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 that their earlier differences was the genesis of divisions is baseless. Paul writes: “Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.” (2 Tim 4:11). So much for your allegation of divisions in preaching. Furthermore what has this to do with the historicity of the NT?

Rawelji your assertions are so off base that I wonder as to the depth of your research & study. You write that the crucifixion did not take place at an official site but in a garden where a private sepulcher had already been put in place. Jesus was publicly crucified for the Romans never crucified in privacy. They crucified where everyone could see hence the sign on Jesus’ cross in 3 languages. The well-known quote of Quintillian explains: "Whenever we crucify criminals, very crowded highways are chosen, so that many shall see it and may be moved by fear of it, because all punishment does not pertain so much to revenge as to example". Your borrowed Islamic theory falls apart at the seams not only on this point but many others. And it fails all the tests of historicity starting with the fact that you have no eyewitness testimony for this hypothesis – in fact you have no historical evidence zilch, zero, none.

You keep insisting that I should focus on the teachings about praising God, following His commands willingly and trying to live the life of a believer. This makes no sense unless you first establish the reliability and historicity of the source. This is why I am holding your feet to the fire and forcing you to address the issue of historicity in a scholarly manner. Regarding dogma, you fail to realize that orthopraxis (right living) flows from orthodoxy (right doctrines). Each of Paul’s epistles start with doctrine & then end with application to Christian living. Which dogmas are you specifically referring to when you assert that dogmas are at best conjectures? The problem with your contradictory approach is that once again you have to face the issue of historicity & reliability, for dogma/doctrine are based on scripture. BTW were you specifically referring to Christianity or would dogmas of Sikhism be included as conjectures?

- Jass Singh

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

It appears that Jass Singh is so obsessed with his assumed level of knowledge of the Bible that he does not tire of saying again and again that I have only a superficial knowledge and that I do not know much about philosophy and theology. I would like to advise him that I have read and tried to understand the scriptures of all religions since 1944/45 when he had probably not been born. My first encounter with the Christian missionaries was with the 'Back to the Bible Society' in the 1960's. In 1972 I had helped establish a chapel in my army unit at Alwar, Rajasthan, India and and in late 1973 the Bishop of Delhi and the Moderator of Church of North India, Reverend Nasser came specially to conduct a service in the chapel. I had encouraged Christians to follow their faith and my contribution in this regard was acknowledged by the Church of North India when they published a complimentary for me saying "Although he is Sikh, he is helping us make more friends".

I have always believed in respect for all religions and this was an official acknowledgement by a leading Christian organization. I hope he gets the message and would refrain from indulging in invectives any more. He should realize that arrogance and the attitude of "I alone am right" is not theology and certainly not the philosophy that any religion teaches. He may like to read and act on what the Bible says at Matt 5:3, 5:5 and 5:24-25.

Jass Singh starts his reply by "Re: Rawel's 3rd post". I would like to point out that my name is Rawel Singh and as for all other Sikhs have been granted the title of Singh by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib. I have done nothing to forfeit this title and would request that Singh not be dissociated from my name. This forfeiture only applies to people who succumbing to temptations or being impressed by flowery description of things forsake the Sikh faith that reflects the pristine majesty of God Almighty and respect for all religions. In their thinking and practice there is no place for dogmas, rituals and superstitions.

So far as historicity of the NT is concerned I had already stated in my last post that I have not questioned it. So I do not understand why he is asking me again and to demolish it. Let us be meaningful please. The study that he has presented is only of academic nature. The scriptures are meant to be read and understood as a guide in life.

At the end of the last post Jass Singh has asked me if he has answered all my questions. He has not answered the following questions:

a)  I had asked him to give the question marks on Sri Guru Granth Sahib if he has the honesty and courage. He has not responded.

b)  Questions on the virgin birth of Jesus based on his article in the Nov issue of sikhspectrum.

c)  Reading of Matt 28:15. He has said there is nothing to show that this was written much later. He does not seem to have read the last sentence which says "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day". This not only shows that the contents were written later but is in the form of a commentary and not just reporting of facts which would have been expected.

d)  Instead of explaining how the two examples on miracles harmonize, I have been asked to read some book. Jass Singh should give his views. His reference to the will of God is interesting. Pray try to understand that performing miracles is display of supernatural powers and is the other name for equating oneself to God. Such actions take one away from the path to God. I hope we shall discuss the subject of miracles separately. Just now please justify the harmony. Harmony means freedom from differences.

e)  He had commented on the statement that Acts 15:37-40 really is the beginning of divisions in Christianity right in the formative stages because of Paul's ego. He had said the divisions are only on the ground of church governance. I then asked him to justify divisions among Protestants. He has not responded. This episode happened in the context of preaching, and Paul is the founder of Christianity. I suppose he accepts that.

f)  He has shied away from telling us which denomination he belongs to and which denomination he would like potential convertees to join.

g) The main issue he has dealt with is that of crucifixion and resurrection. In this he has only requoted those passages from which the doubts arose in the first instance. These issues are crucial and must be studied carefully. I am therefore giving the sequence of crucifixion as given in the gospels and what may be inferred from them. Once this discussion is complete we can discuss resurrection as that is the next in the sequence of events recorded in the NT.

On the Crucifixion of Jesus

It does not seem likely that Jesus was crucified for the following reasons:

a)  Neither Jesus' mother or brothers nor any of his close disciples came forward to claim his body after crucifixion. They were also not present at his burial; in fact they did not care to know where he had been buried. If there is anything recorded to the contrary in the gospels, please point it out. Kindly do not give explanations like could have or would have.

b)  A study of the gospels show that the main interest of the Romans was to collect taxes and this was resented to by the Jews. However Jesus was friendly with the tax collectors as is brought out in Matthew 9 although it is mentioned that he wanted to be with the sinners. But it is not mentioned that he went to reform them but rather they came and sat with him and his disciples and shared food (Matt 9:10). While the Jews resented paying taxes, Jesus said that taxes due to Caesar should be paid (Matt 22:19-22). This would show that the Romans had no interest in having Jesus eliminated.

c)  After the governor Pilate had interrogated Jesus he was of the view that at the time of the feast Jesus should be released but the Jews insisted that he should not be released. So Pilate asked "Why, what evil had he done" (Matt 27:23, Mark 15:14, Luke 23:22 and John 19:4). However the Jews were vehement and Pilate handed Jesus to them but said "I am innocent of the blood of this just man" (Matt 27:24). It is interesting to note that Jesus was handed over to the crowds although the soldiers led him to the central hall.

d)  There is no unanimity among the gospels on the place of crucifixion. While Matt, Mark and John name it as Golgotha, Luke names it as Calvary. Similarly while the other three say Jesus was crucified on the cross, Luke does not say so. However Luke says in the Acts that Jesus was hanged on a tree. This latter description seems plausible because as John 19:41 points out that in the place where he was crucified there was a garden which also had a new sepulcher (tomb). That means it was not an official place for crucifixions. There is another reason for hanging on a tree. The gospels say that either Jesus himself or another man carried the cross. It needs thought whether a wooden cross that can be carried by a man will be able to take his weight and wind pressure standing by itself. There is no mention of the cross being secured. Hanging on the tree therefore seems more likely.

e)  Matt 27:60 tells us that the tomb mentioned by John 19:41 belonged to a rich man Joseph of Arimathea. From all this it is clear that the garden also belonged to the said Joseph. Mark 15:46 and Luke 23:53 reveal that Jesus was placed in a new tomb nearby. The crucifixion in Joseph's garden had thus been preplanned.

f)  John 20:14 tells us that after Mary Magdalene had seen the tomb empty, she turned around and saw Jesus but did not recognize him. This is indeed surprising because she had a close relationship with Jesus and her not recognizing him says a lot. The riddle seems to be solved by John's next hymn wherein Mary thinks the man was the gardener. This says two things. Firstly, it confirms crucifixion in the garden and secondly that he was the man who had been laid in the tomb from which he came out. Since she was looking for the man who had been laid in the tomb, someone must have told her that he was the man. John does say that the man calls her by her name and she calls him Master but this is certainly not convincing. That Mary Magdalene did not recognize Jesus is unbelievable.

g) Under normal circumstances the governor would not have given Jesus' body just for asking. In this case it was given to Joseph of Arimathea.

h)  Now how did the gardener get into the tomb? If we put all the above information together, it would be clear that the Romans and Pilate did not want Jesus eliminated. Joseph of Arithmathea was a rich and influential man. Being a disciple he would have wanted to save Jesus' life. There was obviously an arrangement between Pilate and the said Joseph and the latter's gardener was substituted for Joseph in the garden. It is also clear from Luke 23:49 that those watching the crucifixion were kept 'afar' and would not have recognized who was being hanged. For example John 19:26-27 indicates that Jesus' mother and a disciple were present but they were too far. The statement by Jesus asking his mother to go with his disciple seems too far fetched because she had her own sons.

i)  John 19:32-33 describes, as other gospels do, that there were two more men crucified with Jesus. Their legs were broken to ensure they died but legs of Jesus were not broken because he was already dead. It appears that the sponge given to Jesus (John 19:29) contained something that made him unconscious to show the man had died but was actually done to save his life. There was neither any official record to show the death nor any one to certify this.

The above details clearly give the picture how things were preplanned to save Jesus' life and that he was not crucified or certainly did not die on the cross. There is a tradition which shows that Jesus went to India and his tomb exists in Kashmir. I have not seen it and cannot vouch for it.

Let us have your views on this and discuss further.

God Bless.

- Rawel Singh

from Dr. Sukhraj Singh Dhillon
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Congratulation to Dr. Baldev Singh for handling this complex concept of soul and reincarnation.

"Sikhism considers SOUL (atma) to be part of UNIVERSAL SOUL (parmatma), which is GOD. While all religions admit the existence of soul, but they differ in what happens after death." I have tried to expand this concept in a 2007 book "Science, Religion & Spirituality." If someone is really interesteda book is now available from Amazon, other Book Sellers, and the publisher. http://www.publishamerica.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?catalogid=18271 http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1424111269/ref=dp_olp_2/105-2496886-1865216

Regards,

- Sukhraj Singh Dhillon

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

I appreciate what my friend Rawel Singh has written. Though I disagree with him, I love him very much. Though I do not see him, yet I love him. I love him because the living Christ lives in me.

He has quoted some verses from the epistle (letter) of Paul written to the Corinthians. He has picked up some verses between the lines and has quoted the same to prove that Paul was in deep anguish about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dear readers, I am writing this letter to you. You have to read it from beginning to end to understand what I want to convey to you. If you pick up some intervening sentences and draw your own conclusions based on such sentences, you would not really understand what I want to convey.

When the devil tempted Jesus to make the stone into bread, He refused to perform this miracle because Jesus wanted to tell us that man should not live by bread alone. He performed miracles in other places because He wanted to prove His power as the Son of God.

Jesus never called the entire generation of the human beings as evil and adulterous in Matthew 12:39. He only called the religious Pharisees and scribes as an evil and adulterous generation. Please read Math.12:38, the preceding verse. Jesus addressed this to ?certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees? who wanted a sign from Him. Jesus called them ?adulterous? because the Pharisees had spiritually adulterated the Word of God with their own practices and rituals.

Jesus never bashed the entire Jews who lived in His days because His disciples whom He loved and the people to whom He had ministered were Jews. Jesus Himself said that He was sent to the lost House of Israel. He exposed and condemned the religious Pharisees only, and not the entire Jewish community.

Paul never repudiated what Jesus has stated about the heaven and the earth passing away. In Gal.3:23-25, Paul only speaks about the law being the school master that brought the Jews to the faith in Christ Jesus. Paul explains that the law of the old covenant should be properly understood by the religious Jews to know more about Jesus Christ. My friend Rawel Singh has to take the help of some Bible college or a Bible teacher to understand the Bible in its right perspective.

My friend may not be attacking the Christian faith intentionally but due to lack of understanding the same. I am requesting him to take up some Bible correspondence course if he has no time to be taught by a Bible teacher.

May the grace of God be with my friend Rawel Singh and with all who read our letters in the esteemed SikhSpectrum forum.

- Job Anbalagan

from G.B. Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Rev. Anbalagan in his latest letter has written this paragraph:

“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.”

If there is one thing clearly depicted from the extensive debates posted on SikhSpectrum, it is that we do not view the “biblical evidence” as historical in nature. In fact “biblical evidence” is purely fiction and mythological. I ask Rev. Anbalagan to provide us the historical evidence if there is any. Our minds are open.

With regards,

- G.B. Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

After reading the last post of my friend GB Singh, I have come to the firm conclusion that he is harping on the same issue of providing historical evidences by us.

My respected friend GB Singh has finally observed, “If there is one thing clearly depicted from the extensive debates posted on SikhSpectrum, it is that we do not view the ‘biblical evidence’ as historical in nature. In fact ?biblical evidence? is purely fiction and mythological. I ask Rev. Anbalagan to provide us the historical evidence if there is any. Our minds are open”.

The human history after the birth of Christ is known as A.D and the human history before the birth of Christ is known as B.C. There is irrefutable evidence that a Man, called Jesus Christ, conceived of a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit, lived a righteous and holy life, performed miracles, healed the sick, preached the Kingdom of God, etc. He was then crucified and rose from the dead. He was finally taken into the heaven in the public view of His disciples. The tomb in which He was buried was empty. This is the recorded history. Many scholars and fiction writers wrote many things against this recorded evidence i.e. The Da Vinci Code, etc. But all these scholars failed miserably in refuting the historical evidences presented by the authors of the gospels and the authors of the other Biblical books.

Job Anbalagan can and will never provide “any historical evidence” about the above truths because he was born only on 23-10-1949. He will provide the evidence of the living Christ through his personal life and testimony. Many personalities did live during the thousands of years. We know about them through their biographies recorded by men and we believe such biographies as truthful. Nobody in the human history rose from the dead except the Man Jesus Christ. Jesus performing the same miracles in our midst is not fictional. Jesus saving the souls of lost men is not fictional. We can reach out to the history aspect from the present or from what we experience today.

You cannot expect your grandchild to be born after a decade to provide historical evidence of what you see today.

Why people like GB Singh do not believe in the history recorded of Jesus Christ while they believe the histories concerning Buddha, Guru Nanakji, etc.? If there is a history concerning Guru Nanakji, there is definitely a history concerning Jesus Christ for which we are witnesses because we experience the presence of the living Christ in our midst.

I do not want my Sikh brethren to accept what we present in this forum. Truth is above everything. Truth is above what we see through our senses today. Truth exists for ever and cannot be destroyed by our lack of knowledge. We present the Truth because we experience it. We do not merely present the Truth based on history. Historical evidences are there. If you do not believe the same, then you have to experience the Truth by opening your mind to the Truth. The biblical evidence is historical in nature. You cannot separate the human history from the biblical evidences concerning creation, preservation and destruction. Who has witnessed to the event of creation by God so as to provide eye-witness?

There is no use in demanding historical evidences from me and Jass Singh if you do not believe what we have presented.

Regards,

- Job Anbalagan

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Rev Job Anbalagan has tried to sidetrack the issues raised by me. I had basically raised two issues namely the epistle 2 Corinthians and insertion in the New Testament of certain entries that conflict with the basic teachings of Jesus. For the sake of convenience all quotations given below are from the gospel by Matthew.

In connection with 2 Corinthians I had stated "Rev feels Paul was not exasperated with the response to 1 Corinthians. For this I quote from 2 Corinthians". But Rev now says about me "He has quoted some verses from the epistle (letter) of Paul written to the Corinthians. He has picked up some verses between the lines and has quoted the same to prove that Paul was in deep anguish about the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Firstly he has not questioned that the quotations given by me do indeed show Paul's deep anguish. Secondly, on the question whether I have just picked up anything between the lines, I request him to read them. He will find that they specifically refer to the first letter. Thirdly, I Corinthians was not about resurrection alone but many other issues too. And lastly he should point out how any thing has been quoted out of context.

Rev's response to the issue of conflicting entries in the New Testament (NT) is surprising. On the subject of miracles he says that Jesus did not perform the miracle of turning stone into bread as he wanted to tell that man does not live by bread alone. One must look at the total message of Jesus which says "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (4:4). I wonder why Rev has chosen to avoid reference to God here, which is the operative part of Jesus' message. The message is that man must follow God's commands.

However Rev wants us to believe that Jesus performed miracles later to show his power as the son of God. Does that mean Jesus did not want people to follow his teachings but just accept him as the son of God? No right thinking person can agree. Such thinking on part of the people who made the later insertions in the New Testament amounts to Jesus needing endorsement. Another example of this is when Jesus is said to ask his disciples "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? (16:13). When they say people think he is one of the prophets, he again asks who the disciples think he is and is satisfied when Peter replies "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (16:16). It is unbelievable that this would have been said by the same Jesus who tells a man who calls him good: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (19:17).

Here Jesus emphasizes not to praise him but God and follow God's commandments. The dogma of Jesus being equal to God or seeking praises is most unlike the real Jesus. Such dogmas are against his teachings.

Rev has stated that Jesus never called a whole generation of human beings but only the Pharisees and scribes as evil and adulterous. A similar expression, "faithless and perverse generation", has been used again in 17:17 when someone approached Jesus to heal his son. So Rev is not right. I wish to submit that Jesus would not have used such words even for a single person given his teachings of humility, meekness and reconciliation in chapter 5. This is the work of those who do not understand Jesus' teachings.

Rev has said Jesus never bashed the entire Jews. I entirely agree Jesus would not have indulged in this. After all he was born and died a Jew. He loved every one. Foundation of Christianity is the work of Paul and he left no one in doubt about creating hatred for the Jews although he had been a Pharisee himself. Examples of Jew bashing in the NT are many; here are a few examples:

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile (Romans 2:9). But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (1 Corinthians 1:23). Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col 2:14).

I had pointed out "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". In reply Rev has said

"Paul never repudiated what Jesus has stated about the heaven and the earth passing away. In Gal.3:23-25, Paul only speaks about the law being the school master that brought the Jews to the faith in Christ Jesus. Paul explains that the law of the old covenant should be properly understood by the religious Jews to know more about Jesus Christ. My friend Rawel Singh has to take the help of some Bible college or a Bible teacher to understand the Bible in its right perspective".

As in other cases Rev has ignored the operative part of Jesus' statement "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". The operative part is that the law would be fully fulfilled, but Rev has decided not to take note of it. Further he says that Paul never repudiated what Jesus had said. Now Jesus said that the law would be fulfilled and Paul said "Law was the schoolmaster and after Jesus came "we are no longer under the schoolmaster" 3:25. If this is not repudiation of what Jesus said, what is it? Rev interprets this to say the law should be properly understood by the Jews. No body would deny that that was desirable but pray, where has this been said in Galatians 3:23-25.

It is amusing that Rev wants me to take the help of some Bible teacher to understand the Bible in its right perspective. He is probably mentioning the half-baked ideas that I have pointed out above. I would like to inform him that I receive regular material from the United Church of God on interpretation of the Bible.

God Bless.

- Rawel Singh

from R. Sandhu
Place: Canada

Dear Editor,

Very enlightening! The facade that is the coining of the modern Indian history, stands corrected.

from Bilal Rana
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Thank you for sharing this wonderful article. I am a Pakistani. Abdus Salam makes us very proud.

Regards,

- Bilal Rana

from G.B. Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

It seems Rev. Anbalagan cannot differentiate mythology from history. The virgin birth of Jesus leading to his resurrection is pure mythology. Just because this mythology is enshrined in the “Bible” doesn’t mean it is history. History is something entirely different. Blending mythology with history poses significant problems.

Only a few days ago, Discovery channel aired “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” -- a documentary movie. Great news: They found the remains of Jesus! No resurrection! No virgin Birth! Now that’s history.

Regards,

- G.B. Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

Rawel Singh could not establish that Paul doubted the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Nobody reading the Pauline epistle in entirety would come to the conclusion that Paul doubted the resurrection of Jesus. When Paul said, "We are no longer under the schoolmaster", Paul was right. Law was the school master to bring us to the faith. But after studying under the school master, we have to become perfect. We do not study in a school for our life. It is for a period only. After accepting Jesus Christ in faith, we have to grow and to become like Christ.

GB Singh points that mythology is different from history. I agree with him. Let him prove that certain incidents in the Bible are mythological. Then I will disprove his theory. Of course, the Hindu Puranas are mythological. If the virgin birth or His resurrection is mythological, then what about the life of Jesus Christ? If it is a mythology, then it should be from beginning to end. Let GB Singh argue logically.

Ultimately, GB Singh takes shelter under the recent news of Discovery Channel that hit the headlines about the Lost Tomb of Jesus. GB Singh claims to be a great news because, according to him, there was no resurrection. He wants the readers to believe some story that appears in this century. Why the dead body of Jesus Christ was discovered? Even if I dig the grave of a person who was dead about 100 years, I cannot trace out the remains except the tomb. Let GB Singh focus on the historical evidences presented by the contemporaries who lived during the life time of Jesus Christ or any reasonable period after the "disappearance of Jesus Christ". If Jesus was dead and buried and had not resurrected from the dead, then He would have been buried in the garden at Golgatha. To repudiate this historical truth, GB Singh has to produce some evidence that might have existed in the first or the second century after AD. If GB Singh believes in the doctrine of Koran that Jesus was taken into Heaven without crucifiction, then he should produce evidence that had existed around that time to prove the disappearance of Jesus Christ.

The gospel accounts claim that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day. If Jesus had not resurrected from the dead, then GB Singh has to prove the entire Bible right from Genesis to Revelation as mythological.

A child reading the Bible will not agree with Rawel Singh and GB Singh. I believe that the views of Jass Singh and mine do open the eyes of the esteemed readers of SikhSpectrum.

Let these authors rely on some fictions other than the truth. The latest fiction "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" has come in handy to them. Their views cannot stand on their own legs. Their views need props to support. But the truth can stands on its own legs and does not require any props. According to the motto of your esteemed website, "The truth is high, higher still is Truthful living". The truth is higher than the views presented by certain individuals like my friends Rawel Singh and GB Singh. It is the life that we, the disciples of Jesus Christ live on this earth, is higher than any doctrine or the history of the Bible. Let there be thousands of Da Vinci Codes or the stories like the Lost Tomb of Jesus. But the Truth is higher than all these fictions. These lies based on fictions do exalt the Truth but will never suppress the Truth. The darkness cannot and will never dispel the light because it is the light that dispels the darkness.

God bless,

- Job Anbalagan

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

It seems Mr. Jass Singh is not replying to my last post because of lack of response to his last post. I had however responded to his comments to what he had called my 3rd post. I had written to him to say that there was an error in my reply in connection with substitution before crucifixion in that Joseph had been typed instead of Jesus. I had not specifically mentioned his other post since the same points had been covered in my reply on comments on my 3rd post. He had informed his reply had not been posted. In order that Jass Singh does not feel his last post has not been addressed, I am giving comments on the substantive issues mentioned by him.

The first issue again raised by him is about the methodology of the historicity of the NT. I have already pointed out that in my posts I have not questioned the historicity which I consider an academic study. What I am focusing on is what is contained in the various books of NT and see if the entries as they exist today are mutually corroborative.

I am also trying to study if the dogmas contained in the NT are supported by everything contained in the NT or are later additions. These require a dispassionate and objective study while maintaining that there are original parts which should be highlighted. When I brought this out he said there are question marks on Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) the scripture of Sikh religion. However instead of reacting in any offensive manner I asked that he should come up with the question marks which will be answered. On my request he has agreed to initiate this and I shall welcome that.

Regarding the dispute between Paul and Mark, he has quoted "Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service " (2 Tim 4:11), to show that the two had reconciled. I wonder which version of the NT he has read because the same verse in King James Version of the Bible reads "Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry". This shows two things.

Firstly a translation should reflect what exactly has been said in the original. However in the case of the Bible, printers and editors have made changes to conform to their views. As may be seen the two versions in this case do not reflect translation of the same original. The editors have taken the liberty of paraphrasing the scripture, something unacceptable for what they call the word of God. Secondly there is nothing to show that Paul had reconciled with Mark, he only realized Mark being profitable for his ministry.

Jass, in connection with crucifixion of Jesus, you have said that my saying that Jesus was crucified in a garden is wrong. You have also given a quote of Quintillian. I am afraid this betrays your not having read the NT. I have given copious citations from the NT in my other post; kindly have a look at that and respond accordingly.

You have also talked of my borrowed Islamic theory. You probably again have not read the Quran which I have and quoted. You may be surprised that the Quran accepts Jesus' virgin birth, his miracles and his being a prophet. The Quran quotes from the Old Testament as much or probably more than the NT does. The Quran also has Chapter 19 devoted entirely to Mary, Jesus' mother a gospel the Bible did not include. Quran therefore needs to be looked at seriously.

Your comments on my suggestion that you bring out what the Bible teaches on praising God, following His commands and living the life of a believer are surprising. You have said "This makes no sense unless you first establish the reliability and historicity of the source". Jass Singh please think about it. God is not subject to any historicity. We are discussung certain aspects of the NT. From what you are saying if certain dogmas cannot be proved, God fails. Praise of God is not subject to any history nor is belief in Him.

At the end of your post you have said "BTW were you specifically referring to Christianity or would dogmas of Sikhism be included as conjectures?" My friend there are no dogmas in Sikhism for it is the religion of the One God of all with no one being preferred or neglected. Do please come forward with your concept of dogmas in Sikhism so that your doubts can be cleared.

God bless,

- Rawel Singh

from Jass Singh
Place: USA

Most respected Sardar Rawel Singhji,

I commend and salute you for your continued interest in world religions and for reading and trying to understand their scriptures. I have not indulged in invectives, for an invective according to the dictionary is a violent denunciation, a railing accusation, an insulting or abusive word or expression, or censoriously abusive all of which attack the person. I only attack people’s flawed rationale (reasoning/logic) &/or flawed information (data). I fully respect people but I do not have to unequivocally respect their intellect – that would be dishonest and a travesty for all views are not equally valid. I respect & love you as a person made in the image of God but not as an intellectual & critical scholar of the Holy Bible. My attitude is not "I alone am right," and I have never said that. This is your impression/perception and you may have a point for perception is everything. I apologize for creating this perception and for any indiscreet choice of words that might make it appear that I have an air of arrogance or condescension. My pointing out errors in the content of your posts is meant to be an opportunity for you to fill in gaps or correct misunderstandings. There are many people who study all their life but miss the big picture. The Holy Bible says that such people are: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim 3:7).

Although you deny it, your posts including this one certainly questions the historicity of the NT as can be seen by your questions. But if you deny this, then end of matter & no need for further discussion. It is ironic that you tell me that you are not questioning the historicity of the NT and yet G.B. Singh says:

”If there is one thing clearly depicted from the extensive debates posted on SikhSpectrum, it is that we do not view the “biblical evidence” as historical in nature. In fact “biblical evidence” is purely fiction and mythological.”

I am not evading your questions but we do need to focus on the current topic, the historicity of the NT otherwise we will be all over the map. As for your questions on Jesus including the Virgin birth or resurrection, please re-read my article in the previous issue of SikhSpectrum and see the book I recommended on the harmony of the gospels for your question on harmony. You need to do some independent research on your own or as another participant put it, take some classes at a Bible college or seminary. It is not my job to tutor you in content matter that is far beyond the scope of this website.

With love and respect.

- Jass Singh

from Jass Singh
Place: USA

Dear G.B. Singh,

Regarding the documentary called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”, G.B. Singh's assertion that this documentary was great news because they have found the remains of Jesus and therefore there is neither the resurrection nor the Virgin Birth has not a shred of evidence to support it because your claim is not history – IT IS MYTHOLOGY! And it appears that it is you who does not know the difference between mythology & history, not Rev. Anbalagan for Christianity is founded solidly on HISTORY & collates with all known facts. This is why Dr. Luke could write that his account is not conjecture but was written “so that you might know the exact truth …” (Luke 1:4).

I will make a few brief points but you can go to the links listed for more detailed information.

1. It uses flawed statistical methods. The name Jesus is mentioned in 22 ossuaries because it was a very popular name as was also the name Joseph (and Mary). Naturally there would be many fathers names Joseph with sons named Jesus & vice versa. In fact all the names on those ossuaries were very common. And how do we know that the names were not engraved many centuries later? See http://www.joezias.com/tomb.html for details of the frequency of the names and http://dev.bible.org/bock/node/117 for the statistical calculations.

2. It uses flawed logic: The DNA evidence cannot prove legal relationships, only biological ones. It is a logical fallacy (non sequiter) to say that “Mariamne” was the wife of Jesus. Their own DNA expert states the following: “The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing.” (ScientificAmerican.com March 2, 07).

3. It uses very poor archaeology. See http://www.joezias.com/tomb.html for details.

4. IT IS not HISTORY. It cannot explain the resurrection data –even the Minimal Facts that most scholars agree with. For example, it cannot explain what happened to Paul on the way to Damascus nor the fact that Mary was present & saw the resurrected Jesus (& all scholars admit this including the Jesus Seminar people). And how is it that first century disciples did not know about the tomb? Nor the Romans? Nor the Jewish leadership who would have loved to expose Christianity as a fraud by displaying the bones of Jesus? The only tomb mentioned in the Bible is that of the rich man, Joseph of Arimathea (which Jesus only borrowed for 3 days as it was empty thereafter and not even his enemies could produce the body!). See http://www.denverseminary.edu/dialogue/jesusbones for extensive details.

For more resources & links see http://forananswer.org/Top_Ath/Tomb_Index.htm.

Regards,

- Jass Singh

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

I thank Mr. Jass Singh for his kind words and response to my two posts. As in the earlier posts he has shied away from tackling the issues raised by me squarely. I have been appalled at his quoting 2 Tim 3:7 in connection with people who are genuinely interested in learning. He may like to read the earlier verses of this letter and will find that they refer to the evil doers not those who want to learn. I have to therefore say again what I said earlier that he does not seem to have read the Bible seriously.

Jass had earlier questioned my statement about Jesus being crucified in a garden. However John 19:41 says precisely that. He seems to have only a bird's eye view of the Bible but at the same time says he is trying to fill the gaps in my knowledge. I would be grateful if he does that. He had asked in an earlier post if he had answered all my questions. I had given a list of points not answered and request him to do so, please.

He has advised me to read his post on Jesus in the Nov 2006 issue of the SikhSpectrum. I submit that I raised the initial questions regarding virgin birth of Jesus only after reading it. I again therefore ask him to please enlighten me on the two questions that I have raised on it. We could discuss miracles of Jesus next. I hope he would appropriately respond.

One other crucial issue I have raised is that of Jesus' crucifixion. In this I have given details of what is contained in all the Gospels and Acts. This makes a convincing case against crucifixion of Jesus. In case I have erred in any way in coming to this view, I would like to be enlightened. Crucifixion is the forerunner of resurrection and has to be studied diligently and objectively. I therefore request him to respond constructively.

Jass Singh has stated "Although you deny it, your posts including this one certainly questions the historicity of the NT as can be seen by your questions". This is an interesting observation because I am only trying to bring out contradictions in the NT. If that threatens the historicity of the NT which he considers so important, it is all the more important to resolve these issues. I therefore request that Jass Singh responds to the various issues raised by me in that spirit.

He had mentioned of dogmas in the Sikh faith. The Sikh faith rejects all dogmas, rituals and superstitions. I invite him to raise the issues so that they can be addressed.

I invite one and all to praise only the One Lord and enjoy the bliss.

God bless.

- Rawel Singh

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

It appears that Rev Anbalagan is unable to reply to the issues under discussion. His reply has in fact confused the issues. For instance we were discussing whether there is Jew bashing in the New Testament (NT), and I had given quotations from Matthew and Galatians. He said Jesus never did Jew bashing, but I said I had not said so; it was the work of Paul and gave quotations to prove it. He has restated what Paul had said about the Law of the Old Testament being a schoolmaster and later said "But after the faith has come we are no longer under the schoolmaster" (Gal 3:25). But this faith is Jesus who says that the Law will be fully implemented without change (Matt 5:18). In this also Rev had tried to give a half baked explanation which I pointed out and he seems to have accepted that since he has not further commented on it. The contradiction is clear.

Rev Anbalagan has also not been able to comment on the proof given by me on contradiction in connection with worship of Jesus as against his teaching of worship of God alone. He has also not refuted that Jesus who taught humility and meekness could have called names a whole generation twice, or for that matter even a single person even once. I had pointed out that the later insertions are the works of those who do not understand Jesus' teachings.

Rev now says that I have been unable to establish that Paul doubted the doctrine of Jesus' resurrection. As may be seen from my earlier posts, I had stated that people were not convinced about this doctrine in 1 Corinthians and Paul had to send the second letter in which he expressed anguish. Rev questioned this and when I gave quotations from 2 Corinthians he said I had picked some verses between the lines. I then pointed out that the quotations specifically refer to the first letter. Not being able to counter these he has mixed up the two issues and said I have not been able to establish Paul's doubts about resurrection and quoted the Law and the schoolmaster view.

I request Rev to reflect on these and see if the general remarks given in his post are justified. Let us please face the issues squarely and not evade or confuse them. He has frequently stated his faith in Jesus. I respect that. All I am doing is to bring out how new matter that conflicts with the basic teachings of Jesus has been inserted in the NT.

I invite Rev to have a look at my posts to him and to Jass Singh - I had asked him to read the latter - and he will find my saying that we should first discuss the issue whether Jesus was crucified and later take up resurrection. I have extensively quoted the NT to prove that Jesus was not crucified and had asked for comments. It appears he has found the evidence presented by me too compelling for him to answer. I once again ask him to please comment on the evidence against resurrection of Jesus and give if he has any refutation to it. This is a crucial issue and should not be bypassed.

Rev has questioned GB Singh's statement and said "To repudiate the historical truth GB Singh has to produce some evidence ---". The evidence has been presented by me not from anything else but from the NT itself. Please refute it if you can; if not accept it gracefully.

Rev has also said "let these authors rely on fiction other than the truth". I challenge Rev to quote one substantive statement of mine which is not supported by the Bible which he calls the word of God. From Rev's perspective what other truth does he want? I have shown in my last post that he avoids operative parts of Jesus' teachings. For the Sikhs truthful living is the basic doctrine and will continue to be so. For them God is the Universal Truth that has not and will never change. Let us all get together praise only Him and enjoy the bliss!

God bless.

- Rawel Singh

from G.B. Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

I have read the comments of both Jass Singh and Rev. Job Anbalagan. While I respect their personal views, I live under no illusion about the fundamentalist mind-set of the Bible believers. It is unfortunate that the mythological details of the Bible can be turned upside town to look like real facts. To understand the fundamentalist mind, I recommend to the readers a truly remarkable book, “The Mind of the Bible-Believer” by Edmund D. Cohen.

For a long time, there have been reports that Jesus’ tomb is in Kashmir, in addition to his purported journeys throughout India to include the vast ranges of the Himalayas. Though tempting, somehow the evidence presented in these reports had never been convincing, at least to me. In contrast what was presented in the documentary entitled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” by the Discovery Channel (March 4, 2007) could not be cast aside. It covered the very essentials of a credible historical non-mythological story. At this early stage of our evaluation, I felt comfortable with what was presented. Having said that, I keep my mind open and encourage others to reassess the facts presented not once but many times from all angles. I am sure many of my professional skeptically oriented Bible scholars will probe deeper to validate the presented facts on “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.”

I commend Jass Singh to bringing to my attention the comments of the fundamentalist Christian scholars. I have read them and without any surprise I can say: Unfortunately they are not convincing.

Regards,

- G.B. Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

I read with intererst the latest post of my friend Rawel Singh. Though my friends Rawel Singh and GB Singh have deviated from the main topic i.e. Historicity of the New Testament, I take time in repudiating the points raised by Mr.Rawel Singh. If Mr.Rawel Singh chooses to reply to mine without bringing out any fresh points but to harp on the same issues time and again, then this post of mine may be treated as the final one in this forum i.e. Historicity of the New Testament.

I reiterate here with all my knowledge on the Bible that Jesus and Paul never indulged in "Jews bashing" at all. Jesus never condemned the Jewish community as a whole but only the religious Pharisees and the Scribes. I do not want to waste my precious time in arguing over this non-issue.

Regarding the worship of Jesus by us, again I want to reiterate here that Jesus as the Son of God wanted us to worship God the Father only. But it was the Holy Spirit through the epistles of Paul and other writers of the New Testament who wanted us to kneel down before Jesus to worship Him. Let Mr.Rawel Singh read the following Scriptures (Phil.2:6-11). I will not further reply on this issue at all.

" Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of *things* in heaven, and *things* in earth, and *things* under the earth;
And *that* every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ *is* Lord, to the glory of God the Father".

Regarding the so-called doubt of Paul about the resurrection of Jesus, I again implore Mr.Rawel Singh to note that Paul had never doubted it in his entire epistle at all. Let Mr.Rawel Singh continue to dwell in a fantasy world by picking up some words of Paul from his epistle at random and quoting the same out of context. I cannot make him understand by brainwashing or by any other method adopted by the elementary school teachers.

Regarding the views of Mr.Rawel Singh about the truth of crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, let him believe that Jesus was not crucified at all. Rawel Singh still holds the view that he quoted extensively from the New Testament to prove that Jesus was not crucified. I do not know which gospel he has quoted to prove that Jesus was not crucified. Yes, Mr.Rawel Singh has quoted the gospel but then adulterated it with his own imaginations and presumptions, thus presenting another gospel like the Lost Tomb of Jesus or the Da Vinci Code. Mr.Rawel Singh then claims that I have found the evidence presented by him too compelling for me to answer. Alas! I do not consider the presumptions or the imaginations of Rawel Singh as evidence at all. How could Mr.Rawel Singh who had taken birth in 20th century have "evidence" to prove what happened in the first century of the human history? Let Mr.RawelSingh be satisfied with such kind of evidence in his custody. I do not believe a lie as evidence at all.

Then Mr.Rawel Singh claims that the evidence about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was presented by him and GB Singh from the New Testament itself. Let Mr.Rawel Singh and GB Singh clearly understand the word "evidence" from the legal point of view. We will never "accept it gracefully" at all. If it is evidence, we will definitely refute it. But if it is a figment of imagination or some presumption, then we cannot help them at all.

Finally, Mr.Rawel Singh has challenged me to quote one substantive statement of his which is not supported by the Bible. The Bible does not support all the arguments presented by M/s Rawel Singh and GB Singh at all because the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It reveals only the truth. It does not repudiate the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible speaks about and supports the truth of crucifixion and resurrection.

Regards,

- Job Anbalagan

from Pritam Singh Grewal
Place: Canada

Dear Editor,

Minna's poem Fields So Green reminds me of Prof Puran Singh's Punjab as it touches Punjabi souls enjoying the freedom of Khullay Maidan and Khullay Ghund.

How intensely her present or past sense of belonging to Punjab overcomes Minna's personal limits! Punjab needs Mnna like 'sisters of the spinning wheel'.

Regards,

- Pritam Singh Grewal

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Mr. Jass Singh has written about the resurrection of Jesus in the light of the documentary "The lost tomb of Jesus". He says that Jesus' virgin birth or resurrection is not mythology but history and yet when I asked him questions on the virgin birth of Jesus he called them red herrings to the discussion on historicity of the New Testament (NT). It is the responsibility of one who claims something as history, to provide the evidence for it. I have presented Biblical evidence to show that Jesus was not crucified. Both he and Rev Anbalagan have studiously evaded the issue. I request them to please respond. I now present Biblical evidence to show that Jesus was not only not resurrected, he taught against it.

I begin with Jesus' teachings. When someone asked him about whom a lady would get married after resurrection, Jesus' reply was "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Luke 20:35). Again Matt 22:30 says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven". This shows that those who are resurrected do not walk this earth but go to heaven. However Jesus is shown as having walked on the earth for 40 days (Acts 1:3). Jesus further clarified that those who are resurrected can die no more because they are equal to angels (Luke 20:36). If Jesus did not die again where is he now on this earth? Similarly Jesus is shown to have resurrected Lazarus after he had been dead for four days (John 11). Where is he now? I may point out that Rev Job Anbakagan in his posts has opined that both Jesus and Lazarus died again.

Jesus made it clear that on death it is the spirit or soul that goes to God and not the body. Luke 23:46 describes the crucifixion as thus: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit and having said thus, he gave up the ghost". It cannot be anyone's case that once having given his soul to God, he got it back. If so please provide evidence.

It is universally accepted that the soul is what gives life to a body and when the soul leaves, the body dies. So it is the soul that gives and takes away life. However in the NT we are told again and again that God gave His only begotten son (e.g. John 3:13). It is interesting that as per the description given in the NT while the birth took place with the holy ghost impregnating Jesus' mother, on death his body was taken up: "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God" (Mark 16:19). One wonders if the famous indian saint Kabir was talking of Jesus when he asked a Brahmin boasting of his special status; why he came through his mother's womb and not another way. The same question needs to be answered regarding the birth of Jesus; if he was the only son of God, God would have bodily sent him and not through the womb of a woman. I am saying this in the context of the claim of his body going up. Talking of mythology or history if virgin birth of Jesus and his body being carried by the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64) is not mythology what is? It may again be stated that the word virgin exists only in Christian Bibles; the original Old Testament in Hebrew uses Almah and the Greek NT uses Parthenos both of which mean young woman and not virgin. Also virgin is not history but dogma. There are five dogmas concerning Virgin Mary approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

Coming back to resurrection, if it is to be accepted as history there should have been some unanimity between the four gospels; this is completely lacking. To start with whereas the gospels by Matt, Mark and John give the place of burial as Golgotha Luke says it was at Calvary (23:33). Similarly while all others say Jesus was crucified on the cross Luke says he was hanged on a tree (Acts 5:30). While other gospels give no details of exactly where Jesus was buried John 19:41 says it was in a garden where a sepulcher was already in place. The gospels also differ on who went to see the sepulcher and at what time. There is also mention of two angels sitting in the sepulcher (John 20:12). Other gospels give different details. Now we know that wherever there is mention of angels, as in the NT it is to people only in their dreams. How did these angels happen to be sitting in the sepulcher in daytime? And is this history or mythology?

Mary Magdalene was very close to Jesus. She is the same Mary who poured ointment over him and Jesus appreciated it. When some of his disciples pointed out that the ointment had been wasted, he quieted them and said "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her" (Mark 14:9). Matt 26, Luke 7 and John 11 also describe the incident which shows its importance. There is another interesting aspect; When Jesus is said to have gone to revive Lazarus, out of his two sisters, Martha and Mary, only Martha went to meet him and Mary stayed back (John 11:19), knowing that Jesus himself would call for her. This is what happened when Martha "called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him (John 11:28-29). This shows that Mary Magdalene was none other than the sister of Lazarus and Martha. Jesus loved them all (John 11:5) and showed particular interest in reviving Lazarus. Given this background it was natural for Mary M to be closely involved with what was happening to Jesus. She was present everywhere and was the first to discover that Jesus' body was missing from the sepulcher and told the disciples (John 20:18). The close relationship which could be of husband and wife was displayed when she "seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain" (John 20:12).

Further "And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord (emphasis mine), and I know not where they have laid him" (John 20:13). It may be noted that Mary M refers to him as 'my' Lord and not 'the' Lord. In the light of all this let us see what happens next. "And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus" (John 20: 14). That shows that she did not recognize Jesus and thought he was the gardener (John 20:15). Considering their close relationship lack of recognition is unbelievable. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the gardener was the man who had been put in the sepulcher and later came out. A question may be asked abut the motive for this. The answer is provided by the gospels. John 19:41 says "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid". Matt 27: 60 tells us that the sepulcher belonged to Joseph of Arimathea who managed to get Pilate's permission to take the body (John 19:38). That means the garden belonged to him. This gets further credence with Luke saying in Acts 5:30 that Jesus was hanged on a tree. The story is thus complete that Jesus was not crucified in the standard way and he was substituted by the gardener, the one whose body was put in the sepulcher. When Mary asked about the whereabouts of Jesus' body she was shown the gardener whom she obviously could not recognize. John saying that the man called Mary by name and she called him Master is far too hard to believe in view of the overwhelming evidence against the man not being recognized by her.

Jass Singh has made a very interesting statement that Joseph's sepulcher was borrowed by Jesus for three days. It appears he is convinced in his mind that Jesus was part of the arrangement between Joseph and Pilate.

There are futher difficulties in being able to believe that Jesus was raised bodily to heaven. Continuing the conversation between Jesus and Mary M, John 20:17 says: "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". This makes it clear that Jesus was not to be touched and he was to ascend to God. This goes against the claim that Jesus physically met the disciples, walked this earth for forty days or Thomas touched him (John 20:27). There are so many contradictions and we are still asked to believe resurrection as history.

Jass Singh has made a reference to what happened to Paul on way to Damascus. Pray how is this relevant to the issues being discussed?

In connection with the documentary Jass Singh has stated that there were many people having similar names and hence a definite conclusion cannot be drawn. What is necessary to understand is that the probability of all the names mentioned being there for many families is very low. There is in fact a high probability of the conclusions to be correct.

He then asks a question And how do we know that the names were not engraved many centuries later?" It should be appreciated that a motive for anything of this nature should be shown. Does Jass Singh have any information on this?

He has raised the issue of 'Mariamne' and said "It is a logical fallacy (non sequiter) to say that "Mariamne" was the wife of Jesus. Their own DNA expert states the following: "The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing." (ScientificAmerican.com March 2, 07)." Well if you read the description given above it will be clear that Mary M and Jesus had a close relationship, probably through marriage. Hence if an ossuary with the name Mariamne is found along with that of Jesus and it is confirmed that they are not maternally related the conclusion is clear that she was part of the family. The name Mariamne is the condensed double word Mary Magdalene.

Jass Singh has asked another question "And how is it that first century disciples did not know about the tomb? Nor the Romans? Nor the Jewish leadership who would have loved to expose Christianity as a fraud by displaying the bones of Jesus". The answer to this is twofold. Firstly all the disciples of Jesus had deserted him and there was no question of them being interested in knowing anything about him. The Romans knew that Jesus had not been crucified and the question is not relevant. And as for the Jews Jesus remained incognito.

There will probably be many questions. I shall try and answer them on the authority of the NT as it exists now.

God bless,

- Rawel Singh

from Marcia Visanji
Place: Italy

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for enlightening me. I received the above article from one of the groups I belong to and am eternally grateful for the knowledge and information in the above wonderfully written text.

I have taken the opportunity to delete the name of the women it is written to because I consider her an opportunist bigot. I hold her responsible for the attacks on Muslim women and children as I do the butchers of Ummah.

I have felt extremely sorry for Sikhs when they have been attacked by vile brutal barbaric scum bag thugs. These goons are so ignorant that they do not even know the difference between Sikh & Muslims. I have always taken the opportunity when it arises, to inform the Sikh that I am sad, horrified, disgusted and repulsed that they are called Talebani and abused and attacked.

Perhaps you will convey my gratitude, admiration, respect and thanks to the author. I have always had a feeling of the greatness of the Sikh without knowing why. Deep in my conscious I considered the Sikh to be the best of India and no Sir, I would never call them Hindu. I always correct the Italians and inform them of the facts. To date “bend it like Becky” has been shown at least 5 times in Italy in Italian. (personally I think translation is tradimento (betray/unfaithful) – a lot of tradition, culture, humor and the main essence is lost) and I think it was shown as many times just for one reason. Where the main protagonist tells that to “marry a Muslim would be death – gestured.”

In Italy there are two professions that the Sikh community is unrivalled – milking cows and making the most famous Italian cheese Grana Padano. In fact it is the most stolen item from the supermarkets. They have now started out in the bakery business. Making wonderful Italian pasticceria (cakes, tarts, etc). I do my little bit to support them.

“It is no coincidence that the Nazis used swastika, a propitious Brahmin symbol, as the emblem of the Nazi party”. I was aware of this – someone born in a scavenger’s family would also be a scavenger in spite of his great intelligence. He couldn’t choose any other occupation. So a scavenger’s descendents remained scavengers for thousands of years. This destroyed the creativity of the Indian population. No wonder the Hindu civilization, which is as old as the Chinese civilization, has made insignificant contribution to the development of human society in comparison to the Chinese civilization. – this is so true.

I wonder if the author had met the same Chinese individual as myself. I shared a house with two Chinese research students from China and they always informed how their government ridiculed the “biggest democracy” in the world. In fact they told me that their government would tell them “look what British democracy has done to India”! It has brought poverty, disease, crime & western decadence.

I mean look at the Shilpa Shetty response to the racism. A mindless crass, vulgar, obscene program where the individual has shown only her interest – thoroughly disgusting. The desire to be loved, accepted and be one of the million zombies is greater than being an individual! Yes creativity has been killed like and what you get is the mindless zombies drowning themselves in the Bollywood crass diatribe.

Please be so kind as to inform your community that on behalf of my community, I offer my greatest respect to your community and am greatly saddened that they are abused and attacked by the ignoramus cowards who mistake them for Muslims.

I have sent the article to the MPACUK and hope they will publish it on their site.

I am a great lover of honesty, transparency, fairness and eloquent expression of all this wonderful ingredients that lead to peaceful living. Your author has shown great talent and has all the qualities mentioned. My contempt for Robert Fisks of indy.co.uk is because of his racists jibes towards the UN Sikh contingent in Lebanon. What would a fascist like Fisk know about Sikh Indians? I just cannot tolerate his I am British blah blah blah……

Salaams & excuse my ignorance but I do not know your greetings.

Cordiali Saluti.

- Marcia Visanji

from Jass Singh
Place: USA

Editor- One way to stay focused in a discussion is to comment on what someone has written instead of commenting on the person. We find that a debate can be more productive when all participants clearly state why they disagree with a certain view while abstaining from stating that the other participant does not understand their view. By staying focused and by stating properly referenced facts or evidence in support of their views, participants can make it easier for the readers to evaluate their arguments more intelligently.

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Mr Jass Singh has continued with his practice of evading the real issues by general statements which is not helpful in any discussion. He has said that discussions with me have proved to be non productive; I shall show here how he has studiously evaded the issues because he cannot face the truth.

He starts the post with the statement that "You dogmatically state that "the Sikh faith rejects all dogmas." Does that also include this dogma? I hope you see the contradiction here". Dear Jass Singh you are trying to invent dogma where none exists. It is the brainwashing like this possibly carried on you that results in one becoming oblivious of the truth. Your mind has been so influenced that you seem to believe that spirituality without dogmas is not possible. My dear dogmas are the antithesis to spirituality. May the Almighty Lord show His benevolence!

Your reference to 2 Tim 3:7 is appalling. It refers to people who are laden with vices like being covetous, blasphemous, unholy, trucebreakers, incontinent, traitors and so on. Please do not read one odd para and quote it out of context. You owe an apology.

There is no doubt about your shying away from facing facts. I had asked you direct, unambiguous questions on the virgin birth of Jesus. You initially called these red herrings but later agreed they are important for historicity of the NT. You have still not answered them. I gave you extensive quotations from the NT to say that Jesus was not crucified. You had so far not said anything on the subject but have now asked me "How do you justify it as fact & not fantasy and by what criteria?" Well my friend, are contents of the NT fantasy? I have only quoted that; why don't you quote just one example in my statements on any of the issues, which is not supported by the Bible. Come on Jass, please have the moral courage and honesty to counter my statements which are based only on facts. Please remove the assumed ideas in your mind and face the issues.

You keep on harping on the article you initially wrote to which I had said and still maintain that it is only an academic study mostly giving views on views of others. It does not contribute in fitting and understanding the import of the various occurrences recorded in the NT. My observations on the other hand attempt to understand what is contained in the NT. You seem to have only a bird's eye view of the NT and are hence unable to participate in any meaningful dialogue on the real issues. Please introspect and you are likely to come to the same conclusion

You have said "You say that you want to bring up the contradictions in the Bible, but this is irrelevant unless it has to do with the historicity of the NT". This shows firstly you agree that there are contradictions; I have pointed them out and you have not responded. Secondly isn't the Bible itself a sequence of events interconnected with each other. So if contradictions exist, historicity is affected. Please have a look at things objectively.

We have wasted a lot of time because you have not been forthcoming on any issue but using flowery language to say how ignorant I am. I would love if you respond to the issues objectively but if you wish to terminate the discussion it is your choice. The reason will certainly be your inability to discuss substantive issues.

God bless,

-Rawel Singh

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Rev Job Anbalagan seems determined to not let the truth come out. He continues to harp on the old issues to which clarifications have been given by way of quotations from the Bible.

He says "I reiterate here with all my knowledge on the Bible that Jesus and Paul never indulged in "Jews bashing" at all. He does this despite the following part of my post and says he does not want to waste his precious time:

"Rev has said Jesus never bashed the entire Jews. I entirely agree Jesus would not have indulged in this. After all he was born and died a Jew. He loved every one.Foundation of Christianity is the work of Paul and he left no one in doubt about creating hatred for the Jews although he had been a Pharisee himself. Examples of Jew bashing in the NT are many; here are a few examples:

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the
Jew first, and also of the Gentile (Romans 2:9).
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto
the Greeks foolishness; (1 Corinthians 1:23).

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col 2:14)".

Yes Rev, let us not waste time please and respond objectively.

The next issue he has mentioned is that of worship of Jesus who taught not to worship any one but one God. Rev accepts that and says "I want to reiterate here that Jesus as the Son of God wanted us to worship God the Father only. But it was the Holy Spirit through the epistles of Paul and other writers of the New Testament who wanted us to kneel down before Jesus to worship Him".

That is just the point. Paul and company tried to over-ride Jesus' teachings and changed the character of the scripture. Thanks for confirming this Rev.

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus I had said "He (Rev) now says that I have been unable to establish that Paul doubted the doctrine of Jesus' resurrection. As may be seen from my earlier posts, I had stated that people were not convinced about this doctrine in 1 Corinthians and Paul had to send the second letter in which he expressed anguish."

I wonder why Rev is reading what is not given by me. People did not accept Paul's doctrine of resurrection and he displayed anguish. Come on Rev who is wasting time?

Regarding crucifixion of Jesus I have given extensive quotations from the New Testament to show that Jesus was not crucified; but because Rev is unable to counter them he says I have adulterated the gospel by my imaginations. I was born in the twentieth century and would never give my personal opinion on an important subject like this. Can you quote one example of my imagination please? My challenge to you to point out any statement of mine not supported by the Bible stands. Why are you not taking this challenge Rev?

Finally, Rev has betrayed his desperation by saying "We will never "accept it gracefully" at all. If it is evidence, we will definitely refute it. But if it is a figment of imagination or some presumption, then we cannot help them at all." Rev if quotations from the New Testament are not evidence on the subject we are discussing in the context of the New Testament, what is?

In the beginning of his post Rev says "Though my friends Rawel Singh and GB Singh have deviated from the main topic i.e. Historicity of the New Testament, I take time in repudiating the points raised by Mr.Rawel Singh". May I ask Rev if he considers crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus not relevant to history? Is Jew bashing not relevant to history which was written in the blood of countless people resulting from Jew bashing which was added to the New Testament against teachings of Jesus? Was historicity of the New Testament not affected by addition of material against the teachings of Jesus? The effects can be seen in the form of any one not agreeing with another forming yet another denomination. Can you count the number of denominations in Christianity? Jesus never intended it like this. He taught reconciliation as in Matt 5:24-25.

What I have said is entirely in accordance with the New Testament. I had to repeat these points because of your continuous attempts to evade the very important issues. If you cannot answer these and want not to continue with the discussions that is your choice. The reason for this would be your inability to face the facts of the New Testament which probably go against the dogmas entrenched in your mind. If you open your mind you will see the light.

Once again please point out any thing in my statements on the concerned issues not supported by the Bible. No shadow boxing please.

God bless,

-Rawel Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

Rawel Singh alleges that I appear to not the truth come out. The truth is already there in the Bible. He has quoted the Pauline epistle to prove his contention that it was Paul who bashed the entire Jews. Paul said that tribulation and anguish would come upon every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also the Gentile and that preaching of the Crucified Christ was a stumbling block for the Jews. The Jews were the people chosen by God for the great salvation which they had rejected by crucifying Christ. As such, first God's judgment would come upon those people who had received the promises of God under the Old Covenant. For the Jews, the message of crucifixion was a stumbling block. It was the truth taught by Paul in his epistle. It does not amount "Jews bashing" or something like that.

By exhorting the people to worship Jesus, Paul did not override the teachings of Jesus at all. Paul was performing the ministry of the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Godhead. Jesus as the Son of God glorified the Father and the Holy Spirit through the writings of Paul glorified Jesus, the Son of God. Today we worship Jesus Christ. Every knee shall bow before Him.

Paul did not express his anguish at the alleged non-acceptance of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus by the people. Rawel Singh confuses the writing of Paul due to lack of understanding. Let him note that Paul used the word "anguish" not in the context of resurrection of Jesus but in the context of God's judgment on the Jews for not accepting the gospel.

What we want from Rawel Singh and GB Singh is not their statements or opinions but evidences through historians to disprove the truth of crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Let them quote the evidences with those who lived during the first or the second century or even during the latter period. Rawel Singh and GB Singh are not the competent witnesses to speak about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They just quote the Bible from one angle by picking up some verses out of context and then form their opinions which are quite different from the authenticated views of the authors of the gospel. Twisting of the quotations given by Rawel Singh and GB Singh from the Bible does not amount to tendering of evidence at all. Let them learn the legal definition of the word "evidence".

Historicity of the New Testament definitely includes the truth of crucifixion and resurrection at all. But it does not include the personal views of people like Rawel Singh and GB Singh. Jass Singh has wonderfully dealt with this subject. "Jewish bashing" may be relevant to the history but does not prove relevant to the Bible at all.

Let Mr.Rawel Singh not speak about the various denominations of the Christianity in this topic.

Paul had never repudiated the teachings of Jesus at all. This is another figment of imagination of my friend Rawel Singh.

Regards,

-Job Anbalagan

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Rev Job Anbalgan has continued to make matters complex and to say that GB Singh and Rawel Singh have twisted the quotations from the Bible. It will therefore be helpful to deal with one aspect at a time. I propose that this be the crucifixion of Jesus. Given below is my understanding on the subject and is posted again so that this crucial issue can be meaningfully discussed.

It does not seem likely that Jesus was crucified for the following reasons:

a)  Neither Jesus' mother or brothers nor any of his close disciples came forward to claim his body after crucifixion. They were also not present at his burial; in fact they did not care to know where he had been buried. If there is anything recorded to the contrary in the gospels, please point it out. Kindly do not give explanations like could have or would have.

b)  The main interest of the Romans was to collect taxes and for this purpose they had appointed tax collectors. This was resented to by the Jews. However Jesus was friendly with the tax collectors as is brought out in Matthew 9 although it is mentioned that he wanted to be with the sinners. But it is not mentioned that he went to reform them but rather they came and sat with him and his disciples and shared food (Matt 9:10). While the Jews resented paying taxes Jesus said that taxes due to Caesar should be paid (Matt 22:19-22). This would show that the Romans had no interest in having Jesus eliminated.

c)  After the governor Pilate had interrogated Jesus he was of the view that at the time of the feast Jesus should be released but the Jews insisted that he should not be released. So Pilate asked "Why, what evil had he done" (Matt 27:23, Mark 15:14, Luke 23:22 and John 19:4). However the Jews were vehement and Pilate handed Jesus to them but said "I am innocent of the blood of this just man" (Matt 27:24). It is interesting to note that Jesus was handed over to the crowds although the soldiers led him to the central hall.

d)  There is no unanimity among the gospels on the place of crucifixion. While Matt, Mark and John name it as Golgotha, Luke names it as Calvary. Similarly while the other three say Jesus was crucified on the cross, Luke does not say so. However Luke says in the Acts that Jesus was hanged on a tree (Acts 5:30). This latter description seems plausible because as John 19:41 points out that in the place where he was crucified there was a garden which also had a new sepulcher (tomb). That means it was not an official place for crucifixions. There is another reason for hanging on a tree. The gospels say that either Jesus himself or another man carried the cross. It needs thought whether a wooden cross that can be carried by a man will be able to take his weight and wind pressure standing by itself. There is no mention of the cross being secured. Hanging on the tree therefore seems more likely.

e)  Matt 27:60 tells us that the tomb mentioned by John 19:41 belonged to a rich man Joseph of Arimathea. From all this it is clear that the garden also belonged to the said Joseph. Mark 15:46 and Luke 23:53 reveal that Jesus was placed in a new tomb nearby. The crucifixion in Joseph's garden had thus been preplanned.

f)  John 20:14 tells us that after Mary Magdalene had seen the tomb empty, she turned around and saw Jesus but did not recognize him. This is indeed surprising because she had a close relationship with Jesus and her not recognizing him says a lot. The riddle seems to be solved by John's next hymn wherein Mary thinks the man was the gardener. This says two things. Firstly it confirms crucifixion in the garden and secondly that he was the man who had been laid in the tomb from which he came out. Since she was looking for the man who had been laid in the tomb, someone must have told her that he was the man. John does say that the man calls her by her name and she calls him Master but this is certainly not convincing. That Mary Magdalene did not recognize Jesus is unbelievable.

g) Under normal circumstances the governor would not have given Jesus' body just for asking. In this case it was given to Joseph of Arimathea. All gospels agree on this.

h)  Now how did the gardener get into the tomb? If we put all the above information together, it would be clear that the Romans and Pilate did not want Jesus eliminated. Joseph of Arimathea was a rich and influential man. Being a disciple he would have wanted to save Jesus' life. There was obviously an arrangement between Pilate and the said Joseph and the latter's gardener was substituted for Joseph in the garden. It is also clear from Luke 23:49 that those watching the crucifixion were kept 'afar' and would not have recognized who was being hanged. For example John 19:26-27 indicates that Jesus' mother and a disciple were present; but they were too far. The statement by Jesus asking his mother to go with his disciple seems too far fetched because she had her own sons.

i)  John 19:32-33 describes, as other gospels do that there were two more men crucified with Jesus. Their legs were broken to ensure they died but legs of Jesus were not broken because he was already dead. It appears that the sponge given to Jesus (John 19:29) contained something that made him unconscious to show the man had died but was actually done to save his life. There was neither any official record to show the death nor any one to certify this.

The above details clearly give the picture how things were pleplanned to save Jesus' life and the he was not crucified or certainly did not die on the cross. There is a tradition which shows that esus went to India and his tomb exists in Kashmir. I have not seen it and cannot vouch for it.

I have given copious quotations from the New Testament on the subject. I request Rev to point out any twisting of the verses. Secondly he is requested to point any difference of opinion on the conclusions drawn. I further request that this please be done with specific references and not in the form of general comments.

God bless,

-Rawel Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

With due respects to my learned friend Rawel Singh, I write this final post on this forum. There is no purpose in repudiating time and again the same issues raised by Rawel Singh and GB Singh. No fresh points have been brought out by Rawel Singh in his latest post. Let the truth speak for itself.

I thank all those who participated in this forum. Please take time to visit our website "Who is this Jesus?" at http://whoisthisjesus.googlepages.com

-Job Anbalagan

from Adam Lees
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Demian is one of my favorite books of all time. It has had a profound effect on me which lasts to this very day. Regarding your pieace, I was wondering if you could tell me more about the cover. I have never seen that cover; the picture is beautiful. Do you know the artist? Is there a larger picture? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

-Adam


Editor: Cover art is by Michael A. Beeler

from Sukesh Chander Sharma
Place: India

Dear Mr. Baldev Singh ji,

I appreciate your very high qualification. First, I will like to make it clear that I am not supporter of any matter relating to Mr.Khushwant Singh. Also, I do not have great knowledge about culture & theology, but do have good interest in it. I will mention that word Hindu/Hinduism has come after various/ Islamic/ western aggressions of this land called Bharat, where people followed Vedic/ Sanatan Dharma. Sh. Guru Teg Bahdur is called Hind ki Chaadar. Guru Gobind Singh said Sakal jagat main Khalasa saje jage dharm Hindu sakal bhand baje and so on... This name Hindu has its origin from Sindhu civilization. You may be surprised to know that even Imam of Jama Masjid was also called Hindu during his visit to Macca, due to the region he came from. If you start counting good or bad people from any faith there is no end.

The word Sikhi and faith is very great but then what is its root? I am not expert on calendars but some people highlight now Nanakshahi calendar with ulterior motive. The Gurus never tried to alienate people. I can give you simple examples of people who say Darbar Sahib only instead of Hari Mandir. One can judge/guess their ideology. People never simply think/ understand the meaning of their name. Such person will like to love Urdu /Persian/ English or other foreign language but hate Sanskrit. I fail to understand this attitude. When I go to Nada Sahib I read the names of people very amazing. I can understand the role played by some British people/historians in creating differences between Hindu and Sikh faith.

About Jersalem like situation in India you must be aware that it is common origin of Judaism Christianity and Islam. I refer similarly to this land. I attach for your ready reference about work of David Frawley (http://www.vedanet.com/), a famous author to mention one at least. I do not say that Guru Granth Sahib has any adverse effect on any one. What point is how many people truly follow the teachings therein? It is always dangerous for society if one does forget its roots?

With best wishes!

Sincerely,

Dr. Sukesh Chander Sharma

Department of Biochemistry
Panjab University, Chandigarh-160014
India

from Baldev Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Prof. Sukesh Chander Sharma has now changed the tone and tenor of his arguments. In his first letter he saw danger in my writings to the unity of India when he said, “Do not make another Jerusalem on this Earth.” However, I am disappointed that he has not pointed out what he saw in my writings that could create Jerusalem like situation in India. I would suggest Prof. Sharma to read my other articles archived in the SikhSpectrum since July 2002 for more information about his concerns. Here is my point-by-point response to his letter.

I am not sure what is Prof. Sharma’s interpretation of “Guru Tegh Bahadur Hind Ki Chadar”. For me this expression means that Guru Tegh Bahadur made a supreme sacrifice for freedom of conscience. He challenged the Mughal ruler that he had no right to convert non-Muslims to Islam by force, as each person has an inalienable right to choose his or her religion. Further, he demonstrated that tyranny or injustice must be opposed through moral force at all costs. While I am not sure who is the author of the expression Dr. Sharma quoted, however, I am quite sure that Guru Gobind Singh is not the author of “Sakal jagat main Khalasa saje jage dharm Hindu sakal bhand baje”. It would be commendable if Sharma Ji could educate us about the authorship of the two quotes.

Prof. Sharma says, “This name Hindu has its origin from Sindhu civilization.” What is Sindhu civilization? If he thinks that Hindu is a corrupted version of Sindhu then why did not the names of river Sindh and province Sindh change to Hind or why the inhabitants of Sindh and their language are still called Sindhi not Hindi? Furthermore, I would like to draw his attention to the Hindukush range, as Hindukush means killer of Hindus. Who were the people who called these mountains Hindukush and who were the people who were killed by these mountains?

Dr. Sharma sees ulterior motive in the Nanakshai calendar and in the name Darbar Sahib. Sharma Ji, Nanakshahi calendar is based on modern scientific knowledge and unlike the lunar calendar it fixes the dates of important events in Sikh history. Who would have an ulterior motive for inventing the Nanakshahi calendar and for what purpose? Who is afraid of Nanakshahi calendar and who is it supposed to harm? This calendar is purely a scientific work. Read the articles published by Dr. Pal Singh Purewal who is also the inventor of Nanakshahi calendar.

There is no difference in the meanings of Darbar Sahib and Hari Mandir but why it should upset Sharma Ji if someone calls Hari Mandir as Darbar Sahib. Moreover, why any non-Sikh should be concerned about it, in the first place, and for what reasons?

I would like Dr. Sharama to thoughtfully consider the events that have occurred in India since August 15, 1947. Some historians are not only rewriting Indian history but for some the Indian history starts on August 15, 1947. It is well documented that the seaport cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were developed out of marshlands during the British colonial rule. However, their names have been changed without any objection from Indian historians and intelligentsia. Civilized people learn lessons form their past. Does the Hindu intelligentsia want to erase from the Indian history the period from the Muslim conquest of Sindh in the eighth century to August 15, 1947?

Sharma Ji, you are correct that Sikhs have Hindu roots but I will carry this argument much further. As a biochemist you are well aware that “all life” originated from a single cell, so our roots are also in that cell. I look at the human race as one family. Sikhs are very proud of their Hindu roots -- ancestors and their language whereas “Punjabi” Hindus rejected the language of their forefathers. Whereas Punjabi Muslims declared Urdu as their mother tongue and Hindus declared Hindi, only Sikhs stood for Punjabi. This is a well-documented historical fact. May be you should reflect on that when you talk about the roots of Sikhs. Sharma Ji, do you know of any other people in the world who renounced and denounced their own mother tongue? So what roots are you talking about?

The name Bharat was never used for the Indian subcontinent. It is a name of a mythical kingdom in Hindu texts. Most probably it refers to the kingdom of Sri Ram Chandar, a small territory in the modern day state of Uttar Pradesh. The Greeks who conquered and settled in the Indus Valley called the native people Indos or Indus, hence the names Indus and India. It is quite possible that Greeks pronounced Hindu as Indu. The Persians and Arabs called the Indian subcontinent Hindustan. Guru Nanak used the word Hindustan in Babur Bani in Aad Guru Granth Sahib. If the Indian subcontinent had Bharat as its name then the foreigners would also have called it Bharat, as it is not difficult to pronounce.

Panini, the great genius who constructed Sanskrit (beautiful, adorned) from the languages and dialects that were spoken in the Indus Valley, was a native of the territory now known as Afghanistan.

The statement “I can understand the role played by some British people/ historians in creating differences between Hindu and Sikh faith” is a myth. On the contrary the British did every thing possible to Hinduize Sikhs by subverting Sikh philosophy, history and traditions in collaboration with Udasis, Nirmalas and Brahmins disguised as Sikhs. For example, no where on the India subcontinent the British took control of any mosque or temple but immediately after the annexation of Punjab took control of Darbar Sahib Complex, and appointed Hindu mahants and pujaris as the custodians of Gurdwaras (read my article in November 2006 issue of the SikhSpectrum).

It is deplorable when educated and intelligent people talk about subjects of which they know very little. Discussion of Sikh philosophy and Sikhs without the understanding of Aad Guru Granth Sahib is meaningless. A dialogue or debate is useful as long as it is based on sound knowledge and rational thought.

Regards,

Baldev Singh

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Rev Job Anbalagan has continued his practice of passing general remarks and not addressing specifics. In his last message, posted in the SikhSpectrum feedback, he had contended that I have twisted the quotations from the Bible. I therefore confronted him with the quotations and asked him to point out what had been twisted. I had also requested that he should say how he did not agree that Jesus had not been crucified - and I did this quoting from the Bible - but he not being able to point me to what he considers misquotes from the Bible has opted to sign off. It is his prerogative to continue or quit the debate but he should not talk of the truth.

The truth he says is in the Bible, but he is not prepared to face it. I had thrown a challenge to him to point out even one substantive statement of mine not supported by the Bible. He did not take up the challenge. Rev belives in the the dogmas. These dogmas were added to the New Testament later and are not the truth. I have demonstrated that by pointing out contradictions between what Jesus said and what else that exists. These contradictions, for example on the subject of worship - Jesus asked people to worship only one God as given in the Old Testament, but what was added was worship of Jesus instead - places the changed New Testament in the pre - Old Testament era.

I wish Rev Anbalagan all the best and hope that we shall have opportunities for more productive discussions in future.

God Bless,

- Rawel Singh

from Nick
Place: Canada

Editor: The decision to allow Baltej Singh Dhillon to wear a turban, which is a requirement for all Sikhs, was in keeping with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Part I) that guarantees, among other things:

“15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.”

The 1990 ruling by the Solicitor General Pierre Cadieux allowing Sikhs to wear a turban, and later the Supreme Court of Canada dismissing an appeal in 1996 by three former RCMP officers, only reinforces Canada’s commitment to respect all religious communities.

All Sikhs who are Canadian citizens by birth or through naturalization are indebted to the Canadian people who supported, and continue to support, the guiding ideals of that nation. Baltej Singh Dhillon’s case only reinforces Canada’s commitment to treat its citizens with equality while fully recognizing the diversity present in its population.

Also, on March 2, 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a ban on wearing the kirpan violated section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Honorable Court admitted that “accommodating Gurbaj Singh and allowing him to wear his kirpan under certain conditions demonstrates the importance that our society attaches to protecting freedom of religion and to showing respect for its minorities”.

from G.B. Singh
Place: USA

Dear Nick,

I read your letter and I fully understand your position. I might not agree with you considering the history of North America (Canada & United States). Like USA, Canada is a country of immigrants and a functioning democracy. The rules set up by the European culture in the Canadian make-up should not be taken as if they were written in stone. With the changes in culture and demographics going on in Canada, it is a prudent policy to be flexible with respect to the dress code and other appearance standards. Sikhs have lived in Canada close to a hundred years and they have made significant progress in their pursuits of freedoms. As Canadian Sikhs they have earned every right to safeguard the Canadian national interests just as Caucasians have been exercising that responsibility before, now, and in the future.

Seeing Canadian Sikhs in the uniformed military services as well as in RCMP is a progressive adventure and it speaks well of the Canadian democracy. While you have a right to express your views freely, I ask for some flexibility in your rigidity of conservative European-laden values.

- G.B. Singh
Colonel, U.S. Army

from Guri Singh
Place: USA

Very well written. I have had similar experiences around the world but none resulting in me giving my turban. I thought it was sacred and as such should not be just given away. I have however started gosikh.com, for those that seek a Turban and cannot find one.

My best to Sr. Kohli Ji. Thanks for posting this article.

- Guri Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

I write this in continuation of many of our posts concerning the truth of Virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I came across the following article written by a Christian author. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

-Job Anbalagan

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

Rev Job Anbalagan has referred to an article in Wikipedia about the historicity of Jesus. I wonder if he has read it carefully for, far from unequivocally confirming the historicity, the article puts across the view that scholars differ in their views on historicity. For example it says,

"Scholarly opinions on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse. They range from the view that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus, to the view that they provide no historical information about his life. As with all historical sources, scholars ask: to what extent did the authors' motivations shape the texts, what sources were available to them, how soon after the events described did they write, and whether or not these factors lead to inaccuracies such as exaggerations or inventions".

The article also casts doubts on the authenticity of the gospels when it says, "The extent to which the Gospels were subject to additions, redactions, or interpolations is the subject of Textual criticism, which examines the extent to which a manuscript changed from its autograph, or the work as written by the original author, through manuscript transmission. Possible alterations in the Gospels include Mark 16:8-20 and John 7:53-8:11".

About the birth of Jesus the article says, "His birth, family, and childhood are of little historical interest, except for the later traditions and doctrines they sparked". This is what is now being accepted that historicity, as disdinct from faith, does not support his virgin birth but says that this is part of later traditions. The Roman Catholic Church considers Virgin Mary as a dogma, not an historical truth.

On the subject of Jesus' crucifixion the article says among other things "Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, commonly used for criminals during the time of Jesus. The assertions made in the Bible that Pilate held a trial for an alleged troublemaker and ended up crucifying Jesus because the local population insisted upon it is considered historically dubious".

On the subject of resurrection the article says, "Scholars are also split on whether or not Jesus was buried, and if so, was the tomb found empty".

The article brings out doubts all along and does not therefore clarify or answer the questions that have been raised in our discussions on historicity of the New Testament. By quoting this article Rev Anbalagan has reinforced doubts about historicity of the New Testament.

God bless,

-Rawel Singh

from Job Anbalagan
Place: India

Dear Editor,

Though I am not interested in responding to the latest reply of my learned friend Rawel Singh, yet I want to write a few words. Rawel Singh appears to quote only the negative aspects of some authors whereas most of the authors who were not even Christians had confirmed the Historicity of Jesus Christ in very clear terms.

I would urge the readers of the Sikh Spectrum not to be misled by the arguments of my dear friend Rawel Singh but to read all the articles from the website at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

My friend has quoted only the views of some authors which are not based on historical evidence.

To know the truth which is higher, as per the motto of our esteemed Sikh Spectrum, I would urge the enlightened readers to read for themselves the artices contained in the above URL.

Let them not depend upon the views of some individuals who had prejudiced and preconceived notions about Jesus Christ. One will come to know the truth only by searching for the truth on his own.

A man who wears black googles will see everything dark. Let him remove the same and see the things for himself. Please take time to read the wonderful articles about Sadhu Sundar Singh and his doctrines at http://whoisthisjesus.googlepages.com

-Job Anbalagan

from Rawel Singh
Place: USA

Dear Editor,

The response of Rev Job Anbalagan to my last post is surprising. He has been emphasizing historicity of the New Testament but when he was confronted with quotations from the scripture, he decided to sign off. He later quoted the article in Wikipedia to prove virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. This article discusses both sides of the issue and says:

"Scholarly opinions on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse. They range from the view that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus, to the view that they provide no historical information about his life. As with all historical sources, scholars ask: to what extent did the authors' motivations shape the texts, what sources were available to them, how soon after the events described did they write, and whether or not these factors lead to inaccuracies such as exaggerations or inventions".

I had quoted the above paragraph which shows that I have no prejudice. Since Rev only wanted his preferences to be read he has attributed motives to me. I have none.

It appears this will be the last post on the subject and it may be worthwhile to summarize what has been discussed.

The starting point was the article on historicity of the New Testament by Jass Singh. However he could not answer any of the observations and Rev Anbalagan intervened. Various aspects were discussed and in every case I quoted profusely from the New Testament. However Rev and Jass Singh either tried to sidetrack the issues or pass general remarks. I then challenged Rev more than once to show even a single substantive statement made by me not supported by the New Testament. He did not take up the challenge. That would have been the only way the issues could be discussed seriously. Even in his last plenty of general remarks have been made but I do not propose to respond to them.

Any discussion on scriptures is a serious matter but we have been denied such discussions. Instead we have been told that dogmas are the truth. No Sir, dogmas are created by man and are normally used to show how a particular faith is the best or the only way way to God. God is ultimately the only Universal Truth because He is the source of everything. And as Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) says, one has to live truthfully in thought, word and deed to be able to get to the Truth, the Infinite Lord. This last expression cannot apply to any one who is born and then dies.

Incidentally Jass Singh had stated that there are question marks on the SGGS and there are dogmas in Sikhism. He was repeatedly asked to show these but he shied away.

All faiths must coexist peacefully and the only way is on the one hand to propagate the faiths amongst their respective followers and on the other mutual respect between the faiths. Any discussions would then be free from rancor and casting aspersions on others while of course not losing objectivity.

I wish Rev Job Anbalagan and Jass Singh all the best.

God bless,

-Rawel Singh