Was Jesus a Tamil Hindu?

From time to time, there has been this idea being marketed that Jesus lived and died in India. The Bible explicitly mentions Jesus before 12 and after 30. There is no explicit mention of what happened in between. This has led some people to claim that during the 'silent years of Jesus', he came and lived in India. There has even been claims that say Jesus was buried in India. The latest theory that is making the news, apparently first written seventy years before, is that Jesus was born a Tamil Hindu, and Christianity is a Hindu sect and Jesus spent his later years in the Himalayas and died there. Could it be true? Does the Bible give evidences that point to the contrary? Well, I think there are evidences that suggest that Jesus never lived in India.

First point. In his 30s, as recorded by Luke, when Jesus began to do his ministry, he had his own critics. On one occasion, in his hometown i.e Nazareth, the village he grew up, when he began to teach, he faced his critics. The critics said, 'Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son...' This suggests that the people of Nazareth knew him as a carpenter. Had Jesus done such work just once or twice, he would not be known as a carpenter. It is plausible to say that because of his consistent engagement with this work, he was known that way. He was not known as a fisherman or a tax collector because he did not do that kind of job. Carpentry would have been his 'profession' just as fishing was Peter's. But someone at 15 would not be a 'carpenter', at 15 one would be just an amateur. It is reasonable to suppose that one could become a fisherman or a carpenter only when one has attained at least 18 and then continued engaging with the work for years. From 18-20 to 28-30 did Jesus engage himself as a carpenter for which he then came to be known as a carpenter? Possibly! The biblical text suggests that Jesus grew up in the Middle East, and not in India.

Second point. In his teaching ministry that he started around 30, he used lot of parables. The parables he told suggest that Jesus knew the 'ways of life' of the people there. If Jesus had lived in Siberia, he would have used parables from such region. One could make that out from reading the parables. Parables of the lost sheep, vineyard, fishing net, mustard seed etc. suggest that he grew up in Israel, not just in his early years when he would be too young to learn much but also in his adult years. Moreover, his conversation with the religious leaders and his teaching suggest that he was very much well-versed in the Old Testament. Only a person who continuously received teaching even well onto adult years would have knowledge of such sort. For example, when one reads Buddha's discourse it is not very difficult to know that such thought would have come about only after years of learning and meditation. Just a year or two of learning would not produce such insight. Similarly, to have such insight and understanding, Jesus would have immersed in so many years of studying the Old Testament. And that is possible only if he lived and grew up there in Israel.

Third point. In ancient India, there emerged two figures, Gautama Buddha and Mahavira, who came out of Vedic Hinduism. These two moved away from Vedic theology, but their teaching has traces of Vedic theology. Even if they tried to move away, they were successful only up to certain extent. Had Jesus received heavy dose of Vedic teaching in the Himalayas, it is quite possible that we find traces of Vedic theology in Jesus' teaching. But this is not so. Instead it is the Old Testament background that we find all over in Jesus teaching, and complete absence of Vedic theology. Had Jesus been heavily influenced by Vedic theology, even if he wanted to get away, like that of Gotama and Mahavira, it would still be visible in his teaching. The absence of Vedic theology suggests that Jesus never came to the Himalayas/India. 

NB: This article is a slightly modified version of what has been posted here. 

Same Sex Marriage, Bible and N T Wright

Paul writes "... God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" ( Rom 1: 26-27, NIV) 

Did Paul mean the kind of same sex relations where there was no commitment for life long relationship or was Paul making a sweeping generalisation about same sex sexual relations as such? Was Paul leaving a room for same sex life long marriage while saying that same sex relations without life long commitment was unnatural and therefore wrong? 

Well, I think Paul was making a sweeping generalisation about all kinds of same sex sexual relations as such as Wright rightly explains the general narrative running through the Scripture. 

Overcoming Gender Bias in Institutions

There are two institutions in our society that require modification for the purpose of better functioning. They are functioning okay as of now, but with modification the functioning will get even better. Not only will the institutions function better, such modification will also empower a significant percent of our population more than what it is now, and the cumulative effect of such modification will have a huge bearing on the overall Naga society. The two institutions about which I shall argue for modification are Church and the Village Council.

In our society there is hardly any church that allows women to be part of the deacon board. The deacon board has been 'all male group'. There is nothing inherently wrong in having only the male as members of the deacon board provided all the male deacon members are qualified and that there is no female in the given church who is as qualified as the males members, if not better. However, if there are females in a given village/church who are as qualified as the males, it is important to bring females into the deacon board. Churches/villages which are of moderate or small size struggle to get adequate number of people who are well qualified to take leadership. And given this challenge, bringing in females can very address this predicament. In the Bible, for example, we find Phoebe as a deaconess (Roms 15.1). If early church has a deaconess, why not today even in our churches! A church consists both male and female, young and old. And having, say, two females in a team of church leadership will enable the church to minister more effectively to the church members.

Another area of change that may serve us well is to bring in women into the village council. Traditionally it has been again 'all male group'. But traditions can be changed; rules can be rewritten. And it is we who must rewrite it whenever such rewriting is required. Other people will not come and change our rules. Nor do others know when and how to bring changes. Naga women have been peacemakers for generation. Known for sympathy and honesty, when men quarrel on money matters, women can bring transparency in money management. When villages quarrel over border dispute, women can be peacemakers. In term of brain power, there is no difference between men and women. And when many educated men in the villages are working in the cities, rendering many villages shortage of qualified men to administer the village, bringing in women into village administration can make village council more efficient.

Notwithstanding the more efficient functioning of these institutions that women can contribute to, women deserve to be given the chance to work for the larger society for their own good. Any given society that ignores women ignores 50% of the citizen of the society. And when there is the capability and there is no inherent reason why actualising and flowering of such capability is absent, society must not restrain women to flourish and develop their capability. Women are allowed to become an MLA or an MP or even as Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) or as President ( Pratibha Patil). Given that the world has gone far ahead in term of empowering women, it is high time that capable women are allowed to come into leadership team in different domain of our lives. There is no society that has expressed regrets by allowing women to serve their society with men side by side as partners.

Immovable property inheritance right for women is an area that requires more time to implement given the political matrix in the Naga areas. Considering the land ownership system at present, giving equal right to women on such issue will damage the society instead of bringing a more progressive outlook. For example, to allow a Gujarati man who married a Naga girl own land in village A in Senapati district is too much of a problem for the society at present. This is to bring more harm than good with the present system. However, one can envision our society functioning better and our women empowered to bloom if they are given room to share responsibility and work alongside men in the church as well as in the village Council.

Psalms 15

In this Psalm, David asks the question who may dwell in God's sanctuary; one who is righteous and just. Then David goes on to provide the answer to his own question, and he says: 

"He whose walk is blameless"; meaning, not one who has not being morally upright at all time, but who might have been morally wrong yet is forgiven and is now not blameworthy, now blameless. He is a person who stands blameless now. 

"and who does what is righteous,

 who speaks the truth from his heart

and does not speak ill of others,

who does his neighbour no wrong

and casts no slur on his fellow human, 

who despises a vile man

but honours those who fear the Yahweh, 

who keeps his word

even when it hurts, 

who lends his money without interest

and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. 

He who does these things

will never be shaken." 

David does think that one who accepts bribery is wrong and does not merit to be in God's sanctuary. Yes, bribery blinds the eye. Bribery takes away the good from the one who deserves and gives it to the one who deserves not, and this why bribery is wrong. 

Yoga vs PraiseMoves

Christianity: A Too Other Worldly Religion?

From time to time there has been those who say that Christianity is an other worldly religion, a religion that focuses on the life to come (or rather heavenly life, singing on the clouds playing harps! ). Such view of life thus fails to take adequate consideration of the life here on this earth, goes the argument. For example, two centuries back Rousseau levels such a charge against Christianity. Another contemporary philosopher Martha Nussbaum also says something to this effect. Reading Christianity this way may partly be blamed on Christian community itself given that there are also those within the community who have little or poor understanding of what authentic Christianity is. Yet, authentic Christianity is a religion far way from being such an other worldly religion that has nothing to do on this earth!

One of the most popular lines of the Bible is -- love your neighbour as yourself. The line itself acknowledges that one is to love oneself; and just as one loves oneself, one loves the neighbour. Loving oneself is not always easy specially when one has been as an ass or been unwanted. There are those who refuse to love oneself occasionally, and thus inflicts harm on one's own person. However, it is generally the case with everyone that most often we love ourselves. Because I love myself, I eat food that will be good for my health and not cause dysentery or cholera. Because I love myself, I groom myself well. Because I love myself, I value my properties as their being stolen would hurt me. These are various actions one performs because of one's love for oneself. But the biblical line also tells me to do similar things for my neighbour just as I do for myself. And this is hardly a too otherworldly outlook!

Christianity has two aspects to moral injunction as it is so with many other moral teachings. One aspect is to avoid doing bad deeds. This aspect underlines that one must avoid doing this action and that action because so and so actions are bad. To do such action is to be morally wrong. On the flip side, there is also this injunction to do good works. Do this or do that and the Lord will commend you. Failure to perform such good actions is also to be morally wrong. Looking at both of these aspects, one will realise that the injunction to perform certain actions or to avoid doing certain actions are both about social relationships. Whether it is good works or bad works, it is between human beings that our actions are played out. Given this nature of moral outlook, as Christianity presents itself, it is very much a this worldly religion.

But what Christianity teaches is that our actions have bearing not only in this earthly life, but beyond this three dimensional world that we know. Christianity teaches that a person is finally accountable to God and our decisions and actions now or the lack thereof determines the prospect of one's future life. This is like the story of a student who would pass or fail later depending on what she does now. If she works hard now, she will pass later; if she is laid back now, she would fail later. Thinking about the future must propel her to work hard now. In St. Paul's most detailed writing on the future hope as recorded in 1 Corinthian 15, Paul concludes by exhorting the audience to labour now here on this earth. If you have a vision to pass, you will have to necessarily work hard now; in the same vein, if you envision heaven, get to work now. This is hardly a view that teaches us to withdraw from the world.

Throughout history there have been Christians who have laboured for social and political justice because of what their love for their neighbour and the promise they look forward to. Earliest Christians used to pay from their own earning so that slaves would get freedom. Christian monk Telemachus travelled miles to put an end to gladiatorial sport in the Roman empire. William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. campaigned for social and political rights for the enslaved and the marginalised because of their view of God and humanity. Mother Teresa cared for the poorest of the poor because of her devotion to God. Jesus does indeed call people to him, and to those who come to him, he gives them a new life and a new vision to go out to the broken world and serve the weary and the hungry. Loving Jesus must necessarily lead to loving the people here and now!

Spending Money Wisely

This is the sermon that the pastor of the church I go to preached last Sunday. I was very much blessed by the sermon and so I thought of putting it down here. This is not a word to word reproduction of the sermon, but I think these are the points. 

1. Do not buy things IMPULSIVELY. 

( Just because you have money, don't buy things as you see them. See what you need, and then buy them. Avoid unplanned shopping) 

2. Do not live beyond yours MEANS. 

( Do not spend beyond your income. Learn to adjust your lifestyle within your income) 

3. Do not be DECEIVED  by the desire for more. 

( Learn to be content with what you have. Human wants are unlimited; but learn to limit your desire. If you don't you'll change jobs forever, get into the cut-throat competition till you die... you won't be happy.)

4. Do not be a SLAVE to technology. 

( It's okay to possess an old phone, and old car... a television that is not the latest model.) 

Because 

1. We are to HONOUR God with our money. (Prov. 3:9-10)

2. We are to PROVIDE for the needs of our family ( 1 Tim 5:8)

3. We are to PROVIDE for the needs of others ( 1 John 3:17) 

4. PAY our debts ( Rom 13: 8, Ps 37:21)

5 SAVE for our future ( Prov. 30: 24) 

And the Bible further says that

1. The resources we have is not really ours; it belongs to God. 

2. And we are to use the resources wisely

3. And we are to give an account in the end to God.

NB: The pastor has given me permission to share. 

Polygamy and the Bible

There Bible contains stories of different heroes and villains, so to speak. Figures like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and David are heroes whereas characters like Esau, Jeroboam, Ahab and Judas are villains, so to speak. Many of the heroes mentioned in the Bible had more than one wife. Many of them had concubines. David had possibly eight wives and many concubines. Abraham had Sarah and Hagar at one point of time; and Jacob had both Leah and her sister Rachel as his wives, not to mention the two concubines. As was common during olden days, most of these heroes had multiple wives. Does the Bible condone polygamy?

The Bible has a grand-narrative, a grand-plot. But the Bible also has sub-narratives, sub-plots. These lives of these characters are part of the sub-narrative, sub-plot. Some characters play a more prominent role than certain other characters. So in the story, not only one would read about polygamy, conspiracy, murder, theft etc but also love, compassion, friendship etc. The story of Abraham or Moses or David would have both of these features. But the point is that the main hero of the grand-narrative is not Abraham nor David; it is Jesus Christ. David's life is not entirely good nor entirely bad; so is Abraham's life. Christians look to Jesus as the role model and also listen to his teaching. There can be certain lesson that one can learn from the life of Abraham or Jacob or David or even from the life of Judas or Ahab. But these figures are not divine and they are mortal!

So to know whether Christians endorse polygamy or not, or whether Bible condones polygamy or not,  one must not look at the lives of these heroes. One must go beyond these figures. Look to Jesus Christ for the answer. And in Matthew 19, when Jesus was asked about adultery, he gives an answer by going back to Genesis chapter first and second -- to what God has intended in the creation about marriage. It reads " ... a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one" ( Matthew 19: 5). Jesus means to say that God's intention is that two will become one; not three or four will become one. And by this he means one male and one female (v. 4).

Certain people, after having read about the lives of Abraham or David, thought that the Bible condones polygamy. But this is based on wrong reading of the narrative. Christians look to Jesus for moral lessons!

Khyoubu Parents' Camp

On 28th and 29th March, 2015 there was a camp at Khyoubu Baptist Church. The camp was to teach couples how to raise kids as well as a build a home. This video is taken towards the end of the session when the speaker asked the couple to seek forgiveness from each other for all the hurt and wrong that they have committed to each other, and also to seek forgiveness from God. 

Why I-Phone?

IPhone 6 Plus costs above Rs. 50,000. That is a lot of money! 

For a long long time I used the kind of model that costs little over Rs. 1,000. The question was not whether I could afford a more expensive phone or not that made me use that kind of model. The question was what kind of phone do I NEED? Had I needed a phone that has more features, I would make effort to get such a phone. But if I did not need a phone that has more features and would cost Rs. 25,000, and my need would be serve by one that cost little over 1,000, the latter device would work for me. At present I used a particular model that costs around Rs. 2500. This model has WhatsApp facility, which makes conversation much cheaper. Without WhatsApp facility, one has to text message or make a phone call to be in touch. And that used to be expensive. With WhatsApp communication has become much cheaper. Given that WhatsApp has become a need, I got a phone that would have this feature. So if I got my my phone upgraded now, it was driven by my NEED. 

Because of certain reason if I require a phone that would cost Rs. 50,000 I would try to purchase such a phone. But unless the need/requirement arises, I would not want to spend money on buying a more expensive phone. 

There is a car that was purchased almost five years back. I did not go for SUV because I did not NEED such a car. Car became a 'need' because carrying young children with their mother on a bike is not safe. And traveling by bus to certain destination is too inconvenient. And it is turns out cheaper to use one's own car than using taxi/auto. Given these reasons, getting a car was more reasonable than not having one specially when one has a choice whether to have a car or not to have a car. I would have tried to get a bigger car even if it means I would have to pay much more provided I was in need of such a car. But I knew that such a car was not my need. What I needed was just a car. And a small car would fit my need.

With age, one may require a car that gives 'comfort' to the back. Fair enough! With age, one may require a bigger phone so that smaller screen may not be such a constraint on the eyes that are getting weaker. Fair enough! But to purchase things in order to show off is foolish. That is wasting resources. To lead a modest life in a world that is becoming more and more materialistic may not find many takers. But there will always be those who are against wastage; who are against showing off and who are against luxurious lifestyle. Being comfortable or being beautiful or being needs met do not have to veer towards leading a life that is so full of oneself -- not being able to think for others. 

When there are so many poor people out there; so many people who required help... because they are ill or because they are illiterate or because their crop failed and so on and so forth, if I had spent my riches just to get bigger phone, bigger car, bigger house etc. where would I have money to help others? If I lived a more modest life, then my riches could be shared with those who are in need. 'Wasting' money or rather spending money on things not really required is what I wish to avoid. And the reason I try to live this way is because the God that I worship teaches me to 'love my neighbour'. Not an easy teaching, nevertheless an important and a beautiful teaching!

Human Moral Imperfection and the Desire for Forgiveness

Do you ever struggle with guilt? The guilt that arises because you have done something that is bad or because you have failed to do something that is good. I think all of us would have done things that are bad or would have failed to do things that are good and therefore ought to be done at that point of time, and yet walked away without having to do it. Incidents such as these might occur over and over again. However, the guilt may not strike to every individual as much as it would strike to certain individuals. If you have ever struggled with guilt, it would serve as an evidence that you are not morally perfect; that you have at times being morally imperfect. 

But what about those who do not struggle with guilt? Can we say that they think that they are morally perfect. I don't think any grown person can really say that he or she is morally perfect. The guilt may not strike as hard it has happened to certain other people. In fact, the guilt may not just be there. But to feel guilty or to be aware of being guilty of certain bad actions is not necessarily the only outcome after having done a bad action or failed to have performed a good action. Some people just tell lies without any apparent sense of remorse even when there is no apparent compelling reason to tell a lie. By 'compelling reason' I mean a situation such as this. A friend of yours is hiding in your room. Some people came to ask you if she is hiding in your room. You sense that they intended to kill her with their machete. You are pretty confident that your friend is not wrong. In such a situation, telling a lie to save her would be a compelling reason to lie. So when we go out to the market the taxi driver may lie to us or the shopkeeper may just lie to us without any compelling reason. And when such people lie, they may not appear to have any sense of guilt. But that does not really mean that such lie is a good thing; a lie is still a lie. For such people, a lie is not followed by a sense of remorse. 

Upon probing if such a lie is bad or good, the one who lied would admit that such a lie is not a good thing. In fact if the truth is found out and the person is confronted, it is highly likely that the person would be put in a defensive mode or even be ashamed of the lie. But often a lie is not caught, and even if caught direct confrontation is avoided. And even when confronted some people would try to cover up with another lie. And this evading continues. But again evading the truth is rather like admitting implicitly that a lie is considered a lie and it is not good. 

But all of this is to do with individual's perception of good and bad. The idea of good and bad goes beyond what the individual understands for oneself. You jump the traffic light; the policeman will catch and imposes fine on you. You cannot really say that you are not aware of the traffic rule and therefore you should be let off the hook. Even when you are being honestly ignorant, you broke the law, and you must pay penalty. Now again we can argue saying that not every legislated norm is good. Fair enough! Definitely depending on the kind of government in power, laws sometime are legislated unfairly. For example, a dictator may refuse voting right to certain ethnic group just because they are different or he may even suspend the Parliament. The law is passed in such cases, yet given a free and fair condition to argue back and forth, one can establish a case that such a legislated norm is not right. So there are situations when one can say that laws are not good. However, it still remains that there are also quite a lot items of legal norms that are good and must be honored. Breaking such honorable laws, knowingly or unknowingly, entails moral imperfection on the part of the individual. Guilt may follow or not, but moral imperfection is a logical consequence of such violation of legislated norms! 

In so many literary pieces, one can read cases of men and women who have grappled with guilt because of having done something bad. For example, king David in the Bible felt terribly bad because of the kind of bad actions that he committed. First he committed adultery with a woman named Bathsheba. That was bad. But he realized that this act might possibly be found out. And therefore he had her husband killed in a battle. Being the king he was able to hatch such a plan! That was really bad. David struggled with guilt and he expressed the guilt. David did not think that he was morally perfect. Mahatma Gandhi felt terribly sorry over the fact that he could not be with his dad at his dying hour. He was with his had but then he had gone to be with his wife when his dad would have breathed his last breathe. And so when his dad passed away, he would have been sleeping with his wife. He felt that it was a moral failure on his part. Gandhi did not consider himself morally perfect. These are great figures, revered by thousands and millions of people across generations. They thought they had their moral failures. What about you? What about me? I don't think I am morally perfect. There are things that I had done and guilt did not strike immediately. There are things that I had done and guilt just struck so quickly. Examples. When I was in school, probably in the half-yearly exam of 9th standard, I did not get good result as I had thought of. I was afraid to show at home because I got bad marks. I fudged my result and put principal's signature myself. I showed at home that I got good result. Nobody at home came to know about it. I lied! I lied about my mark few years later again. My result did not show as I had anticipated. I fudged my mark sheet again.  I lied! Years later, I realized that what I had done was not right. Guilt struck me only years later, not immediately. But because guilt struck me so hard I discarded my fudged mark sheet and got hold of the real mark sheet. The time when guilt struck me so quickly was when I had watched porn videos. This is not something that took years for me to let the guilt surface in me. The guilt surfaced right after having spent sometime watching porn. And these cases show, at least to myself, that I am not morally perfect. But these are just a handful of examples. If I have to list about my moral failures, it's just so many. 

And I do think that each one of us has moral failures. In fact, to insist that one is morally perfect sounds rather like lying to oneself. But given this pervasive moral failure and therefore guilt, how do we get forgiveness or how do we sort this out? After all grappling with guilt for ages and ages is not good. It does lot of harm to oneself, if not to other people around us. For example, in Shakespeare's Macbeth, we read of lady Macbeth having to hallucinate because of her struggle with guilt. She had played a key role in getting the king murdered. And now guilt is catching up with her. Had she gotten rid of this guilt sooner, she would not have to face this predicament. But she did not get rid of this guilt. And now her life is in ruin because of her guilt. It is an extremely  wise way of living not to lie to oneself, and therefore it is important to get rid of guilt. 

If we broke traffic rule, we pay penalty. But what do we do if there is moral failure and therefore we struggle with guilt? Go and reconcile with whom I have wronged! But if I feel guilty because I have watched porn, to whom do I go to get rid of my guilt? If I felt guilty because I had fudged my marks, to whom do I go to get rid of my guilt? When king David committed sin, the first person he went to was God. He thought that since God is his Lord, to whom he is to be accountable to, he must first set things right with God. And so he asks for forgiveness from God. I believe that since God is the giver of my breathe and the moral law within, I owe my life to him and my reconciliation must take place with him first. Given this factor, I ask God for forgiveness. God is a loving God, and when I seek forgiveness, I believe, he forgives. When I see forgiveness from my mother, she forgives, because she loves me. Why won't God who loves me forgives me when I seek forgiveness! Anyone who loves you will forgive you, if you seek forgiveness. If I had stolen something from X, of course, it is good to settle with X. So if something of this sort is required to settle things, settle it. But not all of moral failure is of this sort. And when it is not of this sort, I think settling with God is what really matters! 

There is moral failure on my part from time to time. And each time I come to God. I don't want this moral failure. Yet there is a strong pull in me that drags me down and so sometimes I fall. But each time I get up and say sorry to God, he forgives me. I don't think I will ever be able to live a morally perfect life, a life that is morally perfect for, say, a year. But then the cross of Jesus Christ tells me that my sins are being forgiven and that I ought not to commit sins again. 

I imagine that the world would be a better place if all humans would address the guilt that one struggles with. If we grapple with guilt, then the possibility of not doing the same action is there. The possibility of not stealing again, the possibility of not killing again, the possibility of not lying again and so on. Given that guilt elicits in us a response that prevents us from committing the same bad action, I think, it is fair to say that awaking in us a feeling of guilt for the bad actions we have done in the past is good. Having a guilt free life is better compared to a guilt ridden life! The problem is thus not so much about not having a solution do deal with guilt because forgiveness is available so as to get rid of guilt; the problem is rather that many people do not wake from their 'moral slumber' and are not able to receive forgiveness.

Blessed are those who desired forgiveness because of their guilt and have received forgiveness! 

Did Jesus Live In India?

From time to time, there has been this idea being marketed that Jesus lived in India. The Bible explicitly mentions  Jesus before 12 and after 30. There is no explicit mention of what happened in between. This has led some people to claim that during the 'silent years of Jesus', he came to India. There has even been claims that say Jesus was buried in India. Could it be true that Jesus would have spent some of those 18 years in the Himalayas studying under a Vedic guru?  Does the Bible give evidences that point to the contrary? Well,  I think there are evidences that suggest that Jesus never lived in India.

 

First point. In his 30s, as recorded by Luke, when Jesus began to do his ministry, he had his own critics. On one occasion, in his hometown i.e Nazareth, the village he grew up, when he began to teach, he faced his critics. The critics said, 'Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son...' This suggests that the people of Nazareth knew him as a carpenter. Had Jesus done such work just once or twice, he would not be known as a carpenter. It is plausible to say that because of his consistent engagement with this work, he was known that way. He was not known as a fisherman or a tax collector because he did not do that kind of job. Carpentry would have been his 'profession' just as fishing was Peter's. But someone at 15 would not be a 'carpenter', at 15 one would be just an amateur. It is reasonable to suppose that one could become a fisherman or a carpenter only when one has attained at least 18 and then continued engaging with the work for years. From 18-20 to 28-30 did Jesus engage himself as a carpenter for which he then came to be known as a carpenter? Possibly!

 

Second point. In his teaching ministry that he started around 30, he used lot of parables. The parables he told suggest that Jesus knew the 'ways of life' of the people there. If Jesus had lived in Siberia, he would have used parables from such region. One could make that out from reading the parables. Parables of the lost sheep, vineyard, fishing net, mustard seed etc. suggest that he grew up in Israel, not just in his early years when he would be too young to learn much but also in his adult years. Moreover, his conversation with the religious leaders and his teaching suggest that he was very much well-versed in the Old Testament. Only a person who continuously received teaching even well onto adult years would have knowledge of such sort. For example, when one reads Buddha's discourse it is not very difficult to know that such thought would have come about only after years of learning and meditation. Just a year or two of learning would not produce such insight. Similarly, to have such insight and understanding, Jesus would have immersed in so many years of studying the Old Testament. And that is possible only if he lived and grew up there in Israel.

 

Third point. In ancient India, there emerged two figures, Gotama Buddha and Mahavira, who came out Vedic Hinduism. These two moved away from Vedic theology, but their teaching has traces of Vedic theology. Even if they tried to move away, they were successful only up to certain extent. Had Jesus received heavy dose of Vedic teaching in the Himalayas, it is quite possible that we find traces of Vedic theology in Jesus' teaching. But this is not so. Instead it is the Old Testament background that we find all over in Jesus teaching, and complete absence of Vedic theology. Had Jesus been heavily influenced by Vedic theology, even if he wanted to get away, like that of Gotama and Mahavira, it would still be visible in his teaching. The absence of Vedic theology suggests that Jesus never came to the Himalayas/India.

 

Is There Life After Death?

We all have near and dear ones who have left this world for good. There is none who is spared. But the more sobering fact is that we all would face death someday. None will be spared again. Rich or poor, young or old, every one will face death. Death is the greatest leveller, they say! My father-in-law passed away few days back after battling cancer for over a year. Of all the people I have known, I would remember him – Nank Kishore Sanghi – as the one person who has the purest heart. (Infants do have pure hearts, but I am not taking them into consideration now.) He was a hard working scientist and an honest person! The ethical excellence he strives for, in thought and in deed, was marvellous. There might have been such people or better people in the past, and there may be still be such people or better people around. But I do not know anyone who is like my father-in-law. He does not claim perfection. But verbally and through action, he teaches those around him to strive and strive and strive for moral excellence.

If there is one person who could earn salvation by good work, he would qualify to be one of those individuals. But he would say that his good work is not sufficient to earn him salvation. Salvation is only for those who are morally perfect or for those who are forgiven. And he thought that he is not morally perfect. He thought so because moral perfection is just too high a standard for a human to achieve. He has weaknesses and shortcomings and therefore he is far from being morally perfect. And so the only way to get salvation is by way of forgiveness; by being pronounced 'not guilty' or 'not blameworthy'. And he believes that only through Jesus Christ could he receive forgiveness. He arrived at this conclusion after years of inquiring how one's own iniquities could be cleansed. Being born into a family that knew not Christ even in remotest sense, it was a long journey. Yet at certain point in his adult life, he arrived at a conclusion that apart from Christ there is no forgiveness of sins .

Jesus Christ was put to death on the cross by the Roman authority while he was in his 30s. His disciples claimed that on the third day after being put to death, he came back to life. They claimed that they have seen the resurrected Jesus Christ, touched him, ate with him and been with him. They claimed that Jesus has conquered death. He is resurrected from the death, they say. But the fact that he would come back to life after being killed have been told in advance by Jesus himself to the disciples. The disciples found it hard to believe until it really occurred. The entire Christian community all over the world that is there yesterday and today and will be there tomorrow hangs on this story – Jesus is risen. The implication is that if Jesus is truly risen, life does not end with this physical death. And based on the words that he had said, there is also the hope for life beyond this three dimensional world for all those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and God; that this death is not the end of the story.

My own father is no more. Yet there is the hope that I will see him again along with my father-in-law in future. This hope is based on the historical claim that Jesus Christ is risen from the death. Whether the historical claim and therefore the hope is based on historical evidence or not is open to critical examination. On my part I have applied academic rigour and intellectual honesty to examine the claim, and I have found the case to be very convincing. Christianity is a religion that can be rendered meaningless, if this claim can be proved to be wrong. But if one examines the case and found it convincing, it could be life-transforming. Whether to critically examine the claim or to dismiss it as fiction without examination, God has left the choice open! 

RSS' Mohan Bhagwat and Mother Teresa

The saffron brigades have once again made an unkind remark on the Christians in India. This time specifically by saying that Mother Teresa's work is not as worthy or valuable as theirs because the former had conversion as the motive while the latter's motive is just to serve. 

There are so many Christian educational institutions and healthcare centre in the country. Millions of people have benefited from the services provided by these institutions. The motivation for these institutions is the love of Christ Jesus; no doubt there But what is the purpose for their existence? Why is there an educational institution -- to provide education or to convert people to Christianity? Why is there a hospital -- to provide healthcare or to convert people to Christianity? For RSS, the answer is clear -- to convert people to Christianity. 

Christianity is a missionary religion and so there are so many organisations that work to bring people to Christ. But institutions that are set up to provide healthcare, social service or education are there to provide for what they are set up. Mother Teresa set up a home to care for the poorest of the poor, and that institution is to care for the poorest of the poor. There are those who may ask why the cost is so low there when it's just so high outside or why such a  well qualified person is working there when an outside job would fetch so much more money. Well, you have to tell the truth there-- the love of Christ motivates. If a person is impressed by the answer and want to follow Christ, he is welcome to do so. However, these institution or the workers will not say ' become a Christian, and you will be given a job or better service'. Christians don't do that and ought not do that. 

What is there that is so difficult for RSS to make sense of this aspect of 'service'? Hatred or ignorance? The religion that RSS follows teaches against hatred. So though there may be a few of them who are driven by hatred, this may not be pervasive. So I would think that it's due to ignorance -- Ignorance of what Christianity is or who Christ is. But ignorance is not a bliss. The longer time RSS spends in ignorance, the more frequent its blunder will be. RSS may as well be doing so much of community service. But understanding why Christians too are providing service will not be harmful. I think it would rather help every one. 

Why Platinum Jubilee?

Jubilee comes from the Hebrew word 'yôḇēl' ( ram's horn), which when blasted signals the beginning of the Jubilee year. Leviticus 25 gives the significance of the Jubilee year. The Israelites were to count off seven sabbaths of years amounting to forty nine years, and consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty or release throughout the land. This 50^th year shall be the year of Jubilee. The concept of Jubilee is thus inseparably linked to Sabbath year – the year after the sixth year. In Old Testament terms this Jubilee year is thus to be observed every fiftieth year.

In Luke 4 when Jesus invokes the writing of Isaiah's use of the concept of Jubilee, he sets a paradigm shift about Jubilee. Jubilee is no longer going to be consecrated in a cycle of fiftieth year, but its significance is to mark the lives and character of the church everyday. In Jesus a new day is dawn – the Jubilee year is for every single day. Given this significance, Jubilee year is not really about organising a grand programme once in fifty years. The idea of organising a grand programme called Jubilee on the fiftieth birthday of the church is not quite the most appropriate way to mark the significance of Jubilee. Tagging 'Silver', 'Golden', 'Diamond' or 'Platinum' before Jubilee does seem to make it even less significant. The world has made 25^th anniversary as Silver Jubilee or the 60^th year as Diamond Jubilee. But Jubilee for the Old Testament Israel was meant for the cycle of every 50^th year. Israel then failed to practise it faithfully is a different matter – just as the church today perhaps fails to live up to the significance Jesus taught and demonstrated in his three and half years of ministry.

As given in the Leviticus, the Jubilee year must be a year when the slaves are set free. Bonded labourers, to use a modern terminology, are to be set free and be given a new beginning. The land also must be left uncultivated, and the people are to eat on what grows naturally – trusting in the Lord to provide for their needs. The land sold, say, to due economic hardship is to be returned to the original owner thus setting a pattern for a fairly egalitarian society. Jubilee year thus sets a pattern for the Israelites society to be fairly egalitarian. The New Testament pattern does not specify all the detail but the significance of the Leviticus text is embedded when Jesus pronounces the dawning of the Jubilee year as he reads the book of Isaiah.

Given this theological significance, what kind of envisioning and implementation takes place when a grand programme on Jubilee is being organised by a church in our society? Do we see those who are into drugs and alcohols being released from the bondage to freedom? This is highly unlikely because addiction of this sort generally requires treatment longer than a three-four days of grand Conference. But do we see people being set free from greed and selfishness that often are responsible for oppression of the poor and the helpless? Or to put it differently, do we see through such Jubilee programme the poor and the helpless being set free from their misery? Do we see the sick being healed and cared for as an outcome of a grand event called Jubilee? What kind of changes do we observe in the lives of the people and the larger society through massive spending on an event called Jubilee except for the fact that the particular church hosting the programme is now much poorer? Unless the programme triggers renewal in the lives of the church members, organising Platinum Jubilee appears to be a waste of resources.

The more important point, however, is that Jubilee should not really be about an event; the message of a Jubilee year must become part of our lives. As an individual and as a corporate body – the church – the message of the Jubilee year that releases people from all sorts of bondages – greed, hatred, poverty, sickness, pride etc. – must be practised and be observed in our living. Thus the significance of a Jubilee year is not in organising an event, but in being a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ. The resources are worth spent on an event called Jubilee if it helps the people enlarge their understanding of who Yahweh is and become ethically better. The growth in understanding is to enable the person live more beautifully, ethically correct. To that end if an event to remind the people of the significance of the Jubilee year is organised once in fifty years, it makes sense; otherwise, it makes no sense. It makes no sense all the more if an event called Platinum Jubilee is organised 25 years after the last Jubilee without taking into consideration the purpose of Jubilee as taught and showed to us by Jesus Christ.

( This article appears  @ Hornbill Express on 26th January, 2015) 

Work, Rest and Worship

Work is an essential feature of human lives. A person without work is not really living a meaningful life. The nature of work differs from person to person according to age, location, qualification, gender etc. Some drive, some fly, some act, some plough, some teach, some cook – all performing different kinds of work. The immediate outcome of the work differs just as the remuneration for the work differs. For some the work is enjoying; for others, it is not. For some the work brings good health to the person within and without; for some others the work destroys the person within and without. Some work sixteen hours at a stretch and make meagre amount; while some other work for eight hours and make massive amount. The differences notwithstanding, all must work.

The biblical viewpoint on work is that it is God's design. The first human persons were to care for the 'garden'. Caring a 'garden' would involve digging, planting, pruning and so on; and these activities are work. Even today for many people work is not about driving down to the heart of the city and sitting in a climate controlled room before a computer. For most people work would involve physical exertion and sweating. Human life is not just about sleeping and friendship, but also about acquiring hobbies and spending time in recreation. Music, poetry, art, gardening, philosophy, writing, reading etc. are hobbies and recreational activities that enthrall human souls. For the first humans, to care for the garden – or rather, to work in the garden – would have been activities that enthrall their souls. The work was for them God's design to appreciate and enjoy. But with disobedience – the Fall – came the thorns and thistles; harsh life and death. Work would no longer taste sweet and enjoying. However, the message of Christmas brings hope that Jesus came to reverse the effect of disobedience.

The idea of rest and corporate worship on the seventh day is embedded in the Christian Scripture. Six days we are to work; and on the seventh day, take time to rest and also gather together for corporate worship. Work, rest and corporate worship are part and parcel of Christian living.

For an individual Christian, her calling as a follower of Christ is wholesome. Her work and rest that constitute her engagement for most of her time too are part of that wholesome calling. Given that work and rest are God's design, when she performs her work or take rest, she is fulfilling God's design, God's plan. When she drives, cooks, teaches, flies etc., she is pleasing the Lord. For a person who follows Jesus Christ, except for evil deeds, there is no work that is worldly or bad. Shoe polishing, car washing, rice transplanting, bamboo growing etc. are all sorts of human activities that God takes pleasure to see and be pleased. Expression of human worship to God is not only about singing a hymn in the church or to say a prayer for the sick; to worship God includes pleasing God through our work and rest. God takes equal delight in seeing his children come for corporate worship on Sunday and getting back to field the rest of the week.

Take your given work as part of your expression of your worship and devotion to God. If you are a doctor, your spiritual act of worship includes reporting for duty on time and giving treatment to your patients with care; if a cultivator, sowing the seed or harvesting the corn are expressions of one's worship to God; the same principle applies to all sorts activities that we call call as work. Hair cutting may be an activity requiring monetary transaction in certain cities; while it may not be so in other places. Monetary transaction does not strictly informs us what work consists of or otherwise. Activities that are morally good and those that contribute to human flourishing are God ordained and thus please him. Learning to enjoy one's work to please God is as important as learning a hymn to sing to please God.

Christmas and Its Significance

It has been well established today that the four Gospels were written to record the life and story of Jesus Christ as biographies. The Gospels fit into the pattern 'bios' of the Greco-Roman civilisation within which the larger Jewish culture of the day was embedded. Scholars like Richard Bauckham, David Aune and Richard Burridge have made significant contribution to this inquiry in recent times. Yet this has been the traditionally accepted position of the church. Besides, the biographies locate the narrative of Jesus birth in the larger scheme of God's work in history in which the birth is presented as the culmination of the salvation plan that God has been orchestrating for the whole world – the living as well as the non-living world. The birth of Jesus Christ inaugurates a new world order!

The birth of Jesus was not taken well by the power structure of the day. The immediate implication of the arrival of the eagerly awaited Messiah is that the wicked and despotic power structure will face judgement; that which is unjust and ugly will be set right. No wonder Herod the Great tried hard to murder Jesus at birth. Herod had massive building projects finished and even served as the President of the Olympic Games in his last days. He was a philanthropic too! However, he was also a murderer so much so that the slaughter of the infants of a small town like Bethlehem was too insignificant to find its place outside of the Gospel records.

Luke records that Mary envisions a new world order – a society where the proud are humbled and the hungry fed. Luke further records John the Baptist's father Zechariah say that the days of holiness and righteousness are at hand. The birth of Jesus raises hope that justice and peace will eventually triumph over sin and death.

When confronted by a just person, unjust rulers and leaders cringe. Wicked rulers are afraid of justice. Jesus did not occupy any political office in his thirty three years of life on earth. However, his speech and actions were often politically and culturally subversive. He confronted the corrupt political and religious leaders of the day. He uses strong words to denounce hypocrisy of the rich and the powerful, yet to the self-confessed sinners and the out-caste, he showed love and mercy. The lost ones were sought and the ostracised given recognition. Those who have been marginalised were taken in as members of his kingdom. His life, death and resurrection usher in a new order!

Christmas brings a hope of a new order in my individual life and also with those I relate. Christ Jesus restores those who are neck-deep in immoral activities and conceited heart if one is willing to come to him. The invitation to be part of the this new order is open to anyone. And this new order is for the whole world. The significance of Christmas is political as much as it is spiritual and social. The politicians, traders, bureaucrats, doctors, students etc. are all invited to come to him, giving up their ungodly ways; and unless their ungodly ways are given up and choose the new order and life offered, destruction is what awaits them. For Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God who is the creator of all. Thus no power or hell can withstand his sovereignty. This monotheistic feature that Jesus is the Lord of all results in Christians attempting to share or sharing the love and lordship of Jesus to every human individual; every domain of human enterprise – economics, astronomy, art, medicine etc. – to be under the authority of the crucified yet risen Jesus Christ. There is no force involved – or ought to involve for anyone to come to Christ; it must all be voluntary. At the most the messenger invites is through persuasion.

St. Francis of Assisi ( 1181-1126) popularises the famous nativity scene where the young and tender Jesus lay in the manger. But the tender baby in the manger is also the Aslan, the lion, of C S Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series. If the baby in the manger is vulnerable and tender, Aslan is untamed and powerful. Let this Christmas season remind each one that no forces of the evil one or the Herod or the emperor Tiberius will prevail over the One that is untamed and powerful, the source of all which is good, true and beautiful. The Lord's kingdom is inaugurated, and in his return every knee shall bow! 

( This article appears in The Hornbill Express on 22 December, 2014) 

Religions and Politics in Indian Sub-Continent

One of the repeated calls of Saffron Parivar – RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal etc. – against Christianity and Islam is that they are foreign religion. The objectionable remark made by Food Processing Minister Niranjan Jyoti in Delhi where she tried to polarise the citizens as followers of Ram or bastards (Ramzadon ya haramzadon) points to this. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat statement that all Indians are Hindus, thereby implying that Indians who are not Hindus are foreigners offers another glaring example. The state also perhaps unwittingly reinforces this idea when those from Scheduled Caste lose their entitlements to certain benefit, say, reservation in state/Central scheme, once they convert of Islam or Christianity. Conversion to Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc. do not merit losing the reservation benefit. The Scheduled Tribes are exempted from this implication though.

From time to time one hears the rhetoric that the religious majority in India is not allowed to exercise its religiosity openly; that the religion is under siege. This is also the kind of rhetoric emerging from the Buddhist Sinhala community in Sri Lanka. The solution to get out this siege then is to pedestal the religion of the majority above the rest. The proposal by Union Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj to declare Bhagavat Gita as the national holy book of India has to be interpreted as a call for such measure. On the flip side, by associating nationalism with religion, the rhetorical device becomes a perfect political tool to subdue the religious minority and hound them into a ghetto. Religion of the minorities are labelled as foreign and unpatriotic, if not traitorous. In Sri Lanka, Muslims and Christians become the victim of such scheme in the hand of Sinhala Buddhist nationalists. Even in India, during Vajpayee's tenure, religious minority received battering in significant measure specially in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. In Myanmar and Nepal too, such voices emerge from time to time, sending messages of intimidation to certain religious minorities.

With widespread use of modern technology, information of any kind now quickly spreads to different corner of the globe. The demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 at Ayodhya, UP, by the volunteers of Sangh Parivars brought about religious riots between Hindu and Muslims across different Indian cities. The effect was felt in Pakistan and Bangladesh too, resulting in Islamic hardliners destroying hundreds of temples and homes. A Danish political cartoon on prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) evokes sharp response even in Indian subcontinent as well. Nearer home, Christians and Muslims are not in minority in all the states in India. Sangh Parivar violent mischief can backfire in states where these communities are in majority. Given this volatile and complex environment, it is the responsibility of every religious and institutional leader to uphold and instil democratic values. To that end, forceful conversion or attempt to convert others through inducement should be restrained. Those in the government must also ensure that non-Hindus are not pushed to second class citizens of the country.

On the other hand it is important to take note that Christianity in the sub-continent is almost 2000 years old. If one is to insist that Christianity is of foreign origin because Jesus Christ was born in present day Israel, one must also insist that Guru Nanak of Sikhism was born in present day Pakistan, and Gautama Buddha in present day Nepal; and Parsis came from Iran. Besides, the tribals in the North East have never been exposed to Hinduism. There was no point in Indian history when every individual followed Hinduism. Any attempt to rewrite history that India has always belonged to the Hindus will be based on concoction of history. Christians must resist religious bully with pen and truth.

It is high time that everyone realises that Christianity is here to stay. Jesus Christ was born in a hostile political environment. The Roman empire, however, could not keep him buried in the tomb; the tomb lies empty. Tertullian in the third century says that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. History has proved the words right. Whether it is the might of the state or the jaw of the lion, the church is the kind that does not crack under persecution. The church means no harm to anyone; the church prays and works for truth and peace to prevail!

(This article appears in The Hornbill Express on 15th December, 2015)

Conversion and GharWapsi

I am not against GharWapsi ( homecoming) programme per se. If those Hindus who have converted to Christianity at some point of time want to 'return home', I would respect their decision. And I would have no objection to Christians converting to Buddhism or Islam or Sikhism. Each individual must be given the freedom to choose whatever religion she wants to follow. The problem with 'homecoming' programme of the kind that Saffron brigades undertook in Agra recently involved bully and allurement. Had the Saffron brigades used persuasion to convince the Agra Muslims that Hinduism is the better religion, there would be no reason to make hue and cry about the episode. However, possibly to create hype that there is a 'homecoming wave',  the Saffron brigades had invited the media, and eventually the truth beneath the surface emerged. Conversion or reconversion in a fair and transparent manner must be allowed in a democratic setting. 

I am not quite happy with the terminology 'Gharwapsi' (homecoming). Not every present Indian were Hindus in the past. The people of the community (Nagas) I come from were never Hindus. Today one third of the Nagas are in Burma, and two third in India. Animism, Buddhism and Christianity are the main religions among the Nagas today. And Animism and Buddhism are not equivalent to Hinduism despite the Saffron Brigades claiming otherwise. The assertion that everybody in the world was at one point of time Hindu is nonsense. It is as nonsensical as the assertions that plastic surgery, missiles, cloning etc were all practised in India's ancient past. 

In the entire controversy, one can notice well meaning scholars sometime not just getting Christianity right. It is fine for a person to reject Christianity as much as it is fine for one to reject Marxism. However, it is important to correctly understand what Christianity is. One will not learn about Christianity by reading Da Vinci Code. To learn about Christianity one would have to engage with the writings of C S Lewis, Dostoyevsky, Locke, Calvin, Aquinas, Augustine  et al.; and most importantly the Bible. From the Indian sub-continent one writer to engage with, to know Christianity, would be Sri Lankan thinker Vinoth Ramachandra.  A religion that has thrived for 2000 requires a least that much of respect. After all there is something worth engaging with that it captured the heart and mind of over two billion people today. 

How to Pronounce 'X-Mas': Ex-Mas or Christmas?

If we are to look into the genesis of the use of 'X', it should be pronounced as 'Christmas', not 'Ex-Mass'. 

Christos (Χριστός)  is the Greek word for Christ. And the first Greek letter 'X' there is pronounced as 'chi'. Thus, X-Mas is a shortened form of Christ-Mass ('Mass' as in Catholic mass). It is equivalent to Christmas. Using shortened form like X-tian to denote Christian or X-Mas to denote Christmas was not to delete 'Christ' at all. And there is no reason why it should be taken that way today. When situation warrants that, let it be as Xtian or X-Mas, but it is more accurate to pronounce them as Christian or Christmas. 

Using symbols in Christianity arose very early. The earliest Christians used the symbol of fish to denote themselves. Fish in Greek is Ichthus, written as 'IXƟYΣ' (Ioto, Chi, Theta, Upsilon and Sigma). The five letters are the initials of Iesous, Christos, Theo, Uios and Soter, which when translated to English would be Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior. So when a Christian would draw a fish, it would imply that he or she believed that Jesus Christ is God's Son and Savior. Another symbol that early Christians used was the combination of 'X' (Chi) and 'ρ' ( Rho). It is formed by superimposing one letter upon another so that the two letters become one symbol, a monogram ( as in☧).