How to you deal with the fact that so-called Saint Peter was a cruel murderer?
[Editor’s note: The answers from this Hindu gentleman are interspersed with the questions]
Questions and Answers:
Acts 5: 1-11 show that the so-called Saint Peter was a cruel murderer who murdered in cold blood both, Annanias & his wife Sapphira.
I am sure Peter would be horrified to be falsely accused of murder. This is terrible false accusation. Let us read the text. “”When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died.” About Sapphira: “At that moment she fell down and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.” There is not any evidence at all of Peter as a murderer. Are you calling Luke, the one who reported this a liar? I am sure that if he had killed these two he would have been replaced immediately as the leader of the church. This would be completely against everything Jesus stood for, as Jesus was a man of peace who completely rejected violence. Whoever made this terrible accusation should take it down immediately and apologize to anyone who was hurt by this slander. Imagine if you or I were falsely accused of murder. According to the passage in Acts, they lied to God and God allowed them to die as a lesson to the church to not lie to God, but to say that Peter murdered here is a terrible and false accusation without any evidence.
The Arian Controversy: Father Arius & his supporters vehemently objected to bishop Alexander’s cancelling the Hindu Compassionate Mother-Goddess and altering the Hindu Three-person Trinity that was preached by Jesus. But with the help of Emperor Constantine and his armed soldiers, the revolt of father Arius & his supporters was crushed mercilessly and the Nicaean Creed was enforced on Christian masses with horrendous cruelty.
Your information about Arius is partially correct, although there is no evidence whatsoever that he was responding to Hinduism or that he even knew about Hinduism. Arius taught that Jesus was not God. He taught that Jesus was a created being. He is famous for saying, “There was a time when he was not.” Alexander certainly never cancelled anything like a Hindu Mother-Goddess. I have seen no evidence that the Hindu “trinity” was even know in Alexandria at the time. I have no idea where anyone got that idea. I have read much on this topic. Alexander did disagree with Arius, but the disagreement was over the deity of Jesus. No one “altered the Trinity,” in that the New Testament was already circulated widely to hundreds of churches across thousands of miles by this time (early fourth century). It is true that Arius and Alexander disagreed about the doctrine of the Trinity. Essentially, Arius rejected the idea of the Trinity (although he would not have agreed with this accusation). However, whether the Trinity is true or not is based on reading the Scripture. You can read the New Testament for your self and decide what it says and teaches.
You say that Arius and his supporters were “crushed mercilessly.” Where did this information come from? There was no political revolt. There was a disagreement on doctrine, but there was no revolt. Who said this? What is his evidence? I have read the primary sources and this is simply not true. There is no evidence whatsoever for anyone being arrested, never mind killed at this time. In fact, the Arians continued to have a large following, despite the decision at Nicaea. It is true that at the church council, Arius’ teaching was pronounced heretical. He was anathematized, but he was not killed and he was not even arrested. He continued to teach in Alexandria at that time and continued to gain some followers. Whoever said that his supporters were crushed mercilessly needs to stop making this false and unsupportable statement. Can you present any evidence for this claim? What source is being used? Such false rumors should not be spread by anyone.
Point 4: At the time Jesus preached, the Idol in the Temple of Jerusalem was that of “King Herod-installed” Christ, Krista or Krisna(of India).
???? I do not understand this claim. What idol is this talking about? This seems to be a complete invention with no substance to it at all. The idea that Jews would include pagan Hinduism into their religious practices is ludicrous. Who came up with this idea? What information did they use? Can you or anyone quote any factual sources for this? What is this supposed Herod-installed Christ? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. Please send me your source so that I can comment. I think you need to completely reject this idea.
Point 5: The Canaanites had built a Lord Krisna, Krista or Christ Temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem in @ 2000 BC and some more interesting points.
Evidence, evidence, evidence. Unless you have some actual evidence for this, why even say it? What is the evidence? What archaeological find is being used to make this claim? It is true that the Canaanites (or more accurately, the Jebusites) occupied the site of Jerusalem until the time of David, but if someone wants to claim that there was a temple to Krishna there in 2000 BC, then need to present evidence, or stop saying this.
I have done some research of my own, and as far as I know, Hindus believe that Krishna lived somewhere around 1000 BC. He is the eighth avatar of Vishnu. He is described in the Mahabharrata, which was written some time in the first millennium BC. How could there be a shrine to him in 2000 BC outside of India if he did not take bodily form until 1000 BC? Again, please provide evidence or stop saying this.
John Oakes
