Saturday, August 11, 2018

Origin of Roman Catholic Church – 78

Continued from previous post –
Western scholars continue to assert that historians believe Jesus lied. However, scholars have scrutinized Jesus’ words and life to see if there is any evidence of a defect in his moral character. In fact, even the most ardent skeptics are stunned by Jesus’ moral and ethical purity. This is an additional proof that Jesus was murdered or there was an attempt to kill him to appease Jew priests. There influence in the Roman government was high, they did not want to disturb them, and at the same time, they did not want to kill Jesus.
According to historian Philip Schaff, there is no evidence, either in church history or in secular history that Jesus lied about anything. Schaff argued, “How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could a deceitful, selfish, depraved man have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality?” This explains that it was a conspiracy by Jewish priest to condemn him in the eyes of gentry.
To go with the option of liar seems to swim upstream against everything Jesus taught, lived, and died for. To most scholars, it just does not make sense. Yet, to deny Jesus’ claims, one must come up with some explanation. And if Jesus’ claims are not true, and he wasn’t lying, the only option remaining is that he must have been self-deceived.
Continues in next post –
You may contact me on my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit my other blogs
Ashok Kothare, http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com/ for stories
I reckon, http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/ for philosophy
You may visit blog, Freedom of Expression,
Freedom of Expression, http://kothare-thinks.blogspot.in/

Marathi blog, http://kothare-marathi.blogspot.in/ मला असे वाटते 

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Origin of Roman Catholic Church – 77

Continued from previous post –

New Testament scholar, J. I. Packer, points out that this title asserts Jesus’ personal deity.
So if Jesus was above lying for personal benefit, perhaps his radical claims were falsified in order to leave a legacy. But the prospect of being beaten to a pulp and nailed to a cross would quickly dampen the enthusiasm of most would-be superstars.
Here is another haunting fact. If Jesus were to have simply dropped the claim of being God’s Son, he never would have been condemned. It was his claim to be God and his unwillingness to recant of it that got him crucified. However, there are other views those say that crucification of Jesus was not merely because he claimed to be Son of God but the ever increasing popularity he was gaining amongst common masses. Priest community was afraid that if Jesus continues to get such overwhelming support he might commence his own cult similar to his predecessor, John the Baptist. Therefore, to consider that if Jesus had accepted that he was not Son of God, priests of Jew community would allow him to continue his activities in that nation is not correct. They wanted to get rid of him anyway.
If enhancing his credibility and historical reputation was what motivated Jesus to lie, one must explain how a carpenter’s son from a poor Judean village could ever anticipate the events that would catapult his name to worldwide prominence. How would he know his message would survive? Jesus’ disciples had fled and Peter had denied him. That could not be exactly the formula for launching a religious legacy.

Continues in the next post –

You may contact me on my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit my other blogs
Ashok Kothare, http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com/ for stories
I reckon, http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/ for philosophy
You may visit blog, Freedom of Expression,
Freedom of Expression, http://kothare-thinks.blogspot.in/

Marathi blog, http://kothare-marathi.blogspot.in/ मला असे वाटते 

Monday, July 2, 2018

Origin of Roman Catholic Church – 76

Continued from previous post –

The question we must deal with is what could possibly motivate Jesus to live his entire life as a lie? Or did he really lived as that? He taught that God was opposed to lying and hypocrisy, so he would not have been doing it to please his Father. He certainly did not lie for his followers’ benefit, since all but one was martyred rather than renouncing his Lordship. John the Baptist was his predecessor who was similarly chastised by Jew Priesthood for the same reason. Jew priesthood was haunted by the presumption of their own making that these two are their competitor in the business of religion. Even though, the situation was not that. Neither John the Baptist nor Jesus were interested in establishing any new religion but they only wanted to enlighten common masses of that region, they were working for all people and not only for Jews. Mostly they were working for Areamian people who were living in the same region. Therefore, we are left with only two other reasonable explanations, each of which is problematic.
Many people have lied for personal gain. In fact, the motivation of most lies is some perceived benefit to oneself. What could Jesus have hoped to gain from lying about his identity? Power would be the most obvious answer. If people believed he was God, he would have tremendous power. (That is why many ancient leaders, such as the Caesars, claimed divine origin.)
The rub with this explanation is that Jesus shunned all attempts to move him in the direction of seated power, instead chastising those who abused such power and lived their lives pursuing it. He also chose to reach out to the outcasts (prostitutes and lepers), those without power, creating a network of people whose influence was less than zero. In a way that could only be described as bizarre, all that Jesus did and said moved diametrically in the other direction from power.
It would seem that if power was Jesus’ motivation, he would have avoided the cross at all costs. Yet, on several occasions, he told his disciples that the cross was his destiny and mission. How would dying on a Roman cross bring one power?
Death, of course, brings all things into proper focus. And while many martyrs have died for a cause they believed in, few have been willing to die for a known lie. Certainly all hopes for Jesus’ own personal gain would have ended on the cross.
Yet, to his last breath, he would not relinquish his claim of being the unique Son of God.

Continues in the next post –

You may contact me on my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit my other blogs
Ashok Kothare, http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com/ for stories
I reckon, http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/ for philosophy
You may visit blog, Freedom of Expression,
Freedom of Expression, http://kothare-thinks.blogspot.in/

Marathi blog, http://kothare-marathi.blogspot.in/ मला असे वाटते 

Monday, June 11, 2018

Origin of Roman Catholic Church – 75

Continued from previous post –
In his quest for truth, Lewis knew that he could not have it both ways with the identity of Jesus. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be—God in the flesh—or his claims were false. And if they were false, Jesus could not be a great moral teacher. Either he would be lying intentionally or he would be a lunatic with a God complex. Conversely, we should note that people who are trying to apprehend him are not competent to understand him. This approach is more suitable because to understand such great souls is not the work of ordinary people who may be thinking that they are competent to understand Jesus. According to Hindu belief, every body is god from within and the only difference is that ordinary person is not aware that he/she is god from within. All Hindu philosophy is aimed at this one approach. Therefore, by Hindu approach this claim of Jesus that he is god is perfectly acceptable. However, by European mind critics this approach is not accepted since there teaching is different. They do not understand the idea that we humans are gods from within.
Even Jesus’ harshest critics rarely have called him a liar. That label certainly doesn’t fit with Jesus’ high moral and ethical teaching. But if Jesus isn’t who he claimed to be, we must consider the option that he was intentionally misleading everyone.
One of the best-known and most influential political works of all time was written by Niccolò Machiavelli in 1532. In his classic, The Prince, Machiavelli exalts power, success, image, and efficiency above loyalty, faith, and honesty. According to Machiavelli, lying is okay if it accomplishes a political end.
Could Jesus Christ have built his entire ministry upon a lie just to gain power, fame, or success? In fact, the Jewish opponents of Jesus were constantly trying to expose him as a fraud and liar. They would barrage him with questions in attempts to trip him up and make him contradict himself. Yet Jesus responded with remarkable consistency.
Continues in the next post –

You may contact me on my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit my other blogs
Ashok Kothare, http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com/ for stories
I reckon, http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/ for philosophy
You may visit blog, Freedom of Expression,
Freedom of Expression, http://kothare-thinks.blogspot.in/

Marathi blog, http://kothare-marathi.blogspot.in/ मला असे वाटते 

Monday, May 21, 2018

Origin of Roman Catholic Church – 74

Continued from previous post –
Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God….and this man, since He was a Hindu but of that nobody from that region knew, could mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the material visible world, who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. Moreover, when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips. For those local people however, nobody ever objected to his claim of being God or part of God. In fact, in those days people there never ever could realize difference in Jew religion and Hindu as they did not know of none of them. Nevertheless, modern Christian scholars having mistaken Jesus as of Jew linage fail to understand him. Certainly, there are those who accept Jesus as a great teacher, yet are unwilling to call him God. As a Deist, we’ve seen that Thomas Jefferson had no problem accepting Jesus’ teachings on morals and ethics while denying his being a deity. But as we’ve said, and will explore further, if Jesus was not who he claimed to be, then we must examine some other alternatives, none of which would make him a great moral teacher. Lewis, argued, “I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say.” Amongst Hindus, there is no objection to accept a person as being incarnation of God or of some divine spirit. Since that practice is very common amongst Hindus. However, Hindus have freedom to accept Jesus as a saint but not actually a god; they do not mind him to be as somebody talking for god. In Hindus tradition, it is a very common practice. Since the Christian scholars do not have that freedom, they are in a way stuck up in the confusion. There ignorance keeps them from understanding the ways of the world.

Continues in the next post –

You may contact me on my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit my other blogs
Ashok Kothare, http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com/ for stories
I reckon, http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/ for philosophy
You may visit blog, Freedom of Expression,
Freedom of Expression, http://kothare-thinks.blogspot.in/

Marathi blog, http://kothare-marathi.blogspot.in/ मला असे वाटते 

Monday, April 30, 2018

Origin of Roman Catholic Church – 73

Continued from previous post –
C. S. Lewis initially considered Jesus a myth. But this literary genius who knew myths well, concluded that Jesus had to have been a real person. Furthermore, as Lewis investigated the evidence for Jesus, he became convinced that not only was Jesus real, but he was unlike any man who had ever lived. Lewis writes,
Then comes the real shock,’ wrote Lewis: ‘Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time.”
To Lewis, Jesus’ claims were simply too radical and profound to have been made by an ordinary teacher or religious leader.
Some have argued that Jesus was only claiming to be part of God. However, the idea that we are all part of God, and that within us is the seed of divinity, is simply not a possible meaning for Jesus’ words and actions. Such thoughts are revisionist, foreign to his teaching, foreign to his stated beliefs, and foreign to his disciples’ understanding of his teaching. Here I should refer to what Hindu teachings suggest. That says we have all the three elemental aspects within us and what element we encourage makes us of that type. Those three elemental instincts are divine, animal and satanic. Jesus throughout his teachings has insisted that his followers must develop divine instinct and simply refuses to study other two. In Hindu, teachings all the three are studied with judicious balance because Hindu teaching accepts that all the three are inter related and cannot be studied separately. I believe Jesus deliberately avoided mentioning the other two because the type of people he was dealing were already much closer to those two basic instincts.
Jesus taught that he is God in the way the Jews understood God and the way the Hebrew Scriptures portrayed God, not in the way the New Age movement understands God. Neither Jesus nor his audience had been weaned on Star Wars, and so when they spoke of God, they were not speaking of cosmic forces. It’s simply bad history to redefine what Jesus meant by the concept of God. All these discussions are based on one presumption that Jesus was a Jew! Whereas we know from the lingo he used that he was an Armenians, Some suggest that the same dialects was common amongst other groups also residing in the same region what today we call Syria. That group was called Areamians. Today we see that most of these Areamians are now practicing Islam. And they speak Arabic. While Armenians prefer to remain as Christians, they are called Syrian Christians. there are cults also in that region practicing the teachings of Jesus and they are termed by many other names, however, nobody call themselves as Jesusians! Why this term Christian became more common is difficult to explain. Some suggest that Jesus was anointed by a saint who is supposed to be the father figure in Jesuit line. He was called Baptist because he was the one who began to, so called; authenticate children in the cult in which Jesus is second father figure. They were not Jews. We never shall understand the sayings of both Jesus and Baptist unless we accept the notion that Jesus was not a Jew by tradition; the concept of religion was very vague in those days. Those who were anointed with water were called Christians. Therefore, this term became common with all. If we want to be honest with facts of the history, we should accept Baptist as the founder of this cult to which Jesus promoted through his teachings.

Continues in the next post –

You may contact me on my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit my other blogs
Ashok Kothare, http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com/ for stories
I reckon, http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/ for philosophy
You may visit blog, Freedom of Expression,
Freedom of Expression, http://kothare-thinks.blogspot.in/

Marathi blog, http://kothare-marathi.blogspot.in/ मला असे वाटते 

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Origin of Roman Catholic Church - 72

Continued from previous post –

Jesus never claimed to be the God of Abraham & Moses -

Jesus continually referred to himself in ways that confounded his listeners. As Piper notes, Jesus made the audacious statement, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” He told Martha and others around her, “I AM the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he is dead, yet shall he live.” Likewise, Jesus would make statements like, “I AM the light of the world,” “I AM the only way to God,” or, “I AM the “truth.” These and several other of his claims were preceded by the sacred words for God, “I AM” (ego eimi). What did Jesus mean by such statements, and what is the significance of the term, “I AM”? These utterances of Jesus as they are attributed to him have surprising similarity to what lord Krishna often uttered in his address in his speech to his best friend and pupil Arjuna. For westerners these comments may appear strange but for a Hindu they are not so. Because we firmly believe that every one is god from within however, he/she is not aware of that. It is possible that Jesus having attained salvation in that life, knew that the fact, He is God!
Once again, we must go back to context. In the Hebrew Scriptures, when Moses asked God His name at the burning bush, God answered, “I AM.” He was revealing to Moses that He is the one and only God who is outside of time and has always existed. Incredibly, Jesus was using these holy words to describe himself. The question is, “Why?"
Since the time of Moses, no practicing Jew would ever refer to himself or anyone else by “I AM.” As a result, Jesus’ “I AM” claims infuriated the Jewish leaders. One time, for example, some leaders explained to Jesus why they were trying to kill him: “Because you, a mere man, have made yourself God.”
Jesus’ usage of God’s name greatly angered the religious leaders. The point is that these Old Testament scholars knew exactly what he was saying—he was claiming to be God, the Creator of the universe. It is only this claim that would have brought the accusation of blasphemy. To read into the text that Jesus claimed to be God is clearly warranted, not simply by his words, but also by their reaction to those words. Here we note that these western Christian scholars do not have the hint that this man Jesus was not a Jew by faith but strangely enough, Jesus was preaching what we today call religion of Hindus. This term Hindu is of Arab origin, in the days of Jesus this faith was referred to as "Human religion" in India. When this we understand, things fit well in the argument.

Continues in next post-

Continues in the next post –

You may contact me on my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit my other blogs
Ashok Kothare, http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com/ for stories
I reckon, http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/ for philosophy
You may visit blog, Freedom of Expression,
Freedom of Expression, http://kothare-thinks.blogspot.in/

Marathi blog, http://kothare-marathi.blogspot.in/ मला असे वाटते