Being christian while rejecting important OT figures?

reply to post by wildtimes

"Sufi Mystic" isn't a sect that exists independent of other sects. There are Sunni sufis (with many many many subsects and orders) and shia sufis and even Ahmadiyyah sufis. And yeah, Fida Husnain is an Ahmadi.

And I'm not sure exactly what sources you want from me. It isn't some hidden piece of knowledge that it is a part of the belief set of Ahmadis that the tomb in Kashmir is actually Jesus, or that Mirza Ahmad (the founder) was one of the first to identify the tomb of Yuzasaf (a name that was a spelling mistake by a 18th century persian, with it originally being "Buddhasaf") as Jesus.

I don't know where Jesus was in the "missing years", it isn't a mystery that interests me very much. The non-canonical books of the new testament suggest that he didn't go anywhere. Besides, Fida Husnain (and Ahmadiyyah belief in general) hold that he travelled to India AFTER the crucifixion, not before, so they wouldn't account for the missing years.

reply to post by babloyi

Besides, Fida Husnain (and Ahmadiyyah belief in general) hold that he travelled to India AFTER the crucifixion, not before, so they wouldn't account for the missing years.

Incorrect. It's in his book. The Fifth Gospel: New Evidence from the Tibetan, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian and Urdu Sources About the Historical Life of Jesus Christ After the Crucifixion.

It does discuss his life BEFORE the crucifixion, whether or not you think so. Read it to learn more.

reply to post by wildtimes

I'm sorry, I don't have $15 to spare right now, but the title of the book suggests otherwise. If you have it, feel free to post the relevant passages from it. All I can find from the preview is a testimonial of sorts from some Rev. Dewi Morgan of Flett Street's Church saying that "he (and the Church) wouldn't mind if Dr. Hassnain says that Jesus went to India, preferrably in the hidden years", which is neither here nor there.

reply to post by babloyi


I do have it, and it sits on my shelf with other books on world religions. Why should I bother typing out what it says for you, babs? If I get bored later, I will attempt it. But even if I do, I certainly do NOT anticipate you, sk0rp, or any other naysayer to accept it.

(Don't you have a library in your location?)

reply to post by wildtimes

I do, but somehow I doubt "New Evidence from the Tibetan, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian and Urdu Sources About the Historical Life of Jesus Christ After the Crucifixion" will be available.

But to be totally honest, you are probably right. From what I can see of Fida Hassnain's work (and the preview of the book), his evidence seems to be inspired from Notovich, who admitted his stuff was false, and "arabic, persian (in arabic script) and urdu sources" are all way way after the fact, so I don't see how that would work. Perhaps if the sanskrit and tibetan sources are contemporary or near contemporary, and if they actually explicitly mention Jesus, it might make more sense.

reply to post by babloyi

Perhaps if the sanskrit and tibetan sources are contemporary or near contemporary, and if they actually explicitly mention Jesus, it might make more sense.

I was just leafing through the book, and it has at the beginning a description of the sources, separated into their relative 'origins.'
At the end there is an extensive Bibliography, separated as follows:
Biblical Sources
Pagan Sources (includes Josephus, Philo, and both the Younger and Elder Pliny guys.)
Jewish Sources
Bani Israel
Apocrypha
Christology and Theology
The Shroud
Anthropological & Archaeological
Dead Sea Scrolls
Christians of St Thomas in India
Essenes
Islamic

ORIENTAL MSS and WORKS
Arabic
Persian
Urdu
Sanskrit
Tibetan
Bengali

Pretty diverse bunch of stuff, eh?

Also, just checking around the web, I found a reference to his book that also mentioned a James W Deardorff, and a link to a paper he wrote called:
A NEW ECUMENISM BASED UPON
REEXAMINATION OF THE "LOST YEARS" EVIDENCE

James W. Deardorff
Oregon State University
September, 1994
Updated September, 2003

PRECIS

The "lost years" evidence due to Notovitch in 1894 of Jesus being in India during his youth, along with its debunkings, are reexamined and the latter [debunkings] are found not to have been scholarly in any sense. Later evidence fully confirming Notovitch's find is presented. The implications that Jesus taught reincarnation and karma, not resurrection, are summarized and found entirely plausible. The ramifications this has for ecumenism with respect to the Eastern religions cannot be overstated, though for Christianity they remain unacceptable.

Don't know if you enjoy scholarly papers or not, but..there's that.

reply to post by babloyi

I do, but somehow I doubt "New Evidence from the Tibetan, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian and Urdu Sources About the Historical Life of Jesus Christ After the Crucifixion" will be available.

Well, here in the US, EVERY book can be acquired by any public library - they just have to 'order it' from other libraries. Don't know how it works where you are.

Education here is actually -erm- FREE. (Not "school" - "education").

Libraries are one of our most important societal achievements, imo. Started by Andrew Carnegie Corporation (he started in Scotland, then the USA).

Born in Scotland in 1835, Andrew Carnegie's family immegrated into America when he was 13 years old and first settled in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania. His presence in the steel industry lead him to become a multi-millionaire. He was influenced in his childhood by a love for reading that later inspired him to direct a portion of his philanthropic donations towards the establishment of libraries across the United States. In 1886, Allegheny City was the first city in America to receive one of Carnegie's gifts.

Library History Timeline/Andrew Carnegie

reply to post by wildtimes


if the sources you mention above are historically authentic, why are they not accepted by mainstream historians?

Ghulam ahmed claimed to be the metaphorical 2nd coming of Jesus pbuh and the mahadi, do you also believe that?? Or you think he is a LIAR.
I wonder how him propogating the "Jesus in India idea" must have forwarded his bogus claims.

And i think the discussion should remain on topic, we all came to know how wonderful american library system is.

The topic is that Jesus pbuh was a jew, he practiced jewish law, he acknowledged jewish prophets so if you like his teachings and agree with them how do you also include the above or reject some parts of what he said and just advertise the buddhist like teachings as they fit and confirm your already held views?

The same question about ghulam ahmed,
he says

1) "Jesus was in India"
2) I am his 2nd coming and mahadi"

now, what of the above you accept?
The more rational approach is accept both or doubt both.

Picking and choosing is done if one has a big confirmation bias.

As you may have noticed that muslims as a whole either believe what a man said about everything or doubt everything if he is proved to be a liar in somethings and especially about the things he says that seem to support his lies.

Christians have long torn apart Jesus pbuh and his apostles from their very jewish background when Jesus pbuh explicitly said that he only came for the lost sheep of Israel and for achieving that they also distance themselves from the OT, the more secular humanist they are, the more they pull away Jesus pbuh and make him stand alone or try to bundle him with more pacifist buddhist views etc as some of his teachings match with it.

Interestingly these people also support and praise sects in Islam that have watered down and secularised their beliefs of Islam and who claim to be followers of Muhammad pbuh yet not follow everything he adviced. The same is done by christians who don't think that each teaching or command of Jesus pbuh should be equally followed and they can tailor it to fit their secular humanist beliefs.

Its true what they say, "birds of a feather..."

@logical7... ''

The topic is that Jesus pbuh was a jew, he practiced jewish law, he acknowledged jewish prophets.... ________________________________________ Jesus made several references to the OT, its prophets and its laws. Some ''Christians'' dismiss the OT and as a result invalidate their own credibility as ''Christians''. So the problem solves itself. If being a ''christian'' just requires a belief in Jesus with no foundation in the OT, then everybody can be a ''christian''.

sk0rpi0n
Some ''Christians'' dismiss the OT and as a result invalidate their own credibility as ''Christians''.

Dead wrong - as usual. Shades of what you said to Sahabi, ... you don't go to a Muslim who wants Christianity to die to find out what Christians should believe. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

YOU said go ask a priest or minister how to read the bible ...
HERE YOU GO
They agree with what I was saying. And yes they are Christians.
And 50% is more than 'some' Christians.

And 50% of Muslims take their Qu'ran literally. WHich is about the same percentage of Christians who take the bible literally. So I guess all those hundreds of millions of Muslims aren't really Muslims either, right?

reply to post by FlyersFan

YOU said go ask a priest or minister how to read the bible ...HERE YOU GO

Congratulations.
Your own "source" website believe in the OT and its figures/prophets that you reject.
Your own "source" website disagrees with your beliefs on the OT and the above mentioned figures/prophets.
You've linked me to a site called "xt3.com". Okay then. Lets see what else what YOUR source has to say regarding....

the Old Testament...
ASK A PRIEST - WHY DOES GOD SEEM SO VIOLENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?
- Your source obviously acknowledges the OT, even the violent parts which you reject

Adam and Eve...
The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve were real people and were the first human beings from whom all other human beings are descended.
- Your source counters your claim of Adam and Eve being myths.

Noah...
EXPLORERS FIND NOAH'S ARK
- Your source believes in Noah... enough to think explorers found his ark.

Abraham...
Abraham as an example of the Christian’s longing for the “true homeland” of heaven
- Your source acknowledges and respects Abraham

Moses...
"MOSES SPEAKS TO GOD AS A FRIEND"
- Your source acknowledges and respect Moses as well


You basically posted a bunch of links all over the place, but NONE of them echo your rejection of the OT and its figures/ Prophets. In fact, they contradict your beliefs regarding the OT and its figures/prophets.

So you like I said you are basically on your own... a special case... and like your status reads - a "nonconformist". But whatever it is, your beliefs are NOT compatible with Christianity, because Christian sources - including your own - teach that belief in the Old Testament is part and parcel of Christianity.

reply to post by FlyersFan

And 50% of Muslims take their Qu'ran literally.

reply to post by wildtimes

Notice how only 50% of Muslims believe the Qu'ran to be the literal word of God?

Take a closer look at that chart again....



It appears that out of the sample of 1050 Muslims - a whopping 86% of them agree that its the word of God......... with 36% voting for the stipulation that it isn't "literally true word for word". I wonder what that's supposed to mean, since they anyway believe its the "word of God". Either way, its irrelevant and not exactly worthy of concern.

sk0rpi0n
a whopping 86% of them agree that its the word of God......... with 36% voting for the stipulation that it isn't "literally true word for word".

Which are pretty much the same numbers for the CHRISTIANS.
They both have 50% who say it's NOT TO BE READ AS THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD.

its irrelevant and not exactly worthy of concern.

Only 50% of Muslims say the Qu'ran is the 'literal word of God' ... So according to you, because they don't believe it literally word for word, they must not be real muslims. Afterall, that's what you've been running around the boards screeching at Christians. Same/same. That It IS relevant and worthy of concern.

reply to post by logical7

if the sources you mention above are historically authentic, why are they not accepted by mainstream historians?

Jesus' Lost Years May Finally Have Been Found

Never heard of ghulam, but that adds another name to the list of people who have studied the subject.

Why would 'mainstream historians' reject it? That's a silly question - as if there's no pressure to "not revise" the stories that have been told. But what's to "revise" when there's NOTHING about those years in the Bible?

The link above is from 2009, written by a man who made a movie about "Jesus in India".

He did the legwork himself, for his movie. Here's what he says:

readers of the Huffington Post should know about the accumulation of evidence that Jesus spent part of his life in India -- which parts, and how long, or even whether this happened, are much-debated by many scholars and religious leaders.

However, after four years of work on the film Jesus in India (Sundance Channel / US - Showtime / Australia) which took me to three continents and to experts from all the major religions, my position is that although a final verdict is not yet in for Jesus in India as a concept and theory and new direction in religious thought, where there is smoke there is often fire -- and I've been wading through the smoke for years. Or, as the New York Times said of my film, I've been "sifting through legends, myths and historical evidence in an attempt to unravel the mysteries of the life of Jesus of Nazareth from ages 12 to 30" and Jesus' possible travels in India.

Emphasis and paragraphing mine.

...

Either way, none of us will be the worse for the truly incredible journey to inquire and discover what can be surmised about Jesus' Lost Years by taking the questions right to the ancient temple of the Hindus called Jagannath in Puri, India, where some say Jesus spent several years (the "some" include the present spiritual leader of the Hindu religion, the Shankaracharya) and a Buddhist monastery high in the Himalayas in Ladakh, India, where an ancient scroll has long been held to exist that purportedly answers all the questions about the Missing Years of Jesus (see: www.jesus-in-india-the-movie.com)

Our journey to India, following the trail of those who saw and translated the manuscript several times, gives a very convincing case that the manuscript does exist, and that it dovetails neatly with a long list of other kinds of evidence that put Jesus in India during that period of his life. If true, that journey of Jesus to the East was conveniently omitted from the New Testament.

You don't think Jesus could have reached India during his years as a young man? If he had remained in Judea, wouldn't he have been married off at age thirteen, the age all Jewish boys attain manhood? The silk road to India and beyond was much-traveled. There were caravans of merchants. And if there were three Wise Men (the Magi) from the East who were present at Jesus' birth, doesn't it imply (as Indian sage Paramahansa Yogananda claimed) that a tug from the Orient was present in Jesus' life from the beginning? Then why would the Lord not return the visit? Especially since the oldest temples in the world, belonging to the oldest religions, were in India.

le sigh.

I have posted two movies, several articles, and other sources. The "debunking" frenzy is natural and expected - because it shakes the very foundations of the modern "Christian" faith. For 1600 years, the Church's "Bible" has been the only textbook.

There is a huge gaping HOLE in it. What's the harm to try to figure out where he was?
The 'debunking and confession' of Notovitch has been challenged; anyone under pressure to retract a statement that weighty with implications would, under duress, do so.

Think Edward Snowden.

Anyway, this is ridiculous. You all just keep saying "nuh uh!" without showing any information that is worthwhile, and you ignore the sources (multi-media and varied in origin) that point to it being the case.

Did any of you watch the two films I posted? Have you read any books about it? Do you know how many people have looked into it?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

As for ghulam or whoever saying
Jesus was in India - that is a declarative statement, a neutral remark.

that he was the 2nd coming? Yes, I'd say he was probably delusional. But I never heard of him. So, I'll just add him to the list of people who HAVE SAID IT (that Jesus was in India) - and to the information that PROVES it is a very credible possibility.

Since, logical7, you are THERE, in India - how about you go talk to the people THERE who believe it, and get back to us?

It makes no difference to me whatsoever if you believe it or not, or whether "Christians" believe it or not.
Either he was there, or he was not. In my thinking, it would answer a LOT of questions, and make sense out of things that simply DON'T MAKE SENSE in the Christian view now.

But whatever, as the producer of that movie said,

If it turns out that this is a "Cavalcade of Crackpots," it fits neatly with my other films, which usually seem to be about the "crackpots" who are gifted philosophers, artists, geniuses and honorable men through the centuries, all of whom were considered outcasts in their time. They include Vaslav Nijinsky (She Dances Alone), Vincent van Gogh (Starry Night), Timothy Leary (Timothy Leary's Dead), the shaman known as Rahelio of Sedona, Arizona who was just covered in an article in Sunset magazine (The Artist & The Shaman), and the recently-deceased Forrest J. Ackerman, one of the "deluded" souls who thought way back in the 1920's that mankind would reach the moon in his lifetime (The Sci-Fi Boys).

Think what you want. Ignore the evidence = Remain ignorant.
It doesn't make those people "wrong" just because you lot don't believe it.
Shrug.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Either way, its irrelevant and not exactly worthy of concern.

Oh, now it's irrelevant??? LOLOLOL!!!!!!!

Your entire thread is based on bashing Christians who don't take the books literally! Now it's IRRELEVANT??

Whatever. I think it's possible/likely that you have some kind of a thought disorder.

YESTERDAY I spent about two hours looking through that site: The Pew Forum. If you'd take some time to do so, you'd find that MUCH of what you think you know is mistaken, and that MOST of what you claim about Christians is CRAP. But, I know you won't. You don't dare.

Well, I triple-dog dare ya.
Cowardly.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Learn how to read. Those sources did NOT say what you are claiming.
NO WHERE does it say you have to believe the stories of the OT to be a Christian.
NO WHERE.

Protestant Rev. Dr. Rock Schuler - One minute VIDEO - Should the bible be read literally or figuratively?
Answer - Neither. The bible contains a whole array of literature ... a collection of many different books. Each book should be read understanding the purpose of the book. Some are myths; some are literal; some are historical. It takes a whole lot of study to understand which books are literal and which are figurative and which are myth with a lesson ....

Hang it up. Your agenda to try to make Christians read the bible like a Muslim has failed.
As you said here -
Your post here

sk0rpi0n
People don't usually learn science from those opposed to science. So there's no reason for people to learn Islam from those opposed to it.

People don't usually learn science from those opposed to science. So there's no reason for people to learn Christianity from those opposed to it. Since you want Christianity to die .. you are opposed. Your attempt at muslimification of Christians = failure.

reply to post by logical7

The topic is that Jesus pbuh was a jew, he practiced jewish law, he acknowledged jewish prophets so if you like his teachings and agree with them how do you also include the above or reject some parts of what he said and just advertise the buddhist like teachings as they fit and confirm your already held views?

The "views" I already "held" are based on EVIDENCE AND SCHOLARSHIP. The parallels between Jesus and Buddha and Krishna are INDISPUTABLE (but I suppose you conveniently skipped the pdf doc I posted showing the parallels, right? amiright? AM I RIGHT?)

The only thing I like about Jesus' teaching was his command to follow the Golden Rule, so it makes NO DIFFERENCE TO ME if he was in the East studying Buddhism or not.

Yes, he was a Jew. Duh. He was a devout, law-abiding Jew. Duh. He acknowledged the prophets in the OT. Duh. Does that mean they existed? ANY of them? NO IT DOES NOT. ALL IT MEANS is that Jesus supposedly used them as talking points to make his own points. And why would he bring up people that his listeners had never heard of? OF COURSE he's going to start where the people are - and with what THEIR "already held views" were.

Good Gawd. *eyeroll and facepalm* Where do you guys learn to be so THICK!??? It remains just as frightening as it was over a year ago when I first started asking you questions.

reply to post by FlyersFan

NO WHERE does it say you have to believe the stories of the OT to be a Christian.

No where does your source website also say it shares your beliefs on the OT figures and prophets such as Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses.

Obviously your Christian source mentions them because they believes them as being important to their faith. So if your Christian source believes and respects the OT and figures/stories, then maybe you should too. But then again, one needs to first be a Christian to believe the OT.

reply to post by FlyersFan

People don't usually learn science from those opposed to science. So there's no reason for people to learn Christianity from those opposed to it.

So why don't you learn Christianity from people who call themselves Christians at least...

Also, since you like links so much, here are some other Christian sources stressing the importance of the Old Testament to Christianity.

UCG.org - The Importance of the Old Testament

Christianity.net.au - “why is the Old Testament so important

thesword.ca - The Importance of the Old Testament

gotquestions.org - Why should we study the Old Testament?

catholic.com - How important is the Old Testament for Catholics?

The Importance of The Old Testament for the Christian Faith

Note : Those were just the first 6 results that showed up in google search for the keywords "importance of the Old Testament".


So even though I disagree with them on a number of other theological issues, its clear that a majority of Christians accept the Old Testament as important to Christianity.

Unless you can find me a proper Christian website that shares in your beliefs about the OT figures, consider yourself the odd one out.

reply to post by wildtimes

Your entire thread is based on bashing Christians who don't take the books literally! Now it's IRRELEVANT??

Whatever. You are insane.

And you are having trouble reading the figures from your own source.

You falsely claim that "only 50% of Muslims believe the Qu'ran to be the literal word of God"...
but the stats show that 86% believe it to be the "word of God".....with 36% differing on it being "literally true word for word". I'm not sure the site even explains how what the degree of difference between the 2 fields are.

Either way, 86% is a pretty good score for a religious group and its not as if 50% of Muslims polled actually rejected the Koran completely.

BTW, what category do you fit in on that poll?