Sadhu Sundar Singh – Hindu Mystic in Sheep’s Clothing

John says:

You quote SSS:

Nobody will be allowed to enter into Heaven who has not a face like Jesus Christ. That is the only ticket, otherwise we shall find ourselves out of place there. Only those who follow Him will feel at home there.

Then you write:

No where is this in the bible. Not a single scripture to back this up.

How could you not be aware of what Jesus himself said – “I am the way … No one comes to the Father except by becoming like me”? (Jn14:6) OK I have paraphrased it very slightly to make its meaning clear. But he says plenty elsewhere “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” and “Except your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes …” etc. Until you make this your life’s aim and progress in that endeavour you will never be “considered worthy of the age to come” (Lk20:35)

So yes, unless you conform your life so that you look like Jesus or “Have his face” you will not be allowed to enter Heaven. You should remember that SSS wrote in Urdu and was translated to English, so to get the meaning correct you need to understand the Urdu expression that translates to “have someone’s face”. SSS became sufficiently like Jesus that after a visit from him to their house children thought they had met with Jesus. What a compliment – SSS obviously “had Jesus’ face”!

If you imagine that someone else’s righteousness can be “imputed” to you (a totally unbiblical concept, the only thing ever “imputed” was faith, and that was Abraham’s own faith!) then you will be just as disappointed as the foolish virgins who didn’t have oil of their own when the bridegroom came. It is by following Jesus so that His righteousness becomes your own righteousness – so that you “have his face” in translation from SSS – that you will be allowed into the wedding banquet.

John says:

So you think I have changed Jesus’ meaning!? Recall that he has just been asked the way to the Father’s house, and he has just assured them that they already know the way. So then he makes it plain “I am the way” and makes it quite explicit by saying there is no other way to the Father than the way they already know – Jesus himself – the way he is (I am the way). So in order to come to the Father, the-way-they-are must become conformed to the-way-Jesus-is. This is the way he has been demonstrating and they have been “following” as disciples for ~4 years already. The whole Jesus sect became known as “the Way” (Ac9:2,19:9&23) and Paul admitted that he himself had become a “follower of the Way” (Ac24:14&24).

Obviously “following him” means listening to and obeying him and since he lived what he preached, it means imitating his lifestyle – becoming like him – having a like mind with Christ (Phils2:2). He said to take his yoke and learn from him – because it was the same yoke he himself wore and he could testify that it was easy and light. It must be a way that they already knew so it cannot include anything to do with him dying for sin or something – because at the time when he said those words the last thing they could imagine happening was that he might die.

If you disagree with this meaning, what other meaning would you like? Jesus is the path – so he must lay down while they walk on him!? Jesus is the way so they must literally “follow him” by tagging along behind where ever he goes!? What do you think Jesus wanted his disciples to understand when he said “I am the Way … to come to the Father”?

On your other points – surely it is obvious to you that John in Revelation is only referring to the words of that actual prophecy. It is a bit late to add anything to Revelation once it has been mass printed! In case you didn’t know, Revelation was not the last book written as John himself wrote his gospel shortly after Revelation and John’s first epistle was written later still being the covering letter to accompany his gospel.

There is a major difference between never having sinned (which is not possible for most) and being “cleansed from all unrighteousness” so that we sin no more. This is possible for all, and is in fact necessary and the only way in which to ever come to the Father. It doesn’t need to be completed in this life as Jesus has many mansions in which you may continue to progress towards perfection in your life there.

Of course many Catholics are “followers of the Way” such that they resemble Jesus to varying degrees. How could they not be? You grow in the likeness of that which you love, and if they love and serve Jesus they can’t help but grow in his likeness. Mother Theresa grew far more into Jesus’ likeness than almost all others. But she was not quite perfect. Otherwise she would not have died but would have been translated as were Enoch and Elijah (who obviously did achive perfection within their life on earth).

Since God intervened to rescue SSS miraculously from accidental death many times, and since as far as we know he was not martyred (in which God rarely intervenes), it seems very likely that SSS was also one who achieved perfection within his earthly life and so was translated without seeing death.

I wonder if you are aware of what happened to some insolent youths who mocked Elisha after Elijah’s translation? (2Ki2:23) I wouldn’t be in your shoes in bad mouthing God’s truest servants like the Sadhu and Mother Theresa! It might not be regarded lightly by our heavenly audience.

John says:

Dear Deb,

I don’t know where you get the idea that Catholicism is a Babylonian Pagan religion. Remember that prior to the reformation Catholicism was pretty much all there was. So are you saying that before the reformation there were no Christians at all. That everyone who tried to follow Jesus before the reformation were really all Babylonian Pagans! Seems hard to believe don’t you think?

Remember protestantism is really just a rather modern branch of that same Babylonian Paganism – so what do you think is the main change or essential new ingredient that means your religion is not simply a continuation with variation of Babylonian Paganism?

I do appreciate that “Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes, etc” of Revelation 17 is indeed Rome – the city that sits on 7 hills. But this is not the Roman Catholic church but is rather the Roman Empire! Remember the dragon with seven heads that tried to devour the baby church as soon as it was born – I think this also is a picture of the Roman Empire of the first century that tried with enormous persecution to destroy the fledgling church but failed. I think it is almost certain that Nero of Rome was the beast whose number is six hundred and sixty six (“Nero Caesar” = 666 using Greek->Hebrew transliteration or 616 using Latin->Hebrew). Maybe you could point me to something that might substantiate your claim about Roman Catholicism?

I think it would be worth defining just what you think a Christian is. In my view it is someone who actually tries to follow Jesus – such that they actually do things that he said they should do, and refrain from doing things that he said they shouldn’t do, because he said to. People that behave in the way Jesus would have them behave without knowing what he said (eg Old Testament saints) can hardly be called Christians because they are not “following” Christ. But they must be in the same position before God as those who do. “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Rom2:7). So I think finding acceptance by God without knowing about Jesus is not so difficult, and is certainly not the impossibility that I suspect you think it is!

John says:

Dear Deb,

Thanks for all the references. I appreciate the time you took to reply. However I am sorry to have to say that I think your Catholic=Paganism idea is a house of cards built on thinner evidence than the faked moon landing (If you also believe the moon landing was faked then I am very sorry for you!). The Acts passage suggests quite strongly that Simon Magus genuinely repented.

We read that he was “amazed” at the signs that accompanied the apostles – which suggests that the “miracles” he could induce were of a much lower quality. He was again amazed and strongly desired to be able to produce the effect of the Holy Spirit – which as miracles go is really unimpressive being pretty much only subjective. This all suggests that Simon’s own “miracles” were little more than conjuring trickery – and thus he had no more real power than any other mortal, but just cleverness. He may have had an invisible helper or two in decades past, but at pentecost their unsanctioned activity was pretty much shut down so by the time of his altercation with Peter he would probably have had to resort to trickery to produce miracles. As for all the other myths and legends which might refer to the same guy ([see wikipedia]), well which ones do you believe! They are so contradictory that most must be fiction and maybe they all are. To imagine that a guy like this could end up dominating the Roman world is a bit like imagining that someone like Yuri Geller or James Randi could take over America with their tricks.

Jesus gave us a sure guide to determine someone’s standing before God – “You will know them by their fruits.” (Mat7:17) He says just as you cannot “gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles”, even so “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Mat7:18) You are calling trees that clearly bear good fruit “bad trees”, so you are clearly wrong!

John says:

Dear Deb,

“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” The answer is obvious that he cannot. So the “born again” expression must be understood as a metaphor instead.

Can a virgin become pregnant and have a child. Of course she can – by artificial (or miraculous) insemination. So this is a real physical event. This is not a metaphor.

Do you own a robe? Have you washed it in the blood of a lamb? Is it white from being washed in blood? These things are obviously not physical! Why can’t you see this!

Most things in John’s visions in Revelation are metaphorical. This should be really obvious. Does Jesus really have a sword coming out of his mouth? Can stars (ie suns which are a million times larger than the earth) really be thrown down onto the earth! Besides which in the very introduction says “what must soon take place” (Rev1:1). So if it was soon for the readers for whom it was written, it is long past for us! (So no “coming Tribulation” I think)

Hebrews 10:19 is speaking of (1) entering the holy of holies by (2) the blood of Jesus. Clearly (1) the holy of holies is long gone since it was part of the temple which was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans, and (2) Jesus’ blood is also long gone having disappeared in the tomb along with his dead body. So of course it is a metaphor! How is it that you can’t see this?!!! I really don’t understand how anyone can be so …..!

Even though Jesus was pre-existent, he can still be born. And just as he can be born of a woman, he can also be born of the Spirit (which is what it means to be born again). And having been born of the Spirit he must then grow in the Spirit: “And the child grew and became strong in spirit … and the favour of God was upon him” (Lk2:40).

Isaiah 64:6 is not speaking of people who bear good fruit. Rather it is speaking of a people who are “carried away” with “iniquities” and unrepentant – “we have sinned – and in these ways we continue” (v5). The few “righteounesses” that they do (like sacrificing animals or attending church) are indeed as filthy rags because the rest of their lives and their hearts are evil.

I think the current Pope appears to be a practicing Christian – one of the best Popes yet.

By following Jesus, I simply mean believing what he said – that God is our Father and all humans are our brothers and sisters. And then living accordingly – primarily to please God and secondarily to love our brothers and sisters as ourselves. You don’t need the Bible to do either of these things. Everyone has a pretty good idea of how people might behave in heaven with their Creator watching, and so we should behave that way here and now. Indeed if your Bible seems to disagree with this principle (eg not healing someone on the Sabbath) then that part at least should be disregarded.

If you try to live this way because Jesus said to, then you are a Christian. If you have scarcely heard of Jesus but try to live this way because you believe in God and want to please your Creator, then while you couldn’t be called a Christian, you are just as “born again” as any Christian might be and will be welcomed into the life hereafter.

Hope this answers your questions sufficiently. Since I am tired of this sometimes rather silly exchange, I might take a break for a while.

John says:

When you speak of something as being physical (eg washing a robe in blood) but are actually meaning something spiritual, then this is obviously a metaphor as any robe you wear does not need washing – rather it is your heart and will that needs washing. It is representative and symbolic, not actual and literal. Literal blood is red and so “washing” something in it is not going to make it clean and white is it! If something gets blood on it then you need to wash it in water to make it clean again.

What “is sown a natural body, … is raised a spiritual body.” (1Cor15:44) “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (v50). Jesus’ resurrection body was not made of flesh and blood or it would not have been able to appear and disappear, pass through walls, etc. So no bodies with flowing blood in heaven I think, and certainly no sprinkling of physical blood around the place! (Have you thought how he would get the blood out? – would he slit a wrist and wave his arm around? pierce his jugular and shake his head? He wouldn’t want to puncture his abdomen too deep or turdy stuff from his intestines might come out also! Would he put a band-aid on after to stop the bleeding?)

I don’t believe the earthly temple is a copy of anything in heaven. If the curtain separating people from the holy of holies in the physical temple had to be torn in half and the temple’s complete destruction foretold by Jesus and executed by the Romans, why would you want a copy of that obviously deficient and obsolete structure in heaven?

God does not desire sacrifice but mercy (Mat9:13, 12:7, Hos6:6), listening and obedience (Sam15:22), and heart repentance (Ps51:16-17). Micah summarises God’s requirements as acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with Him (Mic6:8). In the light of these enlightened prophets calling Israel away from their ancient sacrificial system, why ever would you want to retrogress back to that darkness again?! If sacrifices were obviously deficient way back in Hosea and Micah’s day, then more modern sacrifices must also be deficient, including sacrificing a human (Jesus).

Apart from the obvious contradictions, if you want to take the OT representation of God seriously, then what do you think of the fact that the first offspring of every womb including every firstborn son was forfeit to the LORD and either had to be killed as a sacrifice, or if human then it should be ransomed to save it from being sacrificed? (Exod13:12-15 & 34:19-20) This means that Jesus’ life was already forfeit and Jesus himself had need to be ransomed! This we find happening in Luke 2:23-24. So if Jesus’ life was already forfeit such that it had to be ransomed, it doesn’t make sense that he could then be used as payment to ransom others. Or if it was in fact possible that a ransomed individual could be used to ransom more, then it means that everyone was really ransomed by the one first little payment of Joseph that ransomed Jesus!

Did Jesus’ blood also cleanse all women from the “uncleanness” of childbirth for all the children that have been born since the first Easter? I don’t think any of the Apostles suggested that it did. So why do you happily disregard this purification sacrifice (which was apparently important to remove Mary’s uncleanness after giving birth to Jesus) but are unwilling to regard the other sacrificial ceremonies (passover or whatever) as no longer relevant?

Jesus swept away all of the ceremonials of sacrifice and atonement and destroyed the basis of all this fictitious guilt and sense of isolation by declaring that man is a child of God. The creature-Creator relationship was placed on a child-parent basis. God becomes a loving Father to his mortal sons and daughters. All ceremonials not a legitimate part of such an intimate family relationship are forever abrogated.

The effort made by some New Testament writers to connect the new gospel teaching with the old Jewish theology (as in the atonement teaching) had the worthy motivation of trying to make the gospel of the kingdom more acceptable to disbelieving Jews. However it failed as far as winning the Jews, and has confused and alienated many honest souls in all subsequent generations. It seems to have found acceptance in early Christianity because it was also present in the mystery cults (eg Attis and Mithras) and the large number of early converts from these cults were happy to embrace it.

God Himself said from heaven “This is my beloved Son, listen to him” (Mat17:5, Mk9:7, Lk9:35). But God never said that of Jesus’ followers – Paul & Co. So I suggest you listen to Jesus first and foremost and where his followers go beyond or differ from the message that Jesus instructed and trained them to teach, don’t replace Jesus’ gospel message with theirs! Jesus never said anything about his death until after Peter’s famous confession and shortly before he was due to make his last trip to Jerusalem (Mat16:21). Peter’s reaction shows that this was the last thing they expected and right until he had actually died they did not accept that it would happen. This proves that Jesus’ death formed no part of the gospel message which they had been trained to preach for several years and even trained a second generation of 70 evangelists to continue with (Lk10:1). So unless you can substantiate your theories of blood covering and what-not from Jesus’ own teaching, I am going to ignore them as tradition added by the very early catholic church that should be discarded.

I did not call you a name – I left a blank for you to fill in! I couldn’t make up my mind whether to call you “blind” or “uneducated” for not being able to identify obvious figures of speech at what I imagine should be elementary level English. I left a blank just to voice my frustration. Jesus called the church leaders of his day “blind guides” and I think that description fits you also since you present yourself as a teacher. So you can consider yourself called that – but kindly – because I really think you mean well!

The shedding of Jesus’ blood on the cross is obviously not a metaphor – the same as if get stabbed my blood gets spilt and makes a mess. But as soon as it is applied to cleansing in some way – then clearly it must be metaphorical because real blood does not make things clean but messy. Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood – clearly that must be metaphorical. It is by metaphorically eating his flesh and drinking his blood that we can be cleansed and purified – by absorbing his flesh-and-blood life into our own lives so that his life becomes ours and we start to behave as he behaved. In this way we “have the face of Jesus” to use SSS’s expression – which is also obviously a metaphor.

To me, Jesus is my creator and my elder brother. By his behaviour as a human clothed in flesh and sharing our blood, He showed us what his and our Father is like – absolutely lovely and pure light with no dark side at all (1Jn1:5). (That certainly means he needs no innocent blood to be shed to appease his anger!)

Say you or your spouse has grieved the other by unfaithfulness but you really want to stay together and be close again. That requires real forgiveness and is not easy (to say the least!) Our relationship with God is even closer and more loving than that of a spouse because he lives within our minds and shares our thoughts. So although forgiveness is not physical, it is real and literal. It is not a metaphor. To draw close and feel God’s love within, one needs to not grieve Him with ugly thoughts.

As for venerating Mary, I don’t see it as even relevant and it probably depends what you think “venerate” means. I don’t think Mary caught on to Jesus’ spiritual mission even after he died and rose again. She rather hoped he would be the Messiah that would free the Jews from Roman oppression. I think that is pretty disappointing for someone who could have been so close and understood so much, and could have even left us something in writing about his early years! If I imagined that Mary was this wonderful lady that never sinned and was Jesus’ closest confidant, then I would venerate her – as she would probably be worthy of it. I do venerate SSS as I think he is worthy, and I would be pleased if I could attain even a fraction of his spiritual stature.

I know I still sin. I still get satisfaction (and maybe even pleasure) from revenge type movies. You know the standard Hollywood fare where after literally getting away with the meanest murders possible the bad guy finally gets what is coming to him. The trouble is that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze33:22) and so neither did Jesus and if we are to “have his face”, neither should we! I find it difficult to “have the mind of Jesus” in this situation don’t you? But it must be possible – I am sure SSS saw no pleasure in revenge.

As far as priests go, I don’t know what the word should even mean in a Christian setting. If God is my Father and I am his child, where does a “priest” fit in to the family picture?

Jonathan says:

Hi I recently watched a prophecy video of Sandu about the houston flood which he prophesied would happen. Everything he was saying added up until he quoted Revelation disscussing 144,000k which he quoted not 144,000 but the number of 140,000. He stated this number more then once and obviously is a biblical big discrepancy.

It was a youtube video, regarding the houston flooding. He also says “my sons & daughters like hes talking in God 1st person to the congregation which is just off- Can you please look into this video. I would really like someones feedback.
Thx~
Jonathan M.

josep daniel says:

[Deleted by DTW – Let me introduce myself, I am a Christian, you are a Mystic with the power of Satan who claims to be a Christian. You follow the Ascended Master ‘Jesus Christ’, not Jesus Christ the Son of God. Speaking in Tongues (communication with demons) and Meditation catapults your mind into demonic spiritual realms where you are held captive by Satan. Please read article on The Biblical Holy Spirit vs. The False Unholy Spirit of Fire]

Dr. Carolyn L. Hilt says:

Today, I happened to tune in to the Jim Bakker show. Immediately, and that is no exaggeration, I was struck by this man who was sitting next to him dressed in a yellow robe. I had no idea who he was, but when he spoke, I was pricked in my heart that this was not a truthful person. I did not know this person, had never heard of him, but felt so strongly, i started investigating who in the world was he. All the words spoken were meant to put fear into you. There was no love of Christ manifested, no imploring people to turn their lives over to the Lord. It was hard and negative. There was no love evidenced. Then there was a break and the viewing audience was asked to purchase all of the tapes of this man. I shut off the TV feeling overwhelmed and did not know what I had just witnessed but knew strongly there was something wrong. The first thought I had was this man was going to be instrumental in bringing down Jim Bakker for a second time for opening himself to the teachings. The second thought was why was Jim so eager to embrace this man. I thought of the Bereans who searched the Scripture to see if the things the apostles told them was true. They searched daily. In all of the talking there were few if any Scriptures mentioned and in fact I would be hard-pressed to remember any of them. The thing that stood out in my mind was the constant imploring for people to purchase his tapes. I am concerned. I cannot endorse someone that seems to have multiple “conversion” experiences. One that I read mentioned he said he was at a meeting where science was discussed and evolution and the speaker talked about the Creator. He then said he felt a hand on his back propelling him forward. Another story mentioned the vision he had of Jesus. Others mentioned his anger and on and on. We are warned that in the later days that false prophets would arise and we need to be discerning and careful and not jump on the bandwagon in support until we have conviction that the person is true to the Gospel. I pray this man is not a false prophet and if he is that it will be revealed before many are hurt. Blessings in the Lord Jesus,

Peter says:

Frankly the arguments made in this article can be easily countered by applying common logic. You debate on a topical level, without truly digging deeper. I doubt you read much of Sundar Sign’s writings. If you did, you’d know he was a follower of Christ alone. FYI he wasn’t a Hindu before coming to Christ, but you’d know that if you knew his writings.

[Edited by DTW: No wonder you love Mosaïek Kerk.]