To the Christians and other interested parties,

What happened in those 18 years of Jesus’ life which are mysteriously missing from the Bible , did he travel to India, among other places?
If he did, what does that mean to you, how will it affect your faith.

There are records and documents, written by people who were taught by him in certain parts of the world.
Do you believe it could be possible that he travelled during those missing years?
If not, why not?

The Vatican is supposed to have suppressed this claim, if so, why do you think they did this?
What’s going on, why are there no records, in the public domain, pertaining to those 18 missing years??

Love

Jan Ardena.

Allow me to ask a question as an interested atheist.

How would the fact that Jesus tried to enlighten people in India damage anyone's faith? Again, the RCC fails to make any sense to me.

But this is rather interesting, is there any particular hint or loophole in the bible?

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

And imagine how cool it would be if we somehow found a written dialogue between jesus/gothama buddha or siddharta or something!! Well, if they were of the same time period.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Originally posted by Zero
How would the fact that Jesus tried to enlighten people in India damage anyone's faith?

Who mentioned anything about "damaging" faith?

But this is rather interesting, is there any particular hint or loophole in the bible?

Hint/loophole of what?

Love

Jan Ardena.


__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting? [/B]

Well then, I supposed "affect your faith" to be damaging faith. Oh never mind.

Any implicit indication in the bible was what I meant.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

He sure did. Here is an artist's depiction of Jesus teaching some white Indian children how to play soccer. If Jesus hadn't gone to India, they wouldn't have such an ass-kicking soccer team. They'd also be a nation of crazy fundies....wait a minute....:bugeye:

Jan, Jesus wasnt gone for 18 years. He was gone for 30 years, then he started his first ministry for 3 years, then was crucified..etc.

Why did Jesus only ministered for 3 years out of 30 years in his life?
"Tighting" requires you to give ATLEAST 10% of your donation, either that donation comes in form of your talent, time, and treasure..You have many years to live, God ask ATLEAST 10% of that to serve him through love, prayer, and sacrifice, thats all...
If you decided to leave your parents and get married, atleast give your parents a visit once here and there.
Thats all that God is asking, since it is in our nature through the sin of Adam and Eve to be independent and be on our own, atleast give little time spent in the world in service for God...

10%, the tight bas.......

Zero, I fully understand the loophole thingy, but I'm too tired to say anything else about it

[QUOTE]Originally posted by whatsupyall
Jan, Jesus wasnt gone for 18 years. He was gone for 30 years, then he started his first ministry for 3 years, then was crucified..etc.

In the bible there is no mention of his activities from the age of 12 up to 30. This is 18 years which is completely missing from the book.

"Tighting" requires you to give ATLEAST 10%

What does that have to do with his absense?

Love

Jan Ardena.

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.

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

Jan, from my studies on Jesus' missing years, I have concluded, although subjective, that Jesus remained in Israel during His entire life, except for the brief journey to Egypt. IMHO, I believe that a trip to India would have been not only monetarily impossible for Jesus, but also, inconsistent with Jewish traditions and the teachings of Judaism. BTW, keep up the good work.

For some good info on this subject, go to http://www.str.org/free/studies/india.htm

><>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by inspector
Jan, from my studies on Jesus' missing years, I have concluded, although subjective, that Jesus remained in Israel during His entire life, except for the brief journey to Egypt.

But what if he did, there is certainly enough documentation to clarify that he did travel to India.
Do you think that those documents are false?
If so, why?

IMHO, I believe that a trip to India would have been not only monetarily impossible for Jesus, but also, inconsistent with Jewish traditions and the teachings of Judaism.

Money would not have been a problem to Jesus, as there were so many people who loved him.
As for the tradition of Judaism, he summed it up by saying, one cannot put new wine into old skins, meaning things were not the same as they were. He did not adhere to alot of the old ways, which is probably why his life was threatened numerous times, and eventually murdered.

BTW, keep up the good work.

You too, thanks. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Acutally, there are some historical records (I believe in India) that show Jesus' family were not poor carpenters but well to do merchants who had extensive business dealings as far east as India.
Jesus was quite well traveled and educated. The Indians wanted Him to stay but He could not but promised to send someone after He was gone. Which is why James went to India and preached there and I believe died there.

Originally posted by crazytallguy
Acutally, there are some historical records (I believe in India) that show Jesus' family were not poor carpenters but well to do merchants who had extensive business dealings as far east as India.
Jesus was quite well traveled and educated. The Indians wanted Him to stay but He could not but promised to send someone after He was gone. Which is why James went to India and preached there and I believe died there.

Hi crazytallguy, I believe Thomas went their as well, he has a massive following, especially in south India.

If Jesus did go to India, why is it not common knowledge, do you think?

Love

Jan Ardena.

maybe because a dark skinned indian might claim he is the descendant of a bastard lovechild sired by jesus in india?

hmm?
thoughts? opinions? 2 cents?

Originally posted by spookz
maybe because a dark skinned indian might claim he is the descendant of a bastard lovechild sired by jesus in india?

hmm?
thoughts? opinions? 2 cents?

Do you think it might be possible to be serious, just for a change, hmmmmmm?

If you are serious though, why would that make Jesus' travels to India and other places, not common knowledge?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Hi crazytallguy, I believe Thomas went their as well, he has a massive following, especially in south India.

If Jesus did go to India, why is it not common knowledge, do you think?

Love

Jan Ardena.

It might have something to do with the Council of Nicea. The Catholics got together and basically decided what Christianity was going to be and look like and that was the way it was. Any documents relating to Jesus that portrayed Him as something other than what they said He was were simply supressed.

"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."

"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"

"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"

"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! " (some excerpts from kersten which are in my previous post might be some of the reasons for hushing it up)



cmon jan
of course i was kidding.

crazy pretty much summed it up in his post

its about power and politics and cute little altar boys

Originally posted by spookz
"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."

"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"

"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"

"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! " (some excerpts from kersten which are in my previous post might be some of the reasons for hushing it up)



cmon jan
of course i was kidding.

crazy pretty much summed it up in his post

its about power and politics and cute little altar boys

Point taken (i not quite sure about cute little alter boys though ):bugeye:, but what power do you think could be derived from hiding this information, and why do intelligent Christians follow the path of the mainstream theologians?

Would they not benifit from the teachings Christ gave to some of his followers in India? :confused:

Love

Jan Ardena.

Mainstream Christianity has become so money - PR motivated I don't believe most of them would even recognize (or welcome) new and interesting points of view.

Originally posted by crazytallguy
Mainstream Christianity has become so money - PR motivated I don't believe most of them would even recognize (or welcome) new and interesting points of view.

But i honestly don't think that applies to all christians, certainly not the ones on this religous forum at present.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
But i honestly don't think that applies to all christians, certainly not the ones on this religous forum at present.

Love

Jan Ardena.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Even the ones on this board would go into a tizzy if something came along to upset their belief system. Most people in the world (and especially religious people) suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance. Now before anyone gets on my case for being anti Christian or anti religious - relax. I'm not. I consider myself to be religious. I believe in God and Jesus and all that. It's just that we want our personal belief system to be the "right" one so badly we will very rarely tolerate anything that contradicts it. Look at historical Christianity and you will find them to be the greatest bookburners in the history of the world. I wonder how many wonderful documents, manuscripts, tablets and so forth were destroyed simply because they did not conform to accepted dogma at the time. For instance, the Jesuits practically wipped out all trace of the writings of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Many wonderful records which detailed the history and religion on the Incas, Aztec, and Mayans were completely destroyed. It's no wonder records of Jesus in India are not well known. They do exist, but are kept safe by monastaries all over India. Fortunately, the Jesuits never had much of a presence there.

i like to know the vatican's version of the "missing 18 yrs" do they even comment on it? is it possible for them to incorporate christs's
indian sojourn into their theology without too much damage?

crazy

you might be getting carried away with the "all over india" bit.
at first glance (which is all i am gonna give this), it appears there are a few references in a book or two, scraps of paper here and there. the info that actually astounded me was the idea that christ died in india and is buried there. how cool is that?

:)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crazytallguy
I'm sorry, but I disagree.

So you think all christians are motivated by money and PR.
We live in a money/media society, so don't you think that applies to everybody in the developed world, including atheists and anti-christs?
And why would it deter them (christians) from embracing new ideas?
Is the point that Jesus went to India, to preach and teach on behalf of the Almighty God a new idea, or a suppressed fact?

Even the ones on this board would go into a tizzy if something came along to upset their belief system.

This board is full of upset and ignorance regarding christianity, but i have yet to see a christian go tizzy. :p

Most people in the world (and especially religious people) suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance.

What exactly does that mean?

It's just that we want our personal belief system to be the "right" one so badly we will very rarely tolerate anything that contradicts it.

Why do you relate that only to religous peeps, try telling some of these people (atheists/anti-christs) that there is actually no concrete evidence that supports the theory of evolution, that their zeal amounts to nothing but faith, and see if that gets tolerated. :D

Look at historical Christianity and you will find them to be the greatest bookburners in the history of the world.

But this is my point, the ones who carried out the bookburnings cannot love Christ, because they are suppressing crucial spiritual knowledge, which was never advocated by Jesus.
Why did they do this?

I wonder how many wonderful documents, manuscripts, tablets and so forth were destroyed simply because they did not conform to accepted dogma at the time.

Can you not see that those people are "christians" in name only, but their actions are those of demoniac atheists?
Why do you regard them as followers of Christ (Christians), when they clearly are not?

It's no wonder records of Jesus in India are not well known. They do exist, but are kept safe by monastaries all over India.

This is why i would like to discourse with some christians and find out why they dismiss the idea of Jesus travelling to India, when everything seems to suggest that he did. What is their true understanding on this?

Love

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spookz
it appears there are a few references in a book or two, scraps of paper here and there.

Appearances can be deceptive. ;)


the info that actually astounded me was the idea that christ died in india and is buried there.

India is reputed as the spiritual capitol of the world, When God Himself, incarnates into this world, India or Bharat (as it and the whole world was formerly known) is the place he performs His pastimes. It is little wonder that the greatest son of God, Jesus, wanted to leave this world from his Fathers land. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crazytallguy
I'm sorry, but I disagree.

So you think all christians are motivated by money and PR.
We live in a money/media society, so don't you think that applies to everybody in the developed world, including atheists and anti-christs?

"Yes I agree we live a money/media society. And yes I believe all of us are the most brainwashed society in the history of the world. But, we were talking about Christians not the entire world. That's why I only mentioned Christians."


And why would it deter them (christians) from embracing new ideas?
Is the point that Jesus went to India, to preach and teach on behalf of the Almighty God a new idea, or a suppressed fact?

"See cognitive dissonance."

Even the ones on this board would go into a tizzy if something came along to upset their belief system.

This board is full of upset and ignorance regarding christianity, but i have yet to see a christian go tizzy. :p

"Figure of speech. Don't take all things so literally."

Most people in the world (and especially religious people) suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance.

What exactly does that mean?

"It means that anyone who is confronted with facts that don't conform to their belief system will discard the new evidence in favor of the old belief system."

It's just that we want our personal belief system to be the "right" one so badly we will very rarely tolerate anything that contradicts it.

Why do you relate that only to religous peeps, try telling some of these people (atheists/anti-christs) that there is actually no concrete evidence that supports the theory of evolution, that their zeal amounts to nothing but faith, and see if that gets tolerated. :D

"Again, we were only discussing religion here, not everything in the world. It does apply to everyone."

Look at historical Christianity and you will find them to be the greatest bookburners in the history of the world.

But this is my point, the ones who carried out the bookburnings cannot love Christ, because they are suppressing crucial spiritual knowledge, which was never advocated by Jesus.
Why did they do this?

"Again, its cognitive dissonance at work. Plus they had an agenda to promote."

I wonder how many wonderful documents, manuscripts, tablets and so forth were destroyed simply because they did not conform to accepted dogma at the time.

Can you not see that those people are "christians" in name only, but their actions are those of demoniac atheists?
Why do you regard them as followers of Christ (Christians), when they clearly are not?

"Now where in the world did I confuse them with followers of Christ. I thought I was making it very plain that they were not followers of Christ. They are Christians in name only."

It's no wonder records of Jesus in India are not well known. They do exist, but are kept safe by monastaries all over India.

This is why i would like to discourse with some christians and find out why they dismiss the idea of Jesus travelling to India, when everything seems to suggest that he did. What is their true understanding on this?

"They have no "understanding" on this per se. Because most have never even considered the fact that Christ may have had some type of ministry outside of Palestine. Most Christians would just look at you like you are from another planet and laugh if you suggest such a thing. I doubt seriously if you will get any helpful discourse on the subject from any mainstream Christian."

Love

Jan Ardena. :) :):)

Originally posted by spookz
i like to know the vatican's version of the "missing 18 yrs" do they even comment on it? is it possible for them to incorporate christs's
indian sojourn into their theology without too much damage?

crazy

you might be getting carried away with the "all over india" bit.
at first glance (which is all i am gonna give this), it appears there are a few references in a book or two, scraps of paper here and there. the info that actually astounded me was the idea that christ died in india and is buried there. how cool is that?

:)

Pleeeeeze, you're as bad as Jan for taking everything literally.:) Besides, a researcher named Glenn Kimball has catalogued about 60-80,000 documents in monastaries "all over India" which mention Christ. (I believe)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crazytallguy
But, we were talking about Christians not the entire world. That's why I only mentioned Christians."

Okee McDokee!!!!:)

"See cognitive dissonance."

Point taken. :(

"Again, its cognitive dissonance at work. Plus they had an agenda to promote."

This cognitive dissonance is eating up my thread man! :mad:

"They have no "understanding" on this per se. Because most have never even considered the fact that Christ may have had some type of ministry outside of Palestine. Most Christians would just look at you like you are from another planet and laugh if you suggest such a thing.

Admittedly I have never had an in-depth discussion with a follower of Christ , regarding this subject, and the fleeting comments that has passed has been one of cognitive dissonance, as explained by you, but some of the christian posters on here seem to have some kind of spiritual understanding, which is why I hoped we could engage in this particular discussion.

I hope you are wrong though! :p

I doubt seriously if you will get any helpful discourse on the subject from any mainstream Christian."

Maybe you’re right. If that is the case, then as far as knowing Jesus is concerned, they do not know what they are missing. :(Thanx.

Love

Jan Ardena.

crazy
ok tons of stuff

:)



a few links

Jesus Journey 2 (http://www.soulindia.com/Jesus/Doccument/Jesus_Journey_2/jesus_journey_2.html)

Tomb of Jesus (http://www.tombofjesus.com/Morepics.htm)

Saving the Savior (http://www.spinninglobe.net/savior2.htm%20)

Legends of Jesus (http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/legends.htm)

Is Jesus a Buddhist ? (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/jesus.htm)

Nice thread Jan. And wow spookz, you have tons of info on anything, almost! :)

I was wondering if it were possible that apart from Jesus' own teachings, could Jesus have picked up a lot of philosophy from India?
Since even Buddhism, which is a later offshoot from mainline Indian philosophy was much earlier to Jesus in time.

Originally posted by crazytallguy
Besides, a researcher named Glenn Kimball has catalogued
about 60-80,000 documents in monastaries "all over India"
which mention Christ. (I believe)

Do you mean this guy?

http://www.ancientmanuscripts.com/frameset.htm

Originally posted by EvilPoet
Do you mean this guy?

http://www.ancientmanuscripts.com/frameset.htm

Yes. I've heard him on several radio programs.

I thought that was the same guy. I have also heard him on the
radio. It's interesting stuff but not really my cup of tea, if you
know what I mean. Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. :)

Originally posted by EvilPoet
I thought that was the same guy. I have also heard him on the
radio. It's interesting stuff but not really my cup of tea, if you
know what I mean. Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. :)

You're welcome.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
To the Christians and other interested parties,

What happened in those 18 years of Jesus’ life which are mysteriously missing from the Bible , did he travel to India, among other places?
If he did, what does that mean to you, how will it affect your faith.

There are records and documents, written by people who were taught by him in certain parts of the world.
Do you believe it could be possible that he travelled during those missing years?
If not, why not?

The Vatican is supposed to have suppressed this claim, if so, why do you think they did this?
What’s going on, why are there no records, in the public domain, pertaining to those 18 missing years??

Love

Jan Ardena.
Why would Jesus need to go to India to get enlightened? That implies at least 4 things:
1) that Jesus, only a mere mortal needed 'enlightenment'
2) that Jesus, as a Jew needed to go to India to be 'enlightened' as a 'Hindu' &/or 'Buddhist'
3) that ancient Palestine was not cosmopolitan enough to have world class ideas or thoughts
4) that India is the center of 'advanced thinking’ & /or 'religious enlightenment'

Hmmm???
I don't buy it!

i am guessing political refugee

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UltiTruth
[B]Nice thread Jan. [/i]

Thanks! :)

I was wondering if it were possible that apart from Jesus' own teachings, could Jesus have picked up a lot of philosophy from India?

There would have been no need to pick up any philosophy as he was fully God-conscious. Philosophy basically is a means to understanding the truth.

Since even Buddhism, which is a later offshoot from mainline Indian philosophy was much earlier to Jesus in time.

Lord Bhudda, an incarnation of God, appeared to put an end to irreligous practices at that time.
He claimed there was no God, and instructed his followers to follow him instead of religion.
Real-religion was reinstated, in stages, by various teachers up until the 15th century, when God personally brought back the original sanatana dharma, in the form of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Jesus was a part of that progression.
When he went to India, he was teaching shudras (4th class men), to move away from bhuddism.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randolfo
Why would Jesus need to go to India to get enlightened?

Who said he went there to get enlightened?
Jesus was most compassionate, he went there to enlighten souls.

That implies at least 4 things:
1) that Jesus, only a mere mortal needed 'enlightenment'

Read above!

2) that Jesus, as a Jew needed to go to India to be 'enlightened' as a 'Hindu' &/or 'Buddhist'

Jesus may have been born into a jewish family and community which would technically designate him a jew, but he "himself" was not jewish. "Jew" is a human concept.

3) that ancient Palestine was not cosmopolitan enough to have world class ideas or thoughts

Where does being cosmopolitan come into it? :confused:

4) that India is the center of 'advanced thinking’ & /or 'religious enlightenment'

Hmmm???
I don't buy it!

Where is then? :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena,

My mom has a book about that. I would love to know where in India those manuscripts are... I would myself travel there and find out what do they say (if that is possible...)...

I know what you are saying about "Christians" and titles. Unfortunatly, that's how the world works. I, myself, whenever someone asks about my religion, I even say I'm a Christian, but when they ask me which kind I prefer to say that I just walk in Love... :)

Anyways... it's quite tyring to try to figure all that out... It seems that as much as people think, as much religions, philosophies and sciences there are. It seems that all those things are useless. The Law is so simple if we learn in a very early age. If you are a kid and learn the Law, all that you do is just to Love, and that's it. You don't need anything else to know God, other than be a loving, compassionate and altruist person... :)

Anyways... it's quite tyring to try to figure all that out... It seems that as much as people think, as much religions, philosophies and sciences there are. It seems that all those things are useless. The Law is so simple if we learn in a very early age. If you are a kid and learn the Law, all that you do is just to Love, and that's it. You don't need anything else to know God, other than be a loving, compassionate and altruist person...

Truthseeker,

Yes, love is very important, but to remain ignorant and shut out information is just stupid. Why would you deny facts? If you let love blind you to the world, you could be led down a path that may seem correct, but would be wrong. Example: Jesuits who "invaded" South America acted for a "love" of thier God, but as you can tell by historical fact, this was not loving in any way.

I hope you understand my point, it is not to denounce love, but to open your mind to things that truly exist. You cannot deny that a rock is a rock, so why would you shut out an idea that says that the rock may be different than expected? It is still a rock, but you must know the rock to the fullest extent.

Slacker47,

Wisdom comes from Love. God said "it is throgh loving and caring about others that you Love and care about me". The jesuits didn't know anything about Love... but I do...

My mind says: "Love is not that powerful. Better concentrate on other things...".
My heart says: "Love is perfect and It never fails"...

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

Originally posted by Randolfo
Why would Jesus need to go to India to get enlightened?

Who said he went there to get enlightened?
Jesus was most compassionate, he went there to enlighten souls.
I think he sent his disciples there, Saint Thomas it seems, by the evidence of the Mar Toma church there

2) that Jesus, as a Jew needed to go to India to be 'enlightened' as a 'Hindu' &/or 'Buddhist'

Jesus may have been born into a jewish family and community which would technically designate him a jew, but he "himself" was not jewish. "Jew" is a human concept.
Jew is how he lived, it was up to his disciples to send that message forward, as in "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations" Matthew 28:19


3) that ancient Palestine was not cosmopolitan enough to have world class ideas or thoughts

Where does being cosmopolitan come into it? :confused:

Having lived in two of the biggest US cities, Chicago & LA, & now in a mid-level one (Fresno), I feel that a lot of people equate small towns as not sophisticated or cosmopolitan enough to have major "ideas" or "thoughts", that’s why New York, London & Paris have an "aura" & are centers of gravity for arts, music & philosophy. You can test that out, by asking yourself where you would go for a taste of "culture", LA or Fresno?
4) that India is the center of 'advanced thinking’ & /or 'religious enlightenment'

Hmmm???
I don't buy it!

Where is then? :) Love Jan Ardena. that center is where ever the human soul dreams, lives & hopes. Which makes that everywhere, even in towns like Nazareth & Fresno.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randolfo
Jew is how he lived, it was up to his disciples to send that message forward, as in "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations" Matthew 28:19

No spiritual master would ask his disciples to perform something he would not do himself.
I don’t think he lived like a jew, I think he wanted the jews to follow in the footsteps of Abraham or Moses, if they were going to continue the jewish tradition, as opposed to gambling and the likes, in the house of God, and stoneing prostitutes.

I feel that a lot of people equate small towns as not sophisticated or cosmopolitan enough to have major "ideas" or "thoughts", that’s why New York, London & Paris have an "aura" & are centers of gravity for arts, music & philosophy. You can test that out, by asking yourself where you would go for a taste of "culture", LA or Fresno?

In my experience the best art, music and philosophy, comes from outside such centres.
I find that the expression which tends to come directly from these places, pretentious and shallow, but skilful and polished, of course this is just my oppinion.
I find that people from such environments are usually good at exploiting real talents.
The atmosphere in these big cities, are not conducive to spiritual meditation, or real down to earth thinking. The inhabitants usually spend their time worrying about money and vanity.

that center is where ever the human soul dreams, lives & hopes. Which makes that everywhere, even in towns like Nazareth & Fresno.

Some places are more akin to spiritual awareness than others, for example serenity, quiet, calm, naturally beautiful places tend to soothe and calm the soul, but in India (although becoming more secular with each passing second) the science of God is more known than anywhere else, there are thousands of temples dedicated to God, and I’m not talking about demi-gods either. It has the biggest Christian and Islamic population, it is the birth place of the vedas (knowledge), most of the worlds greatest saints and religious scholars were born there, if ever you go there, you will see what I mean.
And she churns out doctors and scientists, like the US churns out TV programmes. :p

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan,
Have you been to India?

Originally posted by UltiTruth
Jan,
Have you been to India?

Yes.
Why?

Love

Jan Ardena.

The idea that Jesus came to India and studied in a Buddhist monastery as a boy, or, alternatively, married a princess of Kashmir and died at a great old age, tickles the romantic imagination of Western travelers and quite a few Indians too. The story originates in a piece of fiction by the Russian forger Nicholas Notovich which was published in Paris in 1894. It cannot possibly be true _ and if it is, it destroys completely the special claims of Christian doctrine, of the sacrifice on the cross and the resurrection and the vicarious salvation of mankind. The Buddhist monastery where Jesus is said to have studied did not exist until the 16th century and the Srinagar tomb where Jesus is allegedly buried is the tomb of a Mogul ambassador to Egypt who converted to Christianity while on tour there. The key to unraveling this tale is to study the activities of 10th century Nestorian missionaries who passed through Kashmir on their way to China and left crosses on rocks and a plethora of children and biblical names in their wake. (Swami Devananda Saraswati )


??

Originally posted by Randolfo
I think he sent his disciples there, Saint Thomas it seems, by the evidence of the Mar Toma church there [

The original rationale for the St. Thomas story was to give the first 4th century Christian immigrants in Malabar a local patron saint. The story also gave them caste status which was important in integrating them into Hindu society. There is nothing unusal in a refugee community creating this kind of mythology of identity and it is part of the process of getting established in a new land.

The St. Thomas legend which they brought with them from Syria was easy enough to adopt to India. St. Thomas was already the patron saint of "India". "India" being not the subcontinent but a synonym for Asia and all those lands that lay east of the Roman Empire’s borders. "India" even included Egypt and Ethiopia in some geographies, and China and Japan in others. The Syrian Christian refugees had been led to India by a merchant who is known to history as Thomas of Cana, ie:Canaan but is also known as Thomas of Jerusalem. Over time is was natural enough for the Syrian Christian community to identify their 1st century patron apostle St. Thomas with their 4th c Canaan

The establishment of the Christian church in India as we know it today was intrinsically part of the European colonial experience. Its history is shocking for its violence and duplicity. Read the diary of Anand Ranga Pillai or the letters St. Francis Xavier sent from India to Rome. The Indian church today is not so much different from the original 17th century church. It is wealthy and corrupt and politically ambitious. But it has learned the propaganda value of social service and is make a great effort to disassociate itself from its colonial origins. This involves a lot of deceit, of course, and a massive cover-up of past deeds. But as the late Archibishop Arulappa of Madras would say, the means justifies the end even if that is not exactly what Jesus taught.

The Christian church uses the St. Thomas legend to claim a 1st century origin for itself and a martyr at the hands of a fanatic Hindu priest and king. Better still, Christianity becomes the “original” Indian religion as it would be older than many of the Hindu cults practiced in the country today.

The whole idea is a gross perversion of truth and a grave injustice to the Hindu community who has offered refuge to persecuted Christians. It is Hindus who have been martyred by these same Christian refugees starting in the 8th and 9th centuries when Syrian and Persian immigrants in Malabar destroyed temples to build their St. Thomas churches. It is Hindus who were martyred in Goa by Catholic inquisitors and in Madras by Jesuit, Franciscan, and Dominican priests who operated under the full protection of the Portuguese. And it is Hindus who are martyred today by the Christian churches and the secular press who support them, both of whom have mounted a base campaign of vilificaiton and calumny against Hindu religion and society. (Swami Devananda Saraswati (http://hamsa.org/interview.htm))

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The Vatican is supposed to have suppressed this claim, if so, why do you think they did this? Good grief! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by spookz
The original rationale for the St. Thomas story was to give the first 4th century Christian immigrants in Malabar a local patron saint. The story also gave them caste status which was important in integrating them into Hindu society. There is nothing unusal in a refugee community creating this kind of mythology of identity and it is part of the process of getting established in a new land.

The St. Thomas legend which they brought with them from Syria was easy enough to adopt to India. St. Thomas was already the patron saint of "India". "India" being not the subcontinent but a synonym for Asia and all those lands that lay east of the Roman Empire’s borders. "India" even included Egypt and Ethiopia in some geographies, and China and Japan in others. The Syrian Christian refugees had been led to India by a merchant who is known to history as Thomas of Cana, ie:Canaan but is also known as Thomas of Jerusalem. Over time is was natural enough for the Syrian Christian community to identify their 1st century patron apostle St. Thomas with their 4th c Canaan

The establishment of the Christian church in India as we know it today was intrinsically part of the European colonial experience. Its history is shocking for its violence and duplicity. Read the diary of Anand Ranga Pillai or the letters St. Francis Xavier sent from India to Rome. The Indian church today is not so much different from the original 17th century church. It is wealthy and corrupt and politically ambitious. But it has learned the propaganda value of social service and is make a great effort to disassociate itself from its colonial origins. This involves a lot of deceit, of course, and a massive cover-up of past deeds. But as the late Archibishop Arulappa of Madras would say, the means justifies the end even if that is not exactly what Jesus taught.

The Christian church uses the St. Thomas legend to claim a 1st century origin for itself and a martyr at the hands of a fanatic Hindu priest and king. Better still, Christianity becomes the “original” Indian religion as it would be older than many of the Hindu cults practiced in the country today.

The whole idea is a gross perversion of truth and a grave injustice to the Hindu community who has offered refuge to persecuted Christians. It is Hindus who have been martyred by these same Christian refugees starting in the 8th and 9th centuries when Syrian and Persian immigrants in Malabar destroyed temples to build their St. Thomas churches. It is Hindus who were martyred in Goa by Catholic inquisitors and in Madras by Jesuit, Franciscan, and Dominican priests who operated under the full protection of the Portuguese. And it is Hindus who are martyred today by the Christian churches and the secular press who support them, both of whom have mounted a base campaign of vilificaiton and calumny against Hindu religion and society. (Swami Devananda Saraswati (http://hamsa.org/interview.htm))

Interesting that you would use a swami's counter-claim to early christianity in India, most use swamis' words to say that Jesus was in India to learn his mission, while this swami states that Christianity is the result of colonial European oppression on the hindu natives.
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1364
The Origins of Christianity in India
All historians agree that the Indian church is very ancient but they differ as to how early the Gospel had been brought to India and who or what agency brought it and to which part of India. No book or inscription or monument of the first two centuries exist to enlighten us on the origin of Christianity until the third century when the ancient Christian writers began to mention the church in India. The historians of the origins of Christianity in India have to depend mainly upon traditions both within India and outside and occasional references here and there in later writers.
Broadly speaking there are two views among the historians as to the origins of Christianity in India. One view is that the Indian church has an apostolic foundation arising out of the apostolic activity of St. Thomas in the first century. The other view is that the church was founded in India at a very early date (during the course of the first three centuries) by Christians from East Syria. The more general view is that the church had its origin in the first century in the apostolic activity of St. Thomas. The St. Thomas community (Syrian Christians) in South India hold the apostolic foundation of their church as an article of faith. This view is based mainly on two traditions, one existing among the St. Thomas Christians in Kerala and the other among the East Syrians. There are some references in early Church Fathers, both the western and Syrian, supporting the view that St. Thomas’s activity was in India.
The tradition current among the St. Thomas Christians in India is as follows: St. Thomas, after visiting Socotora (an island in the Arabian Sea off the north-east coast of Africa) came to Muziris (Cranganore or Kodungallur) on the Periyar estuary north of Cochin in about AD 52. He is said to have preached to the Jewish colony settled there and to have made converts. He traveled south and converted high caste Hindus and established churches in seven places (Maliankara, Palayur, Parur Gokamangalam, Niranam, Chayal and Quilon) in four of which places Syrian churches still exist. Then he went to the eastern coast where he died as a martyr in AD 72. There is a tomb in Maylapore (near Madras) which is believed to be that of St. Thomas. This tradition has been persistent among the St. Thomas Christians for centuries and the community entertains little doubt as to the truth of the tradition. There are a number of different versions of the tradition expressed in songs and stories, all of them of later dates. But it is important to note that there is no other rival tradition in the church with regard to its origin and there is no other country in the world that claims that St. Thomas died there.
Similar to the Indian tradition, the East Syrian church holds a strong tradition of the apostolic activity of St. Thomas in India. This tradition is found in the writings of the Syrian fathers from the third century onwards. About this Mingana writes, "It is the constant tradition in the Eastern church that the Apostle Thomas evangelized India, and there is no historian, no poet, no breviary, no liturgy, and no writer of any kind who, having the opportunity of speaking of Thomas, does not associate his name with India. Some writers mention also Parthia and Persia among the lands evangelized by him, but all of them are unanimous in the matter of India. The name of Thomas can never be disassociated from that of India. To refer to all the Syrian and Christian Arab authors who speak of India in connection with Thomas would therefore be equivalent to referring to all who have made mention of the name of St. Thomas. Thomas and India are in this respect synonymous." (Mingana, Early Spread of Christianity in India, p. 301.) Among the non-East Syrian writers, while Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose and Jerome (fathers of the fourth century) held to the Indian apostolate of St. Thomas, Origen, Clementine Recognition, Eusebius of Caesarea, Rufinus of Aquileia and Socrates say that Thomas worked in Parthia. Here we are not to see any contradiction as the Parthian empire extended up to North India at that time. "The Parthian empire had spread into India and in the middle of the first century BC, a new Parthian kingdom, centered on Taxila, had been founded in northwestern India. Orosius in the fifth century said that generally the country (from the Indus to the Tigris) was called Parthia." (L. W. Brown, op. cit.. p. 46.) By the end of the fourth century the western sources are more or less unanimous that Thomas worked in India. Some writers have pointed out that the name ‘India’ has been very loosely used by some early writers. A few western writers might have used the name, India, as a convenient term for the lands of the East. But we need to remember, as we have already pointed out, that India was well known in the West because of the vigorous commercial activities that went on between India and the Mediterranean world. This was specially true with regard to East Syrians. "For them," says Mingana, "India is nearly always our modern India." (Ibid., p. 47.)

The answer to this criticism by one truly pluralist was obvious: that announcing the Gospel was redundant, that it was even arrogant, that other people do not need a Christian Gospel and probably many of them have a Gospel of their own as good as the Bible. But Dr Knitter’s answer was different. “We are not saying outreach evangelisation should only consist of action of human welfare but we are saying that working for human welfare, is an essential part of the work.... It is essential to the Gospel of Christ,” he said. Missionary strategist will have no difficulty in agreeing with this view. They already know that ‘social work’ is a great aid to proselytisation. (Catholic Ashrams, Voice of India, 1994, p 181.)

For Mother (Teresa), it was the spiritual well-being of the poor that mattered most. Material aid was a means of reaching their souls, of showing the poor that God loved them. In the homes for the dying, Mother taught the sisters how to secretly baptize those who were dying. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a ‘ticket to heaven’. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend she was just cooling the person’s forehead with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa’s sisters were baptizing Hindus and Moslems.” (Verso, London, p 48.)

The type of abuses which missionaries hurled against the Indian Gods and Goddesses, if you read today, would be outrageous to any Hindu believer. Krishna is lecherous person, Shiva is some demonic force. All sorts of sexual abuses (are hurled) against Kali Durga. (Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies, Project Nr 14, 1996, p 60.)

When I was working in a Mumbai newspaper, I noticed a foreign missionary addressing a crowd at Azad Maidan. He was extolling the virtues of Christianity, which was legitimate, but then he went on to dissuade his audience from following Lord Krishna saying that ‘even as a child Krishna stole butter churned by his own mother and later he was surrounded by women of loose morals’. I protested at his remarks at which he asked his aides to throw me out. Not one Hindu in the audience stood for me. I went to lodge a complaint with the police where I was told to put the news in my own paper. I gave the story to may chief reporter who asked me ‘what’s the news in it?’ and did not publish it. (?)

Hindu philosophy is basically one that encourages withdrawal from the world to the detriment of social commitment. (Pravrutti-Nivruttin.) Hindu spirituality also fosters individuality at the expense of community. The sadhu is preoccupied with his prayer, asceticism and other spiritual endeavours in order to accumulate spiritual capital for his own salvation. This attitude is also encouraged in the life of the ordinary Hindu who is expected to work for his own individual salvation. As a result there is hardly any communitarian or social consciousness. To be freed from suffering the individual has to go through the whole cycle of rebirth to overcome his karma or fate. The community cannot redeem from this suffering. (Fr Francis D’Britto, Theology of Involvement, The Examiner, May 2, 1998.)

hindus build temples where there are hindus, christians build churches where there are no christians!
pardon me if i digressed!

:D

In a letter dated June 10, 1994, to both the Roman Catholic Archbishops of Delhi and Mumbai, the President of the VHP, Shri Vishnu Hari Dalmia, wrote: “It will be in the fitness of things if the Church in India recognises its unsavoury role in the past and while admitting the same, assures the population of India that it will desist from such prejudicial activities in all parts of the country. Such a proclamation from the Church will not only pave the way for amity between these two great religions, but will also set an example for other religionists to emulate.”

A reminder was sent on August 5 to both the persons. The secretary of the Archbishop of Mumbai merely acknowledged the receipt of the letter. The Archbishop of Delhi was in a combative mood that often reflects the thinking of the hierarchy in India. He wrote in a letter dated October 3, “I don’t think any useful purpose will be served by going backwards into the past and especially trying to point out mistakes committed by various communities and members of the various religions who are living together in harmony in India. Our country has the unique record of harbouring the world’s greatest religions whose followers, by and large, live together in peace, in tolerance. We Indians should do our best to preserve this heritage which in my belief is a great gift of God.”

On October 14, Shri Dalmia wrote: “In recognising the past, the intention is to inform the present generation of the history as it is. It will also be a beacon for the manner of the interaction for nowadays. Just like the Germans and the others of today are not being blamed for the crimes of the Nazis, the apology that has been tendered is a clear indication that they do not associate with the philosophy of the Nazis. This is the way for living together in harmony in India. I would very much like to have your views on the points that I have raised.”

This is where the correspondence rests - that is, there is no need to engage in a sincere dialogue. Subsequently the VHP pointed out the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic Church in apologising to the Jews and the South American Indians, while refusing to even consider a similar act towards the Hindus. The office of the Archbishop of Mumbai said, “It is categorically denied that prejudicial activities were resorted by Roman Catholic missionaries in the centuries gone by nor has Dalmia made mention of a single such instance.” (The Indian Express, April 24, 1996, “Negation of history is the best way to frustrate a dialogue”)



i will accept apologies from the christians on this board on behalf of the indian nation and peoples! apologize! for the vandalism! for the forced conversions! for murder! for political inteference! for whatnot!

spookz, christianism and catholiscism are two different religions. The catholics have to apologize, not the christians.

edit: and they didn't murder anyone. In fact, hindus and other religions murdered them (catholics).

spookz,
i will accept apologies for whatnot!

persol
if you mean 'offer apologies for whatnot" then i accept! india and her folks thank you!

who is next?

truthseeker
your distinctions b/w the two mystifies me. isnt jesus still present in both? the trinity? how dare you try to turn this around? did hindus pillage christian lands?
should i drag out some infamous massacres by the followers of jesus?

Originally posted by spookz
Re: christians go home!

The answer to this criticism by one truly pluralist was obvious: that announcing the Gospel was redundant, that it was even arrogant, that other people do not need a Christian Gospel and probably many of them have a Gospel of their own as good as the Bible.



Christians are home in India, we are at home in all of God's creation, the stars are our destiny, the earth our home. I think Hindus need to re-examine their claims of tolerance (seems we are ok, as long as we follow hinduism or give it preeminence in things).
Please read these:

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990204/ige04097.html
http://www.caribbeanhindu.com/Swamiji_Conversion.htm
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01122002/0112200277.htm
http://swamiagnivesh.virtualave.net/SWASTIK%20TEMPLES.HTM
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jun/23oris.htm
http://www.stopfundinghate.org/sacw/appendixf.html
http://www.dalitstan.org/christian/releases/uc280800.html
http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/internal/n_1999_01_31.html
http://www.nzz.ch/english/background/background1999/background9901/bg990130india.html
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3586.htm

Originally posted by spookz
i will accept apologies from the christians on this board on behalf of the indian nation and peoples! apologize!
Who are you? that YOU can accept apologies for a whole nation? And what makes you think you are owed an apology?

for the vandalism!
Of christian church buildings? You owe us an apology

for the forced conversions! History? Name your sources? When, who, where?


for murder!
Why should the victims apologize for stopping bullits? Spookz stop shooting!!!

for political inteference!
Are you still crying about the Brittish? Or are you talking about the CIA? BTW, stop building a-bombs, OOPS! is that polital interference? Shame on me!!!


for whatnot!

The most dangerous accusation & one that I freely admit to, I'm sorry!!! So sorry!!!

:D :D :D



OK, I'm not really sorry, I am a convicted, armed & dangerous 'whatnotter', so watch out!!!

:cool: :cool: :cool:

Originally posted by Randolfo
Who are you? that YOU can accept apologies for a whole nation? And what makes you think you are owed an apology?

i am spookz! first name spook, surname z! i appointed myself since these indians were getting nowhere! why do you think i want an apology? havent i made it clear that this is for the poor indian folks that want some closure after centuries of torment?

Originally posted by Randolfo

Of christian church buildings? You owe us an apology

i am not authorized to apologize! how ever i am sympathetic towards the current plight of christians in india!

Originally posted by Randolfo
History? Name your sources? When, who, where?

pythagoras and sinbad!

http://www.goacom.com/culture/history/cuncolim.html
http://hamsa.org/StThomas_Chapt_3.htm
http://forumhub.com/tnhistory/26044.4446.11.04.49.html

what a doubting thomas thou art! shame!

Originally posted by Randolfo
Are you still crying about the Brittish? Or are you talking about the CIA? BTW, stop building a-bombs, OOPS! is that polital interference? Shame on me!!!


are you hiding behind your pristine church? so pure?just doing the lords work? is that what you imagine the church to be like? wake up! your church is your state!

Originally posted by Randolfo
The most dangerous accusation & one that I freely admit to, I'm sorry!!! So sorry!!!

accepted! thats the spirit!
i am glad that we see eye to eye!. it is the christian thing to do!
next!

According to Christian leaders in India, the apostle Thomas came to India in 52 A.D., founded the Syrian Christian Church, and was killed by the fanatical Brahmins in 72 A.D. Near the site of his martyrdom, the St. Thomas Church was built.

In fact this apostle never came to India. The Christian community in South India was founded by a merchant Thomas Cananeus in 345 A.D. (a name which readily explains the Thomas legend).

In Catholic universities in Europe, the myth of the apostle Thomas going to India is no longer taught as history, but in India it is still considered useful.

Hamsa.org explores how the myth of Saint Thomas in India arose and why it has been perpetuated despite the absence of any historical basis in truth.

http://hamsa.org/index.htm

spookz,

truthseeker
your distinctions b/w the two mystifies me. isnt jesus still present in both? the trinity?
Trinity is a catholic concept. Anywhere in the Bible you can find about the Catholic trinity. Trinity is one of the doctrines of men. It is written:

Matthew 15:7-9
7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

PS: This was adressed to the pharisees in the beginning of the chapter. The Catholic church is the "pharisees".

Also, they don't believe in grace:
Acts 15:11
"11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

Romans 8:1
"1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. "

Jude 1:4
"4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. "

Also, catholics are condemning, but it is written:

Colossians 3:8-14
"8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--
11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.
12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;
13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.
14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. "

This proves all the points. Catholics are NOT Christians.

how dare you try to turn this around? did hindus pillage christian lands?
http://indianterrorism.mybravenet.com/militant%20hinduism.htm
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world99/ind-christ.htm
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/india-attacks.html
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/rights/106/070299.html

That is more then enough evidence.

should i drag out some infamous massacres by the followers of jesus?
Do you agree that a follower of Jesus MUST follow His statments, His commendament, His will for us? Then what about when Jesus said:
John 15:12
"12 This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you."

Whoever doesn't follow His commandament is NOT one of His followers.

Originally posted by spookz
i am spookz! first name spook, surname z! i appointed myself since these indians were getting nowhere! why do you think i want an apology? havent i made it clear that this is for the poor indian folks that want some closure after centuries of torment? You got a big ego spookz, you're gonna need it in that insane asylum they put you in, next thing you know, you're gonna self-appoint yourself as Napoleon, "non". BTW, what are you gonna do when satan torments your people? There will be closure, since it's for eternity. Hindu gods can't save, only confuse


pythagoras and sinbad! There not even Indians, don't be a name dropper!


what a doubting thomas thou art! shame! That's my job! Why should I believe a biased anti-christian?


are you hiding behind your pristine church? so pure?just doing the lords work? is that what you imagine the church to be like? wake up! your church is your state!
Coming from someone that supposedly lives in LA, you sure are absurd & nonsensical. Are you accusing the US of tormenting foreigners because its a christian state?


accepted! thats the spirit!
i am glad that we see eye to eye!. it is the christian thing to do!
next!
You mean i2i joker!

Originally posted by spookz

In fact this apostle never came to India. The Christian community in South India was founded by a merchant Thomas Cananeus in 345 A.D. (a name which readily explains the Thomas legend).

Stop the hate spookz!
http://news.christiansunite.com/religion/religion02961.shtml

Originally posted by spookz
i appointed myself since these indians were getting nowhere! why do you think i want an apology? havent i made it clear that this is for the poor indian folks that want some closure after centuries of torment?



i am not authorized to apologize! how ever i am sympathetic towards the current plight of christians in india!

Let's see? You are self-appointed to accept apologies but are not authorized to make them? So, you’re only half-baked? Too bad, so I’ll authorize you to make apologies, in fact, I authorize you to apologize for things that have nothing to do with you, you can start now!

BTW, are you on our shores spreading your religion? It is non-indigenous to this continent, therefore, are you doing what you accuse Christians of doing in India? Shame on you!! You hypocrite!! Shame, shame! Shame!!! Keep your religion to yourself, as you expect us to do in India.
BTW are Christian missionaries allowed free access to India? ‘Yes’ or ‘no’? And are Hindu missionaries allowed free access to the US? ‘Yes’ or ‘no’?

What is the answer?

I am going to burn down the world
I am going to tear down everything that cannot stand alone
I am going to turn christians into shit
I am going to shove hope up your ass
I am going to reduce everything that stands to rubble
And then I am going to burn the rubble
And then I am going to scatter the ashes
And then maybe SOMEONE will be able to see SOMETHING as it really is
WATCH OUT

http://www.morwenna.de/kali.jpg

randolfo

Originally posted by spookz
how ever i am sympathetic towards the current plight of christians in india!

grab the bone and chew on it. you will not be getting any more from me!

:D

Originally posted by Randolfo


BTW, are you on our shores spreading your religion? It is non-indigenous to this continent, therefore, are you doing what you accuse Christians of doing in India? Shame on you!! You hypocrite!! Shame, shame! Shame!!! Keep your religion to yourself, as you expect us to do in India.
BTW are Christian missionaries allowed free access to India? ‘Yes’ or ‘no’? And are Hindu missionaries allowed free access to the US? ‘Yes’ or ‘no’?

What is the answer?

my religion? do you not know that hindus do not proselytize? if you think otherwise, dig up some proof that they do! christian missionaries in india have abused their host's hospitality! all privileges have been rescinded!

Hinduism has various officiants who perform rituals and sacraments like marriage. These officiants are sometimes called priests. Their prime role is to aid in the performance of rituals. They do not take confession, preach, proselytize, or function as missionaries. Nor do they serve as intermediaries between the lay population and the Divine. These priests can be married and usually have families of their own.

how enlightened is that dog?

;)

Originally posted by Randolfo
Keep your religion to yourself, as you expect us to do in India.


Is it?

Originally posted by spookz
I am going to burn down the world
...


And then maybe SOMEONE will be able to see SOMETHING as it really is
WATCH OUT

Must lose something in the translation, but is this a threat by your god or by you?

If its by you, you need poetry lessons, it might sound better as a haiku, but that's zen buddhist, are you allowed to use their formats? Or is that stealing?

Originally posted by spookz
randolfo

grab the bone and chew on it. you will not be getting any more from me!

...

how enlightened is that dog?

I don't need anything from you DOG, but your blue multi-hand godess needs better followers

Originally posted by spookz
i am spookz! first name spook, surname z! i appointed myself since these indians were getting nowhere! why do you think i want an apology? havent i made it clear that this is for the poor indian folks that want some closure after centuries of torment?

Re: total subservience first! then walkthe sea into en masse!

So, are you talking about going to wash ourselves in the River Ganges, or are you talking about lemmings? Either one, no thanks, keep it to yourself, you need all the help you can get,

P.S.
Don't drink the water!

Originally posted by Randolfo
Must lose something in the translation, but is this a threat by your god or by you?

If its by you, you need poetry lessons, it might sound better as a haiku, but that's zen buddhist, are you allowed to use their formats? Or is that stealing?

think sex pistols. do not merely recite! spit the words out with venemous
force!

Originally posted by Randolfo
I don't need anything from you DOG, but your blue multi-hand godess needs better followers

hmm! do i sense an attraction? men do find it hard to resist her firm blue tits!

Originally posted by spookz
think sex pistols. do not merely recite! spit the words out with venemous
force!
No, I'll let you do that, you need the practice, BTW are you punk?, do you have a mohawk? or you just like their lyrics?


hmm! do i sense an attraction? men do find it hard to resist her firm blue tits!
Blue? is she an alien?

ok ok
this is getting old, i have nothing against christians, i hope you were not too offended by my ranting.

:)

Hey, Jesus does an Indian 'Namasthe' in the 'Baptism of Christ'!!!
http://www.geocities.com/rr17bb/piero2.gif
http://www.geocities.com/rr17bb/baptism.html

Jesus never went to India or anywhere else for that matter.

The Jesus character is a myth.

Originally posted by Master of Illusion
Jesus never went to India or anywhere else for that matter.

The Jesus character is a myth.

um no, i suggest you take a look at some of the many books and texts which explain and verify the existence of the man, Jesus.
I can understand that you don't believe in religion or God, i can tolerate it, but total ignorance to fact, that's just poor.

Throw off the shackles of ignorance my friend, the tooth fairy is a myth, Jesus is not, nor is Mohammed in the same respect.

Hi Jan,
In answer to you question. Could Jesus the Christ of Nazareth have traveled to India in those missing 18 years? Yes he could have. However I believe it to be unlikely. Suppose for a minute he did. Would it change Christian theology and beliefs? No. The fundamental truth of Jesus the Christ of Nazareth remains the same. That he died for our sins and was raised from the dead so that we may be reconciled and pleasing to god the father. I would propose that whatever happened in those missing years are irrelevant from a perspective of Christianity we are given all that we need to know.

In response to other postings in this thread referring to the works and teachings of a man in India named Jesus. Regardless of his name and his claim to be the Christ this man is not Jesus the Christ of Nazareth. The first contradiction that came to mind is that this man has a grave and unlike Jesus the Christ of Nazareth he is still in it! His other teachings are also clearly contrary to the teachings Jesus the Christ of Nazareth and the rest of the bible. This Jesus couldn't have been from God. God does not make mistakes, tell people one thing then contradict himself later. Matthew 24:4 sums it up the best. Jesus said: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.

Hope this helps.
z

Most likley, he worked as a capenter with his "dad" Joesph.

There was a middle-eastern custom in those days.
A child, Paul said, was still a child thou he be an hier,. untill he comes to the adoption.

The eldest son at 30 years old was judged by the father at that time, whether to be found worthy to "take over" the family bussiness.
If so he was adopted into this "position" of authority.

This was what happened to Jesus, when God spoke from heaven and said, This is my beloved Son in whom I'm pleased to dwell, Hear ye Him.

At the temple when he was 12, he confounded the priests with His understanding of the Word, and when questioned of His disappearance by Mary, He said: "Know ye not, I must be about my fathers bussiness.
At thirty he was adoptioned into the position of authority in His "true" Fathers bussiness.

Jesus never went to India or anywhere else for that matter.

The Jesus character is a myth.

Most likely both statements are true. Even if the latter is false we must realize that as a species we are incredibly insular in our sedintary lives. We envision a more connected world than was the case. Yet further for a peasant carpenter to make his way any significant distance would be amazing. To go from the Middle East to India is in fact impossible. But as long you are willing to ascribe supernatural characteristics to a person (after all he was completely mortal) I suppose you are gullible enough to accept anything.

Originally posted by zman
[quote]Suppose for a minute he did. Would it change Christian theology and beliefs? No.
Hi zman, welcome to sciforums,

How can you be so sure? From the moment Jesus advented into this world, his life became absolutely significant, this means everything he said and did, were crucial lessons. Why, at the most important years of his life, the years of his youth/young man and vital energy, would there be no need to chart his movements and teachings? Why would it not be recorded in the new testament? If you notice, in the old testament, the father of all mid-eastern religions, Abraham, and other great personalities, like Moses etc, had there whole lives recorded, why not Jesus?
The fundamental truth of Jesus the Christ of Nazareth remains the same. That he died for our sins and was raised from the dead so that we may be reconciled and pleasing to god the father.
So the whole purpose of his life, was to die? What was the point of his teachings then? He may as well have not taught, if what you are saying is true, he could just have died.
I would propose that whatever happened in those missing years are irrelevant from a perspective of Christianity we are given all that we need to know.
Who is doing the giving?
And do you trust them?
What is it about Christianity, that makes 18 years of his life irrelevant?

Love

Jan Ardena.

so far as i know there isn't any historical evidence to support jesus coming to India.

St.Thomas did come....i think in 70 A.D. or something.
in fact he's buried here......St.Thomas Mount is in Madras..where I live.

regarding christians in India.....they have exploited the conditions to their advantage. christian missionaries used to go to all the poor people and tell them if they converted to christianity they would be given free board and modging...free meals etc.

thankfully this practise has been stopped in Tamilnadu by the anti-conversion laws.

Jan you've been to India? how did you like it? where all did you go?

Originally posted by Teg
Jesus never went to India or anywhere else for that matter.

The Jesus character is a myth.
Thanks for setting us all straight, with the absolute truth

Yet further for a peasant carpenter to make his way any significant distance would be amazing. To go from the Middle East to India is in fact impossible.
There was trade all over the ancient world, you need to read more history, people were willing to travel great distances to make money. Even Marco Polo made the arduous trip all the way to Beijing

But as long you are willing to ascribe supernatural characteristics to a person (after all he was completely mortal) I suppose you are gullible enough to accept anything. So, you have the answers to all questions? Are we just a random chance meeting of atoms? Life, consciousness, patterns, just chance? I feel that the ‘gullibility’ charge needs to be proven by 'facts', science sees patterns, but who or what started the "Big Bang", what set in motion life & consciousness? Random chance? You got to be kidding?

Hi Jan.. Thanks for the welcome.

Sorry for the confusion. I don't mean to totally downplay importance of those 18 years. I'm sure we could have benefited from the knowledge of how Christ conducted himself especially during those wonderful adolescent years. However, I would disagree with you concerning the importance of those years. Simply stated, Jesus wasn’t teaching at that time thus they are less important and omitted due to the amount of time and energy required to write 18 years of events, even though it was Jesus the Christ. I do know during that time he continued lead a perfect life free from sin and upholding all of Gods laws. Of course that was necessary and comes into play later because, 2 Corinthians: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. But, back to the discussion. Jesus wasn’t teaching before then because prophecy need to be fulfilled before he could proclaim himself. John the Baptist needed to prepare the way before him as Isaiah prophesized. And if nothing else Luke 3:23 says "Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry." Indicating he never did any teaching or prophesying before that time. As for Moses and Abraham many years of their lives were omitted, because they weren’t getting revelation from God. For example, not included were most of the exciting years Moses was a Sheppard. Granted the end of the Sheppard days were marked when and angel appeared to him in the burning bush Abraham lived to be over one hundred years old and his story takes up less pages then Jesus’ and he only had 3 years of teaching and prophesying.

And to your second set of questions. My sentences were a poor choice of words. My intent was not to limit all of Christ's life to one event. Merely I wanted to proclaim the basic event from which Christianity arises. Yes, Jesus needed to die and be resurrected but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was his "whole (all encompassing) purpose" without teachings. His teachings were absolutely necessary. He needed to reveal to us why he need to die. He needed to reveal he was the Christ who was foretold so that we have faith in him. He needed to reveal how we respond to his death and resurrection.

To the third set.
"Who is doing the giving?" When I said "we are given" God is the one revealing himself to us and what we need to know. Christianity is not man trying to figure out God, who he is and what he wants. It is God coming to man by revelation or coming as a man (Jesus) and revealing to us who he is!
“And do you trust them?”
I trust God. That he is working all things out for his purpose. If I don’t trust God, who else would I trust?

"What is it about Christianity, that makes 18 years of his life irrelevant?" Those 18 years are skipped because it doesn't change Gods message to us or what he calls us to do. It doesn't change or contradict what Jesus taught or did after age 30. It doesn't add to or take away from any principals that are taught elsewhere in the Bible. It is trust in God that if we needed to know something he get the message out.

Hope I did a descent job of answering your questions.
z

Originally posted by zman
Simply stated, Jesus wasn’t teaching at that time thus they are less important and omitted due to the amount of time and energy required to write 18 years of events, even though it was Jesus the Christ.
I understand your point, but I cannot understand how you think those 18 years are less important, especially as Jesus is seen by you, as God, in the flesh. I’m quite sure if God advented onto this earth, in a flesh form, every single movement, even the most seemingly insignificant ones, throughout His entire life, would be recorded, with zeal second to none, known to man.
I do know during that time he continued lead a perfect life free from sin and upholding all of Gods laws.
How?
And if nothing else Luke 3:23 says "Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry." Indicating he never did any teaching or prophesying before that time.
It could also indicate that after he had travelled the world, he began his ministry at the age of about 30 years.

Please read, 2 Timothy 4:1-8, I would like to know what you think.

My intent was not to limit all of Christ's life to one event. Merely I wanted to proclaim the basic event from which Christianity arises. Yes, Jesus needed to die and be resurrected but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was his "whole (all encompassing) purpose" without teachings. His teachings were absolutely necessary. He needed to reveal to us why he needed to die.
But at no point does he mention that he needs to die to show us the way, none of his teaching are directed this way, at all.
He needed to reveal he was the Christ who was foretold so that we have faith in him.
He’d already done that, hadn’t he, through his teachings and actions.? Admittedly, his death, and resurrection, would no doubt, iron out a few creases of doubt. But that shows that his entire life was of the same high quality of devotion to God, from the moment he was born, to the moment he died and resurrected, and presumably everything in between.
God is the one revealing himself to us and what we need to know.
I understand, but my point was, in scriptural terms, who is giving, because it does seem strange to omit 18 years of the life of such an exhalted personality, especially as documents charting those missing years plus the known years, of his life, are vehemently rebuked by the theological society.
Those 18 years are skipped because it doesn't change Gods message to us or what he calls us to do.
I agree, but it can change peoples perception of God, which imho, it has. For example there is no where in the NT, where Jesus talks about the soul, namely what it is, and what happens when it departs from the body, But in so-called non-established documents, he does.
It doesn't change or contradict what Jesus taught or did after age 30.
I would disagree, Jesus’ life, as depicted in the NT, could appear un-practical, because there appears to be no real reason for his actions. In other words, we don’t fully understand ourselves enough, to be sure that we are on the right track, you just have to have faith, but faith is very easy to diminish, especially in todays society. A great philosopher once remarked; “knowledge without faith is simply speculation and faith without knowledge is just sentiment.”

Love

Jan Ardena.

Hey Jan,

I'm not sure I'll be able to totally explain that lack of those 18 years for you but I have a few more thoughts on the issue that I hope will help. First, because Jesus wasn't teaching or prophesying no one was paying attention to him or hanging around to write things down. Granted he could have told have written things down himself or said to someone "Are you getting this? This is good stuff, write it down." But it appears he didn't. (Although you did mention you have seen some documents detailing those years. Could you point me in the right direction?) Second, John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Third, John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." My guess is that this still doesn't answer your questions. Again I'm not sure if I can answer it but I'll give it more thought.

I'm not exactly sure what your "How?" question is asking. How do I know he continued to be perfect and uphold Gods laws? OR How was he perfect? and How did he keep Gods laws? I'll give you some short answers and expand later if you want. First question, one reason I know he was perfect because everything hinged on him being the perfect sacrifice before God, to take away sin. Second reason, as God is perfect basically because he defines perfection. God in human form is also perfect and upholds his own laws. Second question. How was he perfect? He never sinned in his actions, thoughts, or heart. How did he keep God's laws? I'm guessing you're aware of the laws or rules God gave to the Jews. Some of them I would consider a little crazy. Can't wear blended clothes. Can't eat certain animals. etc. (Why those laws? That's a whole other subject and I can do my best to answer that if you would like.) Anyway he fulfilled the law and did everything as instructed. The only man to do so thus fulfilling the law.

"It could also indicate that after he had traveled the world, he began his ministry at the age of about 30 years."

To my knowledge the bible doesn't emphatically say what he was doing during that time. Again, I find it unlikely simply because it isn't referenced or even hinted at anywhere else in the bible. (Or in anything I've read but I certainly haven't read everything on the topic.)


2 Timothy 4:1-8 This doesn't really tie in with the rest of the questions, right? Verses 3 and 4 I find particular interesting and relevant in today’s world. Especially since we live in a world of much tolerance, it seems many "Christian" churches blatantly ignore sound doctrine and scripture in an effort to be culturally accepted. I can give you my thoughts on that. Or I can go through it verse by verse if you like?

"But at no point does he mention that he needs to die to show us the way, none of his teaching are directed this way, at all."
Yes, you're correct he didn't die to "show us the way" and he doesn't teach it. Sorry for the confusion.

"He’d already done that, hadn’t he, through his teachings and actions.? "
Yes, you're correct, he did do that. Again I did a poor job of expressing my thoughts.

" I understand, but my point was, in scriptural terms, who is giving, because it does seem strange to omit 18 years of the life of such an exalted personality, especially as documents charting those missing years plus the known years, of his life, are vehemently rebuked by the theological society. "
Do you know where I can find those documents detailing the missing 18 years? Sounds interesting I have read some alternate documents regarding his life but nothing that has countered any of his biblical teachings and prophecies. Well a couple off the wall ones but I commented on those in my first post.

"I agree, but it can change peoples perception of God, which imho, it has. For example there is no where in the NT, where Jesus talks about the soul, namely what it is, and what happens when it departs from the body, But in so-called non-established documents, he does. "
Yes, to my knowledge, in the bible, Jesus doesn't teach on what the soul is and the steps after death. I'd be interested to read up on what the other sources say.


In your last statement. I'm confused as to why you disagree with my statement "It (the missing 18 years) doesn't change or contradict what Jesus taught or did after age 30." Could you explain a little more why there appears to be no real reason for his actions. First let me try my statement another way. The documents detailing the missing 18 years shouldn't change or contradict the rest of Christ's life. They may fill in some details but the message should be the same. Does that make since?

Thanks for chatting.
btw Out of curiosity, where are you at with this stuff and your beliefs?