Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[Col. Hstar]

You're missing my point, friend. I said IF we can accept that there are translation errors (and you conceded this), why is it impossible to accept that someone added their own opinion into the book, or stretched/embellished language purposely? If we can prove there are flaws, however small, why can't we believe that there are larger, more significant changes or alterations in doctrine? Why is it hard to believe that the Bible is merely an amalgamation of texts that were chosen by people in power to be included in a politically-charged book to convey a certain point of view or accomplish a certain end?

You must not have read the last part:

So the question is how did the multiple copies made 2,000+ years ago all beat the odds? It had to be divine intervention.
This is why I can believe the Bible when it says at 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired of God

It's not impossible that people have changed and manipulated translations. The KJV for one omits Gods name completely. (Look up Psalms 83:18) But that doesn't invalidate any and all translations and copies of the bible. The fact that the bible survived for thousands of years, despite the imperfections of men, and the multiple attempts to destroy it shows to me that it is divinely inspired. That is why I chose to find a translation that I feel is close as can be to the original, and it's why I chose to put my full faith behind it.

Also +1 to C.Ottos explanation

@Pan
I understand your feelings on this, I however don't agree, while I do doubt anyone is ever going to change our beliefs (Never really believed that would be possible) I have enjoyed this thread much more. I've had the opportunity to review things I had studied before and find new points to bring up in discussions. I respect Pepsi, and DEagle for their beliefs, I don't agree with them but there isn't anything wrong with that. I'm sure they respect me for my beliefs as well.
I hope

[11_Panama_]

Well Col., if that's the way you feel, I'm going home and I'm taking my ball with me. Ha!

[Col. Hstar]

Well Col., if that's the way you feel, I'm going home and I'm taking my ball with me. Ha!

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

because:

1. In antiquity, scribes saw their job as very important because they were copying Divine Law, thus, they copied with extreme care. In fact, it is known that scribes in ancient israel counted scripture word by word, supposedly being 815.140 words in total, every time they copied.
Otto, I'm not referring to copying error but rather deliberate additions and subtractions made by those who stood to gain influence. I'm speaking about purposeful manipulations of the text, including both slight tweaks and entire revisions, in pursuit of an aim, namely the consolidation of political power. If scribes, commissioned by an institution, are made to copy an altered text, then yes, the majority of copies produced are going to contain that flaw.
2. There are around 6000 manuscripts of the hebrew text alone. There are also about 3000 of the greek text. Many of these manuscripts are from many different places from different periods of time of antiquity. If there was a major difference from manuscripts from each region, then it would be known there were alterations to the text. If you do that child's game where one person sends a message and tells it to the person next to him and to the person next to him, in the end the message is different. But, in the case of the Bible, a text that has been copied thousands of times by thousands of people through several different eras and regions, and yet all the different manuscripts out there have the same text (with some minor copying mistakes that can be cached by comparing all those different manuscripts).
There are many more manuscripts dating from that same period that conflict with accounts given in the Bible and some that express different opinions of Biblical Record (the Gnostics, for instance, who express belief in a remote divinity that exists removed from the Earth, yet still follow Christ) and the Docetists, who believe Christ's manifestation of divinity to be impossible (conflicting and incompatible). These are perfectly viable strains of thought that emerged from the same time period and from the same area.

You can't assume that major alterations would have been made known; there's no evidence to support that. That's like someone from the Middle Ages saying, "if the Earth revolved around the sun, everyone would know it." Discovery doesn't work that way - simply because there's no finite documentation of something (yet) doesn't mean you can discount it entirely, especially when other evidence suggests its truth. Secondly, I'm not comparing Biblical translations to a child's game (the name, by the way, is "telephone"), and I don't have enough evidence to show that large changes were made to Hebrew manuscripts, but I can use historical knowledge to back up the assertion that most Hebrew texts are not infallible accounts of God, that the Bible's compilation process was flawed, that major additions and subtractions were made by those in power (prior to the use of the Gutenberg Press) to the text and then sent to scribes for copying and municipalities for distribution.
3. I believe the Institute for New Testament Textual Research has the majority of the manuscripts in microfilm. A comparison from all the different texts of the new testament from all the different regions and eras also demonstrates that the new testament has seen rare and minor alterations.
Yes, but some constancy does not prove infallibility. If there is a continuous theme stretching from 3000 BCE until present day, it is not automatically deserving of weight or acceptance. Besides, an entity as powerful as the Roman Empire would have suppressed documents that expressed contrary views (burned them, killed their authors, etc.)
4. also, I found it interesting that people in the Renaissance were very worried about Ad Fontes (going back to the sources). Then, many different projects from several countries produced Bibles in several different languages with accurate translations from less manuscripts than those we have nowadays. To mention a few of those Renaissance Bibles, The King James Version, The Complutensian Polyglot, the Antwerp Polyglot and the Reina Valera, all done by different people, all producing the same text.
Again, it baffles me when people focus on the original language. It still confuses me that we source the first four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, when the only manuscripts we have of these are in Greek (not Hebrew like they "should" be). Authorship controversies have often discombobulated scholars, for the longest time the Pentateuch was attributed to Moses, despite the date inconsistencies (mentions of currency that did not exist when he lived, of towns that did not exist when he lived, etc.)
5. Nowadays, all the countless versions of the Bible, all translated by so many organizations using different manuscripts, but once again, all of them pretty much the same.
That doesn't mean anything. You don't have any proven "original manuscripts." What is out there for comparison is already an altered document. The versions are similar because of technology, mass-marketing procedures, etc. If the Council of Niacin neglected to put the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Thomas, and God-knows how many more books into the Bible, then that's what would be copied by scribes for generations.
6. Finally, if the text were to be corrupted by a scribe, an in depth study of the style of the writer would also show if there was some kind of alteration. Comparing the text with historical context would also bring out any additions from the future. In fact, contextual and historical study has already proven that some books are not from the Bible, just like we know that the apocrypha are not from the original scriptures.
See above, I'm not talking about copying error - if the Roman Emperor he doesn't like a Biblical account of Jesus claiming to be mortal (this is just a hypothetical) because it doesn't allow him to market Christianity the way he would like to, he has the document and all those like it destroyed. Then no scribe can copy it. Paul sent many letters to the Churches of the area after Christ's death. With no proof that Paul was inspired by the Lord to do this, much of what he said might have been false, and earlier documents that expressed differing opinions would have been destroyed when Christianity became accepted by the majority.

It should be noted that Biblical Continuity (despite no evidence to suggest it is continuous) is not proof of divinity, nor is it proof of inerrancy.

[CommanderOtto]

because:

1. In antiquity, scribes saw their job as very important because they were copying Divine Law, thus, they copied with extreme care. In fact, it is known that scribes in ancient israel counted scripture word by word, supposedly being 815.140 words in total, every time they copied.
Otto, I'm not referring to copying error but rather deliberate additions and subtractions made by those who stood to gain influence. I'm speaking about purposeful manipulations of the text, including both slight tweaks and entire revisions, in pursuit of an aim, namely the consolidation of political power. If scribes, commissioned by an institution, are made to copy an altered text, then yes, the majority of copies produced are going to contain that flaw.
2. There are around 6000 manuscripts of the hebrew text alone. There are also about 3000 of the greek text. Many of these manuscripts are from many different places from different periods of time of antiquity. If there was a major difference from manuscripts from each region, then it would be known there were alterations to the text. If you do that child's game where one person sends a message and tells it to the person next to him and to the person next to him, in the end the message is different. But, in the case of the Bible, a text that has been copied thousands of times by thousands of people through several different eras and regions, and yet all the different manuscripts out there have the same text (with some minor copying mistakes that can be cached by comparing all those different manuscripts).
There are many more manuscripts dating from that same period that conflict with accounts given in the Bible and some that express different opinions of Biblical Record (the Gnostics, for instance, who express belief in a remote divinity that exists removed from the Earth, yet still follow Christ) and the Docetists, who believe Christ's manifestation of divinity to be impossible (conflicting and incompatible). These are perfectly viable strains of thought that emerged from the same time period and from the same area.

You can't assume that major alterations would have been made known; there's no evidence to support that. That's like someone from the Middle Ages saying, "if the Earth revolved around the sun, everyone would know it." Discovery doesn't work that way - simply because there's no finite documentation of something (yet) doesn't mean you can discount it entirely, especially when other evidence suggests its truth. Secondly, I'm not comparing Biblical translations to a child's game (the name, by the way, is "telephone"), and I don't have enough evidence to show that large changes were made to Hebrew manuscripts, but I can use historical knowledge to back up the assertion that most Hebrew texts are not infallible accounts of God, that the Bible's compilation process was flawed, that major additions and subtractions were made by those in power (prior to the use of the Gutenberg Press) to the text and then sent to scribes for copying and municipalities for distribution.
3. I believe the Institute for New Testament Textual Research has the majority of the manuscripts in microfilm. A comparison from all the different texts of the new testament from all the different regions and eras also demonstrates that the new testament has seen rare and minor alterations.
Yes, but some constancy does not prove infallibility. If there is a continuous theme stretching from 3000 BCE until present day, it is not automatically deserving of weight or acceptance. Besides, an entity as powerful as the Roman Empire would have suppressed documents that expressed contrary views (burned them, killed their authors, etc.)
4. also, I found it interesting that people in the Renaissance were very worried about Ad Fontes (going back to the sources). Then, many different projects from several countries produced Bibles in several different languages with accurate translations from less manuscripts than those we have nowadays. To mention a few of those Renaissance Bibles, The King James Version, The Complutensian Polyglot, the Antwerp Polyglot and the Reina Valera, all done by different people, all producing the same text.
Again, it baffles me when people focus on the original language. It still confuses me that we source the first four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, when the only manuscripts we have of these are in Greek (not Hebrew like they "should" be). Authorship controversies have often discombobulated scholars, for the longest time the Pentateuch was attributed to Moses, despite the date inconsistencies (mentions of currency that did not exist when he lived, of towns that did not exist when he lived, etc.)
5. Nowadays, all the countless versions of the Bible, all translated by so many organizations using different manuscripts, but once again, all of them pretty much the same.
That doesn't mean anything. You don't have any proven "original manuscripts." What is out there for comparison is already an altered document. The versions are similar because of technology, mass-marketing procedures, etc. If the Council of Niacin neglected to put the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Thomas, and God-knows how many more books into the Bible, then that's what would be copied by scribes for generations.
6. Finally, if the text were to be corrupted by a scribe, an in depth study of the style of the writer would also show if there was some kind of alteration. Comparing the text with historical context would also bring out any additions from the future. In fact, contextual and historical study has already proven that some books are not from the Bible, just like we know that the apocrypha are not from the original scriptures.
See above, I'm not talking about copying error - if the Roman Emperor he doesn't like a Biblical account of Jesus claiming to be mortal (this is just a hypothetical) because it doesn't allow him to market Christianity the way he would like to, he has the document and all those like it destroyed. Then no scribe can copy it. Paul sent many letters to the Churches of the area after Christ's death. With no proof that Paul was inspired by the Lord to do this, much of what he said might have been false, and earlier documents that expressed differing opinions would have been destroyed when Christianity became accepted by the majority.

It should be noted that Biblical Continuity (despite no evidence to suggest it is continuous) is not proof of divinity, nor is it proof of inerrancy.

Ok Pepsi, where are these historical events that you say happened differently than from those the Bible mentions? And I am open to reading about them. And you can take your time, I really want to see what you are talking about. While you find that evidence, let me say something else.

Judaism was too widespread through the middle east for a roman emperor to destroy everything he didn't like. If some people in power wanted to make additions or manipulate the text, that governor or king couldn't have possibly changed every single manuscript out there. And, as I said before, we are talking about thousands of texts that were written for thousands of years....although we do not have the Originals, just by doing an analysis of history, authorship style of linguistics, names of places and customs... all of that would bring out any manipulations from people. Just to give you an example of how this has been done by people with other texts not related to the bible. Look at the renaissance scholar Lorenzo Valla who wrote"A Donation of Constantine".... he did a study of the latin style used in the document, the places, names and other historical documents. By doing all of those he successfully proved the Pope was a liar. People can do the same with any other text. The more text there is, the more easy it is to find out if something has been manipulated. Nobody can manipulate 6000 manuscripts from several different regions. And I know you are suspicious of the apocrypha being left out, but biblical scholarship is very old and it is widely accepted by making historical and style comparisons that they were not from the Bible. Just because it is a religious book it doesn't mean archaeologists or historians have not studied it in depth. The people who dedicate their lives to study this are VERY professional. People who study this must be proficient in hebrew, greek, latin, chaldaic, syriac, history, and archaeology... I am sure some research in WorldCat will bring out some some articles from professional archeological and biblical scholarship publications. And I am not talking about books people buy in amazon.

oh, and let me add there are many ancient historians that also mention several books of the Bible as authentic. Although that is not "undeniable evidence" it is still pretty unique to see that so many ancient historians agree that the book of Matthew is authentic. I would mention them, but I don't know their names in english.

and by the way, you are right, the book of Matthew was not written originally in Greek, but unfortunately the copies that survived the centuries are all in greek. According to Jerome, the guy that translated it to latin for the Vulgata, had said that there were copies in Hebrew in Cesarea during his time... but they have been lost.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Ok Pepsi, where are these historical events that you say happened differently than from those the Bible mentions? And I am open to reading about them. And you can take your time, I really want to see what you are talking about. While you find that evidence, let me say something else.

Judaism was too widespread through the middle east for a roman emperor to destroy everything he didn't like. If some people in power wanted to make additions or manipulate the text, that governor or king couldn't have possibly changed every single manuscript out there. And, as I said before, we are talking about thousands of texts that were written for thousands of years....although we do not have the Originals, just by doing an analysis of history, authorship style of linguistics, names of places and customs... all of that would bring out any manipulations from people. Just to give you an example of how this has been done by people with other texts not related to the bible. Look at the renaissance scholar Lorenzo Valla who wrote"A Donation of Constantine".... he did a study of the latin style used in the document, the places, names and other historical documents. By doing all of those he successfully proved the Pope was a liar. People can do the same with any other text. The more text there is, the more easy it is to find out if something has been manipulated. Nobody can manipulate 6000 manuscripts from several different regions. And I know you are suspicious of the apocrypha being left out, but biblical scholarship is very old and it is widely accepted by making historical and style comparisons that they were not from the Bible. Just because it is a religious book it doesn't mean archaeologists or historians have not studied it in depth. The people who dedicate their lives to study this are VERY professional. People who study this must be proficient in hebrew, greek, latin, chaldaic, syriac, history, and archaeology... I am sure some research in WorldCat will bring out some some articles from professional archeological and biblical scholarship publications. And I am not talking about books people buy in amazon.

oh, and let me add there are many ancient historians that also mention several books of the Bible as authentic. Although that is not "undeniable evidence" it is still pretty unique to see that so many ancient historians agree that the book of Matthew is authentic. I would mention them, but I don't know their names in english.

and by the way, you are right, the book of Matthew was not written originally in Greek, but unfortunately the copies that survived the centuries are all in greek. According to Jerome, the guy that translated it to latin for the Vulgata, had said that there were copies in Hebrew in Cesarea during his time... but they have been lost.

This is from Wikipedia, on the Gnostics and their relationship with Christianity:

Spoiler: show

The necessity of immediate revelation through divine knowledge in order to attain transcendence in a Supreme Deity is important to understand in the identification of what evidence there is pertaining to Gnosticism[62] in the new testament (NT), which would influence orthodox teaching.[63] Central Gnostic beliefs that differ from orthodox Christian teachings include: the creator as a lower being [‘Demiurge’] and not a Supreme Deity; the belief that all er is evil and the body is a prison to escape from (versus the Nicene Creed teaching that there will be a physical resurrection of all people); scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”;[64] and Jesus as a spirit that “seemed”[65] to be human, leading to a rejection of the incarnation (Docetism).[66] The traditional “formula which enshrines the Incarnation...is that in some sense God, without ceasing to be God, was made man...which is a prima facie [‘at first sight’] contradiction in theological terms...the NT nowhere reflects on the virgin birth of Jesus as witnessing to the conjunction of deity and manhood in His person...the deity of Jesus was not...clearly stated in words and [the book of] Acts gives no hint that it was”.[67] This philosophy[68] was known by the Church Fathers such as Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (questionable).[69]

At its core, Gnosticism formed a speculative interest in the relationship of the oneness of God to the ‘triplicity’ of his manifestations. It seems to have taken Neoplatonic metaphysics of substance and hypostases [“being”][70] as a departure point for interpreting the relationship of the “Father” to the “Son”[71] in its attempt to define a new theology.[72] This would point to the infamous theological controversies by Arius[73] against followers of the Greek Alexandrian school,[74] headed by Athanasius.[75]

The ancient Nag Hammadi Library, discovered in Egypt in the 1940s, revealed how varied this movement was. The writers of these manuscripts considered themselves ‘Christians’, but owing to their syncretistic beliefs, borrowed heavily from the Greek philosopher Plato. The find included the hotly debated Gospel of Thomas, which parallels some of Jesus’ sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. This may point to the existence of a postulated lost textual source for the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, known as the Q document.[76] Thus, modern debate is split between those who see Gnosticism as a pre-Christian form of ‘theosophy’[77] and those who see it as a post-Christian counter-movement.

New Testament scripture was largely unwritten, at least in the form of canon, existing in the practices, customs and teachings of the early Christian community. What largely was communicated generation to generation was an oral tradition passed from the apostles to the Bishops and from Bishops and priests to the faithful through their preaching and way of life.[78] Constantine’s call for unity in the building of the new Roman Church (which would become the state church of the Roman Empire) led to his request for Eusebius to produce some 50 copies of manuscripts. These were approved and accepted by the emperor, which later influenced the final stages of canonization.[79]

It is hard to sift through what actual evidence there is regarding Gnosticism in the New Testament due to their historical synchronicity. The Hammadi library find contains Pagan, Jewish, Greek and early Gnostic influences,[80] further reinforcing the need to tread lightly. The antiquity of the find being of utmost importance since it shows primary evidence of texts that may also have influenced the process of New Testament canonization.

I never said the Gnostic account conflicts directly with Christianity, rather that it offers an entirely different perspective on Christ from the same time period:

Spoiler: show

Three Views of Salvation: Gnostic, Jewish Christian, Pauline Christian by Meera Lester

The Gnostics believed that salvation came through the grace of God and the secret spiritual knowledge that Jesus the Christ (redeemer figure) imparted to humankind. The Gnostics also believed that humans were imperfect and therefore could not secure salvation by themselves through good deeds. They believed that through self-discovery and inner knowledge that came from direct contact with the Divine, their sacred spark could awaken from beneath the dark spell of the Demiurge to return to the realm of Light. The inner spiritual resurrection, not the physical, gave each seeker access to God without the intercession of priests or the death of Jesus.

The Jewish Christians, those closest to Jesus, who saw themselves as a sect within Judaism, believed that salvation came from following Mosaic laws and abiding by the rules governing purity, diet, behavior, and sacrifice in the Temple as well as honoring the Jewish holy days and the Sabbath.

An early Christian view of salvation can be found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (collectively known as the synoptic Gospels because of their similarities in content, language, and style). These gospels reveal part of the message that salvation comes through individual good deeds and kindly treatment of others, especially the poor (Matthew 25:31–46 and Luke 10:25–27). The Gospel of John emphasizes salvation through faith in Jesus as the Son of God: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The early Christians did not elaborate on exactly what one needed in order to be “saved,” but Paul believed that salvation came from belief in the Son of God (see 2 Corinthians 5:10–21) and faith in Jesus. He wrote to the Corinthians about the certainty of the resurrection of the dead: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21–22).

The Pauline Christian view of salvation stresses belief in Jesus, son of God, who died for the sins of humankind, and was resurrected. Pauline Christianity describes the beliefs, theology, moral behavior, and acts of faith necessary for salvation as espoused by the Apostle Paul in his letters and supported also by the writer of the book of Acts of the Apostles. Pauline Christianity today is expressed through Roman Catholicism but also Protestant denominations as well.

You can buy a Gnostic Bible here https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=LXf8jPbHA14C&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKTAD0930BO1 if you want.

Amadhiyya Islam posits that Christ survived the crucifixion and traveled to India, where he lived under a different name

Spoiler: show

The view of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as), the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, is that Jesus(as) did not die during the Crucifixion, but survived the ordeal. When read in this light the Qur’anic verses put forward a more rational and far less supernatural meaning. Also when using this interpretation, we can, finally, reconcile the narrations in the Qur’an with the Biblical accounts and see that they are telling the same story.

The idea of Jesus(as) surviving the Crucifixion is not a new one. The idea, known in scholarship as the ‘Swoon Theory’, has been known in scholarly circles since 1780. In modern times these ideas have gained more acceptance and coverage in academic circles and in documentaries and films.
- See more at: http://www.reviewofreligions.org/1440/t ... dI1jJ.dpuf

And recent Historical Evidence has surfaced to suggest Christ traveled to India:

Spoiler: show

Or, as the New York Times said of my film, I've been "sifting through legends, myths and historical evidence in an attempt to unravel the mysteries of the life of Jesus of Nazareth from ages 12 to 30" and Jesus' possible travels in India.

Everyone is entitled to his or her right to skepticism, but if you fail to accept the challenge of considering this, you will be depriving yourself of knowledge of an extraordinary puzzle. This remarkable puzzle, which involves eighteen lost years or "Hidden Years" in the life of Jesus, may well turn out to be a cornerstone for understanding many enigmas about Christianity -- like the long-ignored missing but somehow obvious clue in a mystery that remains unsolved. Or perhaps somehow it will eventually be proven a dead end by indisputable dating of documents, DNA testing and other scientific tests and tools. Either way, none of us will be the worse for the truly incredible journey to inquire and discover what can be surmised about Jesus' Lost Years by taking the questions right to the ancient temple of the Hindus called Jagannath in Puri, India, where some say Jesus spent several years (the "some" include the present spiritual leader of the Hindu religion, the Shankaracharya) and a Buddhist monastery high in the Himalayas in Ladakh, India, where an ancient scroll has long been held to exist that purportedly answers all the questions about the Missing Years of Jesus (see: http://www.jesus-in-india-the-movie.com)

What's that? You didn't know Jesus was missing?

The New Testament has a Black Hole from the ages 12 to 30 of Jesus' life. In the world of film we call that sort of omission a "jump cut." In Fundamentalism, they call it a part of Jesus' life that God doesn't think you need to know about, or God would have made sure it was included in the Bible. On one page of the Gospel of Luke Jesus is 12 years old in the Temple in Jerusalem and then... nothing... nothing for 18 years until Jesus shows up at the River Jordan to be baptized by John the Baptist.

One critic accuses me of Biblical revisionism for examining the gap. But I'm not revising. How can you revise what isn't there? I'm probing to see if historical records and longstanding traditions of all kinds can help cure the omission.

During the benediction at the Inauguration of Barack Obama, Reverend Rick Warren referred to Jesus at one point by the name Issa. (Check it and confirm it if you don't believe me.)

Never heard Jesus called Saint Issa? It's how they refer to him in the Muslim and Hindu worlds, and even the Buddhists are said to conceal a very ancient manuscript in a monastery high in the Himalayas called "The Life of Saint Issa, the Best of the Sons of Men." The story of the existence of that manuscript, that fills in the missing years of Christ and describes his travels as a young man in India -- and even has Jesus exhorting the Hindus to stop worshiping idols and give up the caste system -- has been resoundingly debunked in much of the Christian world for nearly a century. It's long overdue that the debunking stop. Our journey to India, following the trail of those who saw and translated the manuscript several times, gives a very convincing case that the manuscript does exist, and that it dovetails neatly with a long list of other kinds of evidence that put Jesus in India during that period of his life. If true, that journey of Jesus to the East was conveniently omitted from the New Testament.

You don't think Jesus could have reached India during his years as a young man? If he had remained in Judea, wouldn't he have been married off at age thirteen, the age all Jewish boys attain manhood? The silk road to India and beyond was much-traveled. There were caravans of merchants. And if there were three Wise Men (the Magi) from the East who were present at Jesus' birth, doesn't it imply (as Indian sage Paramahansa Yogananda claimed) that a tug from the Orient was present in Jesus' life from the beginning? Then why would the Lord not return the visit? Especially since the oldest temples in the world, belonging to the oldest religions, were in India.

And why did Jesus send Saint Thomas to India to preach the Gospel there after the crucifixion, if Jesus never knew the importance of India? Doubting Thomas preached in India for twenty years and died there. It's a well-supported fact. Take a look at Jesus in India and you'll begin to see what may have happened in those missing years of Jesus' life, and what may have been omitted (deliberately... or just lost?) from the story you've been told again and again since childhood.

Noted reviewer Pete Hammond describes the documentary Jesus in India as "fascinating and profound, a deeply spiritual journey" and the website of Paramahansa Yogananda calls the film "groundbreaking." But critic Jeff Wilser said before Christmas that it "would make Bill O'Reilly of FOX news choke on his eggnog." And Nancy Dewolf Smith writes in the Wall Street Journal that the film is a "cavalcade of crackpots" and "pseudo-history," ignoring that the film has such luminaries as the Dalai Lama, Princeton Professor Elaine Pagels, two professors at Georgetown University, an apostolic nuncio of Pope John Paul II, and of course the historic interview with the "Pope" of Hinduism (the Shankaracharya) who rather pointedly declares that Christian authorities have been guilty of a "coverup." (This is denied in my film by a Vatican representative, the late Apostolic Nuncio Corrado Balducci.)

If it turns out that this is a "Cavalcade of Crackpots," it fits neatly with my other films, which usually seem to be about the "crackpots" who are gifted philosophers, artists, geniuses and honorable men through the centuries, all of whom were considered outcasts in their time. They include Vaslav Nijinsky (She Dances Alone), Vincent van Gogh (Starry Night), Timothy Leary (Timothy Leary's Dead), the shaman known as Rahelio of Sedona, Arizona who was just covered in an article in Sunset magazine (The Artist & The Shaman), and the recently-deceased Forrest J. Ackerman, one of the "deluded" souls who thought way back in the 1920's that mankind would reach the moon in his lifetime (The Sci-Fi Boys). Major Jesse Marcel, who investigated the 1947 UFO event that became known as the Roswell Incident, was a laughingstock for decades, and he was the main character of my film Roswell starring Martin Sheen, Kyle MacLachlan and Dwight Yoakam, made for Showtime and nominated for a Golden Globe Award as Best Motion Picture for Television. Jesse Marcel's offense was that he implied that the government is deliberately covering up what it knows about extraterrestrials and UFO's. What do you think about that one. Well, that's a subject for another blog.

However, as for the controversy about Jesus in India, surf over to http://www.jesus-in-india-the-movie.com and you'll see what's provoking both agony and ecstasy. You may discover why writer Len Kasten, in the March / April 2009 issue of Atlantis Rising, says: "this film, some think, has the potential to revolutionize Christianity..."

As to the Church or those in power twisting Scripture and using it to their own end, there is this http://voices.yahoo.com/jesus-christ-hi ... tml?cat=34. It is likely Jesus never claimed to be divine, that his followers or following Roman Leaders deified him so as to stabilize their empire. Religion does unite more easily than anything else, after all.

[Duel of Fates]

Yanoda. This is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Son]

Yanoda. This is the gift that keeps on giving.

I'm starting to want to give yanny a black eye.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Though unrelated, I felt the need to share. Many Christians believe in the existence of a "Devil." I find this concept is best summarized by 19th Century scholar Charles Bradlaugh,

For myself, the only Devil I know is that black Devil ignorance, fostered by knavery and tyranny; a Devil personified by the credulous many, and kept up in the past by the learned but treacherous few, who preferred to rule the masses by their fears, rather than to guide them through their love. This devil has, indeed, not been a roaring lion, but a cowardly and treacherous boa constrictor; it has enveloped in its massive folds glorious truths, and in the fierceness of its brute power has crushed them in its writhings. But oh! a glorious day is coming: amid the heretofore gloom of night the bright rays of the rising sun are piercing, the light of truth dispels the mists of ignorance. Bright facts drive out dark delusion; might truths triumph over pious frauds, and no longer need men be affrighted by the notion of an omnipotent fiend, wandering through the earth, ever seeking their damnation.
Yes -- to partially adopt the phraseology of a writer in "Macmillan's Magazine" -- I do refuse to see in God a being omniscient as omnipotent, who puts us into this world without our volition, leaves us to struggle through it as we can, unequally pitted against an almost omnipotent and supersubtile Devil, and then, if we fail, finally drops us out of this world into Hell-fire, where a legion of inferior Devils find constant and never-ending employment in inventing fresh tortures for us; our crime being that we have not succeeded where success was rendered impossible. No high, no manly, no humane thinkings are developed in the doctrine of Devils and damnation. If a potent faith, it degrades alike the teacher and the taught, by its abhorrent mercilessness; and if a form, instead of a faith, then is the Devil doctrine a misleading sham, which frightens weak minds and never developes strong men.

[Col. Hstar]

Though unrelated, I felt the need to share. Many Christians believe in the existence of a "Devil." I find this concept is best summarized by 19th Century scholar Charles Bradlaugh,

2 Corinthians 11:14 - for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light.

Though he is evil, the Devil presents himself as good in order to misguide others. And if he gets people to believe that he simply does not exist, that suits his purpose even better.

I do refuse to see in God a being omniscient as omnipotent, who puts us into this world without our volition, leaves us to struggle through it as we can, unequally pitted against an almost omnipotent and supersubtile Devil, and then, if we fail, finally drops us out of this world into Hell-fire, where a legion of inferior Devils find constant and never-ending employment in inventing fresh tortures for us; our crime being that we have not succeeded where success was rendered impossible.

God does not leave us on our own -
Matthew 28:20
1 Corinthians 10:13 - God will not allow temptation beyond what is bearable, and will make a way out
2 Corinthians 4:7 - God gives power beyond what is normal

Hell-fire Doctrine is False -
Eccl. 9:5, 10 - Dead are conscious of nothing at all
Rom. 6:23 - The wages sin pays is death.

Some translations use hell for the word grave - Compare with other translations like NWT. In the KJV for instance, both these scriptures use the word hell, yet one refers to the wicked and the other refers to the righteous man Job.
Ps. 9:17 The wicked will retreat toward the Grave
Job 14:13 - O that in the Grave you would conceal me

Original texts use the Hebrew word Sheol which means mankind's common grave.