Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?

[sarabhanga]

abbhra is “the water-bearer”.

And abhram indicates “a cloud (especially a thunder-cloud), the sky or atmosphere”, also referring to “a cipher, dust, gold, camphor, or reeds”.

abhrama is “steady or clear”, indicating “not erring, steadiness, or composure” ~ cf. yudhi-sthira (“steady in battle”), synonymous with yudhi abhrama.

The mysterious RSi UrdhvanAbhAbhrAmA (juhU brahmajAyA) composed one sUkta (RV: 10.109), and abhram appears only twice in the Rgveda (also in the 10th maNDalam).

In a hymn to agni, composed by RSi vimada aindra:

aryaH vishAm gAtuH eti pra yat AnaT divaH antAn |
kaviH abhram dIdyAnaH || 10.20.4 ||
juSat havyA mAnuSasya UrdhvaH tasthau RbhvA yajñe |
minvan sadma puraH eti || 10.20.5 ||

And in a hymn to bRhaspati, by RSi ayAsya aÑgirasa:

apa jyotiSA tamaH antarikshAt udnaH shIpAlam iva vAtaH Ajat |
bRhaspatiH anumRshya valasya abhram iva vAtaH A cakre A gAH || 10.68.5 ||
yadA valasya pIyataH jasum bhet bRhaspatiH agnitapobhiH arkaiH
dadbhiH na jihvA pariviSTam A adat AviH nidhIn akRNot usriyANAm || 10.68.6 ||

Now, it is clear that yahvIH (‘yahweh’) was an important vaidika conception, known to all ancient RSayas, and especially favored by the Atreya and AÑgirasa clans.

And kavi abhram was surely a vaidika sage (most likely an AÑgirasa).

According to Genesis 11, “the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai (cf. sarasvatI, vAc, abhrAmA) … but Sarai was barren” (cf. the historical drying up of the sarasvatI, after c. 1,800 BC), so abhram and his wife abhrAmA (Sarai), along with his father Terah and nephew Lot, “went forth … to the land of Canaan” (cf. kaNam ~ “grain”).

So it would appear that, compelled by the drying of the sarasvatI river, kavi abhram and his family migrated to a more fertile district. And the bible names that place as Haran (cf. hiraNa ~ “semen” or “gold”).

And thus, at least until the time of abhram, there was no particular divergence of judaic dharma from traditional hindu dharma. And it was presumably “Moses” who first led his followers astray with seriously divergent teachings (e.g. his revision/corruption of the “ten commandments” of yama-niyama).

[sarabhanga]

If all Hindus understood that Christianity was largely a corrupted version of Hinduism, why would anyone think of converting?

Doesn't the above statement also work in reverse? If christian is a 'version' of hinduism albeit corrupted, why not accept it if not for any other reason but for simplicity of its offering? Why not accept the simple direct path shown by jesus?

Namaste Satay,

Why would any serious seeker follow a teaching which they knew to be corrupt?

If a Hindu guru suggested, based on whatever misguided interpretation of the veda, that the most direct path to God was simply to jump off a cliff, why would anyone (knowing that the teaching was misguided) willingly follow that guru’s teaching only because it was stupidly simple and apparently very quick?

Perhaps there was someone who claimed to have jumped from that very cliff and then risen back up to guide others over the same precipice, but without any evidence (indeed, knowing that the whole story is a twisted fabrication) why would anyone leave their own dharma for such a dubious course?

God in the bible quite boldly and arrogantly declares that he is the only god and his devotees should not 'bring any gods before him'. Yet, if he is the same god then why does he tell the hindus earlier that all paths lead to me, and that all worship even of the 'other gods' leads to him only. Why would God be giving confusing messages?

The first message is the practical truth, offered to devotees, who should remain exclusively devoted to just one path until they reach the destination. While the second message is the ultimate truth, known by sages who have already completed the journey.

Every translation gives plenty of scope for corruption of the original meaning, and my contention is that the bulk of Judaic and Christian scripture actually stems from originally Sanskrit texts and teachings. And it is notable that a Sanskrit translation (so far as I know, only once attempted) is not available, for it would be in such a properly considered reverse translation (back into Sanskrit, from the original Aramaic, Hebraic, and Greek texts) that all manner of obvious similarities would appear, including long passages quoted almost verbatim from the original Hindu texts.

Is it possible to consider the original christian scriptures in their original language and then compare them to original hindu scriptures? How is this possible? Who would compare them? I don't see how without a proper comparison we can make the case that 'hindu scriptures tell the whole story of christianity'.

Christian scholars have done much of the work already, with the New Testament translated from Greek texts back into Sanskrit. And the Old Testament has also been translated (presumably from Hebrew and Greek rather than simply from the English, which was rendered from the earlier manuscripts in the first place) into Sanskrit and, although it is a rather rare edition, there should be copies available in some major libraries.

And if you look through the list of related terms found in Sanskrit literature, very much of the story is simply gleaned from the various connotations associated with those words. And I assume that the story of Jesus Christ was cobbled together by scholars following the same kind of process I have been attempting to demonstrate, simply scouring the ancient texts (of whatever language, for they all originate from the same source) for any mention of yeSu, kRSTi, yahvIH, and other familiar terms, and collecting the recurrent themes they perceived into a new version of what is in fact a very old (and intrinsically Hindu) story.

For example, the (thunder) bolts in the hands of indra, who resides at the crossing point of heaven (the celestial pole) having conquered vRtra (the constellation Draco), became iron bolts driven into the hands of Jesus, raised up in self-sacrificial imitation of indra’s world-conquering feat.

For example, a very common response from a christian or a hindu would be: show us how that the original teachings of jesus are from hindu text. But simply quoting rig veda won't do, will it? It doesn't seem to be 'doing it' for me. The conncections, imho, need more refinement.

What aspect of the proposed connection requires further clarification?

We have made the hypothesis that 'christianity is a version of hinduism' and now we are trying to find and refine the steps that will lead us to the proof of this hypothesis.

Are we yet convinced?

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Saidevo,

Jesus was a Jew and he came into this world to fulfill the Jewish law.

Paul is where Christianity begins.

The nivRtti-mArga foundations of Christianity were substantially lost after the Roman destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and massacre of the entire Essene community.

Modern Christianity has developed from the lay teachings and apocalyptic visions of Saint Paul, and its chief focus is distinctly pravRtti-mArga.

In the Torah, God is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, and this Jesus apparently accepted.

The marriage of Christianity to Judaism is forever.

In the Rgveda, God is yahvIH (among other names), the God of abhram (among other sages), and this was accepted by yeSu of the kRSTayas, whose destiny was to become rAjA kRSTinAm (i.e. agni or soma or indra).

And the marriage of Judaism and Christianity to Hinduism must equally be forever.

… the Jew’s god of human child sacrifice, Moloch who was clearly evil. Incidentally, the term mleccha comes from Moloch.

The term mleccha (“you speak unintelligibly!”) is a normal form of the verb mlech, which means “to speak indistinctly (like a foreigner or barbarian who does not speak saMskRta)”. A mleccha is simply “any person who does not speak saMskRta and does not conform to the usual Hindu institutions” ~ which does not necessarily indicate the sacrifice of children!

This is where Zoroastrianism comes in …

Do any key terms, such as yahva, yeSu, kRSTi, or abhram, actually appear in the AveSTa?

ya (“who, which, that”) + hva (“own self”) would be an appropriate compound from Avestan roots, but I have no idea whether that combination appears in the scripture itself.

Exactly the same compound is possible in Sanskrit ~ ya (“who, which, that”) + hvA (“name”) = yahvA (“named after who”, and thus “whose name”, or the implied name of “that” unnamable one). And yahvAyAm would be “in whose name”.

And a cognate term is derived from tad (“he, she, it, that”) + tvam (“the being or abode of”) = tattvam (“truth or essence”, “the being of that”, “his being or abode”, etc.).

[sarabhanga]

From what you have said/implied:

• If Jones had not given the Roman transliteration scheme, there would have been "no valid means for transcribing the above text in Roman characters, and only those familiar with Devanagari script will have any chance of understanding."

• If Charles Wilkins ("the Caxton of India") had not "devised the first typeface for printing Indian scripts", Vedas and other Hindu scriptures would have remained only in their oral tradition and in hand-written manuscripts.

• And if Jones and Wilkins who gave these things are perceived as "meddling imposters with only one aim", there would be little justification in using their textual aids and that would have rendered "all internet discussion of Hindu scripture problematic."

Shall we say, using the same logic, that

• Had not the British given us the railroads, India would still be using only bullock carts for travel?

• Had not the British given us the English language, India would have been a primitive country like some in the African continent?

• Had not the British given us the modern civilization and dress codes, Indian males would still be sporting tufts of hair and wearing only dhoties?

• Just because the British gave all these to India, if the British Raj is perceived as having done more evil than good to India, there is no justification in using what they gave us?

I have heard that jnAnis can sometimes be childlike (I am not saying 'childish' which please note). I now have some proof of that truth! Childlikeness is a desirable quality to emulate, but what to do? At my level some of my sayings are perceived only as childish!

Namaste Saidevo,

You have omitted one very important point, which is that all of this depends on your preceding assertion that ALL of their scholarship was marred (and when we are seeking the truth, a tainted truth or likely falsehood is no use at all!).

When I or others point out their actual purpose that actually marred rather than made all their work, study and scholarship.

The idea of “their actual purpose that marred ALL their work, study and scholarship”, is exactly the over-reaction to which I have objected. Which, if taken as truth, must extend to such apparently trivial cases as the use of Roman transcriptions in explaining Sanskrit, and even the use of printing for Devanagari characters!

[sarabhanga]

Helion is Pra Aditya. lelihAna is a name of Shiva. lelihAna and el-elion can be easily related as you relate many words. lIna (rather Para lIna) is the highest, wherein everything resolves. Relation between YHV and Shiva and between el-elion and Shiva have been noted in "I am Shiva" thread earlier, though without noting the roots. lelihAna becoming el-elion (l-elihAna) in another tongue and assuming a different identity (as if) is perfectly plausible. This has been my point.

From Sir William Jones

I beg leave, as a philologer, to enter my protest against conjectural etymology in historical researches, and principally against the licentiousness of etymologists in transposing and inserting letters, in substituting at pleasure any consonant for another of the same order, and in totally disregarding the vowels.

No consideration should induce me to assist by my silence in the diffusion of error; and I contend, that almost any word or nation might be derived from any other, if such licences as I am opposing were permitted in etymological histories.

[But] when we find, indeed, the same words, letter for letter, and in a sense precisely the same, in different languages, we can scarce hesitate in allowing them a common origin.

But all this has nothing to do with the original post of Saidevo, wherein the unquestioning acceptance of Christian teaching being equivalent of Advaita Vedanta has been questioned (and I personally believe very validly).

Does Christianity really teach Advaita? How far has such teachings, if any, percolated into the Christian psyche? What is the position of the Christian notables--priests, scholars, politicians, media men and others who are prominent? Are the Christian commons aware of such 'findings'? Would they agree with them and implement them in life, and respect the Hindu (pagan) gods and the Hindu culture? Would they raise in unison against the evangelical and conversion efforts of the Christian Churches that is going on a 24x7x365-basis?

Does Christianity really teach Advaita?

Namaste Saidevo,

Similarly, one could ask whether Hinduism really teaches Advaita. And the answer would depend on the particular texts selected for consideration, and on the particular philosophical viewpoint one adopted while interpreting those texts.

When you say “Christianity”, do you mean the English interpretation propagated by Protestant Christianity (which itself comes in very many shades), or the Latin interpretation of Catholic Christianity, or the Greek and Aramaic interpretations of the various Orthodox Churches, or the Essene interpretation, or an interpretation based only on the Gospels, or an interpretation based on the surviving words attributed to Jesus himself ?

All correspondences noted by me here on HDF have been based on scriptural considerations, and certainly not on the actions and views of European and American Christians two thousand years after their first and last fully enlightened guru passed away, and after his words have been translated, from Aramaic, into Greek, then into Latin, and then into old German and old English, and then into modern English, and then into all the languages of the world, in an elaborate, politically motivated game of ‘Chinese whispers’.

Every translation gives plenty of scope for corruption of the original meaning, and my contention is that the bulk of Judaic and Christian scripture actually stems from originally Sanskrit texts and teachings. And it is notable that a Sanskrit translation (so far as I know, only once attempted) is not available, for it would be in such a properly considered reverse translation (back into Sanskrit, from the original Aramaic, Hebraic, and Greek texts) that all manner of obvious similarities would appear, including long passages quoted almost verbatim from the original Hindu texts.

How far has such teachings, if any, percolated into the Christian psyche? What is the position of the Christian notables--priests, scholars, politicians, media men and others who are prominent? Are the Christian commons aware of such 'findings'?

I am sure that there are notable Christians well aware of these “findings”, but the Church has tried very hard over 2,000 years to cover up the very connexions that I have been revealing here on HDF.

Any Christian who does not at least obey the ‘Ten Commandments’ is technically not a Christian. Just as an Arya without adherence to law of Yama is technically not an Arya.

Would they agree with them and implement them in life, and respect the Hindu (pagan) gods and the Hindu culture? Would they raise in unison against the evangelical and conversion efforts of the Christian Churches that is going on a 24x7x365-basis?

If the Sermon on the Mount (for example) was properly understood, then all conversion efforts would cease. And so, despite the fact that no Evangelical Christian might currently agree, I don’t see any harm in providing some reasoned alternative views.

If all Hindus understood that Christianity was largely a corrupted version of Hinduism, why would anyone think of converting?

If the crucifixion is properly understood as an allegory of yoga samAdhi, and not simply as an unjust but politically expedient execution of a dissident preacher, then all of the above is not a correct impression of the understanding of Jesus himself. And Jesus instructed his disciples to follow his proven way to the Father, but very few have actually done that, and those who have are now counted as Saints ~ the understanding of the Saint and the understanding of those who worship (but not imitate) the Saint are very different things!

Namaste Sarabhanga.

There, you have started a healthy discussion, on this important subject! I hope Satay and the other members will also participate and exchange views.

Surely the initial questions have been answered and the conversation has moved on.

[sarabhanga]

And the often repeated statement from Jones, shows exactly the argument I have been suggesting. The exact nature of the “Egyptian conduits” requires clarification, but the essential notion of transmission from “the primeval fountains of Indian literature” was acceptable to Jones, if only it could be proved.

“And if any cool unbiased reasoner will clearly convince me, that Moses drew his narrative through Egyptian conduits from the primeval fountains of Indian literature, I shall esteem him as friend for having weaned my mind from a capital error, and promise to stand among the foremost in assisting to circulate the truth, which he has ascertained.”

Well. William Jones is waiting for a proof that primeval fountains of Indian Scripture was transmitted to Moses.

Well, is William Jones now satisfied?

Willam Jones, Max Muller, Edward Moore, Christian Lassen, Richard Garbe, and many other western scholars have done exactly that, but it seems that some have not noticed, perhaps blinded by their one-eyed support of their own religion (whether Christian or Hindu)!

Here William Jones has done exactly that.

Exactly as it has already been repeatedly stated.

Jones did find clear correspondences ~ but he explained them away as borrowings from Christianity when found in more recent Hindu texts, or veritable prophesies of Christianity when found in more ancient Hindu texts.

As explained for William Jones, the Christian position on all scriptural correlations is that anything found in scripture composed later than Biblical texts must be borrowed from the Bible, and anything found in earlier scriptures must be considered as a prophecy of Biblical events.

[saidevo]

Namaste Sarabhanga.

You have done some excellent work in the goal you set for yourself! Specially, the following two passages from your findings have a refreshingly new look at the Christian mythology/history:

And kavi abhram was surely a vaidika sage (most likely an AÑgirasa).

According to Genesis 11, “the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai (cf. sarasvatI, vAc, abhrAmA) … but Sarai was barren” (cf. the historical drying up of the sarasvatI, after c. 1,800 BC), so abhram and his wife abhrAmA (Sarai), along with his father Terah and nephew Lot, “went forth … to the land of Canaan” (cf. kaNam ~ “grain”).

If this is what happened, then the entire line of Christian nobles from Adam to Abraham, (viz. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methusaleh, Lamech, Nova, Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Sala, Eber, Peleg, Ragau, Saruch, Nahor, Terah, Abraham) would have been residents of ancient Bharat, with corresponding references in Hindu texts, specially the Vedas. I wonder what those correspondences might be!

And if you look through the list of related terms found in Sanskrit literature, very much of the story is simply gleaned from the various connotations associated with those words. And I assume that the story of Jesus Christ was cobbled together by scholars following the same kind of process I have been attempting to demonstrate, simply scouring the ancient texts (of whatever language, for they all originate from the same source) for any mention of yeSu, kRSTi, yahvIH, and other familiar terms, and collecting the recurrent themes they perceived into a new version of what is in fact a very old (and intrinsically Hindu) story.

For example, the (thunder) bolts in the hands of indra, who resides at the crossing point of heaven (the celestial pole) having conquered vRtra (the constellation Draco), became iron bolts driven into the hands of Jesus, raised up in self-sacrificial imitation of indra’s world-conquering feat.

But then this story of Jesus Christ "cobbled together by scholars", "simply scouring the ancient texts" and the "bolts of Indra" that "became iron bolts driven into the hands of Jesus", makes a scarecrow of the image of Jesus on the cross! I rather expected a team of 'gurus' that disseminated the teachings that are today ascribed to Jesus Christ.

If that be the case, the level of nescience is really amazing: that the bubble spun with this apparant 'scarecrow' at the centre holds today 2.14 billion people (a third of the global population) under its dome, and the bubble is dynamically expanding! Will reality ever dawn on people so the bubble would be pricked and burst?

You might perhaps build up further by studying the entire family-tree from Adam to Jesus, matching each noble member of the genealogy to any actual gurus of Vedic and post Vedic times and exposing any fictitious members in the nodes. This can perhaps throw more light and strengthen your findings (in my opinion).

For your ready reference, here is a three-part image of the family tree from Adam to Jesus, at the link http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html.

Here are some links that might be of help in your work:

http://www.bible-codes.org/
http://www.originofnations.org/index.htm
http://www.behindthename.com/
http://www.666blacksun.com/ (?!)
http://www.exposingchristianity.com/
http://www.burningcross.net/
http://bessel.org/
http://yahovah.org/
http://jesus-messiah.com/
http://www.themystica.com/
http://protectreligions.org/

Thanks for all your efforts and please keep elaborating on your findings so we might get the big picture.

[atanu]

Namaste sarabhanga and friends,

Surely the initial questions have been answered and the conversation has moved on.

From Sir William Jones
I beg leave, as a philologer, to enter my protest against conjectural etymology in historical researches, and principally against the licentiousness of etymologists in transposing and inserting letters, in substituting at pleasure any consonant for another of the same order, and in totally disregarding the vowels.

Indeed, exactly what I feel. One with a a-priori set conclusion can prove anything, "through conjectural etymology". Saraswati can become Sarah. Canan can be derived from kanam etc etc. I like this scientific streak of Jones. However, Jones is not spiritual as he did not understand that what has been transmitted through some conduit is not revelation. Shruti is from immersion in the Supreme Self, which is everywhere and at all times, and no other conduit is required.

If Jesus (or Moses or anyone) was revealing any revelation that would be from his own samadhi and not merely from borrowed literature.

Well, is William Jones now satisfied?

Why ask me? You can go back and see that at same breath you say that Jones is waiting for a proof that vedic truth was transmitted through some conduit to west. And then you say that Jones and others have exactly proven that.

Why obfuscate?

I do not know whether Jones is satisfied or you are satisfied/elated or whether others are satified?

Juhu Brahmajaayaa is a Rishika and not a Rishi.

Juhu Brahmajaayaa is a Rishika and not a Rishi.

Juhu Brahmajaayaa is a Rishika and not a Rishi.


Sarasvati (Sarah as per you) being wife of this Rishika is an interesting thought.
--------------

abhram is derived from a-bhram. bhram is mistake-delusion. abhram is delusion free.

whereas abhra is Mica/Gold/cloud etc. etc.

abrham as used in the Agni hymns (which you have cited from RV 10th Chapter) relate to adjectives for agni. Kavi abhram is the seer/sage agni and not Juhu Brahmajaayaa (which you have extrapolated).

AbhrAm and abhram may not be having same meaning at all. especially as the name is: UrdhvanAbhA bhrAmA. Which means above the clouds.

-------------------

Anyway congratulations. Be very very happy.

For me and for many others this thread proves only the suitability of the original post "EXTRAPOLATION----". For me again, the Asya Vamiya sukta's teaching that all this is Gauri who is one infinite in Param Vyom, is sufficient knowledge. And fortunately, Bible also says the same.There is no need to prove or dis-prove anything.


Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

-
The mysterious RSi UrdhvanAbhAbhrAmA (juhU brahmajAyA) composed one sUkta (RV: 10.109), and abhram appears only twice in the Rgveda (also in the 10th maNDalam).



In a hymn to agni, composed by RSi vimada aindra:

aryaH vishAm gAtuH eti pra yat AnaT divaH antAn |

kaviH abhram dIdyAnaH || 10.20.4 ||

juSat havyA mAnuSasya UrdhvaH tasthau RbhvA yajñe |

minvan sadma puraH eti || 10.20.5 ||

And in a hymn to bRhaspati, by RSi ayAsya aÑgirasa:

apa jyotiSA tamaH antarikshAt udnaH shIpAlam iva vAtaH Ajat |

bRhaspatiH anumRshya valasya abhram iva vAtaH A cakre A gAH || 10.68.5 ||

yadA valasya pIyataH jasum bhet bRhaspatiH agnitapobhiH arkaiH

dadbhiH na jihvA pariviSTam A adat AviH nidhIn akRNot usriyANAm || 10.68.6 ||

-
And kavi abhram was surely a vaidika sage (most likely an AÑgirasa).

According to Genesis 11, “the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai (cf. sarasvatI, vAc, abhrAmA) … but Sarai was barren” (cf. the historical drying up of the sarasvatI, after c. 1,800 BC), so abhram and his wife abhrAmA (Sarai), along with his father Terah and nephew Lot, “went forth … to the land of Canaan” (cf. kaNam ~ “grain”).

So it would appear that, compelled by the drying of the sarasvatI river, kavi abhram and his family migrated to a more fertile district. And the bible names that place as Haran (cf. hiraNa ~ “semen” or “gold”).

And kavi abhram is surely sage/seer agni. And this kavi does not migrate; He is everywhere penetrating the highest clouds and heavens.

Rishika Juhu was never husband of Sarah.
----------------------


Om

[saidevo]

What happens when some 'clever' Christian scholars attempt to find correspondences of their scriptural texts to Hindu texts, in much the same way we are doing here in this thread?

Some HDF members have already cautioned us that our sincere and devoted efforts of establishing that Christianity is founded on Sanatana Dharma, is fruaght with the danger of getting 'tables turned' against us.

Znanna, post dated 27 Feb 2008

Modern "Christianity" is about seeking converts to "Christianity".

IMO, modern "Christianity" is about the most perverse "religion" in that it perpetuates the "us" versus "them" mentality by continuous differentiation of the "saved" versus the "damned."

Please beware the insidious tentacles of this mindset.

Ganeshprasad, post dated 01 Mar 2008

Scriptural considerations not withstanding, to give any credence to
Christianity, is shooting ourself in foot, we make their job of 'harvesting souls' the lost souls, that much easier.

Suresh, post dated 02 Mar 2008

Christians can ... say, "While we attack your gods as demons, we have your hindu gurus to defend the divinity of our Jesus. While we call Hinduism a devil-worshipping pagan faith, we have your hindu gurus praising Christianity as an authentic religion. While we never fail to mention sati, caste etc. while describing hinduism, your hindu gurus do us a huge favor by NEVER mentioning crusades, witch hunting, and inquisitions.

In short, we'll attack Hindus and Hinduism relentlessly, safe in the knowledge that your hindus gurus will continue to praise our religion and savior to the extreme. Your Hindu gurus are our defense counsel, god bless them!"

Suresh also concluded, in a post that was deleted: "It's therefore prudent to conclude that differences are more important than similarities."

TatTvamAsi said in another deleted post:

... however what I find stomach-churning is the notion of putting Hinduism at the same level of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, which is most definitely abhorrent. This is certainly what you have alluded to in your posts. Our discussion here was not merely about scriptural similarities and the like but about philsophical ones; now that is sinful! The reason for this is because there is a fundamental difference between the Judeo-Christian religions and the Eastern religions. In the former, God is external to you, space & time are real, you as an entity exist even after death eternally. And you can be with God but not God. All of this is antithetical to the core of Sanathana Dharma. The essential teachings of the sages of India is: TAT TVAM ASI! This phrase puts the whole philosophy in a nutshell. There is only one entity, Brahman, that has absolute reality. End of story.

Satay, post dated 07 Mar 2008
Though my own personal feelings about today's christianity are close to TTA's and Suresh's, I would like to understand the proof once and for all that original christian teachings were actually from the Vedas.

Christian Mischief by Misappropriation of Hindu Texts and Concepts

One of the resolutions passed by the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, the apex unifying body of Hindu Acharyas, in their third conference held in Sri Adichunchanagiri (near Bangalore) on February 9-11, 2008 states:

"5. More and more subtle attempts are underway outside the country to ‘appropriate’ Hindu philosophy and practices (such as Yoga, meditation, Sanskrit language and even sacred scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita), detaching them from their Hindu identity;"
(http://www.acharyasabha.org/index.ph...d=39&Itemid=41)

Here is a glimpse at the scenario wherein some clever Christian scholars authoratively albeit dubiously seek the roots of Hinduism in Christianity.

Prof. Madathilparampil Mammen Ninan

Here comes Prof. Ninan, a staunch Syrian 'Thomas' Christian, one of the cleverest and most dogged Christian scholars who have published works tracing Hinduism to Christian roots. His Website http://www.oration.com/~mm9n/ has many articles and voluminous books that attempt to translate Hindu scriptures in terms of Christian Theology.

Ninan's approach is dogged, although he hangs on the discredited myth of Saint Thomas having visited Kerala in 52 CE (which was denied by none other than the Pope himself) and established Christianity in South India, and the Aryan Invasion Theory. His main contention is that the modern day Hinduism was derived from the Christianity founded by St. Thomas and that the Vedic Religion that existed with the Aryans who invaded India was not Hinduism at all. In addition, he chooses to deny any hidden or deeper meanings in the Vedas that spawned the Upanishads.

Prominent works by Ninan include (some of them published recently in 2006-07):

• Translation of Isavasya Upanishad, where he considers Jesus to be the Isa.

• The Development of Hinduism, a voluminous book where he holds that the major forces in shaping the modern day Hinduism were the coming of Christianity and of Persian Gnostics which molded it into the present form.

• The Emergence of Hinduism from Christianity, a book which "establishes that Hinduism is really of very recent origin", and that modern Hinduism "is an outgrowth of Thomas Christianity under the influecne of Syrian Gnositicism. The myths of Mahabali and Parasurama refers to the defeat of Christians at the hands of the Vaishnavite gnostics."

• Hinduism, where he shows that "The religion known today as Hinduism is the Thomas Churches of Inner India established by St.Thomas which was high jacked by the Gnostics and Theosophists."

• Purusha Suktham, a 700-page translation where he says that the text has three layers: "The first innermost layer was the Thomasian layer following the teachings of St.Thomas followed by the Judao-Christian mysticism of Kaballa. This is followed by Gnostic layer, and the Vaishanavite layer."

Ninan has also commented on the translation of Rig Veda by Ralph Griffith, and on the translations of other Vedas.

Ninan's articles are published in his Websitea:
http://www.oration.com/~mm9n/articles/index.htm

Many of his books can be downloaded here:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=ninan

Ninan's 'arguments and findings'

Ninan's argument is wholly based on the Myth of St.Thomas. Even while he says that St.Thomas is 'said to have visited' Kerala in 52 CE, he spuns the myth of his own findings of the supposed ministry of Thomas.

• St.Thomas, - Judas Thomas – one of the disciples of Jesus known commonly as the doubting Thomas came down to India and had a successful ministy all over India and China.

Hinduism did not exist before the second century, AD.

• There were no "Hindu Temples" before the second century AD. The Earliest Hindu Temple dates only to 350–650 AD.

• In the early period the Christian churches of Kerala had the same model as of Hindu temples.

• Parameshwara. [Iswara is God. Param means Most High.] The prescript Param can be replaced with Maha meaning "The Great" to give Maheshwara – The Great God. These words Parameswara and Maheswara occur in Indian religious scenario only after the first century.

• The name Krishna did not even exist before the third century AD.

• Idols (Vigrahas) did not appear in India before the third century AD and in Kerala until the eighth century AD.

• There are documents indicating powerful Christian Kingdoms in Kerala, particularly in Ayr (referred to in Greek documents- Ayroor) and Ranni and Vel (Velnad). There must have been other major churches all over India other than in Kerala. However, the problem is "Where are they?"

Sanskrit did not exist before the second century AD

• Sanskrit was developed out of Prakrit and other existing languages during the interal of 100 AD to 150 AD. Sanskrit probably evolved as the liturgical language of Thomas Christians just as Latin evolved in the Greco-Roman world.

Vedic Religion is not Hinduism.

• There is an asymptotic discontinuity between Vedic and Upanishadic religions. Vedic religion is ritualistic with 33 nature gods. As opposed to the Vedic religion, Modern Hinduism is defined as a Theistic religion with Monotheistic Trinitarian content allowing for an infinite number of lesser gods.

• Vedic religion was not Hinduism, as we know today. There are four Vedas (Sacred Scriptures) in Hinduism today. If which only the Rig Veda was in existence at the time Thomas entered India in written form. Additionally, the Rig Veda was not written in Sanskrit but in Vedic or Avestan, which is a form of Persian.

• "Vedic Hinduism" is a contradiction in terminis since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call "Hindu religion", - at least as much Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion." S.W.Jamison and M.Witzel Vedic Hinduism 1992 Sanskrit Department, Cambridge University

• Thomas must have established culturally relevant forms of worship and liturgy and structures. These were truly Indian, translated "Hindu." Similar to the Roman Catholic Church or the Antiochian Universal (Catholic) Church, Indian church would be Indian Universal (Catholic) Way, which in Indian language will be "Hindu Sanadhana Dharma.

• New forms of worship appeared all of a sudden soon er the Ministry of Thomas. These are still found in modern Hinduism.

• Vedic Religion underwent a drastic change during the period following 1st C which culminated into the various Vedantic teachings. None of the 33 gods of Vedas are gods in the modern Hinduism.

• Aryan Vedas came to be written down only in the Second Century BC (and this is not Hinduism according to Ninan). The rest of the Indian Scriptures – the Puranas and the Upanishads and Brahmanas came into existence only after Sanskrit became the language of Gods – the liturgical language and the language of theological studies. This took place after a century of Thomas’ ministry.

• All the references to God in the Naamavaly sung in Tamil temples applies only to Jesus and extols him! For example, Ninan has this translation for the Hindu Namavali:

Om Sri Brahmaputra, Namaha
O God, Son of God, We worship you.

Om Sri Umathaya, Namaha
O God, the Holy Spirit, We worship you.

Om Sri Kannisuthaya, Namaha
O God, born of a virgin, We worship you.

Om Sri Vrishtaya, Namaha
O God, who is circumcised, We worship you.

Om Sri Panchakaya, Namaha
O God, who has five wounds, We worship you.

Om Shri Vritchsula Arul Daya, Namaha
O God, who was crucified to provide mercy, We worship you.

Om Sri Mritumjaya, Namaha
Oh God, who overcame death, We worship you.

Om Sri Dakshinamurthy, Namaha
O God, who sits on the right hand, We worship you.

OM:Sri Yesuvey Namaha

Purusha Prajapathy – The Person of the Lord of Hosts

Now let us take the Rig Vedic chapters II and X, which I have mentioned earlier, were written in Sanskrit after 150 AD. In these chapters, the Veda presents the Person (Purusha) of Prajapathy. Prajapathi literally means The Lord of Hosts. (Praja = subjects, host Pathi = Lord.) However, the striking thing about Prajapathi is his characteristics. I will quote the texts that describe Prajapathi with striking resemblance to the person of Jesus.

"Hiranyagarbha: samavarthaagre
Bhuuthasya jaatha: pathireka aaseeth
Sadaadhaara Prudhwivim dyaamuthemam
Kasmai devaaya havisha vidhemam"
(Rig Veda X: 121:1)

This translates as follows:
In the beginning, God and his supreme spirit alone existed.
From the supreme Spirit of God proceeded Hiranya Garbha, alias
Prajapathy, the first born of God in the form of light.
As soon as he was born, he became the savior of all the worlds.

"Thasmaad virraada jaayatha
viraajo adhi purusha:
Sajaatho athyarichyatha
Paschaad bhoomim adho pura:"
(Rig Veda X:90:5)

This translates as follows:
From that first being, the universe came into being. From that body of the universe came the omnipresent Person. That Person thus became manifest, adopted various forms and character, and created the earth and other planets along with the creatures to live in them.

This is the same idea that Paul Preached.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together." Col 1:15-17

The Adi Purusha idea is very similar to the concept of the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Here he is definitely identified with Jesus.

"Purusha evedam sarvam
Yadbhutham yacha bhavyam
Uthaamruthathwasya esaana
Ya daannenathirohathi"
(Rig Veda X:90:2)

This man, the first-born of God is all that was, all that is, and all that will be. And he comes to this world to give recompense to everybody as per his deeds.

Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

"Tham yajnam barhishi proukshan
Purusham jaathamagratha
Thena deva ayajantha
Sadhya rushayaschaye"
‘Purushasookta’
(Rig Veda X:90:7)

This man, the first born of the God, was tied to a wooden sacrificial post and the gods and the Kings along the Seers performed the sacrifice.

"Thamevam Vidwanamruthaiha bhavathy
Nanya pandha ayanaya vidyathe"
(Rig Veda X:90:16. Repeated Yajur Veda XXXI:18)

This (sacrifice) is the only way for redemption and liberation of mankind. Those who meditate and attain this man, believe in heart and chant with the lips, get liberated in this world itself and there is no other way for salvation.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

And Ninan goes on to quote famous passages from the Upanishads to prove that they were not only similar but created after Thomas' ministry came into existence.

Ninan also 'establishes' that Bhaviahya Purana was written by a scholar in Old Testament.

Conceptual Evidences

• AUM is not found in the ancient Rig-Veda. Or in any of the Vedas.

Even the early Upanishads written in Sanskrit, there are references to udgîtha ("up sound") and as pranava ("pronouncing"). This may be thought of as referring to the Sound Om. But it is a stretching the imagination.

The first direct reference to AUM found in Prashna-Upanishad, where the threefold constituents of AUM is mentioned and explained. It is also found in Mândûkya- Upanishad. Brihad-Âranyaka, Chândogya, and Taittirîya, Aum is mentioned many times both as Aum and as Om-kâr. In the Yoga- Sûtra (1.27), it is called the Word (vâcaka) of God (îshvara).

• The concept of AUM is identical with the Greco-Roman concept of Logos.

If one looks even deeper, the whole of Kabala and the threefold tree reaching into the unknown darkness encased in the ineffable name of YHVH can be seen in the Upanishadic teachings.

The symbol and mantra AUM emerged in Indian scene soon after the mission of St.Thomas the Apostle and were seen only after that time. All early churches in Kerala had used this as the Christian symbol and they appear at the entrance of the seven original churches established by Thomas.

You can see them even today over the main entrance of many of the churches.

AUM was clearly part of the Malankara (Malabar – Kerala) Christian tradition from the first century. They however associate it with the Christian Trinity and to Christ – the word who became flesh. An objective conclusion would be that Aum was indeed the original Christian concept as introduced by Thomas.

Concept of God

• This figure of Jagnath, which is celebrated as the Lord of the Universe, is really an epitome of the theology, which is essentially the theology of Eastern Churches and that of the Hebrew Kabala. It developed in India soon after the advent of Thomas.

• Notice again the usual three lines representing the Trinity with the middle line marked with a red spot (in the Shiva Lingam). Father, Son and the Holy Spirit with the Son with as the sacrifice before the creation of the world.

• The concept of Parameshwara originally comes from the concept of El Elyon which is translated as The Most High God as in Gen 14:18 where Melchiz’edek king of Salem was called the priest of God Most High, maker of heaven and earth. He blessed Abraham in the name of the God Most High and then onwards Abraham himself swore in that name in Gen 14:22.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Dravidians who can at least partially claim to be the children of Abraham through Keturah received the teachings of Thomas and assimilated it easily. Thus the roots of the Saivism are deeply rooted in the Thomas traditions.

• The Hebrew name of the person whom we refer as Jesus was Yehoshua which is rendered in English as Joshua. A shortened form of the name is Yeshua from which we get the Dravidian translation through St.Thomas as Yesu, Easow, Isa, Iswara.

• The name given in Greco-Roman culture is derived from their context as follows:

When the good news of the gospel was translated into to the Greco- Roman culture by Paul and his group it was rendered in Greek as Iesous Pronounced as Yesous.

Y in some languages is pronounced as J (ya as ja) rendering it as JESUS.

Fish was the early Christian symbol. Jesus said, "I shall make you fishers of men" The Greek word for fish is ichthus, spelled: Iota Chi Theta Upsilon
Sigma.

This is used as an acronym for Iesous (Jesus) CHristos (Christ) THeou (God) Uiou (Son) Soter (Savior). = Jesus Christ, God, Son, Savior.

• The elephant faced Ganapathy (The Lord of Host), the son of Siva came out of the symbolism of Word becoming Flesh – the Incarnation.

Ganapathy is the most important deity in the life of every Hindu. This is because no one can enter the presence of Shiva unless it is through the Son. (Seen the implication here?)

• Vishnu means Lord of the Heaven, The Omnipresent. Vishnu is seated on the Cherubims.

• The modern Hindu Trinity is Siva, Vishnu and Brahma. While Siva is till the father figure and Brahma the creator the emanated son figure, Vishnu the Energy and Power is now a male. Incidently Vishnu often played the female to achieve things in the Purana stories. We should expect this to be a much later development. The Thomas tradition was Hebrew Kabalistic tradition, where Wisdom and Power was female.

The creator is given here with four heads. These developments must have come under Gnostic influence, where creation of cosmos was done by a fallen god. – Brahma. Brahma is seldom worshipped in any of the temples even though He is one of the Trinity in the Vaishnavite tradition..

Doctrines

• Five Basic Doctines of Christianity

Doctrine of Trinity
Doctrine of Incarnation
Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice
Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin
Doctrine of Salvation through Faith.

Five Basic Doctines of both Saivism and Vaishnavism

Doctrine of Trinity
Doctrine of Incarnation (Avtar)
Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice
Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin
Doctrine of Salvation through Faith (Bhakthi Marga)

All these five doctrines which are common to both Saivite and Vaishanavites were never known in pre-Christian era and are definite indications of the form of Early Christianity in India. Hindu Sanadhana Dharma of first century AD was indeed the form of Christianity that St.Thomas established and central doctrines were indeed Christian.

Ninan concludes his work cryptically thus:

1. It means that Hinduism as an Indian Christian Church.
2. Hindu Sanatana Dharma evolved out of Indian Catholic Church through the Kerala Nasranees into the South Indian Saivites and Vaishnavites.

There are other Christian scholars in Tamil Nadu who are identified in the Website http://www.hamsa.org, which also explodes the myth of St. Thomas:

• Dr. K. Sadasivan in the Journal of Indian History and Culture follows in Archbishop Arulappa's footsteps with his unsubstantiated claim for a Christian Tirukkural and a St. Thomas in India sojourn.

• The book titled Viviliyam, Tirukkural, Shaiva Siddhantam Oppu Ayvu, written by one Deivanayakam, 2 was published in 1985-86. It attempted to compare Bible, Tirukkural and Shaiva philosophy and concluded that Tiruvalluvar was a disciple of St. Thomas and that his sayings were only sayings from Bible. The writer had attempted to distort and misinterpret the Shaiva Siddhanta to suit his conclusions that all these works emanated from the preachings of St. Thomas who is said to have visited India in the first century A.D.

It was given to the Dharmapuram Math to issue a refutation. In spite of refutations from scholars through personal letters, Deivanayakam was unrelenting. Hence the Dharmapuram Shaiva Math had a book of refutation prepared by its very able Tamil and Shaiva scholar, Arunai Vadivel Mudaliar, and released it at a function.

My take on a cursory glance at the works of Prof. Ninan is this:

It is said of Oliver Goldsmith, the famous English literary all-rounder, that "he did not touch anything that he did not adorn." We may perhaps say of Nian that "he did not touch anything in Hinduism that he did not desecrate."

The big question that looms large before us is:
How do we deal with the pseudo scholars such as Prof.Ninan?

If the myth of Jesus Christ was "cobbled together by scholars", "simply scouring the ancient texts" as stated by the learned Sarabhanga, Ninan has cobbled a myth out of St.Thomas who never visited South Indian in 52 CE or martyred at Mylapore at the hands of Hindu brahmins, and made St.Thomas the 'sole' and Jesus the 'soul' of Hinduism!

Unless we effectively and actively refute scholars like Ninan whose tribe is increasing by the numbers today, Hindus would be loosing their grass roots. Works by scholars like Ninan are published and promoted by the money-power of the Christian missionary and percolate down to our grass roots, whereas whatever we Hindus refute to establish the Reality only in the academic discussions on the Internet. A sad state of affairs indeed!