Did Jesus leave the holy land during "silent years"

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

What does everyone think?

[hospitaller]

I have absolutely no idea! :huh:

[HerodionRomulus]

Since there is no evidence at all, it is just personal opinion.

I think he stayed and worked in the construction industry with his father.
Sepphoris, the capital of Galilee was only 5 miles from Nazareth and was being built during the period after Herod the Great (01-40 ce.)

I have heard about Jesus going to Britain and studying with the Druids, because his uncle was Joseph of Arimathea who was supposed to have controlled the tin mining monopoly of Cornwall. That is all nonsense made up by the medieval monks of Glastonbury(?) to pump up the tourist business to their monastery and cathedral.

[hospitaller]

"I have heard about Jesus going to Britain and studying with the Druids, because his uncle was Joseph of Arimathea who was supposed to have controlled the tin mining monopoly of Cornwall. That is all nonsense made up by the medieval monks of Glastonbury(?) to pump up the tourist business to their monastery and cathedral."

Yeah, but I think that if I believed in stuff just 'cos it suited me personally, I'd just have to be a true believer in Jesus having worked in a Cornish tin-mine! :smile: It's how I would have liked it to have been! But less of my mortal ramblings...

[Solly]

Since all the tales about him going elsewhere are usually linked to nonBiblical views on Christ and his gospel, and don't forget Egypt in the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, I will rest on the fact that nothing is recorded of his doing so, he never says anything about it "Like, when I went to see the Dalai lama, man..."

Luk 2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

[NeilUnreal]

I'm guessing "No" for pretty much the same reasons as Solly:

1) Although long-distance travel was not completely unknown at the time, it would have been unusual for a craftsman from that area to have roamed so far afield. The Gospels imply that Jesus lived and worked as a community member before beginning His role as Christ.

2) Had such travel occurred, it's likely that the Gospels and Epistles would refer to it unambiguously at least a time or two.

-Neil

[BKofNM]

I think the Bible is almost silent on the issue. The only mention is Luke 2: 51-52 where it says he went to Palestine where he grew in stature and wisdom. It does not suggest that he went elsewhere to grow in wisdom. There is no suggestion in the writings of the early church fathers that he ever left Palestine. And leaving Palestine in those days was not a small undertaking.

I think all that forces us to accept the belief that he remained in Palestine unless some other, better attested evidence should be presented. (And please don't tell me about his alleged trip to India--that is such a weak story.)

BK

[MuggleOrSquib]

(Note: There was no Dalai Lama until centuries later. There was actually a 'Nestorian' bishop of Lhasa before there was a Dalai Lama--this isn't relevent however)

My evidence is evidence from silence, however lets review:
1) The Ancient Churches tended to find/establish places of pilgrimage, connected either with Jesus or with saints and/or martyrs.
2) The Nestorians had Christian communities both in Central Asia, north of India and Tibet, and in South India (modern Kerala state)
3) There are records of Nestorian pilgrimages.
3a) There are current pilgrimages to the tomb of St. Thomas in Madras
3b) During the 13th century, 2 Christain monks from Peking went on a pilgrimage heading for JERUSALEM (and not the MUCH nearer Tibet)
4) There are Christian inscriptions in eastern Ladakh (near Tibet), so Christians passed through the area [the inscriptions are in Sogdian, a language kin to old Persian]
4b) There was a Nestorian bishop of Lhasa (Mar Timotheus mentions him)
5) There are NO records of Tibetan or Indian pilgrimages by the Nestorian Christian community connected with Jesus having been anywhere outside of Palestine/Israel
7) The earliest claims of Jesus being in India/Kashmir/Tibet/Ladakh date from the 19th century. (The supposed document(s) in the Buddhist monastery in Ladakh haven't been dated)
8) Regarding Egypt:There are Coptic pilgrimages to places in Egypt connected with the infancy of Jesus, but that's not relevent. There are NO Coptic pilgrimages to Egyptian locations connected with the 'lost years'. So the very community in Egypt which WOULD be interested, doesn't and hasn't believed that Jesus was there since His infancy.
9) More on Egypt: Greek and Egyptian anti-Semitism would not make Egypt a logical destination (and would probably prohibit Egyptian priests from initiating a Jew into their myteries).

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[wdwwilder]

he trained with Joseph untill he died. Then he had the responsablity to remain at home and care for his family after Joseph's death until the last of his sisters or brothers got marryed at the wedding feast at cana! that was why Mary was asking his help about the wine. it is no mystery just as we can be sure Jesus did many thing not record simple because they are not relavant.

[HerodionRomulus]

Bob

Thanks for the info on the Nestorians. I did not know that there was a Lhasa bishop. I've always had an interest in them, but had never encountered that tidbit of info.

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

Hi everyone I agree Jesus probably stayed in palestine.My purpose in posting that poll was to see if their was anyone on Tweb who held the veiw that he didn't,and if so how they would make that case.

[HerodionRomulus]

Yesterday @ 06:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350020#post350020)
Ivo Shandor:

Hi everyone I agree Jesus probably stayed in palestine.My purpose in posting that poll was to see if their was anyone on Tweb who held the veiw that he didn't,and if so how they would make that case.

There are 4 Other votes. What are those?

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

I have no idea.

[Paul]

Now there are 5 :wink:

[Vorkosigan]

it's not impossible that Jesus might have gone to India; there is just no evidence for it. The Romans had close trade ties with the East, and maintained a factory in southern India near Pondicherry in the early Christian era. There is an old Jewish community in Kerala too.


3a) There are current pilgrimages to the tomb of St. Thomas in Madras

Been there. Not only can you see the probably mythical tomb, but you can also see the spear that killed him! Francis Xavier is buried in Old Goa.

Vorkosigan

[Ebolav]

Here is a stray thought I had..

In heaven (I am talking about many religions' idea of heaven), there is nothing negative.. Right? No pain, no suffering, etc..

Here are some obvious problems with that.. We all have painful memories. Will we be able to remember those painful things in these heavens? If so, then there will be pain in heaven. The only other options are

1. Your mind is fundementally altered such that it is not ALLOWED to recall or think of anything painful.. Which OBVIOUSLY compromises FREE WILL..

OR

2. When you think of things that were once painful they bring you JOY.. This seems rediculous. imagine someone thinking about getting raped when they were young. That is going to bring them JOY?? That makes no sense..

Here is a second problem: The problem of free will..

If there is free will in heaven, then why wouldn't there be "sin"? If you are going to answer "the gods will make it so you ONLY choose certain things - all of those things GOOD.. than that is NOT free will..

If you are going to make the claim "god BANS evil from heaven so it simply DOESN'T exist" than the question must be asked "why could that god not have done that here?"

Those are some problems with the idea of heaven.. Heaven and freewill don't mix.

[Ebolav]

For the record.. There is no such thing as jeisus christ..

If you believe that this jesus christ is coming here to save humanity, your are very desperate.. Have some integrity and stand up to the reality of death and pain. You are not going to be saved. GROW UP. There is no Santa Clause.

[wyrm_ouroboros]

Personally, assuming that Jesus Christ existed (and if so, one, rather than multiple people) I sincerly doubt he left the Holy Land. Why? Well it would take a long time back then and even if he is supposedly God's son I doubt even he could've circled the globe in that period of time... or even gotten as far as Tibet or Asia...
Of course I could be wrong... just a personal opinion

[shunyadragon]

Personally, assuming that Jesus Christ existed (and if so, one, rather than multiple people) I sincerly doubt he left the Holy Land. Why? Well it would take a long time back then and even if he is supposedly God's son I doubt even he could've circled the globe in that period of time... or even gotten as far as Tibet or Asia...
Of course I could be wrong... just a personal opinion

He could have traveled to asia, because trade routes were known, but probably very difficult and questionable. At the time of Christ there is evidence that Buddhism was known to the Greeks. 4000 years ago nephrite jade from Xinjiang Province was found in Ancient Persia digs and in eastern China. If he was in reality God's son or God the travel would be no problem.

I think he probably stayed home worked as a carpenter and maybe had a family.

[oxmixmudd]

He could have traveled to asia, because trade routes were known, but probably very difficult and questionable. At the time of Christ there is evidence that Buddhism was known to the Greeks. 4000 years ago nephrite jade from Xinjiang Province was found in Ancient Persia digs and in eastern China. If he was in reality God's son or God the travel would be no problem.

I think he probably stayed home worked as a carpenter and maybe had a family.

Ack! :lol:

Allowing for the Gospels to have some element of truth in them, which you seem inclined not to do, it is most likely that Jesus, being the first born, ran the family, as Joseph was most likely dead by the time he started His ministry. (There is no mention of him post the 12yr scene where He hung back at the temple talking with the scribes and pharasies). This would be the responsible thing to do, and would most likely preclude making any terribly long treks. As for having a family - well, the only reason to conclude that is that you place no value at all in the truth of what the Gospels tell us about Him. It which case, what is the point in acknowledging Him at all?

Of course, I could be repeating something already said - if so I apologize. I saw the last two comments and this is my knee jerk response to that text.


Jim

[brother vinny]

Ack! :lol:

Allowing for the Gospels to have some element of truth in them, which you seem inclined not to do, it is most likely that Jesus, being the first born, ran the family, as Joseph was most likely dead by the time he started His ministry. (There is no mention of him post the 12yr scene where He hung back at the temple talking with the scribes and pharasies). This would be the responsible thing to do, and would most likely preclude making any terribly long treks. As for having a family - well, the only reason to conclude that is that you place no value at all in the truth of what the Gospels tell us about Him. It which case, what is the point in acknowledging Him at all?

Of course, I could be repeating something already said - if so I apologize. I saw the last two comments and this is my knee jerk response to that text.


Jim
According to Biff, Christ's childhood friend, they traveled to Asia together.

[oxmixmudd]

According to Biff, Christ's childhood friend, they traveled to Asia together.

Ok ... :lol:

I didn't read page one. Page two starts with a blanket statement Jesus never existed and then goes into arbitrary speculation. Having read the entire post, I see that not only was what I said already said, I was reacting out of context in the entire thread.

I do have a bit of a bone to pick with the constant arbitrary assumption that the Gospel writers were deceitful cheats that seems to pervade (un?)biblical archaeology in general. But I should familiarize myself a bit more with the subject matter before spouting off. We all have our moments.


Jim

[shunyadragon]

Ack! :lol:

Allowing for the Gospels to have some element of truth in them, which you seem inclined not to do, it is most likely that Jesus, being the first born, ran the family, as Joseph was most likely dead by the time he started His ministry. (There is no mention of him post the 12yr scene where He hung back at the temple talking with the scribes and pharasies). This would be the responsible thing to do, and would most likely preclude making any terribly long treks. As for having a family - well, the only reason to conclude that is that you place no value at all in the truth of what the Gospels tell us about Him. It which case, what is the point in acknowledging Him at all?

Of course, I could be repeating something already said - if so I apologize. I saw the last two comments and this is my knee jerk response to that text.


Jim

Since the gospels only give brief clips of the life of Jesus, nothing of what I said whould be contrary to their testimony. The gospels do not say Christ was not married, nor had children. The gospels do say he had brothers and sisters.

[oxmixmudd]

Since the gospels only give brief clips of the life of Jesus, nothing of what I said whould be contrary to their testimony. The gospels do not say Christ was not married, nor had children. The gospels do say he had brothers and sisters.

I think it is clear He was not married. He assigned a caretaker for His mother (John). If the Gospel writers saw that as important, surely they would have seen His wife and children (especially the children, being in the 'lineage' of God's son) as at least as important. Just look at the prominance His mother gained in time - she is called Mother of God in Catholicism. Catholics pray to her. I think it almost absurd to assume in light of that His wife and children would have sunk so quickly into anonymity. Obviously I can't prove that, but the line of reasoning is based on human nature(folks would not have forgotten about His wife and children based on how they responded to His mother) and the fact Jesus took his Earthly responsibilities seriously (He provided a caretaker for His mother).


Jim

[shunyadragon]

I think it is clear He was not married. He assigned a caretaker for His mother (John). If the Gospel writers saw that as important, surely they would have seen His wife and children (especially the children, being in the 'lineage' of God's son) as at least as important. Just look at the prominance His mother gained in time - she is called Mother of God in Catholicism. Catholics pray to her. I think it almost absurd to assume in light of that His wife and children would have sunk so quickly into anonymity. Obviously I can't prove that, but the line of reasoning is based on human nature(folks would not have forgotten about His wife and children based on how they responded to His mother) and the fact Jesus took his Earthly responsibilities seriously (He provided a caretaker for His mother).


Jim

I will emphasize again the gospels definitely only offer glimpses into the life of Jesus and not his history. Assigning a guardian to the mother would be standard practice if the child or children were too young to care for the mother. Also, the gospel refers to Christ as having brothers and sisters, which in turn is not acknowledged by contemporary traditional Christianity.

[oxmixmudd]

I will emphasize again the gospels definitely only offer glimpses into the life of Jesus and not his history. Assigning a guardian to the mother would be standard practice if the child or children were too young to care for the mother. Also, the gospel refers to Christ as having brothers and sisters, which in turn is not acknowledged by contemporary traditional Christianity.

That's news to me - I always took it for a fact He had brothers and sisters because the Bible says He did. Is this an specific denominational interpretation? OTOH, I also see no evidence in them of a wife. A Wife, and especially children, would have presented some very difficult problems. I see no reason to postulate beyond what the scripture tells us as there is no evidence driving that speculation. It is purely arbitrary and has no purpose. Or rather, the only purpose I can see for such speculation is to try to undermine the traditional view of who He was/is.

Which goes back to my 'bone to pick'. I do not understand the need to change, arbitrarily, the vew of any historical figure. There seems to be a trend to try to reduce the stature of various public hero's. To diminish the noble and 'humanize' the evil. I just don't see the point. Even if they have been made larger than life, they serve a useful pupose in giving us good, noble goals and examples of the extent to which evil can go. The act of undermining those figures only serves to reduce the standard to which we should all strive to attain. And our society needs good and noble hero's.

Should we hide the truth? No!. But should we strive to find even the slightest hint of evidence of something amiss, and then on finding it, proclaim the hero no longer a hero? Remember, anyone of great stature will have enemies, people trying to play up stories to undermine them. It should take a lot more than a letter from a dubious source to rewrite history.

This seems to apply especially so the Christ. So many it seems would like to find some flaw, something to make Him imperfectly Human. And also for the Gospels and the Gospel writers. There is no point to it. Are these same folks out there undermining the reputation of Mohammed? Do they try to prove he had illilcit affairs or some such? (The threat of being beheaded probably helps a little there), but what of Ghandi, or Budda, or the Dali Lama? Do you really want to smear the source of "love your neighbor as yourself", or "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you". Or "forgive your brother not 7 times, but 70 times 7." Do you really want Islamic law over Christian mercy and grace?" Christ has had perhaps as significant an impact on the world as any figure, anywhere. Even the atheists on this forum owe a very great deal to His teachings. He is worthy of respect, as is the Bible which tells us of Him.

Sure, people have abused His teachings to justify evil - but there is no case, anywhere, in any of His teachings, that allow for any violence on His behalf. Anyone who uses His words to justify violence must either refer back to the OT, or must twist them one way or another. Remember, the Pope warned George Bush that only a defensive war is justified. These are the teachings of Christ. He Spoke to the lepers - he healed to outcasts. He had compassion on the adulterous women. Is this the person you want to tear down, to impune, to make less than He was? Why? He offers hope to all mankind of forgiveness no matter how sinful the life. He taught us to love, to forgive, to turn the other cheek, to respond to evil with Good. Not an eye for an eye.

I ask you again, is this the man's teachings and life you want to undermine. To make less than it was. If so - why??!!!!


Jim