Did Rabbi Jesus/Yeshua learn about healing in India before teaching in Judaea?

Whoa. Jesus was a busy man.

Jerusalem
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.

That must have been just after his visit to India when he flew over in a Jumbo Jet.

 

The likelihood of the so-called Wise men being Indian is small. More likely to have been from the Middle East, Arabia. Frankincense and Myrrh come from the horn of Africa and Arabia. That's not to say there were no wise men in India. There certainly were.

Not that the story makes sense anyway, except to believers.

 

My post was not stating a view of religiocentrism, so there is either something wrong with my writing or your reading comprehension. I find all religions equally bogus, but the concept that somehow Jesus would have to go to India to find spiritual enlightenment is a pathetic concept.

 

Did you read my post about Robert Arnett and his visit to India and my comments about Jesus and his mother and the three astrologers and their gifts? There is no question about him "having to go to India to find enlightenment". It was about paying respects and sharing.

BTW, I am an atheist but I understand what religions are all about.

 

There is no evidence that Jesus ever went to Egypt or India. Jesus was a Jewish preacher. Tradition has no meaning without evidence. There are many books around the world with traditional stories - many thousands of years old. After all, Christians believe the stories of the Bible - many of which are simply stories. Moslems believe in Mohammed having visits from Gabriel. Hinduism is a mixture of cultural beliefs and mixed traditions. Obvious from their Rig Vedas.
Tradition is simply tradition - unless you can prove it.

Tomb of Jesus:

Recently discovered and preserved in Kashmir, India.

The Kashmir Tomb

The burial place of Jesus in Kashmir is known to the locals as Rauzabal, meaning the Honored Tomb.

It is known as the tomb of Yuz Asaf, which may be of Buddhist derivation (see link) or possibly from Yusu or Yehoshua (Jesus) the Gatherer.

Local tradition states that the entombed was a prophet of Ahle-Kitab, or People of the Book, and his name was Isa – the Quranic name for Jesus.
The prophet Yuz Asaf came to Kashmir from the West (Holy Land) in the reign of Raja Gopdatta (c 1st century A.D) according to the ancient official documents held by the current custodian of the tomb.

Some of the most extensive research on the tomb has been conducted by the now retired famous historian and former Head of Archaelogy for State of Kashmir, Professor Fida Hassnain.

The tomb is Jewish, as attested by the direction the grave is lying. Next to the grave is a footprint engraved in stone, an artistic rendition of the wounds of crucifixion.

Ancient Texts:

Buddhist and Hindu texts confirm his travels to the region.
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/20...s-confirm-jesus-travels-to-the-indian-region/

Well, that rather gives lie to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

Books have been written by 'researchers' but none have anything but 'tradition'. One even says that he visited a Buddhist Monastery in Tibet- when it is known there were none.

Balderdash.

 

I gave a report of evidence. You haven't seen the evidence yet you judge it.

I also gave the logic of the probability.

 

Believe me I seen all the 'evidence' over 60 years of studying the Bible and things associated with it.

Jesus declared mission was to the Jews. He forbade any preaching to the Gentiles. He quotes the OT regularly yet never mentions any 'Hindu' teachings. He practised Judaism, teaching and ritual. If he had been to India for years of learning, don't you think the religious leaders would have used this against him. The Gospels record the people accepting him as one of their own. He would not have been offered the scroll to read in the synagogue. Jews were a national family.

The Great Commission was added later.

Of course Joseph of Arimathea visited Britain, possibly with Jesus. http://www.glastonburyabbey.com/joseph_of_arimathea.php
And we actually have a thorn from his staff that grew overnight on the Isle of Avalon. It is in a Reliquary, made around 1400 CE and which is in the British Museum. http://www.britishmuseum.org/resear...n_object_details.aspx?objectId=42845&partId=1

Tradition is great for the gullible. Evidence is needed for belief.

 

You "seen" it all, huh? You must have heard about reports from India if you "seen" so much in 60 years. So what did you do about it? Did you go to India and interview Swamis in temples, or did you read what some "trusted" Christian zealot wrote about it?

Circumstantial speculation. And flawed. He would have known it would be used against him so he would have kept it a secret.

Tradition, huh?

-according to some tradition, huh?

Exactly.

 

Bruce F. MacDonald Ph. D. gives a great explanation as to why Joseph of Arimathea went to Britain..........

..... www.ThomasTwin.com/

 

I'm Agnostic. And I don't need to go to India to know the many stories about places that Jesus is supposed to have visited. Swami's believe what they are told, how to interpret their ancient 'books'. Christians believe what they are told and how to interpret the Bible. JW's ditto. Muslims ditto.

Absence from home for many years, and no-one knew he was away somewhere. They certainly knew his life. To believe that in a relatively small area of Palestine they would not have known, or found out all there was to know about Jesus. They wanted him out of the way. Anything they could find against him would have been used. Keep it secret? You surely haven't thought it through.

Jesus visited India, went to a Buddhist Temple that never existed at the time, then returned unnoticed to Palestine, was crucified and rose from the dead and yet his tomb is found in Kashmir.


I repeat -Tradition is great for the gullible.

Do you know how many sacred bones and sacred relics there are lying around the world, of apostles, saints etc. Enough to fill a Museum. What better way for a church to get revenue in the Middle Ages, than to find a 'genuine' relic, and let it be known. . The people would flock to see it, and 'donate' monetary 'gifts'. You think this nonsense?
Look back at history. I don't your country, but the UK was full of these churches. Thank goodness people are past that stage today.

Joseph of Aramathea is a good example. It wasn't until the 13th century that someone thought Joseph in England would be a good idea. To cut a long story short, the idea and story brought money to the church. Legends around Joseph

• He was the first person to bring Christianity to Britain, having been sent with other disciples by St Philip
• He built Britain's first church (some say this was actually the first church in the world)
• He was Mary's uncle, and thus Jesus' great-uncle
• He was a merchant who visited England to buy Cornish tin
• He took Jesus with him to England when Jesus was a teenager (local legends say that among the places they visited were St Just in Roseland and St Michael's Mount)
• He brought to England two vials containing the blood and sweat of Jesus (or two vials containing the sweat of Jesus)
• He brought the Holy Grail to England and hid it in a well at Glastonbury, now called the Chalice Well.

Jesus was a Jewish preacher who was raised to divinity by the Gospel writers. He suffered and died because he accused the Religious Heirarchy - quite rightly - of hypocrisy.

 

Well, that proves your lack of actual knowledge about it. Swamis are those who interpret their scriptures. Your statement is like saying that the Pope believes what he is told. Actually there is a broad spectrum of religious views and understandings in India. There is everything from borderline criminals to the most enlightened Swamis because there is great freedom there. But it is the most enlightened who lead in spiritual wisdom and they interpret their scriptures. A keen interest in finding a highly spiritual and enlightened Swami will turn one up. So no, Swamis definitely do not "believe what they are told" because it is they who do the telling. I studied under one for about 6 years, so I know whereof I speak.

Then how did such a wide variety of understandings of the Bible and the Koran originate? Listen, I'm an atheist so I am not grinding a religious axe of my beliefs, but I understand religions.

Heh heh heh. Try me.

Jesus was known as a carpenter's son in his early years. According to the bible few people knew he was of high spiritual knowledge until his cousin baptized him in the river. So no one but his mother and brothers would have cared if he traveled to India. You turned up one case of a fraudulent claim of him going to a temple that didn't exist and you are desperate enough to consider that to be proof of all such claims being fraudulent.

And I repeat: Evidence is needed and you don't have any.

No, it's not nonsense.... just irrelevant. In Robert Arnett's travels in India he said he found that there were just a very few (2 or 3 maybe) temples claiming to have records of "Issa's" visit, but that only one would let him see the records because they were typically preserved and hidden, so they weren't displayed as an attraction to draw people. In fact, in most cases they were claimed to exist in very small temples with few "members". So you are not speaking from any knowledge, but from an effort to manufacture your own "explanations". You're making it up.

"These" churches? And that is completely irrelevant. In our South it is said you will find a church "on every street corner". I have visited our South and found it to be quite accurate. So what? Irrelevant.

The temples in India are mostly very poor. It is the wealthier ones that we need to be wary of.

In summation, your story is based on irrelevant comparisons, lack of knowledge, and no direct personal exploration of reliable and original sources. You didn't even know what a Swami is. So your claims are not valid. But you want to be "right."

 

You learnt under a Swami. Who did he learn under? And who did his teacher learn under? Someone has to continue the Way. Over 2,000 years do you not think his interpretation hasn't been 'interpreted' before? And passed on many times.
The Pope does believe what he has been taught. What has been Church doctrine for nearly 2 millenia. He may add some of his own interpretation - as some Popes have done down the years to fit their times.

Swami's are teachers initiated into some order. Highly respected. But they are simply giving their interpretation, probably opposite to another Swami's interpretation.

Heh heh heh. Try me.

You know little of Judaism and the Jews. These people were family orientated. Nazareth population was small. Virtually everyone k other. You didn't disappear for years and no-one know about it, or enquire about Jesus. Neither would Jesus have disappeared from his home without telling his parents where he was going to prevent them worrying. People like Joseph and his family rarely travelled far, unless it was to the Temple. Jesus was a Jew. He showed his faithfulness to the Jewish religion by visiting Jerusalem at requisite festivals. Wherever a Jew was he should make his way to Jerusalem at Passover. A long way from India. In Jesus time it must be celebrated in Jerusalem.

According to the bible few people knew he was of high spiritual knowledge until his cousin baptized him in the river.

Where does it say that?

My own belief is that Jesus was taken up by a Rabbi when he showed his knowledge and spiritual understanding of the Tanakh in the Temple at the age of 12/13 - when he became an adult. Rather like your Swami. It was the practise in Jesus time for this to happen. Rabbi's were on the lookout for promising young men in the scriptures, and took them on as pupils. The Rabbi's were not allowed to charge for their services so at times they had to earn a living. And Jesus had shown his promise in the Temple. And Jesus also had to help in the family business.
It would take years for him to become accomplished enough to become what he eventually was - a noted Preacher. The fact he started at the age of 30 was in line with the Jewish belief that a man reached his prime at that age.
It took Paul the Apostle 14 years to learn his trade, after his conversion.

No, it's not nonsense.... just irrelevant. In Robert Arnett's travels in India he said he found that there were just a very few (2 or 3 maybe) temples claiming to have records of "Issa's" visit, but that only one would let him see the records because they were typically preserved and hidden, so they weren't displayed as an attraction to draw people. In fact, in most cases they were claimed to exist in very small temples with few "members".

Rather like the keepers of the Ark of the Covenant in North Africa. It's there, but you can't see it, or examine it. Were the records tested for proof of age? Do they prove that Jesus was there?

My point about the relics was that people of old were gullible, and many are today.

If I remember rightly it wasn't until the 19th century this idea was put forward in books that have been discredited. But I may be wrong. At 78 I need to look at notes dating back years, and I can't be bothered.

And I repeat: Evidence is needed and you don't have any.

Evidence for what?

You have no evidence that Jesus - a poor carpenter - ever visited India. Just some paper with words on.

The Tanakh is 2500 years old. The complete Bible1700 years old. Little evidence remains of much that is contained in it. But at least there is some evidence for parts of the Bible.

 

Your belief is that spiritual wisdom is simply something learned from others, intellectually absorbed, memorized, and held as an intellectual exercise. This shows in your questions about who a Swami learned under and your idea that someone has to continue the Way. And unfortunately, a person so locked in this kind of outlook is entirely unable to grasp the spiritual, which is entirely outside the intellectual universe of knowledge. To such a person true spiritual wisdom is "silly" and so he cannot learn about it.

Sorry.

 

which is entirely outside the intellectual universe of knowledge.

I agree. That's why, during my studies, I discarded the idea. It has little use in todays world. Life and death aren't a spiritual experience - they're a reality. For all your spirituality you will go the way of all flesh. If your spirituality gives you comfort, good for you. The world doesn't have time for such things. People have to live and survive. The world has to go on.

 

Why do people go to a Swami? Why is he known as a teacher?

My advise to anyone who wants 'enlightment' that is real - go out into the world and see the trouble and strife and do what they can to help. That's 'enlightenment' that counts. That can be 'enlightment' that can produce results even after their death. A word to the lonely, help for those who need it. There are many things that are more important than personal 'spiritual' enlightenment.

Of one thing I am convinced. Jesus was a Jewish preacher. He had a normal birth in Nazareth but was an intelligent youth with an understanding of the hypocrisy of the religious heirarchy, and suffered death for proclaiming it. The Nativity stories are simply not true and there is no evidence for them. The prophecies supposedly confirming the Gospel story have no relationship to the Jewish preacher.

 

Thanks Trevor for offering yourself. You are a good example of a person who takes the bible literally and cannot see the spiritual message hidden in the text. Thus you wouldn't grasp the real meaning of:

Matthew 16:25 - "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

Or Revelation 22:16 - "I am the . . . bright and morning star."

In the absence of the spiritual meaning, we are left only with the worldly understanding of "the natural man".

 

There is no hidden spiritual meaning in the Bible. Much of the Bible is myth and fairy stories made up by 7th century BCE scribes to give Jews a history.

Matthew 16:24-26.
When Jesus used these words the disciples knew exactly what he meant. Crucifixion was the method of execution. Condemned criminals had to carry the cross to the the execution site, through streets. Following Jesus would need full commitment, the risk of death and no turning back.
The possibility of them losing their lives was very possible. Being a real disciple meant real commitment, pledging their whole existence to his service. If a Christian seeks to shield himself from the suffering that comes, or save his life will lose eternal life. Those who lose their lives for Jesus will receive eternal life.

Revelation 22:16 'I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star'.

This book is made up of OT images.They have been taken and adapted for Christian beliefs. The Essenes did the same thing and formed THEIR Book of Revelation. Surprise, surprise it was seen in a vision by someone. Of course, both being visions by 'god' they must be the same. Oh. They're not.

David was 'of the root and offspring of David' we are led to believe, but not entitled to the throne - if you study his ancestral line..

The Gnostics see hidden spiritual meaning in the scriptures. The Jews also. Have you waded through the Kabbalah? And I will guess you all have different meanings.

Goodness me. Could not the writers of these 'holy scriptures' put this in simple language.

You can read into the scriptures virtually anything you want. All I know is that the old folk that are helped don't care about spirituality, they are grateful for help. As I said before, all the spirituality and hidden meanings you seek will not satisfy you in the end. We are 'natural men'. Not created beings. 'Spirituality' is in the brain and all our thoughts and actions stem from the brain. Some actions are in our genes - suckling and defacating etc. and others we learn from experience.

 

See? I told you. And regarding different meanings, I have seen great masters of Christianity sit with great masters of Buddhism and enjoy each other's way of expressing the one truth. And I have practiced Hinduism in a Hindu temple for 6 years and sat with Swamiji to listen to his great wisdom and came away with a realization after 6 years of the great similarities between Christianity and Hinduism. I see how they both say the same things in different words.

And yet there is that little problem with the Book of Mormon.

 

Of course there is wisdom in all religions. Of course there are many similarities. Nothing Mystical about that. We are all human beings. We come from different cultures and have different ways of looking at things, but most have basic desires outside of physical needs. If Hinduism had not come into being, something else would have taken its place. Judaism came into being in Babylon for the need of uniting the Nation under Jahweh. If you study Judaism it contains similarities to Zoroastrianism. Christianity has some similarities to Judaism. Islam is based - loosely - on the Tanakh. Religion/gods come into existence to satisfy a need.

There are no 'hidden' meanings except those man makes for himself.

Which of the 4 types of Hinduism teaches about getting out and helping the needy. That's the one I'd prefer.

I see no problem with the fictional book of Mormon, after all, gods are fictional, aren't they.

 

Yes..... pretty much..... but the Essenes believed in most of what the Pharisees believed in.

 

Don't think that's right. There's quite a difference.

 

Their belief in some form of reincarnation was more clear than
among the Pharisees wasn't it?


http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380599/jewish/Judaism-and-Reincarnation.htm

 

Actually NO.

Many of its deeper levels of interpretation are not readily accessible; and they may not lend themselves to obvious, practical application in daily life. As such, these more esoteric aspects of Torah are not of interest to significant segments of the Jewish population, including some rabbis and scholars.

The Kabbalah is an 'interpretation' of the esoteric mysteries of the Torah. If you've tried to read and understand the Kabbalah you see a load of nonsense. Only if you believe that Jahweh actually wrote the Tanakh would it make it credible.
A Jewish notable once said that there are no mysteries that cannot be understood by anyone who desires. In other words mysteries are not really mysteries, unless you want them to be.

 

But apparently Josephus stated that both the Pharisees as well as Essenes believed in reincarnation.

http://www.iisis.net/index.php?page=semkiw-reincarnation-past-lives-judaism-past-lives&hl=en_US

 

I am looking at another article on this that I want to save so that I can find this later on......

http://www.essene.org/Ancient_Essenes.htm