Did Christ Exist After Crucification - Did He Travel East? Jesus traveled to died in Kashmir India with mother mary

[OpaQue 15]

Hi Members,

I am my friend Havell were having a deep discussion over Christ's life and did he actually survive crucification. Today, Havell sent me a link on GTALK of some Australian website claiming Christ's journey to India. I forwarded the url to Nirmal(our member). I do not intend to challenge anyone's faith here but I'd love to know your opinion and knowledge about this blinding truth.

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

Holger Kersten: "It is simply of vital importance to find again the path to the sources, to the eternal and central truths of Christ's message, which has been shaken almost beyond recognition by the profane ambitions of more or less secular institutions arrogating to themselves a religious authority. This is an attempt to open a way to a new future, firmly founded in the true spiritual and religious sources of the past".
Thus begins Holger Kersten's book "Jesus Lived in India". This German book is a thorough, methodical and authoritative examination of the evidence of Christ's life beyond the Middle East before the Crucifixion and in India and elsewhere after it.

This article is a summary of Kersten's exhaustive research into Christ's travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir. Kersten notes the many parallels of Christ's teachings with other religious and cultural traditions and suggests that at least some of these figures may have been one and the same personality. It is not possible, Kersten asserts, to disprove that Christ went to India. The current information documenting Christ's life is restricted to the gospels and the work of Church theologians. One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.

Thank you all.

[truefusion 3]

Gospels do state that Jesus was ressurected and stayed for a while after his resurrection, showing himself to several hundred people proving his ressurection, before leaving to go to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God. However, there is no mention of him leaving the area to which he was called to. Jesus states clearly his purpose on earth. Likewise, it would be illogical for him to say to his disciples to go out into the world and makes disciples for themselves and spread the Gospel, baptizing even, if Jesus had already gone out to other areas having done the same work he did for the areas he was called to.

The following statement which you quote is at best absurd:

One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.

Not only does it beg the question, not only is it part of the unbelieving propaganda that is often spread, in what way are they not doing the very same thing that they are stating, to maintain unhistorical disbelief on the masses? What makes it unhistorical? Just look at the link for yourself: what is more historically accurate, writings closest to the time of Jesus or writing hundreds of years after the time of Jesus? Viewing at the content provided on the page referenced here, we see mention of the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas. I have read the Gospel of Thomas myself and parts of the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas in the past, and as the article states, these two writings are Gnostic. However, that may be as much truth concerning historical evidence that is actually mentioned in the article. Look at the following statement,

More clues are drawn from the Apocrypha. These are texts said to have been written by the Apostles but which are not officially accepted by the Church.

Those who say these texts were written by the Apostles themselves must think these Apostles are at least immortal if one is going to state that the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas were dated to 4th century A.D.. Thomas would be long dead by then.
The arguments the article presents are dubious. Take for example,

In his travels through Persia (today's Iran) Christ became known as Yuz Asaf (leader of the Healed). We know this because a Kashmiri historical document confirms that Isa (the Koranic name for Christ) was in fact also known as Yuz Asaf. The Jami - uf - Tamarik, Volume II, tells that Yuz Asaf visited Masslige, where he attended the grave of Shem, Noah's son.

In the beginning of the article that first mentions about Yuz Asaf, he does not even bother to attempt to affirm that Yuz Asaf really is Jesus. In fact, his statement includes doubt:

Kersten found that in both Turkey and Persia there are ancient stories of a saint called "Yuz Asaf" ("Leader of the Healed"), whose behaviour, miracles and teachings are remarkably similar to that of Christ.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part is that the author fails to provide any actual references to these articles which he is using as a basis for his argument (though that may be do to the fact that they are mentioning someone else's work). You will not believe how many times people have claimed, "Look! Another Christ is some other religion!" only to find out that this "messiah" does not compare with the Biblical Jesus Christ. Merely stating that Yuz Asaf is "Christ-like" does not in any way prove that Yuz Asaf is Christ. And using language similarities, saying the word "Jesus" in this language is this is not a sound argument. Any other part of the article that assumes that Yuz Asaf is Christ can therefore be safely disregarded.
Nevertheless, if it weren't for the author's persistence, one would actually stop there. However, he goes on to state this:

Within the Aish Muqam is a sacred relic called the 'Moses Rod' or the 'Jesus Rod', which local legend says, belonged to Moses himself. Christ is said to also have held it, perhaps to confirm his Mosaic heritage. Above the town of Srinagar is a temple known as "The Throne of Solomon", which dates back to at least 1000BC, which King Gopadatta had restored at about the same time as Christ's advent. The restoration was done by a Persian architect who personally left four inscriptions on the side steps of the temple. The third and fourth inscription read: "At this time Yuz Asaf announced his prophetic calling in Year 50 and 4" and "He is Jesus -- Prophet of the Sons of Israel"!

Anyone who doesn't pay much attention to detail can easily be fooled by this. Until now, the author has been pressing the name "Yuz Asaf." Tell me, then, why does the same inscription mention two different names? This is supposed to be a literal translation, right? Where then does his argument go? Now we have reason to believe the author is taking things out of context and perhaps falsely representing the so-called third and fourth inscriptions. If anyone is to consider this proper theology, scholarly and actual historical evidence, then i can only assume that personal studies are not, at least generally, scholarly at all.