The Lost Years of Jesus

Interesting V,

Did you know that there's a DVD about this?

Oops, I should have watched it first! That link is only about the years in Egypt as a child! I have a little book I bought in Cairo about those years. I can't bear the dramatic voice and music of the commentator - I think it would put me off getting it! 😉

Actually though, I'm sure that there is also one being made of the lost years before he was 30.

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Judy,

To me the main worth of this text lies in itself and its goodness, and its stateliness of language (as we receive it in English anyway).

The canonical Gospels are quite a let-down for Christians IMHO in the way that Jesus gets to be twelve - and then that's it, until he was thirty! As if he was for eighteen whole years, a person of his stature, just learning to be a carpenter or something. Most Christians would say this, or just never think about those "missing years". But are they missing because he wasn't in the land of his birth, and somehow the Hemis or Himis document has a wider view of his whole life?

However, this gospel is also quite a challenge to several orthodoxes. First, to Christian orthodoxy. The Christology of the gospel is ambiguous I'd say, for on the one hand it does say that God came to earth and embodied in flesh through Jesus or Issa. On the other hand, it has Jesus as a pupil and learner, with teachers - in languages, in the art of divine healing, in working miracles and in learning the scriptures of many lands. My personal PoV is that this points toward a man like a person such as we are, not born with omniscience (hence surely not the one God uniquely incarnate), but having to learn it. In other words, it can also be seen as going along with "New Age Christology" i.e. that he was a person like you and I, who happened to be more advanced, and that we all may become the Christ.

Considering his many years of studying out East, it also at least implies that he believed in karma and reincarnation (see my link to the scholarly article in my first post, on this).

Then we have him denouncing "the god, Jaine". Is this a reference to Jainism? I'm not sure.

He clearly taught against the caste system in India, and against the Brahmins (who sought to kill him, as happened later in his homeland by the priestly class too).

And he spent "six years", according to this gospel, studying and learning to understand the Vedas, only then for this -

[COLOR="Blue"]12 Issa denied the divine origin of the Vedas* and the Puranas*. "For," taught he to his followers, "a law has already been given to man to guide him in his actions; *[The Abhedananda version of the Himis transcript does not include this denunciation]

13 "Fear thy God, bend the knee before him only, and bring to him alone the offerings which proceed from thy gains."

14 Issa denied the Trimurti and the incarnation of Para-Brahma in Vishnu, Siva*, and other gods, for said he: *[The Abhedananda version of the Himis transcript does not include this denunciation]

15 "The Judge Eternal, the Eternal Spirit, comprehends the one and indivisible soul of the universe, which alone creates, contains, and vivifies all.

And he denounced all idols. Which would surely imply Hindu (as we now call it) idols, gods, and likenesses as well.

However, I see the statements against proto-Hinduism (for want of a better term) as not being so harsh. He's not saying the Vedas are of no worth, just that they are humanly-written, hence fallible, as I'd say the Christian gospels are, and not the infallible "word of God". Also, he'll have understood that 'Hindu' people are kind of worshipping God through Hindu idols. But his point in the gospel, if we accept it as authentic, is that it's far better to go straight to the God within your heart: that God dwells in man, and it's a lesser path to think you'll find divinity in wood or stone.

So the gospel challenges beliefs left, right, and centre - as, I suppose, you would expect of Jesus!

[The name "Issa" of course is really the same as "Jesus", BTW, as it would more likely have been pronounced Yesu, without the hard 'j'.]

Interesting, isn't it, that in his own copying of the text, Abhedananda left out any denunciation or negatives towards the Vedas and Hindu idols. :p It's a perfect example of how scriptures change or get edited over time, to suit the religio-politics of people.

V

I wonder where they got the text for this manuscript as no one has ever been able to produce the original. Notovitch has been supported by some and denounced by others - with the balance of opinion being in favour of a hoax. Two points to ponder: 'Issa' is the Muslim name for Jesus and does not appear in Buddhist writings, and Buddhism did not reach Ladakh until the 2nd century AD - so there would have been no monasteries in which to house such a document.

If you like the Jesus in India theory, you would probably enjoy "Jesus lived in India" by Holger Kersten (1986). There is also a book of the same title written in 1890, by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect. He claims that Jesus was resuscitated in the tomb and escaped to India, where he died at a ripe old age and is buried in Srinagar under the name 'Yuz Asaf'.

Hi,

Nicholas Notovitch was shown the manuscript in the main monastery in Himis, Ladakh. Since Notovitch, a number of very eminent people journeyed there are also presented with it: Yogananda (if memory serves me right), other yogis, Nicholas Roerich the great painter and humanitarian, and finally Madam Caspari about half a century ago. It's said that now the manuscript is not there, or at least the monks deny that it is.

I can foresee the scenario in which they'd want to shield it from the world (the original, which is ancient, and they have no copies) once it became famous, or it may have been spirited away to another location more likely.

It never was said that the manuscript had been in Himis since 200 AD, but that a copy that's old but more recent ended up there with countless others.

I'd disagree that the balance of favour is in favour of it being a hoax (though what if the balance does go that way?): at least, scholars are simply, as always, divided ... and then orthodox Christians (and maybe Hindus) have a vested interest in denying a document in conflict with their beliefs.

Thanks. I've long had the Holger Kersten book BTW and that's one I don't rate. It's more his own musings and suppositions than fact - disappointing. I don't really take to his musings either which tend to be along the lines of "A might be true, it looks like B is true, so therefore I also think C, D, and E. Come to think of it, I don't just consider C, D, and E but I hereby state them as fact."

But thanks for mentioning it.

--------------------------------

Edit to add re the Kersten book. This is the book in which it was popularised (for the first time?) as an idea that Jesus never died on the cross, but effectively faked it, taking a drug that stopped bodily processes. If that were so, he didn't Resurrect, etc., and one would fail to see the importance of Jesus as a figure anyway. He'd be more of a charlatan. As throughout, Kersten has no evidence for this, and it's all supposition. Starting out as "What if...?" he then just kinda establishes it as fact as the book goes on.

So we then hear that Jesus didn't Ascend, but lived to be in his eighties. (Why virtually hide away for so long a life? That doesn't sound like the Jesus-figure.) And Kersten also started the ball rolling about Jesus marrying Magdeline (and having children, the now-famed blood-line oft discredited as described in Holy Blood / Holy Grail).

The MS Notovitch found points out that Jesus departed his homeland aged 13 to avoid the mandatory future-wedding vows required past age 12. So not only does the Notovitch MS sort of go against Kersten's mere idea, but also ... I don't know details about Jewish customs (at that time). Does anyone? I'm just wondering if Jesus indeed would have had to depart aged 13 for that reason, not wanting to get spliced 😀 - and if Kersten's idea of a later marriage in Jesus' 30s would be considered normal?

V

I might have known you would already have the Kersten book! I certainly wasn't recommending it as in any way factual - it is hardly a scholarly or academic work, and not much contained therein is original -it's just an interesting read.

The idea that Jesus did not really die on the cross is as old as Christianity itself. Many of Jesus' followers did not want to believe that their leader had died such an humiliating death. In the Apocalypse of Peter, the man on the cross is a substitute (doctrine of docetism which was outlawed at the Council of Chalcedon). In Islam, also, Jesus does not die on the cross (Qur'an 4:157-8), that would be too degrading for a prophet of God.

As for Jesus being married - that idea arises because good Jewish men were obliged to be married - the reason it is never mentioned in the NT is because it would simply have been taken for granted. In Mark 16:1, Mary of Magdala goes to the tomb with Mary the mother of James (and presumably Jesus), to anoint the body (despite the fact that it was not Jewish custom to anoint the body after death). From this it is extrapolated that MM must have been Jesus' wife because it would have been most improper for any woman, other than a wife, to have done such a thing.

The alternative hypothesis is that Jesus was not married because he was a member of a monastic sect, a Nazarene, a branch of the Essenes. The view that Jesus was an Essene is gaining ground - even the Pope seems to be coming round to the idea.

Hello Venetian
Did you ever read Jesus the Man by Dr Barbara Thiering, a theologan based in Sydney? Also Genesis of the Grail Kings by Sir Laurence Gardner, who describes himself as archivist to the Royal Houses of Europe - both expand these theories. Interesting!
I read in another book a number of years ago from the library that early Islam considered Jesus to be a prophet, not the son of God, but unfortunately can't remember its details.
quote: 'I'd say the Christian gospels are, and not the infallible "word of God".' Is any written word?
Considering the amount of negotiation that went on at the Council of Nicea 325AD when 'Christianity' was adopted as the mainstream Roman religion in order to unify the Empire, the result that became our Bible is liable to be full of omissions in order to satisfy the varying sects that were brought together under this unification. As I understand it, the new Christians then set about to destroy anything that didn't fit in with this 'new' system of thought. Hence finding the Nag Hamadi Tractates was a revelation - just a shame that so much of it was damaged!
I would love to have found out too what was in the Library at Alexandria - so much ancient wisdom, history and knowledge was lost in this process. All we are left with are tantalising fragments, markers, and millions of questions. Ancient learning - mathematics, sciences, etc in Europe had to come from Persia and the East via the North African Moors through Spain. The 'Dark Ages' promulgated ignorance! and there was so much catching up to be done, but as ever, most peoples minds were (and are) so 'shut'.
I love these open-minded discussions.

Hi Venetian,

I’ve always (like most people) been curious about what Jesus was up to in the years before he started his ministry.

Robert Beckworth investigated some of these claims a while back. The Jewish authorities (and the Romans) did not want a divine saviour who had come back from the dead, so it is quite probable that they deliberately spread falsehoods. The Moslem charge that he was not resurrected but that he went to Kashmir etc really can be seen to be re-writing history to suit your own agenda. There is no pre-Islamac dated “evidence” of Jesus living and dying in Kashmir.

With the manuscripts you are quoting, (and I have read all the links), what puzzles me are the many inconsistencies but above all, with the way the world has moved on technically, I’m sure that if there was actually physical proof of this/these gospels, that His Highness the Dalai Lama would give permission for them to be examined scientifically and carbon dated. (Even if they are in Tibet, under Chinese jurisdiction, I’m sure there would be agreement.) That is what brings this huge question mark to my thought.

I think it is quite possible that Jesus did journey to India with Joseph of Arimathea, who is considered to be his uncle and was a trader, so that I am entirely happy with. However, writings that are supposed to have come from that time, but which have no actual modern proof, I am suspicious of; especially when they are purported to have come from some inaccessible Buddhist Monastery so no physical trace of them can be found! I’m not trying to splat your (or any one else’s beliefs). I’m just interested in truth. Sorry, but this is going to be a long post!

Here are a set of refutations from when the manuscript was first published :

Reactions to Notovitch
This alleged manuscript generated a number of lively responses. Let us briefly look at a sampling of these.

F. Max Muller. In October 1894, preeminent Orientalist Max Muller of Oxford University (who himself was an advocate of Eastern philosophy and therefore could not be accused of having a Christian bias) published a refutation of Notovitch in The Nineteenth Century, a scholarly review. Four of his arguments are noteworthy: (1) Muller asserted that an old document like the one Notovitch allegedly found would have been included in the Kandjur and Tandjur (catalogues in which all Tibetan literature is supposed to be listed). (2) He rejected Notovitch's account of the origin of the book. He asked how Jewish merchants happened, among the millions of India, to meet the very people who had known Issa as a student, and still more "how those who had known Issa as a simple student in India saw at once that he was the same person who had been put to death under Pontius Pilate."[8] (3) Muller cites a woman who had visited the monastery of Himis and made inquiries about Notovitch. According to a letter she wrote (dated June 29, 1894), "there is not a single word of truth in the whole story! There has been no Russian here. There is no life of Christ there at all!"[9] And (4) Muller questioned the great liberty Notovitch took in editing and arranging the alleged verses. Muller said this is something no reputable scholar would have done.

Notovitch promptly responded to Muller's arguments in the preface to the London edition of The Life of Saint Issa which was published the following year (1895). But his response did little to satisfy his critics. He said: (1) The verses which were found would not be in any catalogues because "they are to be found scattered through more than one book without any title."[10] (But in his first preface he said the Convent of Himis contained "a few copies of the manuscript in question."[11]) (2) Regarding the unlikeliness of Jewish merchants encountering those who knew Issa as a child in India, Notovitch said "they were not Jewish but Indian merchants who happened to witness the crucifixion prior to returning home from Palestine."[12] (Even so, it would still be unlikely that - among the millions in India - the merchants would come upon the precise people who knew Issa as a child.) (3) As for editing and arranging the verses in The Life of Saint Issa, Notovitch said that the same kind of editing was done with the Iliad and no one ever questioned that. (But how does this legitimize Notovitch's modus operandi?) (4) As to the refusal by the lama of Himis to affirmatively answer questions about the manuscript (as he apparently did with the lady who wrote Muller), Notovitch says this was because "Orientals are in the habit of looking upon Europeans as robbers who introduce themselves in their midst to despoil them in the name of civilization."[13] Notovitch succeeded only "because I made use of the Eastern diplomacy which I had learnt in my travels."14 (This was a convenient rationalization, for Notovitch could always point to a lack of "Eastern diplomacy" on the part of a European challenger whenever a monk refused to corroborate the Issa legend.)

Assuming (wrongly) that his response to Muller laid criticism of his work to rest, Notovitch suggested that in the future his critics restrict themselves solely to the question: "Did those passages exist in the monastery of Himis, and have I faithfully reproduced their substance?"[15]

J. Archibald Douglas. J. Archibald Douglas, Professor at Government College in Agra, India, took a three-month vacation from the college and retraced Notovitch's steps at the Himis monastery. He published an account of his journey in The Nineteenth Century (June 1895), the bulk of which reproduced an interview with the chief lama of the monastery. The lama said he had been chief lama for 15 years, which means he would have been the chief lama during Notovitch's alleged visit. The lama asserted that during these 15 years, no European with a broken leg had ever sought refuge at the monastery.

When asked if he was aware of any book in any Buddhist monastery in Tibet pertaining to the life of Issa, he said: "I have never heard of [a manuscript] which mentions the name of Issa, and it is my firm and honest belief that none such exists. I have inquired of our principal Lamas in other monasteries of Tibet, and they are not acquainted with any books or manuscripts which mention the name of Issa."[16] When portions of Notovitch's book were read to the lama, he responded, "Lies, lies, lies, nothing but lies!"[17]

The interview was written down and witnessed by the lama, Douglas, and the interpreter, and on June 3, 1895, was stamped with the official seal of the lama. The credibility of The Life of Saint Issa was unquestionably damaged by Douglas's investigation.
Nicholas Roerich. In The Lost Years of Jesus, Elizabeth Clare Prophet documents other supporters of Notovitch's work, the most prominent of which was Nicholas Roerich. Roerich - a Theosophist - claimed that from 1924 to 1928 he traveled throughout Central Asia and discovered that legends about Issa were widespread. In his book, Himalaya, he makes reference to "writings" and "manuscripts" about Issa - some of which he claims to have seen and others about which people told him. Roerich allegedly recorded independently in his own travel diary the same legend of Issa that Notovitch had seen earlier.

Per Beskow - author of Strange Tales About Jesus - responded to Roerich's work by suggesting that he leaned heavily on two previous "Jesus goes East" advocates: "The first part of his account is taken literally from Notovitch's Life of Saint Issa, chapters 5-13 (only extracts but with all the verses in the right order). It is followed by 'another version' (pages 93-94), taken from chapter 16 of Dowling's Aquarian Gospel."[18] (We will consider the Aquarian Gospel shortly.)

Edgar J. Goodspeed. Notovitch's The Life of Saint Issa refused to die; it was republished in New York in 1926. This motivated Edgar J. Goodspeed, Professor at the University of Chicago, to publish a Christian response. He commented that "it is worthwhile to call attention to [The Life of Saint Issa] because its republication in New York in 1926 was hailed by the press as a new and important discovery,"[19] even though first published over thirty years earlier (1894).

Three of Goodspeed's arguments are noteworthy. (1) Goodspeed suggests a literary dependency of The Life of Saint Issa on Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Romans. This would not be odd except that The Life of Saint Issa was allegedly written three or four years after the death of Christ, whereas Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Romans were written two or three decades later. An example of this dependency relates to how The Life of Saint Issa attempts to fill in the silent years of Jesus between the ages of twelve and thirty: "these two ages are taken for granted by the author of this work, who unconsciously bases his scheme upon them. We know them from the Gospel of Luke alone, and the question arises: 'Has the author of Issa obtained them from the same source?'"[20]

(2) Notovitch describes Luke as saying that Jesus "was in the desert until the day of his showing unto Israel." This, Notovitch says, "conclusively proves that no one knew where the young man had gone, to so suddenly reappear sixteen years later." But, says Goodspeed, "it is not of Jesus but of John that Luke says this (1:80), so that it will hardly yield the conclusive proof Notovitch seeks. At this point in Luke's narrative, in fact, Jesus has not yet appeared."[21]

(3) Goodspeed comments that The Life of Saint Issa does not purport to have been deciphered and translated by a competent scholar: "The lama read, the interpreter translated, Notovitch took notes. He could evidently not control either the lama or the interpreter, to make sure of what the Tibetan manuscripts contained."[22]

I hope that there will be some modern research done one day.

There were some ancient part-Christian sayings found in China, described in a fascinating book that Kim recommended years ago, called “The Jesus Sutras.” There are several links, but here is one:

A close reading of the first four sutras reveals that two of them are quite Daoist in their use of concepts and images, whereas the other two are much more arguably Buddhist.

It’s possible that your manuscripts do exist, but like these above, they are a melting pot of various Eastern concepts and not actually only what Jesus himself said.

Another reason I’m suspicious is from the research I did about the authenticity of the “Gospel of the Holy Twelve” of which we are told, only fragments of ancient copies exist. I know this is a different subject, but again this manuscript was purported to have been hidden in a Tibetan monastery. Just because something appears on the internet does not mean it is true: :p

In 1881 an English minister, Rev. G. J. Ouseley, got hold of a hitherto unknown, not rewritten evangelical text. This uncorrupted text has century after century been secured from all falsification in a buddistic monastary in Tibet, since the day a man has hidden it there, an man of the Essene society. Ouseley translated the arameic text and gave it the name The Gospel of the Holy Twelve. It has later been translated into German.
During the last century also many old fragments of the gospel have come into light. Some of them have been found in old libraries and other from excavations. These fragments are called Logins or Agraphas. They a older than and more original than the canonized gospels. Their great value is due to the fact that they are uncorrupted. The curious thing is, however, that many parts of these fragments mostly agree, word for word, with the Gospel of Ouseley, though they are completely missing in the canonical gospels.

Yes, Ouseley probably saw of a copy of the few sentences of the fragments, but then produced the “whole manuscript” by the method below, fraudulently claiming it as the original writings (rather than as his own additions), when in fact it was an astounding case of vested interest! Anyone can believe what they like (I don’t have a problem with that) but such claims do not stand up to any academic or historical research.

Reverend Gideon Jasper Richard Ouseley claims that the text which resulted in the Gospel of the Holy Twelve (or the Gospel of the Perfect Life) was given to him in nightly ‘illuminations,’ dreams and visions in the night wherein Jesus Christ translated the text from the original Aramaic along with the help of several well known historical mystics – among them Emanuel Swedenborg, Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland - and a Franciscan priest named Placidus.

Also see (about Ouseley’s life choices which are incorporated into his manuscript)

So V, the jury is out as far as I’m concerned, as to whether your manuscripts (which certainly sounds very similar in part to several things Jesus might have said) are all genuine Jesus’ sayings or an added-to writing, either ancient or Victorian! (And I’m afraid that the Victorians were not always the most honest of people, despite their up-standing outward appearances!)

Love and peace,

Judy

It never made sense to me that Jesus, being the remarkable person he was, could have led an unremarkable life between the ages of 13 and 29.

When I came across accounts of his having visited India, the gap in his life story made sense. He is said to have travelled to Rishikesh, Hardwar, Benares and Puri. In Kashmir today it is widely accepted that Jesus travelled in the area.

The great yogi Shivabalayogi was asked about Jesus' time in India...

Did Jesus study in India?
“Yes, he studied in India. He went to the Himalayas in India and he did tapas there for twelve years.”

Did Jesus get shaktipat (spiritual initiation) from John the Baptist?
“He was the one who made him sit in meditation. That took place in the Himalayas.”

Not the River Jordan in Israel, then? The Gospels say St. John taught in Israel.
“Even Swamiji could write something else.”

Hi Caroline,

Did you ever read Jesus the Man by Dr Barbara Thiering, a theologan based in Sydney? Also Genesis of the Grail Kings by Sir Laurence Gardner, who describes himself as archivist to the Royal Houses of Europe - both expand these theories. Interesting!
I read in another book a number of years ago from the library that early Islam considered Jesus to be a prophet, not the son of God, but unfortunately can't remember its details.

That's true about Islam; I haven't read the other books, no.

quote: 'I'd say the Christian gospels are, and not the infallible "word of God".' Is any written word?

That's what many religious believers hold to. Many Christians, certainly most Muslims believe their scripture is word-for-word from God, Hindus would tend to think the Vedas and the Gita are the infallible word of God. Then you have the Book of Mormon, Conversations with God, etc., etc. On the one hand I suppose it depends on whether one is thinking (as Christians do) of the One God actually 'dictating' the words personally, or whether scripture comes from the good hearts of people (in which case they can make mistakes). Then, of course, scripture gets politically altered over time.

Considering the amount of negotiation that went on at the Council of Nicea 325AD when 'Christianity' was adopted as the mainstream Roman religion in order to unify the Empire, the result that became our Bible is liable to be full of omissions in order to satisfy the varying sects that were brought together under this unification.

The largest ommision I'd say were the many entire books such as other interesing gospels, and the Book of Enoch, not found within the Bible at all.

I would love to have found out too what was in the Library at Alexandria - so much ancient wisdom, history and knowledge was lost in this process. All we are left with are tantalising fragments, markers, and millions of questions.

I suspect that Alexandria was a goldmine of information and wisdom, and would have taken the account of civilised human history back to at least 10,000 BC, describing now-lost civilisations.

I love these open-minded discussions.

Yes, well for Christians to be open-minded, they might think for themselves more about what this strange gap in the life of Jesus is all about. Where was he, and what did he do, through virtually all his teens and twenties? A priori, there appears to be a reason for that huge gap in his life-story. Was he really just building tables and chairs? In effect, the gospels give us tiny fragments of just the last three years.

V

Hi Judy,

You evidently looked into this! To take up only a handful of points:

The Moslem charge that he was not resurrected but that he went to Kashmir etc really can be seen to be re-writing history to suit your own agenda. There is no pre-Islamac dated “evidence” of Jesus living and dying in Kashmir.

That helps put to rest Kersten's other book then, and we might say along with the "Jesus got married and had kids" idea.

With the manuscripts you are quoting, (and I have read all the links), what puzzles me are the many inconsistencies but above all, with the way the world has moved on technically, I’m sure that if there was actually physical proof of this/these gospels, that His Highness the Dalai Lama would give permission for them to be examined scientifically and carbon dated. (Even if they are in Tibet, under Chinese jurisdiction, I’m sure there would be agreement.)

Not possible on all counts, it seems. If the manuscript existed and exists, no-one now knows where it is. The Dalai Lama is not knowledgeable either of all esoteric and truly deep or hidden sects of Buddhism within Tibet IMHO. I don't know if he's even heard of Notovitch. There is no physical proof at this time. So it's literally a question of the jury being out, and for each to make up their own mind.

especially when they are purported to have come from some inaccessible Buddhist Monastery so no physical trace of them can be found!

To correct a detail there, I was with the author and editorial team who best sum up and republished Notovitch's work, "The Lost Years of Jesus" by Summit University Press, in 1984 when it came out. As I'm at ease travelling East, and these days you can fly (the done thing in the 60s & 70s was to go overland laboriously), I didn't see why one of them - or they could have asked me - didn't just get on a plane and fly to Himis for a modern first-hand account. (Probably a matter of budget.) Himis is not as easy as getting from London to Birmingham, but it's not "inaccessible" at all. It isn't in Tibet, but "little Tibet" within Kashmir, and I believe it has a small airport even today.

No, the point is that monks there have not provided the MS to be seen, and deny knowledge, sine the last personal witness in the 1950s, Madam Caspari. If the MS existed, it's been secreted away somewhere.

It’s possible that your manuscripts do exist, but like these above, they are a melting pot of various Eastern concepts and not actually only what Jesus himself said.

I don't know where you get this idea from TBH. Notovitch may have been fraudulant or, if the MS is genuine, it reads like a straight-forward account written soon after Jesus' life.

Another reason I’m suspicious is from the research I did about the authenticity of the “Gospel of the Holy Twelve” of which we are told, only fragments of ancient copies exist. I know this is a different subject, but again this manuscript was purported to have been hidden in a Tibetan monastery. Just because something appears on the internet does not mean it is true: :p

That can work both ways. HP Blavatsky based her large work, The Secret Doctrine around the deep wording of a portion of what she says she was given and taught to read in Tibet, The Book of Dzyan (my favourite scripture of all BTW). She published that one and a quarter centuries ago, and the criticism has often been levelled at her since that no Book of Dzyan exists in Tibet. Then just a handful of years ago, I read that a scholar in Tibetan Buddhism had found portions of it, which translated basically as Blavatsky had written it. (I've lost my reference to that.)

[And this is nothing to do with the internet.]

Regarding the unlikeliness of Jewish merchants encountering those who knew Issa as a child in India, Notovitch said "they were not Jewish but Indian merchants who happened to witness the crucifixion prior to returning home from Palestine."[12] (Even so, it would still be unlikely that - among the millions in India - the merchants would come upon the precise people who knew Issa as a child.)

I don't see it that way. Issa seems to have become very well-known and even famed in parts of what is now India. The merchants would have known whose crucifixion they were seeing, and would have taken the account back to many.

So V, the jury is out as far as I’m concerned, as to whether your manuscripts (which certainly sounds very similar in part to several things Jesus might have said) are all genuine Jesus’ sayings or an added-to writing,

Quite! Unless the MS comes to light again, it's for us each to decide for ourselves. But there seems to be a thread running through much open-minded thinking since the late 19th century that there is this big gap, aged 12 to 29, and that - travel being more freely available then as people tend to realise - Jesus probably wasn't even there in the Holy Land then. In fact, when he takes up his ministry, people are not very familiar with who he is, as if he's new among them. (Whereas he was well-known in the temple of Jerusalem, and people marvelled at him, even aged 12.) They have to work out that he's the son of Joseph. So ... it remains to ask: where was he if elsewhere, and doing what? Apart from the Notovitch MS, I'd suggest that Jesus also had real Teachers, and was learning as well as doing his own teaching. It was a time of growth and preparation - but it looks as though not in his homeland.

Thanks for the discussion on whether Notovitch is to be seen as trustworthy. While a lama is quoted in the link you give that "no such work exists (here)", the truly interested person could get the paperback of "The Lost Years of Jesus" by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, for that book has the most comprehensive listing of well or fairly well-known people who do say they saw the MS for themselves, at Himis, in the decades after Notovitch's book.

V

Hi Barafundle, (and Venetian)

So John the Baptist was in India too – well that’s a new one to me! I found a website where it mentions what you’ve posted:

With all due respect to the yogi, I for one prefer to get my information from people who were actually there (in Israel) at the time and walked, talked and were taught by Jesus himself and shared their memories, so that we have gospels which are hopefully not further than one or two individuals away from him and time-wise, not longer that between 30 and 70 years rather than over 2,000 years!

While I quite believe that John the Baptist could have been an Essene, I do not believe that Jesus was one. Jesus was a thoroughly Jewish rabbi, or teacher - albeit a radical and revolutionary one, demanding change of thought which resulted in his great works, which in turn illustrated his words. He had no time for the literal and rigid interpretation of Scripture, but sought the deeper, spiritual meaning of religion.

Jesus was well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures, in fact, when he was just 12 and was found [COLOR="Indigo"]“in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.” Luke 2

After the Resurrection, on the walk to Emmaus: [COLOR="Indigo"]“And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

…..And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.Luke 24

He also partook of Jewish ritual food, joined in Jewish pilgrimages, worshipped at the synagogue, etc. In this article, written by a Rabbi, he interestingly suggests that the love-preaching Rabbi Hillel could have influenced Jesus too:

Jesus the Jew

Many basic beliefs and attitudes were shared by Hillel and Jesus. Both attempted to humanize the Halakha of Judaism. Both believed that love of humanity was the key to Jewish life. In that sense both were leaders of renewal movements in sharp contrast to the isolationists of the Qumran community, the political zealot movements in Jerusalem and the legally stricter Shamaite movement. All of these were seeking to impact people to different definitions of holiness.

Hillel who died when Jesus was young was according to Prof. David Flusser and Rabbi Harvey Falk influenced strongly many facets of Jesus’ theological and ethical teachings. 10 This does not imply that Jesus was a student or disciple of Hillel; Hillel’s views were well known and embodied as one of the more acceptable Jewish views of Halakha particularly among the populace.

As I said above, I totally accept that Jesus could have travelled to India with his uncle during those missing years. However, I very much doubt that he needed to be taught by anyone (but God). He was able to read thought accurately, predict the future etc – he didn’t need any human teachers, of whatever religion!

Thinking of the many NDE I’ve read, one thing that is common about many is receiving an unimaginable amount of information, like this bit:

As I rode this stream of consciousness through the center of the galaxy, the stream was expanding in awesome fractal waves of energy. The super clusters of galaxies with all their ancient wisdom flew by. At first I thought I was going somewhere; actually traveling. But then I realized that, as the stream was expanding, my own consciousness was also expanding to take in everything in the Universe! All creation passed by me. It was an unimaginable wonder! I truly was a Wonder Child; a babe in Wonderland!

At this point, I found myself in a profound stillness, beyond all silence. I could see or perceive FOREVER, beyond Infinity. [DLMURL] http://www.mellen-thomas.com/stories.htm [/DLMURL]

Jesus was at ONE with God, with the infinite divine Mind. he didn’t need rabbis, gurus, yogis or Uncle Tom Cobley to teach him!

Just my musings. Thanks V for starting this interesting discussion.

Love and peace,

Judy

Jesus was at ONE with God, with the infinite divine Mind. he didn’t need rabbis, gurus, yogis or Uncle Tom Cobley to teach him!

Just my musings.

Hi Judy,

It's amusing. Those words quoted above were emailed to me, I was told they were on this thread, but no mention of the writer. So I replied: "Oh, another fundamentalist Christian. Well, I suppose one or two were bound to catch wind of this thread." Amusing now that, hours later, I've looked. 🙂

As you say, they're just your musings. When great souls embody, it can seem as though they've never needed to be taught, as if they were omniscient as it were, from birth. IMHO this is not so. All learn lessons from others, and even from example. IMHO Mary, Jesus' mother, will also have been a great guiding light to him.

The danger is in drifting into the Christology (belief about what Christ is and means in Jesus and to anybody) set up in Nicea and elsewhere late in the reign of Constantine. This declared, 400 years after Jesus' life, and contrary to the beliefs of many Christians up to that time, that Jesus was God Incarnate as God Himself (not in the New Age kind of sense in which we say that we are all sons and daughters of God). That Jesus was unique. For he was God, and we are not, we are "sinners".

Jesus himself is recounted in the gospels as commenting on this. The priests came to catch him out, that in his heresy they could stone him to death early on. So they challenged him on the fact that it was believed he was the son of God. In reply, since he knew the books of the Old Testament so well, he quoted them and said, "Is it not written in your scripture, 'I have said [that's God speaking - V], ye are gods'?" He was referring to the full line which says: "I have said, ye are gods: [COLOR="Blue"]all of you." Jesus continued that if scripture said that, how could he not be? This baffled and outwitted the scribes.

Jesus' point was to justify his own sonship from God on the basis that we are all sons and daughters (or parts) of God. He was refuting his uniqueness in the view of many today.

Some are just further along the path than others. And through reincarnation (which Jesus and his disciples certainly allude to in the canonical gospels), some become so close to God, that upon being reborn they already have great wisdom. It is as if they don't need teachers, but they certainly do have. In past lives, they already have had.

The Dalai Lama is another great incarnation, whom some may view as having been born into perfection. But he was also taught as a boy, and during WW2 the Austrian mountain climber, Heinrich Harrer, escaped from a British prison camp in India and crossed the Himalayas. In Lhasa, as the only Westerner there beside his fellow-escapee, he became confidante and friend to the growing Dalai Lama, and the boy's teacher in all kinds of Western science, geography, ways of thinking, and preparation for facing the outside world, outside of Tibet. [Read the great book or see the great film with Brad Pitt, "Seven Years In Tibet".] So all have teachers of some sort.

My own musings are that Jesus was clearly not a Jew in the sense that he didn't come to "upgrade" Judaism, but to introduce an entirely new dispensation of belief and practice. That's very obvious. And Peter struggled with that one. Judaism couldn't frame or encompass Jesus, for he was beyond such finite borders. This he must have passed on to the open-minded, since John, in his gospel, begins by quoting the Vedas. (The opening lines are word-for-word from the Vedas.)

On a minor detail, I don't know where you get the idea that Joseph, his Uncle, went with him to India. Is that stated anywhere? Joseph was a merchant, probably dealing even as far afield as with the tin mines of south-west England. He couldn't just up and leave his business, and there was no need for him to do so. People in those days would join a caravan and get safer passage East that way, as Jesus might have done. To travel there aged 13 may seem strange for one so young, but I know one who did the same (from London, soon with no money, overland) aged 16, and we are after all talking about Jesus.

Are you struggling with the idea that Jesus was not the unique Son of God? Or with the idea that we all have the same potential (and destiny) to be like him?

V

Please excuse me for sticking my oar in again, but I simply can't let this pass:

The Dalai Lama is another great incarnation, whom some may view as having been born into perfection. But he was also taught as a boy, and during WW2 the Austrian mountain climber, Heinrich Harrer, escaped from a British prison camp in India and crossed the Himalayas. In Lhasa, as the only Westerner there beside his fellow-escapee, he became confidante and friend to the growing Dalai Lama, and the boy's teacher in all kinds of Western science, geography, ways of thinking, and preparation for facing the outside world, outside of Tibet. [Read the great book or see the great film with Brad Pitt, "Seven Years In Tibet".] So all have teachers of some sort.

Heinrich Harrer's story is undoubtedly a ripping yarn, but his relations with the Dalai Lama have been greatly inflated. When I was at Uni, my Buddhist teacher, who had spent two years in a monastery in India, said that during an audience with the Dalai Lama someone asked HH whether Harrer had been the great buddy he makes himself out to be. HH replied "Well... he used to fix the generator sometimes" - doesn't really sound like great friend, confidante and teacher!

Where do you get the idea that Jesus had an Uncle Joseph - I'm sure that is never mentioned in the NT?

Where do you get the idea that Jesus had an Uncle Joseph - I'm sure that is never mentioned in the NT?

It is broadly recognised, if not universally, that Joseph of Arimathea was a relative and probably Jesus' uncle. In any case, he was associated with Jesus as we know, as a kind of elder but follower. TBH, I just don't feel I've the time or inclination to track down the Biblical (or other) evidence for this. Maybe someone else would be interested to?

Yet you sound as if you haven't even heard of this Joseph? He's in the gospels, and legend (unprovable) famously has it that Joseph, having trade with SW England, brought Jesus here as a boy. The legend is well-known, and gave rise to the William Blake poem later set to music and used at Last Night at the Proms: "And did those feet / In ancient times / Walk upon England's mountains green? [Etc.]

Some links on Joseph:

V

Oh gosh Venetian, thank you SO MUCH for that lecture on scholastic theology. I really wasn't aware of any of it - thank you so much for enlightening me! :rolleyes:

Golly gosh. So, you are accusing Christian Science of being Christian – well, please go and tell the fundies that and ask them to take off all their allegations that we are not Christian because we do not believe that Jesus was God.

Well, here is some “evidence” from carm.org:

What does Christian Science Teach?

1. God is infinite...and there is no other power or source, S&H 471:18.
2. God is Universal Principle, S&H 331:18-19
3. God cannot indwell a person, S&H 336:19-20
4. God is the only intelligence in the universe, including man S&H 330:11-12
5. God is Mind, S&H 330:20-21; 469:13
6. God is the Father-Mother, S&H 331:30; 332:4
7. The Trinity is Life, Truth, and Love, S&H 331:26
8. Belief in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is polytheism, S&H 256:9-11
9. Christ is the spiritual idea of sonship S&H 331:30-31
10. Jesus was not the Christ, S&H 333:3-15; 334:3
11. "Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared..." S&H 361:12-13

and it goes on and on with falsehoods and sentences taken out of context to make them appear to mean what they do not and then ends with this Christian lovingkindess:

:014: The Christian Scientists consider their philosophy to be consistent with the original teachings of Jesus. They consider truth a matter of higher understanding and learning. But the reality is that Christian Science has only produced unbiblical and false doctrines. Eternal destruction is the only thing that will result from its false teaching. The fires of hell will be a bitter reality for those who have been taught that they don’t exist. :014:

I am gobsmacked V that I have been writing here since 2001 and you seem to know nothing of how I think and see things. :banghead: :banghead:

Rather than me trying to convince you that your labelling is off the wall, I will put some statements about this subject on the next post (which of course V, you won’t read)

On a minor detail, I don't know where you get the idea that Joseph, his Uncle, went with him to India. Is that stated anywhere? Joseph was a merchant, probably dealing even as far afield as with the tin mines of south-west England. He couldn't just up and leave his business, and there was no need for him to do so. People in those days would join a caravan and get safer passage East that way, as Jesus might have done. To travel there aged 13 may seem strange for one so young, but I know one who did the same (from London, soon with no money, overland) aged 16, and we are after all talking about Jesus.

As you know, Thomas, Jesus’ disciple, journeyed to India and then on to China. On the west coast of India, in the town of Crangamore, Thomas is supposed to have founded his first church in 52, making this one of the earliest churches in the world." (Crangamore was a Greek and Roman trading port.)

None of this proves of course that Jesus visited, but what it does prove to me is that trade was going on; trading routes were open and that, if Jesus' great uncle Joseph of Arimathea, (Mary’s uncle) was a trader and visited India, it is at least possible that he accompanied him.

Love and peace,

Judy

Answer to Venetian

Originally Posted by Principled View Post
Jesus was at ONE with God, with the infinite divine Mind. he didn’t need rabbis, gurus, yogis or Uncle Tom Cobley to teach him!

Hi Judy,

It's amusing. Those words quoted above were emailed to me, I was told they were on this thread, but no mention of the writer. So I replied: "Oh, another fundamentalist Christian. Well, I suppose one or two were bound to catch wind of this thread." Amusing now that, hours later, I've looked. 🙂

Sorry everyone for the following post - you don't have to read it, - but I can't be accused of being a fundamentalist without excercising my right to reply.

From the writings of Mary Baker Eddy (the bold bits are my highlights)

[COLOR="Navy"]God is one, and His idea, image, or likeness, man, is one. But God is infinite and so includes all in one. Man is the generic term for men and women. (Miscellany 239)

Jesus as the son of man was human: Christ as the Son of God was divine. (Miscellaneous Writings 63)

Jesus of Nazareth taught and demonstrated man's oneness with the Father, and for this we owe him endless homage. (Science and Health 18)

…Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God. This declaration of Jesus, understood, conflicts not at all with another of his sayings: "I and my Father are one,"--that is, one in quality, not in quantity. As a drop of water is one with the ocean, a ray of light one with the sun, even so God and man, Father and son, are one in being. The Scripture reads: "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." (Science and Health 361)

Excerpts from A Christmas Sermon:

TEXT: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace. --ISAIAH ix. 6.

To the senses, Jesus was the son of man: in Science, man is the son of God. The material senses could not cognize the Christ, or Son of God: it was Jesus' approximation to this state of being that made him the Christ-Jesus, the Godlike, the anointed.
The prophet whose words we have chosen for our text, prophesied the appearing of this dual nature, as both human and divinely endowed, the personal and the impersonal Jesus. Jesus as the son of man was human: Christ as the Son of God was divine…..

In our text Isaiah foretold, "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
As the Wisemen grew in the understanding of Christ, the spiritual idea, it grew in favor with them. Thus it will continue, as it shall become understood, until man be found in the actual likeness of his Maker. Their highest human concept of the man Jesus, that portrayed him as the only Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and Truth, will become so magnified to human sense, by means of the lens of Science, as to reveal man collectively, as individually, to be the son of God. (Miscellaneous Writings 63-64)

And what of this child?--"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder."

This spiritual idea, or Christ, entered into the minutiae of the life of the personal Jesus. It made him an honest man, a good carpenter, and a good man, before it could make him the glorified. (Miscellaneous Writings 166)

The spiritual Christ was infallible; Jesus, as material manhood, was not Christ. The "man of sorrows" knew that the man of joys, his spiritual self, or Christ, was the Son of God; and that the mortal mind, not the immortal Mind, suffered. The human manifestation of the Son of God was called the Son of man, or Mary's son. (Miscellaneous Writings 84)

Scholastic theology makes God manlike; Christian Science makes man Godlike. (Message for 1901:7)

But having posted all that, yes I do believe that Jesus was unique. His virgin birth and fulfillment of prophecy, plus the fact that he demonstrated the laws of Spirit so fully made him the most scientific man who ever walked the earth and that in my book equates unique.

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Judy,

I'm sorry if you misunderstood.

Golly gosh. So, you are accusing Christian Science of being Christian

The thought of Christian Science never entered my mind. I was replying to some specific words written by an individual, username Principled. 🙂

I haven't made a study of Christian Science, and CS simply isn't the basic topic here. So I don't know whether your words reflect CS or not, the words I cited. My point was simply that having read the words - in an email, a number of hours before finding time to look at HP and the thread - they are indeed also exactly what a fundamentalist (but also mainstream such as Anglican or Catholic) Christian would have as their doctrine:

Jesus was at ONE with God, with the infinite divine Mind. he didn’t need rabbis, gurus, yogis or Uncle Tom Cobley to teach him!

"Uncle Tom Cobley" and the line ending with an exclamation mark indicated that this was all pretty strongly felt. It points towards a concept of Jesus as being some form of being different to all other men and women. We are all unique as individuals, as obviously Jesus was too, but we are all of the same species IMHO.

Once we set Jesus apart as being truy different to all other men and women - and different to all other great teachers, Gurus, enlightened beings and prophets - then it's basically the same absolutely crucial Constantinian error committed at Nicea, which has enormous repercussions throughout the rest of our belief-system. That we can never attain to be what he was.

It would be nice to think, as the general New Age-style image of Jesus goes (but it is also there in the early centuries AD and certainly held today of Jesus by many not associated with the New Age even at its best) that Jesus came as an exemplar. "What I have achieved, others can achieve". If we believe that we cannot actually become all that Jesus demonstrated, then the subtle psychology behind that is plain: to various degrees, spiritual believers will nonetheless sell themselves short. To one degree or another, tiny or considerable, there isn't the belief there that they can become totally Christ-like. How can we, if he was uniquely different to all other people?

How, just for example, would we fit such a magnificent figure as Gautama Buddha into this scheme of things? Try telling Buddhists that he is a lesser figure than Jesus, falling short in this or that way ...

This may not be what you actually think, and I did after all write that I thought it was funny that I mistook your words as being from a fundy. Of course I know you're not at all one. I was addressing simply those words. I happen to disagree with them, and esoteric Christianity (as figures such as Annie Besant have called it in her book by that name) would disagree also.

I'm posting this reply not to go off-track into purely personal debate, but to now get back onto track. For if the Notovitch manuscript is authentic, Jesus not only taught in his teens and twenties, but also learned (from other human beings at first more advanced than him in arts such as healing, in languages, in the comprehension of Eastern scriptures, albeit not from one Uncle Tom Cobley). This is actally encouraging to us all, for it indicates that he was not born as some sort of instantly-at-birth omniscient being, but was still growing and learning just as we may do too.

And if we doubt the Notovitch MS, which probably never can be proven authentic, then still if Jesus travelled away at age 13, to India and/or Egypt, Tibet and wherever else, then we can assume he did this for a purpose. If he was perfect from the start, with no requirement to grow and to learn, then why didn't he just get it done with as early as possible and fulfill his mission in his teens or early twenties? IMHO there was clearly a period of preparation going on. (Even the canonical gospels tell us he spent "forty days and nights" fasting in the wilderness.)

To sum up, the concept of Jesus spending so many years out East tends to appear to be conjoined with the idea that he was preparing, was not ready, and had things to do and to learn out there before his Palestinian mission began. And if he wasn't learning those things from other people in a position to be his teachers, why go there in the first place? Why not just do the inner preparation nearer to home? What, in short, would have been the purpose of his years of travel in the East? To me, such a journey affirms a more enlightened Christology - that he was becoming the Christ, that he learned as well as taught, and that we may also learn to be all that he became. IMHO that was the whole point of his mission, to tell us that.

This isn't about CS, so there's no need to defend CS or to bring it in. Let's be our own individual selves. 🙂 I like the concept of Jesus going out East (and the missing years do appear to be there), as it tends to nullify the erroneous Constantinian Christology that's corrupted Christianity for sixteen hundred years - that Jesus was God, was uniquely different from all other men and women's potential, and that he had no need to learn.

IMHO he was born a pretty bright lad 🙂 - but he had need of elders out there to teach him this and that, to get him ready, and to share their wisdom - because Constantinian-like ideas of Jesus - [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]he didn’t need rabbis, gurus, yogis or Uncle Tom Cobley to teach him! - aren't correct, and can crucially influence our own concepts of what we ourselves really are, and what we too may become.

V

V, had you spent your time reading what I had spent some hours selecting to show where I'm coming from, you could have saved the time writing all that.

Love and peace,

Judy

Truth, will become so magnified to human sense, by means of the lens of Science, as to reveal man collectively, as individually, to be the son of God. (Miscellaneous Writings 63-64)

Thanks for that post, Judy. That's Christianity I can relate to.

With all due respect to the yogi, I for one prefer to get my information from people who were actually there (in Israel) at the time and walked, talked and were taught by Jesus himself and shared their memories

I don't have any doubt myself that Sri Shivabalayogi was speaking with the authority of one living in the Christ Consciousness, so in effect he is 'actually there'.

I completely understand though how his words can be taken as someone just expressing an opinion.

In the West, through the lens of Greek and Roman interpretation, we generally see Jesus as an Occidental figure, but he was just as much an Oriental figure.

The three wise men came from 'the East'. They knew of Jesus (possibly in the same way that Shivabalayogi, a latter day wise man from the East, knew Jesus without having to be in Israel), they made the long journey to pay homage when he was about two, and then they returned to the East. Could they have had nothing further to do with him after that? I don't believe so. There was a great deal of trade between India and the Greco-Roman world, and Jesus' journey to India eleven years later would not have been a very difficult one to make.

As a by-the-way there is a cave called [DLMURL="http://blog.atmajyoti.org/2007/10/the-cave-where-jesus-stayed/"]Vashishta Guha[/DLMURL] near Rishikesh where Jesus was said to have spent some time. One of the many places in India associated with him.

V, had you spent your time reading what I had spent some hours selecting to show where I'm coming from, you could have saved the time writing all that.

Love and peace,

Judy

I see that you are right, and I admit to diving in rather quickly. Thanks for your former post, Judy.

Oh, well. 🙂 It can be read by orthodox or fundy Christians, anyway, as a few thoughts for mainstream Christianity to ponder. I also wanted to address the fact that when I reply to you, I'm replying to an individual, Judy, not to an organisation. As I wrote, CS wasn't in my mind.

Returning to your post yesterday, then:

Scholastic theology makes God manlike; Christian Science makes man Godlike. (Message for 1901:7)

I like that wording; I'd simply point out that it's not just CS: that's but one of many well-springs of esoteric Christianity. Theosophy, for example, says the same.

But having posted all that, yes I do believe that Jesus was unique. His virgin birth and fulfillment of prophecy, plus the fact that he demonstrated the laws of Spirit so fully made him the most scientific man who ever walked the earth and that in my book equates unique.

These are challenging concepts that would or could make Jesus unique indeed. You name three factors making Jesus unique. Let's take a look?

On the virgin birth, this would make him unique (so far as we know!) if true. It can never be proven of course. I've heard even well-meaning spiritual people say, "It really meant that Mary had a pure, virginal consciousness, yet Jesus may have been conceived by natural means." However, it's there in the gospels as a clear feature of the life of Jesus and also the doubts that Joseph first had toward Mary. Personally I can accept that "God" (in the form of angelic agencies, say) could plant the seed. The 'Plan' may have been to give Jesus, whom I see as a reincarnating individual who had lived before and who is named in the Old Testament before being Jesus, a boost in life through a more perfected DNA. That would give him a unique birth, but purely IMHO it doesn't make him greater than anyone else's potential, or greater than other great spiritual figures.

Many other figures have fulfilled prophecy. The Buddha foretold the coming of the great Padmasambhava,who resurrected Buddhism and brought it to Tibet. Apart from his life, Sogyal Rinpoche, page 145, on Padmasambhava: "He has appeared countless times to the masters of Tibet, and these meetings and visions have been precisely recorded: the date, the place, and manner in which they occurred, along with the teachings and prophecies Padmasambhava gave."

There are so many instances of great teachers being foretold by prophecy.

Demonstrating the laws of Spirit (I suppose you mean everything from his healings and other great miracles through to his great Mind as teacher) is by no means novel to Jesus, actually. There are Eastern accounts of Resurrection, for example. I love the one (as it has humour) written of by Sogyal Rinpoche in "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" pages 5 & 6. The author was a little boy when he saw a close disciple of his Master die. But he apparently hadn't died in "the right way" or in the frame of consciousness to maintain unbroken self-awareness into the afterlife. So the Master came along, chuckled at the disciple's mistake, brought him back to life and then guided him through death all over again! This was witnessed by a man alive today - the wonderful Sogyal Rinpoche.

As for miracles, I'd go short of saying such great ones are a dime a dozen! But they are not unique to Jesus. You really should get the paperback, "St. Francis of Paolo" by Simi and Segreti (Tan Books, 1977) to confirm this for yourself. This St. Francis lived much more recently than Jesus. The book is sub-titled, "God's Miracle Worker Supreme". Read it, and it appears St. Francis of Paolo could do anything Jesus could do. Comparing them both to argue "which was greater" would be mere hair-splitting.

So I still feel there's a Christological problem about calling Jesus "unique", I'm afraid. For one thing, in my experience of observing others, it cuts them off from being open to other wonderful teachers and teachings, other movements which may be viewed as progressive revelation (telling us more than we find in the four short gospels, or in just one or two other more recent commentaries). There's a world of spirituality out there, including great teachers alive today, and ever-deeper insights into the naure of a Christ-being.

I suppose that when Christians (of any persuasion) keep track-lined within that one faith, they are not aware of the many other similar examples around them, or historically recorded? Personally I like to cast my net broadly. 🙂

Love, Light, and Life,

V

Thanks V,

I will reply, but right now have a lot of balls in the air...

Back soon,

Love and peace,

Judy

Me too, Judy. Over the next few days there will be days when I won't have time to even look here, just so you know.

V

Principled: You've come back for another go then?!

1) Do I detect a note of sneering and mockery in your posting? Very undignified.

2) If your heart was attuned to the Love Ray you would recognise Truth when you saw it...

3) As for the Rev. Ouseley having a hidden agenda, yes, he had a hidden agenda - the restoration of God's Kingdom on Earth!!!

4) Oh come on, Principled .Every holy book that is, and has ever been, has come down to us via the medium of, or what was perceived to be, Divine Inspiration. Did not your guru, the self-proclaimed prophet Mary Baker Eddy claim that her teachings were "inspired of God"? i.e. that she had received her teachings through dreams, visions and inspired thought, exactly the same as Ouseley and every other prophet and teacher of righteousness that ever walked the earth.
Not that I'd term MBE as a prophet or teacher of righteousness. For all her claims about miracle health cures, she herself had a long-standing nerve problem, a long-standing spinal problem, she had to wear glasses because her eyes were bad, she had dentures because her teeth were bad and she needed a cane to assist her when walking. An even more damning indictment is that when she died in 1910, she died a millionaire! I checked this out, to give you some idea of the fortune she stacked up for herself, $1 million in 1910, is the equivalent of $17.5 million in today's money. And this from a 'prophet of God'????
"No man can serve two masters..." All the true prophets renounced worldly goods and led a simple, frugal life.

"By it's fruit is the tree known."

Knight of Albion: if you'd been around HP a bit longer, you would know that Judy (Principled) doesn't sneer, doesn't mock and is extremely intelligent. You may not agree with her views and beliefs but that's no reason to belittle her.
xxx

Venetian: Great thread!, just noticed it.

Yes, you are perfectly correct. Jesus travelled extensively in the East in his 'missing years'.

The missing link - Jesus was an Essene priest. At the Transfiguration, the man Jesus was overshadowed by the Christ Spirit and for the duration of his Holy Land ministry God spoke through Jesus. At the Ascension, it was the Christ Spirit that re-ascended to Heaven, Jesus the man lived on.

Re the Crucifixion - (Briefly) As I understand it Jesus was given a herbal preparation, what I don't know, but whatever it was, it put him in a comatose-like state and caused his heartbeat to slow, appearing to be dead. Afterwards he was revived.

The irony is that having spent the last three years or so trying to convince people he was the Messiah, he and the Essene elders feared that the downtrodden Jews - having just witnessed his 'death' - would indeed proclaim him as the Messiah and use him as a figurehead to spark a bloody uprising against their Roman oppressors, if they knew that he had miraculously survived. (Over 100,000 Jews were butchered or carried off into slavery when the Jews eventually did revolt in AD 66-70) As a man of love and peace that was the last thing he wanted, so together with Mary Magdalene and others, he/they departed to the East once more, travelling and teaching over many years in Persia, India, Ladakh, Kashmir etc.
Jesus died at a ripe old age and is buried at Rozabal, in Anzimar, a suburb of Srinagar, Kashmir. And that is Christianity's greatest secret.

Knight of Albion: if you'd been around HP a bit longer, you would know that Judy (Principled) doesn't sneer, doesn't mock and is extremely intelligent. You may not agree with her views and beliefs but that's no reason to belittle her.
xxx

Thank you for your posting.

I am belittling no-one. All well and good for you to say that, Sunanda, but the only previous times I have encountered Principled was on the three occasions when she made a spiteful, unprovoked attack against me. Check the threads!

And perhaps Principled should be careful about her use of icons, or refrain from using them altogether.

Thank you for your posting.

I am belittling no-one. All well and good for you to say that, Sunanda, but the only previous times I have encountered Principled was on the three occasions when she made a spiteful, unprovoked attack against me. Check the threads!

And perhaps Principled should be careful about her use of icons, or refrain from using them altogether.

Hi K,

Your posts says more about what space you are in at the moment than it does about Principled. 'Attacking' because you felt attacked only perpetuates the discord and will make the journey to peace longer, you know that.

So why not lay down your lance and offer the lady a rose instead, true chivalry, huh?:)

RxXx

Hello Cirrus. Thank you for your message and the sentiment, I appreciate where you're coming from.
Firstly, this is not a battle lance....
Secondly, I've got nothing against Principled. This is a point of light issue, there's nothing personal.
Thirdly, I am only too aware that tone can be misjudged and what is 'matter of fact', passionate or firm, can be misconstrued as harsh. What the answer to that is I don't know. What I do know is that sometimes you have to fight your corner, fight for what you believe in, fight for what you know to be right.
True, all see differently. What I see is a world looking down the barrel and untold hurt and suffering caused by false spiritual teaching. I may not be able to change the world single-handed, but I can do my bit and come hell or high water that is what I intend to do. Thank you.

I was going to comment on this thread because my views are different to those expressed. But I felt it was becoming more about dogma than discussion. So as they say "I'm out".

Myarka.