Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

[Guest guest]

Dear Sarvesh,

Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;

 

1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the

Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got

there...check the DNA trails.

 

2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here and

died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.

 

3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese

missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in

India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared

India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all

Christianity in India a bad rap.

 

 

I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with

you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and

change your opinion several.

 

All the best,

Sue

[Guest guest]

Sue,

 

You have said: " I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I

wont argue with you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire

more knowledge and change your opinion several. "

 

In replyI would say you are acquiring more ignorance to preach

FALSEHOOD OF CHRISTIANITY! I suppose, as the chiristians

say, 'blessed are the ignorant'!!

 

 

 

 

 

, " Suzanne Olsson "

<suzanne_olsson wrote:

>

> Dear Sarvesh,

> Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;

>

> 1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the

> Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got

> there...check the DNA trails.

>

> 2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here

and

> died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.

>

> 3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese

> missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots

in

> India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally

shared

> India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all

> Christianity in India a bad rap.

>

>

> I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue

with

> you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge

and

> change your opinion several.

>

> All the best,

> Sue

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Suzanne,

Thanks for answering

 

> Quite a rant you posted!

 

I am happy that you liked it.

 

> I stand by my beliefs

 

You obviously stand by "Beliefs" as in real Christian tradition, not any truths. Better stand by scrutiny and reason, not beliefs. > Thomas really did come to India several times.

 

Several times!!! And how did he come? Now dont tell me he invened a navigation route from northern African coast to Malabar - which DID NOT exist in 1st century of Common Era. Next you would say he cam via land route through the passes of what is now Afghanistan. In which case why did he not preach in North or West India, instead went all the way to Madras!!

 

> He lived here and died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.

 

Simply died, and not "martyred" like the rest of your so called "saints"? Well, your other co-religionists pamphleteers tell us that he was killed by those wily brahmins, and he attained the same true matyrdom which all of true christianists receive just like the fable of Jesus' martyrdom!!! (So sad your other saints - Teressa the Mother and Xavier - simply died and failed to get "Martyred". Rapist Graham Staines had better fortune in service of the true Christ!)

 

> Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese > missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in > India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared > India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all > Christianity in India a bad rap.

 

Oh Suzanne, I am aghast that you have done absolutely no homework! You insult this list by assuming we are so dumb about our own history and you will now teach us heathens about it! Wake up, the "empire" both on earth and in heaven is over! Better read the works of Sita Ram Goel, and Devendra Swarup on the subject, and try to refute those. Here is what Sita Ram Goel says about the first ever encounter of Hindus with Christianism:

 

Christian historians will have us believe that Hinduism first came in contact with Christianity in AD 52 when St. Thomas, an apostle of Jesus Christ, landed in Malabar. He is supposed to have travelled in South India and founded seven churches before he was. "murdered" by the "malicious" Brahmanas. The old Christians in Kerala, who knew as well as introduced themselves as Syrian Christians till the other day, now take pride in calling themselves St. Thomas Christians. We have examined this story elsewhere1 as also the motives for floating it. Here it should suffice to say that the more scrupulous Christian historians have found the story too fanciful to be taken seriously.

Coming to facts of history, the first encounter between Hinduism and Christianity took place not in India but in those parts of West Asia, North Africa and Southern Europe which comprised the Roman Empire at the dawn of the Christian era. There is evidence, archaeological as well as literary, that Hinduism had made its presence felt in Graeco-Roman religions and philosophies long before Jesus was born. The imprint of Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta on Eleatic, Elusinian, Orphic, Pythagorean, Platonist, Stoic, Gnostic and Neo-Platonist philosophies is too manifest to be missed easily. It was widely believed in the ancient Western world that the Greeks had learnt their wisdom from the Brahmanas of India. Evidence of Hindu colonies in some leading cities of the Roman Empire is also available. Hindu temples had come up wherever Hindu merchants and traders had established their colonies. Hindu saints, sages and savants could not have lagged behind.

Christianity did not fail to notice this Hindu presence as soon as it became a force in the Roman Empire. It was, from its very birth, wide awake towards all currents and crosscurrents of thought and culture. We find St. Hippolytus attacking the Brahmanas as a source of heresy as early as the first quarter of the third country.2 It was not long after that Hinduism faced a determined assault from Christianity as did other ancient religions of the Roman Empire.

 

Hindu temples were the most visible symbols of the Brahmana religion. They became targets of Christian attack like all other Pagan temples. "According to the Syrian writer Zenob", writes Dr. R. C. Majumdar, "there was an Indian colony in the canton of Taron on the upper Euphrates, to the west of Lake Van, as early as the second century B.C. The Indians had built there two temples containing images of gods about 18 and 22 feet high. When, about AD 304, St. Gregory came to destroy these images, he was strongly opposed by the Hindus. But he defeated them and smashed the images, thus anticipating the iconoclastic zeal of Mahmud of Ghazni." (HISTORY OF HINDU-CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS: http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/hhce/ )

 

And I also post a portion from a book called "India & Christian Opportuity" Written in 1908 by Harlan Page Beach (1854-1933), an American missionary to China:

 

Traditions of the missionary labors of one of the twelve, St Thomas, have for centuries existed in India. In their fullest form, they are found in two of the apocryphal books of the New Testament, "Acts of the Holy Apostle Thomas", and "Consummation of Thomas the Apostle". The "Acts" a Gnostic work written by Leucius, does not go back further than the 2nd century and is manifestly fanciful.Following is a specimen:"We portioned out the regions of the world, in order that each one of us might go into the region to which the Lord sent him. By lot, India fell to Judas Thomas, also called Didymus. And he did not wish to go, saying he was not able to go on account of the weakness of the flesh; 'and how can I, being an Hebrew man, go among the Indians to proclaim the truth?'And while he was thus reasoning and speaking, the Saviour appeared to him: 'Fear not, Thomas; go away to India and proclaim The Word, for my grace shall be with thee.'But he did not obey, saying: 'Wherever Thou wishest to send me, send me elsewhere; for to Indians I am not going.'"The following day Jesus sold Thomas as a slave carpenter to one Abbanes from India, who purchased him for his king. As a carpenter he was not to be commended; for, being bidden to build a alace for the king, he expended the money on the relief of the poor. His missionary efforts, however, were crowned with success. In both East and West Thomas's name was cnnected with India from the 4th century, and the Malabar Christians of St Thomas still count him as the first martyr and evangelist of their country.These traditions and others of later date are not beleived by most reputed scholars of today, but are variousely explained.Explanations :1. The Name "India" Ethopia and Arabia Felix, the adjacent Insula Diocoridis - Socotra - were designated by this name 'India'. These countries however maintained by trade a lively intercouse with 'India Proper', and could thus furnish a channel for the propagation of Christianity in the later age. Gregory Nazianzen says that Thomas preached the Gospel to Indians, but Jerome understands the India here meant to be Ethopia. If the tradition in Origen, which makes Thomas, the Apostle to the Parthians, were credible, it would not be so very remote from the former legend; since the Parthian empire touched, at that time, on the boundaries of India.As persistent traditions connect, his work and his tomb with Persia, this last explanation seems probable.2. Different ThomasesOthers would explain the traditions by the stories of two other prominent Thomases who were actually connected with the early Indian church, one a Manichaean who was in India towards the end of the 3rd century, and the other an Armenian of the 8th century, who was a resorter of their faith. On his death, his memory received the gradual and spontaneous honors of canonization by the Christian communities for whom he had labored, and his name became identified with that of the apostle.Bernard suggests still another explaination. As it seems probable that India was evangelized through someone from Edessa, where St. Thomas's grave was located, later memories connected his name with that of Edessa's famous saint.3. PantaenusPantaenus, the Principal of the Christian college at Alexandria, had been a Stoic of Athens or Cicily. He thus possessed intellectual qualities which when brought into captivity to Christ, made him a fit instrument to lead philosophial Brahmins of India to Jesus's feet. The end of 2nd century thus brings us to the first historical missionary of Christ to the people of India.other reasons why it is probable that India is being confused with other lands:1. At the famous council of Nicea in 325 AD, Johannes, the Metropolitan of Percia, also signed himself as "Of the Great India" - while Persia was not India.2. According to the 'Acts', "Abbanes" from India, purchased slave Thomas for his king. Abbanes is not possibly an Indian name of 1st century AD. (unless a lot of imagination is used, "Avaneesh" :-) which also in not a 1st century CE Indian name!!!

 

> I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk.

 

While I dont know what has nationalism to do with what I posted, I am quite entertained by your missionary zeal and amused at the lack of creativity that you should have applied in spreading these old and dead lies that have no legs any more.

 

> I wont argue with you.

 

Oh yes! You have no other recourse but to reject an argument, as you do know fully well that your lies would be torn to shreds.

I challenge you to argue with me on this lie of "Saint" Thomas in India, if you have any courage or conviction!

 

> I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and

> change your opinion several. All the best,

 

And I do think you have wasted enough precious life trying to spread that fake creed of christianism among us heathens. At least show some creaivity! That de-nobli type stuff does not work among us heathens. I can not beleive you are unaware that your "Roman Brahmin", De-Nobili, tried the same circus that you are now trying, but he fared misearbly and failed to impress us heathens. Wake up and smell coffee before it is too late. "...And The Truth Shall Set You Free (not beliefs!)"All the best,

Sarvesh

 

 

From: suzanne_olssonDate: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:28:57 +0000 Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

 

 

Dear Sarvesh,Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got there...check the DNA trails.2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here and died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all Christianity in India a bad rap.I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and change your opinion several.All the best,Sue Give the world a slice of your life. Get a Live.in id Check it out!

[Guest guest]

Take it easy.

You have enough time till next census to decide on your mother tongue.

Hindi or one of your Deshajas.

Then you can declare accordingly on the census form.

When angry

Take a deep breath

AND

Give a gap.

On 11/28/08, Sarvesh Tiwari <sarveshtiwari wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Suzanne,Thanks for answering > Quite a rant you posted! I am happy that you liked it. > I stand by my beliefs You obviously stand by " Beliefs " as in real Christian tradition, not any truths. Better stand by scrutiny and reason, not beliefs.

> Thomas really did come to India several times. Several times!!! And how did he come? Now dont tell me he invened a navigation route from northern African coast to Malabar - which DID NOT exist in 1st century of Common Era. Next you would say he cam via land route through the passes of what is now Afghanistan. In which case why did he not preach in North or West India, instead went all the way to Madras!!

> He lived here and died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial. Simply died, and not " martyred " like the rest of your so called " saints " ? Well, your other co-religionists pamphleteers tell us that he was killed by those wily brahmins, and he attained the same true matyrdom which all of true christianists receive just like the fable of Jesus' martyrdom!!! (So sad your other saints - Teressa the Mother and Xavier - simply died and failed to get " Martyred " . Rapist Graham Staines had better fortune in service of the true Christ!)

> Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese > missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in > India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared

> India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all > Christianity in India a bad rap. Oh Suzanne, I am aghast that you have done absolutely no homework! You insult this list by assuming we are so dumb about our own history and you will now teach us heathens about it! Wake up, the " empire " both on earth and in heaven is over! Better read the works of Sita Ram Goel, and Devendra Swarup on the subject, and try to refute those. Here is what Sita Ram Goel says about the first ever encounter of Hindus with Christianism:

 

Christian historians will have us believe that Hinduism first came in contact with Christianity in AD 52 when St. Thomas, an apostle of Jesus Christ, landed in Malabar. He is supposed to have travelled in South India and founded seven churches before he was. " murdered " by the " malicious " Brahmanas. The old Christians in Kerala, who knew as well as introduced themselves as Syrian Christians till the other day, now take pride in calling themselves St. Thomas Christians. We have examined this story elsewhere1 as also the motives for floating it. Here it should suffice to say that the more scrupulous Christian historians have found the story too fanciful to be taken seriously. Coming to facts of history, the first encounter between Hinduism and Christianity took place not in India but in those parts of West Asia, North Africa and Southern Europe which comprised the Roman Empire at the dawn of the Christian era. There is evidence, archaeological as well as literary, that Hinduism had made its presence felt in Graeco-Roman religions and philosophies long before Jesus was born. The imprint of Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta on Eleatic, Elusinian, Orphic, Pythagorean, Platonist, Stoic, Gnostic and Neo-Platonist philosophies is too manifest to be missed easily. It was widely believed in the ancient Western world that the Greeks had learnt their wisdom from the Brahmanas of India. Evidence of Hindu colonies in some leading cities of the Roman Empire is also available. Hindu temples had come up wherever Hindu merchants and traders had established their colonies. Hindu saints, sages and savants could not have lagged behind.

Christianity did not fail to notice this Hindu presence as soon as it became a force in the Roman Empire. It was, from its very birth, wide awake towards all currents and crosscurrents of thought and culture. We find St. Hippolytus attacking the Brahmanas as a source of heresy as early as the first quarter of the third country.2 It was not long after that Hinduism faced a determined assault from Christianity as did other ancient religions of the Roman Empire.

 

Hindu temples were the most visible symbols of the Brahmana religion. They became targets of Christian attack like all other Pagan temples. " According to the Syrian writer Zenob " , writes Dr. R. C. Majumdar, " there was an Indian colony in the canton of Taron on the upper Euphrates, to the west of Lake Van, as early as the second century B.C. The Indians had built there two temples containing images of gods about 18 and 22 feet high. When, about AD 304, St. Gregory came to destroy these images, he was strongly opposed by the Hindus. But he defeated them and smashed the images, thus anticipating the iconoclastic zeal of Mahmud of Ghazni. " (HISTORY OF HINDU-CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS: http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/hhce/ )

And I also post a portion from a book called " India & Christian Opportuity " Written in 1908 by Harlan Page Beach (1854-1933), an American missionary to China: Traditions of the missionary labors of one of the twelve, St Thomas, have for centuries existed in India. In their fullest form, they are found in two of the apocryphal books of the New Testament, " Acts of the Holy Apostle Thomas " , and " Consummation of Thomas the Apostle " . The " Acts " a Gnostic work written by Leucius, does not go back further than the 2nd century and is manifestly fanciful.

Following is a specimen: " We portioned out the regions of the world, in order that each one of us might go into the region to which the Lord sent him. By lot, India fell to Judas Thomas, also called Didymus. And he did not wish to go, saying he was not able to go on account of the weakness of the flesh; 'and how can I, being an Hebrew man, go among the Indians to proclaim the truth?'

And while he was thus reasonin g and speaking, the Saviour appeared to him: 'Fear not, Thomas; go away to India and proclaim The Word, for my grace shall be with thee.'But he did not obey, saying: 'Wherever Thou wishest to send me, send me elsewhere; for to Indians I am not going.' "

The following day Jesus sold Thomas as a slave carpenter to one Abbanes from India, who purchased him for his king. As a carpenter he was not to be commended; for, being bidden to build a alace for the king, he expended the money on the relief of the poor. His missionary efforts, however, were crowned with success. In both East and West Thomas's name was cnnected with India from the 4th century, and the Malabar Christians of St Thomas still count him as the first martyr and evangelist of their country.

These traditions and others of later date are not beleived by most reputed scholars of today, but are variouse ly explained.Explanations :

1. The Name " India " Ethopia and Arabia Felix, the adjacent Insula Diocoridis - Socotra - were designated by this name 'India'. These countries however maintained by trade a lively intercouse with 'India Proper', and could thus furnish a channel for the propagation of Christianity in the later age. Gregory Nazianzen says that Thomas preached the Gospel to Indians, but Jerome understands the India here meant to be Ethopia.

If the tradition in Origen, which makes Thomas, the Apostle to the Parthians, were credible, it would not be so very remote from the former legend; since the Parthian empire touched, at that time, on the boundaries of India.

As persistent traditions connect, his work and his tomb with Persia, this last explanation seems probable.2. Different ThomasesOthers would explain the traditions by the stories of two other prominent Thomases who were actually connected with the early Indian church, one a Manichaean who was in India towards the end of the 3rd century, and the other an Armenian of the 8th century, who was a resorter of their faith. On his death, his memory received the gradual and spontaneous honors of canonization by the Christian communities for whom he had labored, and his name became identified with that of the apostle.

Bernard suggests still another explaination. As it seems probable that India was evangelized through someone from Edessa, where St. Thomas's grave was located, later memories connected his name with that of Edessa's famous saint.

3. PantaenusPantaenus, the Principal of the Christian college at Alexandria, had been a Stoic of Athens or Cicily. He thus possessed intellectual qualities which when brought into captivity to Christ, made him a fit instrument to lead philosophial Brahmins of India to Jesus's feet. The end of 2nd century thus brings us to the first historical missionary of Christ to the people of India.

other reasons why it is probable that India is being confused with other lands:1. At the famous council of Nicea in 325 AD, Johannes, the Metropolitan of Percia, also signed himself as " Of the Great India " - while Persia was not India.

2. According to the 'Acts', " Abbanes " from India, purchased slave Thomas for his king. Abbanes is not possibly an Indian name of 1st century AD. (unless a lot of imagination is used, " Avaneesh " :-) which also in not a 1st century CE Indian name!!!

> I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. While I dont know what has nationalism to do with what I posted, I am quite entertained by your missionary zeal and amused at the lack of creativity that you should have applied in spreading these old and dead lies that have no legs any more.

> I wont argue with you. Oh yes! You have no other recourse but to reject an argument, as you do know fully well that your lies would be torn to shreds.I challenge you to argue with me on this lie of " Saint " Thomas in India, if you have any courage or conviction!

> I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and > change your opinion several. All the best, And I do think you have wasted enough precious life trying to spread that fake creed of christianism among us heathens. At least show some creaivity! That de-nobli type stuff does not work among us heathens. I can not beleive you are unaware that your " Roman Brahmin " , De-Nobili, tried the same circus that you are now trying, but he fared misearbly and failed to impress us heathens. Wake up and smell coffee before it is too late.

" ...And The Truth Shall Set You Free (not beliefs!) " All the best,Sarvesh

 

From: suzanne_olsson

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:28:57 +0000 Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

 

Dear Sarvesh,Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got

there...check the DNA trails.2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here and died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese

missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all Christianity in India a bad rap.

I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and change your opinion several.All the best,Sue

 

 

Give the world a slice of your life. Get a Live.in id Check it out!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- Bhalchandra G. Thattey

Shubham BhavatuSvalpasya Yogasya Trayate Mahato Bhayat

[Guest guest]

"3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese

missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in

India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared

India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all

Christianity in India a bad rap."All the Christian symbols like cross, lamb are found in the mother land of Christianity - among the multiple God-form worshiping traditions. Their only similarity with Hinduism is their spiritual nature, but they have nothing in common with the Indian spiritual symbols. Is this not sufficient to say that Christianity's roots are not in India but where those traditions where practiced? Moreover, there is no two way relation, that is there is no influence of Christian philosophy on Hinduism and its traditions. And there is also no common ground between the philosophical schools and religions in Hinduism and Christianity. While the former are metaphysical and religious, the latter is socio-political in nature. The entire growth of Christianity has been through Church - a political institution. If Christianity belonged to

India, where is the history of Church or Christianity in India? It is neither visible as a religious practice nor as anything else before the entry of so-called colonizers. To the contrary, there is ample evidence, from symbols, history of Church and its expansion, philosophy, that Christianity belonged outside India - please go through the evidence of dead sea scrolls. Suzanne Olsson <suzanne_olsson Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:58:57 PM Re: Jesus

Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

Dear Sarvesh,

Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;

 

1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the

Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got

there...check the DNA trails.

 

2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here and

died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.

 

3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese

missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in

India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared

India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all

Christianity in India a bad rap.

 

I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with

you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and

change your opinion several.

 

All the best,

Sue

[Guest guest]

Dear Suzanne the link below is of an article published in The Hindu two years ago

 

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2006/04/23/stories/2006042300490500.htm

 

It says that the so called malpan family revolutionsed christianity in India. As per your words of christianity sharing "roots" in India is clearly a bluff. Buddhist, Jain remains dating over thousands years back have been found. islamic remains of less than thousand years have been found confirming to the islamic invasion.

 

The exponential growth of the christians confirms to the conversion agendas. In my personal experience, I have recieved some junk mails of loan waiver for a conversion. Defamation of Hindu beliefs in both direct and indirect means is clear. An example was spelling of "Krishna" as "Chrisna".

 

Backyards of almost all villages in India have a church which will have purchased quite some land around. Irrespective of the christian presence.

 

One doubt regarding your claim is, Krishna is a God with many wifes. Your jesus couldn't even have a single one legally.

 

Clearly these stories are like retrofitting things. No surprise even if this is a part of the conversion agenda.

Sriharsha. S|.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.|I am an angel; the horns are just to keep the halo straight.

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Olsson <suzanne_olsson Sent: Wednesday, 26 November, 2008 6:58:57 PM Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

Dear Sarvesh,Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got there...check the DNA trails.2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here and died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all Christianity in India a bad rap.I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and change your opinion several.All the

best,Sue

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Kishore,Can't we get off this topic?Kathie

[Guest guest]

Dear web editor,

 

Please request all concerned to use only words and phrases of self respect and self esteem.

 

Particularly indians must, because, i believe that our vernaculars, the national language, and Sanskrit allows use of wonderful phrases to attain every objective.

 

Regards,

Dr.db

 

 

-

hindu1010

Thursday, November 27, 2008 3:21 PM

Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

 

Sue,You have said: "I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and change your opinion several."In replyI would say you are acquiring more ignorance to preach FALSEHOOD OF CHRISTIANITY! I suppose, as the chiristians say, 'blessed are the ignorant'!! , "Suzanne Olsson" <suzanne_olsson wrote:>> Dear Sarvesh,> Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;> > 1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the > Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got > there...check the DNA trails.> > 2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here and > died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.> > 3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese > missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in > India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared > India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all > Christianity in India a bad rap.> > > I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with > you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and > change your opinion several.> > All the best,> Sue>

[Guest guest]

[hi all, this might be a repetition but I do not find this in the group. Hence, I am resending this. Sri harsha, did you remove your mail?- kishore patnaik] ---------- Forwarded message ----------

sripathi sriharsha <sripathi1Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:39 PMRe: Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Suzanne the link below is of an article published in The Hindu two years ago

 

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2006/04/23/stories/2006042300490500.htm

 

It says that the so called malpan family revolutionsed christianity in India. As per your words of christianity sharing " roots " in India is clearly a bluff. Buddhist, Jain remains dating over thousands years back have been found. islamic remains of less than thousand years have been found confirming to the islamic invasion.

 

The exponential growth of the christians confirms to the conversion agendas. In my personal experience, I have recieved some junk mails of loan waiver for a conversion. Defamation of Hindu beliefs in both direct and indirect means is clear. An example was spelling of " Krishna " as " Chrisna " .

 

Backyards of almost all villages in India have a church which will have purchased quite some land around. Irrespective of the christian presence.

 

One doubt regarding your claim is, Krishna is a God with many wifes. Your jesus couldn't even have a single one legally.

 

Clearly these stories are like retrofitting things. No surprise even if this is a part of the conversion agenda.

Sriharsha. S

|.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.|

I am an angel; the horns are just to keep the halo straight.

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Olsson <suzanne_olsson

Wednesday, 26 November, 2008 6:58:57 PM Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

 

Dear Sarvesh,Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got there...check the DNA trails.

2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here and died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in

India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all Christianity in India a bad rap.I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with

you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and change your opinion several.All the

best,Sue

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Kishore, I haven't removed my mail from the database. Probably some mistake.....

 

I request the members to consider the subject of conversion also as a historical issue. This is not an issue is not that of todays or yesterdays but of a few centuries. If we really set aside the stance anyone or the group as a whole takes against the conversions, The ways followed to achieve the objectives, sometimes with violence and sometimes with brain - Brain and Brawn. I suppose, it is an issue worth giving a thought.

Sriharsha. S|.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.|I am an angel; the horns are just to keep the halo straight.

 

 

 

 

kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Sunday, 30 November, 2008 5:40:01 PMFwd: Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

[hi all, this might be a repetition but I do not find this in the group. Hence, I am resending this. Sri harsha, did you remove your mail?- kishore patnaik]

---------- Forwarded message ----------sripathi sriharsha <sripathi1 >Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:39 PMRe: Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Suzanne the link below is of an article published in The Hindu two years ago

 

http://www.hinduonn et.com/thehindu/ mag/2006/ 04/23/stories/ 2006042300490500 .htm

 

It says that the so called malpan family revolutionsed christianity in India. As per your words of christianity sharing "roots" in India is clearly a bluff. Buddhist, Jain remains dating over thousands years back have been found. islamic remains of less than thousand years have been found confirming to the islamic invasion.

 

The exponential growth of the christians confirms to the conversion agendas. In my personal experience, I have recieved some junk mails of loan waiver for a conversion. Defamation of Hindu beliefs in both direct and indirect means is clear. An example was spelling of "Krishna" as "Chrisna".

 

Backyards of almost all villages in India have a church which will have purchased quite some land around. Irrespective of the christian presence.

 

One doubt regarding your claim is, Krishna is a God with many wifes. Your jesus couldn't even have a single one legally.

 

Clearly these stories are like retrofitting things. No surprise even if this is a part of the conversion agenda.

Sriharsha. S|.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.|I am an angel; the horns are just to keep the halo straight.

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Olsson <suzanne_olsson@ >Wednesday, 26 November, 2008 6:58:57 PM

Re: Jesus Christ (reply to Sarvesh)

 

 

Dear Sarvesh,Quite a rant you posted! However,I stand by my beliefs that;1.) There was no Aryan invasion. Aryans drifted down from the Himalayas and settled northern India before anyone else got there...check the DNA trails.2.) Thomas really did come to India several times. He lived here and died here and his remains were later taken to Italy for reburial.3.) Christianity did not arrive in India as a bunch of Portuguese missionaries hell-bent on conversions. Christianity had its roots in India, just as Buddhism had its roots in India...and originally shared India soil equally. It was later colonialism that gave the all Christianity in India a bad rap.I admire your sense of nationalism and your spunk. I wont argue with you. I presume as the years go by, you will acquire more knowledge and change your opinion several.All the

best,Sue

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

Download prohibited? No problem. CHAT from any browser, without download.

[Guest guest]

I request the members to consider the subject of conversion also as a historical issue. This is not an issue is not that of todays or yesterdays but of a few centuries. If we really set aside the stance anyone or the group as a whole takes against the conversions, The ways followed to achieve the objectives, sometimes with violence and sometimes with brain - Brain and Brawn. I suppose, it is an issue worth giving a thought.

Sriharsha. S

 

 

While conversions is a subject weighty and controversial enough deserving a deep thought from every citizen, I am sure it is not a historical issue.

 

There were no forced conversions in Ancient India. That the alleged conversions in India to Christianity started with St Thomas is myth. Hence, there is no question we deal with it here in AI.

 

Kishore patnaik