Jesus in India

[paarsurrey]

of course its very true that not everyone survived a crucifixtion; not all people are in the same physical condition - some are weaker and less able than others. Jmmanuel on the other hand WAS strong, healthy, WELL travelled and his own spiritual status gave him the ability to withstand the ordeal. You say he didnt have what it took to survive; he learned an incredible amount of spiritual knowledge in india as well as having learnt even further and powerful knowledge about the power of the spirit when he was further trained by the celestial sons. mastering such skills as knowledge can empower one to do anything and in the TJ, he teaches and proves it time and time again; people simply doubt themselves too much and this is why many do not succeed.

i also dont particularly trust the bible too much, though parts of it are true, according to similarities in the TJ. When he was stabbed by the spear and water/blood came out, yes this signifies either death or near-death. although the soldier said he was dead, everyone else was puzzled because he wasnt on the cross for so long and again his legs were not broken, thus allowing him to remain in a controlled near-death state.

The power of his spirit through understanding its unlimited abilities allowed him to survive the ordeal...and if one reads the TJ and books about his learning in india, one can see his ability to do so.

An excert from the TJ, (remember that Judas Ischariot; Jmmanuel's trusted friend, wrote this), which supports his training in india and with the celestial sons after he was baptised:

TJ:29:22:
QUOTE, "...I have added to my knowledge in this incarnation by gaining great cognition and learning true wisdom, which was impoarted to me by his teachers over a period of 40 days and 40 nights. Furthermore, I have travelled extensively to faraway palces and lived for many years in the land of India. There I was taught much knowledge and many secrets by the great wise and knowledgeable men who are known as masters. When I have fulfilled my mission here, I will return there with Thomas, my brother, who is a faithful disciple of mine." UNQUOTE

I agree with you that Jesus was in near death condition when he was delivered from the Cross.

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus was a common name back at that time....perhaps the Jesus he spent time with was not the same Jesus who became the Christ.

Kindly prove with evidences that the Jesus who lived in India with his mother Mary and who travelled to India along-with his many of disciples was some different Jesus.

I think you are wrong and cannot prove it with any real evidences.

 

[fallingblood]

Kindly prove with evidences that the Jesus who lived in India with his mother Mary and who travelled to India along-with his many of disciples was some different Jesus.

I think you are wrong and cannot prove it with any real evidences.

Can you prove with evidence that Jesus ever lived in India with his mother? No you can't. So really, Pegg doesn't have to prove anything.

There is no evidence Jesus and Mary lived in India.

 

[fallingblood]

ur first statement is totally unfound, with no backup following it. Explain.

The next couple of paragraphs explain why the TJ is worthless when detailing the historical Jesus.

And what are your best sources? The bible was written (i learnt recently) by Saul (now st paul) who was an enemy of Jmmanuel...he changed but still had his own thinking after Jmmanuel left and was not faithful to the intial cause. thanks to him and later changes, the bible has become very inconsistent...even the 4 gospels dont say the same things and many passages are either very contradictive to church teachings or make no sense.
Original manuscripts are hidden away, as the pure teachings of Creation do not conform with the teachings of the church. The vatican knows this but will never admit it. and other manuscripts in india and tibet will never be accepted by the church for the same reason however they know about them too. The book of Henoch for example is such a book of the original teachings but because it is not what the church wants you to know, it (amongst other writings) was taken out during the council of Nicea (~328AD i think)
Why do you think pope john paul II went to Orissa, india to st thomas''s tomb? if jesus had died on the cross and was buried in jeruselum, why would st thomas be in orissa?

Paul did not write the Bible. The Gospels were written by a variety of individuals, none of which were Paul. Paul didn't write any of the OT, or a handful of the NT. He only wrote a few letters that are agreed to be by him. And no, he wasn't an enemy of Jesus. He never met Jesus in person. He only knew of the message, the movement that Jesus started. And he followed that movement. He had little to do with the Bible as a whole.

Original manuscripts are not hidden away. They simply don't exist. That is common sense as most manuscripts are fragile and don't last thousands of years. As for manuscripts in India and the like, they simply don't exist. People claim they exist, but no one has ever found them. Even when they supposedly know where the manuscripts are, they still make up some reason why they can't find them. More so, if the Church was trying so hard to hide these documents, why do we have dozens of these documents? We have a plethora of books that never made it into the Bible, and say very different things than what the Bible does. So you're argument fails from the very fact that we do have documents that contradict the Bible, and are opposed to the Biblical book, and the Church did nothing to stop them from being seen.

As for why St. Thomas would be in Orissa? Because he's not Jesus. That seems pretty simple.

'Second, you haven't shown that he was in India. You're simply making things up now. ' you clearly havent read my earlier posts...i suggest you do.

I've read them. You have absolutely nothing.

' again you clearly havent read my earlier posts.

I have, they just aren't convincing, and they don't offer any actual evidence. They instead make up evidence that really doesn't need to be there.

 

[Pegg]

Kindly prove with evidences that the Jesus who lived in India with his mother Mary and who travelled to India along-with his many of disciples was some different Jesus.

I think you are wrong and cannot prove it with any real evidences.

of his chosen apostles and their writings, they fail to mention such a travel.

According to them, During Jesus childhood, he went to Jerusalem every year for the passover with his family as was the custom of the jews. He was also learned a trade as a carpenter with his father and by that age of 30, began his ministry and announced the coming of the kingdom. He was killed just 3 and a half years into his ministry. So i dont know where he and his mother found the time to go to India, especially considering she had several children to look after. I doubt she would have wanted to leave her home town with 5 kids in tow.

 

[cbachinger]

What need Jesus' friends had to be scared with? If Jesus had told them that he would become alive from the medically and physically dead; Jesus' friends should have not demanded the body of Jesus from Pilate-the Roman official; they should have left Jesus' body in the open where if was lying after crucifixion; so that he gets resurrected before the very eyes of the "adulterous Jews" who had demanded a sign from Jesus and Jesus had promised the same.
Why interfere with the sign of Jesus in the first place?

Of course they were scared...even Jmmanuel was...they knew that powerful people were after him and they were simple people. Any person would be in that position.

He didnt 'promise' them anything; he simply stated that he would rise in 3 days and that happened to be in the tomb; would you allow your child or friend to be left in the open after dieing...no human being would, regardless of the harshness of the character. He fulfilled his sign by 'rising' or getting up after 3 days of medical treatment by his friend from india.

Now 'rise' doesnt only mean 'resurrect from the dead' and is cleverly used by the church. Rise can also simply mean 'get up'.

There is a teaching of the truth that Ive become with familiar with and Jmmanuel taught the same...for those that demand to see proof but you know that their own attitudes and beliefs will ignore it anyway, do not even bother to show them as they will strike you back regardless.

 

[cbachinger]

I agree with you here.

The TJ stands for 'Talmud Jmmanuel' (Chronicales or Story of Jmmanuel).

At least we agree on something important.

 

[cbachinger]

I agree with you that Jesus was in near death condition when he was delivered from the Cross.

which explains how he was able to rest and be treated while lieing in the tomb and then return to India.

 

[cbachinger]

Kindly prove with evidences that the Jesus who lived in India with his mother Mary and who travelled to India along-with his many of disciples was some different Jesus.

I think you are wrong and cannot prove it with any real evidences.

What is this nonsense? 2 jesus's? just drop it!

 

[cbachinger]

Can you prove with evidence that Jesus ever lived in India with his mother? No you can't. So really, Pegg doesn't have to prove anything.

There is no evidence Jesus and Mary lived in India.

ill say again fallingblood, read my earlier posts, that holds a lot of evidence.
And mary never reached India because she died on the way there and is buried in Pakistan in a town named after her called Murree.

 

[cbachinger]

The next couple of paragraphs explain why the TJ is worthless when detailing the historical Jesus.

Paul did not write the Bible. The Gospels were written by a variety of individuals, none of which were Paul. Paul didn't write any of the OT, or a handful of the NT. He only wrote a few letters that are agreed to be by him. And no, he wasn't an enemy of Jesus. He never met Jesus in person. He only knew of the message, the movement that Jesus started. And he followed that movement. He had little to do with the Bible as a whole.

according to the church, the gospels were written by individuals. Many things for the church are according to whoever wrote it and the people follow it without thinking logically.

Both the bible and TJ state that Saul was against Jmmanuel's teachings. saul was on his way to do bad but Jmmanuel 'intercepted' him told him not to, Saul refused and Jmmanuel 'blinded him' with a kind of ancient firework formula he had learn of in india, to diliberately startle and confuse Saul. he soon convinced saul to return to his home and preach the true teachings. Saul agreed but his corrupt human mind overwhelmed him and therefore corrupted his own future work.

Original manuscripts are not hidden away. They simply don't exist. That is common sense as most manuscripts are fragile and don't last thousands of years. As for manuscripts in India and the like, they simply don't exist. People claim they exist, but no one has ever found them. Even when they supposedly know where the manuscripts are, they still make up some reason why they can't find them. More so, if the Church was trying so hard to hide these documents, why do we have dozens of these documents? We have a plethora of books that never made it into the Bible, and say very different things than what the Bible does. So you're argument fails from the very fact that we do have documents that contradict the Bible, and are opposed to the Biblical book, and the Church did nothing to stop them from being seen.

you say that you have read my earlier posts; then what you say falls to the ground with no body. Have you done research to support your own statement that there are no manuscripts or knowledge of Jmmanuel in india?
We have many of these documents but they are not in such open view to the public, as is the bible and other accepted books by the church. you try putting the original books of truth (knowledge of Creation and the power of the human spirit through creational knowledge) such as the book of Henoch and TJ (Talmud Jmmanuel) on the church bookshelf and you will see the reaction of the clergy cleaning up the books. many people would also be either scared of this 'new' truth through the teachings of their own religion, as its seen as heretical or they would say 'ok, whatever'.

As for why St. Thomas would be in Orissa? Because he's not Jesus. That seems pretty simple.
I've read them. You have absolutely nothing.

I didnt say st thomas was Jesus. im obviously talking about thomas, Jmmanuel's brother.

I have, they just aren't convincing, and they don't offer any actual evidence. They instead make up evidence that really doesn't need to be there.

Are you sure? because a lot of what ive presented in this discussion, comes from credited professionals and passionate truthseekers. Their websites are also literally crammed full of continuously new and revised information and available evidence to support their work. Professor James Deardorff is one of them.
What i enjoyed watching, was a comparison of the major verses with the gospel of matthew and TJ. some matthews verses by themselves are convincing whil eother dont make sense and when compared to the TJ, you can see either illogic statements or clear contradictions.

 

[cbachinger]

of his chosen apostles and their writings, they fail to mention such a travel.

According to them, During Jesus childhood, he went to Jerusalem every year for the passover with his family as was the custom of the jews. He was also learned a trade as a carpenter with his father and by that age of 30, began his ministry and announced the coming of the kingdom. He was killed just 3 and a half years into his ministry. So i dont know where he and his mother found the time to go to India, especially considering she had several children to look after. I doubt she would have wanted to leave her home town with 5 kids in tow.

So he grew up normally, worked as a carpenter and suddenly had this great wisdom that knocked down all who listened to him and then the so called 'son of god' dies quickly on the cross - ? that makes no logic sense.

 

[fallingblood]

ill say again fallingblood, read my earlier posts, that holds a lot of evidence.
And mary never reached India because she died on the way there and is buried in Pakistan in a town named after her called Murree.

I will say it again as well. I have read your earlier posts. No actual evidence. The TJ is not evidence of anything.

And there is no evidence that Mary even tried to go to India. There simply is none. Sure, there is a town named similar to her, but we can find those throughout the world. Mary is a very common name.

 

[fallingblood]

according to the church, the gospels were written by individuals. Many things for the church are according to whoever wrote it and the people follow it without thinking logically.

According to everyone, the Gospels were written by individuals. That is how books are written. The Church though admits that they don't fully know who the actual authors are. If you look at many Catholic scholars, they will and do debate who actually wrote the Gospels. And no, they don't just blindly follow what is said. To say such shows really no familiarity with the Church.

Both the bible and TJ state that Saul was against Jmmanuel's teachings. saul was on his way to do bad but Jmmanuel 'intercepted' him told him not to, Saul refused and Jmmanuel 'blinded him' with a kind of ancient firework formula he had learn of in india, to diliberately startle and confuse Saul. he soon convinced saul to return to his home and preach the true teachings. Saul agreed but his corrupt human mind overwhelmed him and therefore corrupted his own future work.

The Bible does not state that Paul was against the teachings of Jesus, besides at the very onset of his work. However, Jesus never blinded Saul with some kind of ancient firework. Jesus, according to the Bible, was dead. It was the risen Jesus that appeared to Saul. And in fact, that story isn't the only one of the "conversion" of Paul.

More so, Saul didn't return home. He never is said to have gone back to Tarsus. Instead, he went to Arabia, and then eventually to Jerusalem, where he learned from the disciples (and brother) of Jesus. To say that his message is corrupted simply is incorrect. And the story you're weaving here simply is not reliable in any sense, as it isn't relying on our best sources.

you say that you have read my earlier posts; then what you say falls to the ground with no body. Have you done research to support your own statement that there are no manuscripts or knowledge of Jmmanuel in india?
We have many of these documents but they are not in such open view to the public, as is the bible and other accepted books by the church. you try putting the original books of truth (knowledge of Creation and the power of the human spirit through creational knowledge) such as the book of Henoch and TJ (Talmud Jmmanuel) on the church bookshelf and you will see the reaction of the clergy cleaning up the books. many people would also be either scared of this 'new' truth through the teachings of their own religion, as its seen as heretical or they would say 'ok, whatever'.

Yes, I have done research. I have read nearly all accounts of Jesus being in India. What they lack is actual evidence. There are no actual manuscripts that we can examine. They are either lost, we are forbidden to see them, or there never were any, and simply passed down by word of mouth. There just isn't any evidence.

And it isn't just accepted books of the church that are open to the public. The Gospel of Thomas was not an accepted book, but we can easily locate that (I have copies of it in fact). The Gospel of Judas, Peter, Mary, etc are all books not accepted by the church, yet we still have access to them. We even have access to supposed translations of texts concerning Jesus in India (I say supposed translations as we don't have the original manuscripts which are said to exist, yet we simply can look at them because the Buddhist monks won't turn them over).

So really, if one looks at it, the people even keeping us from the actual manuscripts is not the church, but various Buddhist monks who simply can't allow us to see the manuscripts for various reasons.

And of course most won't accept the TJ or books like it as they are poor works. The TJ is claimed to have been found by a crazy man claimed to have found. It wasn't even released until the 1970s, and the original manuscripts never have been shown to be of any ancient time period, because they were conveniently destroyed (I don't see why the people who discovered them would have destroyed them. I mean, if Meier actually discovered them, why did he later destroy them? Probably because he made it all up). So of course we aren't going to believe conspiracy theories that can't support themselves. As for the book of Henoch (I'm guessing you meant Enoch), Christians (at least some) do study it. I know of many Catholic scholars, and other Christian scholars who are quite familiar with the book. They may not take it as fact, but they do study it.

I didnt say st thomas was Jesus. im obviously talking about thomas, Jmmanuel's brother.

Still doesn't make a difference. St. Thomas isn't Jesus. If St. Thomas is somewhere, it means nothing about Jesus. So I don't get your initial point.

Are you sure? because a lot of what ive presented in this discussion, comes from credited professionals and passionate truthseekers. Their websites are also literally crammed full of continuously new and revised information and available evidence to support their work. Professor James Deardorff is one of them.
What i enjoyed watching, was a comparison of the major verses with the gospel of matthew and TJ. some matthews verses by themselves are convincing whil eother dont make sense and when compared to the TJ, you can see either illogic statements or clear contradictions.

Yes, I'm sure. Looking at Professor James Deardroff, he is not credited in religious studies. If you look at his area of expertise, it is in Atmospheric Science. He didn't get into NT studies until after he retired. He is considered an expert by no one in the field. Not to mention that he holds views that simply have no bearing on NT fields. He claims that Mark was dependent on Matthew. That is accepted by nearly no one anymore. Markan priority has long been held by the vast majority of scholars. He simply is in no way credible. And the fact that no serious scholar will touch the TJ should be a clue.

Really, he is as credible as Dan Brown when it comes to the NT.

 

[Pegg]

So he grew up normally, worked as a carpenter and suddenly had this great wisdom that knocked down all who listened to him and then the so called 'son of god' dies quickly on the cross - ? that makes no logic sense.

the gospel relate a story of Jesus, at age 12 sitting, in the temple for 3 days astounding the priests and teachers with his wisdom and knowledge of the law.

But he did lead a very normal jewish life while he was growing up. In jewish culture back then, a person was not viewed as a full grown adult until age 30...Jesus did not present himself as the messiah until he was 30 years of age. So yes, he led a very normal existence until he had reached full maturity.

 

[paarsurrey]

the gospel relate a story of Jesus, at age 12 sitting, in the temple for 3 days astounding the priests and teachers with his wisdom and knowledge of the law.

But he did lead a very normal jewish life while he was growing up. In jewish culture back then, a person was not viewed as a full grown adult until age 30...Jesus did not present himself as the messiah until he was 30 years of age. So yes, he led a very normal existence until he had reached full maturity.

I don't think Bible presents all account of Jesus life; Bible concentrates only on three years of Jesus ministry in Jerusalem; and even that incorrectly.

Previous of these tree years and after; for that Bible is a closed book.

 

[cbachinger]

I will say it again as well. I have read your earlier posts. No actual evidence. The TJ is not evidence of anything.

And there is no evidence that Mary even tried to go to India. There simply is none. Sure, there is a town named similar to her, but we can find those throughout the world. Mary is a very common name.

As you wish...go in peace

True, mary is a common name but i speak towards this particular mary and pakistan is mostly a muslim country, so why would such a name be there. and in those old days yes people travelled but they kept moving. Jmmanuel has no place named after him and yet Murree is.

 

[cbachinger]

According to everyone, the Gospels were written by individuals. That is how books are written. The Church though admits that they don't fully know who the actual authors are. If you look at many Catholic scholars, they will and do debate who actually wrote the Gospels. And no, they don't just blindly follow what is said. To say such shows really no familiarity with the Church.
The Bible does not state that Paul was against the teachings of Jesus, besides at the very onset of his work. However, Jesus never blinded Saul with some kind of ancient firework. Jesus, according to the Bible, was dead. It was the risen Jesus that appeared to Saul. And in fact, that story isn't the only one of the "conversion" of Paul.

Well considering that i dont fully believe in the bible, i will always see it as the 'jesus' who survived and had the incident with saul.

More so, Saul didn't return home. He never is said to have gone back to Tarsus. Instead, he went to Arabia, and then eventually to Jerusalem, where he learned from the disciples (and brother) of Jesus. To say that his message is corrupted simply is incorrect. And the story you're weaving here simply is not reliable in any sense, as it isn't relying on our best sources.

Sometimes i really doubt our 'best' religious sources. Jmmanuel is the most celebrated person in history and yet 'offically' almost nothing concrete is known as well as the church 'writing' for its own glorification and billions follow without question...that is really sad...and its also based on stories.

Yes, I have done research. I have read nearly all accounts of Jesus being in India. What they lack is actual evidence. There are no actual manuscripts that we can examine. They are either lost, we are forbidden to see them, or there never were any, and simply passed down by word of mouth. There just isn't any evidence.

And it isn't just accepted books of the church that are open to the public. The Gospel of Thomas was not an accepted book, but we can easily locate that (I have copies of it in fact). The Gospel of Judas, Peter, Mary, etc are all books not accepted by the church, yet we still have access to them. We even have access to supposed translations of texts concerning Jesus in India (I say supposed translations as we don't have the original manuscripts which are said to exist, yet we simply can look at them because the Buddhist monks won't turn them over).

So really, if one looks at it, the people even keeping us from the actual manuscripts is not the church, but various Buddhist monks who simply can't allow us to see the manuscripts for various reasons.

they cant show us (for now) coz the dalia lama is still in exile (who knows how long) and will not allow the archives opened until he returns.

And of course most won't accept the TJ or books like it as they are poor works. The TJ is claimed to have been found by a crazy man claimed to have found. It wasn't even released until the 1970s, and the original manuscripts never have been shown to be of any ancient time period, because they were conveniently destroyed (I don't see why the people who discovered them would have destroyed them. I mean, if Meier actually discovered them, why did he later destroy them? Probably because he made it all up). So of course we aren't going to believe conspiracy theories that can't support themselves. As for the book of Henoch (I'm guessing you meant Enoch), Christians (at least some) do study it. I know of many Catholic scholars, and other Christian scholars who are quite familiar with the book. They may not take it as fact, but they do study it.
Still doesn't make a difference. St. Thomas isn't Jesus. If St. Thomas is somewhere, it means nothing about Jesus. So I don't get your initial point.

first of all, the crazy man is the most spiritually enlightened person on the planet and there is a lot that we can learn from him. when people question his material or actions I then ask, then why has he been targeted for assassination 20+ times since the contacts began? why would he have destroyed the manuscript, knowing the priceless information inside? He did try to get it carbon dated but the preservative resin made it difficult to do so...i dont know the finer details. and Isa Rachid paid with his life translating the manuscript from arameic into german as he knew the authorities would find out and they did.
And when one actually looks into his work, you see a lot of gross consistensies, where as when you make things up, you are always bound to mess up somewhere because imagination has limits but concrete truth always prevails. and that is why his name (as dodgy as u makes it sound) is constantly coming up.

Yes, I'm sure. Looking at Professor James Deardroff, he is not credited in religious studies. If you look at his area of expertise, it is in Atmospheric Science. He didn't get into NT studies until after he retired. He is considered an expert by no one in the field. Not to mention that he holds views that simply have no bearing on NT fields. He claims that Mark was dependent on Matthew. That is accepted by nearly no one anymore. Markan priority has long been held by the vast majority of scholars. He simply is in no way credible. And the fact that no serious scholar will touch the TJ should be a clue.

Really, he is as credible as Dan Brown when it comes to the NT.

im not worried about his past; yes im sure he didnt spend his life on this. its his current work and research that is the point.

forgot to mention, if christian scholars were indeed studying the book of Henoch, there would be a different feeling within the religious ranks, coz the information is significantly different to what the church preaches. and of course many certain original teachings are available and can be read but like i said, try mentioning this in church.

 

[cbachinger]

I don't think Bible presents all account of Jesus life; Bible concentrates only on three years of Jesus ministry in Jerusalem; and even that incorrectly.

Previous of these tree years and after; for that Bible is a closed book.

We know for a fact that the bible is not credible but the church has rubbed it in enough for us to want to accept it.

 

[paarsurrey]

We know for a fact that the bible is not credible but the church has rubbed it in enough for us to want to accept it.

Church has only played with the Bible and made it more incredible, in my opinion.