NationStates Jolt Archive


jesus lived in India

Trocki
11-04-2004, 18:33
Holger Kersten: "It is simply of vital importance to find again the path to the sources, to the eternal and central truths of Christ's message, which has been shaken almost beyond recognition by the profane ambitions of more or less secular institutions arrogating to themselves a religious authority. This is an attempt to open a way to a new future, firmly founded in the true spiritual and religious sources of the past".

Thus begins Holger Kersten's book "Jesus Lived in India". This German book is a thorough, methodical and authoritative examination of the evidence of Christ's life beyond the Middle East before the Crucifixion and in India and elsewhere after it.

This article is a summary of Kersten's exhaustive research into Christ's travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir. Kersten notes the many parallels of Christ's teachings with other religious and cultural traditions and suggests that at least some of these figures may have been one and the same personality. It is not possible, Kersten asserts, to disprove that Christ went to India. The current information documenting Christ's life is restricted to the gospels and the work of Church theologians. One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.


The Russian scholar, Nicolai Notovich, was the first to suggest that Christ may have gone to India. In 1887, Notovich, a Russian scholar and Orientalist, arrived in Kashmir during one of several journeys to the Orient. At the Zoji-la pass Notovich was a guest in a Buddhist monastery, where a monk told him of the bhodisattva saint called "Issa". Notovich was stunned by the remarkable parallels of Issa's teachings and martyrdom with that of Christ's life, teachings and crucifixion.

For about sixteen years, Christ travelled through Turkey, Persia, Western Europe and possibly England. He finally arrived with Mary to a place near Kashmir, where she died. After many years in Kashmir, teaching to an appreciative population, who venerated him as a great prophet, reformer and saint, he died and was buried in a tomb in Kashmir itself.

The first step in Christ's trail after the Crucifixion is found in the Persian scholar F. Mohammed's historical work "Jami-ut-tuwarik" which tells of Christ's arrival in the kingdom of Nisibis, by royal invitation. (Nisibis is today known as Nusaybin in Turkey) . This is reiterated in the Imam Abu Jafar Muhammed's "Tafsi-Ibn-i-Jamir at-tubri." Kersten found that in both Turkey and Persia there are ancient stories of a saint called "Yuz Asaf" ("Leader of the Healed"), whose behaviour, miracles and teachings are remarkably similar to that of Christ.

The many Islamic and Hindu historical works recording local history and legends of kings, noblemen and saints of the areas thought to be travelled by Jesus also give evidence of a Christ like man; the Koran, for example, refers to Christ as "Issar". Further east, the Kurdish tribes of Eastern Anatolia have several stories describing Christ's stay in Eastern Turkey after his resurrection. These traditional legends have been ignored by the theological community.

Kersten also suggests that prior to Christ's mission in the Middle East, he may have been exposed to Buddhist teachings in Egypt. After his birth in Bethlehem, his family fled to Egypt to avoid Herod's persecution. Surprisingly some scholars now acknowledge that Buddhist schools probably existed in Alexandria long before the Christian era.

More clues are drawn from the Apocrypha. These are texts said to have been written by the Apostles but which are not officially accepted by the Church. Indeed, the Church regards them as heresy since a substantial amount of the Apocrypha directly contradicts Church dogma and theology. The Apocryphal 'Acts of Thomas', for example, tell how Christ met Thomas several times after the Crucifixion. In fact they tell us how Christ sent Thomas to teach his spirituality in India. This is corroborated by evidence found in the form of stone inscriptions at Fatehpur Sikri, near the Taj Mahal, in Northern India. They include "Agrapha", which are sayings of Christ that don't exist in the mainstream Bible. Their grammatical form is most similar to that of the Apocryphal gospel of Thomas. This is but one example giving credibility to the idea that texts not recognised by the Church hold important clues about Christ's true life and his teachings.

In tracing Christ's movements to India and beyond, Kersten also discovered that many of his teachings, which have been gradually edited out of the modern Bible were originally Eastern in nature. Principles such as karma and re-incarnation, for example, were common knowledge then, and seem to have been reaffirmed by Christ. Imagine the implications that this discovery holds for Western Christianity and its churches, who have kept Christ in their doctrinal top pockets and have constrained the entire Western culture within the narrow teachings of blind faith, organised religion and original sin!

Further clues are cited from The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas which are of Syrian origin and have been dated to the 4th Century AD, or possibly earlier. They are Gnostic Scriptures and despite the evidence indicating their authenticity, they are not given credence by mainstream theologians. In these texts Thomas tells of Christ's appearance in Andrapolis, Paphlagonia (today known as in the extreme north of Anatolia) as a guest of the King of Andrappa. There he met with Thomas who had arrived separately. It is at Andrapolis that Christ entreated Thomas to go to India to begin spreading his teachings. It seems that Christ and Mary then moved along the West coast of Turkey, proof of this could be an old stopping place for travellers called the "Home of Mary", found along the ancient silk route. From here Christ could easily have entered Europe via France. He may have even travelled as far as the British Isles, for in England there is an ancient oak tree called the "Hallowed Tree" which (says local legend) was planted by Christ himself.

In his travels through Persia (today's Iran) Christ became known as Yuz Asaf (leader of the Healed). We know this because a Kashmiri historical document confirms that Isa (the Koranic name for Christ) was in fact also known as Yuz Asaf. The Jami - uf - Tamarik, Volume II, tells that Yuz Asaf visited Masslige, where he attended the grave of Shem, Noah's son. There are various other accounts such as Agha Mustafa's "Awhali Shahaii-i-paras" that tell of Yuz Asaf's travels and teachings all over Persia. It seems that Yuz Asaf blessed Afghanistan and Pakistan with his presence also. There are for example two plains in Eastern Afghanistan near Gazni and Galalabad, bearing the name of the prophet Yuz Asaf. Again in the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, Thomas says that he and Christ attended the Court of King Gundafor of Taxila (now Pakistan), in about 47AD, and that eventually both the King and his brother accepted Christ's teachings. Kersten claims that there are more than twenty one historical documents that bear witness to the existence of Jesus in Kashmir, where he was known also as Yuz Asaf and Issa. For example the Bhavishyat Mahapurana (volume 9 verses 17-32) contains an account of Issa-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). It describes Christ's arrival in the Kashmir region of India and his encounter with King Shalivahana, who ruled the Kushan area (39-50AD), and who entertained Christ as a guest for some time.

{Christ's life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery.|

The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or "The final resting place of Mary". The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa's (ie Christ's) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead and scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.

Following Christ's trail into Kashmir, 40km south of Srinagar, between the villages of Naugam and Nilmge is a meadow called Yuz-Marg (the meadow of Yuz Asaf, ie. Jesus). Then there is the sacred building called Aish Muqam, 60km south east of Srinagar and 12km from Bij Bihara. "Aish" says Kersten is derived from "Issa" and "Muqam" place of rest or repose. Within the Aish Muqam is a sacred relic called the 'Moses Rod' or the 'Jesus Rod', which local legend says, belonged to Moses himself. Christ is said to also have held it, perhaps to confirm his Mosaic heritage. Above the town of Srinagar is a temple known as "The Throne of Solomon", which dates back to at least 1000BC, which King Gopadatta had restored at about the same time as Christ's advent. The restoration was done by a Persian architect who personally left four inscriptions on the side steps of the temple. The third and fourth inscription read: "At this time Yuz Asaf announced his prophetic calling in Year 50 and 4" and "He is Jesus -- Prophet of the Sons of Israel"! Herein lies a powerful confirmation of Kersten's theory. Kersten suggests that Christ may have travelled to the South of India also, finally returning to Kashmir to die at the age of approximately 80 years. Christ's tomb, says Kersten, lies in Srinagar's old town in a building called Rozabal. "Rozabal" is an abbreviation of Rauza Bal, meaning "tomb of a prophet". At the entrance there is an inscription explaining that Yuz Asaf is buried along with another Moslem saint. Both have gravestones which are oriented in North-South direction, according to Moslem tradition. However, through a small opening the true burial chamber can be seen, in which there is the Sarcophagus of Yuz Asaf in East-West (Jewish) orientation!

According to Professor Hassnain, who has studied this tomb, there are carved footprints on the grave stones and when closely examined, carved images of a crucifix and a rosary. The footprints of Yuz Asaf have what appear to be scars represented on both feet, if one assumes that they are crucifixion scars, then their position is consistent with the scars shown in the Turin Shroud (left foot nailed over right). Crucifixion was not practised in Asia, so it is quite possible that they were inflicted elsewhere, such as the Middle East. The tomb is called by some as "Hazrat Issa Sahib" or "Tomb of the Lord Master Jesus". Ancient records acknowledge the existence of the tomb as long ago as 112AD. The Grand Mufti, a prominent Muslim Cleric, himself has confirmed that Hazrat Isa Sahib is indeed the tomb of Yuz Asaf!

Thus Kersten deduces that the tomb of Jesus Christ Himself is in Kashmir!

The implications of Kersten's discovery are monumental. Christ's life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery. Threatened also are the doctrines of obedience to the Church, original sin, salvation through blind faith and the non-existence of reincarnation, etc. Yet these ideas underlie the morality and ethics, (or lack of them), that govern the entire Western social structure, from the legal system to medical health care schemes. It is no wonder that the modern Churches and their secular interests refuse to consider such a proposition as Kersten's!

The Synopsis of "Jesus Lived In India" by Holger Kersten was written by Dr Ramesh Manocha & Anna Potts.
11-04-2004, 18:35
Thanks.

Your soul will be governed by me.
Arkanstan
11-04-2004, 18:51
Holy crap that is way to much stuff for me to read :?
Eridanus
11-04-2004, 18:52
No, I'm right here, thank you.
11-04-2004, 18:55
Is it possible to disprove that Jesus actually was the messiah?

No.

I glad I didn't finish reading that bull.

-Kaltonic
Trocki
11-04-2004, 19:27
first read to the end then reply
Collaboration
11-04-2004, 21:05
I think it's possible he visited India between the ages of 12 and 30; we know nothing of this period of his life.

He could have seen himself as Krishna, or he could have identified Brahman as "Father".
11-04-2004, 21:25
Why does it matter where he lived?
Trocki
12-04-2004, 00:44
he was in India after he was crucified. that means he did not die at a cross.
Baclumi
12-04-2004, 01:36
dbl post
Baclumi
12-04-2004, 01:36
Why do people put more trust in the Gospel of Thomas then in the other Cannonized Gospels?
QahJoh
12-04-2004, 01:39
Why do people put more trust in the Gospel of Thomas then in the other Cannonized Gospels?

I would say the opposite question applies to "mainstream" Christians. Why do they put the Gospel of John, Matthew, etc, over that of Thomas?
QahJoh
12-04-2004, 01:40
Is it possible to disprove that Jesus actually was the messiah?

No.

I glad I didn't finish reading that bull.

Is it possible to disprove that God is a hotpocket? No.

So what's your point?
Purly Euclid
12-04-2004, 01:52
This article still maintains that Christ died at the cross, resurrected, then headed East, correct?
Tuesday Heights
12-04-2004, 05:36
He was also Black.
Baclumi
12-04-2004, 05:39
Why do people put more trust in the Gospel of Thomas then in the other Cannonized Gospels?

I would say the opposite question applies to "mainstream" Christians. Why do they put the Gospel of John, Matthew, etc, over that of Thomas?


i dont really know that much about this topic but here is what i think. Christians give more credit to the cannonized gospels because they all coincide pretty well except for a few details, and they were written by different people, which is amazing. Ever been to a courtroom and all the witnesses have seen different things, yet it is the same incident? That is sorta like what the gospels are. They are all different tellings of the same incident, but they agree on the main parts. Now the gospel of Thomas goes completely against the other 4, which shouldnt be, because all the apostles saw the same things. If the gospel of thomas were true, then it would coincide with the other gospels except for a few minor differences, the same way the other 4 coincide with each other. If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?
Free Soviets
12-04-2004, 05:49
i dont really know that much about this topic but here is what i think. Christians give more credit to the cannonized gospels because they all coincide pretty well except for a few details, and they were written by different people, which is amazing. Ever been to a courtroom and all the witnesses have seen different things, yet it is the same incident? That is sorta like what the gospels are. They are all different tellings of the same incident, but they agree on the main parts. Now the gospel of Thomas goes completely against the other 4, which shouldnt be, because all the apostles saw the same things. If the gospel of thomas were true, then it would coincide with the other gospels except for a few minor differences, the same way the other 4 coincide with each other. If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?

of course, if the witnesses are selected out of a large number of other witnesses it isn't exactly surprising that they chose witness that were mostly compatible with each other - those doing the choosing chose the ones that best fit their agenda.

not to mention that in this case the official witnesses didn't actually personally witness much of anything.
Soviet Haaregrad
12-04-2004, 05:54
Why do people put more trust in the Gospel of Thomas then in the other Cannonized Gospels?

I would say the opposite question applies to "mainstream" Christians. Why do they put the Gospel of John, Matthew, etc, over that of Thomas?


i dont really know that much about this topic but here is what i think. Christians give more credit to the cannonized gospels because they all coincide pretty well except for a few details, and they were written by different people, which is amazing. Ever been to a courtroom and all the witnesses have seen different things, yet it is the same incident? That is sorta like what the gospels are. They are all different tellings of the same incident, but they agree on the main parts. Now the gospel of Thomas goes completely against the other 4, which shouldnt be, because all the apostles saw the same things. If the gospel of thomas were true, then it would coincide with the other gospels except for a few minor differences, the same way the other 4 coincide with each other. If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?

Except for one thing, there isn't 5 gospels, there's at least 6.

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Thomas
Mary

The Gnostic Bible, contains far more books then the Catholic, Arain, Orthodox or Protestant Bibles.
Baclumi
12-04-2004, 06:11
i dont really know that much about this topic but here is what i think. Christians give more credit to the cannonized gospels because they all coincide pretty well except for a few details, and they were written by different people, which is amazing. Ever been to a courtroom and all the witnesses have seen different things, yet it is the same incident? That is sorta like what the gospels are. They are all different tellings of the same incident, but they agree on the main parts. Now the gospel of Thomas goes completely against the other 4, which shouldnt be, because all the apostles saw the same things. If the gospel of thomas were true, then it would coincide with the other gospels except for a few minor differences, the same way the other 4 coincide with each other. If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?

of course, if the witnesses are selected out of a large number of other witnesses it isn't exactly surprising that they chose witness that were mostly compatible with each other - those doing the choosing chose the ones that best fit their agenda.

not to mention that in this case the official witnesses didn't actually personally witness much of anything.


Okay so we know that there are at least 6 gospel accounts. Mat. Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Mary. The first four coincide with each other well. The other 2 dont coincide with the other 4, and not with each other either. Who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 that coincide, or the 2 that dont even match at all. I know a federal court would side with the four. And how do you know that the official witnesses didnt actually witness much of anything?
Baclumi
12-04-2004, 06:12
Why do people put more trust in the Gospel of Thomas then in the other Cannonized Gospels?

I would say the opposite question applies to "mainstream" Christians. Why do they put the Gospel of John, Matthew, etc, over that of Thomas?


i dont really know that much about this topic but here is what i think. Christians give more credit to the cannonized gospels because they all coincide pretty well except for a few details, and they were written by different people, which is amazing. Ever been to a courtroom and all the witnesses have seen different things, yet it is the same incident? That is sorta like what the gospels are. They are all different tellings of the same incident, but they agree on the main parts. Now the gospel of Thomas goes completely against the other 4, which shouldnt be, because all the apostles saw the same things. If the gospel of thomas were true, then it would coincide with the other gospels except for a few minor differences, the same way the other 4 coincide with each other. If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?

Except for one thing, there isn't 5 gospels, there's at least 6.

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Thomas
Mary

The Gnostic Bible, contains far more books then the Catholic, Arain, Orthodox or Protestant Bibles.

fair enough. It doesnt really affect what i said though.
Soviet Haaregrad
12-04-2004, 06:27
Why do people put more trust in the Gospel of Thomas then in the other Cannonized Gospels?

I would say the opposite question applies to "mainstream" Christians. Why do they put the Gospel of John, Matthew, etc, over that of Thomas?


i dont really know that much about this topic but here is what i think. Christians give more credit to the cannonized gospels because they all coincide pretty well except for a few details, and they were written by different people, which is amazing. Ever been to a courtroom and all the witnesses have seen different things, yet it is the same incident? That is sorta like what the gospels are. They are all different tellings of the same incident, but they agree on the main parts. Now the gospel of Thomas goes completely against the other 4, which shouldnt be, because all the apostles saw the same things. If the gospel of thomas were true, then it would coincide with the other gospels except for a few minor differences, the same way the other 4 coincide with each other. If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?

Except for one thing, there isn't 5 gospels, there's at least 6.

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Thomas
Mary

The Gnostic Bible, contains far more books then the Catholic, Arain, Orthodox or Protestant Bibles.

fair enough. It doesnt really affect what i said though.

Except Thomas and Mary don't so much disagree as they show different aspects of Christ. They discuss more of his normal life and personality then the others.
QahJoh
12-04-2004, 06:41
Why do people put more trust in the Gospel of Thomas then in the other Cannonized Gospels?

I would say the opposite question applies to "mainstream" Christians. Why do they put the Gospel of John, Matthew, etc, over that of Thomas?


i dont really know that much about this topic but here is what i think. Christians give more credit to the cannonized gospels because they all coincide pretty well except for a few details, and they were written by different people, which is amazing. Ever been to a courtroom and all the witnesses have seen different things, yet it is the same incident? That is sorta like what the gospels are. They are all different tellings of the same incident, but they agree on the main parts. Now the gospel of Thomas goes completely against the other 4, which shouldnt be, because all the apostles saw the same things. If the gospel of thomas were true, then it would coincide with the other gospels except for a few minor differences, the same way the other 4 coincide with each other. If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?

I seem to recall reading in my Oxford Bible that at least one of the cannonized gospels was partly copied from another one. Which could account for some of the "amazing" agreements on detais.
Baclumi
12-04-2004, 06:47
Why do people put more trust in the Gospel of Thomas then in the other Cannonized Gospels?

I would say the opposite question applies to "mainstream" Christians. Why do they put the Gospel of John, Matthew, etc, over that of Thomas?


i dont really know that much about this topic but here is what i think. Christians give more credit to the cannonized gospels because they all coincide pretty well except for a few details, and they were written by different people, which is amazing. Ever been to a courtroom and all the witnesses have seen different things, yet it is the same incident? That is sorta like what the gospels are. They are all different tellings of the same incident, but they agree on the main parts. Now the gospel of Thomas goes completely against the other 4, which shouldnt be, because all the apostles saw the same things. If the gospel of thomas were true, then it would coincide with the other gospels except for a few minor differences, the same way the other 4 coincide with each other. If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?

I seem to recall reading in my Oxford Bible that at least one of the cannonized gospels was partly copied from another one. Which could account for some of the "amazing" agreements on detais.

Which ones? And what parts of the text were copied?
imported_1248B
12-04-2004, 09:20
The four canonized gospel tales were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. That has been a well known fact for about 200 years. And to this day, no one knows who the gospel stories were written by. A shame the RCC still has to inform its own members on this one. :(
Collaboration
12-04-2004, 09:30
The Markan hypothesis says that Luke and Matthew copied large chunks of Mark's accounts into their own versions.

This source is identified as "M".

Another unrelated source appears in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, including the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings. This is called "Q".

Luke then had some independent material which may have been collected from the women among the disciples.

John has an independent tradition, and even places the crucifixion a day later than the other accounts; Jiohn adds foot-washing and downplays the Last Supper.

These people were not attempting to write history, but to help the early cgurch at worship and in devotion.

I still find the accounts very moving. I would rather pattern my life after this template than a history book or philosophical treatise.
Free Soviets
13-04-2004, 02:34
Okay so we know that there are at least 6 gospel accounts. Mat. Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Mary. The first four coincide with each other well. The other 2 dont coincide with the other 4, and not with each other either. Who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 that coincide, or the 2 that dont even match at all. I know a federal court would side with the four. And how do you know that the official witnesses didnt actually witness much of anything?

the authors of the gospels of matthew and luke most probably used the gospel of mark as one of their two sources. to quote from wikipedia

"Out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew, 60 with Luke, and at most 51 peculiar to itself.

Out of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and Luke, 130 with Mark, 184 with Luke; only 387 being peculiar to itself.

Out of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark, 176 in common with Matthew, 41 in common with Mark, leaving 544 peculiar to itself."

the reason they agree is that both matthew and luke contain almost all of mark. and not that they just tell the same story, but use the same words. essentially we've caught the authors plagiarizing. and then matthew and luke share some other stuff not in mark, which is hypothesized to come from an earlier collection of sayings (the q document).

almost all of the sayings in thomas have parallels in the other gospels, but they differ slightly and their order is different. which leads one to conclude that it is independent of the others but based on the same earlier sources, probably an oral tradition.

as for what the witnesses witnessed, we don't know who the authors of any of these things were, but they all appear to originate decades after the death of jesus (at best).
Baclumi
13-04-2004, 04:34
Wow i didnt know that. Thanks for clearing that up for me. But i dont think that takes away from the meaning of the words.
Collaboration
13-04-2004, 10:49
Thomas has a lot of fantastical gnostic made-up crap in it, I wouldn't take it seriously.

It was rejected as part of the canon because no connection could be made between the book and the apostle Thomas, and because it was crap.
13-04-2004, 10:53
Thomas has a lot of fantastical gnostic made-up crap in it, I wouldn't take it seriously.

It was rejected as part of the canon because no connection could be made between the book and the apostle Thomas, and because it was crap.

It was crap? MY bible just went up in flames. :lol:

Jim
Utopio
13-04-2004, 11:12
If 5 people came up to you and told you of something that happened, and they all were pretty much the same, but the 5th person told you a story completly different from the other people, who would you be more inclined to believe, the 4 witenesses who have the same story, or the 1 who has a completley different story?

Ah, but the four witnesses weren't witnesses, they were writers who heard tales passed down orally by the fledgling christian church. The earliest gospel (Mark, I believe) was written about 30 years after the death of the man named Jesus.

Then, about 25-50 years later a couple of (probably) blokes (possibly) named Matthew and Luke come along and copy Mark's work, injecting a few other stories about Jesus that had gone ignored - mainly dealing with women.

Then, in about 130 AD another bloke (possibly) called John writes another gospel about a man named Jesus. If you read through John, you'll find he down-plays the whole 'Son of God' thing, making Jesus appear more of a wise man or prophet - a man of God certainly, but not necessarily his son.

So, it's 4 men telling a 100 year-old story, rather than 4 men who were there.
Dimmimar
13-04-2004, 11:28
Keeping Oral records usually distorts things over time...
Collaboration
13-04-2004, 14:11
Keeping Oral records usually distorts things over time...

That was the opinion of cultural anthropologists in the 19th century, but now we know that oral tribal traditions protected from change by taboo and handed down with care are more reliable than written materials which have been edited more than once (such as most of the Bible).

When all you have is oral tradition, you do all you can to keep it reliable.
Irish Beer Lovers
13-04-2004, 14:29
His travels in India are further supported by his teachings (New Testament), that are essentially pure Mahayana Buddism, cause and effect. No wonder he got in so much trouble for his preaching.
Jeruselem
13-04-2004, 14:56
Look at http://www.tombofjesus.com for more info

Jesus Christ!
Rajula La Stadt
13-04-2004, 16:00
[quote="Utopio"]
The earliest gospel (Mark, I believe) was written about 30 years after the death of the man named Jesus.
quote]

It was closer to seventy years. Point still stands.
Collaboration
13-04-2004, 16:29
Collaboration
13-04-2004, 16:32
His travels in India are further supported by his teachings (New Testament), that are essentially pure Mahayana Buddism, cause and effect. No wonder he got in so much trouble for his preaching.

I would say the teachings are more Theravada.
Mahayana tends to sanctify human exemplars more than Jesus did.
Clappi
13-04-2004, 17:23
Clappi
13-04-2004, 17:23
Thomas has a lot of fantastical gnostic made-up crap in it, I wouldn't take it seriously.

It was rejected as part of the canon because no connection could be made between the book and the apostle Thomas, and because it was crap.

Actually, the Gospel of St Thomas presents Jesus as a much more human character, and plays far less heavily on him being the literal Son of God thing than, say, the somewhat fantastical and ecstatic Gospel of St John. When the Bible was being edited -- i.e. having (most) contradictory bits taken out, having bits re-written etc. -- there was a big theological dispute as to whether or not Jesus was actually divine, or whether he was merely "chosen" or "touched" by God. In the end it came down to a vote, and Jesus was elected divine by majority decision. Thomas's Gospel was discarded as being too human in its portrayal of Christ, and to strengthen the case Thomas was re-written as "doubting" Thomas in the revised texts.

Electing someone divine wasn't too far-fetched an idea at the time: the Romans had been voting divine honours onto people (emperors, mostly) for centuries. Of course, after Jesus was voted God, this being a religion and all, the losing parties just stomped off in the huff to form their own sects, which the majority could then merrily persecute.