Arya Samaj

Shishya

Bible, Koran are Violent, but 'Read Between Lines'
by
Linda Morris
of the
Sydney Morning Herald

The Bible has as many invocations to violence as the Koran, if not more, says an American biblical scholar and peace activist. There is a darker side to the sacred text that many Christians will not admit.

Alongside passages exhorting believers to love their neighbour and turn the other cheek are verses that refer to hellfire, encourage acts of violence or call for God to carry out acts of vengeance against sinners.

Even the Book of Psalms, generally regarded by Christians as uplifting and comforting, referred to the dashing of "little ones" against rock, said Chris Stanley, a professor of theology at St Bonaventure University in western New York state.

"There is the angry violent god of the Old Testament, but there is plenty of language in the New Testament that portrays God as a violent judge, and some that can be taken that human violence is something that God would ordain," Dr Stanley said.

Dr Stanley spoke at a two-day seminar hosted by the United Theological College that explored how religious texts have been used to validate violence - and can be reinterpreted to encourage dialogue between faiths.

This month, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, was criticised by Islamic leaders when he said the Koran was riddled with invocations to violence and described the central challenge of Islam as the struggle between moderate and extremist forces.

Dr Stanley said religious violence was not distinctively a Muslim problem and those who engage in violence and claim support from scripture are not necessarily twisting words, but picking up on past elements.

Christians and Jews each had to face up to, not paper over, their violent antecedents, and no religion could claim the moral high ground.

It was, however, sometimes harder for Muslims to deal critically with the violent statements in the Koran because of the belief that every word of the Koran is spoken by God.

The challenge, he said, was to have people follow those parts of the scriptures that espouse non-violence.

The prominent US theologian William Cavanaugh, in Australia on a speaking tour, said in Melbourne that Christianity, Islam and other faiths can and do contribute to violence in certain situations.

But he disputed that religions were more inclined towards violence than "secular" ideologies and institutions.

"The myth of religious violence promotes a dichotomy - us in the secular West who are rational and peacemaking, and them, the hordes of violent religious fanatics in the Muslim world," Dr Cavanaugh said.

"Regrettably, we find ourselves forced to bomb them into the higher rationality."

Garry Trompf, a professor of religious studies at the University of Sydney, said at the seminar that the propensity to violence predated salvational religious traditions and carried over from ancient times when fertility and victory were celebrated. These ancient religious instincts subverted latter-day traditions that considered the state of spiritual life to be more important than victory over enemies.

The things that you're liable to read in the Bible …

Psalms 137:9: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Matthew 10: 34-36: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

Deuteronomy 7:2: And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.

Psalms 58:10: The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

(Source)

Deepan Abisuriya · Junior Member Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 66

Namaste,

The quotations taken are out of context, to just present another book, another article by the Biblical scholar for fame and name.

These verses have a very different tune as you read the Bible. Thus, it is rightly said - read between line. That is why christians and jews are not as violent as the muslims, because they are taught to read the whole Bible before embarking on a doctrine.

Are you interested, shall I explain.

Deepan.

Shishya · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject:

Namaste Deepan,

Shyena · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject:

This is why I do not trust the authenticity of the extant gospels. They were maintained at time of poverty, suppression, etc... so naturally such kind of messages creep into it.
I've found certain places where there is inconsistency in bible - this shows that the message has not been preserved as it is.
_________________

Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam meditate

Namaste

Shishya · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject:

Namaste PD,

I appreciate your point of view, but aren't you assuming 1) that the Gospels once contained a higher/more direct statement of the truth (of which we have no evidence); and 2) that the Bible was ever truly consistent with itself? Perhaps your view is correct, but it seems to me that we would be assuming a great deal - and I still can't find a good reason for granting the Bible the benefit of the doubt.
_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject:

Shishya · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject:

Namaste Prabhat,

Even going by the tradition recorded in the Bible itself, the gospels were composed by different disciples of Jesus. They have always contained inconsistencies, and do so today. Is this proof of tampering or interpolation? I don't think so. In fact, if there had been alterations, we should expect just the opposite to have taken place: the elimination of the inconsistencies and the creation one unified version of the story. Instead, we have (at least) four different versions.

To understand why this happened, we have to understand the early history of the Church. After the death of Jesus, his followers recorded slightly differing histories of his life. This is because some of them saw him as a more mystical figure, while others as the literal son of God. Thus, there was no consensus as to who Jesus was and what he taught - even from the very beginning. Accordingly, the small groups that began forming around the individual disciples of Jesus started having their own ideas of him based on the record of their founder's retelling of the life of Jesus. There were some who followed Matthew, some who followed Mark, some who followed Luke, and some who followed John. (And, according to many experts, there were other Gospels written by other disciples as well - the most famous of which are the Gospels of Thomas [very mystical] and that of Judas, which was just recently discovered.) Therefore, the early Christians were very nearly doomed to religious oblivion due to their own subjective interpretations of his words and actions.

And this is why the first major Christian Church, founding itself on the authority of Peter (and with much help from Paul/Saul), was called the Catholic Church - catholic meaning 'all encompassing', which again was meant to indicate that all those rivalling factions of early Christians were to be accepted into it. Which is why the Bible as we have it today contains four different Gospels of the life of Jesus and not one.

Regardless, I am continually surprised by those who want to apologize for Jesus (and I mean apologize in the academic sense of the term). We talk about 'the true teachings of Christ' vs. 'the corrupted doctrines of the Church', totally blind to the fact that we have assumed Jesus was a holy man to begin with. And what is this assumption based on? It can't be on the scriptures, for those are under discussion as being corrupt. And we certainly didn't know Jesus personally. All we have to go on is what we see to be the behaviour of truly enlightened beings, and how that compares with the (quasi-)historical record of Jesus.

You may ask: Was Jesus truly enlightened? But for me, the more pressing question is: Does it really matter?
_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Deepan Abisuriya · Junior Member Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 66

Namaste,

Ps 137 depicts the sojourn of Israel after the conquest by Babylon and before that by Assyrians. These invaders had done worse to the Israelites as was the case with our India at the time of Mughal and western invasion.

They has also killed the children without mercy infront of their parents. And the Bible always has been teaching the Karma yoga of 'what so ever you do to others would be done to you again', thus this is the spirit of retaliation or curse of the suffering spirit of those who suffered under these conqurers, not by themselves but by the judgement of God, in the near future.

I some times feel the same when I read the history of our hindu kings, their wives and children killed and raped by the invaders. I some times feel when will the jihadees be destroyed by the all holy God.

Why has He spared them, even those who have no mercy on any one, why should God show them mercy. We have no power to take their lives as we cannot give life to any. But they don't understand this , and kill my fello friends, family and all my beloved. This was the same agony and pain seen in these verses. God is hurt when humans are hurt. And the inspiration to this song was for judgement by the souls of those who are alive physically, but are dead in spirit as they had seen their loved ones suffer these.

God takes revenge (He has set the natural law of action and reaction). He who raises the sword will die by the sword.

The verse also depicts the cruelity done to the Israelites and their longing for judgement.
Thus in the subject line rigtly says, read between the lines.
I think any scripture should be read with the historicity and the background of the chapters.

In the new testement Jesus Christ says :

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be the members of his own household.
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
And anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

Any spiritual man will understand that there is always a war with the those who don't understand spirituality and are carnal. For instance, take in my case, my whole family is christain, infact my father is amissionary in a denomination, my mother is a orthodox christian, who never drinks water before praying, my uncle has his own church. And with this background, when I said my decussion to become a Arya samajist hindu, there was only cursing and dejection of me.

I have suffered insults from all around me. In fact a emotional blackmail to endup thier live, if I converted. This brought between me and my family differences in opinion, thoughts, even controversies. But i have always followed what the Bible says, to respect elders, parents and authority, but stand for truth in humility and not take a sword and kill others for ones beliefs.

The Holy Bible always comares the sword with the word of truth . For instance :
Regarding the death of Christ and His life which will be contary to the carnal world, Simion tells Mother Mary saying- " yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also". Luke 2:35.

Speaking about the spiritual war we all spiritual souls go through, is says, "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit..."Eph 6:17.

Speaking about the truth being spread in the whole world and there would be great spiritual awakeing, there is a verse in the book of Revelation.
"Now out of his mouth goes a sharp sword , that which he should strike the nations". Rev. 19:15. This depits that the political and religious powers who are rulling the world in evil, will be warned, not by bloodshed, but by words.

Therefore, the sword mentioned by Jesus Christ is the difference of opinions in which the opinion of truth works like a sword to kill evil opinin, proving the famous statement of - truth will win.

In this world where sathya and asathya is exists, there will always be a cintridiction and sathya will win. Sathya always respects elders, members in the family and the society at large. But when those members of family and society teach and do things which are not sathy, the followers of sathya will be confronted. This happened with Swamy Dayanand, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Shankaracharya, Acharya Vinoba, Martin Luther, St Paul, St Thomas, etc, etc, etc.

This is the interpretation and many more we can analyse, which will lead us to ahimsa, and not to himsa. No christian has ever taken sword refering to these verses.

Deepan.

Shishya · Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject:

Namaste Deepan,

I do admire your willingness to overlook the faults of others. However, we must not blind ourselves to the truth before us.

Let us first review the intent of the author referred to and quoted in the above article. His main objective, I believe, was to show that Christians and Jews, while they criticize Islam for preaching violence, are not wholly innocent of the same. He pointed out passages from the Old and New Testaments that show the image of Divinity depicted there, though clearly one of love and compassion, is also one of a vengeful and jealous God.

I think he was successful in realizing his objective. You, however, have commented that you see his references as being taken out of context. Initially, I was referring to the textual context, but you have decided to widen the scope and refer instead to the historical context. Furthermore, you have tried to show that the statements calling for revenge and retribution in the Bible are, in fact, justified when seen from the historical context in which they took place. Let us, then, form a clearer picture of that historical context.

It may be true that the Babylonians committed crimes against the Israelites – they were, after all, their conquerors and masters for a full 70 years according to the biblical account. But we would be willingly ignorant to claim that the Jews were innocent lambs prior to the fall of Jerusalem. How did Israel come by its land in the first place? As the Bible tells us: by waging war against the inhabitants of the territories they felt were promised to them by God. In this war, the Jews did not hesitate to stoop to any device or means they saw as potentially helpful in gaining victory – including the breaking of oaths and the swearing of peace under false terms. And as a continual commentary to all these crimes, the Bible wipes them clean of any moral wrongdoing, claiming that the Israelites were simply carrying out the Will of God.

The Jews were, by their own account, invaders and occupiers of the land they called their own. And for this, they say, God blessed them and made a covenant with them, so that they should serve as priests unto the whole world. However, when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, tearing down the walls of the temple there, this was to be seen as an act of naked aggression. And the Jews implored God that He may grant them vengeance and retribution, such that even the children of the Babylonians should be put to death, ‘dashed upon the stones’.

This is in tune with the biblical maxim: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Yet, you have said this is the same as the Law of Karma as taught in the Vedas. Is this really so? The question here is this: Is man empowered to execute God’s Judgement?

I feel that, upon closer examination, we should see that acts of human retribution and the Law of Karma are mutually exclusive when seen from a moral perspective. For if God had willed that man be the executor of His Judgement, then what need is there for a Law of Karma to begin with? And if there is a Law of Karma, then of what purpose is human retribution?

To believe in the Law of Karma is to realize that God is both just and merciful in and of Himself, and requires no aid from man in the execution of His Judgement. I find the very notion that a person who stretches out his hand to kill another could be doing the work of God repulsive, to be honest. Not only for the implication of God in murder, but also for the implication that man could ever understand the Mind of God well enough to carry out His Judgement for Him.

Therefore, I cannot but see the law of human retribution and the Law of Karma as being two very different things. The one is to accept the events of life as just and merciful in their occurrence, while the other is to take divine justice into one’s own hands, which I see as tantamount to assuming the role of God Himself.

You ask: “Why has he (God) spared them (i.e. killers and rapists), even those who have no mercy on anyone?” Let us doubt neither God’s Wisdom, nor His Justness nor His Mercy. God knows best, and it is not for men to accuse God of inactivity or laziness in the execution of justice. God’s plan in infinitely more complex than the mind of man could even begin to comprehend – which is why God has instituted the Law of Karma and not left justice up to the hands of small-minded and vengeful men.

And let us be clear on one point: God’s instituting the Law of Karma is not the same as God ‘taking revenge’. God does not seek revenge. He does not get hurt, angry or seek to harm anyone. His Will is that should all should receive that which they give in like kind. This is perfect justice and perfect mercy combined.

Therefore, I see two very different philosophies at work here. On the one hand we have the Judeo-Christian view that God, when wronged, is spiteful and seeks revenge upon those who harm his followers. On the other we have the Vedic view that God is just and merciful to all according to their deeds. The difference between these two positions cannot be overlooked without doing grave injury to the principles of moral theology.

Regarding the passage from the New Testament:

The issue at hand is not what Jesus meant by ‘the sword’ – at least, I do not feel it was the author’s intent to imply that the mentioning of the sword indicates willingness to do violence on the part of Jesus. Rather, the issue is the creation of animosity between the members of one household, violating the principles of filial piety in favour of the doctrine of a particular man. You said, “…but I have always followed what the Bible says: to respect elders, parents and authority…” The passage under discussion, however, directs you to do exactly the opposite. It says: ‘Let the members of your family be severed from you, cut away, as if by a sword’. Your actual behaviour under the present circumstances is to be commended. You are acting nobly under difficult conditions. However, are you sure this is what the passage quoted from Jesus is telling you to do?

The point I have tried to make in my various discussions of Jesus and the New Testament is that people (typically Hindus) read far more into the Bible than is actually there. They want Jesus to be a guru, a sadhu, a saint, a wise man, and they read and interpret the Bible with this intent. The thing I can’t understand is why they want to portray Jesus as such in the first place. Jesus is not their concern. He was the concern of a very small group of individuals 2000 years ago in a tiny place far, far away from here. Why must we continually try and make sense of his doctrines? Why can we not simply go on towards that which we understand to be the truth instead of trying to infuse the words of the Bible with deeper meanings that are not really there to begin with? It would be perhaps understandable if the Bible was the only vestige of wisdom left on this earth and we were hard-pressed to find the truth. But this is not the case. We have the Vedas in their entirety, sitting there, waiting to be read. How can it matter what Jesus ‘really taught’ when we have the source of wisdom before us?
_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:

Shyena · Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject:

There are a few things i'm opposed to...

Deepan Abisuriya · Junior Member Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 66

Namaste to all Very Happy

God never takes revenge. I agree, that is why I have written in the bracket, that it is the natural law. This words of "God taking revenge" is a symbolism of God creating such a natural law which by itslef has the capacity to destroy the pollution and sin. This is symbolised as shiva in puranas (the destroyer who recreates). This is just a symbolism of expression.

God is love, the message of the Holy Bible and christianity has been this. But the Bible has the blend of all laws serving the time and circumstances. But sin is not permitted. The man who follows ahimsa has moksha, but he who lifts the sword dies by the sword. Look at David who sinned, he suffered for his sins.

Jesus Christ has been teaching ahimsa. I neednot quote verses of "love your enemies, do good to them who hate u..."and so on and so forth. Even while crucufiction He followed ahimsa. Thus, it is good for us to understand the essence of His spiritual teaching, and not go by the letters. Many who have gone by the letters of the vedas have neglected the theme and become superstitious, and have misconceptions, that they totally reject the vedas.

Jesus Christ infact in his childhood and youth was submissive to his parents. He was in the society as a man of peace. But he always saw an inward war in man, between good and evil. Thus He says, for moksha we need to leave all earthly ties. Not to neglect our duties of life. In fact at the time of His death on the cross, he said to John to take care of his mother (Mother Mary).
He fullfilled His duty as a son to his earthly mother. Teaching us to do the same.

But when confronted with a misrepresentation of the truth, we are to answer them (family) the truth, and not bow to the false theories in acceptance. If I would have bowed to the false teachings of christianity (which is not the Bible), I would have died in the irreligious religion of christianity which teaches not the Holy Bible, but claims to be doing so (misrepresenting to convert to westen thoughts by hook or crook).

I think I have not justified or overlooked any faults but presented the thoughts which have been presented in the scriptures. I find no inconsistancy within the Holy Bible or Quran. May be because I studied the Bible and Quran as intently as I did with the Vedas.

But it doesnot require anyone to change their opinion because of my opinion. All are hindus, and we hindus believe taht dharma will protect him who protects dharma in him, and that trith will win, it is just matter of time and study.

May be in the near future we may have better explanations for the scriptures we read. As per my research (which will be out soon), no inconsistency between scriptures, nor does it exist in them.

Jesus is a univarsal person, who lead people to vedic dharma. And the Bible and Quran were given to different races in their language in thier time, to divert them to vedic dharm, when they were going towards sin and destruction.

Being a hindu doesnot mean we reject Jesus Christ who is mentioned in the vedantha, Bible and Quran. You may reject saying it is not authentic. But there are many who prove their authenticity.

Rama and Krishna were sons of a dynasty and in the lineage of sathya Harishchandra and many other noble kings of hindu rajya. But why sathya Harishchandra is not worshiped? And paramathama Sri Krishna says in Bhagavatgeetha that, "when ever evil raises in bharatha khanda"....not in the whole world.

But Christ coming was predicted thrughout the world civilisation thousands of years prior to his birth. And the wise men from different nations came to see his birth. He says that His kingdom is not of this earth, but from heaven. But Rama rajya, is a heaven on earth of hindu race by hindus, with hindu law and culture; not a universal kingdom which Jesus Christ kingdom is predicted to be. Thus there is no contradiction and I stand for both.

I want Rama rajya - my hindu nation as a heaven on earth, lead by hindus, with hindu culture and practices (not by popes and arabians interfering from abroad). We have our own identity in the world erina and I insist it should be so. And Rama rajya is our identity. But Christ Kingdom is after the destruction of the world after sathya yuga( the enlightened time as per the Bible). Therefore Jesus Christ is not anti hindu, nor Sri krishan and Rama anti-christain. . But yes ant-westen and against anything unholy. So is Jesus Christ against all evil. A hindu can believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Sri Rama as the paramathma.

Thus I disregard those who insult Sri Krishna and even those who worship him as almighty God. God never takes incarnation. Sri Rama and Krishna were kings who were filled with paramathma. They taught the words of God, but were not God themselves, so you can see in them the human emotions of kama, krodha etc,etc.

Jesus Christ is said to been tempted with the passions of flesh, but without sin. Jesus Christ is the "Word became flesh", not almighty God become incarnate as projected by many. He was in the beginning as OM, and God sent Him to become the sacrifice for the sins of the world (which sin?- will explain later). He too should not be worshiped, but since he is a part of God, should be honoured, and not elavated to equalise with God almighty.

Jesus Christ himself said, "worship Him who sent me in my name". What is the speciality of His name? Please refer to the manthra yoga. Thus I even don't find anything rediculus to insult Jesus Christ. He was Son of God as he claims to be.

I will never thik that those who are discussing in this forum are racists, or fanatics. I always belive in hindutva and truth. Both are one and the same. Phylosophies may be varied, it is to discuss, not to accuse and curse one another.

Those who think that you are a fanatic or a racist, are those who have not understood the fact that all humans are finite in knowledge. We are not God to be infinite in knowlege. Each have their view. I respect your view. May be when u discuss with me you may understand my view better. Lets hope for that.

That's arya (noble ) thought. Agreed?. Very Happy

Be a individual with individual phylosophy which convinces you, but ever ready to change when the thought of others is correct and more convincing. I am of this thought, I belive this is correct. I see in all the members here the same thought.

Thank God namaste

for the Aryas and arya samaj.

Namaste
Deepan.

Shyena · Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject:

I wont say that it is inauthentic - I say it is misinterpreted. I'd also like to know what jesus is supposed to have rescued us from. From what I can tell in the bible, jesus was less of a godman and more of a human, which makes him all the more worthy of praise.

The line from geeta is actually:
"Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion - at that time I descend myself" - Geeta 4:7
So its limited to india...

As for this worshipping thing, either of these two are true:
1)Raama and Krishna are Vishnu incarnate
2)They were pious souls who were glorified and slowly deified as time passed
The second option is actually more viable for me and the characters being human, I find them more inspirational.

I dont understand what you mean by 'word became flesh' - what you mean to say is that he is a pious soul incarnate? To say that he is the word incarnate is not so sensible.. Shruti say that vedas are the word of god, so unless he meant - i spread the vedic wisdom..

When he said 'sent me in my name' - it can also be a reference to his title, christos - the saviour.
_________________

Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam meditate

Namaste

Deepan Abisuriya · Junior Member Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 66

Namaste,

I believe that 'vishnu' means saving power personified. And all the avataras have been the ones who exemplified this power.

Sri Krishna is the paramathma, as like King David in the Bible, who is known as a man with God's heart. When in inspiration of the Holy Spirit (paramathma) he spoke like God, but in his daily life he was a yogi, but he did mistakes and sins whcih he repents for later. So were all the great souls of all religions. In their own lives we see them making mistakes and even sins which they later regret. The avataras whom we in India believe were of our race, but there were many of different races. And vedic dharma , I beleive is inclusive of all noble thoughts from all the world, that is the reason we believe that Vedas are universal. So it is with Bible and Quran (if righty interpreted).

Jesus Christ is the "om" ("The Word") who became a man, not for the purpose of starting a new religion but to reiterate the scriptures and die for the sins of the world. That is why Quran says Jesus to be the Massiah.

Sacrifice for sins of the world means, to remove from our hearts and mind - the regret,confusion and the spiritual darkness which pervades us after a sin (it can be hurting a friend just by our words) is committed. This is not removing the result (karma) of our sins. Infact Jesus taught Karma Yoga, by saying 'what so ever you sow that shall you reap'. The result of your deeds will be nothing but the reaction to your own action .
You do good, you receive good. He died to reconnect us to God by his suffering (penalty of spirital degradation which He took for Himself).

The sacrifice for the sins is more spiritual and also of the nature. Spiritualty influences the nature around us and nature around us influences the spiritual in us. Thus Jesus Christ sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world influence the spiritual and also the nature around us. If inward we are holy outwardly we exemplify the bliss of eternal life in us, which is enlightenment in us. And as God's action can be seen in the nature and spiritual, so is the spiritual things seen in the nature.

Hence when Jesus was on the cross, a mysterious darkness covered the land. And His death tore the curton of the temple signifying that no sacrifices of animals are to be made for the salvation of mankind (removal of sinfactor from heart and for enlightenment or self realisation).

Christianity has misinterpreted this as the "law been taken away on the cross"- the Bible uses this words to depict the grusome sacrificial laws of sacrifices which were removed by His death, and not the moral laws of the scriptures. Why would Jesus Christ remove the holy laws when He himself followed , and before He became man, had Himself given the law (as the "Word" on mount Sinai).

I don't know how much expressively I was able to putforth my thoughts in words. But it is true that Jesus Christ was predicted in differnt sources, in differnt nations, for thousands of years ago, than Sri Krishna. Sri Krishna was a King and yogi, who was filled with paramathma (God's Spirit)at that time (very much relevant today as he was then) to give us the light of truth (Bhagawath Geetha). And Jesus Christ- The Word (OM) sent by God in human form to to be a sacrifice and to confirm all that the paramathmas had taught.

I find no contradiction in this as no one equals God the almighty. God spoke though the paramathma and through the Word.

My analysis (hinduism -the realisation of moksha) will be posted in a new thread, if permitted.

Deepan.