Did Jesus survive the crucifixion and escape to the Indian region of Kashmir?

[testudoaubreii]

Hello,

As you all can probably tell, I am new here, so again hello. I was reading through a thread and some one mentioned some similarities between the teaching of Jesus and Buddhism. I got me thinking about something I heard not too long ago. I went on a research trek and I believe that, if there really was a Jesus, the Jesus that we were taught anyway, there is a strong possibility that he could have actually survived the crucifixion and quite possibly relocated to the Kashmir region of India.

*I had to split what I wrote into 2 posts.*

All of the prior versions of the gospel of Mark state that what the Jesus’s tomb was simply empty. No talk of resurrection, just an empty cave where the body of Jesus should have been. There was no talk of the resurrection until it was added to the gospel of Mark 200 years later. The gospels are supposed to be taken as historical evidence, but they simply are not and they were written to establish the relevance of Jesus and the message that he was trying to convey. Although the gospels did this very well, the authors where not essentially concerned with what really happened. They wanted a story that could help win over potential converts.

We have some accounts from the resurrection from Luke, Matthew and John, but their stories are not on the same page with one another. The gospel of Luke states that after the resurrection, Jesus met with two disciples, names unknown, and they were not familiar with him, that is they did not recognize him. Jesus then meets with the other eleven disciples before they part ways near Jerusalem. The gospel of Matthew states that he met two women by his tomb and then proceeded to convene with each of his disciples individually on a mountain in the town of Galilee. John’s account state the Mary Magdalene visited the tomb and saw that the stone in front of the tomb had been moved and rushed over to get Paul. When they entered the tomb, they saw nothing but the things that they used to bury Jesus with. After the men went home, she stayed and saw two angels and Jesus. Jesus told her not to hold on to him because he has not yet ascended. She then exclaims to everyone that she has seen the lord. No one knows for sure what the reactions of the others were to her account.

To many, the reason why there are different points of view on how the resurrection went down is because the accounts were not penned because a holy miracle happened, but because of a totally political motive. You see, most of the assumed witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus were also the first leaders of the church. Some even suggest that the authors may have used this extraordinary account of the resurrection as a psychological machine to help reign in the potential converts.

We can read the gospels and find out that Jesus drank and ate with his followers, even going as far as allowing Thomas touch his wounds. How could that have happened if he died on the cross? There is a book, The Passover Plot, 1965, that suggests that Jesus was somehow sedated while he was on the cross and that it appeared that he was dead. It also states that because of this he was taken down from the cross earlier than expected. While on the cross, some of the disciples were actually able to give Jesus something via a sponge. "They filled the sponge with vinegar and put it upon hyssop and put it to his mouth." - John 19:29 Jesus immediately died after taking this substance. "When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said it is finished." - John 19:30.

Sedation is not the only reason to believe that Jesus may have survived the crucifixion. There is an account of a crucifixion survival story recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus. He was sent to survey land for a Roman garrison somewhere near Palestine and he came across three of his friends hanging from crosses. He immediately requested for the three men to be taken down and General Titus granted permission. They cut down and received medical attention. Two of his friends died, but the other survived the crucifixion.

According to the gospels, the story goes that the day of the Sabbath was coming up, so the Romans wanted to make sure that the three men that were being crucified, were dead before the Sabbath. The Romans saw that two of the three men were still alive, so they broke their legs to speed up the execution process. The third man, however, seemed limp and lifeless so they assumed that he was dead and did not break his legs. That man was Jesus.
The crucifixion of Jesus happened very quickly, perhaps too quickly. The Romans said that Jesus was on the cross for 6 hours, they checked the body and they assumed he was dead. He was cut down and sealed in his tomb, for he was dead. However, was he dead, clinically dead? Some concerns about whether he is dead are brought to the surface because it is said that Joseph of Arimathea brought certain herbs into the tomb that were not necessarily used for the embalming process. He brought in aloes and they were used more for their medicinal purposes. There are story all over the world, from ancient time to the present day where people who are assumed to be dead, that is they are non-responsive to what is going on around them, but then are revived or resuscitated. Let us take Lazarus for example. He arose from the dead 4 days after his presumable death. Was he resurrected or resuscitated?

When we start to talk about whether or not Jesus was crucified and the resurrected, it obviously becomes very controversial. However, it is clearly stated in every gospel that the disciples viewed Jesus after his death in such a way that was very much alive. This information does not mean that the story of the resurrection was a put on show or a calculated deception. There is an idea that was brought forth by the English author Samuel Butler, and it is that if Jesus was sent into a socked induced coma while suffering on the cross and then recovered while in the tomb, then Jesus and all of the disciples would have viewed his “resurrection” as a miracle.

The disciples where just ordinary people that thought they saw an extraordinary event. People have near death experiences all over the world. Some say that they see this brilliant light and it is looked upon as some sort of miraculous sign. However, in the ancient times did not have the technology and the knowledge that we do today. They did not have the scientific equipment that we do today to revive people from what appears to be a dead state. Therefore, it does make sense for the disciples that saw the resurrection, looked upon Jesus’s revival as a miracle or an act of god.

Let us say that somehow Jesus survived the crucifixion. Now, there is a big problem for Jesus and his disciples. If Jesus were alive after the execution, he would still be a wanted man. In the Bible, Jesus is taken away through the act of ascension, where his body is lifted up into heaven. There is only one problem with the ascension story and that is that it is not stated anywhere in the early or original forms of the Bible. When we do see the first story of the ascension is also, where we also see the first mention of the resurrection, which is in the Gospel of Mark. Moreover, like the resurrection story, it was added 200 years later. There is no story of the ascension in the Gospel of Matthew. Interestingly enough, there is no mention of the ascension in the Gospel of John, but the very end states, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” - John 21:25.

So, if Jesus did not ascend into heaven, what did he do? He had to do something because he could not certainly hang around in Golgotha. He would have to flee somewhere. Where, though? It is thought that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a very special relationship, perhaps that they were married and maybe even had children. If we are to try to find out where Jesus would have and could have fled to, let us take a look of where Mary is said to have gone. The legend says that Mary, and some companions, fled to the south of France. It is also said that one of her companions was Jesus and Mary’s daughter, Sarah. Sarah was disguised and traveled as Mary’s servant. Is it possible that Jesus was also traveling in disguise to evade the Roman forces? This story does sound doubtful. Surely, if Jesus was known to be alive, there would have been some mention of this escape somewhere and his followers would be expecting his return.

In fact, they were expecting his return. His followers were expecting the “second coming”. However, nowhere does it state that this second coming of Jesus was going to be a miraculous event. There is no doubt that some of us view the resurrection story in different ways. However, whether he survived or was resurrected, Jesus does disappear. Jesus tells the disciples that he is leaving. When they ask if they can follow him, he says no, he tells them not to worry, and that he will one day return. It was only when he did not return that the second coming on judgment day was created.

 

[testudoaubreii]

If Jesus and Mary decided to leave the area, where he was known and wanted, there are better options than fleeing to France. That area of France was under Roman control. In fact, much of Europe and the Middle East were under Roman control, so it would be possible that someone could recognize him. Jesus probably knew that he could not stay in a Roman controlled territory, so I think fleeing to France is probably out of the question. Therefore, if you look at a map, there is only really one way to go and that is to head east towards India. How would Jesus get there, though?

The road to India and the east is not as harsh as one would think, even for back then. One could get there relatively easily but sea or land. There were two main routes one could have taken, the Spice Route or the Silk Route. It could not have been too hard, for the disciple Thomas actually traveled to India and founded a Christian church. It would have been easy to travel to India because there was a constant stream of vessels and caravans that would import and export goods and he could have hopped aboard on or the other. However, why would Jesus want to travel east to India, anyway? To answer that question, we have to look at the years when Jesus rather disappeared.

There is no record whatsoever of Jesus from the ages 14-29. It is said that Jesus was in India learning Buddhism during this time. In Buddhism, when the Lama dies, “wise men” would look up to the stars and other signs and begin an arduous journey to seek the new born who is indeed the reincarnation of the Lama. When the infant is found, the men wait until he is of age and then taken away where he learns Buddhism. This sounds an awful lot like the story of the three wise men who sought Jesus and may just be were the story originated. Is it possible that Jesus was taken from his homeland to India and educated as a Buddhist?

There was one person who thought that this is a likely story, a Russian writer by the name of Nicolas Notovitch. He traveled throughout India and on his travels found something very interesting. Notovitch found ancient Tibetan manuscripts in a monastery and set out to translate the manuscript for his book, The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. The ancient text tells about divine youth named Isa who was born in the 1st century. They boy was born to a poor family in Israel and he traveled to India when he was 14 years old. The manuscript goes on to tell that Isa was educated in the ways of Buddhism and then returned to his homeland of Israel when he was 29 years of age. It is odd that the manuscript states this, that there are no records of Jesus in Israel or Palestine from stated ages, that the miracles and other ideas, such as the meek inheriting the earth and loving thy enemy (which is not even discussed in the Jewish tradition, but are completely congruous with the teachings of Buddhism) and that Isa is the Arabic name for Jesus. Do you know what is also consistent in the teachings of Buddhism? The Buddha was able to traverse over water and the Buddha was able to take abandoned food and feed hundreds of hungry mouths with it.

You would think that there would be some sort of record that Jesus was in India, just as I stated about him being in the south of France. However, there are customs in the Kashmir region of India. There are a tribe of people in that region that call themselves Bene Israel, or the Sons of Israel, and they say that they are the lost tribes of Israel. The have a belief that Yuz Asaf (Leader of the Healed), a minister of the 1st century also known as Isa, left the region at 29, but returned to Kashmir in his 30’s. There is a temple in this region, called the Temple of Solomon, that used bare an inscription that told of Yuz Asaf’s allegation that he was Jesus, the profit of Israel, around the 50AD.
Abdullah Assiz Kashmiri, a professor at the University of Srinagar, says that the history books in Kashmir state the Yuz Asaf came from abroad and that he was a profit and that he indeed did travel from Israel. It is said that he traveled back to advance his guidance and that he was indeed Jesus, Isa and Yuz Asaf. Kashmiri also says that another meaning of the name Yuz Asaf is the shepherd, or the one who teaches students. He goes on to say that their history books go on to authenticate that Isa was also known as Yuz Asaf.

Yuz Asaf lived and died in Kashmir. He lived until around the year 80AD. You can actually visit the tomb of Yuz Asaf at the Roza Bal in Srinagar. The first record of a tomb here was recorded around the year 112AD. Today, there are two people buried in the tomb at Roza Bal, Yuz Asaf and a Muslim by the name of Mir Sayyid Naseeruddin. I bring this up, and it is interesting to note, because Naseeruddin is buried in the Muslim tradition north and south, while Yuz Asaf is buried in the Jewish tradition of east and west. Another interesting thing to note that is next to the tomb there are a set of footprints. The thing that is interesting about these footprints is that they are of Yuz Asaf and they have a scar on each foot. It is said that these are the scars of crucifixion. The scares are not identical on each foot, but if you put on footprint over the other, the line up perfectly for a single nail to go through each one, left foot over the right. There are no tales in the traditions of the region that coincide with any of these ideas, lending father credence that Jesus is Isa, and Isa is Yuz Asaf and that this is where he is buried.

These are the reasons why I think that it is a strong possibility that Jesus did not die on the cross, that Jesus was not resurrected and that he did not ascend into heaven.

I know that this is a very long post, so if you made it this far, thank you for reading. I really hope to that this makes a great conversation and I can't wait to hear your responses.

Testudo

 

[Shiranui117]

It seems to me that the options in the poll are a little skewed; there is a difference in saying "this could not possibly have happened' and saying "this was theoretically possible, but did not actually happen."

 

[testudoaubreii]

Perhaps, for simplicity's sake, I should have just put yes or no.

It is theoretically possible that this happened. I think that this scenario makes much more sense than the supernatural version of the story.

Testudo

 

[testudoaubreii]

Delete, please.

 

[fallingblood]

This was a topic I had been quite interested in. After much study, my short answer is that no, Jesus never traveled to India. My long answer will be a critique of your posts.

To begin with, Mark does have a resurrection. Even in the earliest version, there is a resurrection narrative. The women go to the tomb, and they are told that Jesus had risen. Now, no one sees this risen Jesus, but the Gospel does end with Jesus having been raised. Actually it ends with the women not telling anyone of this encounter as they were afraid. But there is a resurrection anyway.

It is true that the other resurrection stories do not agree with each other. But that means very little. If they were historical reconstructions, then it is logical that they would not be identical. Eye witness accounts, or even second/third hand accounts are seldom identical. Especially once they begin being handed down to others. In fact, we should expect to see differences, as if we didn't, then we would know that the stories were just copied. Add to this that the accounts are also motivated by theological reasons, it is only natural that they would be different.

As for the idea that Jesus could have been sedated, it really is illogical. Even if we assume that was the plan (which really there is little chance of), the likely hood that he would survive being taken off the cross is nearly impossible. You cited the source from Josephus, where one person taken down from the cross survived. However, what you don't mention is that this individual had the best and immediate medical care that could be provided. Yet, even with this care, two of those individuals still died. And that was with the best medical care, not just a few people visiting a tomb at night, with a few herbs and quite some time after the ordeal. Really, highly improbable.

And really, if Jesus was still alive, why wouldn't he just have told his disciples what happened? After all, it was his disciples (not Joseph) who supposedly brought the herbs to him. They definitely would have known. More so, the who idea that Jesus was laid in a tomb is quite unlikely anyway. Most likely, he was thrown in a shallow pit.

As for no record of Jesus between 14-29, that means absolutely nothing. In fact, everything up to the age of 14, by most scholars, is assumed to be false. As in, it was made up. And really, we should not expect to see anything about Jesus in his early years anyway, as he really did not become important until after his ministry began. In fact, most historical figures from that time never had anything about their early years written about.

What Jesus was most likely doing during these years was working. There is no reason for him to go to India, as everything that he taught was seen within Judaism. Yes, there are similarities with Buddhism, but those ideas are found within Judaism. Jesus, being a Jew, would have been exposed to these ideas growing up in Judaism. With the three wise men story, it never happened. Scholars discount it as it just is not historically reliable.

For Novotich, there is no evidence he found anything. He never showed the actual book to anyone, and the supposed book does not seemingly exist anymore, even though there have been many attempts to find it.

As for the tomb in Kashmir, there is no reason to think that it belonged to Jesus. The idea with the scars on the feet really are not a good argument, as we really don't know how Jesus was crucified. The traditional pictures of Jesus crucified are probably wrong, based on our best information to date.


There is no reason to think that Jesus went to India. The probability that he went to India is nearly none. There also is no probability that Jesus when to France. He most likely died on the cross, and by the off chance he was sedated, he would have died shortly after.

 

[Muffled]

Perhaps, for simplicity's sake, I should have just put yes or no.

It is theoretically possible that this happened. I think that this scenario makes much more sense than the supernatural version of the story.

Testudo

I believe a supernatural God makes much more sense than an impotent god. I believe there is no other version escept that which might come out of the imaginations of men.

It is theoretically possible that Jesus having survived via resurrection could have spent one of his last forty days on earth visiting other places but there is no Biblical record of it and it seems unlikely to me.

 

[Muffled]

This was a topic I had been quite interested in. After much study, my short answer is that no, Jesus never traveled to India. My long answer will be a critique of your posts.

To begin with, Mark does have a resurrection. Even in the earliest version, there is a resurrection narrative. The women go to the tomb, and they are told that Jesus had risen. Now, no one sees this risen Jesus, but the Gospel does end with Jesus having been raised. Actually it ends with the women not telling anyone of this encounter as they were afraid. But there is a resurrection anyway.

It is true that the other resurrection stories do not agree with each other. But that means very little. If they were historical reconstructions, then it is logical that they would not be identical. Eye witness accounts, or even second/third hand accounts are seldom identical. Especially once they begin being handed down to others. In fact, we should expect to see differences, as if we didn't, then we would know that the stories were just copied. Add to this that the accounts are also motivated by theological reasons, it is only natural that they would be different.

As for the idea that Jesus could have been sedated, it really is illogical. Even if we assume that was the plan (which really there is little chance of), the likely hood that he would survive being taken off the cross is nearly impossible. You cited the source from Josephus, where one person taken down from the cross survived. However, what you don't mention is that this individual had the best and immediate medical care that could be provided. Yet, even with this care, two of those individuals still died. And that was with the best medical care, not just a few people visiting a tomb at night, with a few herbs and quite some time after the ordeal. Really, highly improbable.

And really, if Jesus was still alive, why wouldn't he just have told his disciples what happened? After all, it was his disciples (not Joseph) who supposedly brought the herbs to him. They definitely would have known. More so, the who idea that Jesus was laid in a tomb is quite unlikely anyway. Most likely, he was thrown in a shallow pit.

As for no record of Jesus between 14-29, that means absolutely nothing. In fact, everything up to the age of 14, by most scholars, is assumed to be false. As in, it was made up. And really, we should not expect to see anything about Jesus in his early years anyway, as he really did not become important until after his ministry began. In fact, most historical figures from that time never had anything about their early years written about.

What Jesus was most likely doing during these years was working. There is no reason for him to go to India, as everything that he taught was seen within Judaism. Yes, there are similarities with Buddhism, but those ideas are found within Judaism. Jesus, being a Jew, would have been exposed to these ideas growing up in Judaism. With the three wise men story, it never happened. Scholars discount it as it just is not historically reliable.

For Novotich, there is no evidence he found anything. He never showed the actual book to anyone, and the supposed book does not seemingly exist anymore, even though there have been many attempts to find it.

As for the tomb in Kashmir, there is no reason to think that it belonged to Jesus. The idea with the scars on the feet really are not a good argument, as we really don't know how Jesus was crucified. The traditional pictures of Jesus crucified are probably wrong, based on our best information to date.


There is no reason to think that Jesus went to India. The probability that he went to India is nearly none. There also is no probability that Jesus when to France. He most likely died on the cross, and by the off chance he was sedated, he would have died shortly after.

Probably the idea of sedation comes from the fact that historical data seems to suggest that the drink Jesus was offered had a sedative in it. This is a mercy one hardly can accredit in light of the cruelty of the crucifixion but that possibility exists. In any event sedation does not insure survival and the sword in th heart should have ensured his death even though the soldiers already perceived Him as dead.

 

[Abdu Samad]

Hello,

As you all can probably tell, I am new here, so again hello. I was reading through a thread and some one mentioned some similarities between the teaching of Jesus and Buddhism. I got me thinking about something I heard not too long ago. I went on a research trek and I believe that, if there really was a Jesus, the Jesus that we were taught anyway, there is a strong possibility that he could have actually survived the crucifixion and quite possibly relocated to the Kashmir region of India.

*I had to split what I wrote into 2 posts.*

All of the prior versions of the gospel of Mark state that what the Jesus’s tomb was simply empty. No talk of resurrection, just an empty cave where the body of Jesus should have been. There was no talk of the resurrection until it was added to the gospel of Mark 200 years later. The gospels are supposed to be taken as historical evidence, but they simply are not and they were written to establish the relevance of Jesus and the message that he was trying to convey. Although the gospels did this very well, the authors where not essentially concerned with what really happened. They wanted a story that could help win over potential converts.

We have some accounts from the resurrection from Luke, Matthew and John, but their stories are not on the same page with one another. The gospel of Luke states that after the resurrection, Jesus met with two disciples, names unknown, and they were not familiar with him, that is they did not recognize him. Jesus then meets with the other eleven disciples before they part ways near Jerusalem. The gospel of Matthew states that he met two women by his tomb and then proceeded to convene with each of his disciples individually on a mountain in the town of Galilee. John’s account state the Mary Magdalene visited the tomb and saw that the stone in front of the tomb had been moved and rushed over to get Paul. When they entered the tomb, they saw nothing but the things that they used to bury Jesus with. After the men went home, she stayed and saw two angels and Jesus. Jesus told her not to hold on to him because he has not yet ascended. She then exclaims to everyone that she has seen the lord. No one knows for sure what the reactions of the others were to her account.

To many, the reason why there are different points of view on how the resurrection went down is because the accounts were not penned because a holy miracle happened, but because of a totally political motive. You see, most of the assumed witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus were also the first leaders of the church. Some even suggest that the authors may have used this extraordinary account of the resurrection as a psychological machine to help reign in the potential converts.

We can read the gospels and find out that Jesus drank and ate with his followers, even going as far as allowing Thomas touch his wounds. How could that have happened if he died on the cross? There is a book, The Passover Plot, 1965, that suggests that Jesus was somehow sedated while he was on the cross and that it appeared that he was dead. It also states that because of this he was taken down from the cross earlier than expected. While on the cross, some of the disciples were actually able to give Jesus something via a sponge. "They filled the sponge with vinegar and put it upon hyssop and put it to his mouth." - John 19:29 Jesus immediately died after taking this substance. "When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said it is finished." - John 19:30.

Sedation is not the only reason to believe that Jesus may have survived the crucifixion. There is an account of a crucifixion survival story recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus. He was sent to survey land for a Roman garrison somewhere near Palestine and he came across three of his friends hanging from crosses. He immediately requested for the three men to be taken down and General Titus granted permission. They cut down and received medical attention. Two of his friends died, but the other survived the crucifixion.

According to the gospels, the story goes that the day of the Sabbath was coming up, so the Romans wanted to make sure that the three men that were being crucified, were dead before the Sabbath. The Romans saw that two of the three men were still alive, so they broke their legs to speed up the execution process. The third man, however, seemed limp and lifeless so they assumed that he was dead and did not break his legs. That man was Jesus.
The crucifixion of Jesus happened very quickly, perhaps too quickly. The Romans said that Jesus was on the cross for 6 hours, they checked the body and they assumed he was dead. He was cut down and sealed in his tomb, for he was dead. However, was he dead, clinically dead? Some concerns about whether he is dead are brought to the surface because it is said that Joseph of Arimathea brought certain herbs into the tomb that were not necessarily used for the embalming process. He brought in aloes and they were used more for their medicinal purposes. There are story all over the world, from ancient time to the present day where people who are assumed to be dead, that is they are non-responsive to what is going on around them, but then are revived or resuscitated. Let us take Lazarus for example. He arose from the dead 4 days after his presumable death. Was he resurrected or resuscitated?

When we start to talk about whether or not Jesus was crucified and the resurrected, it obviously becomes very controversial. However, it is clearly stated in every gospel that the disciples viewed Jesus after his death in such a way that was very much alive. This information does not mean that the story of the resurrection was a put on show or a calculated deception. There is an idea that was brought forth by the English author Samuel Butler, and it is that if Jesus was sent into a socked induced coma while suffering on the cross and then recovered while in the tomb, then Jesus and all of the disciples would have viewed his “resurrection” as a miracle.

The disciples where just ordinary people that thought they saw an extraordinary event. People have near death experiences all over the world. Some say that they see this brilliant light and it is looked upon as some sort of miraculous sign. However, in the ancient times did not have the technology and the knowledge that we do today. They did not have the scientific equipment that we do today to revive people from what appears to be a dead state. Therefore, it does make sense for the disciples that saw the resurrection, looked upon Jesus’s revival as a miracle or an act of god.

Let us say that somehow Jesus survived the crucifixion. Now, there is a big problem for Jesus and his disciples. If Jesus were alive after the execution, he would still be a wanted man. In the Bible, Jesus is taken away through the act of ascension, where his body is lifted up into heaven. There is only one problem with the ascension story and that is that it is not stated anywhere in the early or original forms of the Bible. When we do see the first story of the ascension is also, where we also see the first mention of the resurrection, which is in the Gospel of Mark. Moreover, like the resurrection story, it was added 200 years later. There is no story of the ascension in the Gospel of Matthew. Interestingly enough, there is no mention of the ascension in the Gospel of John, but the very end states, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” - John 21:25.

So, if Jesus did not ascend into heaven, what did he do? He had to do something because he could not certainly hang around in Golgotha. He would have to flee somewhere. Where, though? It is thought that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a very special relationship, perhaps that they were married and maybe even had children. If we are to try to find out where Jesus would have and could have fled to, let us take a look of where Mary is said to have gone. The legend says that Mary, and some companions, fled to the south of France. It is also said that one of her companions was Jesus and Mary’s daughter, Sarah. Sarah was disguised and traveled as Mary’s servant. Is it possible that Jesus was also traveling in disguise to evade the Roman forces? This story does sound doubtful. Surely, if Jesus was known to be alive, there would have been some mention of this escape somewhere and his followers would be expecting his return.

In fact, they were expecting his return. His followers were expecting the “second coming”. However, nowhere does it state that this second coming of Jesus was going to be a miraculous event. There is no doubt that some of us view the resurrection story in different ways. However, whether he survived or was resurrected, Jesus does disappear. Jesus tells the disciples that he is leaving. When they ask if they can follow him, he says no, he tells them not to worry, and that he will one day return. It was only when he did not return that the second coming on judgment day was created.

Please Google following line:

The best scholarly page on the life of Isa Jesus from A to Z. A Treasure for the Students of Comparative religion