Sita Ram Goel on Jesus

[Smiley]

I am interested in what people think of the work

by Voice of India spokesman Sita Ram Goel: http://www.hamsa.org/artifice-intro.htm

 

The book can be read online or downloaded freely as a .pdf file.

 

Here is the preface:

 

 

The first glimpse of the Jesus of the gospels came to me in 1956. My Jesuist friend who had tried to convert me, had failed in the attempt. When we were back at the mission headquarters in Patna, the following dialogue took place between us.

 

"You believe that Jesus was an avatar," he asked.

"Yes, I do," I replied.

"Can an avatar tell a lie?"

"He is not supposed to."

"What if Jesus says he is the only God?"

"He can't say that."

 

My friend picked up a copy of the New Testament and read out several passages from the gospels. Jesus did say in so many words not only that he was the only God but also that those who did not accept his claim would burn for ever in the infernal pit. I realized with painful surprise that Jesus was not all Sermon on the Mount as I had been led to believe by his Hindu votaries.

 

Years passed, and I had no time to spare for Jesus. I turned to him again in the eighties when Ram Swarup made me wise about the character of monotheistic creeds. It was then that I turned to the gospels. I was horrified. Now I could see why the history of Christianity had been what it had been. The source of the poison was in the Jesus of the gospels. The rest of my studies followed.

 

A few years ago I was discussing the menace of Christian missions with a Gandhian friend. He agreed with me that there was something sinister about them. I told him that we shall have to tell our people the truth about Jesus if we wanted to tackle the missions. He was visibly shaken, and said to me in a voice choked with emotion:

 

"Sitabhai. Jesus ko kucch mat kahiye (Brother Sita, do not touch Jesus)!"

"Have you read the gospels," I asked him.

He was annoyed, and shot back, "That is a personal question."

 

I had to drop the subject. Every time I have asked opinionated people about the source of their opinion on a particular question, I have been accused of being personal. I am thinking of writing an essay — "Advantages of Being An Ass".

 

I have wondered over the years why we Hindus have remained preoccupied with the behaviour patterns of Muslims and Christians and not with the belief systems which create those behaviour patterns. We object to Christian missions, but refuse to discuss Christianity and its God, Jesus. We object to Islamic terrorism, but refuse to have a look at Islam and its prophet, Muhammad. I see no sense or logic in this Hindu habit.

 

In fact, we go a step further. We appeal to the Christian missionaries in the name of Jesus, and ask them not to do what they have been doing. We appeal to the Muslims in the name of Muhammad, and ask them to stop doing what they have been doing. In the process, we have invented a "real" Jesus and a "true" Christianity. We have also invented a "real" Muhammad and a "true" Islam. The missionary and the mullah smiles at our inventions but goes ahead and makes good use of our soft-headedness. That is why we have failed to solve the "communal problem" all these years. We have never tried to find out why our own people, which both Christians and Muslims are, should become alienated from us when they pass under the spell of Christianity and Islam.

 

Flattering the bully may become necessary when the bully is powerful and there remains no other way of softening him except by extolling his heroes or his cult. Hindus have experienced such emergencies vis-à-vis both Islam and Christianity. But there is no reason for their continuing with the same psychology. Hindus should not convert an apaddharma into Sanatana Dharma.

 

New Delhi

Sita Ram Goel

15 April 1994

[theist]

I couldn't read the whole post. The man is an offensive fool.

[Smiley]

Well he seems to admit to being offensive:

 

I am thinking of writing an essay — "Advantages of Being An Ass"

 

 

I couldn't read the whole post. The man is an offensive fool.

[sant]

smiley will find anyone who will demean christainity or mohamedans.

Smiley only hindus are the best, does that make you happy.

Go on practice sati or have a hundred wives.

or just wait for chandu wholl come wholl say- yes i agree the gospels are wrong,they were written in greek, are highly edited bla bla bla

[MikeMalaysia]

Hinduism has no "official stance" on Jesus, so we see various viewpoints such as Mr. Goel's, who states in the conclusion to the book quoted above that "Jesus is junk", as well as those of individuals like Srila Prabhupada, who stated that Jesus Christ was a guru and that "if one loves Krishna, one must love the Lord Jesus Christ".

 

I have personally seen pictures of Jesus and Mary for sale alongside Hindu pictures.

[primate]

Many Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled in precise detail by Jesus of Nazareth. Neither the Jews nor the disciples of Jesus understood at the time that Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, even though at times He told them this was the case. They were looking for a far different Messiah than the one that many prophecies actually described.

 

Astronomer and mathematician Peter Stoner, in his book Science Speaks, offers a mathematical analysis showing that it is impossible that the precise statements about the One to come could be fulfilled in a single person by mere coincidence. The chance of only eight of these dozens of prophecies being fulfilled in the life of one man has been estimated at 1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000.

 

Now, the only remaining question is whether the New Testament is a factual account of the life of Jesus, or a total fabrication or fraud. The most definitive argument in favour of the authenticity of Christian scriptures would be any a priori postulation of one omniscient and omnipotent God. Such a God makes no mistakes. It is virtually inconceivable that such a God would allow a total deception in His name or a chance fulfilment of many prophecies in the life of the wrong person, thus misleading hundreds of millions of Christians.

 

Of course, the same would be true for, e.g., Hinduism, Judaism and Islam. In this respect, Christianity just happens to be the latest rendering of universal religious Truth, which is ultimately fully compatible with all monotheistic religions, including (as I argued in another thread) Hinduism/Vaishnavism.

 

Christianity doesn’t claim to be exclusively true, threatening unbelievers with eternal hell and damnation. This is a relatively recent pagan myth that crept into Christianity, and has no actual place in the New Testament. Even when Jesus Christ stated "no one comes to the Father but through Me", He didn’t say that other religions are ultimately invalid. He just described the universal process of God-realisation through Self-realisation. In fact, Krishna stated exactly the same in the Gita. If through all ages God consistently allowed for such religious deception of the masses in His name, the purpose of it would indeed be inconceivable..

[MikeMalaysia]

 

Many Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled in precise detail by Jesus of Nazareth. Neither the Jews nor the disciples of Jesus understood at the time that Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, even though at times He told them this was the case. They were looking for a far different Messiah than the one that many prophecies actually described.

 

Astronomer and mathematician Peter Stoner, in his book Science Speaks, offers a mathematical analysis showing that it is impossible that the precise statements about the One to come could be fulfilled in a single person by mere coincidence. The chance of only eight of these dozens of prophecies being fulfilled in the life of one man has been estimated at 1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000.

 

These Messianic Prophecies have all been debunked at various times by Atheists, Jews etc. Here is an example: Messianic Prophecies Refuted: Genesis-Deuteronomy (Introduction)

 

The Jewish Messiah, according to the Jewish Scriptures, will not be "born of a virgin". He will be born of a normal birth. He will not be God incarnate or "God the Son", he will be a normal human being. He will establish an era of world peace and bring all the Jews back to Israel. He will rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus never did any of that. Many Christians tried to attach symbolic fulfilments to the rebuilding of the Temple, saying that it was the temple of his body that was being rebuilt, but that is not how the Jews intended it.

 

Also, the Nicene Creed, which the majority of Christians would believe in, states "Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas" (And He rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures". There is no verse in the Old Testament which states anything like this!!!

 

 

Now, the only remaining question is whether the New Testament is a factual account of the life of Jesus, or a total fabrication or fraud. The most definitive argument in favour of the authenticity of Christian scriptures would be any a priori postulation of one omniscient and omnipotent God. Such a God makes no mistakes. It is virtually inconceivable that such a God would allow a total deception in His name or a chance fulfilment of many prophecies in the life of the wrong person, thus misleading hundreds of millions of Christians.

 

The first Gospels were not written until 30 or so years after Jesus had left this world. The Gospel of John, which affirms Jesus' divinity, was written around 90 A.D. - almost sixty years later. Could anyone here recall accurately something which happened even three years ago - accurately enough to write it all down verbatim?

 

 

Christianity doesn’t claim to be exclusively true, threatening unbelievers with eternal hell and damnation. This is a relatively recent pagan myth that crept into Christianity, and has no actual place in the New Testament. Even when Jesus Christ stated "no one comes to the Father but through Me", He didn’t say that other religions are ultimately invalid. He just described the universal process of God-realisation through Self-realisation. In fact, Krishna stated exactly the same in the Gita. If through all ages God consistently allowed for such religious deception of the masses in His name, the purpose of it would indeed be inconceivable..

 

St. Paul states in his First Letter to the Corinthians "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles [non-Jews] sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." (I Corinthians 10:20)

 

Sounds pretty much like saying that other religions (particularly those that use images in worship, like Hinduism) are worshipping devils and not God.

 

The teaching that Christ and his Church are the only way to God have been around for quite a while:

 

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (the Pope)." --Pope Boniface VIII, The Bull Unnam Sanctam 1302 A.D., Ex cathedra (believed by Catholics to be infallible and coming from God).

 

"The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church ... can have eternal life." --Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino 1441 A.D., Ex cathedra.

 

So the teaching that Christianity is the only way to God is not new - it has a Biblical basis and it was formally defined as early as 1302 (that's what I've been able to find).

[primate]

 

… and bring all the Jews back to Israel … Jesus never did any of that.

 

Isn't that what actually happened?

 

 

"The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church ... can have eternal life." --Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino 1441 A.D., Ex cathedra.

 

So the teaching that Christianity is the only way to God is not new - it has a Biblical basis and it was formally defined as early as 1302 (that's what I've been able to find).

 

You seem to have missed my point. Most serious religions are not existing outside the Catholic Church (or Christianity). Adherents can attain eternal life. Thus, Christianity is not the only way to God..

[theist]

 

Well he seems to admit to being offensive:

Quote:

I am thinking of writing an essay — "Advantages of Being An Ass"

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist

I couldn't read the whole post. The man is an offensive fool.

 

So the question arises as to why you Smiley would start such a thread based on the brayings of an offensive ass. What is your motive? Do you even know?

[Smiley]

I don't think the author considers himself as such. I think he was engaging in self-deprecating humor in an attempt to disarm people who react emotionally when a sensitive topic is broached. Needless to say - I am not the topic. Therefore I respectfully request that you read at least one chapter of his writings and restrict your comments to them.

 

 

So the question arises as to why you Smiley would start such a thread based on the brayings of an offensive ass. What is your motive? Do you even know?

[Haridasdasdas]

I guess it all boils down to how much you believe in the Bible really.

 

I don't think you'll find many Hindus who do.

[Smiley]

Like the prophecies of Nostradamus, the fulfillment of prophecy is often in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, Jews interpret their own prophecies quite differently than Christians do. There is one important point that I think the Jews have been very consistent on - that the messianic age would be known when 'people beat their swords into plowshares and the lion lies down with the lamb'; in other words - when world peace comes. The one who ushers in that age is to be recognized as the 'messiah'. Therefore the Jews still wait for their messiah.

 

 

Many Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled in precise detail by Jesus of Nazareth. Neither the Jews nor the disciples of Jesus understood at the time that Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, even though at times He told them this was the case. They were looking for a far different Messiah than the one that many prophecies actually described.

 

Astronomer and mathematician Peter Stoner, in his book Science Speaks, offers a mathematical analysis showing that it is impossible that the precise statements about the One to come could be fulfilled in a single person by mere coincidence. The chance of only eight of these dozens of prophecies being fulfilled in the life of one man has been estimated at 1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000.

 

Now, the only remaining question is whether the New Testament is a factual account of the life of Jesus, or a total fabrication or fraud. The most definitive argument in favour of the authenticity of Christian scriptures would be any a priori postulation of one omniscient and omnipotent God. Such a God makes no mistakes. It is virtually inconceivable that such a God would allow a total deception in His name or a chance fulfilment of many prophecies in the life of the wrong person, thus misleading hundreds of millions of Christians.

 

Of course, the same would be true for, e.g., Hinduism, Judaism and Islam. In this respect, Christianity just happens to be the latest rendering of universal religious Truth, which is ultimately fully compatible with all monotheistic religions, including (as I argued in another thread) Hinduism/Vaishnavism.

 

Christianity doesn’t claim to be exclusively true, threatening unbelievers with eternal hell and damnation. This is a relatively recent pagan myth that crept into Christianity, and has no actual place in the New Testament. Even when Jesus Christ stated "no one comes to the Father but through Me", He didn’t say that other religions are ultimately invalid. He just described the universal process of God-realisation through Self-realisation. In fact, Krishna stated exactly the same in the Gita. If through all ages God consistently allowed for such religious deception of the masses in His name, the purpose of it would indeed be inconceivable..

[theist]

 

I don't think the author considers himself as such. I think he was engaging in self-deprecating humor in an attempt to disarm people who react emotionally when a sensitive topic is broached. Needless to say - I am not the topic. Therefore I respectfully request that you read at least one chapter of his writings and restrict your comments to them.

Request denied. I am interested in your motive. There is nothing in your opening post that is edifying in any way. So I ask you what are you trying to accomplish.

 

As far as I am concerned you have made yourself the topic. It is clear you want to hide behind this author to express your own feelings.

 

Like Srila Prabhupada I consider Jesus Christ as shakyavesa-avatar and guru to the world. So in my eyes you are posting crap against God's ambassador. Naturally I am going to challenge you openly.

[Smiley]

It was not a request. Everyone on this forum is required to control themselves and not engage in ad hominem attacks. I do not have to agree with you about who is an avatar or who is not. I am still a Hindu and there is no one approved viewpoint in Hinduism. I think these kinds of issues are worthy of discussion from all sides. Now back to the subject of the thread ...

 

 

Request denied. I am interested in your motive. There is nothing in your opening post that is edifying in any way. So I ask you what are you trying to accomplish.

 

As far as I am concerned you have made yourself the topic. It is clear you want to hide behind this author to express your own feelings.

 

Like Srila Prabhupada I consider Jesus Christ as shakyavesa-avatar and guru to the world. So in my eyes you are posting crap against God's ambassador. Naturally I am going to challenge you openly.

[theist]

 

I guess it all boils down to how much you believe in the Bible really.

 

I don't think you'll find many Hindus who do.

 

Well I don't believe the Bible is inerrant scripture. There are very inspirational portions and some horrific nonsense in the Old Testament for instance.

 

I have never read the whole Bible or even half of it. The teachings of Christ Himself is another matter.

[theist]

 

It was not a request. Everyone on this forum is required to control themselves and not engage in ad hominem attacks. I do not have to agree with you about who is an avatar or who is not. I am still a Hindu and there is no one approved viewpoint in Hinduism. I think these kinds of issues are worthy of discussion from all sides. Now back to the subject of the thread ...

 

How do we accept the subject s being separate from the thread staters motive. I am accusing you of posting in order to criticize Christ and that I personally object to.So I will call you out on it as I wish.

[Smiley]

Objection noted. Re: Swami Prabhupada, yes it was his opinion that Jesus was a shakyavesa-avatar and he used the same term to describe Mohammed. So if someone doesn't agree with Swami Prabhupada then they have made themselves the topic? I don't think that is reasonable. Ideas are the issue and I don't agree with these ideas. That does not absolve me from the responsibility to be civil however. Since you quoted an authority I will quote one back - H.D. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati - A BIG TIME ACHARYA - has equated the Bible with Greek mythology in his work The Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism www.EncyclopediaofAuthenticHinduism.org I share his views on that. BTW, anyone who searches my username can see that I have never made a secret of my views; therefore your statement "It is clear you want to hide behind this author to express your own feelings." is false. If you insist on making ad hominem attacks, at least get them right.

 

 

How do we accept the subject s being separate from the thread staters motive. I am accusing you of posting in order to criticize Christ and that I personally object to.So I will call you out on it as I wish.

[melvin]

 

How do we accept the subject s being separate from the thread staters motive. I am accusing you of posting in order to criticize Christ and that I personally object to.So I will call you out on it as I wish.

 

You just hit a hole in one, Theist. Give me five, my friend.

[theist]

 

Objection noted. Re: Swami Prabhupada, yes it was his opinion that Jesus was a shakyavesa-avatar and he used the same term to describe Mohammed. So if someone doesn't agree with Swami Prabhupada then they have made themselves the topic? I don't think that is reasonable. Ideas are the issue and I don't agree with these ideas. That does not absolve me from the responsibility to be civil however. Since you quoted an authority I will quote one back - H.D. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati - A BIG TIME ACHARYA - has equated the Bible with Greek mythology in his work The Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism www.EncyclopediaofAuthenticHinduism.org I share his views on that. BTW, anyone who searches my username can see that I have never made a secret of my views; therefore your statement "It is clear you want to hide behind this author to express your own feelings." is false. If you insist on making ad hominem attacks, at least get them right.

 

You are attacking Jesus Christ not the Bible. I could care less about the Bible. But if you want to talk about mythology check out the Puranic stories sometime. You believe all you read there?

 

The point still stands. You say this author speaks for you. He says Jesus is junk. So you can live or die by his aparada. As for conversing with you any longer that won't be happening.

[theist]

You got 'em Melvin

[Smiley]

 

... if you want to talk about mythology check out the Puranic stories sometime. You believe all you read there?

No, I don't.

 

 

You are attacking Jesus Christ not the Bible. I could care less about the Bible.

I am not attacking anyone. You have equated disagreement with attack. This idea of separating Jesus from the Bible or Mohammed from the Koran is one that I do not agree with and is worthy of discussion.

 

 

You say this author speaks for you.

No I did not. I said that I agreed with H.D. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati.

Please stop setting up straw men and being offended by them.

 

 

You are attacking Jesus Christ not the Bible. I could care less about the Bible. But if you want to talk about mythology check out the Puranic stories sometime. You believe all you read there?

 

The point still stands. You say this author speaks for you. He says Jesus is junk. So you can live or die by his aparada. As for conversing with you any longer that won't be happening.

[sant]

....

[chandu_69]

 

There are very inspirational portions and some horrific nonsense in the Old Testament for instance.

 

.... The teachings of Christ Himself is another matter.

 

How would some body rate the following

Leveticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

 

Can you say Christ is another matter if he endorses it?.

 

It seems Jesus Endorses the Old testament to the dot and specifically Lev 20:9

[kaisersose]

 

Originally Posted by theist

You are attacking Jesus Christ not the Bible. I could care less about the Bible.

 

Where does this dude get off posting nonsense?

 

Christ is known by the Bible and the Bible only. Not willing to take the Bible seriously, but Christ, is the height of stupidity. It is the usual case of selective filtering. Accept everything that matches my pet beliefs and reject everything else as false.

 

Stop wasting time, responding to his ludicrous posts. You can all find better things to do.

 

Cheers

[Amlesh]

 

Where does this dude get off posting nonsense?

 

Christ is known by the Bible and the Bible only. Not willing to take the Bible seriously, but Christ, is the height of stupidity. It is the usual case of selective filtering. Accept everything that matches my pet beliefs and reject everything else as false.

 

Stop wasting time, responding to his ludicrous posts. You can all find better things to do.

 

Cheers

 

Don't know.. the Bible was post bible and Jesus Himself said.. he knows that none of his Disciple could really decipher what he was saying...