably legendary'.</i>
Bishop Stephen Neill,in his 'Hisotry of Christianity in India:The Beginnings to 1701 A.D.'had written:'A number of scholars have built on slender foundations what can only be called Thomas romances,such as reflect the vividness of their imagination rather than the prudence of rigid historical critics.'There are many such scholarly writings on this subject from Christian sources.
On the contrary,historical records show that the present site at which the Santhome Cathedral stands,is an edifice of Christian iconoclasm.<b>The Portuguese are reported to have destoryed a Shiva and a Jain Temples that stood earlier at the same site.This is clearly brought out in Ishwar Saran's "The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple".</b>
The Belgian historian,Dr.Koenraad Elst had written:'In Catholic Universities in Europe,the myth of apostle Thomas going to India is no longer taught as history,but in India it is still considered useful.'Indeed!!
11-25-2006, 08:12 AM (This post was last modified: 11-25-2006, 11:01 AM by Husky.)
Honsol (post 30):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May this is not the right thread but i need help.
I consider my self an ex-christian and i dont know now which religion is true.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't worry about religion. Just be as good and humane a person as you can be. Think logically, if you had a child that was trying to do its best, would you punish it for infinity because its best was not good enough? You wouldn't, would you? So how can a supposedly benign ('merciful') entity exist that is so 'loving' that it punishes much of mankind <i>forever</i>?
Can you think of anyone - no matter how evil - that you would punish for Eternity? Imagine if there was only one life, like christoislamics believe, and someone had committed all the most heinous crimes imaginable in that life. If a hell existed and it did all those horrible things back to him, it should (logically speaking) only go on so far as to the extent he had affected his victims. Not for all eternity. And we're not even taking into consideration any thoughts of sincere repentance here - true remorse is often an unbearable punishment in itself.
Life is finite. Infinite punishment for finite sin is incomprehensible and reprehensible. You as a humane individual would not do that (prescribe infinite torture) to anyone, why would you expect or accept this of any loving creator? Loving creators aside, back to my original point. Just be kind and good, respect truth as if it were God. Any God(s) who might exist will value, appreciate and love you for doing your best, for being compassionate and kind-hearted and for honouring the truth. And if no God exists, then surely, you have given the best of yourself to this world and have made it a better place for having lived here.
If you have the need to believe in a God, remember that he/she/it must be truly kind, truly understanding and compassionate. It must love all creatures, it must love truth, it must accept all individuals. More so than we are capable of. Since if any God is considered our parent, he/she/it must completely love us without any expectation, like a mother-mouse loves its children without expecting them to love her back.
In this world, we can see our fellow creatures with our own eyes. We see their lives are no different from ours: joys, sufferings, confusion, anxiety, pain, wisdom, nobility - these are some of the traits we all have. Others are as sentient as us. We therefore realise we must treat them as gently as we wish to be treated. And we must try to be the best we can be, not only to satisfy our own conscience, but also to serve as a beacon of light/guidance for future generations. We do not live in a vacuum. Our actions and words affect all. (I might not consciously write or say useful things much of the time, but ideally all of us ought to do so.)
You appear to be a sensitive individual who is trying to find answers to life's questions. Keep questioning and coming up with your own answers, or if you see that another's answer to any particular question is applicable, then incorporate that into your view of the world. Never accept anything without examination.
Do not uncritically accept all of one religion/one view blindly, without examining all the beliefs/doctrines of that view or religion. Critical examination of each dogma is essential. We are individuals, so answers that may seem right to your neighbour might not be applicable to you. Be an individual, make your own way. If you will believe in one or more Gods (as many of us do, myself included, yet other good people do not), then make him/her/it/them to be the best that you can imagine - at least what you would expect from a hero. Gods are there for us to try and become more like them. If they exist and we emulate them, then we become their instruments in bettering the world.
Take what is good (wholesome) and seems true from others and other spiritual paths, and reject all that is against your humanity and conscience. Respect all people as being of equal worth. Believe in each person's potential to do good.
Remember that people act according to their beliefs. Often these beliefs are controlled by their ideology. Therefore, recognise bad ideologies and still believe in the potential for good of the individual. And do not equate what is good with what is bad (confused sense of pluralism), but exercise critical judgement.
And do not label yourself unless you fully understand and agree with your label: for example, do not say you are a 'Rationalist' or 'Humanist' merely because you think these words mean 'rational person' and 'humane person'. Rationalism and Humanism are very specifically defined movements and you may not agree with all of their specifications, even though you may be a rational and humane person. It is best not to join any movement until you understand yourself and your own view of the world and of course all of the movement itself. Feel free to agree with 90% of any stream of thinking, and disagree with the other 10% of its ideas. Same thing with books: use critical judgement to take what is useful and leave what rings untrue. No one can make you accept all ideas of any system. We must be free to form our own opinions, follow our conscience and exercise our own judgement in all matters. Our opinions may change in time, with better understanding or more experience, but at least in these cases we are making our own way instead of letting others' ideas dictate our beliefs.
There is no exam, no pass or fail, at the end of our life. There is only our continuous progress. Always be in the process of becoming better. And if there are any Gods out there, you will surely progress with their blessing (in many eastern religions, we believe in reincarnation, so in that case the progress might take place over several lives).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May this is not the right thread but i need help.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The only help you need is to learn to trust your own ability to discern right from wrong, truth from untruth and to always develop that ability. Be conscious of what you believe, think, say and do. And don't fall for the easy trap to let a religion or ideology (like communism) dictate all the do's and don'ts for you. Christoislamism does that even though its do's and don'ts are mostly not even humane or logical. (Most other religions do not prescribe, from what I've been able to find out.)
For the rest, you seem to already have all the abilities needed to make your own way in life quite well. Don't have such a low opinion of your own understanding of the world and what is humane that you will let narrow-minded religions undermine your naturally developing views.
Life is too short to allow a narrow-minded religion or ideology to control you. Let your beliefs be uplifting instead of making you feel bad. Doing what is right and thinking what is true should never make you feel bad or guilty or fearful. Any religion or ideology that teaches otherwise is cruel and untrue.
It appears post 31 already explained all this, and in a manner more to the point. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Thanks for your answers ,Are very helpfull for me.Most of Your ideas are also my ideas.But probably will take some time to reach some conclusions about my life.
I also think that God is free from such passions and he love us anyway.You have right to not give full credit to any ideology or sistem.I like neo-platonism curent but im not bend to that completly.Now i fell much better.
As i found out there was 6 christian schools abt life after death and only one of them belive in eternal hell.The others belive in limited punishment,anihilation or apocatastazis.But the emperor Justinian give credit to only one of this schools in 6 century.And most of jews say that is not any eternal hell in old testament.
And abt Thomas subject,in the new testament ,the 12 apostoles are alwais presented as staing in Jerusalem even when they are persecuted.The only one apostol out of Israel is Peter who go in Antioh(next to Syria) to meet Paul.
There was 3 milion jews in roman empire and 3 milion converted.Seem that christians spread among jews comunitis all over but the story whit apostles traveling anywere is probably date in 4-5 century.Thomas say the story, travel in Iran and then entering in India.
<!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> Honsol; u came to get ur problem solved or sermonise.
According to many learned biblical scholars, there were never any apostles. This conclusion was reached quite sensibly, when one reads the reasoning.
For example, http://www.atheists.org/christianity/twelve.html
is quite good, written by Frank Zindler:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Formerly a professor of biology and geology, Frank R. Zindler is now a science writer. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the New York Academy of Science, The Society of Biblical Literature, and the American Schools of Oriental Research. He is the Editor of American Atheist.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->east european religion christian orthodox exposed http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20R...olatry.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That page belongs to a born-again christian site. As fearful as you may be of orthodox christianity, which is actually one of the better forms of this particular religion believe it or not, the born-again christian variety is infinitely worse. Threats of hell are always just around the corner, as my ex-Baptist ex-christian friend would say. And today it's the most vocally intolerant form of christianity by far (the Roman church has at present learnt to hide its intolerance under flowery words).
11-27-2006, 04:39 AM (This post was last modified: 11-27-2006, 04:41 AM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-sankara+Nov 24 2006, 03:03 PM-->QUOTE(sankara @ Nov 24 2006, 03:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is more likely that Pakistan, currently the center of hardcore islam and the source of islamic terrorism in the world, is christianity's target. By portraying the region englufing the present day Pakistan as an once-christian region, the church is setting the ground for active proselytization there. By feeding stories of this kind, similar to the tactics they used in south India to make christianity culturally acceptable - by making it part of the local heritage - they are aiming to pave the way for christianizing Pakistan and the neighbouring regions.
South India is already a done deed. They have achieved what they set out to do - that is christianize the states (particularly TN and Kerala) in a big way; now their target is western India, particularly those areas considered resistent to the regular christian proselytisation - through monetary enticement. The first step is of course to change the region's history, and make it a christian one.[right][snapback]61238[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Quite likely. This could be a problem. People often tend to revert to their previous religion when they are miserable in the present one and when they discover that they were converted from religion X into Y. This is for instance the case in Algeria and other islamic middle-eastern countries like Jordan. People go for the immediate religion that preceded their conversion to islam, forgetting that their ancestors worshipped Greco-Roman and middle-eastern Gods before their involuntary conversion to christianity.
In that case, TSP's islamic converts to christianity would revert to islam instead of Hinduism or other Dharmic religions. Not a good thing.
Nothing destroys millennia of spiritual-cultural evolution faster than christoislamism and communism. What a terrible waste of time, effort and human mental progress.
Did Thomas the Apostle visit South India?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did Thomas the Apostle visit South India?
Don Sebastian
Tuesday, November 28, 2006Â 23:34 IST
After Kerala's Syro-Malabar Church voices concern, Vatican corrects papal remark
Pope Benedict XVI, who became the target of global protest after his comments on Islam and Prophet Mohammed, faces dissent from among the flock for his rediscovery of history.
After the Syro-Malabar Church in Kerala voiced its concerns over the papal remark doubting Thomas the Apostleâs visit to south India, Vatican has corrected the speech in its official website.
The Pope, in a general audience at St Peterâs Square on September 27, said: âLet us remember that an ancient tradition claims that Thomas first evangelised Syria and Persia then went on to Western India from where Christianity also reached Southern India.â
The new version on the website supplants âChristianityâ with âheâ (St Thomas), returning to the old theory of the apostle's visit to south India. The Syro-Malabar Church, which accounts for 4 million of the 24 million Christians in India, objected to the Popeâs casual remarks made in a series of catechesis on the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ.
The Churchâs mouthpiece Sathyadeepam (Light of Truth), a fortnightly, ran an article on its November 19 issue criticising the Popeâs remarks.
The article titled âSt Thomas the apostle of India or of Pakistanâ written by Jesuit priest George Nedungattu reads: âPope Benedict may seem to distance himself from his predecessors, especially Pope John Paul II, who on several occasions has referred to St Thomas as the Apostle of India. <b>According to Pope Benedict XVI, however, the area St Thomas evangelised was not south India, but what he called âwestern India,â corresponding roughly to Pakistan today.â </b>
âPope Benedict XVI has the reputation of being a theologian, but this is not the same as competence in Church history. His negative stand does not erode the merit of the Indian tradition about St Thomas as the Apostle of India.â The priest, who is working with Oriental Pontifical Institute in Rome, sites sources from early Popes to former Indian Presidents Rajendra Prasad and Shankar Dayal Sharma to prove his point. In 1986, Pope John Paul II visited the Santhome Cathedral in Chennai, where St Thomas is believed to be buried in a crypt.
<b>Syro-Malabar Church, one of the three Catholic Churches in Kerala, claims to have been formed by those directly baptised by the apostle, who landed in Kerala in AD 52 and was martyred in Tamil Nadu in AD 72. But Latin Catholic Church, established in the 15th century, has been less insistent on the claim.</b>
âThe Popeâs statement is contrary to the views expressed by earlier Popes and official view of the Church. Earlier Popes acknowledged St Thomas as Apostle of India in their statements and records,â Father Paul Thelakat, chief editor of the fortnightly, said. Though there was no official rebuke to the papal theory, believers did not try to hide their resentment. Syro-Malabar Archbishop Joseph Powathil, however, said that âThe Pope has been misquoted.â
More India headlines... Post your comment
Email Article  Print Article Search This Site    Â
Rate this articleCurrent Rating
2.3
Total 1 comment | View all commentsReaders' commentsPost your comment
<b>St THOMAS AND INDIAThe visit of St Thomas to India is an established fact. St Thomas was linked to King Gondophorus of Pakthia (a place in Pakistan) and this was considered a myth till the end of the 19th century, when coins bearing the name of Gondophorus were unearthed in Pakistan. The visit of St Thomas to India is considered a fact in all ancient Christian centers. The Malankara (Kerala) Syrian Orthodox Church based in Kerala was established by the Apostle himself and its Supreme Pontiff calls himself the spiritual successor of St Thomas. The head of the Syrian Orthodox Church is the only head of church who claims to be the successor of St Thomas.</b> There are no claimants to the throne of St Thomas anywhere else in the world. <b>The Syro Malabar Church came into being in the 16th century and it is composed of those who broke away from the ancient orthodox church of Kerala, under Portugese pressure.</b> However, the Syro Malabar Church claims that it was the church established by St Thomas. Nothing can be further from the truth. <b>The ancient church of Kerala had no links with Rome and did not even know that a personality called the Pope existed. The Kerala church had spiritual links only with the oriental churches of West Asia. Another indicator of the Kerala church's absolute lack of links with Rome is the usage of the semitic Syriac language for worship. Syriac is the language spoken by Christ and the Apostles and its usage indicates the connection it had with St Thomas. The Roman Church from the very beginning used Latin, the official language of the Roman empire. The churches established by St Thomas still exist in Kerala and they are all Orthodox Churches. </b>
By asha mathewWednesday, November 29, 2006<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So something odd is in the future of TSP. While Hindus are willing to write off the TSP the Church wants to harvest them. This whole Thomas In India or Pakistan should be in geo-political thread as its not just a religious issue.
11-30-2006, 05:41 AM (This post was last modified: 11-30-2006, 12:14 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Asha 'look I'm a genuine Syrian True christian' matheeeew:
Syriac is the language spoken by Christ and the Apostles and its usage indicates the connection it had with St Thomas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Umm, the theologians that argue for a real jeebus and his apostles have insisted that Aramaic was the lingo of jeebus and his pals. Was jeebus' life set in Syria (part of the eastern end of the Roman empire then)? Or was it set in Galilee and the then non-existent Nazareth, and the like?
<b>EDIT:</b> Just did a search. Syriac (early or modern) is not the same as modern Syrian, but one of several languages classified as Aramaic. Still, ashaw is left with two problems: (1) first need proof for a real jeebus creepus and then (2) require proof that he spoke Syriac and not another language of the Aramaic group. Good luck with (1).
Early christian liturgy may be in Syriac for all we care, but no evidence of jeebus means no evidence of what tongue he uttered the stuff which the late Gospels' attribute to him.
Ashaw makes too many mistakes.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->St Thomas was linked to King Gondophorus of Pakthia (a place in Pakistan)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->'Pakthia'? Isn't that in Afghanistan today? Yupp, just confirmed with googling. Hard for Ashaw and fellow 'true' Syrian christos to understand, but Pakthia is not the TS of Pakistan, though Ashaw might think the names are too similar to be coincidence. (Does she know Pukestan only came into existence recently?)
I know that non-education is a christo trait and ignorance a cherished christo endeavour (christos wish to be like the non-existent unlearned apostle dunces), but in today's world where school is compulsory, people of the Indian subcontinent at least should be able to get a few simple things right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->St Thomas was linked to King Gondophorus of Pakthia <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, st thomas has been linked to everywhere. Doesn't make him or his 'fabulous' travels and travails true. Jeebus creepus has even been linked to Japan (I kid you not). Mwahahaha
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->this was considered a myth till the end of the 19th century, when coins bearing the name of Gondophorus were unearthed in Pakistan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can't believe Ashaw, her geography is pathetic, her sense of factual history is non-existent, until I see proof, her claims to archaeological knowledge must be considered unreliable (probably kooked up by christo bishops to feed to the flock).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The visit of St Thomas to India is considered a fact in all ancient Christian centers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But of course it's considered a fact amongst christo congregations. Ecclesiastical tradition has been considered facts for a long time, even though when most of these traditions were invented in the 2nd to 5th centuries people knew they were not true. Christianism has a lot of fantasies to make up for: it sorely lacks facts. Hence in christoism, fantasy became fact through the process of faith. Faith can move mountains. Ashaw and the others should keep trying by faith and prayer to plead with gawd to make it all true. Only a miracle can.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> 
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->