The theory about Jesus surviving crucifixion and coming to India is quite a thought provoking matter. It is a controversial subject. Though it is just a theory and not the gospel truth, the purpose of this writings are just to uncover some reasons leading to people believing that Jesus actually came to India & died in Kashmir. Truth, myth or fallacy is up to the reader's own discernment. They are not my own views. Just the findings of some people who are involved in the pursuit of their own truth who are trying to put the history to acid test & to verify it's authencity .
In the following dialogue you are about to see took place on the 11th July 2003 between BBC Four & Richard Denton. The dialogue explores whether Jesus survived crucifixion and where he would have gone if he survived along with the reasons given to such belief.
THE BBC INTERVIEW (July 2003)
BBC Four: Your central question is did Jesus die on the cross rather than did Jesus die at all.
Richard Denton: It is really. I originally wanted to call it The Body of Christ because that seems to me to be the crucial question. Obviously he died at some point, but when and how is the question.
BBC Four: How do you think he might have survived crucifixion?
RD: Crucifixion took up to three days; the maximum he was on the cross for was nine hours, it might even have been six. And even if you read the gospels Pontius Pilate is clearly surprised that he's already dead and wants to be reassured by the centurion that he really is dead. My personal take on it would be that he goes into a shock induced coma, and probably they thought he was dead.
BBC Four: If he did survive why do you think it's not related in that way in the gospels?
RD: First of all, they would think it was a miraculous resurrection. You don't have to think of that as a conspiracy theory or a lie, it's just a mistake. What you then have to do is get him out of the way. The real question doesn't hang over the resurrection, which I think is explicable. The real question hangs over him ascending into heaven.
BBC Four: You make the point that the Ascension isn't actually mentioned in the gospels.
RD: It's not in any of the original versions of the gospels which is astonishing. It was in the last 16 verses of Mark, which were put in 300 years after and it's inserted, in a sentence, into some versions of Luke because he was assumed to have written the Acts and it's mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. That I think is the lie, the cover story to get him out of the country.
BBC Four: If Jesus was revived in this way where then did he go?
RD: One story is that he gets out and goes to the South of France with Mary Magdalene, there is a certain amount of evidence that she went there. And the other is that he goes to India and there are a number of versions of this. One of which suggests that in fact he had already been to India during the missing years between 12 and 29.
BBC Four: It was very interesting the parallel between the story of the three kings and the search for a reincarnated Lama…
RD: Absolutely, we explore that and the similarities between the miracles and the teachings of the Buddha and Jesus in the programme. And of course Buddha pre-dates Jesus by about 500 years, so it's not unreasonable that he may have gone to India, learned Buddhist teaching and brought it back. Then when he returns to India after the crucifixion he carries on the ministry in Kashmir until he dies at the age of 80.
BBC Four: What actually prompted you to start exploring this topic?
RD: I was intrigued because most academic theologians and intelligent churchmen, or a very significant number of them, do not believe that the resurrection is the literal truth. It's a metaphor to tell us that there is hope. Whilst not saying that it's a literal truth they don't actually say it's a lie, but if you're saying something's not literal truth then you are saying it's a lie. I was shocked that none of the people we interviewed, with the exception of the Cannon of Westminster, believed it was true. Yet if they don't think it's true what on earth do they think is the motivation behind writing the story in the Bible?
BBC Four: You say that the resurrection and the literal truth of the Gospel have in the past been the cornerstone of Christianity.
RD: Exactly. And the idea that you can go on preaching this to the ordinary faithful while not believing it yourself seemed to me truly offensive. So what I was looking for was another version of the story that had the possibility of being historically true, that could have been misinterpreted by the people at the time, so that what they said was not a lie, it was the way they understood it.
BBC Four: And in the end have you found that the most credible account?
RD: Yes, I think so. On the other hand I am a person who does not find the idea of rising from the dead and ascending into heaven credible. I'm faced with the choice, do I believe that the gospel writers were cunning liars or do I think they were simple men who misunderstood things and were amazed by this man.
BBC Four: And did these feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green?
RD: I personally don't think they did walk upon England's mountains green, I think they walked upon Kashmir's mountains green. They may have walked in France for all I know.
The BBC Documentary Part 1: Jesus in Kashmir, India.
The BBC Documentary Part 2: Jesus in Kashmir, India.
The BBC Documentary Part 3: Jesus in Kashmir, India.
What assumption can one make based on these so called "clues" of Jesus surviving crucifixion, travelling to India & dying in Kashmir? Are these hard enough to be called as evidence or is it just mere rubbish made by people out there to confuse the followers of Christianity? If it is true that this is the motive of unscrupulous people out there to wreak havoc in the history of Christianity, I don't see how it has succeeded so far. Perhaps, an archeologist could shed some light & verify the authencity of these claims?
In the following dialogue you are about to see took place on the 11th July 2003 between BBC Four & Richard Denton. The dialogue explores whether Jesus survived crucifixion and where he would have gone if he survived along with the reasons given to such belief.
THE BBC INTERVIEW (July 2003)
BBC Four: Your central question is did Jesus die on the cross rather than did Jesus die at all.
Richard Denton: It is really. I originally wanted to call it The Body of Christ because that seems to me to be the crucial question. Obviously he died at some point, but when and how is the question.
BBC Four: How do you think he might have survived crucifixion?
RD: Crucifixion took up to three days; the maximum he was on the cross for was nine hours, it might even have been six. And even if you read the gospels Pontius Pilate is clearly surprised that he's already dead and wants to be reassured by the centurion that he really is dead. My personal take on it would be that he goes into a shock induced coma, and probably they thought he was dead.
BBC Four: If he did survive why do you think it's not related in that way in the gospels?
RD: First of all, they would think it was a miraculous resurrection. You don't have to think of that as a conspiracy theory or a lie, it's just a mistake. What you then have to do is get him out of the way. The real question doesn't hang over the resurrection, which I think is explicable. The real question hangs over him ascending into heaven.
BBC Four: You make the point that the Ascension isn't actually mentioned in the gospels.
RD: It's not in any of the original versions of the gospels which is astonishing. It was in the last 16 verses of Mark, which were put in 300 years after and it's inserted, in a sentence, into some versions of Luke because he was assumed to have written the Acts and it's mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. That I think is the lie, the cover story to get him out of the country.
BBC Four: If Jesus was revived in this way where then did he go?
RD: One story is that he gets out and goes to the South of France with Mary Magdalene, there is a certain amount of evidence that she went there. And the other is that he goes to India and there are a number of versions of this. One of which suggests that in fact he had already been to India during the missing years between 12 and 29.
BBC Four: It was very interesting the parallel between the story of the three kings and the search for a reincarnated Lama…
RD: Absolutely, we explore that and the similarities between the miracles and the teachings of the Buddha and Jesus in the programme. And of course Buddha pre-dates Jesus by about 500 years, so it's not unreasonable that he may have gone to India, learned Buddhist teaching and brought it back. Then when he returns to India after the crucifixion he carries on the ministry in Kashmir until he dies at the age of 80.
BBC Four: What actually prompted you to start exploring this topic?
RD: I was intrigued because most academic theologians and intelligent churchmen, or a very significant number of them, do not believe that the resurrection is the literal truth. It's a metaphor to tell us that there is hope. Whilst not saying that it's a literal truth they don't actually say it's a lie, but if you're saying something's not literal truth then you are saying it's a lie. I was shocked that none of the people we interviewed, with the exception of the Cannon of Westminster, believed it was true. Yet if they don't think it's true what on earth do they think is the motivation behind writing the story in the Bible?
BBC Four: You say that the resurrection and the literal truth of the Gospel have in the past been the cornerstone of Christianity.
RD: Exactly. And the idea that you can go on preaching this to the ordinary faithful while not believing it yourself seemed to me truly offensive. So what I was looking for was another version of the story that had the possibility of being historically true, that could have been misinterpreted by the people at the time, so that what they said was not a lie, it was the way they understood it.
BBC Four: And in the end have you found that the most credible account?
RD: Yes, I think so. On the other hand I am a person who does not find the idea of rising from the dead and ascending into heaven credible. I'm faced with the choice, do I believe that the gospel writers were cunning liars or do I think they were simple men who misunderstood things and were amazed by this man.
BBC Four: And did these feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green?
RD: I personally don't think they did walk upon England's mountains green, I think they walked upon Kashmir's mountains green. They may have walked in France for all I know.
The BBC Documentary Part 1: Jesus in Kashmir, India.
The BBC Documentary Part 2: Jesus in Kashmir, India.
The BBC Documentary Part 3: Jesus in Kashmir, India.
What assumption can one make based on these so called "clues" of Jesus surviving crucifixion, travelling to India & dying in Kashmir? Are these hard enough to be called as evidence or is it just mere rubbish made by people out there to confuse the followers of Christianity? If it is true that this is the motive of unscrupulous people out there to wreak havoc in the history of Christianity, I don't see how it has succeeded so far. Perhaps, an archeologist could shed some light & verify the authencity of these claims?
1 comment:
Oh wow!!Jesus's tomb in Kashmir cannot be ruled .St Thomas's tomb is in Mylapore,Chennai,India(there is also a place called St.Thomas Mount in Chennai,Tamil Nadu,India)and the jews did go to India after the Romans drove them out from Juruselam.
Post a Comment