Did Jesus live in India?

silver 2039

Deity
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,208
I came across a most intreasting book in my school library while I was hiding their to excape detention.

Heres a website on the book.

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

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.

What do you think? Anyone think this is true or possible?
If so its very weird :crazyeye: Kashmir is the Holy Land!:D
 
Naokaukodem said:
Jesus was a guy like the others. Did I live in India? What about Jules Cesar? I'm not mystified by this kind of Jesus questions... I feel them boring and redundant.

Why comment at all, then?

silver 2039 said:
Anyone think this is true or possible?

I've come across this book before. There's a simple answer to the question posed by the thread title:

No.

This kind of "scholarship" is based on what you might call selective credulity. It assumes that some texts tell the unvarnished truth but others do not, without giving good reasons why. For example, the canonical Gospels all agree that Jesus conducted his entire ministry in Palestine and was executed in Jerusalem. Only Matthew's Gospel mentions the story of his family fleeing to Egypt when he was an infant. Yet this author takes the Egypt story to be true and dismisses the death narratives (in direct contrast to virtually modern scholars, who dismiss the obviously legendary Egypt story and accept the well attested and extrinsically probable crucifixion account). Similarly, anyone who thinks that apocryphal Gospels (which, contrary to the account given above, are not the same thing as the "Apocrypha") such as the Gospel of Thomas preserve anything of historical substance - let alone are *more* historical than the canonical Gospels - is clearly living in a cloud ****oo land of their own invention. I'd like to see some of this "evidence attesting their authenticity", since there's about as much as there is evidence attesting the authenticity of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe".

The fact is that you can't just go about believing such myths and legends uncritically. So some people believe that a certain monument is the tomb of Jesus' mother - what actual evidence is there that it is? What we have here is the essence of fundamentalism, which is the uncritical acceptance of certain "evidence" and the assumption that anything that disagrees with it is untrue. Why favour these Indian legends over western legends? Why favour apocryphal Gospels over canonical ones? No explanation is given - it is simply assumed that the favoured "evidence" is infallible and anything that disagrees with it is false.

A glance through the website reveals that the author knows nothing of even the most basic tenets of modern scholarship. For example, we also have an article on "Paul the first heretic", also excerpted from the "Jesus lived in India" book, where he apparently thinks that Paul wrote Ephesians and even the Pastoral Epistles (books rejected as not Paul's work at all by the vast majority of scholars for the past two centuries) and yet at the same time accepts as authentic the physical description of the apostle given in the apocryphal "Acts of Paul" of the second century. "Uncritical" is the kindest word one can use for this sort of thing.

Returning to the piece quoted in the first post, the author claims that the evidence supports things that it clearly doesn't. For example, we are told that at Fatehpur Sikri we can see engravings that parallel agrapha in the Gospel of Thomas. This supposedly authenticates the Gospel of Thomas (or maybe the Gospel of Thomas authenticates the engravings - I'm not sure which claim is meant here!). In fact, it's obvious that this is evidence for nothing more than that the engravers at Fatehpur Sikri possessed a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, or perhaps another work which featured the same sayings. It doesn't show that the sayings recorded in the Gospel of Thomas actually go back to Jesus, or that the Gospel of Thomas was written in India, or anything of the kind. Note, incidentally, that the author apparently thinks that engravings which parallel material in the Gospel of Thomas corroborate the Acts of Thomas, which is a completely different book.

By the way, I cannot imagine what evidence there can be that there were Buddhist monks in Alexandria before the Christian era, given that the first reference to Buddha by any western author is in Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200), and that only a passing mention with no account of Buddha's teachings.
 
I was just underlining that it was strange that one could give so much importance to Jesus' life details. As if 1) he was a super man or something, which is wrong, 2) he did not existed, which make those details definitely irrelevant. And that this given importance leads to exagerated questionning and general redundance.

A philosophic thing. Can History fans philosophate?
 
If you'd read Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal, you'd know Christ spent part of the Lost Years in India learning Zen techniques, including multiplying fishes and making himself invisible. He also spent time in China learning martial arts.

Sounds reasonable in comparison, doesn't it? Of course, Moore is found in the fiction section.
 
The British magazine Fortean Times addressed this in one of its issues a few years back. I don't recall the article very well but I do know that the magazine is usually pretty thorough and logical, so I would reccomend interested people getting hold of a copy.
 
Naokaukodem said:
I was just underlining that it was strange that one could give so much importance to Jesus' life details. As if 1) he was a super man or something, which is wrong, 2) he did not existed, which make those details definitely irrelevant. And that this given importance leads to exagerated questionning and general redundance.

No other figure dealt with in the forum was a "superman" either. No-one can doubt that Jesus was an incredibly significant historical figure, so what is strange about being interested in what he did? It's no less important than what Julius Caesar did.

Besides which, historical research is hardly confined to those figures considered "the most important". On the contrary, it's done for the sake of its own intrinsic interest. Yesterday I was reading a big scholarly book about John of Ephesus, the Monophysite historian. Not exactly a major historical figure, but that doesn't mean people can't be interested in him, does it? If you personally aren't interested in a particular area of history, that doesn't invalidate it. Just ignore it. If everyone who saw a thread on a subject that didn't interest them posted on it to say so, most threads would consist of little else.

And you should be aware that there is no serious doubt that Jesus existed.
 
Plotinus said:
No other figure dealt with in the forum was a "superman" either. No-one can doubt that Jesus was an incredibly significant historical figure, so what is strange about being interested in what he did? It's no less important than what Julius Caesar did.

Teh fact is that Jesus is a mystery and that no one knows if he really existed. He did not accomplsh great acts, except, well... miracles! :rolleyes: Either this guy accomplished surnatural things, either he did not live because surnatural does not exist, that's what I call a mystery and there Jesus have nothing to do with History.

I was reading a big scholarly book about John of Ephesus, the Monophysite historian. Not exactly a major historical figure, but that doesn't mean people can't be interested in him, does it?

I guess John of Ephesus had its importance. But people can't remember everybody, especially when they are not insterested in History. Plus this book on this person was certainly related on a part of History which could make a book "on him" prett relevant.
 
Jesus is a part of history - you're wrong if you think the only possibilities are that he was supernatural or he didn't exist. In fact, as any decent scholar will tell you, there is no doubt that he did exist, but it does not follow from that that he did anything supernatural - on the contrary, the most obvious probability is that he existed but was a normal person who was regarded as supernatural (since he was almost certainly believed to be a miracle-worker even in his own lifetime). Jesus is not, in fact, all that much of a mystery, although there is a lot we don't know about him. We know the basic facts and can make a lot of good guesses, which is about what you'd expect for someone like him.

My point about John of Ephesus is that he's a very *unimportant* person, but no-one objects to his being studied. Jesus was a very *important* person, whether you are interested in him or not.
 
Plotinus said:
This kind of "scholarship" is based on what you might call selective credulity. It assumes that some texts tell the unvarnished truth but others do not, without giving good reasons why. For example, the canonical Gospels all agree that Jesus conducted his entire ministry in Palestine and was executed in Jerusalem. Only Matthew's Gospel mentions the story of his family fleeing to Egypt when he was an infant. Yet this author takes the Egypt story to be true and dismisses the death narratives (in direct contrast to virtually modern scholars, who dismiss the obviously legendary Egypt story and accept the well attested and extrinsically probable crucifixion account).
While Matthews account is the only source for this event, I would not discount it because this account does show a typical reaction that Herod did in many times through out his lifetime. Considering the history of such things happening during his reign. Jesus did have to go some where to stop him from being murdered. Egpyt would be a logical place to go considering they were in Bethlehem at the time and there was still a sizable amount of Jews living there so it does not sound to be such a made up story. Also there are accounts that happen in Jesus' life according to the Gospel writers that only happens in there acount.
 
[classical hero] The fact that Matthew is the only author to mention the flight to Egypt isn't the main reason to regard it as legendary. In fact, most scholars agree that the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke alike are pretty much entirely legendary, written out of a desire to have Jesus born at Bethlehem - thus, they both use different devices to show how he was born there even though he came from Nazareth, which was nowhere near it (Luke invents a census, which supposedly forces everyone to travel to the towns of their ancestors' birth, while Matthew has the Holy Family flee persecution from Herod and returning to Judea, governed by Herod's son Archilaeus, in favour of going back to Galilee, governed by his other son Antipater).

Matthew's story is certainly more intrinsically probable than Luke's (which is so full of impossiblities it's hard to know where to begin), and you are right that Herod's behaviour as described in it would be consistent with his character as recorded elsewhere. However, it's still pretty unlikely: apart from anything else, it is very hard to believe the story of the magi using their astrological skill to determine the birth of a "new king" and this story terrifying Herod so much that he orders a mass slaughter of all newborn boys. There's also the fact that other historians, such as Josephus, who hated Herod and took pains to recount every story to Herod's discredit, never mention this event at all.

In fact it makes much more sense to see this story as part of Matthew's presentation of Jesus as a new Moses: like Moses, Jesus escapes a slaughter of newborn boys; like Moses, he spends his formative years in Egypt; and where Moses flees Egypt from a tyrant, Jesus flees a tyrant into Egypt. The typology is continued later in the Gospel, where, for example, Matthew edits Jesus' sayings into five major speeches, parallelling the five books of the Pentateuch that were thought to be written by Moses. Indeed, the first of these, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7), has Jesus delivering teaching on the Law while standing on a mountain, just as Moses was supposed to have delivered the Law itself from a mountain.

In any case, even if scholars are wrong on this account and the flight into Egypt really did happen, Holger Kersten would have to defend his view of it as historical to have any credibility. He'd have to explain why he thinks this was a historical event when most people do not. This is quite apart from then explaining how the infant Jesus, having arrived in Egypt, could learn the tenets of Buddhism from non-existent monks, which is another minor flaw with the theory.
 
Plotinus said:
Jesus is a part of history - you're wrong if you think the only possibilities are that he was supernatural or he didn't exist. In fact, as any decent scholar will tell you, there is no doubt that he did exist, but it does not follow from that that he did anything supernatural - on the contrary, the most obvious probability is that he existed but was a normal person who was regarded as supernatural (since he was almost certainly believed to be a miracle-worker even in his own lifetime). Jesus is not, in fact, all that much of a mystery, although there is a lot we don't know about him. We know the basic facts and can make a lot of good guesses, which is about what you'd expect for someone like him.

My point about John of Ephesus is that he's a very *unimportant* person, but no-one objects to his being studied. Jesus was a very *important* person, whether you are interested in him or not.

The fact that we get interested in Jesus in linked with this mystery, or we would not be interested in him. What's make him so "important" in the eyes of the people? Obviously his link with God, you can hardly say the contrary Plotinus.

As for John of Ephesus, it is a matter of what you consider important or not, you, Plotinus. If J. of E. was so inimportant on every aspect, nobody would have ever wrote a book on him, stop saying rubbish a little.
 
I think the Jesus lived in India thesis is rubbish, but IIRC the Christians did
steal some stuff from Buddism, some of which were incidents in the Buddah's
life which were duplicated in the life of Jesus. And sorry, I read this so long
ago I no longer remember the source. Hopefully someone else can confirm this...
 
Serutan said:
I think the Jesus lived in India thesis is rubbish, but IIRC the Christians did
steal some stuff from Buddism, some of which were incidents in the Buddah's
life which were duplicated in the life of Jesus. And sorry, I read this so long
ago I no longer remember the source. Hopefully someone else can confirm this...

No, they both plagiarized from the life of Zoroaster. That is why some common elements appear between the two.
 
I heard somewhere that they've actually looked up old Roman records, and found that was actually someone named Jesus of Nazareth living in Israel at that time (though, there could have been multiple Jesus's from Nazareth).
This whole thing seems a little like it's trying to be controversial. It seems to happen a lot these days- "OK, how can we upset some people! Ooh, let's talk about Jesus! Let's say he was married, no, no, let's say he was gay! Yeah, he was a gay sailor who lived in San Fransico. Oh, and he had an affair with Marilyn Monroe! And Kennedy! Both of them! At the same time!"
A lot of it's honest, but sometimes it seems like people are doing it on purpose.
 
frekk said:
No, they both plagiarized from the life of Zoroaster. That is why some common elements appear between the two.

At least I got the plaigiarism part right...
 
Traitorfish said:
I heard somewhere that they've actually looked up old Roman records, and found that was actually someone named Jesus of Nazareth living in Israel at that time (though, there could have been multiple Jesus's from Nazareth).

From what I've seen and read, Jesus was not an uncommon name in Jewish Palestine during the time period. There were most likely many men named Jesus living in Nazareth.
 
Back
Top Bottom