Was 'Jesus' ie; 'Yeshua', really a man of the East?

[LuisDantas]

Right

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm

That is just an oddity with no significance.

You mentioned historical records of Jesus travelling to India in a previous post, but far as I know there are not historical records of Jesus himself, let alone of such a travel.

 

[Desert Snake]

The scholarly consensus seems to indicate that they are, with the exception being that 'Jesus' represents Yeshua with pagan doctrines overlaid onto Yeshua. Yeshua, an Essene of the sect of the Nazarenes, did not teach blood sacrifice nor bodily resurrection. These doctrines came from the pagan religions, along with that of a virgin birth.

That's nice, however, it isn't my religious belief.

 

[Fool]

What evidence or teaching is there to point to the idea that who we call 'Jesus' was actually a man called 'Yeshua', and whose original teachings are Eastern (ie 'Dharmic') in origin? The so-called '18 missing years' of Jesus is highly suspect; it is the Son of God living in a total vacuum amongst his family and neighbors. The Christian scriptures are silent, while we have a number of accounts and reports from the East as to his whereabouts and activities.

(Note: This thread is a departure from the DIR thread: "Jesus in the Dharmic religions")

How should we view Jesus in the Dharmic Religions?

the nard that Jesus was annointed with came from the himalayans. it was a signal

Revelation 16:12
The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.

 

[Fool]

That is just an oddity with no significance.

You mentioned historical records of Jesus travelling to India in a previous post, but far as I know there are not historical records of Jesus himself, let alone of such a travel.

the essenes didn't keep historical records.

Kashmir

india recorded thomas' coming.

http://www.nasranifoundation.org/

 

[godnotgod]

That's a series of hypotheses arranged from the most sane to the most outlandish.

Actually, it is the first that is most outlandish: God in the flesh, living amongst his relatives and neighbors in a small village where everyone knows everything; where Jesus is known by everyone to be wise beyond his years in spiritual and religious matters, but of whom not a single word has been written during this span of some 18 years by the Christian community, and about whom a body of knowledge exists, both written and oral, from several Eastern sources? The fact that the account of his 18 silent years spent in 'Nazareth' is in a total vacuum points to the idea that this is a concocted story, especially in light of the fact that, to date, no archaeological or historical evidence exists of a 1st century Nazareth. Thousands of other spiritual and religious teachers have at least a footnote in history, but Jesus not a single peep for those 18 years. Not gonna buy it. Any good investigator would know to look elsewhere, especially when a number of alerts come out of elsewhere.

 

[godnotgod]

As a jewish male who kept the torah it is highly likely he was required to marry and do other required things. His ministry starts at 33 not at 13. Thats plenty of time to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth if he took that command as a personal one and if he could reproduce. That doesn't clinch it, but not only that but his birthday, house location and other personal details are left out of all accounts of him - the opposite of darmic deities. With them every detail matters, every freckle.

Except for the fact that he says things that are mystical in nature, for example: "I and my Father are one". That is a statement coming from divine union, and is, in effect, Dharmic in nature, for example, "Tat tvam asi" from Hinduism, and "Ordinary Mind and Buddha Mind are One". Jesus was a Jewish mystic, a member not of the orthodox Jewish community, but of the sect of the Nazarenes, a mystical cult.

 

[godnotgod]

That's nice, however, it isn't my religious belief.

Which is not your belief?

 

[godnotgod]

Belief does not mean not knowing, or not evidenced.
Beliefs can either be evidenced, or not.

If you know, then there is no need for belief. You can have evidence and still not know. The premise of my argument, however, is that there is a body of evidence from various Eastern sources which, taken altogether, create a comprehensive picture of Yeshua's Eastern travels, esp in light of his 18 missing years in the Near East.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't have any horse in this race, but I think you're imposing your view onto this statement. The statements is a request for forgiveness for people whom the author is claiming are sinning out of ignorance. It's not a request for forgiveness for ignorance. That would be "forgive them for not knowing". What this is saying is "forgive them because they don't know". The underlying concept of sins out of ignorance versus intentional sins is a Jewish concept.

I disagree. 'Forgive them for they know not what they do' points directly to their 'not knowing', which is ignorance. IOW, they don't understand the nature of their doing, that nature being ignorance. Because their action is based upon ignorance, how can it be sinful, which is precisely the reason Jesus is asking that they be forgiven. It's like you find your children marking up the walls with crayons. They are innocent of sin, but are acting out of ignorance, and thus, are forgiven. In the case of those who murdered Jesus, they were doing the correct thing according to the law. They were not murdering anyone, but punishing a criminal under both religious and Roman law. He was guilty of blasphemy on the one hand, and sedition and treason on the other.

 

[crossfire]

Actually, it is the first that is most outlandish: God in the flesh, living amongst his relatives and neighbors in a small village where everyone knows everything; where Jesus is known by everyone to be wise beyond his years in spiritual and religious matters, but of whom not a single word has been written during this span of some 18 years by the Christian community, and about whom a body of knowledge exists, both written and oral, from several Eastern sources? The fact that the account of his 18 silent years spent in 'Nazareth' is in a total vacuum points to the idea that this is a concocted story, especially in light of the fact that, to date, no archaeological or historical evidence exists of a 1st century Nazareth. Thousands of other spiritual and religious teachers have at least a footnote in history, but Jesus not a single peep for those 18 years. Not gonna buy it. Any good investigator would know to look elsewhere, especially when a number of alerts come out of elsewhere.

Wasn't the family in hiding? Not a peep would be a good thing in that case, no?

 

[Tumah]

I disagree. 'Forgive them for they know not what they do' points directly to their 'not knowing', which is ignorance. IOW, they don't understand the nature of their doing, that nature being ignorance. Because their action is based upon ignorance, how can it be sinful, which is precisely the reason Jesus is asking that they be forgiven. It's like you find your children marking up the walls with crayons. They are innocent of sin, but are acting out of ignorance, and thus, are forgiven. In the case of those who murdered Jesus, they were doing the correct thin according to the law. They were not murdering anyone, but punishing a criminal.

One of us doesn't know what you are trying to say. Before you explained that the request was that they be forgiven for their ignorance. As you said:

This is not a request of forgiveness of his transgressors for their SIN, but of their IGNORANCE.
​

Not knowing is ignorance. But the request that is being made in this narrative, is that they be forgiven for doing something because it was made in ignorance. It's not a request for the ignorance to be forgiven, it's a request for the sin to be forgiven on the basis of that sin being committed in ignorance. And like I said before, while in Judaism, the prayer in the narrative is misplaced, the concept of committing a sin in ignorance as a lighter sin, is definitely Jewish.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Except for the fact that he says things that are mystical in nature, for example: "I and my Father are one". That is a statement coming from divine union, and is, in effect, Dharmic in nature, for example, "Tat tvam asi" from Hinduism, and "Ordinary Mind and Buddha Mind are One". Jesus was a Jewish mystic, a member not of the orthodox Jewish community, but of the sect of the Nazarenes, a mystical cult.

That is an idea, however the idea of union presented here is in the 4th gospel which borrows immediately from Genesis and the the famous "Let us make man in our image..." though I cannot verify the translation. John need not be borrowing anything from eastern dharmic scools as he has all of his ingredients locally if we count the Greek Koine he uses. There's no smoking gun leading to the Vedas.

 

[Desert Snake]

Which is not your belief?

Everything you wrote.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you know, then there is no need for belief.

That isn't what the word belief , means.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What evidence or teaching is there to point to the idea that who we call 'Jesus' was actually a man called 'Yeshua', and whose original teachings are Eastern (ie 'Dharmic') in origin? The so-called '18 missing years' of Jesus is highly suspect; it is the Son of God living in a total vacuum amongst his family and neighbors. The Christian scriptures are silent, while we have a number of accounts and reports from the East as to his whereabouts and activities.

(Note: This thread is a departure from the DIR thread: "Jesus in the Dharmic religions")

How should we view Jesus in the Dharmic Religions?

There are NO missing years for Jesus: Luke 2:50-52

Jesus lived in Nazareth and had local renown DURING those "missing years".

 

[Desert Snake]

Did you read all the Christian scriptures or just the New Testament?

Jesus died. It is Christ that lives. Jesus was a physical holy thing (Luke). He never became Christ until the Spirit anointed him (baptism).

No, Jesus in Spirit form, is still Jesus, in other words, God.

Otherwise, no point in Him attaining the spirit body, or resurrected body, by which He presented Himself, to the apostles.

Where Jesus, went after He left the area, a matter of speculation, so forth.

 

[Phantasman]

No, Jesus in Spirit form, is still Jesus, in other words, God.

Otherwise, no point in Him attaining the spirit body, or resurrected body, by which He presented Himself, to the apostles.

Where Jesus, went after He left the area, a matter of speculation, so forth.

That's orthodoxy. I am not of the catholic orthodox thought.

Jesus said his Father was greater than him. He siad the words he spoke was not "his" but his Fathers. This is in line with John 16:13.

The Holy Spirit was Christs Mother, not Mary who was the mother of Jesus.

Luke:
20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Without the non Canon Gospels, there isn't enough to show the problems of orthodoxy.

The Holy Spirit is Mother and it's her voive that says "this is my son, hear him". Jesus said we have never heard the Fathers voice.

 

[Desert Snake]

That's orthodoxy. I am not of the catholic orthodox thought.

Jesus said his Father was greater than him. He siad the words he spoke was not "his" but his Fathers. This is in line with John 16:13.

Actually, Jesus also said that father was in Him, and He, in the father. This is not like a possession, or speaking someone elses words.
Colossians 1:15
JESUS pre-exists incarnation in Israel.

The Holy Spirit was Christs Mother, not Mary who was the mother of Jesus.

Luke:
20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

I don't believe this to be saying, how you are interpreting, it.

Without the non Canon Gospels, there isn't enough to show the problems of orthodoxy.

The Holy Spirit is Mother and it's her voive that says "this is my son, hear him". Jesus said we have never heard the Fathers voice.

Well, you can present verses for that, if you want.

 

[Phantasman]

Actually, Jesus also said that father was in Him, and He, in the father. This is not like a possession, or speaking someone elses words.
Colossians 1:15
JESUS pre-exists incarnation in Israel.



I don't believe this to be saying, how you are interpreting, it.



Well, you can present verses for that, if you want.

(101) <Jesus said,> "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. For my mother [...], but my true mother gave me life."- Gospel of Thomas

His spiritual mother gave him life. Not Mary.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus is explaining the difference between flesh (physical) and spirit. Your mother becomes the Holy Spirit, as it did with Paul.

It was the Spirit that taught Paul and separated him from flesh and the Jews religion.

Galatians:
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

To become one with the Father as Jesus was, you become a son of God, a Christ. This is the fire baptism, destroying the (concept of) flesh.

It's the Gospel message.

 

[74x12]

What evidence or teaching is there to point to the idea that who we call 'Jesus' was actually a man called 'Yeshua', and whose original teachings are Eastern (ie 'Dharmic') in origin? The so-called '18 missing years' of Jesus is highly suspect; it is the Son of God living in a total vacuum amongst his family and neighbors. The Christian scriptures are silent, while we have a number of accounts and reports from the East as to his whereabouts and activities.

(Note: This thread is a departure from the DIR thread: "Jesus in the Dharmic religions")

How should we view Jesus in the Dharmic Religions?

I believe He is a man of the sky rather than the east.