... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?

deadlock

We don't know that he was a disciple of Buddhist monk - it's a speculation. There's no rigorous historical evidence that supports this claim - the honest thing to do is to say "we don't know". Over the course of history there were many cases where multiple people independently discovered the same thing. For instance, the ideas of Epicurus and his concept of ataraxia are also quite similar to Buddhism. Also, mystic schools within each religion just use different language to describe the same experience. An example of this is the Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi library. There are still disputes about its age but the teachings described there portray Jesus more like mystic - his teachings there are not elaborate doctrines but koans and Jesus is the guru/initiator.

Naimul Haq

+deadlock

It is not a matter of whether he was the disciple or a friend of a disciple, but when he uses Buddhist Dogmas means he endorsed them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Naimul Haq

He endorsed those He used. Not the other ones.

Now, there are two ways in which he can have known about the Buddhist dogmata He used:

• He was a disciple of a Buddhist monk;
  
  
• He was God.

Actually, if He had been a disciple of a Buddhist monk, why did He condemn others by saying their opposite as dogma?

Oh, third possibility, these "Buddhist dogmas" were actually Hebrew dogmas. Perhaps Siddharta knew of them because he had read some Hebrew Scrriptures as a prince? Perhaps he neglected other Hebrew dogmas because he had forgotten them or because he had had the bad idea of rejecting them?

Either way, there is no such thing as anything being "wrong on every turn" - I heard a computer program for calculating Indo-European language relations described so, but it was at least partially right in saying that Romani was in some sense further off the common root of Indian languages than any else, rather than close to Hindi - this is wrong as to how older Neuter nouns redistribute as Masculines and Feminines, and therefore of the HISTORY, but it is right about vocabulary, since Romani has picked up quite a few words that are not found anywhere in India, since Gipsies left. So, though the computer model was described as "wrong on every turn" it was not.

Nor is Buddhism. It is only wrong, like any non-Christian religion for which one rejects Christianity, but not wrong on every turn.

The Buddhist dogmas which Our Lord used were those where Siddharta was right.

+deadlock

Gospel of Thomas is a forgery.

deadlock

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

In the same way as Gospel of John - these documents were not written by John/Thomas but by people belonging to different schools of thought trying to make sense of who Jesus was. Oxyrhynchus Papyri date back to circa 250 a.d. and represent some our earliest known New Testament fragments. Surprise surprise, they also contain fragments of Thomas and other documents. We can dispute about the origin/theology etc. but the document itself is well-attested historically. And since the teachings overlap with the NT and in many ways are simpler, the core of the document (not all of it) might date even before Mark.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Gospel of St John is not a forgery. It was received as genuine and by him - my patron Saint, along with the Baptist (John = Johannes = Hans) - that is by the Disciple of Jesus, one of the first four called, one of the Twelve, son of Zebedaeus, by the Church and by the tradition of the Church - to which Saint Thomas also belonged.

Whatever community called the "Gospel of Thomas" written "by Thomas" was not of that Church and St Thomas can therefore not have been him.

I am not disputing it was early. I am saying it is NOT a document of the Catholic Church, which Jesus founded, and therefore not one document a very prominent member of that Church, like St Thomas can have written for common edification.

It can have been written while he was still alive - if it was when he was safely away in India. But it was written by people who made sure he could not be there and contradict their claim and it was written to impress people who thought well of him and tried to abuse it.

It can not have been written to divulge any secret doctrine to specially chosen members within the Church either, since the time for secret doctrines was over and - excepting things kept as secrets from persecutors - everything was "shouted from the rooftops".

So, it cannot be by St Thomas. But it can be as old as when he was alive, that is not what I dispute.

"the document itself is well-attested historically."

One of the attestations being that the Church condemned it over and over again as spurious, very early on.

"And since the teachings overlap with the NT"

Any teaching overlaps somehow with the full teaching of truth, normally. No teaching that has no truth can be attractive, so anyone deceived by the devil or wanting himself to deceive needs to have some overlap of doctrine with NT.

"and in many ways are simpler"

Lies are in many ways simpler than the truth.

"the core of the document (not all of it) might date even before Mark."

That remark presupposes one of the very spurious idiocies of modern Academia - made by Christians who did not relaly want to be Christians and started to feel hampered by what was actually in the Gospels.

Their story goes that one doctrine developed into another clearly non-identcial one over time and that this development can be traced over the course of the Gospels, no doctrine being there before it is written and writings not accepted in order traditionally thought to be written - St Matthew first - but in an arbitrary sequence according to as how the series best reflects a gradual invention of Christian teaching (so that these guys can say of such and such a Gospel passage "we don't need to observe it, it is later, not by Christ"), generally starting with Mark first among Gospels since shortest and Pauline letters all - except Hebrews and Titus and Timothy - previous to Mark. No, no ... one should observe, if one puts any credence at all in Christ, the order of writings that is given by Tradition. Those that believe Christ must believe He founded His Church and that it is the pillar of truth. Those that believe Him not will not be obliged by even one of the so-called "early writings".

deadlock

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was afraid to step into these waters - I'm not here to question anyone's religious or theological beliefs (and naturally, biases when it comes to interpretation of such texts - including mine). I think it's fair to say Thomas was in early circulation and contains some genuine sayings of Jesus, although I wouldn't go as far as to say all of them are genuine because of the nature of development of these documents (this can be said even of canonical ones). But, for instance, it would be unusual for a 2nd century forger to make a reference to James the Just as the leader of the church etc. The books, commentaries etc. are out there for a discerning reader. But back to my earlier point - mystic traditions developed even within the "regular" Christianity (not just within Thomasine school) and even Islam (Sufism). In my opinion they represent perennial philosophy (just expressed in different terminology) that shares many similarities with Eastern philosophical traditions.

Naimul Haq

+deadlock
I have followed a few exchanges you had with Lundahl. They are very interesting, although I will not comment, as I am not qualified to do so. Nevertheless there is one interesting chapter in all these topics you are discussing, that I would like to know, if possible.

Around early 90's a smuggler of antiquities was caught by the Turkish customs, and the haul was kept in a safe in the treasury (perhaps), in which one item was a Bible written in Aramaic, and just about the oldest and was seen by a British authority only, and his findings made known to the Pope. It was the media's opinion(Newsweek) that all or many Christian practices comes into question with answers suspected to be humiliating.

I would like to know more about what happened next, and what did it contain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I think it's fair to say Thomas was in early circulation"

Sure, no prob.

"and contains some genuine sayings of Jesus"

Any forger would include some.

Clarification on "any forger would include some" = from the real Gospels.

I actually do not know if this one did.

"But, for instance, it would be unusual for a 2nd century forger to make a reference to James the Just as the leader of the church"

If the forger was near Jerusalem whose first bishop was St James the Just, he would have no problem even if only half competent.

"The books, commentaries etc. are out there for a discerning reader."

They are banned.

"mystic traditions developed even within the "regular" Christianity (not just within Thomasine school)"

If you want mystic, leave off pseudo-Thomas and get to Saint John of the Cross!

He's a guy for no weaklings (tougher than I can take).

"In my opinion they represent perennial philosophy (just expressed in different terminology) that shares many similarities with Eastern philosophical traditions."

The real perennial philosophy is not the Eastern one.

"Around early 90's a smuggler of antiquities was caught by the Turkish customs, and the haul was kept in a safe in the treasury (perhaps), in which one item was a Bible written in Aramaic, and just about the oldest and was seen by a British authority only, and his findings made known to the Pope."

I wonder if that was "Gospel of Barnabas"?

I consider old texts are best transmitted by a broad tradition, like Mahabharata or Homer, and not by a single find of a very old manuscript which differs from other ones, either in collection or in text version.

It is not the tradition of the Church, as far as I know, especially not if containing "Gospel of Barnabas".

I gave

links to the three parts (so far extant) here.

deadlock

+Hans-Georg Lundahl The temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. therefore a late forger would be unlikely to make such "obsolete" reference. Even more so because the early church tradition relied on Paul and there are hints that Paul and James weren't exactly on good terms (Acts). So, if a forger wanted to increase the authority of the document, why choose a person who's authoritative role had been actively downplayed? I'm not saying it couldn't be a forgery but to me it doesn't seem that likely. And of course another question is, would you be willing to subject canonical documents to the same rigor? But some bias I can understand because you're an evangelical Christian and it's your active choice, which I respect. So, let me leave this discussion with peace :) I think though that being too hung up on theology basically teaches divisiveness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. therefore a late forger would be unlikely to make such "obsolete" reference."

The succession of bishops of Jerusalem in the Christian Church was very much NOT a secret known only in the Temple.

"Even more so because the early church tradition relied on Paul and there are hints that Paul and James weren't exactly on good terms (Acts)."

What exact part of Acts are you referring to?

Here is link to first chapter:

Acts, chapter 1
(links to following and previous chapter on top of each page, under links to following and previous book)
http://drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm

"So, if a forger wanted to increase the authority of the document, why choose a person who's authoritative role had been actively downplayed?"

It hadn't.

And the forger may well have deliberately upplayed the role of St James as authoritative not just in Jerusalem but everywhere, because admitting Peter remained chief after quitting Jerusalem and leaving it to James (who was its first single-man bishop, but succeeded after the collective episcopacy of St Peter and the Twelve) would have been too much of a referral to Rome where Sts Peter and Paul had died.

"And of course another question is, would you be willing to subject canonical documents to the same rigor?"

I am doing it by the fact that I distinguish canonic from forgery on the line of where tradition is.

Suppose that Gospel of St Thomas had really been by the disciple Thomas. That would have meant the Catholic Church was either lying about its Theology or lying about St Thomas being part of them. That would mean the other Gospels are forgeries.

BUT if that had been the case, where would the wisdom, power and goodwill of God be, if He allowed forgeries to take over right after Jesus lived and let the genuine message get buried? Impossible, if you believe at all that Jesus was God.

An Atheist stepfather said about the Blessed Virgin Mary "if there is something special about Jesus, there is something special about Mary". Same thing can be said about Jesus and the Church that preserved the Four Canonic Gospels. If Jesus is God or even anywhere near from God, God saw to it the Church He founded would keep the real Gospels not false ones and condemn false Gospels not a real one. If on the other hand Four false Gospels were accepted and a real Gospel lost, then one would have to conclude Jesus was not God or even a propeht in the first place. Either way the Gospel of Thomas is worthless. If Jesus is God, He knew how to preserve His Church and preserved it, and the Four Gospels are true and it is a forgery. If it is genuine, the fact it was condemned and on most parts forgotten for so long proves Jesus is not God so a Gospel of Jesus has no value anyway. Logic.

"But some bias I can understand because you're an evangelical Christian"

I am a Roman Catholic.

"I think though that being too hung up on theology basically teaches divisiveness."

According to the genuine Gospels, Christ said He had come to be occasion for much division.

Matthew 10:34-35
http://drbo.org/chapter/47010.htm

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Challoner comment:

[35] I came to set a man at variance: Not that this was the end or design of the coming of our Saviour; but that his coming and his doctrine would have this effect, by reason of the obstinate resistance that many would make, and of their persecuting all such as should adhere to him.

deadlock (had also written)

+Naimul Haq
It was an apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas written in Syriac that, just like the recently discovered Gospel of Judas, portrays Judas in a different light. The nature of these texts is that they might contain certain elements of actual history but many things are simply made up and represent late theological developments. There are certain methods how these texts can be evaluated - do we have old fragments, is the text referenced in ancient records, do we have multiple attestations, does textual criticism reveal inconsistencies or heavy redaction etc. Not all ancient texts stand up to these tests equally well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Naimul Haq, deadlock wrote you:

"There are certain methods how these texts can be evaluated - do we have old fragments, is the text referenced in ancient records, do we have multiple attestations, does textual criticism reveal inconsistencies or heavy redaction etc. Not all ancient texts stand up to these tests equally well."

There are certain methods to evaluate oldness.

One is palaeography, and there I am as useless in Syriac as I could do rather well in Latin or even Greek. Shapes of letters have changed by fashions, and unlike Arabic script the most ancient letter types have not been preserved as a calligraphic alternative, but rather by being reserved in certain documents of the imperial office of Constantinople for headings. But in Syriac, I can basically not tell. But there is also the codex form of the book.

I thought it was II C., but actually it was already invented in the first one.

"Developed by the Romans from wooden writing tablets, its gradual replacement of the scroll, the dominant form of book in the ancient world, has been termed the most important advance in the history of the book before the invention of printing. The codex altogether transformed the shape of the book itself and offered a form that lasted for centuries. The spread of the codex is often associated with the rise of Christianity, which adopted the format for the Bible early on. First described by the 1st-century AD Roman poet Martial, who praised its convenient use, the codex achieved numerical parity with the scroll around AD 300, and had completely replaced it throughout the now Christianised Greco-Roman world by the 6th century."

Wikipedia : Codex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

"There are certain methods how these texts can be evaluated - do we have old fragments, is the text referenced in ancient records, do we have multiple attestations, does textual criticism reveal inconsistencies or heavy redaction etc. Not all ancient texts stand up to these tests equally well.”

In this art, some criteria are more subjective than others. Inconsistencies to one may not be inconsistent to the other. "Heavy redaction" may be presumed on good grounds in some cases, like when giving anachronisms of a well known type (does Dictys from Crete really capture the Mycenean form of shields at all, even as much as Homer?), and I presume Mahabharata is a post-Flood poem from India showing very heavy redaction of memories from pre-Flood world, calling "the black" Krishna instead of Kush being one of these.

But someone who believed Kali Yuga had taken place when Krishna died and no world wide flood happened THEN (Hinduism places the world wide flood much earlier) would presume I was wrong on Mahabharata material being heavily redacted in "Indian post-Flood" manners, because he would assume I was wrong to reconstruct the Mahabharata War as a Nodian war taking place between Cainite factions after Lamech.

When we are dealing with Higher Criticism dealing with such and such a Canonic Gospel "showing heavy redaction after a late theological development", we are also dealing with reconstructions - by men who refused to believe Christian theology was once and for all given by Christ to the Apostles.

And of course, Gospel of Thomas being referenced very many times as apocryphon, i e as forgery, by the Church, is a criterium of the "many early references" type, but not a guarantee it is really by Thomas, rather the contrary.

As to Gospel of Barnabas, let us not confuse it with the proobably apocryphal Epistyle of Barnabas, which is another work. The "Gospel" we are talking about was referenced very late, namely 7th C., first reference I know of. I e it appeared after or around the time of the Hegirah.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thank you for the interesting detail of what I call "acceptability" problem. Legends, epics, commentaries, scriptures, etc. often refer to historical events that are datable, and the context is better and believably understood. The epic of Gilgamesh can be understood, among others, as a realization that all of god's creation must die, and man is mortal, and cannot claim equal footing with the divine power.

The Sumerians were great story tellers, a quality that also proved a powerful weapon. The Greek epics of Homer reflected the same theme as did Mahabharata and Ramayana in India, when ancient legends about Krishna, who was the builder of Dwaraka( that was recently dated as a continuous occupation from 32,000-9500 bp), were craftily employed to create the reality of a Semitic god Rama replace Sanatan Dharma of Krishna, by helping the evil Kuru to destroy the Jadu people and establish Hinduism(Persian coinage), cloaked in Semitic traits (like ULU).

"The Greek epics of Homer reflected the same theme as did Mahabharata and Ramayana in India,"

Same themes. But different stories.

"The Sumerians were great story tellers, a quality that also proved a powerful weapon."

They were even willing - it has been proven by comparing versions - to use variation on a story as a tool for example for flattery. That is why I rely less on them than on Hebrew story of Flood and of what was before Flood.

I even think pre-Flood conditions are better preserved in Mahabharata than in Gilgamesh, Atrahasis etc. The geneaology of Cain in Genesis 4 ends with Lamech having two wives, and three sons and a daughter. Mahabharata is a war between cousin factions. Cousins are sons or daughters of different persons who were between them siblings. Plus Krishna predicting a local Flood may be a way to minimise the memory of the global one previous to when epic was written or its stories originated rather.

"Dwaraka( that was recently dated as a continuous occupation from 32,000-9500 bp)"

Catholic as I am, I think Creationist Evangelicals have a point about carbon datings. Anything carbon dated 50,000 - 20,000 bp can be from the Flood.

As to Krishna, his traditional death date is close before Flood:

"According to the Surya Siddhanta, Kali Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 14 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode."

Wiki : Kali Yuga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga

"a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo"

From Roman Martyrology of Christmas Day.

3102
2957
_________
0155

Krishna died 155 years before the Flood, if he existed, and Kali Yuga was set as a new era by very early Hindoos or pre-Hindoos, because they refused to accept Global Flood as division, wanted to forget about it. But somehow could not ignore it either.

Bible about pre-Flood conditions:

Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,

Mahabharata on result of the war mentions it ended with both sides doing so much evil that even the good guys could not tell themselves apart from the bad guys.

Apart from that, I consider Mahabharata contains also a lot of Pagan error, specifically when Krishna is said to have his soul enter Heaven and be received like a god, but this is not seen by any man, this is the vision of a poet in a dream.

Ramayana was probably post-Flood. There is a Raman son of Kush in the genealogy of Ham [in the Bible].

And the Hindoo "god" Rama has two sons, one of them named Kusha - who could have been named after his grandpa Kush.

And in Hebrew, Kush has the same meaning as Krishna in Sanscrit - black. I don't think the Biblical Kush is Krishna, but I think Krishna might have been ancestor or even father of Ham's wife, of whom the Biblical Kush was born.

War of Troy happened later, a bit before the time of King David.

Probably while both Greeks and Trojans were part of Hittite Empire, pretty certainly Trojans were.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So the battle of Kurukhetra (1200bc) and the Trojan war happened around the same time.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I know very little of Kurukhetra.

But Trojan war was approximately as old as that, yes.

If it is included in Mahabharata, I would have to conclude the poem mixes matters from different past times.

[It is THE main action of Mahabharata - the battle in which Krishna is Arjuna's charioteer!]

Probably the same is true of Homer, but an opposite thing is true as well : he deliberately forgets (or is inheritor to people who deliberately forgot) all about the Hittite Empire as such.

That is why I think episodes from Battle of Kadesh, between Hittites and Egyptians, may have made it into legends about Troy, even if that was another war.

I can also have been totally wrong about when Mahabharata is from.

But if Kurukhetra was around 1200 B.C. it is impossible that Krishna who was charioteer to Arjuna died 3102 B.C., 155 years before the Flood.

One of the dates is off and by millennia.

That is also true of Greek chronology up to the War of Troy, generally. It was millennia after the Flood and they put it just five or ten generations after it.

I looked up Kurukshetra (redirected from Kurukhetra, both versions apparently exist of the word), and Kuru seems to have founded it around Sarasvati nadi which one thinks dried up in 1900 B.C. ... if I am right Mahabharata action took place pre-Flood, it is possible Sarasvati was a pre-Flood river which showed banks even after Flood but it is also possible all was relocated. If I am wrong, Kuru living before 1900 B.C. hardly allows you to be right that his grandsons Kauravas and Pandavas fought about his land in 1200 B.C. - They are just his grandsons, right?

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Historically the Kuru were based around the Swaraswati and were a consortium of central Asian tribes who entered India after the fall of the Harappan civilization around 1900 bc.

The Jadu were a leading Vedic tribe based in Dwaraka, who were the leading resistance to this encroachment that got legal status not with the destruction of the Jadu by the Kuru in the battle of Kurukhetra, but with the subsequent spread of Hinduism, through the theatrics of the epics Mahabharata and Ramayana, making semitic gods Brahma, Rama, replace Krishna (recently dated to about 12,000 bp) and the Jadu rule with Ram's Kingdom.

This became possible by introducing Rama as Krishna's brother as two hair, one white and one black, of Vishnu, and dramatising the Kuru as cousins of the Jadu, and many other manipulations, over 1600 years when at the end of the Maurya, Hinduism routed the Buddhists from power along with the Sanatan religion of Krishna. The Bengali people, a distant branch of the Jadu people still preserves the Sanatan, as in many other places, and the Brngali Mahabharat is considered the genuine version by H.H.Wilson.

Manipulating sacred script was rampant and easy in those days in all religions , like in your gospels, or in Hadis many of which are openly declared to be redundant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Naimul Haq "Manipulating sacred script was rampant and easy in those days in all religions , like in your gospels, or in Hadis many of which are openly declared to be redundant."

There is no easy way in which Gospel text can have been largely manipulated after writing and publication, since the Church watched very jealously over copying. While at same time each Sunday Gospel was read, short portion after short portion, all over the Christian world. Original Church very clearly was rivalled by factions with other Christology, but they had same text for all four Gospels.

OK, one Syriac manuscript says Emmaus was 160 stades (32 km) rather than 60 stades (12km) from Jerusalem. Actual distance of Amwaz.

Even for hadiths, I trust Islamic tradition got the content right. They are just not from God.

The West had practise from keeping Homer intact.

Gospels were also written to soon after events by people too close first or second hand, to be manipulated before writing.

Also, the Church had training in avoiding post writing manipulation from its Hebrew past.

Samarian, Hebrew and Septuagint versions of Books of Moses are extremely close. Nothing like difference between Bengal Mahabharata and other versions.

And there too, the closeness in time between events and writing prevent manipulation before writing. Usually, probably for diverse parts of Genesis too.

Moses' Exodus is reasonably as accurate as Xenophon's Anabasis.

The Four Gospellers reasonably give as accurate accounts of Jesus - even humanly speaking, even if He were not, as He is, God - as Xenephon and Plato of Socrates.

Some even think Plato inserted dialogues that Socrates never made according to his own philosophy. That would be the kind of forgery behind "Gospel of Thomas" - except that the different Master of the Disciples would not have allowed the real St Thomas to be behind such a lie.

As to the rest of what you say - I know very little about it, how much is history recorded in the times and how much is reconstruction afterwards?

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You will notice how both Jews and Christians claim to have championed a monotheistic god, while both missing the truth and resorting to "make belief" stories. The main gate of David's capital Jerusalem was adorned with pagan figures of a snake, bull, fire etc. while the Christians had to settle for the Trinity.

India with Dwaraka, a 100 square mile settlement was an important port city trading with Sumerians and also Egypt, and exchanging belief soon realized the power of their monotheistic god Vishnu, that impressed Abraham (1750 bc) and Akhenaton, both smashed their establishment to promote the concept of one god. Moses, David, Soleman all toiled hard without success, ultimately Mohammad, much later, did succeeded,but again opposed vehemently by both Jews and Christians.

The same thing happened in Egypt, where all marks of one god were erased after the death of Akhenaton. Later though Hatshupset sent a delegation to Punt (India), not to collect gold but plants to be used in religious functions, the details being lost.

Again if you notice how Abraham went to Egypt (knowingly gave his wife to the Pharoe,to gain favor) and claim the promised land, failed like one of his sons later, the Jewish establishment under Moses, David etc.manipulated god's promise, and changed the venue from Egypt to Palestine on the plea that the Palestinians are themselves occupiers, therefore deserve to be ousted, and convinced the Jews that all tribes around Jerusalem are children of Abraham. And as soon as the Assyrians struck around 800 bc, 10 of the 12 tribes changed allegiance.

Sometimes made up stories hide hard truth. Like the story of Sindbad the sailor (that perhaps inspired the Greek legend of Jason and the golden fleece)speaks the truth of a brave sailor who frequently sailed up the Shindhu river flowing by the state of Sind, many times bringing valuable goods to Sumeria, that made him a hero and became legendary.

Deceit and manipulation, happens right under your nose, remember how Bush wanted you to believe Saddam had nukes?How truth is faked or manipulated, and how to identify them is a necessary skill without which black becomes white, or blue turns red.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You will notice how both Jews and Christians claim to have championed a monotheistic god"

I notice how you shift subject from how much less well Mahabharata was transmitted than Homer, Books of Moses and the Four Gospels to quite another issue.

Btw, we do not claim we champion God. We claim God champions us.

"while both missing the truth and resorting to 'make belief' stories."

A bit thick that coming from one who resorted to a make believe story Christ had been disciple to a Buddhist monk a bit further up on the discussion.

"The main gate of David's capital Jerusalem was adorned with pagan figures of a snake, bull, fire etc."

How do you know? What if?

Adornments on gates are not usually set out as objects of worship.

But I am not taking your word it was, unless you direct me to a Bible quote on it.

"while the Christians had to settle for the Trinity."

Yes, we have to settle for the real God.

False gods, including false forms of monotheism won't champion us against devil and wordly tyrants like the real God.

"India with Dwaraka, a 100 square mile settlement was an important port city trading with Sumerians and also Egypt, and exchanging belief soon realized the power of their monotheistic god Vishnu, that impressed Abraham (1750 bc) and Akhenaton, both smashed their establishment to promote the concept of one god."

You presume there are no traditions among Christians why Abraham took his distance from idolatry?

Or you presume I am so emptyheaded so as to believe your just so story about it instead?

I may have been wrong to consider Krishna was a pre-Flood character misnamed in your tradition. Maybe he was an Aryan and a false prophet and misdated instead of misnamed and misinterpreted.

If your theory is right that he lived and took part in Arjuna's battle around the time of the Trojan War, he must have been very much put back in history if he arrived from then to dying 155 years before the Flood.

And when I put it to you that your traditions are not reliable you try a "tu quoque" which is baseless in fact. Our traditions necessarily omitted things that happened, no tradition can recall each and every event of the past, and the Greek traditions were also falsified by idolatrous and superstitious interpretations and by deliberate omissions, like never saying "Hittite". But neither Jew nor even Greek added century on century between the generations we remembered accurately.

"Moses, David, Soleman all toiled hard without success, ultimately Mohammad, much later, did succeeded,but again opposed vehemently by both Jews and Christians."

Mohammad claimed to correct Jews and Christians who supposedly had forgotten what Moses and Our Lord really said. THEN he also claimed to supply the corrections from "hearing of divine voices" ... Not a credible source from which to correct tradition, especially since not backed up by miracles.

"Again if you notice how Abraham went to Egypt (knowingly gave his wife to the Pharoe,to gain favor) and claim the promised land, failed like one of his sons later, the Jewish establishment under Moses, David etc.manipulated god's promise, and changed the venue from Egypt to Palestine on the plea that the Palestinians are themselves occupiers, therefore deserve to be ousted"

What kind of lie is that?

Palestinians a a Christian and partly Islamised people did not exist yet. They descend from Israelites, from Jews and Samarians.

[Jewish and remains of Samarian sect do so too, but either never adopted or rejected with Chosroes Christianity.]

Philistines came from Crete. They were later absorbed into the Jewish tribe, and thus into Jews as much as Christian/Moslem Palestinians.

The guys that Joshua ousted according to God's promise were neither Philistines (who came later) nor Palestinians, but idol worshipping Canaaneans, so bad as to make Kali worshipping Thuggees and Suttee look nearly decent by comparison.

"Deceit and manipulation, happens right under your nose, remember how Bush wanted you to believe Saddam had nukes?"

The one who is manipulated right now seems to be you.

The fake accusation against Saddam was about Chemical weapons, undestroyed reserves of poison gas.

I am a Christian now, was a Christian then and was no supporter of Bush's why or how to conduct a war.

As the why was back then. ISIS is another matter.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually I did not shift subject, if you remember we were on the subject of deceit, manipulation prevalent in all scriptures.

Yes I deliberately touched the Israeli string to see if you agree. But you kept silent. Though the pagan symbols seems to have your attention. The source I quote is believable to me, then again we come back to acceptability.

However I have no intention to hurt your belief and I was trying to understand what "manipulation" does, giving some personal observations, you are at liberty to disagree.

I agree Palestinians came later, but targeting the Canaaneans was gods promise cannot be true because of a Jewish propaganda video in U tube clearly showed Abraham trying to claim gods promised land in Egypt not Canaan, which also showed him giving his wife to the Pharoe,knowing.Does it mean I am manipulated.

I agree satee, and the rest are the perverted side shared by every religion, like Krishna was manipulated to resort to double standard for the sake of implanted Hinduism to succeed.

Surely god wants us to know the truth. I expect you to give me the truth you have.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Actually I did not shift subject, if you remember we were on the subject of deceit, manipulation prevalent in all scriptures."

You were before my answer.

I corrected you on the "prevalent in ALL scriptures" part, you ignored that.

"The source I quote is believable to me, "

You probably know it won't be to me, since you did not bother to cite it.

"I agree Palestinians came later,"

You didn't "a moment ago", when misnaming Canaaneans "Palestinians".

"but targeting the Canaaneans was gods promise cannot be true because of a Jewish propaganda video in U tube clearly showed Abraham trying to claim gods promised land in Egypt not Canaan, which also showed him giving his wife to the Pharoe,knowing."

I am not gullible enough to believe everything a youtube video clearly shows. Unlike you apparently. Nor hysteric enough to disbelieve everything coming over internet. I test it against tradition as I know it.

And I have given reasons why the Hindoo tradition and similar ones, with Mahabharata and Bhagavadgita, are less creedible than Hebrew or even Pagan Greek one.

"I agree satee, and the rest are the perverted side shared by every religion,"

No, not EVERY one.

God has given His truth to His people. He had a people called the Hebrews, he still has a people called Catholics.

"like Krishna was manipulated to resort to double standard for the sake of implanted Hinduism to succeed."

If memory of Krishna was manipulated, how can we consider it probable he was a man of God?

A true prophet of God has his memory correctly preserved at least by some.

All who recall Krishna as Krishna recall him as having - as we Christians know falsely - said in Bhagavadgita "everything is the same". So, under that name he cannot have been a man of God.

I recall from Bible a man named Kush, which means, like Krishna in Sanscrit, "black". He was born after flood and could be grandson or greatgrandson of one who died 155 years before the Flood (people lived lots longer before the Flood). So, Krishna could have been a hero before the Flood. However, if he participated in any war like the Kurukshetra battle, he may have been Nodian, Cainite, and he may have been remembered by his own - the family of Ham, especially Kush's son Raman whom I consider as your Rama and as your ancestor and who named his own sons - if Raman was also hero of Ramayana - Kusha and Lova, as more pious than other Cainites, but since the line of Rama missed out on Abraham, since they became idolaters, they manipulated the memory wrongly, long before Hinduism and overdid, exaggerated, the holiness of that man. That is the truth that you can get out of me. Your tradition was manipulated, ours was, by God's grace, preserved and perfected.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
My point was not to attack any belief, but attack the fact that all religion, besides teaching moral values, invariably resorts also to deceit, manipulation etc and are instrument of domination.

Only Boddhiswatta can provide with a suitable mind set, and helped evolve the world as we know now, not Christianity, Judaisn, Islam etc.

Even Buddhism has aspects the are not consistent and rational (like detachment), or refraining from eating meat or believing in rebirth.

I had no idea you were a devout Jew, I gave examples of manipulation as part of all religion, and I did not intend to hurt you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"My point was not to attack any belief, but attack the fact that all religion, besides teaching moral values, invariably resorts also to deceit, manipulation etc and are instrument of domination."

My point was that you are wrong there.

"Only Boddhiswatta can provide with a suitable mind set, and helped evolve the world as we know now, not Christianity, Judaisn, Islam etc."

My point was that you are wrong there too.

If you are yourself willing to make an exception, as you do for "Boddhiswatta" (I have seen it written Boddhisattva), you have no reason to critique anyone else for also making an exception.

But I have a further point here.

YOUR exception is inaccessible. Your "Boddhiswatta mentality" is not accessible as identical to Buddhism, but inaccessible.

MY exception is accessible. It is Catholic Christianity.

"I had no idea you were a devout Jew, I gave examples of manipulation as part of all religion, and I did not intend to hurt you."

Hurting me is less important than that you were hurting truth and even good sense, even good logic.

And I am not a "devout Jew", I am a devout Roman Catholic Christian.

Unless devout is saying too much for me, of course.