Lost Years of Jesus

[oldbadger]

We can only guess his teaching was for 1 to 3 years

Oh, come on...! We can do better.... His ministry was probably 11+ months.

Possible, but traveling to the lake is to far to commute, is it not?

Who said he was commuting? He was lodging, and going back from time to time, maybe.

We dont know how long he had followed JtB before taking over.

Question:- Is there anything which helps us to determine or guesstimate what time of year it was that JtB immersed Yeshu?

Beofre John taught him, I think he was just another peasant.

No! Before John converted him to the movement he was a healer! We've agreed all this! Alright, yes, he was a peasant, but not in the way that I read that post above.

"Foundation" isnt chucking out anything.
Reecent archeology has changed and information now present they only guessed at.

Cool...

 

[danieldemol]

This is my favorite story. I love the idea that "Christ" came from Indian "Krishna" instead of Greek "annointed one." Or even the idea that Buddha was called anointed, and the term landed in Jerusalem 500 years later. It creates a poetic bridge between two seemingly different cultures and religions, that are centered on love and compassion and humility and reason...

The same poetic link with the same level of bias could be undertaken by assuming that the term went from Israel and landed in India, which is precisely what the Ahmadi Jesus in India theory seeks to argue, citing the same parallels.

...And fights against the lie I learned: that last 3000 years of history was Europe was the center of culture and human innovation...

Although it is certainly true that this is a lie, what you propose simply replaces the Eurocentric lie with an Indocentric lie. It is just as possible for an Israeli to be a major contributor to religion as it is for an Indian to do so.

 

[outhouse]

I don't see the above as correct.

Thats a shame, because I rewatched a nat geo show where Johnathon Reed, Marvin Meyers, John Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Lawrence Shiffman, all stated this.

This is not my personal opinion, it is theirs.


I go back and watch these 10-15 hours worth of scholars opinions, just to make sure i dont miss anything. try and pick up something different each time I watch it.

His food included 'fish' for a start!

It was a regulated industry was it not?


How close to the water do you think Nazareth was?

Capernaum would be a possibility, but ill ask. where did Jesus get the fish? When he started traveling his buddies dropped their fishing lives and traveled without so much as a beggar bowl.

Do you know what a begar bowl was?

Why did Jesus tell his followers they needed to leave their beggar bowls behind?

Why the parables of the hungry?

They say when he was resurrected he ate some broiled fish, sorry if I dont buy it.

 

[Poeticus]

The same poetic link with the same level of bias could be undertaken by assuming that the term went from Israel and landed in India, which is precisely what the Ahmadi Jesus in India theory seeks to argue, citing the same parallels.

You can't really make the claim that the word "Krishna" came from Hebrew or any other Semitic language and landed in India. "Krishna" is an Indo-European term that predates the advent of the word "Christo" (anointed) by a thousand years, give or take. Its first usage is in the Shri Rig Veda, which is the oldest Indo-European text in existence, predating Classical Greek by another thousand years.

Although it is certainly true that this is a lie, what you propose simply replaces the Eurocentric lie with an Indocentric lie. It is just as possible for an Israeli to be a major contributor to religion as it is for an Indian to do so.

Luke never claimed that he believes that Jesus travelled to India. If you re-read his post, he makes it clear that he admires the thought, that is all. Nothing more. Lastly, the idea that Jesus travelled to India was never espoused nor purported by Indians themselves. It was first created by European Christian Missionaries in India in order to get Hindus to convert to Christianity. Thus, is it truly Indo-centric? Far from it.

But, for the fun of it, let's say that Jesus did travel to India (just for the fun of it, don't jump the boat, Daniel, this is just hypothetical).

Let's say it was proven that he did travel to India. Does that still make it Indo-centric?

 

[yoda89]

What's your opinion on what happen?

Actually Nash OP there were texts written about his early childhood. They were taken out due to the validity. Including how he calmed dragons. I am not joking either. Like many passages it was torn out and locked up or destroyed because it didn't fit in.

 

[Skwim]

There is no evidence for this, just a load of wishful thinking, lies, and pseudoscience.

What pseudoscience is that?

 

[nash8]

Try tekton or handyman, or 'maker of things'.

He might well have made (stone) anchors, amongst other gear. The Galilean fishing community must have needed hundreds of small ones for bottom lines, and bigger ones for anchors, and biggest ones for moorings. They could have needed special ones for wet-boxes, moored offshore to keep catches (and to save from being seen to land them in front of the fisheries inspector and customs officer!).

There was plenty of work for people that were good with their hands.

My reference to tekton was not neccesarily to imply the meaning of the term, although if you read the wiki link it does state that a later Greek translation means "a learned man", and does not correlate with someone who was actually a wood/stone worker. I assume Jesus would have had some skill or knowledge in the same type of craft as Joseph if we can believe Bible accounts of his craft.

My point with the Bible references was why the difference in recognition of Jesus as the son of the tekton in one, and the tekton in the other.

What makes pseudohistory into pseudoscience is when people present pseudohistory as the result of "historical research" without doing anything like following scientifically rigorous historical research methodology. Regrettably, nonsense such as the Jesus in India theory is often presented as the result of such.

I agree that specific to Notovich's work, but the theory using parallels between philosophies would be a much stronger approach.

To put that into perspective, the monks that he claimed showed him the research said they did no such thing, stated the documents did not exist and called him a liar. The book Indology, Indomania, and Orientalism by Douglas T. McGetchin (Jan 1, 2010) Fairleigh Dickinson University Press ISBN 083864208X page 133 states, "Faced with this cross-examination, Notovich confessed to fabricating his evidence."

It still leaves the question of where he got the information from in the first place, but I saw elswhere in this thread that it was a creation of monks trying to spread Christianity in India so it most definitely could have been a result of these rumors. My questions are: What particular group of Christians was this attributed to? What time period did this begin to appera in India? One article I read on Notovich said he actually stayed in a Moravion monastery instead of the Lemis monastery. If this is where he got the inspiration for his story, where did the people that gave it to him get it from?

True, take for example the fiction that Jesus visited the moon. It evidently contains truth - the moon exists and there really is a character called Jesus that people believe in. However the central claim of this fiction -that Jesus visited the moon, is false.

I see the point you are making, but there are some flaws. There is strong evidence that suggests that Jesus would not have had the technology available to visit the moon in his lifetime. Where we have strong evidence to suggest that Jesus would have been more than capable to visit India if the "urge struck him" so to speak. This argument is akin to the pink elephants on Mars argument. Effective at demonstrating the idea, but not so good at actually making the point effective.

As per the Tibet link you provided, the character of the monks would be questionable if the unsupported assertions of Mrs. Caspari where corroborated by the monks and the monks were unable to produce the document they claimed to have.

Since no document has been produced and no-one has come forward to corroborate the empty claims of Mrs Caspari (who incidentally did not even claim to have read the said documents) there is therefore no reason to assume the monks were of questionable character.

But if you recall the monks told her that the document no longer existed and/or they no longer had possession of it, implying that the document at one time had existed.

But my actual point of the questionable character of the monks was the author of the essays conclusion of why Notivich's story spread was because the monks of the Lemis monastery became aware of a copy of Notovich's work and begin to tell people "what they wanted to hear" as time grew on. First of all, why would Tibetan monks be concerned about a story they themselves said was false. Second of all, if the author thought the monks character was questionable enough to spread a story they said was false, why then, wouldn't there character be questionable enough to tell a lie denying the existence of the documents in the first place?

 

[nash8]

It's always fun to peruse yet another Jesus of the gaps thread where baseless speculation can breath free.

Since there is no historical information about this gap, what else can one be expected to do? And on that note, why not join in on the baseless speculation. I would enjoy hearing your opinion on the subject, rather than your accusations that my speculations are baseless.

You cannot compare the Zealots to Essenes, hell comparing the Zealots to the Pharisees is tough because of some of the similarities. I view the Pharisees as a wide diverse sect as well.

I'll see if I can find the document again, but it stated that the Zealots and the Essenes essentially sprang out of the same group of people.

Many of Jesus parables were for the poor and oppressed. He speaks of hunger and empty bellies.

This doesn't neccesarily imply that he was poor or felt oppressed himself. I speak of hunger and empty bellies all the time because I know what it's like to be poor, oppressed, and hungry. This does not mean that I feel this way all the time, or even most of the time. It just means that I emphathize with people in this plight because I know how they feel.

They paid them almost nothing for labor, the NT has parables about greedy farm owners, Herods forced people off their land to take it to feed his cities. The fishing industry regulated to some extent. 10,000-15,000 people flooded into Sepphoris while excavations there show they were Jewish, these were not typical traditional Jews in Galilee, these were Hellenistic Jews. The real Jews worked in what amounts to forced labor just to survive. Nazareth and Capernaum were poor places. While Nazareth little is known, they did live in crude fieldstone houses and its my opinion it was sort of a work camp for the rebuilding of Sepphoris

I would agree with this analysis from what little I know of the subject.

Free health care for a few pieces of bread dipped in vinegar or olive oil, and possibly some lentels. Its stated by a few scholars above, he would have had his disciples go into a village on market day and sort of set him up stating a great teacher is coming, a while later Jesus pops into town, and has to yell to gather a very small crowd to get his message across hoping to reach out to at least one person who could feed his crew. They did not charge for healing, so it wasn't work.

Sounds like a legit scam to get people interested. I'd be interested in seeing what Jesus' "disciples" did as well as being his hype man. Aka, did they have any particular skills in healing/teaching/craftsmenship? Why do you say he didn't charge people for healing?

His message of peaceful resistance against the Romans would have been well accepted, and since he was not under Roman control, he was flying under the Roman radar so to speak. That changed when he went to Passover.

Why was he not under Roman control, and how would this allow him to fly under the Roman radar?

Tekton does not mean carpentry, there was little to no wood in Nazareth. More of his parables speak of what a stone worker would say, more so then a wood worker.

Any comparisons to ideas promoted in aincient freemasonry?

Did he help build houses or stone fences for courtyards out of fieldstones? probably so.

Indeed.

The trick is after a while, you see a pattern of "their" thought that takes them to their opinions. Its finding the bias in each so you can hopefully find the truth that makes you personally happy given the lack of information.

The biggest flaw I see with most scholarly opinions is that they assume Jesus followed the social patterns and norms of the time within his area. While I guess true historians can't really do much else given the information we have on him, I don't think Jesus can be viewed in the same context as his peers. People who are extremely charismatic, as I think it would be hard to argue that Jesus wasn't, tend not to follow these preestablished norms, or better yet they transcend them. In other words, they aren't subject to exactly the same analysis that you would used when describing the culture that they were raised in.

Its my goal to investigate as much as possible in the socioeconomic divisions of Hellenism in Sepphoris. Johnothan Reed has his view that Sepphoris was a Jewish city with a Hellenistic veneer in the first century. I don't think that fully addresses what we see.

I would be very interesting in hearing your research into this area. I think it would shed a lot of light on the subject of Jesus. I don't know the particular socioeconomic status of people in Jesus' circle, but from what I remember of some of the Bible verses, it would seem that some of them were more well off than the common folk at the time. It would definitely be interesting to see some information on Jesus specifically targeting, and being able to "swoon" those that were more well off than the common man, and use this ability to help the comman man. Sort of like a Robin Hood meets psychologist lol.

Actually Nash OP there were texts written about his early childhood. They were taken out due to the validity. Including how he calmed dragons. I am not joking either. Like many passages it was torn out and locked up or destroyed because it didn't fit in.

Yeah, the infancy gospels and such. I find that slightly ammusing that they decided to take those out. Taming a dragon is going way to far, but walking on water, that's cool .

My personal opinion were that they Apochraphia works were meant to be taken way more figuratively than the partially biographical works of the Gospels that were included, save for John which is clearly, for me atleast, meant to be taken figuratively and parallels with the apochraphial works better than it does the rest of the Gospels. Another interesting note, is that the apochraphial works seemed to be attested to more by the early gnostic sects of Christianity, which I find very interesting.

Lastly, the early life of Jesus is attested to, atleast in small part, by the NT gospels. However, there is nothing that talks about his middle years between approximately 13 - 30. The really interesing thing for me is that there is no reference to these years, even in the apochraphial works, as far as I can demise. The lack of evidence in these works is what really makes me wonder, because as you have already stated, they don't shy away from making outrageous claims . Even if the apocryphial writers really had no clue what happened during these years, it would seem to me that they would not shy away from making something up at the least, especially given the relative openness that the historical/literary gap would provide.

The TOTAL lack of evidence in all avenues is really weird to me, and for me, it sounds like a "suicide" where someone blows their brains out, but somehow there is no blood on the wall.

 

[danieldemol]

You can't really make the claim that the word "Krishna" came from Hebrew or any other Semitic language and landed in India. "Krishna" is an Indo-European term that predates the advent of the word "Christo" (anointed) by a thousand years, give or take. Its first usage is in the Shri Rig Veda, which is the oldest Indo-European text in existence, predating Classical Greek by another thousand years.

First of all I don't make the claim that anything related to Krishna or Hinduism came from either Jesus or His teachings.

Having said that, the Jesus in India myths such as the Ahmadi one (if I remember how it goes correctly) do not claim that the name Krishna is derived from "Christ". They claim that Jesus came to India after His time on the cross and taught people Christianity, the teachings of which they are alleged to have gotten mixed up and confused, making them into Buddhism. These claims rely on a variety of fabrications and also cite the parralels between Buddhist and Christian teaching.

Luke never claimed that he believes that Jesus travelled to India. If you re-read his post, he makes it clear that he admires the thought, that is all. Nothing more.

And I believe that admiration is misplaced.

Lastly, the idea that Jesus travelled to India was never espoused nor purported by Indians themselves.

Quite to the contrary, whilst I don't know who the first person to advance such fabrications was, I certainly do know of Indians who advanced such claims, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being a case in point.

It was first created by European Christian Missionaries in India in order to get Hindus to convert to Christianity.

If you are aware of Jesus in India fabrications by Christians, you are welcome to provide links explaining the hoax, it will all add to an informed discussion of the topic.

But, for the fun of it, let's say that Jesus did travel to India (just for the fun of it, don't jump the boat, Daniel, this is just hypothetical).

Let's say it was proven that he did travel to India. Does that still make it Indo-centric?

Let us not get differing Jesus in India fabrications (JiIF) confused. The JiIF you suggest came from European Christians in which Jesus comes to teach an allegedly (not alleged by me) ignorant Indian population about religion would be Euro-centric. The JiIF in which an ignorant Jesus went to India to learn about religion from Indians for the benefit of Europeans (ie Europeans as defined by luke) would be Indo-centric. Although they are nominally different biases at play, they are all driven by a desire to prove one peoples better than the other, and the other inherently ignorant until receiving the grace of the teaching race.

 

[roger1440]

What's your opinion on what happen?

I'm still looking for the found years.

 

[nash8]

I'm still looking for the found years.

LOL, we got ourselves a comedian do we.

Interestingly enough, I found an addition to this thread in another thread, that makes it more interesting to me that there is no record of Jesus' middle years. Bart Ehrman believes that Paul knew either Jesus' disciples and/or some of his relatives. Wouldn't it seem that Paul, or one of the people that wrote down his words, deem it moderately important to make some reference to Jesus' teenage years, even if it was simply that he worked as a carpenter of some sorts? Obviously if he believed passionately enough to start an entire religion in this man's name, he would have deemed it important to decipher what this man did to become the man that he worshipped no?

After all, the years between 13-30 are when we become who we are as a person. I would think this would be even more so, consdiering the shorter general lifespans in antiquity.

[youtube]WUQMJR2BP1w[/youtube]
Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus' Existence...From an AGNOSTIC LIBERAL Scholar! - YouTube

Around 4:35 or so, Ehrman talks about Paul knowing Jesus disciples and/or his relatives.

 

[oldbadger]

Thats a shame, because I rewatched a nat geo show where Johnathon Reed, Marvin Meyers, John Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Lawrence Shiffman, all stated this.

This is not my personal opinion, it is theirs.

I go back and watch these 10-15 hours worth of scholars opinions, just to make sure i dont miss anything. try and pick up something different each time I watch it.

Good morning outhouse!
Right.....as to the above.... Tell you what... are you prepared to tell me that the above scholars all agree with each other in every way about the subject of HJ? Are you prepared to tell me that you agree with everything they say about HJ? Because if you 'cherrypick' the bits that you like, and then wave the flags of scholars who agree with that bit, you're going to need a lot of scholar flags in your locker.

I'm not going to do that. I do need to educate myself about this subject and read more of the scholars' books, but I want them to tell me about what they found, whether it be a change in stanza within prose, or a cup found in the ground. Their ideas can be strange. Would you agree that some scholars ideas are strange?

It was a regulated industry was it not?

Everything looks as if it was 'tied down' and regulated, watched, levied, taxed and even fined. So what do you think the Galileans were doing about that? Come on... you have a knowledge of human nature, so what were they doing?
Answer :- they had scams, just the same as people do today. Take the Galileans......
I'll bet that if the water level drops further, somebody will eventually find the ruins of a wet-well under the lake.
I'll bet that there were restrictions upon the number of oars that various civilian boats could carry and use. (Official boats wanted to be faster).
etc etc
But the people had their methods.

How close to the water do you think Nazareth was?

Several miles. But I think that in the years just before his mission, he may well have been staying in villages around and near the Lake. You like the idea of magic+meal, so you must be prepared to consider that he was travelling (alone!) from one village to another, carrying out his skills, getting hospitality and sleep for the night, maybe with gifts, and then moving on. Now you want to go working in Sepphoris each day. Which do you like? You need to consider...

Capernaum would be a possibility, but ill ask. where did Jesus get the fish? When he started traveling his buddies dropped their fishing lives and traveled without so much as a beggar bowl.

Time! Chronology!!! We are discussing what the situation might have been in the years before his mission. However either side of that divide in time, Yeshu's disciples did not drop their lives. I'll write that again. His fishing disciples did not give up their lives. They still worked at least one of their boats. They traveled in one of their boats. It's there for you to read in the synoptic reports. Just because they dropped all and walked when he approached, that surely does not mean that they did not know him before, and it does not mean that they did not return for their boat. You know all this already....it's there for you to see in the reports.

Do you know what a begar bowl was?

No. I'm not sure about this.. Please tell me what you know. I know that many Asian bowls carried by the mystics were half skulls.

Why did Jesus tell his followers they needed to leave their beggar bowls behind?

Because they weren't going begging? Honestly, outhouse, Levis for one was very wealthy, Cephas, Andrew, John and James were comfortable, Philip was a hired man, Levi was rich, ..... please leave your trudging dying starving pleading begging disciples behind.

If you ever came to London and walked through Covent Garden you would see very clever street performers, and near them, on the ground you would see a bucket or bowl for passers by to throw money into..... does this make them beggars?

Why the parables of the hungry?

We are all hungry! What are you hungry for? You've already told me about things (conditions) that you would plead for (to a judge?). All my neighbours are hungry for a car, or a bigger home, or more money. Yeshu's parables about the hungry are perfect.

They say when he was resurrected he ate some broiled fish, sorry if I dont buy it.

Nor do I..... I don't buy that either, but how does that affect my opinions about his lifetime?
By the way, just what the hell is 'broiled fish?' I guess it's just boiled fish, to taste nicer, eat better, and kill any germy bits.....? If so, the people of the lake ate it all the time. They may have had stoves on their boats to boil fish for their snacks.

 

[oldbadger]

My reference to tekton was not neccesarily to imply the meaning of the term, although if you read the wiki link it does state that a later Greek translation means "a learned man", and does not correlate with someone who was actually a wood/stone worker. I assume Jesus would have had some skill or knowledge in the same type of craft as Joseph if we can believe Bible accounts of his craft.

My point with the Bible references was why the difference in recognition of Jesus as the son of the tekton in one, and the tekton in the other.

Hello Nash...!
Both references are fine....?
He could have been a tekton, as well as the son of a tekton.
I would not worry about 'later Greek translations'. In fact I would pay more attention to the Aramaic word..... something like 'naggara' rather than the Hebrew word Tekton. These people spoke Aramaic, ....... I tell you what, I'm off to bash 'naggara' through the aramaic dictionaries and see what they come up with, so I'll come back to you later.....

 

[danieldemol]

M.V, spend a little more time reading my posts and a little less time making stuff up to reply to

 

[nash8]

Hello Nash...!
Both references are fine....?
He could have been a tekton, as well as the son of a tekton.
I would not worry about 'later Greek translations'. In fact I would pay more attention to the Aramaic word..... something like 'naggara' rather than the Hebrew word Tekton. These people spoke Aramaic, ....... I tell you what, I'm off to bash 'naggara' through the aramaic dictionaries and see what they come up with, so I'll come back to you later.....

My point is why would one gospel refer to him as a tekton, and one refer to him as the son of a tekton. If he was a tekton, and recognized as such why not refer to him just as the tekton. It's been brought to my attention of the patriarchal identification which sounds plausible, but still doesn't explain the difference even due to translations. My viewpoint would be that it should be consistent in both, especially if it was copied from a similar source. Maybe the emphasis on the Son of God as opposed to the Son of Man?

I apologize. It is not the later greek translation, but the actual interpretation of the meaning of the word tekton being used. Some suggest that Tekton was used as a reference to a "learned man". This would imply that Jesus was not being referenced to craftsman, but rather to a rabbi or the son of a rabbi.
Tekt

Stop trolling, Daniel. It doesn't look good. If you can't continue this discourse in a mature manner anymore, that's your problem. I simply addressed your points and detailed the fallacies of your points. If you have nothing to contribute then just move on. It's simple as that. Ad hominem from your part doesn't make me take you seriously anymore. Thus, to your response as quoted above, I post the following:

Sorry, but I have to take daniel side on this. He was arguing that part of the Jesus in India theories wold be Indocentric due to Jesus came to India to learn knowledge. The other half would be Jewishcentric (lol) in that Jesus came their to teach Indians about knowledge.

Either way, they would be centric because the theory promotes that one group of people holds knowledge that the other group needs to know. I don't think Daniel meant offense to Indian's or any other group of people, nor was he trying to say that a small group of Indian's represented the views of the whole. He was rather trying to demonstrated that there are people in India that believe Jesus came their one way or another, and also that he believed that their beliefs were not supported by evidence.

 

[nash8]

You:Lastly, the idea that Jesus travelled to India was never espoused nor purported by Indians themselves.

Daniel:
Quite to the contrary, whilst I don't know who the first person to advance such fabrications was, I certainly do know of Indians who advanced such claims, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being a case in point.


Daniel:
If you are aware of Jesus in India fabrications by Christians, you are welcome to provide links explaining the hoax, it will all add to an informed discussion of the topic.

None of the links you provided demonstrated Jesus in India fabrications by Christians, sorry.

You can take any sides you want. This isn't about sides. Ahmadis do not represent all of Indians. And, I have clearly given him the names that he needed - to prove to him that the whole concept of Jesus coming to India wasn't even created by Indians. What more do you want? Candy and bubble gum? No pun intended.

He never said that the ideas of Ahmadis represented all Indians. You stated that there were no Indians that purported this view, and he cited that there was. Endofstory.com.

Then he said cite evidence that Jesus in India theories were fabricated by Christians. You proceeded to cite three hoaxes, none of which have any Christian connections that I can deem.

Detail is of the utmost importance in this type of discourse. I could say Jews made up the whole Jesus in India concept (as you so eloquently put it as "Jewishcentric"), while on the contrary it was merely European Christian Colonial-centric. And, there aren't just people in India that believe that "Jesus came there (not their) one way or another"; there are non-Indians that also believe in such fabrication - and it makes sense for it was non-Indians that created the fabrication in the first place. It would be beneficial to go through the posts once more and not read from the middle. I don't know how clearer I can get.

You say you can claim that the Jews made up the whole Jesus in India concept, but then in the next line claim that IT WAS a European Christian Colonial concept. Can you cite some sources that the Jesus in India theor was the result of European Christian Colonialism?

I never said there wasn't non-Indians that believed in the fabrication, considering that a Russian was the person who made the story prominent. And considering, I personally believe in the theory of Jesus traveling to India, regardless of Nitovitch's fabrication, it would be impossible for me to believe otherwise.

I did go through the posts once more, that's why I posted your statements and daniels refutation of them and vica versa. I don't know how much less clear you could be.

It's all right we know your India is bigger than everyone elses.

 

[oldbadger]

My point is why would one gospel refer to him as a tekton, and one refer to him as the son of a tekton. If he was a tekton, and recognized as such why not refer to him just as the tekton. It's been brought to my attention of the patriarchal identification which sounds plausible, but still doesn't explain the difference even due to translations. My viewpoint would be that it should be consistent in both, especially if it was copied from a similar source. Maybe the emphasis on the Son of God as opposed to the Son of Man?

I apologize. It is not the later greek translation, but the actual interpretation of the meaning of the word tekton being used. Some suggest that Tekton was used as a reference to a "learned man". This would imply that Jesus was not being referenced to craftsman, but rather to a rabbi or the son of a rabbi.

Hello again...
Firstly the Aramaic word naggara, or 'NaG'oRoA as the dictionaries spelled it just means 'carpenter' and we don't know that Jesus was called that, the historians just guessed that. So I got nothing there.

OK, to add to your first para, try watching a report of an international incident on your national television news channel, then watch a report about it on, say, BBC, and then watch a report about it on algazeeras (Spelling?) They will have differences, probably because they received varying info from varying sources.

I'm personally not worried that one gospel differs in that particular report, although I get your point that Jesus's original occupation is 'hazy' to us.

2nd Para....Tekton. OK... most of the scholars tell us that Tekton meant artisan, or general craftsman etc. Some insist upon carpenter, which I doubt, and some mention learned man, as in rabbi or teacher.

Will you agree with me that Joseph was unlikely to have been a rabbi, so 'son of rabbi' is out? But I like the idea of learned man, because Jesus/Yeshu was a healer, which meant that somewhere, somehow he learned about herbs, body manipulation, charismatic healing, placebos etc etc.... and the country which knew more about all this was Egypt. The scholars seem to have dismissed Egypt completely as a place of Jesus's early upbringing, but his abilities just keep dragging me back to Egypt, all the time..... The Egyptians were also overhand high-speed swimmers, if the 6000 year carvings of races are seen. I think Jesus was a very powerful swimmer, but that's just my whim and another discussion.

So, all in all, I like Tekton for Learned man.... no problems.

 

[nash8]

Novotich and Jacolliot were Christians. Look them up.

Nicolas Notovitch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Louis Jacolliot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither says anything of being Christian, and it doesn't say it in wikipedia it's not true.

Did you read or did you skim? The debate was about whether Indians were the first ones to purport it or not; well, they weren't. It was Jacolliot and Novotich. And Ahmadi wasn't a Christian, so I don't know where you get the number "three" from. And, yes, Jacolliot and Novotich were hoax-mongerers, nothing more. Jesus never stepped foot in India.

No, it was that no Indians did purport it.

I never made that claim. Is English your first language? And, look up the two names, they were the first proponents of "Jesus in India".

LOL, depending on what part of Russia you Notivitch was from, it could have been an Asian-Christian colonial construct, no? And the French don't count since Napoleon.

No, my India simply has nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus never set foot on India's soil. These are nothing but fabrications. Their continuation is an affront to the history of India.

Cool story brah.

 

[nash8]

You can't really make the claim that the word "Krishna" came from Hebrew or any other Semitic language and landed in India. "Krishna" is an Indo-European term that predates the advent of the word "Christo" (anointed) by a thousand years, give or take. Its first usage is in the Shri Rig Veda, which is the oldest Indo-European text in existence, predating Classical Greek by another thousand years.



Luke never claimed that he believes that Jesus travelled to India. If you re-read his post, he makes it clear that he admires the thought, that is all. Nothing more. Lastly, the idea that Jesus travelled to India was never espoused nor purported by Indians themselves. It was first created by European Christian Missionaries in India in order to get Hindus to convert to Christianity. Thus, is it truly Indo-centric? Far from it.

But, for the fun of it, let's say that Jesus did travel to India (just for the fun of it, don't jump the boat, Daniel, this is just hypothetical).

Let's say it was proven that he did travel to India. Does that still make it Indo-centric?

First of all I don't make the claim that anything related to Krishna or Hinduism came from either Jesus or His teachings.

Having said that, the Jesus in India myths such as the Ahmadi one (if I remember how it goes correctly) do not claim that the name Krishna is derived from "Christ". They claim that Jesus came to India after His time on the cross and taught people Christianity, the teachings of which they are alleged to have gotten mixed up and confused, making them into Buddhism. These claims rely on a variety of fabrications and also cite the parralels between Buddhist and Christian teaching.



And I believe that admiration is misplaced.



Quite to the contrary, whilst I don't know who the first person to advance such fabrications was, I certainly do know of Indians who advanced such claims, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being a case in point.



If you are aware of Jesus in India fabrications by Christians, you are welcome to provide links explaining the hoax, it will all add to an informed discussion of the topic.



Let us not get differing Jesus in India fabrications (JiIF) confused. The JiIF you suggest came from European Christians in which Jesus comes to teach an allegedly (not alleged by me) ignorant Indian population about religion would be Euro-centric. The JiIF in which an ignorant Jesus went to India to learn about religion from Indians for the benefit of Europeans (ie Europeans as defined by luke) would be Indo-centric. Although they are nominally different biases at play, they are all driven by a desire to prove one peoples better than the other, and the other inherently ignorant until receiving the grace of the teaching race.

Read for yourself. You said it was never espoused or purported by Indians themselves. This would mean that you believe that no Indian ever believe that Jesus traveled to India. Regardless, of your following statement that it was first created by Europeans.

 

[Poeticus]

Neither says anything of being Christian, and it doesn't say it in wikipedia it's not true.

Read their biographies on Google Books. And, wikipedia isn't the best source.

Read for yourself. You said it was never espoused or purported by Indians themselves. This would mean that you believe that no Indian ever believe that Jesus traveled to India. Regardless, of your following statement that it was first created by Europeans.

Regardless? The only reason I say that no Indian purported it was because no Indian created the the concept of Jesus in India. Who created the fabrication? It was a non-Indian. That was my point from the beginning.

LOL, depending on what part of Russia you Notivitch was from, it could have been an Asian-Christian colonial construct, no? And the French don't count since Napoleon.

Cool story brah.

Better than your anti-French sentiment.