Jesus Christ = Saint Issa?

[Blue^Hunter]

Ancient scrolls reveal that Jesus spent seventeen years in India and Tibet ???

Interesting coincidence theories of Jesus 'Fake' resurrection? and..Did Jesus travel to India and Tibet?

6 Three days after, the governor sent his soldiers to carry away the body of Issa to bury it elsewhere, fearing otherwise a popular insurrection.

7 The next day the crowd found the tomb open and empty. At once the rumor spread that the supreme Judge had sent his angels to carry away the mortal remains of the saint in whom dwelt on earth a part of the Divine Spirit.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa4.htm

The Lost Tomb of Jesus will

undoubtedly spark debate, the

following will help to clarify

its implications on Resurrection

and Ascension.http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/movie_overview.html

Anyone care to share his/her opinion here? THank in advance

Edited October 19, 2008 by Blue^Hunter

[Unknown Rebel]

These scrolls are popular for people trying to determine the 'Missing Years' of Jesus between the age of 12-15 up to the age of 30-32. Translated by Notovitch whilst being treated for wounds (thrown from a horse) at the Hemis Monastery, the scrolls apparently talk about the young Jesus arriving at the foothills of the Himalayas and studying with Tibetan Priests (Buddhism). He then traveled throughout the region before returning to the Middle East and then back to India to die / be buried.

However, Notovitch lied. The Hemis Monastery never accepted Notovitch as a visitor (wounded or otherwise) leading to the head of the Hemis Monastical community to produce a statement declaring Notovitch as an outright liar, nor does it hold any scrolls relating to the life of Jesus.

Issa on the other hand is a corruption of 'Isa' the Islamic name of Jesus who, in the Koran / Qur’an, was a prophet of Allah.

Take this as you will but the Historical Community usually clashes with the Religious when facts aren't exactly correct.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

That said, there is a degree of correlation between Jesus' teachings and Zen and Mayahna (speeling, sorry) Buddhism.

Perhaps he did go out and meet many teachers during that 15 years. Getting from where he was in the Middle East to India/China isn't out of the question in that time.

[cboxgo]

It has been my own experience, in my thirty-four years, that every account to try to prove a historical Jesus has been nothing but a fraud. Additionally, every supposed historical reference to Jesus has been so vagued that it could have been describing any person by the same name, which wouldn't be too unlikely given that the name was common for that period. It seems that the Bible, a book with an obvious bias toward promoting the belief system, is the only source other than other hearsay accounts to actually mention Jesus and it's limited in what it actually mentioned. I mean, the Bible mentions a lamb more frequently then Jesus. That having been said, I believe it's more likely that Jesus came from a "hero tale" that floating around the region around that time given it's striking similarities with other, much older, stories that were around for thousands of years prior to his elleged existence.

Maybe if people stopped trying to find evidence to support their belief and looked at the overwelming problems putting any of it to a physical person, then maybe the world would be a better place. At least, until we got rid of the people wanting to blow everyone up over their stories.

Edited May 25, 2009 by cboxgo

[+DieChecker]

Ancient scrolls reveal that Jesus spent seventeen years in India and Tibet???

Interesting coincidence theories of Jesus 'Fake' resurrection? and..Did Jesus travel to India and Tibet?

There is a story that Jesus went as far as Japan. And, I believe he supposedly fathered children there. Which I find hard to believe. I find the idea he went to India several times and Tibet equally as hard to believe. Not impossible though.

Becoming a Rabbi would have taken a considerable amount of young Jesus's time, I doubt he would have Young Indiana Jones style adventures, but most likely would spend most of his daylight hours reading and memorizing Scriptures.

It has been my own experience, in my thirty-four years, that every account to try to prove a historical Jesus has been nothing but a fraud. Additionally, every supposed historical reference to Jesus has been so vagued that it could have been describing any person by the same name, which wouldn't be too unlikely given that the name was common for that period. It seems that the Bible, a book with an obvious bias toward promoting the belief system, is the only source other than other hearsay accounts to actually mention Jesus and it's limited in what it actually mentioned.

Using such standards you would be hard pressed to proove that anyone other then the rulers of kingdoms actually existed. Even then much of what is known was passed down by state historians, so those histories are suspect too. There is no real way to know that anything or anyone was ever real, it could all be fake or contrived. Either in the past when it was written, or when it was translated.

The fact is that starting soon after he left, like 50 years, plus or minus, people started writing letters and full accounts about Jesus, and that the stories, even after 50 years were only a little different from one another. Try passing on the book The Hobbit by oral tradition for 50 years and see if there are not a few differences when it is again written down by several different people. I hardly think an imaginary person would hold such weight so soon after supposedly living and dying and accending to Heaven.

Also, Relgions do not kill people or start wars, individual people do. People with Power and Control issues. Fanatics exist in all Religions and they only see what they want to see.

Edited May 25, 2009 by DieChecker

[KRS-One]

A few questions spring to mind:

Who here believes in Jesus?

Who here would get upset and offer evidence to the contrary if I said "No evidence for Jesus as a real human exists"?

For those of you left standing and who are considering this article,

Do you feel the lower middle class son of a jewish carpenter would be allowed to travel freely outside his immediate area by the local Roman authorities for any reason whatsoever?

"Who's this, then? Un-accompanied jewish youth from nazareth says he'd like to travel to India. Let 'em on through!"

[Lt_Ripley]

It has been my own experience, in my thirty-four years, that every account to try to prove a historical Jesus has been nothing but a fraud. Additionally, every supposed historical reference to Jesus has been so vagued that it could have been describing any person by the same name, which wouldn't be too unlikely given that the name was common for that period. It seems that the Bible, a book with an obvious bias toward promoting the belief system, is the only source other than other hearsay accounts to actually mention Jesus and it's limited in what it actually mentioned. I mean, the Bible mentions a lamb more frequently then Jesus. That having been said, I believe it's more likely that Jesus came from a "hero tale" that floating around the region around that time given it's striking similarities with other, much older, stories that were around for thousands of years prior to his elleged existence.

Maybe if people stopped trying to find evidence to support their belief and looked at the overwelming problems putting any of it to a physical person, then maybe the world would be a better place. At least, until we got rid of the people wanting to blow everyone up over their stories.

I agree.

[Lt_Ripley]

There is a story that Jesus went as far as Japan. And, I believe he supposedly fathered children there. Which I find hard to believe. I find the idea he went to India several times and Tibet equally as hard to believe. Not impossible though.

Becoming a Rabbi would have taken a considerable amount of young Jesus's time, I doubt he would have Young Indiana Jones style adventures, but most likely would spend most of his daylight hours reading and memorizing Scriptures.

Using such standards you would be hard pressed to proove that anyone other then the rulers of kingdoms actually existed. Even then much of what is known was passed down by state historians, so those histories are suspect too. There is no real way to know that anything or anyone was ever real, it could all be fake or contrived. Either in the past when it was written, or when it was translated.

The fact is that starting soon after he left, like 50 years, plus or minus, people started writing letters and full accounts about Jesus, and that the stories, even after 50 years were only a little different from one another. Try passing on the book The Hobbit by oral tradition for 50 years and see if there are not a few differences when it is again written down by several different people. I hardly think an imaginary person would hold such weight so soon after supposedly living and dying and accending to Heaven.

Also, Relgions do not kill people or start wars, individual people do. People with Power and Control issues. Fanatics exist in all Religions and they only see what they want to see.

actually Jesus wasn't a 'rabbi' in the real sense. anyone preaching , and there were many just like 'Jesus' would have been called 'teacher or rabbi' .

The gospels are very different from one another...

# Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they're attributed. Others are likely forgeries.

# The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.

# The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at

odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.

# The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.

# Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.

# The commonly told story of Jesus -- his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of

four vastly different gospel narratives.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

A few questions spring to mind:

Who here believes in Jesus?

I do, for one.

Who here would get upset and offer evidence to the contrary if I said "No evidence for Jesus as a real human exists"?

Nope, I can accept faith in something without evidence - that is rather what faith is, after all.

Do you feel the lower middle class son of a jewish carpenter would be allowed to travel freely outside his immediate area by the local Roman authorities for any reason whatsoever?

"Who's this, then? Un-accompanied jewish youth from nazareth says he'd like to travel to India. Let 'em on through!"

Why would the Romans care?

Within the borders of the empire, one could travel anywhere.

IIRC the Roman empire's borders were open to anyone who wanted to leave (getting in was the trouble, and even then he'd have just wandered across where there wasn't guards).

It's not as if there was a huge fence around the empire.

[+DieChecker]

actually Jesus wasn't a 'rabbi' in the real sense. anyone preaching , and there were many just like 'Jesus' would have been called 'teacher or rabbi' .

Do you have any proof of that Ripley, or is this just an assumption?

There is no way to know what training Jesus had. But, the fact he was called rabbi would indicate that he knew the Scriptures because either, 1) he was a divine being, or 2) because he had extensive training in them.

The gospels are very different from one another...

# Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they're attributed. Others are likely forgeries.

I don't think this is provable one way or the other. If they were not written by the named author, then they were written from oral tradition within a lifetime of the death of the author. This is generally accepted of the conventional books of the New Testament.

# The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.

I don't believe that to be true. Have you studied them? There are some differences. Some have some major disparities, but I would not call them divergent, just written from different perspectives, as any biography would be. They must not have had very many copy editors doing fact checking for them back then.

# The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.

# The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.

# Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.

# The commonly told story of Jesus -- his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.

Facts are facts, so I can not argue with most of these. I can only say that all religions are subject to change over time. Even the Koran, which is supposed to be the iron firm word of God, is open for interpretation these days and there are many denominations in Islam these days.

Edited May 26, 2009 by DieChecker

[MARAB0D]

A few questions spring to mind:

Who here believes in Jesus?

Who here would get upset and offer evidence to the contrary if I said "No evidence for Jesus as a real human exists"?

For those of you left standing and who are considering this article,

Do you feel the lower middle class son of a jewish carpenter would be allowed to travel freely outside his immediate area by the local Roman authorities for any reason whatsoever?

"Who's this, then? Un-accompanied jewish youth from nazareth says he'd like to travel to India. Let 'em on through!"

The fact is that the Gospels describe a person, which they name Jesus, who was expressing very original, consistent and specific philosophical views on religion and values of common daily life; and these views were by themselves a NEW interpretation of the existing doctrine. In fact this would be the best proof that there was someone existing who created these philosophical views and was popularizing them - and why would we refuse to accept that this person was called by the name the books call him?

There also are some historical references to his existence, say in Tacitus, but these can be suspected in being a later forgery by 9th century Catholic monks.

Travels to India in Hellenic world were if not common but possible. Legend of 6th century BC was saying Athenian politician Solon was travelling to India. Greeks knew about India from Ethiopians, who came after being banished for killing their Radja from India and settled in Africa, where their temples were attracting Egyptian philosophers and priests, as well as travellers from Europe. Alexander of Macedonia knew about Indian philosophy, and his desire to talk to the wizards was a strong component of his drive to conquer this remote land - as soon as he accomplished this desire and spend few days in one of the monasteries, he turned back. In Jesus' times (slightly later) later Apollonius of Tiana was visiting India with the same intent, to learn from Indian monks.

Roman Empire did not have any limitations on traveling for personally free people. There was no passports or visa system which could prevent such travels. There were probably thousands of such traveling beggars and philosophers, as Jesus was. There could be some conditions, imposed by the local authorities on the people who were intended to stay for long or settle permanently in their towns, and only on this occasion the reasons could be asked for in order to make a record. There were secret services in operation, who were screening such traveling people and vagrants in order to identify the criminals and escaped slaves, but this is basically the same as happens today if you get into some place where they do not know you.

[CausticGnostic]

The "Issa" story about Jesus' "lost years" was popularized back in the 80s by Elizabeth Claire Prophet. I think it foolish, however, to credit any assertions by a person who claims to be "channeling" the spirit of St. Germaine. . . .

[crystal sage]

I thought I would add this interesting article/argument to the mix

The Name of Jesus: Rebuttal

A Refutation to Mohd's Article "

Quennel Gale

http://www.answer-islam.org/ISARebuttal.html

.... and Jesus and Zeus

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7239693/Jesus-and-Zeus

and there was a story about Jesus visiting Scotland..

http://www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holylan...sitscotland.htm

DID JESUS VISIT SCOTLAND?

While visiting the Scottish Hebridean Islands around 1890, Henry Jenner, a former keeper of the manuscripts department at the British Museum in London, came across a surprising oral tradition. In an article published in "The Western Morning News" in 1933, Jenner wrote "I was staying on South Uist, in the Catholic part of the outer Hebrides, and found there a whole set of legends of the wanderings of the Holy Mother and Son in those Islands."

Rather curiously, there is a small Island placename in Dunvegan Bay, off the Scottish Isle of Skye, which is called in gaelic Eilean Isa ("Island of Jesus"). In the Middle East Jesus was known by the Arabic name of Isa ("God saves"). The name Jesus was derived later from the Greek language. Although the gaelic name for Jesus is Iosa, it is interesting to note that this small Scottish Island has been named using the Middle Eastern spelling. Furthermore, there are said to be ancient records in Tibet which refer to Jesus as Saint Isa or Issa and that He visited Nepal and India.

Interestingly, there are no religious sites on Eilean Isa (currently spelt Isay) or anything to suggest that it's name was conceived from a religious dedication. So it could be conjectured that the "Island of Jesus" was so named as a result of it being sanctified by the presence of Jesus (Isa) Himself. During the early centuries A.D. a placename was often given to record the actual presence and sanctification of a specific place by the early Celtic Christian monastic saints. Could this explain why the "Island of Jesus" was thus named to record the actual presence of Jesus on this particular Island. Moreover, legends and folklore also associate Joseph of Arimathea, uncle of Jesus, with the Scottish Isle of Skye.

© copyright 2003 Barry Dunford.

http://www.theroseline.co.uk/index.php?mai...amp;pages_id=61

.... and

http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/J/jesus.html

JESUS

ISA (occasionally also spelled Esa or Eesa)

SON OF MARY

Gk: Iesous (), equivalent to Joshua, Hebrew Yehoshua (), meaning "God is Salvation" or "God saves".

Jesus is perhaps the most controversial character in Islam, and thus there is a tremendous amount of Islamic literature about Jesus. In general, while Muslims affirm that Jesus performed miracles and has special attributes that other prophets did not have, Muslims still believe that Jesus was no more than a prophet. Muslims believe that He ranks above other prophets, but below the status of Muhammad, despite Jesus having attributes that even Muhammad did not have.

The article The Muslim Jesus, known as ‘Isa is an excellent introcuction on the Islamic beliefs about Jesus in contrast to the Biblical record.

What is Jesus' Islamic Name? Isa, Esau or Yesu?

[Alchera]

Jesus in Scotland!? Oh my whatever next.

[MARAB0D]

Jesus in Scotland!? Oh my whatever next.

Haha! Most interesting is that there was no Scotland when Jesus was alive. Scots moved to Britain from Ireland at least a couple of centuries later, and the Brits first became aware of them only after the Romans abandoned the colony in about 400s AD. Only then they had to hire the Saxons for protection. Meanwhile, the Brits were Christians, baptised by the same Romans, not by any Scottish Christ. Hebrides in Christ times were populated by Ugro-finns, the locals looked like modern Eskimo or Inuits. They were eating walrus and living in wigwams, Jesus and his Mom were only good for food there.

[crystal sage]

Actually the Scots have a very interesting ancient history that includes the time of Jesus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Scotland

Archaeology and geology continue to reveal the secrets of prehistoric Scotland, uncovering a complex and dramatic past before the Romans brought Scotland into the scope of recorded history. Successive human cultures tended to be spread across Europe or further afield, but focussing on this particular geographical area helps to find out about the origin of the remains and monuments that are still widespread, and to understand the background to the history of Scotland.

The extent of open countryside untouched by intensive farming, together with past availability of stone rather than timber, has given Scotland a wealth of accessible sites where the ancient past can be seen.

There are even stories about them being in New Zealand before the Maoris ..

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/ftopict-15792.html

Then tales of the Phoenicians and the ancient mines...

Space Shuttle's radar reveals ancient silver roads in the Hebrides

Steve Connor Science Editor

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/space-sh...es-1121037.html

THE SPACE Shuttle's ultra-sophisticated radar has detected a network of medieval roads on a Scottish island in the Inner Hebrides. It is the first time such a method has uncovered a British archaeological site.

The roads, or "hollow ways", linked the valuable lead and silver mines of the Isle of Islay with ancient seaports then governed by the Lords of the Isles.

The 12th-century maritime kingdom was the economic and political power that controlled the Sea of the Hebrides down to the Irish Sea in the Middle Ages.

The find confirms that lead and silver were being mined far earlier than archaeologists thought, say researchers from Edinburgh University, who carried out the study with Nasa, the United States space agency.

[MARAB0D]

I prehistory there was no Indo-Europeans in Britain at all. The first were Brits themselves, who, according to their legend, split from Aeneus' Trojans in Italy and sailed further West through Gibraltar and then North till they found Britain, unpopulated from their point of view. Local cultures were the Ugro-Finns, relatives of the Suomi, Hungarians, Mongols and North-American Indians, they were either assimilated or destroyed very quickly. This migration falls on about 1000 BC, which is already a historical period. Britain was known to Phoenicians and Greeks as Cassiterites, and there were the mines to produce Tin ore for Bronze-making. Brits were followed by other Indo-Europeans - Jutes, Pikts etc, but the Scotts were the last wave of the new settlers, 1000 years after Brits!, and only got the very north. Romans left the colony in 4th century AD, at this time Scots were already attacking their southern neighbours, looking for loot and expansion, so when Horsa and Hengwist landed to the island, the Brits gave Saxons lands for them protecting them from Scots (WestSax, SouthSax, MiddleSax, Sussex etc), but the Saxons instead quickly outbred the hosts and conquered the rest, pushing them into Wales.

The above boils down to a simple fact that Scots spend their entire "prehistory" in Ireland and had nothing to do with the land we now call Scotland, as it had indigenous population which is not with us anymore. By timing of their appearance in Britain they may somehow co-exist with Jesus, specially if Mary was working as a sex slave for some Roman legionnaires (as how else could they get there?), but it is unlikely she could get that far North as Hebrides, as that area was not under Roman control.

[crystal sage]

http://heritage.scotsman.com/heritage/Chan...k-on.2516204.jp

"Angus comes from East Anglia where all kinds of prehistoric artefacts can be found. And because worked flints are so common where he lives he didn’t realise the significance of what he had stumbled upon.

"It was only when he brought some of the fragments back that the eyes popped out of my head. He had uncovered the first evidence of people being right in the heart of the Cairngorms at least 7,000 years ago."

She said: "Until now, we had only evidence of people from the medieval period onwards in the Cairngorms. But we had always suspected that major routeways through the Cairngorms, such as the Lairig Ghru, may have been used by our earliest Scottish settlers as they moved through the landscape in seasonal cycles, fishing, hunting and collecting other foods and useful materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_p...storic_Scotland

3900-3200 Aberdeenshire Balbridie timber hall. This structure is 26 metres long and 13 metres wide (85 ft by 43 ft) and may have had a roof 10 metres (30 ft) high. It was large enough to accommodate up to 50 people. Braeroddach Loch nearby provides the earliest evidence for pastoralism found so far, dated to 3780.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5D2RVN...lt&resnum=3

[crystal sage]

I prehistory there was no Indo-Europeans in Britain at all. The first were Brits themselves, who, according to their legend, split from Aeneus' Trojans in Italy and sailed further West through Gibraltar and then North till they found Britain, unpopulated from their point of view. Local cultures were the Ugro-Finns, relatives of the Suomi, Hungarians, Mongols and North-American Indians, they were either assimilated or destroyed very quickly. This migration falls on about 1000 BC, which is already a historical period. Britain was known to Phoenicians and Greeks as Cassiterites, and there were the mines to produce Tin ore for Bronze-making. Brits were followed by other Indo-Europeans - Jutes, Pikts etc, but the Scotts were the last wave of the new settlers, 1000 years after Brits!, and only got the very north. Romans left the colony in 4th century AD, at this time Scots were already attacking their southern neighbours, looking for loot and expansion, so when Horsa and Hengwist landed to the island, the Brits gave Saxons lands for them protecting them from Scots (WestSax, SouthSax, MiddleSax, Sussex etc), but the Saxons instead quickly outbred the hosts and conquered the rest, pushing them into Wales.

The above boils down to a simple fact that Scots spend their entire "prehistory" in Ireland and had nothing to do with the land we now call Scotland, as it had indigenous population which is not with us anymore. By timing of their appearance in Britain they may somehow co-exist with Jesus, specially if Mary was working as a sex slave for some Roman legionnaires (as how else could they get there?), but it is unlikely she could get that far North as Hebrides, as that area was not under Roman control.

The idea of Jesus in a kilt!!

Did they find any Fish symbols/ petroglyph in Scotland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys

[roger_pearse]

Ancient scrolls reveal that Jesus spent seventeen years in India and Tibet ???

Interesting coincidence theories of Jesus 'Fake' resurrection? and..Did Jesus travel to India and Tibet?

Anyone care to share his/her opinion here? THank in advance

This is the Notovitch hoax, isn't it?

I have online some articles from 19th century magazines, contemporary with Notovitch. His supposed travels were investigated, and the Tibetans who allegedly told him the story were questioned. I have these online here.

Notovitch was undoubtedly after money, which, indeed, he obtained.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[crystal sage]

I was going thru the debate from that article I posted.. http://www.answer-islam.org/ISARebuttal.html

It has some amazing ideas.. thoughts...

``The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as "Eesa", and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was "Eesa" (Arabic), or "Esau". (Hebrew); classical "Yeheshua", which the Christian nations of the West Latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the second "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic language. -----

Therefore we have established that both Jews and Muslims have considered ISA to originally be ESAU. -----

In Christology or Messiahology, Christ is God incarnate while in Islamicology he is just another prophet.-----

We would for now ignore the argument that Muhammad (pbuh) "wrote the Qur'an" and address the issue of the etymology of "ESSA" (). What Mr. Gale seem to be confused about the etymology is that it was never meant to be a Hebrew equivalent. In the Qur'an, the man whom Western Christians know as "Jesus Christ" in their New Testament is EESA AL-MASEEH or AL-MASEEHU EESA (). This come from his name which was EESHO MASHEEKHA in Aramaic. The notion that his name was supposed to be "Yeshua" (), "Yeshu" or any other similar derivative in Hebrew is not factual as Hebrew was not Jesus' native language.

NOWHERE did I said that Jesus (pbuh) did not speak Hebrew, I only said that Aramaic was the MOTHER TONGUE of Jesus (pbuh), as Aramaic was the common language of the time. Some scholars do believe that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Hebrew and Greek, in addition to Aramaic. But Aramaic is unanimously agreed to be the Primary language of Jesus (pbuh), and since his followers obviously can't speak Greek or Hebrew, it is possible that Jesus (pbuh) spread the Gospel in ARAMAIC. http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/1227.htm

Mr. Mohd must continuously update his history since he doesn't know anything about the Middle East. He contradicts himself by saying that He didn't claim that Jesus only spoke Aramaic and then says that his followers did't speak Greek or Hebrew. If his followers didn't speak Hebrew, why did they mistake Jesus ELI ElI to be Elijah on the cross? Since in Aramaic ELI can't be Elijah, only Hebrew could be heard in order for his followers to confuse Jesus calling for Elijah......

----

Obviously, one could see that the name "al-MaseeHu Eesa" () is much more similar to "Eesho Maskheekha" than the name "Yeshua". Interestingly, the name "Jesus Christ" called upon by Western Christians is the result of Greco-etymological evolution of the Aramaic name. "Eesho" was made Greek to be "Jesos" and "Messiah" in Greek is "Christos". They removed the "os" from "Christos" but not "Jesos" and go on to "Jesus Christ".....

---

If we agree with you that Isa is taken from "EESHO" (Aramaic), why the Quran used it, when Christian Arabs before Quran used "YESUA" (Hebrew)???? That’s something that you have failed to tackle????????? And the problem is that the Arabic name is similar to the Hebrew name but S (In Arabic) instead of SH (Hebrew)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

!!!!!! Did anyone hear of this???

Actually Mohd's sources are flawed scholarship since this is basically a website an not an authoritive matter on any point dealing with the language of Jesus. Lets educate Mohd about what Jesus spoke and his outdated sources. Notice that Mohd's article dealing with Aramaic was from 1978, however all of this information comes from sources just discovered archeologically within the past few years in the 90's. Read:

"Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, LATIN and GREEK." John 19:19-20

Do you see the languages mentioned? Aramaic, Latin and Greek! Not just Aramaic. More historical and archeological information comes from this source, the September-October 1992 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review-"Did Jesus and the Apostles Speak Greek?":

Today, however, new archaeological discoveries have undermined the speculations of scholars and brought into clear light the fact that Greek was well known among the Jews, especially the priesthood, leadership class, and the merchant class. In particular, Greek was well understood in "Galilee of the Gentiles," the region where

http://www.answer-islam.org/ISARebuttal.html

Jesus Christ of Nazareth was raised, and grew up as a young lad. There is no doubt, therefore, that Jesus and the original apostles all spoke Greek -- commonly, as a "second language."

Evidence from Caiaphas' Tomb

First, let us explore the recent findings in Jerusalem of the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Christ. Astonishing as it seems, the burial cave of the Caiaphas family was found, in Jerusalem, by "accident" -- the family of one of the priests who presided at the trial of Jesus. Workers building a water park in 1990 accidentally uncovered an ancient burial cave, underneath what is now a stretch of road in Jerusalem's Peace Forest. The surrounding area was used as an ancient necropolis during the late Second Temple period (first century B.C.- first century A.D.).

[MARAB0D]

I was going thru the debate from that article I posted.. http://www.answer-islam.org/ISARebuttal.html

It has some amazing ideas.. thoughts...

I cannot understand what exactly new was on that Islamic site, except they think Jesus was HIMSELF spreading the Gospels, and thus suspect their original language was Aramaic... As for the name, of course in all European languages it would be pronounced differently fro English, as hardly anyone else has this "J" and "dzhey" like it is used in it. I know that European Jews often call Jesus "Ieshu ga'Notzri" while in Polish his name would be pronounced as "Khesus" and in Rissuan as "Eesus"; and surely his native tongue must be Aramaic, I do not think any Christian scholars are challenging this.

Edited June 1, 2009 by marabod

[crystal sage]

I cannot understand what exactly new was on that Islamic site, except they think Jesus was HIMSELF spreading the Gospels, and thus suspect their original language was Aramaic... As for the name, of course in all European languages it would be pronounced differently fro English, as hardly anyone else has this "J" and "dzhey" like it is used in it. I know that European Jews often call Jesus "Ieshu ga'Notzri" while in Polish his name would be pronounced as "Khesus" and in Rissuan as "Eesus"; and surely his native tongue must be Aramaic, I do not think any Christian scholars are challenging this.

What I am trying to see is if any of these names were actually adapted in other languages.. if they have other versions of his name in other lands he was said to have traveled.Hence why there may not be direct references to a 'Jesus' in those times but there may still be some records of a spiritual man with an entourage , or some records of him as a promising student with what seemed to be magical or healing powers around his said time.

Here's a study of one such person...

http://www.amazon.com/He-Walked-Americas-T...n/dp/0964499703

Anthropologist L. Taylor Hansen, long fascinated with Indian history and legends, traces legends of Indians of the Pacific and American continent which all seem to include an account of a white bearded healer who visited them anciently (probably during the 1st century) taught each group a philosophy of love, performed miraculous healings, curiously controlled forces of nature and established a Priesthood of 12 elders. After traveling throughout the Americas, he departed by sea from the ancient city of Tula on the Yucatan pennisula with the promise that he would return in the future. Hansen never claims this legendary healer was Christ, but the similarities are remarkable. The Book of Mormon reports that Christ also visited the American continent. It is reported Hansen had never heard of the Book of Mormon when he wrote his account. Interesting read, particularly for those wondering if Christ visited other lands.

or a much earlier version.. ????

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_6.htm

Here is one variant of the myth of Viracocha. Long ago in a forgotten time the world experienced a terrible storm with tremendous floods. The lands were plunged into a period of absolute darkness and frigid cold, and humankind was nearly eradicated. Some time after the deluge, the creator god Viracocha arose from the depths of Lake Titicaca. Journeying first to the island of Titicaca (now called Isla del Sol or the Island of the Sun), Viracocha commanded the sun, moon, and stars to rise. Next going to Tiahuanaco (whose original name, taypicala, meant ‘the rock in the center’), Viracocha fashioned new men and women out of stones and, sending them to the four quarters, began the repopulation of the world. With various helpers, Viracocha then traveled from Tiahuanaco (also written as Tiwanaku), bringing civilization and peace wherever he went. Known by other names including Kon Tiki and Tunupa, he was said to have been a bearded, blue-eyed, white man of large stature. A teacher and a healer, a miracle worker and an astronomer, Viracocha is also credited with introducing agriculture, writing, and metallurgy.

It condense many of the biblical tales... Eden could have been Atlantis... ...

The floods..

Edited June 1, 2009 by crystal sage

[MARAB0D]

Anthropologist L. Taylor Hansen, long fascinated with Indian history and legends, traces legends of Indians of the Pacific and American continent which all seem to include an account of a white bearded healer who visited them anciently (probably during the 1st century) taught each group a philosophy of love, performed miraculous healings, curiously controlled forces of nature and established a Priesthood of 12 elders. After traveling throughout the Americas, he departed by sea from the ancient city of Tula on the Yucatan pennisula with the promise that he would return in the future.

LOL. This is a famous story of Mayans or rather their ancestors accepting refugeesfrom the submerged Atlantis 12,000 years ago.

The story of old man is simply a re-tell of the story of Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Sea Serpent, who indeed told them he would return - so many years later they saw the Spaniards and did not resist, thinking they were gods.

[MARAB0D]

BTW Amerinds also have a story of Deluge in Popol-Wuh, pity I read few pages only... But in their deluge rain was 60 days and 60 nights, not 40 like in the Bible.

We cannot pay attention to any vagrant wizard, there was too many of them. Apollonium of Tiana was also long-haired and white-bearded, and he was in India 40 years after Christ's execution, and was even called in Greece and Rome "a pagan Christ" by analogy, and was healing and teleporting himself, not saying teaching Love. If you find mentioning of him in India, you may think they talk about Jesus.