• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus was educated in Nalanda, India

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm sorry, it wasn't directed at you... I wasn't shooting the messenger. I know there are some real humdinger theories out there. Btw, there are actually a lot of words in unrelated languages that are similar if not identical. Sometimes they are loanwords, sometimes they are coincidence, but rarely are they cognate (same source, but changed through sound shifts and meanings). Naga, however, is cognate with 'snake'; sarpa is another Sanskrit work for snake or serpent.
 

ZooGirl02

Well-Known Member
Personally, I find this to be very hard to believe. I believe that Jesus spent much of His youth in Egypt as the Bible says:

Matthew 2:1-23 NRSV-CE In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, (2) asking, 'Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.' (3) When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; (4) and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. (5) They told him, 'In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: (6) "And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel."' (7) Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. (8) Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, 'Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage.' (9) When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. (10) When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. (11) On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure-chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (12) And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road. (13) Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.' (14) Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, (15) and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I have called my son.' (16) When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. (17) Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah: (18) 'A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.' (19) When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, (20) 'Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead.' (21) Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. (22) But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. (23) There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean.'

The bolding is my emphasis.

But anyway, I don't believe there is a single place either in the Bible or in Sacred Tradition which states that Jesus ever went to India. Here is an interesting Ask an Apologist thread about this subject:

Did Jesus visit India? - Catholic Answers Forums

It was answered by Fr. Vincent Serpa who is a Catholic Apologist.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
I casually discovered this video...
A Hindu man explains the reason why no Gospel mentions what Jesus did for 18 years. That is, the Gospels tell an episode in which Jesus was 12...and then they underline that he decided to start preaching only after he turned 30.
This Hindu clarifies that Jesus was educated in Nalanda, India...for 18 years.

Sure, why not? It's as good as any explanation for his existence.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
because he didn't have the money to go to India. If he had had it, he would have used it to go to Rome, where he could have taught Christianity

That would have brought him death even faster. Christianity would never have gotten off the ground. The Romans were fairly tolerant of the religions of conquered territories, but anyone who called himself a king, especially in Rome would have been dealt with even more swiftly and harshly than Jesus was. And remember that initially his teachings were aimed at his countrymen, fellow Jews. He gave the Great Commission after the resurrection.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why some people figure this is important somehow. Why would it matter to anyone? I just don't see the big deal. But then I'm not into history, nor the figure being talked about. :)
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why some people figure this is important somehow. Why would it matter to anyone?

... and likewise with "Jesus in Hinduism"/"Jesus as an avatar in Hinduism". I can't figure it out either. To even offer historical and rational critiques of the whole debacle, and we risk ourselves to being lambasted as traditional purists; to not, and it gives off the impression it's a-okay. Well, most certainly, it's a-okay. But as a Hindu whose line of thought is very much similar to Purva Mimamsa, this thread and the likewise scenario just mentioned above are not applicable for computation, and thus unsubstantiated. And I'm sure it's at least somewhat similar with you and the various Shaiva philosophies, especially Shaiva Siddhanta---but do correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
... and likewise with "Jesus in Hinduism"/"Jesus as an avatar in Hinduism". I can't figure it out either.

Well, Christians (yes, I generalize) don't like the idea. It makes Jesus into an individual dependent on a foreign (bad) religion for his wisdom. I'd be upset if I were a Christian. I'd say that he was what he was despite Hindu or eastern influence. He stood alone.

And ... traditional Hindus don't like it either. We just see it as irrelevant, and it lowers our concept of what we are. We don't need Jesus to somehow add to our already burgeoning list of masters, saints, and rich philosophy. In fact, it diminishes that.

So ... who does that leave? People on both sides who want to grasp at straws for some sense of philosophical unity, or niceness all around. But why not just be nice to each other without trying to find this so called common ground? :) I fail to understand how mixing milk and orange juice makes for a better drink. But I guess I'm just some narrow-minded bigoted self-righteous Hindu.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
... and likewise with "Jesus in Hinduism"/"Jesus as an avatar in Hinduism". I can't figure it out either.

There is considerable psychological appeal in the idea that we are not neglecting a popular source of valued teachings because it is in some way subsummed into those we already refer to.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
A load of bull-****.

"Some historical studies suggest that the school at Nalanda was established during the Gupta Dynasty (5th Century). Both Xuanzang and Prajñavarman cite Shakraditya (probably Kumaragupta I) as the founder, as does a seal discovered at the site." (Wikipedia)

What would have Jesus gone to Nalanda for? Purchase wood?
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Well, Christians (yes, I generalize) don't like the idea. It makes Jesus into an individual dependent on a foreign (bad) religion for his wisdom. I'd be upset if I were a Christian. I'd say that he was what he was despite Hindu or eastern influence. He stood alone.

And ... traditional Hindus don't like it either. We just see it as irrelevant, and it lowers our concept of what we are. We don't need Jesus to somehow add to our already burgeoning list of masters, saints, and rich philosophy. In fact, it diminishes that.

So ... who does that leave? People on both sides who want to grasp at straws for some sense of philosophical unity, or niceness all around. But why not just be nice to each other without trying to find this so called common ground? :) I fail to understand how mixing milk and orange juice makes for a better drink. But I guess I'm just some narrow-minded bigoted self-righteous Hindu.

I'm reminded of Vouthon's case: the downsides of unnecessary syncretization; and his was a very logical presentation, too.

There is considerable psychological appeal in the idea that we are not neglecting a popular source of valued teachings because it is in some way subsummed into those we already refer to.

But it is an appeal that has largely never seen the light of day, regardless of the fact that those "valued teachings" have already been a part of Indic thought in one way or another countless centuries before the birth of the man in question. For example, the Tirukkural.

What would have Jesus gone to Nalanda for? Purchase wood?

Kashmir Willow, of course.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
When it comes right down to it, the only commonality between Jesus's and Buddha's teachings is compassion and dharma. Rebirth, karma, anatta, sunyata, are completely missing in Jesus's teachings. The only commonality between Jesus's teachings and Hinduism is compassion and dharma. When it further comes down to it, pretty much everything else between Jesus and Hinduism are at odds philosophically and theologically. One can find compassion and dharma in just about any religion. Native Americans had (have) a strong sense of what we call dharma, and are for the most part monotheists. It doesn't mean that Jesus spent time with Native Americans.

Add'l...

While it's logistically possible he could have traveled the Silk Roads (there was more than one route), to what end? What he taught already existed in Judaism; the compassion, love and 'dharma' are already there. He was simply making it more accessible and meaningful to the simple people of his time and place.

I've come to see this "Jesus in India, Tibet and Nepal" business to be silly and wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Had Jesus any knowledge of Indian philosophy, he would not have come up with a monotheistic religion with eternal hell for unbelievers. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
This is why I say he taught Judaism Lite, completely monotheistic and bhakti-oriented ("Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself." Luke 10:27). He did not explicitly teach eastern philosophy; it so happens some aspects overlap.

However, his comments about hell were metaphors for being separated from God. Judaism does not believe in hell. The mainstream churches... Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox... do not teach about eternal hell fire. What they teach is eternal separation from God, with the person/soul willingly choosing to be separated. The lake of fire silliness is an evangelical concoction.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Had Jesus any knowledge of Indian philosophy, he would not have come up with a monotheistic religion with eternal hell for unbelievers. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'.

yeah...just a clarification: Christian Hell is for the wicked, whether they are believers or not
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
because he didn't have the money to go to India. If he had had it, he would have used it to go to Rome, where he could have taught Christianity
I think the historical Jesus was a Jew. He would have had no interest in "teaching Christianity".
 

roger1440

I do stuff
If we would string end to end everything Jesus had said from all known Gospels, remove the redundancy, it would probably take less than two hours to read. I’ll say Jesus has much more than 18 missing years. Either that or the guy just didn’t have much to say.
 
Top