Bharat!
- I have not once, been tempted or convinced to accept a single part of your theory and 100% certain that I will never be tempted or convinced to do so. Nor does your theory gain credibility by repetition.
- The fact that your theory of Southeast Asian or Indus Valley origin of your “common prophets” has ceased to be amusing or entertaining, especially when your agenda becomes clearer, which is nothing less than replacing Jesus of Nazareth with “a series of messiahs”. At this point, your theory, in part and in “all of it’s glory” becomes offensive and repulsive.
- After reading Meera Nanda’s article, India’s Long Goodbye to Darwin, I am even more persuaded to believe that your theory and your agenda is deeper and broader, than you are willing to admit, to wit: "the “decolonization” and “de-westernization” of the Old and New Testaments in general, and Christianity in particular.
- One has only to count the “could have beens",” “might have beens”, and “probably was-es” in some of your articles to realize that You are stacking cards [See that short Youtube videa!]
-
That’s not “a detailed reasoning”, it is a butterfly’s trip through a garden of flowers, …,
-
One only has to start with your bogus list of "proper names.
-
Your very first claim is incorrect and false. “Elohim’s” creative power and “Brahman’s” creative power ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME THINGS!!! as Dr. Michael Heiser makes abundantly clear in this video:
-
Second point: On the one hand, you fall off the cliff of Reason into the chaos of your fantasy when you affirm, astonishingly, that you are able to see “Mathura” but not “Mitsrayim” in three Hebrew letters out of five,
-
But you switch to “finding” similarities between persons where there are no similarities or there are only trivial similarities.
- For example:
-
Adam was the first man.= Swayambhu Manu was self created.
- So what if Adam is the Hebrew name for the first man? He certainly wasn’t “self-created”.
- Why isn’t the name of the first man the name of the first manin other cultures that do not have Abrahamic religions? You’re not interested in those names because you’re not trying to “replace” those cultures or religions.
-
Eve means life.= Shatarupa or Tanu means life.
- Malarkey. There are no "e"s in Shatarupa or Tanu. So, you switched from “letters” to “meanings”, but the problem is that Eve is the Middle English transliteration for the Roman name “Eva”, "from Hebrew (Semitic) Hawwah, literally “a living being,” from base hawa “he lived” (compare Arabic hayya, Aramaic hayyin).
-
Tanu means life. Show me where on this page Tanu, Tanū, Taṉu, Tāṉu: 26 definitions where does it say that Tanu means “life”, because I sure can’t find it.
-
Shatarupa means life. Here, the only thing similar is the fact that Shatarupa is the name of the first woman. That’s it. So when were you going to tell us that:
Śatarūpā (शतरूपा).—Name of a daughter of Brahman (who is supposed to be also his wife, from whose incestuous connection with her father is said to have sprung Manu Svāyambhuva). -
Cain means spear = Indra means spear.
- This is ridiculous. Where did you discover that the Hebrew name for Adam and Eve’s first son means “spear”? I’ve never seen that claimed before and I can’t find that claimed by anybody except you.
- And since when did Cain become a god?
- Indra means spear. Who says so?
- This is ridiculous. Where did you discover that the Hebrew name for Adam and Eve’s first son means “spear”? I’ve never seen that claimed before and I can’t find that claimed by anybody except you.
-
Abel has connection with vapour.= Vritra has connection with water.
-
Abel has connection with vapour. Vapour? yeah, Yike you have a connection to your breath.
-
Vritra has connection with water.
- Show me the water please.
- Show me the water please.
-
- For example:
(To be continued)