jesus the hindu, (or tantric buddhist)

[Lighthouse]

Volcomstone...

I have actually heard this before, that he went to learn from many masters and I also heard that there was a man in Indian history who'se name sounds like Jesus, (something like Eesus or something else, sounding like Jesus but not quite)  I'll research it a little more when I get a chance []

I've also heard the after he was resurrected,  he went to India... Who knows!  Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking post.

Kerri

[volcomstone]

just a thought,   jesus disapeered when he was 13 ish

no one knows what happened to him, but after he returned he healed people with light./


maybe he went to india and became a yogi?

yoga master jesus.

no insult to anyone, but water walking, light healing, etc etc

where all very much described in the hindu scriptures the rg veda and upanishads,

way before jesus was but a twinkle in jehova's eye.

[aryanknight666]

A carpenter from 2000 years ago most certainly could not by any means travel to india and all around the world. There is no jesus, not even historical jesus, just a few historical people slightly like him which the myth of jesus has been built from and also many many male godmen/supermen/saviors of pagan religions and other religions which predate christianity.

[Gandalf]

A carpenter from 2000 years ago most certainly could not by any means travel to india and all around the world. There is no jesus, not even historical jesus, just a few historical people slightly like him which the myth of jesus has been built from and also many many male godmen/supermen/saviors of pagan religions and other religions which predate christianity.

Actually this is wrong. The roman empire allowed a high degree of movement and I can give you numerous inscriptiory evidence from tomb stones that show individuals, including many craftsmen and traders who have settled in flung regions of the empire and beyond; such as On Hadrian's wall in England/Scotland, you can read the tomb stone of an inidvidual who originally came from Palmyra in the Syrian desert. Many are soldiers who of course were transfered to various regions of the empire but many craftmen and other traders/merchants also moved around and there is plenty of epigraphic evidence to support this (tomb stones mainly).
The roman road network , unsurpassed until today, was the backbone that allowed this mobility.

India was a well known and connected area bordering the empire, and was well known since alexander's day, esp among the merchant community and it is not unlikely that someone from Judea could end up in India, a far shorter distance that Syria to Scotland I might add.

Douglas

PS whether 'Jesus' actually went there or not is a different question.
As an interesting note, It is either Suetonius or Tacitus who mentions that an official delegation from the king of India, including a Brahman priest visited the court of emperor Augustus in the late 1st century bce

[Islamis4u]

What about Moses(peace be upon him)? Did he travel to India and learn how to part the Red sea? lol.

The miracles that Jesus(peace be upon him) performed do not signify that he was God and they do not signify that he went to India or to some mystics and asked them how to perform such acts. Many prophet performed miracles.

[exothen]

There is actually no evidence that Jesus travelled anywhere outside of his local region. There is only speculation.

[kalratri]

What about Moses(peace be upon him)? Did he travel to India and learn how to part the Red sea? lol.

Bless evangelicals.  I come here not to insult any great sages of any tradition,but rather take their blessings or curses as they see fit.  I do believe that ALL of humanity creates great sages, and it is the influence of all of humanity that refines our minds and methods that creates THE ONE.  

Of course, with that being said and having taken the blessings of all sages, the Old testament is also known as the 5 books of Moses, Moses was said to be adopted by the Pharoah of Egypt around 1500 bce -- guess what Indians were there TOO


Mitanni
Mitanni in the news

The Mitanni were a people of Indic origin who ruled a vast kingdom (with a common Hurrian population) in West Asia in the second millennium BC. Mitanni arose near the sources of the Khabur River in Mesopotamia sometime after 1500 BC. It was a feudal state led by a warrior nobility. The kingdom ruled northern Mesopotamia (including Syria) for about 300 years, out of their capital of Washshukanni, (or Wassukkani, or Vasukhani, meaning "a mine of wealth.") Their warriors were called marya, which is the proper Sanskrit term for it.

By approximately 1350 BC, the Mitanni kingdom had weakened, and had become practically dependent on the Hittites, then under the rule of Shuppiluliuma I. Assyria, previously under Mitanni control, was able to assert its independence during the reign of Ashuruballit I in approximately 1330 BC.

They seem to have venerated Vedic deities and their nobility used Indo-Aryan names, and worshipped Indo-Aryan gods. In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, Indic deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. A text by a Mitannian named Kikkuli uses words such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, round). Another text has babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita, grey), and pinkara (pingala, red). Their chief festival was the celebration of vishuva (solstice) which was common in most cultures in the ancient world. Some people believer that it is not only the kings who had Sanskrit names; a large number of other Sanskrit names have been unearthed in the records from the area; other point out that over interpretation of ancient names is a an issue that must be taken into account.

Chronology of Mitanni rulership
Kirta 1500 BC-1490 BC
Suttarna I 1490 BC-1470 BC
Baratarna 1470 BC-1450 BC
Parsatatar 1450 BC-1440 BC
Saustatar 1440 BC-1410 BC
Artatama 1410 BC-1400 BC
Suttarna II 1400 BC-1385 BC
Artashumara 1385 BC-1380 BC
Tushratta 1380 BC-1350 BC
Mattivaza 1350 BC-1320 BC
Sattuara I 1320 BC-1300 BC
Vashasatta 1300 BC-1280 BC
Sattuara II 1280 BC-1270 BC
The name Sutarna I means ("good sun"). He was followed by Paratarna I ("great sun"), Parashukshatra ("ruler with axe"), Saukshatra ("son of Sukshatra, the good ruler"), Paratarna II, Artatama or Ritadhama ("abiding in cosmic law"), Sutarna II, Dasharatha, and finally Mativaja (Matiwazza, "whose wealth is prayer") during whose lifetime the Mitanni state appears to have become a vassal to Assyria.

The daughter of the King Tushratta (Tushyaratha or Dasharatha), Princess Tadukhipa, became the second queen of Akhenaten; the daughter of King Artatama was married to Thutmose IV, Akhenaten's grandfather; and the daughter of Sutarna II (Gilukhipa) was married to his father, Amenhotep III, the great builder of temples who ruled during 1390-1352 BC ("khipa" of these names is the Sanskrit "kshipa," night). In his old age, Amenhotep wrote to Dasharatha many times wishing to marry his daughter, Tadukhipa. It appears that by the time she arrived Amenhotep III was dead. Tadukhipa married the new king Akhenaten and she became famous as the queen Kiya (short for Khipa).

The miracles that Jesus(peace be upon him) performed do not signify that he was God and they do not signify that he went to India or to some mystics and asked them how to perform such acts. Many prophet performed miracles.

I disagree, Jesus was the first of the Adamic race to attain to becoming a son of God... -- he also said we are all sons/daughters of God and it is not a sin to say that you are. you should not take that away from him.  

And of course he did not need to go to India, Buddhist sages were sent to the middle east as missionaries and had a tremendous amount of influence (as did the Egyptians and other religions)there as they have had a tremendous amount of influence in modern day Europe and America in restarting the meditative teachings.

PS... Krishna parted the Yamuna river when he was just  a wee baby...

[exothen]

kalratri,

Jesus was the first of the Adamic race to attain to becoming a son of God

I disagree. He was the Son of God prior to coming in human flesh; he was not a regular human who attained any higher level of spirituality. He was God in the flesh, God Incarnate.

he also said we are all sons/daughters of God and it is not a sin to say that you are. you should not take that away from him.

The sense in which the Bible refers to humans as sons of God is very different from the sense in which Jesus is referred to as the Son of God. Sons/daughters of God are only those who accept Christ that are sons/daughters of God:

John 1:12, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name."

This verse also shows that becoming a son/daughter of God is not something that we can attain on our own.

And Jesus was not influenced by Buddhism; his teachings run very contrary to Buddhism and other eastern religions.

[kalratri]

kalratri,

Jesus was the first of the Adamic race to attain to becoming a son of God

I disagree. He was the Son of God prior to coming in human flesh; he was not a regular human who attained any higher level of spirituality. He was God in the flesh, God Incarnate.

'
Here I would have to disagree with CHURCHIANITY, as opposed to what Christ himself stated.

 He said you can insult Jesus the man, but NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT.  He called himself "son of God" a blasphemy in "synogoguanity", but reminded the Jews that the Bible states , WE ARE ALL SONS OF GOD (ben elohim) and that we all have the power to attain Christhood... I hope I don't have to post the exact scriptural passage.  Jesus became the Christ and he said through the great Christ all pervading spirit, you too can become an immortal by following his path.

St. Paul redefines Christhood in yin/yang terms (where there is no more Jew/gentile or opposites), another very strong influence from the east.

he also said we are all sons/daughters of God and it is not a sin to say that you are. you should not take that away from him.

The sense in which the Bible refers to humans as sons of God is very different from the sense in which Jesus is referred to as the Son of God. Sons/daughters of God are only those who accept Christ that are sons/daughters of God:

John 1:12, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name."

HIM, that is not Jesus the man (he himself said you can insult me, but not the Holy spirit), it was Jesus who is the Christ all pervading spirit.  That holy spirit gives the right to all to be sons and daughters of God.  
Churchianity generally confuses Jesus the Man with Jesus the Christ.  Once Jesus became the Christ, one cannot say what became of Jesus.

This verse also shows that becoming a son/daughter of God is not something that we can attain on our own.

And Jesus was not influenced by Buddhism; his teachings run very contrary to Buddhism and other eastern religions.

[/quote]

Jesus the Man didn't attain it on his own either, he himself gave credit to John the Baptist for what he became.

For further influence, Saint Barlaam and Joshaphat was actually the story of the Buddha, he literallly became a Christian saint and was cannonized in the Catholic church.


As I said, people were not isolated, everyone influenced everyone else, for anyone to say that somehow "Adamic" religions are without influence is silly.  I guess for evangelists, if you except influence, than you cannot go around calling other peoples "sons of God" demons now can you?

[kalratri]

kalratri,

Jesus was the first of the Adamic race to attain to becoming a son of God

I disagree. He was the Son of God prior to coming in human flesh; he was not a regular human who attained any higher level of spirituality. He was God in the flesh, God Incarnate.

I agree with this point, since he had an extraordinary birth.  He was a natural, an evolved spirit. But even those kind of spirits forget they are like God and have human doubts that need a teacher to dispel, in this case John the Baptist.

You forget, Mary was only human, it was her faith that gave her Jesus.

[exothen]

kalratri,

Here I would have to disagree with CHURCHIANITY, as opposed to what Christ himself stated.

Yeah, I see that a lot in here. Yet, no one has ever provided one good reason as to why their interpretation is correct over Christianity's. Why is your interpretation of what Christ said true and Christianity's (the religion started by the followers of Christ 2000 years ago)?

He said you can insult Jesus the man, but NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT. He called himself "son of God" a blasphemy in "synogoguanity", but reminded the Jews that the Bible states , WE ARE ALL SONS OF GOD (ben elohim) and that we all have the power to attain Christhood.

I disagree. First, Jesus called himself the Son of God and Son of Man, both used of the Messiah. The Bible does use the term "sons of God" for both men and angels, but it is only in the sense of righteous humans and angels. Jesus is the "one and only" or "only begotten" Son of God; this the Bible, and Christ, make clear. If one looks at the usage of the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus, something significant is said or done in the context. This is not the case with "sons of God," since in the Bible it is used only for those who represent God in some way.

Second, Jesus never taught that we all have the power to attain Christhood. That notion is simply absurd and would have been completely foreign to both Jews and Jesus and his followers. The very term "Christ" means "Messiah" or "anointed." The Bible is clear that there is, was, and can be only one Messiah.

Jesus became the Christ and he said through the great Christ all pervading spirit, you too can become an immortal by following his path.

He said nothing of the sort. I should think that you need to start posting verses to back up what you're saying. Jesus was the Christ before entering time in human flesh and said that through belief in him alone can one be saved. We cannot in any way save ourselves through enlightenment or spiritual evolution.

St. Paul redefines Christhood in yin/yang terms (where there is no more Jew/gentile or opposites), another very strong influence from the east.

But there is no eastern religious influence there. He is not speaking of opposites, he is simply stating that in Christ all are equal before God. Gentiles refers to either Greeks or, more often, to those who are not Jews. But Jews and Gentiles who are in Christ are not opposites.

That holy spirit gives the right to all to be sons and daughters of God. Churchianity generally confuses Jesus the Man with Jesus the Christ. Once Jesus became the Christ, one cannot say what became of Jesus.

Again, how do you know that Christianity is confused and you are right? Jesus always has been and will be Jesus the Christ. If you read John 1:12, which I posted, you will notice that it is only to those who believe in Christ that become sons and daughters of God.

As I said, people were not isolated, everyone influenced everyone else, for anyone to say that somehow "Adamic" religions are without influence is silly.

And Christians were severely persecuted because of their beliefs and influence in the Roman Empire. They refused to bow to the Emperor and the many gods of the Empire. The Judeo-Christian traditions are vastly, irreconcilably different from every other religion and belief system.

He was a natural, an evolved spirit.

Jesus is/was not an evolved spirit. Spiritual evolution runs counter to everything that Jesus taught. He was God in the flesh. And by God I mean a wholly other, sovereign, personal, omnipotent, omniscient being. God is a being that commands our worship, it is not something that any single person can hope to become. It is not a consciousness that pervades everything. God is separate and distinct from his creation, but he is involved in it.

[Berserk]

The legend of Jesus traveling to India is accepted by no modern critical scholar, Christian or non-Christian.   The reason for this is simple.  No new reliable tradition about the historical Jesus is available after the second century; and the legend of His India visit is only traceable to the Acts of Thomas, which was written in the third century.     The Acts of Thomas is totally legendary and hence historically worthless.   If you doubt this, just try to read it!  

The Acts of Thomas records a ficticious scene where Jesus carves up the world for His disciples to evangelize.   Thomas receives India as his missionary assignment.   Jesus later appears in spirit, not in flesh, in a few scenes in India, but these tales inaugurate the misconception that Jesus traveled to India.  

The twelve apostles were uneducated men who spoke Aramaic and, in some cases, a little Greek.  Even then, Peter needed an interpreter on Greek-speaking soil.    Greek was the lingua franca throughout most of the Mediterranean world and this fact made the incredible expansion of first century Christianity possible.  

The only basis for the tradition that Thomas traveled to India is the possibly reliable tradition that he went as far as eastern Syria and was buried in Edessa.  But Syria was still part of the Mediterranean world and Thomas would have no trouble communicating with the locals there.

[Gandalf]

ultimatly it comes down to your own personal belief, if you want jesus travelling to India then go for it.
Those like Exothen are never going to accept anything other than their set doctrine and indeed the indicator that it so conditions their perception can be clearly seen by the tell tale perception that theirs is 'the most logical' and that others are 'illogical', cf  Exothen's favourite Chesterson quote mentioned earlier, which sums up this view perfectly, and is SO common throughout so many religions.

Interestingly, as an aside, the problem with this quote is that it just says 'belief in 'god', now I assume that this individual means the christian conception of god, but theirin lies the problem, the fact remains that there are many conceptions of what 'god' is, which Chesterson will not like as they will conflict with what he feels is the most 'logical conception' ie his version of christianity. Infortunatly the 'most logical' approach is also forwarded by many other religions including the other middle-eastern ones like judaism and Islam, both of which state they are the more logical (as well as other branches of christianity), so you will all just continue going round in circles infinitum ad nausium! (such is the legacy of the greek influence on monotheistic belief ie theology, very clever but all it does is chase shadows).

At the end of the day Exothen and myself have to agree to disagree as neither of us will convine the other.

However, concerning the Jesus travelling to India thing, I think we both can agree on this one. Although it IS technically possible for a Judean citizen to travel to India, for reasons I talked about earlier, there is just not enough historical evidence that he did so. However we know so little of his life since most of his 'non-messiah' life is excluded from the accounts and we have very litle sense of jesus the man. so we dont know what he was doing a lot of the time, esp. his teenage years. So it cant be proved that he DIDNT go to india, so ultimalty as stated, it rests on belief, and if you like this idea then its up to you, trying to 'prove or 'disprove' such ideas historically is not really going anywhere.

My feeling though is that this idea has come around by those who wish to make eastern traditions and middle-eastern traditions compatible, wheras I think they are separate tradtions.

Douglas

[kalratri]

Okay, quotation time Exothen:

1) Churchianity claims Christ is THE ONLY son of God, here is what Jesus the Christ said:

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken:do ye say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God?" (Darby Translation)


Here are more old testament translations:

A few more: "Ye are the children of the Lord." Deut 14:1 "And (God) will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." II Cor 6:18 "Ye are sons of the Living God." Hosea 1:10 To Solomon God said: "He shall be my son and I will be his Father." I Chron 22:10.


So I guess you can follow an apostle of Christ, or Christ himself.  The choice is yours.

[Gandalf]

thats the problem with relying on some written texts written yonks ago... anyone can quite easly read into it whatever they like... and they frequently do...

However, if they insist...

Doug

[kalratri]

Of course the RUMOR that every prophet starting from Moses somehow went to India is quite old and generally it is pushed by non-Indians...in the  book called "The Kuzari" about some Rabbi in the 8th century who converted King Bulan to Judaism and his arguments...in which the Jewish Rabbi gives an "analogy" of Jewish prophets going to India, where the King of India is likened to God himself

first essay, 109-5:

We site the following analogy: a group of kinsmen became stranded in the
desert.  One of them found his way to India.  He was received by the king of
India with honor and greatness, because the king realized that he was a
member of the group, and that the father of this group used to be one of the
kings close friends.  The king gave him precious gifts to bring back to his
kinsmen in the desert.  He also dressed him in beautiful clothing and sent
along with him some of his distinguished attendants.  It never would have
occurred to anyone that these important attendants would ever depart from
the king, and certainly not that they should travel to the desert.  The king
charged the man w/ a set of commands and made a pact with him to pledge
fealty to the king.  The man then traveled back to his kinsmen in the desrt,
accompanied by the Indian representatives.  His friends were overjoyed upon
the arrrival of this entourage, and they built a palace for these
distinguished attendants to live in.  The rest of the group then sent a
delegation back to India to see the king.  They were now able to reach India
w/o any trouble through the help of the king's representatives, who showed
them the closest and straightest path.  It was then that they realized that
it is in reality quite easy for anyone who so desires to reach India, as
long as he commits himself to the service of the king and appropriately
honor's the kings messengers when they are sent to him.   The had no reason
to question the need to serve the king, because  it was obvious to all that
the purpose was to become close to the king, and closeness to the king was
the greatest good.

[6] In this parable, the group of kinsmen are the jewish people.  The first
of them who went to India is Moses.  The subsequent delagator is the rest of
the Jewish prophets.  The Indian representatives of the king are the divine
presence and the angels.  The beautiful clothing is the spiritual light taht
rested upon Moses soul as a result of his prophcies as well as the physical
light taht radiated from his face.  The precious gifts sent by the king are
the 2 tablets that contained the 10 commandments.    

[exothen]

Gandalf,

ultimatly it comes down to your own personal belief, if you want jesus travelling to India then go for it.

Isn't it you that claims to be a historian? Is this how you determine what is historical and what isn't: Jesus travelling to India, even according to you, is a claim without evidence.

Those like Exothen are never going to accept anything other than their set doctrine and indeed the indicator that it so conditions their perception can be clearly seen by the tell tale perception that theirs is 'the most logical' and that others are 'illogical'

And yet you post this:

However, concerning the Jesus travelling to India thing, I think we both can agree on this one. Although it IS technically possible for a Judean citizen to travel to India, for reasons I talked about earlier, there is just not enough historical evidence that he did so.

Given all the evidence, it is more plausible to believe what I do, it is more reasonable, yet you criticize me for claiming it do be so. One cannot just go saying that history is subjective so believe what you want. Neither you nor anyone else has given one single decent reason to believe that Jesus ventured outside of Jewish territory.

So, please tell me Gandalf, who is being more logical?


kalratri,

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken:do ye say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God?" (Darby Translation)

As Gandalf said, people often read into the texts what they want. Nothing like quoting Scripture without understanding what is even being said.

Joh 10:34  Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
Joh 10:35  If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--
Joh 10:36  do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'

First, Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6, but look at verse 7 also:

Psa 82:6  I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
Psa 82:7  nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince."

Second, notice that in verse 36 Jesus says how much greater is he than the "gods" of verses 34 and 35.

Third, the Bible does refer to men as "sons of God" or in this case just "gods," but only of rulers, kings, and judges. This is only because they are appointed by God to rule and judge. The Jews knew this and seemed to have no problem with it.

Fourth, the problem arises when Jesus says that he is the Son of God. The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming equality with God, as seen in the context of John 10:

Joh 10:30  I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31  The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32  Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

The phrase "Son of God" carries a much different connotation and weight when used of Jesus instead of mere men.

A few more: "Ye are the children of the Lord." Deut 14:1 "And (God) will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." II Cor 6:18 "Ye are sons of the Living God." Hosea 1:10 To Solomon God said: "He shall be my son and I will be his Father." I Chron 22:10.

Exactly. And this supports what I quoted from John 1:12. Only those who believe have the right to become sons and daughters of God. Believers are said to be co-heirs with Christ. Every verse you gave pertains to either the Jews and/or followers of Christ.

There is, and ever will be, only one God:

Isa 44:6  Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
Isa 44:7  Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.
Isa 44:8  Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:5  I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Isa 45:6  that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isa 45:21  Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22  "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9  remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

[Gandalf]

As Gandalf said, people often read into the texts what they want. Nothing like quoting Scripture without understanding what is even being said.



Yes but I include you in this as well, wheras you of course do not, since you believe that you and those whom you support have the 'correct' interpretation. However others also have differing interpretations which they beleive is the 'correct' one.

That is why there are so many christian factions all arguing that they are correct and firing shots at eachother, I dont think there is another mainstream faith system so fragmented and argumentative as the christian one, but as i said thats what happens when you rely on old texts written thousands of years ago for your belief system.. its subjective, I wont get bogged down with which intepretation is more 'logical', I'll leave that to you.

history is only partially similar to this: history is about trying to find the most 'likely' facts for real world events; it uses a logic based system, but is still subjective, so is theology, but in theology you are all arguing for the most logical point in an argument which is all based on belief, which is then tested against other beliefs.. it cant stand outside of theology only on its own terms.. while this has some similarity to history, history is at least based on real events in the real world, a fact that no reasonable person is going to have any beef with.
Thats what annoys me about Islam, they are big on this 'logic' deal, they say it has 'proofs' which any rational minded individual can find out to indicate that it is the most rational and therefor factual religion.... hmm I dont think so.

As for history, interpretation of this is subjective as every historian knows.

I was just indicating my 'hunch' which any historian is allowed to have, as long as they dont state it as fact ie most supported by evidence.


I accept this and dont see any evidence that jesus went to india, however this issue is not just a secular historical one, it is also a belief issue which is a different ball game entirly in my view. We simply dont know enough about him.
Logic doesnt come into it and trying to 'prove' religious beliefs logically is going to be shot down in flames... keep the 'logic' of your particular religion' within theology debates, it doesnt stand outside of that.

[fuji257]

I think everyone agrees that there is not enough PHYSICAL evidence to support Jesus going to India.  According to PHYSICAL evidence - he did not.

There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest/support he did.

Anecdotal evidence creates theories.  To prove theory, physical evidence is sought.  At this time, concrete physical evidence has NOT been produced - - but that does NOT make the theory (anecdotal evidence) invalid.  There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence, but until physical evidence is produced it will remain a theory.

Some people believe theories (evolution) others do not, and thats OK.

For me, the anecdotal evidence is enough.  I personally believe that if there was a historical Jesus he either went to India to learn or was heavily influenced by religions/lifestyles of that region.

[exothen]

Gandalf,

history is only partially similar to this: history is about trying to find the most 'likely' facts for real world events; it uses a logic based system, but is still subjective....

I accept this and dont see any evidence that jesus went to india, however this issue is not just a secular historical one, it is also a belief issue which is a different ball game entirly in my view.

But if Jesus was a historical figure and history tries to find out the most likely facts, then we can know things about Jesus and what is most likely to be true about him. Although both history and theology can subjective, that doesn't mean that one cannot know anything obective about them.


fuji,

if there was a historical Jesus he either went to India to learn or was heavily influenced by religions/lifestyles of that region.

But that is the whole point: Jesus' teachings contradict the religions of the far east. Was he ignorant of them? Maybe not. Was he influenced by them? Unlikely.

Jesus quotes from a passage that has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which shows that he was a least in part familiar with the writings of the Essenes. Jesus was very much a Jew and this is reflected in his teachings.

[kalratri]

Exothen,


Hmm, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

Now of course, Jesus said  simply'before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham...So I never disagreed, Jesus attained higher than other descendants of the Adam...(there are non-Adamic humans more ancient, Aryans are one of them)

Third, the Bible does refer to men as "sons of God" or in this case just "gods," but only of rulers, kings, and judges. This is only because they are appointed by God to rule and judge. The Jews knew this and seemed to have no problem with it.

No SOME of the jews seem only to have a problem when the Roman Emperor who ruled an empire vaster than any Jewish king or anyone else call themselves Gods or sons of Gods...

Fourth, the problem arises when Jesus says that he is the Son of God. The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming equality with God, as seen in the context of John 10:

Joh 10:30  I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31  The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32  Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

Now please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..

The phrase "Son of God" carries a much different connotation and weight when used of Jesus instead of mere men.

Nah, you're just making that up...you're saying Jesus was a blasphemer AND Jewish ---one of them is wrong.  Either Jesus wasn't Jewish since he goes further and actually says he is one with God, a very Hindu thing to say or he's Jewish and refuses to claim such a "blasphemous" thing.  Which one is it?

A few more: "Ye are the children of the Lord." Deut 14:1 "And (God) will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." II Cor 6:18 "Ye are sons of the Living God." Hosea 1:10 To Solomon God said: "He shall be my son and I will be his Father." I Chron 22:10.

Exactly. And this supports what I quoted from John 1:12. Only those who believe have the right to become sons and daughters of God. Believers are said to be co-heirs with Christ. Every verse you gave pertains to either the Jews and/or followers of Christ.

But again according to Jews, Christ went too far, ... so he wasn't Jewish any more now was he and if he had a virgin birth, his father wasn't Jewish either as many Jews to this day attack...again to claim one is "ONE WITH GOD" is an eastern, a HINDU concept not supported by semitic religions.  SO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

 and please do tell me where you find returning hate with kindness in Jewish scriptures?...loving compassion are Buddhist concepts.  To deny major eastern influence in the middle east is akin to the same claim made by some others that Jesus went to India.  The fact that Hindu kings ruled some major kingdoms in the middle east from the time of Moses is enough to suffice.  Besides the fact that BUddhist missionaries were sent to the middle east during the reign of Indian Emperor Ashoka.  To deny such historical evidence is just as silly.

[exothen]

kalratri,

Hmm, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

You're getting nowhere actually. Do not misconstrue what I say to fit what you believe. I made it clear that although the phrase "sons of God" is used of humans, it has a very different connotation than the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus.

Now of course, Jesus said nothing of the sort that he is greater, he simply said "before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham

You're twisting what the Bible says. Jesus clearly says "before Abraham was I am." As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "I am" is comes from Exodus 3:14:

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'""

Jesus is clearly using the name of God, which the Jews would have recognized, to make the distinction between the previous temporary existence of Abraham and his own eternal pre-existance. Jesus is God in the flesh, so only he can make such a claim. The Jews recognized this as claiming equality with God and picked up stones to stone Jesus.

Now please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..

Just because it appears to be something similar to something a Hindu would say doesn't mean that he was teaching Hindu philosophy.

Nah, you're just making that up...you're saying Jesus was a blasphemer AND Jewish ---one of them is wrong. Either Jesus wasn't Jewish since he goes further and actually says he is one with God, a very Hindu thing to say or he's Jewish and refuses to claim such a "blasphemous" thing. Which one is it?

I said that the Jews recognized Jesus' statement of equality with God. They recognized that he was claiming to be God, that is, Yahweh and so they accused him of blasphemy.

If you're not going to bother studying something that you seem to think you know lots about, then I'm not going to help you. Either study up on what I suggested or your opinion on the matter is useless.

SO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

Not at all, that is absurd. His teachings fly in the face of Hinduism. Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, claimed to be one in essence and nature with God, that is, God in the flesh.

[kalratri]

kalratri,

m, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

You're getting nowhere actually. Do not misconstrue what I say to fit what you believe. I made it clear that although the phrase "sons of God" is used of humans, it has a very different connotation than the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus.

I don't miscontrue anything, YOU WERE WRONG AND SCRIPTURES PROVED IT.  Jesus claimed to be the highest attainer amongst the Jews, BUT DID NOT DENY THAT THERE WERE OTHER SONS OF GOD.  You WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  You claimed Jesus claimed the sole mantel of being the son of God.

Now of course, Jesus said nothing of the sort that he is greater, he simply said "before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham
You're twisting what the Bible says. Jesus clearly says "before Abraham was I am." As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "I am" is comes from Exodus 3:14:

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"" ''

Shame on you!  Hindus and Buddhists have libraries and libraries of revealed scripture AND YOU GUYS HAVE ONE BITTY BOOK and you can't even understand one little book properly.  
Yahweh, the divine name actually means , " I will be who I will be"...

And you said you study?

Jesus is clearly using the name of God, which the Jews would have recognized, to make the distinction between the previous temporary existence of Abraham and his own eternal pre-existance. Jesus is God in the flesh, so only he can make such a claim. The Jews recognized this as claiming equality with God and picked up stones to stone Jesus.

Jews were NEVER expecting a man to claim YAHWEH (GOD)status.  THAT WAS NOT A PART OF JEWISH TRADITION.  They were expecting someone like King David to rule Israel.   SURPRISE!  Jews to this day don't except Jesus as the Messiah.

Now please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..


Just because it appears to be something similar to something a Hindu would say doesn't mean that he was teaching Hindu philosophy.

Oh I agree, but just because he wasn't teaching Hindu philosophy doesn't mean he wasn't indirectly influenced by it.  Hindu influence, as well as Egyptian, Roman etc. influence was quite strong in the middle east as it was the international cultural/trade capital in those days.  I simply stated Hindu and other religous influence was there from the beginning.  JESUS DIDN"T NEED TO GO TO INDIA.

I said that the Jews recognized Jesus' statement of equality with God. They recognized that he was claiming to be God, that is, Yahweh and so they accused him of blasphemy.

Yes and it was blasphemous according to Jewish tradition where being a son of God is acceptable, but GOD?  No.

If you're not going to bother studying something that you seem to think you know lots about, then I'm not going to help you. Either study up on what I suggested or your opinion on the matter is useless.
SO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

Not at all, that is absurd. His teachings fly in the face of Hinduism. Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, claimed to be one in essence and nature with God, that is, God in the flesh.

Oh really? Could that be the Avatar concept of Hinduism? Now take your own advice and study a little before you make comments that display your gross ignorance and lack of knowledge of history and world religion.

[kalratri]

kalratri,

m, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

You're getting nowhere actually. Do not misconstrue what I say to fit what you believe. I made it clear that although the phrase "sons of God" is used of humans, it has a very different connotation than the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus.

I don't miscontrue anything, YOU WERE WRONG AND SCRIPTURES PROVED IT.  Jesus claimed to be the highest attainer amongst the Jews, BUT DID NOT DENY THAT THERE WERE OTHER SONS OF GOD.  You WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  You claimed Jesus claimed the sole mantel of being the son of God.

Now of course, Jesus said nothing of the sort that he is greater, he simply said "before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham
You're twisting what the Bible says. Jesus clearly says "before Abraham was I am." As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "I am" is comes from Exodus 3:14:

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"" ''

 Hindus and Buddhists have libraries and libraries of revealed scripture AND YOU GUYS HAVE ONE BITTY BOOK and you can't even understand one little book properly.  
Yahweh can mean several things including   " I will become who I will become"...Now that doesn't fit in too neatly with what Jesus said , now does it?

And you said you study?

Jesus is clearly using the name of God, which the Jews would have recognized, to make the distinction between the previous temporary existence of Abraham and his own eternal pre-existance. Jesus is God in the flesh, so only he can make such a claim. The Jews recognized this as claiming equality with God and picked up stones to stone Jesus.

Jews were NEVER expecting a man to claim YAHWEH (GOD)status.  THAT WAS NOT A PART OF JEWISH TRADITION.  They were expecting someone like King David to rule Israel.   SURPRISE!  Jews to this day don't except Jesus as the Messiah.

Now please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..


Just because it appears to be something similar to something a Hindu would say doesn't mean that he was teaching Hindu philosophy.

Oh I agree, but just because he wasn't teaching Hindu philosophy doesn't mean he wasn't indirectly influenced by it.  Hindu influence, as well as Egyptian, Roman etc. influence was quite strong in the middle east as it was the international cultural/trade capital in those days.  I simply stated Hindu and other religous influence was there from the beginning.  JESUS DIDN"T NEED TO GO TO INDIA.

I said that the Jews recognized Jesus' statement of equality with God. They recognized that he was claiming to be God, that is, Yahweh and so they accused him of blasphemy.

Yes and it was blasphemous according to Jewish tradition where being a son of God is acceptable, but GOD?  No.

If you're not going to bother studying something that you seem to think you know lots about, then I'm not going to help you. Either study up on what I suggested or your opinion on the matter is useless.
SO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

Not at all, that is absurd. His teachings fly in the face of Hinduism. Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, claimed to be one in essence and nature with God, that is, God in the flesh.

Oh really? Could that be the Avatar concept of Hinduism? Now take your own advice and study a little before you make comments that display your gross ignorance and lack of knowledge of history and world religion.

[Gandalf]

Exothen I also dont see any connection between Jesus and eastrn traditions  which we both think is a good thing but for different reasons.

Personally I dislike middle-eastern religion in all its facets, ie judaism, christianity and Islam and I would rather they had stayed in the seething poisoned chalice of the region in which they originated, rather than infecting the rest of us.. but of course that is my opinion.

You have a different view which holds these doctrines above and beyond others including eastern ones which again I respect your view..

but I like the idea of the eastern traditions that are untouched; I find them so refreshing in today's world.

Each to their own I always say and I think that most reasonable people, including most moderate christians and muslims would agree with. unfortunalty muslims and chrisitans have that irittating facet built into their doctrine which insists they activly try to convert as many people as possible, which really starts to p**s people off, esp when your standing n the occult section of a bookstore as a responsible adult and you turn around to find a group of people praying at you and thumping tomes of new testement lore....
ok I exagerate, but not by much...
Cant we leave people to believe what they want?

Doug