Are there ANY movies out there that show Jesus in India? Or do they just skip it because it's so controversial and some people believe Jesus never went to India?
There's no evidence Jesus existed, much less went anywhere. But the traditionally accepted hagiography of Jesus doesn't include a lot in the way of post-crucifixion journeys. The whole "Jesus went to India to teach/be taught by the yogis/Buddhists" is kind of a New Age theosophical talking point. They propose it because they wish to syncretically rope Eastern religion (or their versions of it, at any rate) into their belief system. Unless one is open to their proposition that Jesus was one of several "Ascended Masters" (like their use for Buddha, Krishna, Compte Saint Germane, and Benjamin Creme) or something like it, it's going to come off as nutty as the Latter Day Saints claim that Jesus came to the Americas to preach to the native inhabitants.
Couldn't help but notice how "Jesus of Nazareth" just skipped a ton of years and went straight from boy-Jesus to adult (and clearly been one for a while!) Jesus.
When Christ was in the process of being
euhemerized as Jesus, he originally never had a birth or a childhood. Theological need drove the narrative as they were building it, and there was no need for one. Jesus came from heaven and simply appeared one day as an adult, and it is in that sense that the first gospel, that of Mark, presents him: he simply wanders into the narrative from nowhere.
This didn't present a problem for gnostics and Docetists, who never believed he had a physical form beyond necessary illusion, but for the proto-orthodox who were attempting to euhemerize him as a flesh-and-blood person, it presented a problem. In the first gospel there's no birth! What a situation! So, two different communities of believers attacked the problem and produced two separate, irreconcilable birth accounts (those of Matthew and Luke). These served the purpose of establishing what they sought to prove - that he was born as a man, and his lineage from David and from Adam.
The only other theological necessity was that of his mission, which ostensibly began in his adulthood; nothing between birth and ministry was necessary. Other Christians speculated, and wrote infancy gospels speculating on what the childhood of a god-man must have been like, but this was more to satisfy curiosity than anything else. There was no theological need to be served by filling in those years, and that's why they're left blank.
§ "Precisely the point of a
lonnnng dinin' table."
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
Grazie_Noel_63
10 years ago
Well he is mentioned in non biblical scriptures. So it is very possible he did exist as a historical person.
How do non-canonical scriptures constitute proof that the canonical ones do not?
§ "Precisely the point of a
lonnnng dinin' table."
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
kurgan-10
9 years ago
Out of the thousands (or tens of thousands) of qualified modern scholars (notice I say qualified, not self-appointed new age gurus publishing stuff through vanity presses or on or internet forums) only a small handful seriously doubt the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the person described in the New Testament and worshiped by Christianity.
The "well if he existed" then is an unnecessary caveat, a bit like saying "if evolution is real." It's pretty much a settled question. Yes I know that every year somebody comes out with a book, or video, or website claiming otherwise, but people claim all sorts of things. We don't take it seriously just because somebody makes the claim, only if their argument carries weight. When 99.99999% of those who have sifted the data and are qualified in that area beyond the average joe (so they know best) aren't convinced, then why should we be?
There's a "theory" that Jesus went to England. There's another that he went to Japan. Millions of Mormons have sincerely believed for a century or so that he came to the Americas. None of these theories are taken anymore seriously than the "India" theory presented above. Because only a few on the fringe take these ideas seriously even in the general public, that's why you're not likely to get a big budget movie portraying it as if it were real. The general public may be often gullible (see the success of Dan Brown's novels), it doesn't mean they're completely stupid.
The "Aquarian Gospel" is worth a chuckle, since it's not even an ancient document, but something somebody claimed to have basically channeled (in modern times). So it's about as useful as the Book of Mormon or the rantings of L. Ron Hubbard in terms of learning actual data about ancient history.
As for the claims that Jesus went to India, there were a lot of popular speculations, but they all seem concentrated in the 19th century when every two-bit hack was writing a book or trying to start a new religion based on a novel interpretation of Jesus, the end of the world or the occult.
The earliest claims we have are from many hundreds of years after the canonical gospels were written (remember, even though the four gospels were not "canonized" or officially recognized as inspired scripture by the mainstream Church until the late 4th century AD, they were none-the-less written in the first century, and the NT was completed by the year 100). Which is more likely to be accurate, records written about someone within a hundred years of their death (the four gospels were completed within 40 years of Jesus' death while some of his original followers would still have been around, the letters of paul were completed within 20-30 years of Jesus' death, and the remaining writings from the deutero-Pauline material to Revelation were completed within 60-70 years of Jesus's death; the mentions in Josephus and the others within a century of Jesus' death if memory serves, that is Tacitus and Suetonius, and you can probably add on the pieces that may refer to Jesus included in the Talmud though these are probably the least reliable of the bunch)... or something written 500, 1000, 1500 or 1800 years afterward?
The real origin for the "Jesus went to India" thing probably was the confused legends that emerged from Christian missionaries going to India, and taking the story of Siddartha Gautama (the historical Buddha) and modifying it into a hagiography of a Christian saint. Then these wild-eyed 19th century dudes, bored with their Judeo-Christian heritage, and in search of something more palatable to their modern way of thinking, took it and ran with it.
So both the "Jesus went to India" and "Jesus never existed" theories are busted. But the internet will keep them alive forever, alongside UFO conspiracy theories and other snake oil, because, it's the internet. ;p
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)
reply
share
bastasch8647
9 years ago
Very well said.
:)
reply
share
cwente2
9 years ago
Further to this subject, Lawrence Mykytiuk (is associate professor of library science and the history librarian at Purdue University - holds a PHD in Hebrew and Semitic studies - and is the author of the book Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B,C.E.) has written two articles in recent Biblical Archaeology Review issues which discuss the historicity of Biblical figures who have been shown in extra-Biblical sources (documentary, or literary, and archaeological) to have actually existed at the time they were said to have existed in the Bible. There are 52 incivicuals from the Old Testament cited in the first article. The second article deals with mentions of Jesus of Nazareth in extra-Biblical accounts (non-faith-based or specifically non-Christian accounts). There are really only a handfull, with the most prominent being Tacitus, Josephus, and Suetonius. Things made quite clear in these sources: that he was executed in Jerusalem on Pontius Pilate's order, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius; that he was crucified; that he had a following and that his followers considered him the Messiah; that that following grew and spread even to Rome; that he was an "evil magician"; and that he made "outrageous claims" about himself. All the sources were very antagonistic toward both the man Jesus and his movement. Interesting stuff. I recommend you take a look. BAR has a website you may wish to google. Reading these sources leaves little doubt about the "historicity" of the man we Christians call "the Christ".
reply
share
kurgan-10
9 years ago
Well said. Neutral or hostile sources reporting the historical existence of these figures only strengthens their authenticity.
Of course a "Jesus Myther" tends to start from the standpoint that Christians are liars, and then presumes that non-Christian mentions must have been tampered with by aforementioned Christian liars once they got into power, or something.
Makes it hard to understand how they think we can know anything about history at all, never mind ancient history... ;p
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)
reply
share
cwente2
9 years ago
kurgan,
Mykytiuk mentions in his piece that the strongest argument for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, is the fact that while hating and condemning Christ and his movement, none of these antagonists ever suggested that he didn't exist, or that the events they discuss concerning him never happened . . . which would, certainly, have been their best weapon against both the man and his cause. Couldn't agree more. (Tacitus, especially, would never discuss events as history which were, based on his own sources and experiences as proconsul in Asia, fictional.)
Btw, some portions of Josephus (in Antiquities) which have come down to us were in all probability added later by Christian supporters. But, they're easy to identify and written in a form very unlike Josephus' brand of rhetoric. But, in taking them out, the meaning re Jesus' historicity remains the same and, clearly, to the vast majority of scholars, is indisputably written in Josephus' unique style.
reply
share
kurgan-10
9 years ago
I'd heard this argument mainly with regard to Flavius Josephus. But in any case, even the presence of Christian interpolations doesn't go as far as the Mythers would like, that is to say, that it's all Christian corruptions and can't be trusted so he didn't exist, etc.
When a "heresy" existed, a Christian wrote against it. No Christian writings against Jesus Mythers exist until the modern era, when, coincidentally people started doubting the historical existence of Jesus.
Hence, I don't see any reason to presume he was not a real person from ancient times. Intelligent atheists realize just because a claim is ancient and covered in theology doesn't mean it must be "mythical" and non-historical. So even as a theist myself, I can see their pov. The Mythers have a bad epistemology and don't have consistent standards. They're out of touch with the academic world and how it works, unfortunately.
I've told a few atheists though that if they see the future of atheism as ignorance of Christianity, that just means they'll be ripe for conversion, since these future natural atheists will have no defense against strong apologetics!
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)
reply
share
cwente2
9 years ago
You're quite right about Tacitus/Josephus. I was thinking Josephus (The Antiquities of the Jews) and continuing to write Tacitus. Thanks for the correction. I've corrected my post.
reply
share
sun_scryer
9 years ago
The real origin for the "Jesus went to India" thing probably was the confused legends that emerged from Christian missionaries going to India, and taking the story of Siddartha Gautama (the historical Buddha) and modifying it into a hagiography of a Christian saint. Then these wild-eyed 19th century dudes, bored with their Judeo-Christian heritage, and in search of something more palatable to their modern way of thinking, took it and ran with it.
Makes sense.
---------
(In reply to hwcperfect re Godzilla 2014)
LaLlama: Make me give a *beep* whats going on
reply
share
cwente2
9 years ago
There's an article in Smithsonian magazine which deals with this rather preposterous notion. I've forgotten most of what it said, but I think the story's continuation is centered on economic issues affecting the region in question, not on any serious religious issues. Maybe you can find the article on the net?
reply
share