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. 

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.

 

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 2

This is the second chapter of the book, but the third post. The previous post is here. This second chapter is titled 'A Contest of Narratives'.

The right order theorists tell a story that says something to the effect that the idea of subjective right develops with the emergence of political liberalism. (Political liberalism is that strand of political thought that considers rights of an individual as the first virtue a state must protect.) Other writer would trace the source of the idea of subjective/natural right to the writing of Ockham. Now Ockham was a thinker belonging to the Franciscan order. After the death of St. Francis, who had voluntarily chosen a life of poverty, there was a dispute between the Pope and the Franciscan. The Pope was of the opinion that the Franciscan did have some sort of ownership of property. One of the effects of having to give up ownership of everything would mean that the church cannot own anything. Ockham and others went to make a case that it is lawful to give up right to own property, but one cannot renounce the 'natural right' to use properties that may belong to someone. Thus, argue right orders theorists, Ockham invented the idea of subjective right... Nick argues that the idea of such of kind of right goes much older than Ockham and political thinkers like Hobbes and Locke.

Nick counter-argues by saying that the right theorists narrative fail to adequately take into consideration the account of right that was already in use in the works of the jurists in the medieval period and also by the older thinkers. Nick cites research work by different modern writers to make a case that the Roman jurists were using the idea of subjective right in their work, and that those who argue that subjective/natural right emerged in Medieval period did not adequately take into consideration the different ways 'right' was employed For example, those in jurisprudence employed the idea in their work. Going beyond that, Nick also argues that when Ockham, the Medieval thinker, employed the language of right, he was not inventing the idea out of the blue; Christian thinkers (or Church Fathers) who were teaching and writing in the first 500 years were already using that sort of idea. The idea of natural right was unmistakably present in the work of John Chrysostom (347-407) , Ambrose of Milan (337-397) and Basil of Caesarea (329/330-379).

Based on the principle of correlative, a right theorist may accept that if there is natural right then it must imply that there is natural duty. But the difference between a right theorist and right order theorist goes deeper. And here is the difference: Does a person have inherent worth for which she/he possess an inherent right or is right conferred to a person by an entity/someone? Nick argues for the former, and this is something he will go on to develop in the following chapters. But if his argument stands, then the right order theorists argument that rights are conferred by state/law/contract etc, and it is not something that a person possesses as if it's an inherent property will be challenged.

I think Nick was convincing enough in his argument that the idea of subjective/natural right was already in use much before Ockham and others. Yet whether a right order theorists can still accept the idea of inherent right and remain a right order theorist is possible or not is something Nick will try to argue in the following chapters. And whether he is successful or not, the readers will have to wait.

Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented: Chapter 2

This is the second post of the book The Lost World of Genesis, written by Dr. John Walton. The first chapter is titled Genesis 1 is Ancient Cosmology. This is chapter 2 which is titled Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented. This chapter deals with a question: What does it mean for something to exist? There could be different answers to this question.

One possible answer to the question is to deal at the ontological level; another one is to deal at the teleological level. (The author does not use the word 'teleological'; it's mine. But I understand that to be the point he is trying to say.) Ancient cosmology is not about dealing with the material existence of the known universe; it is rather about the function of the universe. When we talk about a computer's existence, it can be discussed at different stages. When the manufactured parts are assembled or when the programmes are written or when the softwares are installed or when someone connects power and make use of all the above. In ancient cosmological terms 'unless people (or gods) are there to benefit from function, existence is not achieved.' Or to put it in computer's terminology -- unless someone boots the computer and uses it to her benefit, the computer won't be considered to be existing. Materially the computer exists, but functionally it does not exist! Ancient cosmology does not 'bother' about the material world unlike present cosmology; it is rather about the function it performs. To understand ancient cosmology in term of function that it performs is widespread in ancient near east literature. This was the cultural norm of the day -- whether it's the Sumerian or the Babylonians or the Egyptians.
 

How Christianity Became the Dominant Religion in the West

One of the most significant books I have ever read on history of Christianity is Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity. When I first read the review, I was doubtful if modern sociological method could provide insight to ancient religious movement. But as I picked up the book for myself, I found the arguments of Stark very compelling. And if anyone would bother to read how Christianity became the dominant religion of the West, and also some core teaching of Christianity, this is the book I would suggest. N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God and Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity are probably the most significant books written on history of Christianity so far.

Stark underscored that an epidemic struck the Roman empire in 165 AD. And almost a century later, another epidemic struck the empire. From ancient sources, he recounted people's experience about the epidemic. So many people died. Many escaped to distant places leaving behind sick relatives to die. In the midst of such terrible situation, Christians stayed back to take care of each other and also those outside their fold. Taking care of each other during such times increased the chance of survival than being left alone. Stark's statistics is convincing. Here is just a small quote: “ In chapter I, I calculated that Christians made up about 0.4 percent of the empire's polulation at this time (160 AD), so let us suppose that 40 of this city's inhabitants are Christians, while 9960 are pagans – a ratio of 1 Christian to 249 pagans. Now, let us assume an epidemic generating mortality rates of 30 percent over its course in a population left without nursing. Modern medical experts cut the mortality rate by two-thirds or even more. So let us assume a Christian mortality rate of 10 percent. Imposing these mortality rates results in 36 Christians and 6972 pagans survivors in 170, after the epidemic. Now the ratio of Christians to Pagans is 1 to 197, a substantial shift.” And if we include those who would have converted during and after the crisis, the ratio could yield 1:134.

Another point Stark argued for was that Christians did not practice female infanticide and abortion, two very common practice in ancient Greco-Roman world. And over the years Christian women increased in number. And these Christian women, whenever they married Pagan men, often brought their husband to the Christian faith. And in almost all cases raised their children as Christian. And over the years, Christian population grew.

Earthquakes, fires, plagues, riots, invasion and other problems occurred at various points of history. And when such things did happen, the homeless and impoverished, the orphans and widows would fill the city. And considering that filth, insects and hygienic system were poorly maintained people did have short span then. Christian belief about charity for the poor, hope for the homeless, sense of family for the widows and orphans, shelter for the stranger etc revitalized the Greco-Roman social relationships.

The book is about 350 pages, and is published by HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins publisher. For Indian readers, you can order it from Flipkart at Rs. 682. I bought it from ebay and paid $14.95. But that was before Flipkart came into picture.

Was it Resurrection or Resuscitation?

Did Jesus really die on the cross or was he just fainted? What happened to his body after it was buried in a tomb? Did the disciples steal the body or did he recover from the unconscious state and walked out of the tomb? Is there plausible reason to trust the testimony of the earliest followers of Jesus Christ who said he is risen?

Crucifixion under the Roman authority was not unusual. The criminals were usually scourged first so much so that there could be so much of blood loss due to cut from the leather whip that has pieces of balls or bones attached. The Roman soldiers were expert in executing criminals; and escape of any crucified criminal is a death penalty for the soldiers. Expertise plus the penalty for the escape made crucifixion a very certain form of execution.

We read that Jesus was arrested at night. He was then led to the courtyard of the high priest where there was an attempt to charge him of various crimes, after which “the guards received him with blows” ( Mark 14.65). In the morning Jesus was delivered to the Governor Pontius Pilate. At the order of Pilate, Jesus was scourged and then delivered to be crucified ( Mark 15.15. The soldiers also plaited a crown of thorn and put it on his head, and there on the head they would strike. Jesus was then led out of the city and put up on the cross, with his hands and feet nailed to the wooden cross. Later on to check whether he was really death, a soldier pierced the side of Jesus with his spear and “at once there came out blood and water”.

After he was certified death, Joseph and Nicodemus were granted the body of Jesus to be buried. The body was then laid in a guarded tomb, which was then sealed so that none might roll away the stone without prior permission. This was Friday evening probably around 4- 5 pm. Sunday early morning, the tomb was found empty. What happened to Jesus' body: resurrected or resuscitated and gone?

( 'Resurrection' was a term employed only for those who came back to life with special physical properties. Till then 'resurrection' exists only in word; no one has really seen it nor did they expect it to happen then. The ancient people were clear about the difference between resuscitation and resurrection. They were not so foolish to confuse the two. They knew as much as we now know that dead people don't come to back life.)

How plausible it is for scourged and bleeding Jesus to survive the cross for 3-6 hours? And how plausible it is to suppose that the Roman soldiers mistook Jesus to be dead for having fainted when such mistake would invite death sentence for the soldiers? And how plausible it is to suggest that scourged and speared Jesus on his own would be able to roll away the stone that sealed the tomb? And how plausible it is for wounded and frail Jesus to claim that he has conquered death and his disciples are now to tell the whole world including the Roman soldiers and religious leaders who crucified him that he is now the king of kings and lord of lords?

The disciples did indeed preach to the Roman world that Jesus is risen and every knee, including the emperor's, is summoned to bow before Jesus. For preaching this “Gospel”, they were jailed, beaten, thrown to the lions, burnt to death and so on for approximately 300 years. Only in 313 AD through the Edict of Milan did Christianity become one of the religions that could be practised without inviting persecution. Why did the disciples who run away when Jesus was arrested began to worship and adore him in spite of death haunting them? What gain would they receive for telling a lie that Jesus is resurrected when what they actually was witnessed was only the resuscitated Jesus and who now have fled to Kashmir? In the face of hunger, imprisonment, head being chopped or being thrown into lion's den which is more plausible: To say that the disciples had such boldness to proclaim to the Roman world that Jesus is resurrected and he is Lord because they actually witnessed the crucified and risen Jesus or to suppose that they they witnessed the battered Jesus surviving the tomb and later escaped to India. Well, I choose the former explanation: that Jesus was truly resurrected from the dead and he is who he claimed to be.

Karl Popper on theory of evolution

Karl Popper (1902-1994): Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. His parents, who were of Jewish origin, brought him up in an atmosphere which he was later to describe as ‘decidedly bookish’. Popper obtained a primary school teaching diploma in 1925, took a Ph.D. in philosophy in 1928, and qualified to teach mathematics and physics in secondary school in 1929. In 1946 he moved to England to teach at the London School of Economics, and became professor of logic and scientific method at the University of London in 1949. He was knighted in 1965, and retired from the University of London in 1969, though he remained active as a writer, broadcaster and lecturer until his death in 1994. (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Today is Charles Darwin 200th birth anniversary, perhaps the most controversial scientist ever lived. When only 16 his father sent him and his brother to Edinburgh for the best medical education Great Britain had to offer.When he finally broke the news of his distaste for medicine to his father, he was enrolled to take a degree in Divinity at Christ College, Cambridge University, from which he graduated. However, he became an agnostic in the later part of his life and died as one, contrary to the report that he died as a convert having recanted his theory. Dawin was a mild English gentleman who was disturbed when his scientific theory aroused much controversy specially as people misused his theory to support various causes he would not even dream of. He died on April 18, 1882.

Trying to define Science is as slippery as trying to define Religion. For both enterprises definition that would satisfy all has been elusive. American Physical Society defines Science as “ the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.” Though this is a widely accepted definition it is not free from being problematic because the definition allows even Social Science enterprises like Sociology, Economics and Psychology to fit into the definition. And no wonder some people argue that these disciplines should be included in Science. After all if study of animals and plants are part of Science why not study of human being? Though the argument seems valid we are not quite convinced that these academic disciplines should be part of Science. Philosopher of Science has widely accepted three parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. One, the theory should be falsifiable; two, it should be able to explain the observed data; three, it should have predictability strength. Sometimes one might also like to include elegance, coherence etc. But the first three are very essential.

Karl Popper initially rejected theory of evolution as a scientific theory. Popper understood evolutionary biologists to say that their theory predicts that natural selection allows only the fittest organisms to survive; and he countered saying that the ‘fittest’ organisms are defined as those who survive, but that makes the argument tautological. ( tautological means that the truth of the predicate is present in the subject itself) Later on, Popper recanted what he had said. But why the change? Because there are independent parameters for determining which members of species are ‘fittest’. “ Biologists employ optimisation analyses to predict which combination of morphological, behavioral, or physiological traits are more likely to be advantageous in the range of environments actually encountered by a given living form. They then sample natural population of organisms, determine in which they actually live, measure those traits they hypothesize are more likely to make a difference, and obtain statistical predictions on where natural selection should push the population next. Finally, biologists wait until the next generation of organisms come out and measure their characteristics again." So theory of evolution is testable, in the sense that using the theory they predict the outcome of the research. It is also falsifiable in the sense that if human being is found alonside dinasaur, in the absence of alternative explanation, we might have to discard the theory or make some drastic refinement. One reason why Intelligent Design theory is considered invalid is because it is not falsifiable. How can one emperically falsify that God is not behind that 'irreducible complexity'? One can never do that emperically, and so ID theory cannot be scientific.

Theory of evolution meets the criteria to be a scientific theory more or less like Big Bang theory meets the criteria. In fact, Big Bang theory has more rival theories than theory of evolution. Theory of evolution has been the reigning champion for some 150 odd years now, though with some refinement like neo-darwinism emerging to give a more explanatory power of the observed data. Intellectual honesty and responsibility requires that until a better rival theory emerges we use the available theory, however weak it is. Suppose we expel theory of evolution from Science which academic discipline takes up the study? Humanities or Social Science? Both cannot do justice to the issue at hand because the nature of the subject requires study of various branch of Science. This is also one reason why definition of Science should not be too narrow. Study of continental shift, Big Bang, evolution etc have met essential parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. Since theory of evolution is falsifiable, as a believer in Jesus Christ who is the source of all truth, I am not afraid of the truth. If it is wrong Science will disprove it. If it is right, how much ever attack it receives from its critic, it will remain firm.

This issue has been very divisive among evangelical Christians, should I say along with issues like role of women in the church and charismatic gifts. The latter two is confined within ourselves. Theory of evolution, however, takes the debate outside of the Church. And if we are not careful it’s going to harm the cause of Christ.My humble suggestion is that those of us who are keen to have a say in the matter need to read up theologians who interpret the Bible, philosophers who provides the framework of the debate and scientist who engages in empirical research. Should I also include historians who provide detail how various schools emerged and how different individuals have participated in the debate! This does not mean I have also done sufficient reading... But I am trying to. God bless.