Comments and Feedback on Issue No. 27, February 2007

from Devinder Singh Chahal
Place: Canada

Dear Editor,

Dr. Baldev Singh has commented on Dr Harbans Lal's misinterpretationa as follows:

"Fareed, if you are a master of wisdom, then, do not keep on writing blackened essays. Rather, Look underneath your own collar instead. AGGS,Fareed, p. 1378.

Here kale lekh does not mean "blackened essays", rather it means, "black deeds, bad actions." Accordingly, the couplet should be interpreted as:

O Fareed, if you consider yourself a great genius then do not commit bad deeds. With a sense of humility watch, what you are doing yourself!

I want to strengthen Dr Baldev Singh's view. If you look into the Internet's interpretation by Dr Sant Singh Khalsa, which is commonly used by many Sikhs during discussions on various Internet forums, you will find the same interpretation as follows:

"aapnarhay gireevaan meh sir neeNvaaN kar daykh. ||6||
Look underneath your own collar instead. ||6||

Similar interpretation is found in many other English translations by various authors.

The question I am going to raise is that either the Sikh and non-Sikhs scholars are so ignorant that it is beyond their Babaek Budhi (Discriminating intellect) to interpret Gurbani in its real perspective or they do it intentionally to keep future Sikh generations, Sikhs and others, in the dark.

The word "Gireevaan" or 'Gireebaan" is a metaphor used by poets which means looking into one's-self rather than in literal sense of "underneath your collar".

The irony is that such misinterpretations are going on right from the very beginning and today these are at the peak. I envisage by the year 2008 and beyond the entire Aad Guru Granth Sahib is going to be misinterpreted in such a way that it will be difficult to find the real message of Nanakian Philosophy embodied in Gurbani.

Sincerely,

- Devinder Singh Chahal
www.iuscana.com

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Jass Singh,

Let us have a frank discussion on your article on Jesus. It is not my intention to denigrate Jesus who was a great teacher. The negative references about him that you will probably see as we proceed are not about the historical Jesus but the dogmas about him. I therefore request that such statements should be seen objectively. I also suggest that we study only one aspect at a time. Let us start today with his birth to a virgin mother.

In support of the dogma, yes dogma, of his birth from a virgin, basically two references Isaiah 7:14 in the Old Testament (OT) and Matthew and Luke in the New Testament (NT) are quoted. You are well aware that all of these are secondary material being translations. The original OT is in Hebrew and Isaiah uses the word Almah which means young woman and not virgin. Similarly the original NT in Greek uses the word Parthenos which again means young woman. It is only in the Christian Bibles that the word virgin has been used both in OT and NT.

Out of the four gospels in the NT, only Matthew and Luke have described Jesus' virgin birth. Mark and John have described it as normal birth, by inference. Matthew has described his birth in a house to which the men sent by Harod the king were led by a star. On the other hand Luke talks of Jesus being born when his parents were staying in an inn, and because there was no room in the inn the newborn baby was placed in a manger. I have the following questions for you:

1.  Can a historical child be born under two different conditions and both described as word of God? You know what I am referring to. Are we not seeing two fairy tales contradicting each other?

2.  Is it possible for a star to be able to indicate the exact position of a house? Surely the stars are not so low. Since the star came up with Jesus' birth it should have continued to be in the sky until Jesus was alive; in fact forever because he is claimed to be eternal. There is no mention of it. Have you seen it?

3.  In the two gospels by Matthew and Luke Jesus' birth was God's gift. How is to be believed that his parents would place the new born gift in a manger in the cold month of December? Even if he was not special, would any parent be so cruel; they were themselves staying in the inn. Has this not been inserted only to satisfy a prophecy. I trust you would have noted concerted efforts, as I have in the gospels to satisfy the numerous prophecies.

You have given quite an introduction of what history is. Kindly respond to my queries in that light. After we have discussed this aspect we can go to the miracles.

God bless.

Regards,

- Rawel Singh

from Taranbir Singh
Place: USA

Beautifully articulated and written. I wish I could speak like this to all the people around me who are apostate. God Bless you. Keep up the God's good work.

Wahe Guru Ji Ka Khalsa!
Wahe Guru Ji Ki Fateh!

- Taranbir Singh

from Nash Gill
Place: Canada

Dear Editor,

I strongly disagree with the author’s views. I and many of my relatives are strong believers in Sant Baba Balwant Singh ji for over 35 years. He teaches nothing but Gurbani to his followers.

Regards,

- Nash Gill

from Iris Tomampos
Place: Phillipines

Dear Editor,

My mother has always wanted me to be a doctor. There is a culture in the Philippines that believes Doctors are next to God--- right up there with the priests and lawyers. Even more prestigious than teachers, which is probably why every other parent here wants their kid to be a doctor. Yes but what they don't realize is it takes a lot of money and influence to succeed. Even after you graduate, which takes 8 years average, you don't start earning real money until you've specialized and sub-specialized. And then it takes money to set up a practice. At this time you realize that patients want the best care but are reluctant at having to pay for Health Care. So you compromise on fees. Then you feel bad because you feel shortchanged. So you finally decide to take up nursing.

In my case I finally went along with my mom. But it hasn't been a bed of roses. There is a lot of politics in the field of medicine-- barely visible on the surface. The senior doctors do their best to regulate practice in the guise of weeding out only the best. In reality it's only keeping down the competition down to a minimum. What happens is that those who don't have "kapit" fall along the wayside. Casualties of an economically constrained profession. Ergo --- nursing and life overseas.

So, I'm not yet one of those who took up nursing. But I am seriously considering it. Either that or a life of obscurity and poverty.

Regards,

- Iris Tomampos

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

The article on the Akali and Dravidian movements written by N. Muthu Mohan is an eye opener for us to know about the glory of the Sikh and Tamil heritages of India, which are quite ignored by the upper caste Brahmins who do not want to know the richness of the Sikh and Dravidian cultures in India.

Regards,

- Job Anbalagan

from Carol Dijkhuyzen
Place: Europe

Dear Editor,

How come the Marcos family and cronies are still enjoying their ill gotten wealth? It's so frustrating that Imelda is again talkative and shops trinkets still!

Regards,

- Carol

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

The labor put in by Mr Jass Singh in writing the article on Historicity of the New Testament (NT) is surprising. Mr Jass Singh or may I address you only as Jass, why did you find it necessary to do this? Your answer I suppose will be that people question these things. But why do they, Jass?

Have you seen another example of a scripture having so many question marks? Have you also realized that Christianity has nothing to fall back upon if the various things, the important ones I mean, are questioned. Let me give you one example from the Bible itself: "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14). It is clear that the concept of resurrection had been questioned by the people and that is why Paul had to say what he did. Have you seen another faith having so many divisions as Christianity has? I wonder if you have noticed that the seed for these divisions was sown by the book of Acts 15:37-40. Does it not seem surprising to you that after Jesus' crucifixion none of his relatives - his mother and brothers are mentioned in Matthew 12:46 - or any of his 12 disciples cared to claim his body?

None of them even cared to see where he had been buried. Peter was informed by Mary Magdalene about the missing body. None of the other disciples bothered except an odd one. This seems to give credence to the Quran that not Jesus but a look alike was crucified. Even otherwise there are so many variations in the resurrection details in the four gospels that casting doubts is natural.

I thought instead of laboring on the historicity of the New Testament you would have come up with the teachings of the scripture. So let us have the teachings of the scripture which provide spiritual experience, solace and peace of mind. That after all is what faith should be about.

God bless!

Regards,

- Rawel Singh

from Sukesh Chander Sharma
Place: India

Editor- We request our readers to clearly state their reasons for disagreeing with the views published in the e-zine. We make this request for two reasons. Firstly, it will help SikhSpectrum readers understand how the author has erred. Secondly, it will give the author an opportunity to answer your concerns. If the author does not know the reasons for your disagreement and the facts in support of your views there is no way that he or she can intelligently respond to issues raised by our readers.

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

Rawel Singh in his rebuttal message on the article Historicity of the New Testament by Jass Singh has questioned the authenticity of certain incidents in the life of Jesus Christ by raising certain question marks.

First of all, our respected Rawel Singh says that the concept of resurrection has been questioned by the people. When Paul said, "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain", Paul laid emphasis on the truth that Christ was risen from the dead. The statement of Paul has never put the doctrine of resurrection to a doubt.

Secondly, Rawel Singh says that after Jesus’ crucifixion none of His relatives - his mother and brothers were mentioned in Mathew 12:46. He wants to know why any of His 12 disciples did not care to claim His body. According to Singh, none of His disciples even cared to see where He had been buried. When Peter was informed by Mary Magdalene about the missing body, none of the other disciples bothered except an odd one. This seems to give credence to the Quran that not Jesus but a look alike was crucified. Even otherwise there are so many variations in the resurrection details in the four gospels that casting doubts is natural.

I respond to the queries raised by Rawel Singh. None of the eleven disciples of Jesus Christ came forward to claim the Body of Jesus Christ. But “there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus? disciple; He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus” (Matt.27:57, 58). The disciples of Jesus Christ might have been frightened to come forward to claim the Body of Jesus Christ. There was no need for Mathew to mention about this incident in his gospel. The Mother and the brothers of Jesus Christ might have enquired to know the place where Jesus was buried. But this incident was not recorded by the author. The author was not supposed to record in a sequence all the incidents that took place after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Let us note that the authors did not merely record the biography of Jesus Christ at all.

The four gospels record the eternal being, human ancestry, birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man. They record also a selection from the incidents of His life, and from His words and works. Taken together, they set forth, not a biography but a Personality.

These two facts, that we have in the four gospels a complete Personality, but not a complete biography, indicate the spirit and intent in which we should approach them. What is important is that through these narratives we should come to see and know Him whom they reveal. It is of relatively small importance that we should be able to piece together out of these confessedly incomplete records (John 21:25) a connected story of His life. For some adequate reason - perhaps lest we should be too much occupied with “Christ after the flesh” - it did not please God to cause to be written a biography of His Son. The twenty nine formative years are passed over in a silence which is broken but once, and that in but twelve brief verses of Luke’s Gospel. It may be well to respect the divine reticencies.

But the four gospels, though designedly incomplete as a story, are divinely perfect as a revelation. We may not through them know everything that He did, but we may know the Doer. In four great characters, each of which completes the other three, we have Jesus Christ Himself. The authors never describe Christ but they set Him forth. They tell us almost nothing of what they thought about Him. They let Him speak and act for Himself.

This is the essential respect in which these narratives differ from mere biography or portraiture. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. The student in whom dwells an ungrieved Spirit finds here the living Christ.

The Old Testament is a divinely provided introduction to the New; and whoever comes to the study of the four gospels with a mind saturated with the Old Testament foreview of the Christ, His person, work, and kingdom, will find them open books.

Therefore, in approaching the study of the Gospels the mind should be freed, as far as possible, from mere theological concepts and presuppositions.

Especial emphasis rests upon that to which all four gospels bear a united testimony. That united testimony is seven fold:

The pen is a different pen; the incidents in which He is seen are sometimes different incidents; the distinctive character in which He is presented is a different character; but He is always the same Christ. That fact alone would mark these books as inspired.

All the four authors record the ministry of John the Baptist.
All record the feeding of the five thousand.
All record the betrayal by Judas; the denial by Peter, the trial, crucifixion and literal resurrection of Christ. And this record is so made as to testify that the death of Christ was the supreme business which brought Him into the world; that all which precedes that death is but preparation for it; and that from it flow all the blessings which God ever has or ever will bestow upon man.
All record the resurrection ministry of Christ; a ministry which reveals Him as unchanged by the tremendous event of his passion, but a ministry keyed to a new note of universality, and of power.
All point forward to His second coming.

Regards,

- Job Anbalagan

from Baldev Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Here is my response to Prof. Sukesh Chander Sharma’s both letters.

I would like Prof. Sharma to point out any erroneous statement in my article The Changing Interpretation of Sikhism by Khushwant Singh, about Khushwant Singh or Hindus, or my interpretation of the hymns of Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS). Moreover, how would the correct interpretation of AGGS create another Jerusalem in India? I would like the learned professor to elaborate on this point.

Guru Nanak says in the AGGS that “Truth is higher than every thing, but higher still is truthful living”. Truth does not hurt or harm anyone! Prof. Sharma, as a learned scientist, understands very well that science stands for truth and search for truth. So how could the proper interpretation of AGGS have any negative impact on India or Indian society.

Further, since Prof. Sharma has used the expression “Jai Hind”, I would like him to show me the word Hind or Hindu in Hindu scriptures, and explain the meaning of the word ”Hindu”.

We could have a fruitful dialogue as Professor Sharma is a biochemist and I am a retired pharmaceutical research scientist. I look forward to his reply.

Sincerely,

- Baldev Singh

from Baldev Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

I failed to find any difference between Jass Singh’s article “Jesus – According to Orthodox Historic Biblical Christianity,” (SikhSpectrum.com November 2006) and the “Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” (SikhSpectrum.com February 2007). His arguments in these two articles are based on assumptions, which are based on miracles--fantastic, chimerical and unbelievable stories. Rearranging such stories in any manner does not constitute history, as we understand this word today--proof based on evidence and logic or scientific scrutiny. Furthermore those who believe in the miracles described in the Bible often reject the miracles described in other similar faiths. Let us find out Jass Singh’s reaction to miracles performed in the Indian Epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, which are about much older than the New Testament. Both the Indian Texts are superior to Bible as literature and they are more interesting to read as the stories tickle the fancy of the reader much more powerfully than do the parables of the Bible, and transport the thought process of the readers far beyond the realm of the Bible.

Maybe Jass Singh, with his Indian roots, has heard of Ramayana and Mahabharata and may be willing to reflect on the following anecdote from Ramayana, which I found very fascinating as a child.

King Rama was a very benevolent and just king. He used to go into the city at night in disguise to listen to the complaints and opinions of his subjects. One day he heard a potter and his wife arguing. “If you do not stop mistreating me, I would leave you for another man,” the wife warned her husband. “Remember, I would not take you back as I am not like King Rama, who took his wife Sita back after she was in the captivity of King Ravana for quite sometime,” retorted the husband. King Rama felt so humiliated by the remark of the potter and rushed back to the palace. He ordered his pregnant wife Sita to go into exile. As a faithful and devoted wife to whom her husband was like God, she went into exile without any complaint. Fortunately, she met a rishi (an ascetic) who treated her kindly and built a cottage for her. She gave birth to a handsome boy. She named him Luv. When she used to go in the woods to gather food, she would leave the baby with the rishi.

One day after leaving the baby with the rishi she realized that the rishi was in a trance and she was afraid that some animal might harm the baby or someone may kidnap him. So she hurried back to the rishi’s cottage and gently picked up the baby without disturbing the rishi who was in deep trance. Later, when the rishi came out of trance, he panicked on not seeing the baby. He was worried that Sita’s curse would turn him to ashes. He did not know what to do. So he went into trance again to find the baby. He searched the baby on earth, sky and the under-world (patal), but he could not find the baby, the poor rishi was out of his wits what to do as not much time was left before Sita returned. So with his knowledge of genetic engineering he created a baby just like Luv out of freshly sprouted vegetation. When Sita returned, she asked the rishi about the new baby boy. The rishi explained to her what happened and he asked Sita to raise him as her own child and they named him Kush—one manufactured from vegetation.

Now, someone may ask how is it possible? or why the rishi did not use human embryonic cells? One answer to such questions is that the rishi used to be the head of “Advanced Biological Labs” at the University of Ayodhya before retiring to jungle as an ascetic. He had developed the methodology and technology to clone humans from embryonic cell, but to strong pressure from the “right to life” organization, King Rama banned all research on human embryos. So the rishi developed new methodology to use plant embryonic cells as the universal cells to manufacture all kinds of life forms. But he kept it as a secret because the “right to life” activists had aimed poisoned arrows at him many times.

I would greatly appreciate Jass Singh’s response to this remarkable story.

Sincerely,

- Baldev Singh

from Shammi
Place: UK

Very well captured. Minna is truely talented. The poem is deep and moving and the photgraph is amazing.

Sincerely,

- Shammi

from Nicolas Singh
Place: USA

Dear Jasmit,

Thank you for the article and all the research you did. My grandfather was one of the early Sikh immigrants. He came to the U.S. in 1906 through Canada. He married my grandmother who was Mexicn and had 8 children including my father. My grandfather died years before I was born, so his story is known to me only in bits and pieces that I have culled from my father and my aunts. Your article helped to fill in the gaps of my grandfathers journey and early life in the U.S. Thank you again for giving me some insight into his life. And for helping me to understand where I came from.

Regards,

- Nicolas Singh

from Jass Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

First of all, like Kerry Temple’s article, Rawel Singh's comments are absolutely unrelated to my article on the historicity of the NT let alone a rebuttal. We are not discussing Jesus, which was done in the previous issue. If you want to refute my papers (on Jesus or on the NT) then you have to first demolish my arguments which you have not done. You have not even entered into the grid of my cumulative case & argumentation in this paper or the previous one. All you have done is present the red herring of the virgin birth & resurrection to side track the argumentation & issues that I present in the current issue. Not only is this fallacious reasoning but it muddies the waters with rabbit trails that are irrelevant to the topic of discussion. You have failed to focus like a laser beam on the very strong and cumulative arguments that I present. The current topic is the historicity of the NT and not Jesus or the historicity of Jesus nor His virgin birth or resurrection. Please see my arguments for the Virgin birth of Jesus & His resurrection in the previous issue to put to rest your doubts, misconceptions and erroneous reasoning as well as misinformation.

There are many religions that claim to provide spiritual experience, solace & peace of mind but how do you test the veracity of that religion? After all you do not want to have a false sense of security solace and peace of mind based on an experience that is not rooted in reality.

Regards,

- Jass Singh

from Jass Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

I welcome the intervention by Job Anbalagan to my response on the article by Jass Singh on the Historicity of the New Testament. I shall respond to the various points in the sequence he has given them.

Anbalagan has said that Paul had not put the doctrine of resurrection to a doubt. However, I respectfully quote what I had said before: "It is clear that the concept of resurrection had been questioned by the people and that is why Paul had to say what he did".

There can be no doubt that Paul made the statement because doubts were raised on the doctrine. It is also obvious that the Corinthians were not happy with this statement of Paul and he had to write the second epistle to them. The language of this second epistle is one of sorrow and uses terms like affliction and grief. In any case why would Paul have talked of extreme words like faith being vain if people were not satisfied with what he was saying.

The subject of resurrection cannot be taken so lightly that people would have just accepted it. It still remains unconvincing to people who are unable to believe that any one could have bodily gone to heaven. In fact Jesus himself says "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are the angels of God in heaven" (Matt 22:30). This saying of Jesus proves beyond doubt that on resurrection one does not walk on the earth but goes to heaven. Resurrection therefore is of the soul and not of the body. The accounts given of Jesus walking this earth after resurrection are hard to believe both in the light of Jesus' statement and realities of life.

On the subject of neither the family members nor the disciples claiming Jesus' body, Job Anbalagan has said that "The author was not supposed to record in a sequence all the incidents that took place after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Let us note that the authors did not merely record the biography of Jesus Christ at all".

This remark could have been valid if nothing was done but someone else claimed the body and got it. Job is of the opinion that the disciples may have been frightened. That would show that the disciples were there only in good times and not in distress. Is the Christian faith that weak? And what about the mother and brothers? This needs careful thought because the only way people closely connected to Jesus did not come forward to claim his body is if it was someone else that was crucified.

It is on record in the Bible that Pilate had conducted himself with great propriety before he hesitatingly gave Jesus over to the Jews. It is not possible that he would have given the body to just any one. A reading of the gospel by John 19:40 shows that the crucifixion took place in a garden in which there was a new sepulcher. This indicates that the crucifixion was not an official but a private affair. The garden seems to belong to Joseph Arimathaea, the rich man Job Anbalagan has mentioned, and supports the theory that a man had been substituted by an agreement between Pilate and the said Joseph and crucified.

Job Anbalagan has also said that the gospels set forth the personality and not the biography of Jesus. If that is the case why are efforts being made to prove the historicity of the New Testament? History cannot be complete without the biography of the main player. Efforts should therefore be made to describe the teachings of Jesus and not the dogmas.

The trouble is that the personality of Jesus is sought to be put across on the basis of dogmas, which cannot be verified. Job Anbalagan has also stated that "The authors (of gospels) never describe Christ but they set Him forth. They tell us almost nothing of what they thought about Him. They let Him speak and act for Himself".

This is not true because the New Testament is at pains to prove that Jesus is the promised messiah of the Old Testament. If necessary we can have a separate discussion on this topic.

Job Anbalagan has also talked of the seven-fold testimony. This again is mostly dogmas and is another aspect that needs to be discussed. We could do that if Anbalagan desires to pursue this matter further. But let us state at this stage that although John the Baptist had stated that Jesus was the messiah, he questioned that as in Matt 11:3. The betrayal by Judas was a play enacted only to satisfy a prophecy whereas Jesus was known to the Jews and did not have to be identified as Jesus himself says in Mark 14:49.

I again wish to emphasize that a faith is known by the spiritual experience, solace and peace of mind and not dogmas.

Regards,

- Rawel Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Editor: Rev. Job Anbalagan has informed us that he will not be adding more to this discussion on Sadhu Sundar Singh. We would now like to conclude this discussion by publishing the final comments that we received from Rev. Anbalagan and Dr. G. B. Singh. Interested readers may wish read the original discussion on Sadhu Sundar Singh at the following link: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022006/sundar.htm

from G.B. Singh
Place: USA

Editor: Rev. Job Anbalagan has informed us that he will not be adding more to this discussion on Sadhu Sundar Singh. We would now like to conclude this discussion by publishing the final comments we received from Rev. Anbalagan and Dr. G. B. Singh. Interested readers may wish to read the original discussion on Sadhu Sundar Singh at the following link: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022006/sundar.htm

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Jass Singh has chosen to use language and tone which is offensive to say the least. One would normally be tempted to respond in similar language but as all scriptures including the Bible say, succumbing to temptations is falling prey to Satan; it must be avoided.

Jass Singh has mixed up my two responses, one on Jesus and the other on the historicity of the New Testament (NT) and said that I have thrown the issues of virgin birth and resurrection as red herrings. This normally happens when one loses one's cool. Jass Singh may therefore like to respond to the two comments separately since I have given them separately.

On the issue of historicity of the New Testament (NT) it would be noticed that I have not questioned historicity of the NT. It would therefore be appropriate that instead of saying what he has now said, he should clarify the motivation behind writing his article on historicity of the NT. This article mostly comprises of views on others' views. On the other hand it would have been noticed that I have relied only on what exists in the NT. However in order that he does not think that I am evading commenting on what is contained in his article he should read what follows.

Under the heading OTHER TESTS FOR HISTORICITY whatever he has mentioned, while not questioning historicity, considerably weakens what he is trying to get at. For example in the lower list of 5 points, at serial 1 he mentions the letters and then acknowledges in serial 5 that these had been questioned. This was natural because Paul had opposed Jesus and tormented his followers but was now trying to preach what Jesus taught. That Paul had to defend himself by sending the 2 Corinthians epistle says it all. It is surprising therefore that Jass Singh and those like him want us to believe that these are words of God. Why were questions asked? Because the letters are in the form of propaganda and questioning was inevitable particularly because of Paul's earlier conduct. Other points in this list have no meaning.

He has mentioned the epistle to the Galations under Dating. I invite his attention to Galatians 3:21-25, which attempts to write off the law given in the Old Testament. Once again we are asked to believe both are words of God. This was in contrast to what Jesus had said in Matthew 5:18 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". Such actions by Paul laid the foundation for the acrimony between Judaism and Christianity. What happened includes all the bloodshed later is history?

In connection with the 'Letters' Jass Singh would have us believe that different paras of letters were written at different times as in the case of 1 Corinthians.

At seral F) under 'Dating' he talks of the three Gospels by Mattew, Mark and Luke. I invite his attention to Matt 28:15, which clearly indicates that the story was written much later and is in fact an effort to prove something. It also shows that the account in the gospels is based on hearsay and is a commentary rather than history based on personal knowledge or written accounts.

It is not clear what Jass Singh wants to say on the subject of Harmonization. Just making a general statement means nothing. Jass Singh should show that harmony indeed exists between the various accounts within the various gospels and between the various gospels as well as between the gospels and letters. As an example I ask him to show the harmony between Matthew 4:4 whereby Jesus refused to perform a miracle when the tempter asked him to do so and the numerous miracles he is said to have performed later. Does that mean different standards apply at different times. I have already mentioned the issue of conforming to the law of the OT and opposing it.

Let us finish the present installment here for Jass Singh to respond. I request Jass Singh to respond to my direct questions on Jesus separately, and take up from the second set and this one on the authenticity of the NT.

God Bless!

- Rawel Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

We thank you for publishing all our views in your esteemed forum.

I humbly respond to the post of my learned friend Rawel Singh. I am glad that he is taking pains in reading and understanding the Bible, when many Christians do not read the Bible in order to understand it.

The gospel of Christ rests solely on the foundation of the doctrine of resurrection of Jesus Christ in His bodily form. This has been confirmed by all the four gospel writers. Paul used the word "if" because it was a supposition. Supposing Christ had not resurrected, Paul said, "then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain". If Christ had not resurrected from the dead, then the whole gospel message would have been vain. What is the gospel (good news) message? It is the truth of resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It is not a dogma. But it is the truth. A dogma is different from a truth. Mahatma Gandhi lived in India and fought for our freedom. It is a truth based on the history. It is not a doctrine at all. Paul used the words "affliction" or "grief" not in the context of the truth of resurrection of Jesus Christ at all as claimed by Rawel Singh. Paul wrote the epistle to the Corinthian church. The believers in Corinth did believe in the truth of resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For example, I am writing like this. "If Mahatma Gandhi had not been born, then we would not have got the independence from the British rule". The truth is that Mahatma Gandhi was born and that we got the independence. Nobody in this nation is still questioning the truth concerning the birth of Mahatma Gandhi. Similarly, none in the Corinthian Church did raise any question concerning the truth of resurrection. Of course, the unbelieving Jews did not believe in this truth.

Rawel Singh had quoted a portion from Quran to tell that a person who looked like Jesus was crucified and that Jesus was taken into the Heaven (in His bodily form). When Rawel Singh quoted from the Quran, he should at least believe in the fact that Jesus Christ was taken into the Heaven in His bodily form. Rawel Singh should not dispute the fact that it was possible for Jesus Christ to be taken into the Heaven in His bodily form.

Rawel Singh says that people may not believe in the truth of the resurrection of the dead. Even today miracles of dead people coming back to life in the Name of Jesus Christ are reported all over the world. Now the question concerns the fact of a person who has been resurrected going to heaven in his/her bodily form. Except Jesus Christ, no resurrected person has gone to the heaven in the bodily form. After experiencing this great miracle, the people concerned have to die one day. Lazarus was dead and he was restored to life by Jesus Christ. Then Lazarus also died in the natural way. He did not go to heaven in his bodily form. According to the words of Jesus Christ, "they(resurrected people) neither marry nor are given in marriage, but the angels of God in heaven". Jesus here talks of the resurrection of the dead during His second advent and not before that.

There is no need for resurrection of the soul as contended by Rawel Singh. Resurrection is only for the body. Soul needs salvation from the sin. The skeptics may not believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. But those who believe in this truth do experience salvation for their souls.

It is a fact that the disciples were frightened when Jesus was arrested and then crucified on the Cross. Jesus was forsaken by His own disciples. It is a fact. This is the cardinal fact as sincerely reported by the authors of the gospels. If the gospel had been fabricated, the writers would have presented a beautiful story like a novel to please the readers. Rawel Singh wonders whether by such acts of cowardice, the Christian faith was weak. Let my dear friend Rawel Singh note that the Christian faith cannot be made weak at all if some followers had not put a brave face when they faced persecutions. Christ goes in search of the lost or the weak sheep in His fold. The Christian faith is not based on any dogma but on the truth, which has been experienced by millions throughout the age. I say that Jesus rose from the dead and lives today because I have experienced the power of resurrection in my life. It is based on my personal experience and not on any dogma that I know through my mind.

The kith and kin of Jesus Christ and His close disciples did not claim His body. It is a fact as genuinely reported by the gospel writers. If the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a story or something similar to a novel, the authors could have written that the Body of Jesus was claimed by His mother and brothers.

Crucifixion of Jesus Christ took place in Golgotha, known as a place of skull which was witnessed by many people. In that place, there was a garden and in that garden, there was a new sepulcher wherein no man was laid previously. According to Rawel Singh, "this crucifixion affair was not an official one but a private affair". Let Rawel Singh note that the sentence of crucifixion was imposed on Jesus Christ officially from the judgment seat of Pilate, the Roman governor. It was not a private affair. This cannot support the theory that a man had been substituted by an agreement between Pilate and Joseph, the rich man who had claimed and buried the body of Jesus Christ in his garden. If someone resembling the look of Jesus had been crucified, it could have been a great fraud committed by Pilate and the Roman rulers on the Jews who wanted Jesus to be crucified. "This historical fraud" could have been reported by the contemporaries other than the gospel writers or the disciples of Jesus Christ.

Rawel Singh claims that history cannot be complete without the biography of the main player to repudiate my view that the gospels set forth the Personality of Jesus Christ and not the biography of Jesus Christ. The gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the gospel writers recorded what they had witnessed. John writes at the end of the gospel, "This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things and we know that his (Jesus') testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:24-25).

Historicity of the New Testament deals with the authenticity of the history and its sources. Jass Singh has presented his views to prove the authenticity of the history of the New Testament on the basis of the historical evidences presented by the authors concerned. Jass Singh did his job to prove the history of the New Testament because many esteemed authors have raised doubts about the authenticity of the Bible. We do not attempt to prove the historicity of the New Testament. It already stands proved through the irrefutable historical evidences.

The gospel writers mainly reported what Jesus did during His earthly ministry of about 3 and half years, apart from touching upon His birth and childhood. The gospel is the testimony of Jesus Christ as reported by the gospel writers. If the writers of the gospel had fabricated the whole story of His life, they could have written a wonderful "biography". But they wrote what they witnessed. Nobody is worthy to write the biography of the Son of God. Can anyone write the biography of God? No. Nobody is worthy to write the biography of His Son.

The Personality of Jesus cannot be sought to be put across on the basis of any dogmas at all. It is a revelation and not a dogma. A dogma is confined to the mind of faculty but a revelation is given to the unseen soul. A revelation is spiritual. It opens our spiritual eyes. A dogma is learnt through our mind or senses. The New Testament is not at pains to prove Jesus is the Promised Messiah of the Old Testament. It reveals or sets forth the Promised Messiah. It never proves this truth through any dogma.

The seven-fold testimony as mentioned by me is not intended to prove any dogma or doctrine. It is the testimony of the divine author i.e. the Holy Spirit. A testimony has to be given by a person who has witnessed something. It cannot be on the basis of a dogma that he has learnt through his faculty of mind. In Matt.11:3, John the Baptist wanted to confirm whether the Person Whom He had testified in the beginning as "the Lamb of God" was the Messiah whom the Jews were looking for. John was a human being subject to the vicissitude of doubts and beliefs. John was beheaded at last for speaking the truth. Had he witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ like the disciples of Jesus Christ, he could have witnessed, "This is the Messiah of Jews". It was only a one-time doubt expressed by him. Though Jesus came to John the Baptist for taking baptism, He had not gone to him afterwards. John the Baptist was lonely in his ministry. When Jesus appeared on the scene, he decreased. John rightly said, "He should increase and I should decrease".

After resurrection of Jesus Christ, His disciple Thomas had also doubted. Then Jesus showed him His wounds and Thomas believed Him after touching His wounds. Let us note that the writers of the gospel reported sincerely what they witnessed. If they had wanted to fabricate the gospel, they could have simply omitted this passage concerning the statement of John the Baptist and also concerning the doubt of Thomas.

If the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was only a ploy, according to Rawel Singh, just to satisfy a prophecy, then the whole gospel account could have been a ploy because all the events in the life of Jesus were prophecies only. The argument of Rawel Singh is not based on sound reasoning at all.

Rawel Singh ultimately said, "I again wish to emphasize that a faith is known by the spiritual experience, solace and peace of mind and not dogmas". Yes, our faith in the gospel of Christ as presented by the authors of the gospel is known by our spiritual experience of meeting with the Savior with the result that we get peace of mind. Our faith is not based on any dogmas but on the truth.

Regards,

- Job Anbalagan

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

I respectfully respond to the latest post of Rev Job Anbalagan. The first point he has tried to emphasize is that of resurrection. He has stated that none other than Jesus can be resurrected bodily. However Matt 22:25-31 clearly talks of other people because the question of marital union is being discussed. Here Jesus clearly says that on resurrection one goes to heaven and is not on this earth. No distinction is made between Jesus and others. Rev has also said that I should believe that Jesus went to heaven in his bodily form. This a crucial dogma of Christianity. But I am being told that it is not a dogma but the truth.

I wish to submit that while faith is a function of belief there should be some evidence that it is really so. The example for this is the existence of God. His existence is evidenced by the way the total universe functions in a flawless manner without a breakdown of any system or mutual interference between the different entities in the cosmos. God cannot be seen because He has no physical form but His presence can be felt. On the other hand we are told that Jesus walked this earth for 40 days. Some physical proof that it was really so inspite of the Matt reference above should be provided to validate this claim.

I also wish to say that there is no evidence that Jesus was talking of resurrection in his second coming. That people still did not believe is clear from the fact that Paul felt so frustrated that he wrote 2 Corinthians in which he used the words like affliction and grief. Rev has said that these words do not refer to resurrection, but I never said that they do. They only represent Paul's exasperation at not being able to convince people.

Rev has not been able to give convincing clarification for the absence of family members and any of the 12 disciples, 11 if we ignore Judas. About Jesus being substituted by another man evidence is available as I mentioned. But Rev feels that the Romans would have objected to any such thing being allowed. However it would be seen that the Romans were mainly interested in collecting taxes and Jesus had supported them in this regard by saying that what is due to Cesar should be paid. There was therefore no reason that they would have wanted Jesus eliminated. He was on their side.

The account in the gospels clearly shows that Pilate was not convinced of Jesus' guilt. He handed over Jesus to the priests under pressure. It appears therefore that there was an agreement between him and the rich Joseph to substitute another man and carry out the crucifixion in a private place, a garden which already had sepulcher in place. This also explains how Joseph, who had not been shown to have any close relations even of being a disciple, was able to get Jesus' body. The substitute was probably not allowed to die. There is another interesting aspect.

John 20:14 says that Mary Magdalene who was so close to Jesus thought that the person who had been thought to have risen from the grave was the gardener. This says a lot considering that the said crucifixion took place in Joseph's garden.

Rev has given the impression that I had said that the gospels had been fabricated. I have not said so. What I find from the reading of the gospels is that they are accounts based on hearsay and not personal observation or written accounts. That explains the differences between the various gospels. Giving just 7 common factors does not help because the differences are many.

For example one of major dogmas is the virgin birth of Jesus but two gospels mention it with widely different views. Rev is surely aware that virgin birth has been designated as dogma and not truth by the Roman Catholic Church. Similarly the Sermon on the Mount is mentioned only by two gospels with widely different details. The sermon in the gospel by Luke has plenty of curses which cannot be the subject of a sermon, or should not be and I find it difficult to believe that Jesus would have said all that.

I am ware of the contents of John 21:24-25. It is fine to say such things about God Almighty but to say that about someone whose ministry lasted only for 3 years does not impress.

It is surprising to see the attempt to wish away the query of John Baptist in Matt 11:3. He had been saying from the beginning that Jesus was the Messiah. The doubts seem to have arisen because of what Jesus did, and John did not find it conforming to what the Messiah was to come for. Rev has tried to brush aside John's views but Jesus had said that a person greater John Baptist had not been born (Matt 11:11).

Rev has also mentioned about Thomas verifying Jesus' wounds and he does it by shoving his hand in the wound; this is most unlikely and seems to have been done to dramatize.

At the end Rev says his spiritual experience is in the person of Jesus and the dogmas, which he calls truth. I could leave it there because dogmas cannot be the truth.

God Bless!

- Rawel Singh

from Jass Singh
Place: USA

Most respected Rawel Singh, I am sure you must be a very fine and highly educated gentleman but your understanding of the Holy Bible & its theology is very anemic & superficial. And it is amazing how fine well educated people with no theological or philosophical backgrounds set them selves up as experts in fields that they have no expertise in. A single individual such as you appears on the stage of history like a flash of lightning, totally ignoring the 2000 years that the Bible has survived all sorts of onslaughts. Referring to the onslaughts & attacks on the Bible, it is said that “the Bible is an anvil that has worn out thousands of hammers." It is sad but not surprising that you did not take the time to labor through my articles, study the contents, research and then verify or refute (with sound logical arguments, not unsupported assertions based on misinformation). If you will allow me, I will endeavor to fill the gaps in your knowledge and understanding.

You ask why I wrote the article & then give your answer & end with another question. First of all this question is superfluous, secondly it is an irrelevant red herring (logical fallacy) as it has nothing to do with substantiating your position or refuting my arguments, thirdly I am not a mind reader of people’s motive & intentions and neither are you. But I would imagine that there are some people amongst these skeptics who are sincerely searching for the truth -- rational people made in the image of a rational God, people who want evidence & supporting arguments just as the Bible itself recommends & encourages: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1Thes 5:21). And there is the example of the Bereans who cross-checked what was preached “…examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11). You conclude that because there are skeptics who ask questions, the Bible must be myth. But this is a non-sequiter (it does not follow). You come to this erroneous conclusion because you have totally ignored my tests of historicity that prove your assertion untenable. FYI every scripture has question marks including the SGGS. The point is that the more questions that are raised & answered or refuted the stronger the grounds on which that scripture & its veracity rest.

You next ask about 1 Cor 15:14 & correctly point out that the resurrection was in question & hence the reason for Paul to expound on it. You need to read the whole chapter in context – this is one of the rules of hermeneutics (interpretation). In verses 13-19 Paul demonstrates that the resurrection is not only possible but essential to the faith. It appears that you did not read verse 6 which says: “After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep.” Maybe you do not realize the significance of this. Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and could confirm what Paul wrote. Imagine bringing 500 eyewitnesses into a court room to testify. Had the resurrection been fabricated Paul was in deep trouble.

The Veracity of Christianity hangs on an EVIDENTIAL thread-the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ. This is the point of verse 14ff and not your erroneous conclusion that the resurrection must therefore be a myth. In 1 Cor 15:12ff Paul sets the entire STRUCTURE of Christianity on a TRUTH QUESTION by which Christianity could be proven false i.e. if you can muster enough evidence, the implication being that you will not be able to do this. Unlike any other religion the resurrection is the crucial element, in that Christianity has a falsifiability criteria in that it is thus feasible using rationality, reason and evidence to prove Christianity false. Rawel, the Holy Bible challenges you personally to do this. If you want to invent a religion don’t be like Paul unless you can pull it off & prove it’s true. Don’t hinge your religion on something that can be TESTED objectively! Other religions cannot make such a case for they do not have any criteria of falsifiability. Furthermore before king Agrippa: Paul says "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner.” ACT 26:26.

You next bring up the question of divisions in Christianity. I presume you are referring to the denominations which have arisen mainly due to the different methods of church governance. But there is no division as far as the core teachings are concerned –the irrevocable and non-negotiable doctrines. You bring up Acts 15:37-40 as an example of division. But this is not an example of doctrinal division but of difference of opinion as to whether Mark John should accompany Paul or not. Even here the sovereign hand of God is demonstrated who can use even human weaknesses for His purposes & glory -for the end result was two missionary teams instead of one.

You then mention that none of his relatives - his mother and brothers or any of his 12 disciples cared to claim his body. The gospels say that Jesus was taken down from the cross before sunset because the Sabbath was approaching (Mark 15:42). This is the reason no one goes to the sepulcher until sunrise Sunday morning –the first Easter Sunday (Mat 28:1). The disciples did not even do that for they were hiding, fearful that they too would be put to death. As for Jesus’ half brothers, they did not believe in Him and even thought He was out of His mind (Mark 3:20-21). Yet they and the disciples believed after the resurrection of Jesus because they were convinced by the objective evidence they saw in the physical resurrected body of Jesus (John 20:27 & Luke 24:39). James, Jesus’ half brother went on to be head of the church in Jerusalem until he was martyred. In fact all the disciples were martyred except John. The point to consider is that no one dies for a lie (which is the case had not the resurrection of Jesus occurred)!

Joseph of Arimathea who claimed Jesus’ body and in whose tomb Jesus was buried was a disciple of Jesus (Mat 27:57). So you are incorrect in your assertion that none of Jesus’ disciples claimed His body. BTW not all of Jesus’ disciples had deserted Him – John was at the foot of the cross at the crucifixion (John 19:26-27). And just because they did not go to claim the body it does not follow that they did not know where He was buried. If they did not already know, all they had to do is ask Joseph of Arimathea who was not just a rich man (Mat 27:57) but a member of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:51). Mark 15:43 (KJV) says that he “…came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.” Edmond Hiebert in his commentary on “The Gospel of Mark” writes that “boldly is in the aorist participle is best rendered ‘Having dared’ or ‘become bold’…It took courage to face Pilate, who would likely be in a very bad mood toward all Sanhedrin members because they had forced him to crucify Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea had not consented to the plan of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:51).

Your baseless assertion that a “look alike” was crucified & not Jesus” is ludicrous for His mother was at the crucifixion as well as John his disciple who would have recognized a substitute. Furthermore, Joseph of Arimathea would have been able to tell the difference when he claimed the body. And those who wrapped his body no doubt would have recognized the exchange. Then there is the unlikelihood of even finding a substitute and then in such a short time? And a willing substitute who made protests that he was not Jesus? Even if your thesis were to be accepted, where would Jesus be at the time of the crucifixion? The only reason the Muslims say that a substitute was crucified is that they cannot believe that God would desert such a great “prophet” as Jesus who they say was actually a true Muslim.

Finally you suggest we brush aside the question of the historicity of the NT and focus on the teachings of the Bible. This brings me back full circle to the beginning of my reply for we cannot discuss any “teachings” until the issue of historicity is settled. For indeed how can you discuss something that you do not even believe was said – because it is according to you “myth & not real history?” Why waste time discussing the teachings of the NT if the NT itself in which they are contained are not historically reliable documents to start with? You are putting the cart before the horse hence the necessity of examining the historicity of the NT. By suggesting that we discuss the “teachings” of the Bible you are inadvertently admitting that the “teachings” have been transmitted reliably. But this contradicts your premise that the NT is not a historically reliable document. This is totally irrational and inconsistent.

Regards,

- Jass Singh

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

I respond to Jass Singh's response to my second post. He has chosen to pass remarks on me personally which I do not propose to respond to. A large portion of his response are general statements not supported by scriptural quotations. I shall leave them alone except for the one below.

Jass Singh in one of his general remarks has said that question marks exist on Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS). He has not substantiated this statement. I suggest that if he has the honesty and courage he should come out with his doubts and I shall endeavor to clear them. This may be done as a parallel discussion. I trust you will do it Jass.

I am glad you have quoted 1 Thes 5:21. This calls upon those studying a subject to see that things are proved, and that proof should be lasting. Please keep this in mind for all our discussions.

You have used the expression "Bible must be a myth" more than once. I have not used this expression; probably in your mind you believe so.

You have questioned my reading of 1 Corinth 15:14 in the context of whole of Chapter 15. In this chapter Paul is telling them to accept the doctrine of resurrection but also acknowledges that people have doubts. Then he uses the emotional weapon when he says that if Jesus is not risen, Christian faith is vain. This is no way of proving something nor is the statement that 500 brethren saw Jesus after he rose. Please remember we are not talking of God who cannot be seen.

If Jesus indeed walked this earth after the said crucifixion it was in physical form and should be proved as discussed above. That people did not accept his position is clear from the fact that Paul had to send another epistle in which he showed his exasperation by using words like affliction and grief. Please do not use invectives in responding to this but provide hard facts.

Before you do that let me refer you to Matthew 22:30 wherein Jesus clarifies that on resurrection people go to heaven and not walk the earth.

Yes, about divisions in Christianity I am talking of the numerous denominations. You contend that these are only about church governance. That there are serious differences between the denominations is clear from the bloodshed and efforts made by each of them to get converts from the others. Conversion can only be on the basis of theology. The reference of Acts 15:37-40 was given by me to prove how, due to personal differences, the divisions took place even in the field of preaching. This clearly is the genesis of the divisions. What other reason can you give on the subject of divisions between the Protestants alone? Where is the question of church governance in that? I know you are keen on getting conversions to Christianity. Which denomination do you belong to and which one you want the potential convertee to join?

On the subject of Jesus' body not being claimed by his relatives or disciples, it should be natural that only the relatives or close disciples, the remaining 11 after Judas left could have done that. They did not. The reason is simple. Jesus was not crucified; it was a look alike substituted by an arrangement between Pilate and Joseph of Arimathea, the rich man in whose garden the crucifixion took place. Please see John 19:41.

It appears to be a private affair and even the substitute was not allowed to die on the cross. Where does resurrection stand here? If you do not agree please tell me why did the crucifixion not take place at an official site but in a garden where a private sepulcher had already been put in place? This also explains why the said Joseph was able to get the body. I am sure you have something in mind when you call Jesus' brothers as half brothers. The NT gives no such nomenclature.

I call upon you to please respond in a mature way with views supported by the scripture. And avoid general remarks, please.

You have said a few things regarding teachings and historicity. The reason for this seems to be that you probably depend on the dogmas to impress people. Dogmas are not truths but conjectures at best. Teachings about praising God, following His commands willingly and trying to live the life of a believer is what I thought you would give. Wouldn't you do that?

My earlier comment asking you direct questions on the concept of Jesus' virgin birth were on your article on Jesus published in the November 2006 issue (No 26) of SikhSpectrum. Kindly respond accordingly.

God Bless.

- Rawel Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

I present my views before the esteemed readers of the SikhSpectrum forum, rather with a heavy and painful heart. At the outset, I wish to say that I love all the writers who present their views against the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. God has given me a spirit of humility and long-suffering to demolish all the views of my learned friends.

I did not state that "none other than Jesus can be resurrected bodily" as reported by my learned friend Rawel Singh. I had in my previous post stated, "Except Jesus Christ, no resurrected person has gone to the heaven in the bodily form". According to the Bible, no body other than Jesus Christ has ascended into the Heaven in the bodily form. After resurrection of the dead on the second advent of Jesus, those who are dead in Christ Jesus would put on immortality and would be thus resurrected. We, the Christians, believe that the fact of resurrection of Jesus Christ is a cardinal truth based on historical evidences and that it is not a dogma.

Rawel Singh wants us to produce proof to validate the claim of the writer of the gospel i.e. Mathew that Jesus walked on this earth for 40 days after His resurrection. Apart from the eye-accounts of the people who had seen Jesus after His resurrection, what evidence is required to be produced by us in this 21st century? All the four gospel accounts speak in one voice about this historical event. Even if the people in this 21st century do not believe a historical event that had taken place in the 1st century, then the same people should not believe in the rest of the human history that had taken place in the first century. When my learned friend believes in the human history pertaining to other historical figures, why does he want evidence to be produced by us to validate the claim of the gospel writer?

My respected friend Rawel Singh speaks about "Paul's exasperation at not being able to convince people" about the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul was very clear in his mind about the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ because he had heard the voice of the Resurrected Christ when Paul was on the way to Damascus to persecute the Christians. He did not hear the voice of the dead Jesus but the living Jesus Who had spoken to him from the heaven. Paul saw a bright light shining when Jesus Christ met him.

Regarding the absence of the family members of Jesus Christ and His disciples, my brother in Christ, Jass Singh, has narrated the whole event in a very lucid manner.

My learned friend comes out with his ridiculous argument that "the Romans were mainly interested in collecting taxes and Jesus had supported them in this regard by saying that what is due to Cesar should be paid. There was therefore no reason that they would have wanted Jesus eliminated. He was on their side". Let my friend read the gospel accounts carefully and try to understand what the writers had recorded. My friend appears to give his own gospel about Jesus Christ as if he is in possession of some evidences contrary to the historical evidences.

Regarding the claim of my friend Rawel Singh concerning the substitution of the body of Jesus Christ, Jass Singh has already dealt with this issue in an elaborate and lucid manner. I do not want to add anything more.

My dear friend Rawel Singh repudiates my view about the seven fold testimony in the gospels by saying that giving just 7 common factors does not help because the differences are many. One gospel writer had not repudiated what other gospel writers had recorded. All of them had reported independently what they witnessed.

We have not come across any such major dogma concerning the virgin birth of Jesus just because the two gospel writers had reported differently what they had witnessed. You have to gather together these two reports to understand the whole event. I have already explained it in my earlier post. The Sermon on the Mount does not contain any curses at all. Jesus did not curse or condemn anybody. He exposed and condemned the religious Pharisees who had lived in those days. He never cursed them.

My dear friend Rawel Singh attempts to write a gospel of his own on the life of Jesus Christ. Let him present "another" Jesus out of his own imagination. This is like the latest artistic creation of the story of Jesus Christ in the Da Vinci Code.

If my Sikh friends do not have any evidences with them to disprove the historical evidences handed down to us by the writers of the gospel who had lived in the first century, let them not speak about the falsehood of the gospel. Let them note that according to the principles of the law of jurisprudence, the burden of proof lies on those who affirm something to prove. The birth of Jesus Christ, His life, His death on the Cross, His resurrection from the dead, and finally His ascension into the Heaven are a matter of history which has withstood the critical scrutiny and onslaughts of many historians over the long period of 2000 years.

We challenge our Sikh brethren to produce evidences in their armor. They merely present their arguments. If they present their arguments without any piece of evidence, the same should be based on sound reasoning or judgment. I humbly request them not to make this esteemed forum where they discuss about their glorious culture and heritages into a forum of anti-Christian thoughts. None of their gurus spoke anything against Jesus Christ and the Bible. When my Sikh brethren whom I love in Christ Jesus are free to clarify their doubts about the Christian faith and doctrines by viewing the whole Bible or the gospel in a critical manner, they should also believe to some extent what we are presenting to the best of our ability. It appears that they just want to question everything for the sake of questioning. They attempt to bulldoze our faith. But our faith is anchored on the living Person of Jesus Christ and not on some doctrines of the Bible. "Christ lives in me" is our testimony. For you, it may be a dogma. But for us, it is the truth that we experience daily in our life. The more you crucify our faith, the more it will be resurrected because of the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ that works in us.

With love to all,

- Job Anbalagan

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Rev Job Anbalagan has displayed a certain amount of anguish complaining that I have been attacking the Christian faith. I wish to submit that all that I am doing is to point out how things have been brought in to disturb the original form of the New Testament by introducing dogmas. There are numerous examples of this; a few of which are given below, quoting from the gospel by Matthew.

a)  4:4. Jesus refused to perform a miracle as that would amount to succumbing to the devil. Even when a miracle did happen he advised the man not to tell anyone (8:4). But later it is miracles and boasting as in 11:5. This is most unlike the Jesus who preached the sermon as in 5,6 and 7.

b)  4:10. Jesus said "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve". However later in the gospels, Jesus and not God is the subject of worship.

c)  In 5:3 and 5:5, he teaches humility and meekness but in 12:39 describes a whole generation as evil and adulterous.

d)  In 5:24 Jesus teaches reconciliation but later parts particularly the Letters are full of Jew bashing.

e)  In 5:18 Jesus says Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" but in Galatians 3:23-25 Paul repudiates this.

These are only a few examples which changed the original teachings of Jesus to give an impression that the Old Testament (OT) had no relevance but at the same time kept on trying to show that (OT) prophecies had been fulfilled. This amounted to using the OT where it suited. That was not what Jesus taught. All that I am doing is to point this out and not wanting to write a new gospel as Rev Anbalagan seems to believe.

I wish to assure him that it is not my intention to denigrate Christianity but to show its pristine teachings so that chaff can be discarded. I feel it is bound to be done by well meaning Christians sooner or later. If one looks around it will be clear that there are more atheists, more people who say religion is nothing but dogmas and superstitions, more people who are not prepared to support the almost inviolable proofs for the concept of Intelligent Design, in countries with Christian majority than others. This should worry the Christian clergy. Instead they want to stick to the dogmas and superstitions. I feel it is important that efforts should be made to get back to the originals. There is a parallel to this in religious history. The early Hindu scriptures contained elements like rituals and the caste system including untouchability. This was realized and the Upnishads came out doing away with the shortcomings. Things still did not change on the ground and there were large scale conversions to Buddhism and Jainism in India. The Hindu religious leaders then woke up, reformed the system and were able to effect a sort of reclamation with Buddhism almost not being followed in India. I suggest the Christians should obviate such things. I hope Rev Anbalagan will appreciate this.

Most of the other things mentioned by Rev have been answered in my post in reply to the one by Jass Singh and I trust he will read them as he has been doing.

As far as the issue of resurrection of Jesus is concerned I suggest we do it in detail after we have discussed crucifixion the details of which I have given to Jass Singh.

Rev feels Paul was not exasperated with the response to 1 Corinthians. For this I quote from 2 Corinthians:

a)  2:4. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.

b)  7:8. For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.

c)  12:11. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

I have kept this reply short so that we can focus on the issue of crucifixion.

God Bless.

- Rawel Singh

from Jass Singh
Place: USA

Rawelji please focus on the issues and stop sidetracking with baseless accusations of personal attacks. Either back it up with specific examples & evidence in which case I am ready and willing to apologize or stop making these false assertions. I am clear cut and to the point for that is my modus operandi. To someone not use to logical argumentation this curtness might be misunderstood as offensive and abrasive. So, please do not take it personally; it is your reasoning that I am attacking and condemning as well as your input data (information) not you as a person. You also keep referring to general remarks but fail to give any examples. Give an example and I can get as specific and detailed as you wish.

I do not wish to embarrass you or humiliate you but you are grossly misinformed (bad data) due to a superficial understanding of the NT. It would be interesting to know the extent of your reading on NT studies. Perhaps you can supply a bibliography of books you have read on the topic or possess in your personal library. One has to dig very deep in order to assess an issue properly. A perfunctory & shallow study of the NT will lead to numerous points of confusion.

The main point is that so far all your posts have failed to address the big issue –the methodology of the tests of historicity. Instead you have chosen to dwell on these peripheral digressions, which do not even make a dent in the overall superstructure of the various cumulative evidences that present an extremely strong case for the historicity & reliability of the New Testament documents. You have failed to address the bibliographical test, the internal test, or the external test. Nor have you addressed the other tests or authorship of the NT documents or the early dating or the manuscript evidence or the extra biblical sources. Nor have you addressed The Rule Of Immediacy, Independent Attestation, Dissimilarity or Discontinuity, Palestinian origin, Coherence, principle of Embarrassment, or Enemy Attestation. Nor have you critiqued the Minimal Facts Method.

Sticking to the topic is like being in a race in the same race track but if you are not even in the race track or in a different race track you are hardly a competitor. So far I have indulged you and gone along with your questions but unless you start to address the tests of historicity I think we need to abort this non-productive discussion.

You zero in on one statement I made regarding the fact that a question mark exists for all scriptures, which would naturally also include the SGGS. You seemed to have taken offense but all you have to do is visit some Sikh or Islamic websites & discussion forums to encounter skeptics who question the revelatory nature of the SGGS. My point was that there are skeptics of all religions & scriptures. And if you wish to discuss the revelatory nature of the SGGS you should make that request to the editor as the topic of a future issue of Sikh Spectrum.

Re: Dispute between Paul & Mark: Paul was reconciled with Mark and your assertion th