the history/prophecy binary

Jit,

Thanks for your comments.

The historicity or ahistoricity of Christianity is irrelevant to the arguments which can potentially proceed out of this specific research. In fact, I had removed Rajaram's more blatant allegations of Jesus' ahistoricity from his quote. Here is the full quote which I came across ( I had deleted the portions <> ):

"<<<<<>>> ....In summary, the whole of Christianity, including the story of the crucifixion of Jesus is a later fabrication, created to gain support of the Roman Empire...........{which} fabricated large parts of the New Testament to destroy the Jews of Palestine who were in a constant state of rebellion against the Romans. The <<<>>> Jesus was created to facilitate this process. The fact that the Gospels are a late fabrication by authors who were agents of the Roman Empire becomes clear upon examining their language and content."

Rajaram's analysis is significant (only) in that he is (somehow) able to correctly localize the 'monotheist' error to the Empire rather than to some nondescript and essentially powerless "tribe" in Palestine ( which is in fact a colonized victim ). His polemical stance can definitely use more finesse. It is unrealistic to expect perfect argumentation at every instance. We should take the worthwhile argumentations and expand upon those specifically. To belabor the obvious, just because Rajiv Malhotra has elaborated a not-so-perfect 'ahistoricity' framework for the heathen traditions, does not mean that we should dismiss his 'Axis of Neocolonialism' or his analysis of a (fluid) caste non"system". Removing the polemical portions of Rajaram's statement, what remains is an acknowledgement of the imperialist structure of Christainty right from its inception. Such an hazy acknowledgement can be further turned into a rock solid proof with the current researches. Specifically, it needs to be demonstrated to the deracinated and deculturated Macaulayite sepoy that :

the horrific Imperialism (genocidal and deculturating record) of Christianity can be linked causally to the truth claims of Christianity. That is, the Christians should not be able to claim that "this is not the real Christianity" when confronted with Christian criminal history (as catalogued by Deschner, Achebe, History of Hindu-Christian Encounters, et al). (Currently, they can dissociate their 'ideology' from their actions, with ease and at their own discretion).

There is only one way to do the above and that is to redescribe the truth claims of Christianity as instances of propaganda. Behind the "peace" proclaiming Messiah is the real "peace of the graveyard" of the fulfilling Conqueror. Behind the "Good News" is the addendum and fulfillment of the "Good News of military victory". What matters is not the "reality" of Messiah or Conqueror, but rather the necessary relationship between them of apologist and imperialist. The dynamics between the sepoy (Jesus) -who demonizes his own people as aggressors- and the Empire (Titus) -who remains hidden and protected from scrutiny- is explicated and made plain by this research. Liberation Theology, which proposes that the native is oppressed by his ancestral practices and can be saved by the colonizer's "religion", is not a new phenomenon. "Liberation" has been embedded in Christianity since its advent. Liberalism, Orientalism, and all other sundry secularized masks for imperial action are similarly derived. To show that Liberation is a Euphemism for Imperial aggression, one has to show the relationship between sepoy and master in Early Christainity itself. This is what is missing from the current discourse.

The vile Jew crucifies his own spiritual Messiah while the physical Conqueror remains hidden. We all know about the first part, but what about the second part???

Psychological explanation of prophets as done by Somers and Elst will not lead to success. That Jesus was a raving lunatic ("real" or imaginary) [removed-sks 4-24]is ad hoc and trivial argumentation. At any rate, this same type of argumentation has been applied to Ramakrishna, Rishis, Devas, and so on, by the Donigers. They will always counter by saying that the prophets were agitated and violent because they were, after all, pursuing the Truth. The only way to counter is to state that when they meant "Truth", it was to degrade and demean the colonized subject; that it was in fact insincere and propagandistic bombast. Raving lunatics do forge Monotheist Empires.

Bertrand Russell in fact accused Marx of insincerity in his expostion of the doctrine of Communist Liberation while comfortably seated in Great Britain. Even in the recent Nepali Color Revolution, we saw such instances of propagating insincere "liberation" and "democracy" against the 'Hindu dictator" oppressing his own people. This western propaganda emanated out of the same western operatives who birthed Christian East Timor.

They have tried and will try to dismiss heathen Hindu narratives and practices as similar instances of propaganda but the Ghent group has rightly described our narratives as experiential narratives. Experience, whatever it may be, cannot be propaganda. They will always apply "equal equal" tactic of blaming native culture of the same crimes and disposition. We can cannot let opportunities go, just to avoid approbation.

The confusion between the "domestication" of the native and his "liberation" can only be swept aside by showing the imperial side of Christianity during its birth moments. Such confusion ails all secular, Macaulayites, and sundry quasi-christians. Also, we can get a good idea of the original inculturation tactic and revisionist history tactics and make parallels to the current colonial Macaulayite education project. The Aryan is the normed Indian, a colonial construct posited as the agent of ideological-historical change in the subcontinent and the foreshadow of the Empire. The Similarly, the Israelite is the normed native Canaanite.

I urge you not to dismiss this work off hand. Please take the time to inquire into the possibilities. There are two threads at India-forum on this topic.

The Ghent group has stated that all that is necessary to destroy Christianity and expose the Monotheist error is to discover a people "without religion". To forestall such a development in the European "encounter" with India, the disparate traditions in india were systematized as the Religion of "Hinduism". A false history was imposed as part of the colonial education project to support this construct; the absence of which would have resulted in a repudiation of the Monotheist error. And systematizing the native's "past" as "history" was definitely a part of this preemptive project. So, in my view, Historicity was a ruse necessary to hide a possibly more fundamental error. At any rate, when historicity is referred to by Rajiv's group, they are referring to ideological history, eg where South Indians are portrayed as fundamentally culturally and ideologically antagonistic to North Indians. This is clearly colonial revisionist history. A similar violation of the native culture by the colonizer can be surmised in the "Israelite's" constructed opposition to the Canaanite.


SKS

http://ascendantasia.blogspot.com/