Guest guest Posted August 20, 1999 Report Share Posted August 20, 1999 Dear Fellow MAdhvas and/or Fellow Hindus: Balaji Hebbar said: - Our youth are growing up here and what we need is a " NyAyasudhA " - type defense of Hindu beliefs against Christianity (the majority - religion of this land). - - Towards this, I am thinking of holding a seminar in Wshington, - Allentown and Detroit on how to fend-off challenges against Hinduism - by Christians using the Bible and our Scriptures. This way our - children growing up here will know how to meet these new Padma - TIrthas and PuNDarIkapuris! - - On the Hindu-Christian debate at least, VMS can organize with other - Hindu groups for mutual benefit. I pledge to give all proceeds to - VMS! I think it is a very good idea to do so. I cannot but help remark a narrow and literal reading of our scripture or for that matter of bible will lead to absurd points of view such as the resurrection and virgin birth and so on. It would be imperative that one should not ignore what science has established about the physical world and indeed if I am not mistaken Madhva himself alludes to this - I have forgotten the exact quote but it is in BNK sharmas book; I am referring to the statement regarding the primacy of sense perceptions (sorry for the incoherence but I am at the moment unable to recall) Regarding the letter by the christian I have appended it with rejoinders of my own. I would be most interested in seeing what Balaji had to say about it too. These christians show a seemingly open attitude but what lurks behind is all too obvious - they want to convert the heathen. I tried to answer the points raised to the best of my ability ands sincerely but my patience ran out as i went further and further into this letter. It is also imperative that our own philosophy be disseminated as widely as possible - first among our own community and later on (or concurrently by the knowledgable) to others. I hope there will be ample opportunities in the future for us all to be able to discuss all aspects of our philosophy from the trivially obvious to the most subtle and profound. namsakara Shri Kanekal ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RECENT CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE OF HINDUISM Dear Sir, Hello, my name is XXXXX; a senior at XXX High School. I've been friends with XXX for about a year and a half now and have learned a great deal about Hinduism in this time. Before I met XXX no one had shared the aspects of Hinduism with me, I had no idea how much I was missing out on. Everyday it seems, I would ask more and more questions on Hindu doctrine. XXX answered them the best that she could, but because of her limited knowledge eventually I started asking questions that she couldn't answer. That is what this letter is for. Because I have been raised in a Christian home a lot of Hinduism's teachings contradict my beliefs. But because I despise ignorance, I am always seeking out the facts. Since you believe in many gods and Christianity worships one, we both cannot be correct. My whole life it has been taught that you are wrong and Christianity is right, I am interested in your proof on the contrary. Please do not take this letter lightly. If you do not respond it will make a sizable impression on your students. It will make it look as though the person that they come to about Hinduism, a teacher of doctrine no less, cannot defend his faith against a 17 year old high school student. Just remember that this letter is meant to get my questions answered and not to offend you in any way. With all that said, let's get it on. > First of all let be noted on the question of one vs many gods proof of a > scientific nature can not be provided. All science is empirically rooted > and the final arbiter is " experimental verification " . It is the position > of science that this world of senses (including phenomena observable > by extension of senses - such as through the use of telescopes, microscopes, > particle accelerators ... etc ) is explainable without invoking one/many > god(s). Hence belief in a single god is no better than belief in many gods > from a scientific point of view and neither can claim that they alone > are " the truth " . Let's start off with what the history books say about Hinduism. During the 4th century BC. Aryans; the same people who developed Greek culture, conquered much of present day India. > recent historical research disputes this " fact " . The " aryan invasion " theory > is now believed to be untrue. I will quote here but one example from > Dr. Jonathan Mark Kenoyer of University of Wisconsin as reported in the > NY times (Researchers Paint New Portrait of an Ancient People - > By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD: February 10, 1998: N Y Times) > >= " We now believe that there was no outright >= invasion. The decline of the Indus cities was the result of complex >= factors. Overextended economic and political networks, the drying up of >= major rivers, as well as the rise of new religious communities, all >= contributed in some way to the creation of a new social order. " >= Calling what happened a collapse may be overstating the situation, >= archeologists said. True, Mohenjo-daro was suddenly abandoned, probably >= because the Indus River changed course, and when a parallel stream, the >= Saraswati or Ghaggar-Hakra river, dried up, the effect must have been >= devastating over a wide area. But Harappa continued to exist after 1900 >= B.C., though with a greatly diminished population. Other cities suffered >= sharp declines. > > Their Pantheon of Gods (similar to that of the Greeks) combined with ancient Indian traditions of meditation to form a loose combination of beliefs and practices that came to be known as Hinduism. This theory is accepted by all history books and major universities today as the origin of Hinduism. > > For a seeker of truth you seem to swallow what the universities say > without much critique. As new " facts " emerge what is taught changes and > one should be very careful in accepting " currently established facts " as > the " ultimate truth " > > However most Hindu's refuse to believe this; why I do not know. Perhaps you can explain this to me. If you have evidence on the contrary I'd love to hear it. > One reason why many Indians ( hindus and others) refuse to believe the > aryan invasion theory is that it rested upon careless work by western > scholars, who at the time these theories were formulated ( the height of > imperialism) could not face the fact that there were other civilaztions > as good or perhaps superior to their own. > I also learned that the Caste systems were created by the Aryans to divide the Indians to hinder them from uniting and revolting against their conquerors. > > The sociological origins of the caste system are quite complex and to say > that the aryans invented it is too simplistic. In the light of new findings > that question the " invasion " scenario there is no question of revolt at all. > The Vedas tell a much more interesting story. It states that Brahma created Manu, the first man. From Manu came the 4 different types of people, as Brahma determined. From Manu's head came the Brahmins, the best and most holy people. Out of Manu's hands came the Kshatriyas, the rulers and warriors. The craftsmen came out of his thighs and are called Vaisyas. The remainder of the people came from Manu's feet and are known as Sudras. These two stories are obviously in stark contrast. > All relegions have thier mythologies which must not be interpreted literally > and must rather be seen as attempts at explanations of nature, society, > psycology ... etc. The Old testament says Moses parted the seas - to which > Physics would say " nonsense " . One day I asked XXX what Caste she was in. She quickly responded with " Brahmin. " When asked why she was in that caste she replied that her family has always been. I thought this was quite interesting so I probed further. " Do you believe that Brahmins are actually higher in some way than the other castes? " " Yes " she said, " and I find that most Brahmins are generally smarter than the other sects. " I found this remark astonishing. Also, XXX informed me (not in a cocky, boastful manner, but in a way to just straighten the facts) that I was in the lowest class because of my Christianity. So here is my question: If Brahmins are so much further along reincarnation-wise, are more holy and smarter, then how come an overwhelming majority of today's technology and inventions have been made at the hands of non-Hindu inventors? (Men like Albert Einstein, Tomas Edison, and Benjamin Franklin were all Christians.) This seems to contradict your theory. Perhaps you can explain this to me. > > First of all there is no scientific evidence " proving " one set of > people (based on skin color, relgious affiliation ... etc) to be superior > to any other. Having said that Brahmins, because they value education and > learning more than others, excel in matters related to the intellect. Also > they simply have been at it for a long time. > > As to non-hindus making " overwhelming majority " of contributions here > are some rejoinders : > > 1) Einstein was a Jew and not a Christian > > 2) In my field of physics impressive contirbution have been made by > Indians in general and Hindus in particular - to give some examples, > C.V. Raman, S.N. Bose, S. Chandrasekhar, J. V. Narlikar, Meghnad Saha, > Abhay Ashtekar ... and so on. Of course the name of Ramanjun as the most > original and brilliant mathematical mind probably for the past few > centuries ( not my evaluation but G.H. Hardy's) must be mentioned. Indians > have made very substantial contributions to the fields of biology > (Hargobind Khorona), statistics( P.C. Mahalanobis), economics (Amartya Sen) > and computers (Pentium chip was designed by an Indian). > > 3) Also One should ask this question over a unbiassed time period : For > example if one confined the period to time when greek classical > civilazation was at its zenith you would have concluded that all that was > worthwhile was done by greeks. So also looking at the upanishadic times > Indians (brahmins,Buddhists and Jains) had the last word on philosophical > matters. > > 4) econmoic and social circumstances also play a very important role - I > will guess that great philosophers,scientists and artists will come > from the african continent in the future (when that continent has > recovered from colonial exploitation ... etc) > > Anytime you want to find out information about a religion, you needn't venture any further than their religion's book of sacred writings, their " Bible " . > Or BOOKS. Hinduism does not have a single " bible " rather the vedas, > upanishads, puranas andof course the most often mentioned Bhagavadgita > all have to studied. You should also look at the " living relegion " i.e, the > way it is practised by its adherents today. A while back I was interested in Mormonism so I read The Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and the author of the book, said it was divinely inspired by God. He also said it's the most " correct book upon the earth. " I laughed at this statement because archeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate it's claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the America's. In fact, the Smithsonian Institute itself states in unequivocal terms that it's archeologists see " no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book. " As authors John Ankerberl and John Weldon concluded in a book on the topic, " in other words, no Book of Mormon cities have ever been located, no Book of Mormon person, places nation, or name has ever been found, no Book of Mormon artifacts, no Book of Mormon scriptures, no Book of Mormon inscription.... nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is anything but myth or invention has ever been found. With all this knowledge in hand it's no mystery why I don't become a Mormon. This experience has taught me a valuable lesson, I cannot read the Vedas and automatically believe everything that they say. As Rene Descartes the father of modern philosophy stated " de omnibus dubitandum " - doubt is everything. > You are too eager to condemn the mormons. Perhaps you do not realise that > other relegions " laugh " at the simplistic cosmology of the bible - God > creating the universe in 7 days. There isno shred of any evidence for > this. INdeed the archealogical evidence seems to point the other way , i.e > that the universe in several billion years old at least and god christian > or otherwise had nothing whatsoever to do with its creation - I am talking > here strictly from a scientifc point of view and the god I refer to is > a kind of " personal " god. There are scientists (Eistein was one of them) > who used the word GOD to mean " a special kind of harmony seen in the > universe as a whole " . > Now please allow me to voice my doubts. According the the Vedic history, the scriptures were written down 5,000 years ago. Historians date the writings much later, 1400 BC. to be exact. > > As mentioned earlier the jury is still out on this issue, i.e the historians > are not in complete and unequivocal agreement on the exact dates. Indeed one > of the frustrationsfor professional historians dealing with India is the > inexactitude of assigned dates. > Historians also claim the the Vedas are a collection of books from different sources that, while untrue, are still important because they give us a better understanding of Indian culture at that time. > > I dont understand what you mean by saying the vedas are " untrue " . Historians, > at least competant ones would never make such statements. From a historical > point of view the vedas are just a historical document just as the bible > or anything else. Its not within the purview of history to comment on the > veracity of the contents - except in cases where " historical events " are > commented upon. > Of course the Vedic scripture maintain a completely different story-one of ancient cultures, timeless revelations, and divine incarnations. These stories were written down to prevent them from being lost in the upcoming Kali-yuoa, the iron age, the most fallen in the cycle of ages. These two scenarios cannot both be true. One is true while the other is most certainly false. > > Again these are very naive and simplistic postions. Let me explain why by > giving an example from mathematics: There are many mathematicans ( Roger > Penrose is a modern example) who believe in a " world of mathematical ideas " > existing independently of this, i.e physical world and hence mathematics is > a discovery and not an invention. Similarly the Vedic truths are eternal in > such a fashion - that they were articulated and given expression by the > vedic seers 2000/3000/n-thousand years ago is a historical fact but > misses the point of their eternality. > One Indian philosopher offers his reasoning for not believing the scientists, " the Veda is understood by simply accepting what the Veda says about itself. History claims that they ( the Vedas) were written over a long period, starting after the Hypothetical Aryan invasion into the Indian subcontinent, about 1000 to 1500bc. When a mixture of tribes formed the " Vedic " culture. If we believe this scenario. Then it is natural to think that the Indian scriptures are a mass of unsystematic mythological texts. Therefore we must believe the Vedas, because we know that they are true. " > > I have commented ion this above. There is a certain " deep intuition " > available to all of us to verify the veracity of " relegious truths " which > is perhaps what is meant by the Indian philosopher that you are quoting from. Now call me close minded if you wish but I cannot completely ignore historians and " simply accept what the Veda says about itself. " Why is it uneducated to believe Mormonism and smart to believe Hinduism because Hinduism says so. > > Please dont ignore the historians. See ehat they have to say about > christianity as well. As to what you believe, you can make up your own > mind by weighing all forms of evidence to your personal satisfaction. > Hinduism as a relegion certainly does not say that " you will be damned to > hell eternally " if you do not believe it - rather to the contrary it affirms > the variety of relegious expressions and allows one to choose a path of > one's own. There is a Latin phrase for this type of proof, ipse dixit, " he himself has said it " . This is the proof Hinduism has relied on for centuries. When a devotee of Krishna was asked about proof for his beliefs he usually answered " it's true because my guru told me that it's true. " The problem with this type of evidence is that it lies only in words. And words alone don't prove anything. Another more modern phrase for this is circular reasoning. > > There are many fake gurus around. please dont assume that they represent > hinduism truly. > This is where you came in. I am in eager anticipation of any and all proof you can give me that will increase the Vedas' credibility. > > There are english translations of vedas available. I recommend for a start > that you read the hymn of creation in the Rig Veda - if its open scientific > attitude towards the creation if the universe does not affect you nothing > else will. For a more serious study you need a teacher - a good reliable > cholar not somebody from the harekrishnas. Since we are on the subject of Indian scriptures there is a question I've had for a long time. A lot of the people that I've talked to that don't believe in Christianity have the same issue that they get stuck on: they think that Jesus was just a guy, maybe a good person, maybe even a prophet. And that over time his legend grew until he was the son of God who walked on water and healed the sick. While I can prove that this wasn't the case I will save that for later on in this paper. > > Jesus was indeed a historical figure - simply a guy as put it albiet a > realised soul. I doubdt if you or anybody can " prove " that he is son > of god. > > Now taking a look at Hinduism I ask the same question. How do we know that King Rama was actually blue and a reincarnation of Vishnu? I have a serious problem believing pretty much all of your, for a lack of a better word, mythology. > > As I mentioned earlier every relegion uses many methods to promulgate its > central concepts - mythology is one. Hinduism does not demand that you > believe in Rama to be blue or god's incarnation. Hindus do that by a > personal choice since having a " personification " of an abstract idea > such as god helps and facilatates relegious mode of thought. Indeed the > the upanshidic teaching talks of " brahman " as beyond " words " , " concepts " > ..etc. Also Hinduism recognizes the " different " levels of spiritual > development much as a professional pianist differs from a novice. The > idea of " istha devatha " (prefered god - pardon my poor translation) enables > one to represent the " unrepresentable " (god/brahman .... etc) in the early > stages of ones spiritual development and chose a " symbol " appropriate to > ones inclinations and developmental(spiritual) stage. According to the Ramayana, Rama is exiled from the throne for several years because of a promise his father made to his mother. While in the woods his wife Sita is kidnapped by the demon King Ravana. Rama employs the services of Hanuman to get her back and of course they do and eventually Rama comes back home a hero. After reading various Indian apologists I've learned that anyone who challenges these stories is said to not understand Hindu ways. So at the risk of sounding ignorant let me ask you several questions. > > You can certainly challenge these storeis. However, if you go beyond the > " mere story " , you will find deep spiritual insights explained in easily > undertandable and recoginsable human situations. If you are capable of seeing > these - you dont need the story. First of all how do you know (without using " the Vedas said it " as a reason) that this story is based at all in fact? Was Rama even a real person? The Ramayana is a multi-author multi-rescension book of thousands of verses. The latest rescension of the Ramayana is dated about the year 200 CE. in the early stratum, " Rama is simply a hero, miraculous in strength and goodness, neverless wholly human (early in the Ramayana) but in the later stratum.... Rama appears as a God on earth, " ( Lionel D. Barnett, 1922. Notes From Hindu Gods and Heroes) There is indeed a city called Ayodhya, but this Ayodhya has no connection with the Rama legend: kingdom, temple or civilization. Archaeologists making a frantic search have failed to come up with the smallest shred of evidence. There is nothing to show that Rama was even a real person instead of a made up magical figure. > > The historical facts are irrelevant. I dont think many hindus will quarrel > with you if you see the relegious/spiritual content of ramayans and ignore > or even ouitright disbelieve in the story. > But let's just say that Hinduism is correct and there was a King Rama. > > please do not confuse hiduism to be the story of Rama. > > How do you know that his life resembled what is written about him in the Ramayana? How do we know that his exploits didn't become greater and greater overtime through folklore? After all, the Vedas were relayed by word of mouth for Hundreds of years before they were written down. > > There is simple confusion here. Ramayana is disntinct from the Vedas. > For all we know, Ravana started off as a rival king who was very powerful and over time legend turned him into a giant 10-headed demon. I once read that Rama shot a Demon in the heart with an arrow and it launched him 100 miles into a lake. I am incredibly interested in finding out how anything can pick someone up, obviously high enough in the air to clear the trees, and throw them a 100 miles. How come bullets don't do this to people? Everyone knows that they travel much faster than arrows. > > Physically this is not possible just as the parting of the seas by moses > is not possible. See these stories as vehicles of conveyance of relegious > thought. > When one wants to analyze the Rama legend for a example of legend making his feats greater, the story of Rama stringing the bow of Shiva raises a red flag. Not only does it greatly resemble the Iliad when Odysseys comes home and has to prove who he was, so guess what, he strings a magical bow, but it also has a scene where it takes 500 strong men to pull the box that holds the bow. 500 men! How is it possible to make a small box that heavy? You can get three strong guys to flip over a car. But I can sit here and debate possibilities all day, but if you have evidence that it happened I guess it's true. > > As I said if you want to treat it as a legend that is fine with me. > Personally I find them infintely better than superman/batman stuff and > enjoyed them very much as I was growing up. > So here's the question........ John Mcray, an archeologist who has worked with national geographic magazine and has written a 432-page text book on archaeology. He has studied at Hedrew University, the ecole biblique et archeologique Francaise in Jerusalem, Vanderbilt University Divinity school, and the University of Chicago. He is also a former research associate and trustee of the American Schools of Oriental research, a current trustee of the Near East Archaeological Society, a supervisor of excavating teams in Caesarea, Sepphoris, and Herodium has studied Roman archaeological sites in England and Wales, and has analyzed digs in Greece. Mcray with all his credentials behind him casts a questioning glance at the Hindu religion. > > I dont see what archealogy has to do with relegion. Relegious truths > are very different in nature from scientifc ones. To give an exmple from > your own relegion - " Whosoever shall smite thee on thy left cheek show him > thy right also " ( pardon my inaccuracies, i quote from memory). Now I > understand that statement to mean: return love for hate if you wish to lessen > the hate you see around you. It seems to me a very plausible proposition not > immediatley amenable to scientific proof. > Mcray questions Hinduism's validity because he constantly uses archaeology to see if it will corroborate with the claims of various religions. Corroborate means to make more certain, confirm. In effect, corroborative evidence acts like the support wires that keep a tall antenna straight and unwavering. The more corroborative evidence, the stronger and more secure the case. So lets look for the corroborative evidence that backs up the Ramayana. " Well " you say, " it's proven that Sri Lanka is in that area so it must be true. " Heinrich Schlieman, once searched for Troy in an effort to prove the historical accuracy of Homers Iliad. He did find Troy. But that doesn't prove that the Iliad was true. Unless I'm horribly mistaken no islands in India have been found with castles made of gold, no flying airships have ever been excavated, no life giving oshadas have ever been unearthed, and no monkey or bear army fossils have ever been found. Actually it has been proven that the monkeys and bears who were allies with Rama were actually aborigines who bore animal names as totems, as they still do today. > > what has all this to do with hinduism ? Let me repeat - you have to see > the story as a method of teaching relegion to the extent it contains > relegious precepts. > All right, the Ramayana cannot pass the archaeological test, how does it fair against science? Well apparently Ravana: " he who makes the universe scream, " once sat atop a mountain top and became so still that he stopped winds that move the planets and keep the universe alive. Let me say that again, he stopped the winds that move the planets. I don't know how much science you took in school but it's pretty much an established fact the planets are not moved by winds. Later in the story we learn the while he was young Hanuman once tried to pluck the sun from the sky. He jumped for 3 full days only to get struck by one of Indra's thunderbolts. When Hanuman landed he broke only his jaw. I'd like you to explain to me how anything in this story is possible. For the sake of time I will bring up one last thing. How exactly does one go about up rooting a mountain? Hanuman did know that a mountain is a collection of loose soil and rocks and not a giant triangle like it is in the cartoons didn't he? There are several other stories that I'd like to discuss but for the sake of time I'll consider my point made. > > I have alreay remarked on the difference in the nature of relegious vs > scientific truths. Let me reiterate simply again that modern physics > certainly does not believe that the universe was created in 7 days ( or 6 > since He rested on the 7th!). If christianity is reduced to a set of > such beliefs and miracles and so forth it would lose much of its appeal > as I can see happening in this country today. > I've saved my most important question to last. Who or what does Hinduism teach that Jesus was? Was he an incarnation of Vishnu, a sage, a prophet, or just an ordinary man? At first glance it seems easy to put Jesus in any of these categories. But if you look further into his life and his teachings it's clear that the only logical conclusion is that Jesus was the sun of God. > > Hinduism does not concern itself with Jesus. Hinduism predates Jesus > for one but a devout hindu will certainly not belittle christian teachings. > It is only when chritians claim that they are the sole purveyors of " truth " > he takes exception. I have looked into his life and teachings - not in > great detail, I admit - but I cannot logically or otherwise reach the > conclusion that he is any thing other than " just a guy " . > First of all why isn't there any other 1st century Jew who has millions of followers today? > > I hate to be facetious but may be they were exterminated - the professed > love of christians not withstanding ? > > Lots of men from that time period claimed greater things, had more money, and promised Israel that they would free them from Roman oppression. Then a rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower class region. He teaches for 3 years about doing good to others, forgiveness, and praying for your enemies, gathers a following of lower-and middle class people; gets in trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified along with 30 thousand Jewish people who are executed during this time period. > > I suppose Mr. John Mcray can produce archaelogical evidence for the > 30 thousand who were nailed. I undertodd that it was just two others. No > doubt he could point out which on of the 30 thousand crosses had the son > of god nailed to it. > But 5 weeks after he's crucified, over 10 thousand Jews are following him and claiming that he is the inventor of a new religion. Does that make sense? > > If you read historians - let us leave aside the mighty Mcray - you will > find that the christianity did not prosper as a relegion and have a great > number of followers until IMperial Rome adopted it as their relegion and > sanctioned it. Though left unsaid the methods used to convert " heathens " > cannot in all probability have very different from those practised nowadays > (inducements,enticements...etc) with one additional feature threating ones > life. One sees it going on in the Islamic states. Of course I have no " proof " > for this archaeological or otherwise. If he had merely been an innocent sage telling nice little parables, how did he end up on a cross, especially at Passover season, when no Jew wants any Jew to be executed. It doesn't add up. > > But it does. Jews didnt crucify him - romans did. > There had to be a reason that there was a sign above he's head that said, " this is the king of the Jews. " > > That remark was meant to be ironical. > It must be understood that the crucifixion was the most abhorrent fate anyone could undergo, Roman citizens weren't allowed to be crucified because it was too painful, the fact is that a movement based on a crucified man must be explained. > > please, Chritianity I hope is more than morbid fascination about > crucification. > But you can easily explain away all this evidence by classifying Jesus as a incarnation of Vishnu, can't you? The answer is that, no, you can't. > > I wouldnt even dream of it. You are most welcome to keep Mr. Jesus to > yourself. > Throughout Jesus' entire time on earth he is constantly preaching that he is the son of God, not son of a God, but the son. In John 14: 5 one of Jesus followers Tomas asked him how they can meet Jesus in Heaven. > > Is there archaelogical evidence for this heaven ? where exactly is it > located ? > Vishnu would say " by continuous devotion to me, that way you can slowly improve through reincarnation till you reach Nirvana. " > > the correct word you are looking for is moksha. Nirvana is buddhist > teminology. > Jesus said, " I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father except through me. " Jesus teaches something else Vishnu wouldn't even think of in Hebrews 9:27 ... " Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment " . Also Jesus teaches something no Hindu believes, in Acts 1:5 " For John baptized you with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. " Does this last statement resemble anything any god has ever been quoted as saying in Hinduism? But even with all this proof you could still dismiss Jesus by saying, " All right, well perhaps Jesus was simply insane. and snowballed millions of people into believing that he was God. Show me some proof that he was who he claimed. " > > I have known christians who call themselves so and do not believe that > christ was anything other that " just a guy " . > I believe that the Old Testament prophecies are the corroborative evidence that you're looking for. There are more than 4 dozen major predictions about Jesus in the old testament. Isaiah revealed the manner of the messiahs birth (a virgin); Micah pinpointed the place of his birth (Bethlehem); Daniel 9:24-26 foretells that the messiah would appear a certain length of time after king Artaxerxes I issued a decree for the Jewish people to go from Persia to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. This happened to be right when Jesus was born. Genesis and Jeremiah specified his ancestors (a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the tribe of Judah, the house of David); the Psalms foretold his betrayal, his accusation by false witnesses, his manner of death (pierced through hands and feet, although crucifixion hadn't been invented yet) and his resurrection (he would not decay but ascend on high.) > > No doubt you have not realised this - all the objections you raise against > Ramayana can also be raised against the old testament. As to virgin birth > - it is physically impossible. If you wish to be scientic none of what you > say above stands up to scientific scrutiny. I urge you to treat these as > parables and concentrates on jesus's teachings - at least they are sensible. > All this sounds rather impressive, but how do we know that some overzealous Christians didn't just find a guy who happened to fulfill their prophecies so they could say, " Look, we've found the Messiah! " First of all this wouldn't have worked because, back then, the Jews thought that God's son was going to come down as a king and that he would free Israel from Roman rule. Jesus never claimed that he was going to do this. > > Doesnt sound impressive to me. > > Secondly Peter W. Stoner, who's credentials would take up an entire page, did that math and figured out that the probability of just eight prophecies being fulfilled is 1 chance in 100 billion. He also computed the probability of someone fulfilling 48 prophecies is 1 chance in a Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion. > > That probability becomes a certainty if made after the fact ! But I suppose > there is incontrovertible (archaelogical ?) proof, no doubt furnished by > someone whose credentials would take an entire volume, that the old testament > indeed " predicted " these great events. > Our minds can't comprehend a number that big. If right now your thinking, " O.K.. let's say for the sake of argument that Jesus was who he said he was. How do you know that he actually rose from the dead? Prove to me that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't added over time through peoples exaggerations of the truth. " > > dead people stay dead. > > Two prominent scholars Craig L. Bloomberg Ph.D.. and Edwin M. Yamauchi Ph.D.. have dedicated their lives to answering that question. Bloomberg has received a doctorate in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, and has served as a Senior research fellow at Tyndale house at Cambridge University in England, where he was part of an elite group of international scholars who produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus. Yamauchi has received a bachelors degree in Hebrew and hellenstictics, and Masters and Doctoral degrees in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis Universities. He has studied 22 languages including Ugartic and Commanche. He has delivered 71 papers at Universities, and lectured at over 100 seminaries and colleges, including Yale, Princeton, and Cornell. In 1968 he participated in the first excavations of the Herddian Temple in Jerusalem, and has written many books about archaeology. Now that you know their credentials let me share what their research has come up with. > > How many Ph.ds does it take to .... ? > I will not bore you with where I got my ph.d from and how many publications > I have and the talks I have given .... > The fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus that for the founder of any other major religion. Because of this, it is easy to analyze the resurrection. If we look in the Bible, specifically the gospels, (Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John) we can see that it talks about Jesus rising from the dead three days after he died (this is not a teaching of reincarnation because Jesus came back in the same body with all the scars that he acquired while on the cross and his body was no longer in his grave). The Gospels were written progressively 40-80 years after Jesus' death. This means that many eyewitnesses of Jesus life were still alive then, and could have easily made it known that the gospels were inaccurate. Many people had reasons for wanting to discredit the Christian movement and would have done so if they could have simply told history better. In fact it's in 1 Corinthians 15, a book of the bible that predates any of the Gospels, that the claim involving the largest number of people seeing Jesus after he died (500) is recorded. This creates problems for the legend development theory. Also, the site of Jesus' tomb was known to Christians and Jews alike. So if it wasn't empty, it would be impossible for a movement founded on belief in the resurrection to have come into existence in the same city where a man had been publicly executed and buried. > > So now we have to believe what the bible says just because it says so. > What was that latin phrase again ? > Sir Lionel Luckhoo, the attorney who's astounding 243 consecutive murder acquittals earned him a place in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most successful lawyer has subjected the historical facts about the resurrection to his rigorous analysis for several years. Finally he declared , " I say unequivocally that the evidence of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leads absolutely no room for doubt. " > > I was not aware that Lawyers are upholder of truth! be that as it may > I personally know of christians who do not believe in resurrection. > But wait there's more, British theologian Michael Green said, " The appearances (of Jesus) are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity. There can be no doubt that they occurred. " German Historian Hans von Campenhausen says, " This account meets all demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text. " Scholars Norman Geislor and William Nix conclude, " The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other Great book- a form that is 99.5% pure! " > > The bible also says man was fashioned in the image of god i.e, evolution > didnt happen. But wait, there is archealogical proof that it did happen. > Man it appears descended from apes, sorry for the disappointment. > > 99.5% is it ? interesting number ! Are you sure that it was not 99.1% > or 99.7% or 83.456% ? > Gary Habermas Ph.D., D.D. has an interesting point to bring up. Habermas, who has earned a Doctor of divinity degree from Emmanuel College in Oxord, England and a doctorate from Michigan State University has authored seven books dealing with Jesus rising from the dead, including The resurrection of Jesus: A rational inquiry; and Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, which is based on his debate with Anthony Flew, one of the leading philosophical atheists in the world. This man who's 100 articles have appeared in such books as The Baker Dictionary of Theology has an interesting point to bring up. " When Jesus was crucified, his followers were discouraged and depressed. They no longer had confidence that Jesus had been sent by God, because they believed anyone crucified was accursed by him. They also had been taught that God would not let his messiah suffer death. So they dispersed. The Jesus movement was all but stopped in it's tracks. Then after a short period of time, we see them abandoning their occupations, regathering, and committing themselves to spreading a very specific message- that Jesus Christ was the messiah of God who died on the cross, returned to life, and was seen alive by them. They were willing to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming this, without any payoff from a human point of view. It's not as if they had a mansion waiting for them if they converted enough people or did enough good deeds. They faced a life of hardship, they often went without food, slept exposed to the elements, were ridiculed, beaten, imprisoned, and finally most were executed in torturous ways. For what ? Good intentions? No, because they were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had seen Jesus Christ alive from the dead. " > > Historically, christianity did not flourish until Rome adopted it. It > certainly did not flourish after a " short period of time " (after christ) > and even if it did that doesnt prove resurrection. All I can say is, go > for it Gary ! > I hope that I have fairly represented my questions non offensively. I'm sure that you will answer them all and am excited to read your response. In closing I'd like to add one last thing, my final challenge to you. Don't take my word for anything said in this letter, but don't take your Guru's either. > > especially if these gurus have name like Gary Habermas, Lionel cuckoo > and have Ph.ds from Oxford with credentials that can fill volumes. > Spend the time to research the facts and questions that I've presented. I am in search of knowledge and if you can prove any of the preceding things wrong then I will be deeply indebted to you. > > You can quote me - Ph.d in physics, over 80 publications, innumerable > talks with CV running into pages: THE UNIVERSE IS SEVERAL BILLION > YEARS OLD, MAN CAME FROM APES, THERE IS NO VIRGIN BIRTH AND NO RESURRECTION > but I have to admit the last time I was at Oxford I was sinfully sipping > beer and even to this day remain ignorant of latin. > Please, don't take this task lightly, Stan Telchin a Jewish east coast business man along with Jack Sternburg, a prominent cancer physician in Little Rock, Arkansas, tried to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah. After > > Stan, Jack how could you ???? > > being alarmed by the evidence against their case they asked three rabbis to help them disprove Jesus' claims that he was the Messiah. They couldn't, and today all five have accepted Christ as their savior. > > Hallelujah. May their souls enjoy eternal bliss in the archalogical heaven. > > ====================================================================== Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt Road Greenbelt, MD 20771 ====================================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.