Was Jesus a Tamil Hindu?

From time to time, there has been this idea being marketed that Jesus lived and died in India. The Bible explicitly mentions Jesus before 12 and after 30. There is no explicit mention of what happened in between. This has led some people to claim that during the 'silent years of Jesus', he came and lived in India. There has even been claims that say Jesus was buried in India. The latest theory that is making the news, apparently first written seventy years before, is that Jesus was born a Tamil Hindu, and Christianity is a Hindu sect and Jesus spent his later years in the Himalayas and died there. Could it be true? Does the Bible give evidences that point to the contrary? Well, I think there are evidences that suggest that Jesus never lived in India.

First point. In his 30s, as recorded by Luke, when Jesus began to do his ministry, he had his own critics. On one occasion, in his hometown i.e Nazareth, the village he grew up, when he began to teach, he faced his critics. The critics said, 'Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son...' This suggests that the people of Nazareth knew him as a carpenter. Had Jesus done such work just once or twice, he would not be known as a carpenter. It is plausible to say that because of his consistent engagement with this work, he was known that way. He was not known as a fisherman or a tax collector because he did not do that kind of job. Carpentry would have been his 'profession' just as fishing was Peter's. But someone at 15 would not be a 'carpenter', at 15 one would be just an amateur. It is reasonable to suppose that one could become a fisherman or a carpenter only when one has attained at least 18 and then continued engaging with the work for years. From 18-20 to 28-30 did Jesus engage himself as a carpenter for which he then came to be known as a carpenter? Possibly! The biblical text suggests that Jesus grew up in the Middle East, and not in India.

Second point. In his teaching ministry that he started around 30, he used lot of parables. The parables he told suggest that Jesus knew the 'ways of life' of the people there. If Jesus had lived in Siberia, he would have used parables from such region. One could make that out from reading the parables. Parables of the lost sheep, vineyard, fishing net, mustard seed etc. suggest that he grew up in Israel, not just in his early years when he would be too young to learn much but also in his adult years. Moreover, his conversation with the religious leaders and his teaching suggest that he was very much well-versed in the Old Testament. Only a person who continuously received teaching even well onto adult years would have knowledge of such sort. For example, when one reads Buddha's discourse it is not very difficult to know that such thought would have come about only after years of learning and meditation. Just a year or two of learning would not produce such insight. Similarly, to have such insight and understanding, Jesus would have immersed in so many years of studying the Old Testament. And that is possible only if he lived and grew up there in Israel.

Third point. In ancient India, there emerged two figures, Gautama Buddha and Mahavira, who came out of Vedic Hinduism. These two moved away from Vedic theology, but their teaching has traces of Vedic theology. Even if they tried to move away, they were successful only up to certain extent. Had Jesus received heavy dose of Vedic teaching in the Himalayas, it is quite possible that we find traces of Vedic theology in Jesus' teaching. But this is not so. Instead it is the Old Testament background that we find all over in Jesus teaching, and complete absence of Vedic theology. Had Jesus been heavily influenced by Vedic theology, even if he wanted to get away, like that of Gotama and Mahavira, it would still be visible in his teaching. The absence of Vedic theology suggests that Jesus never came to the Himalayas/India. 

NB: This article is a slightly modified version of what has been posted here. 

Was it Resurrection or Resuscitation?

Did Jesus really die on the cross or was he just fainted? What happened to his body after it was buried in a tomb? Did the disciples steal the body or did he recover from the unconscious state and walked out of the tomb? Is there plausible reason to trust the testimony of the earliest followers of Jesus Christ who said he is risen?

Crucifixion under the Roman authority was not unusual. The criminals were usually scourged first so much so that there could be so much of blood loss due to cut from the leather whip that has pieces of balls or bones attached. The Roman soldiers were expert in executing criminals; and escape of any crucified criminal is a death penalty for the soldiers. Expertise plus the penalty for the escape made crucifixion a very certain form of execution.

We read that Jesus was arrested at night. He was then led to the courtyard of the high priest where there was an attempt to charge him of various crimes, after which “the guards received him with blows” ( Mark 14.65). In the morning Jesus was delivered to the Governor Pontius Pilate. At the order of Pilate, Jesus was scourged and then delivered to be crucified ( Mark 15.15. The soldiers also plaited a crown of thorn and put it on his head, and there on the head they would strike. Jesus was then led out of the city and put up on the cross, with his hands and feet nailed to the wooden cross. Later on to check whether he was really death, a soldier pierced the side of Jesus with his spear and “at once there came out blood and water”.

After he was certified death, Joseph and Nicodemus were granted the body of Jesus to be buried. The body was then laid in a guarded tomb, which was then sealed so that none might roll away the stone without prior permission. This was Friday evening probably around 4- 5 pm. Sunday early morning, the tomb was found empty. What happened to Jesus' body: resurrected or resuscitated and gone?

( 'Resurrection' was a term employed only for those who came back to life with special physical properties. Till then 'resurrection' exists only in word; no one has really seen it nor did they expect it to happen then. The ancient people were clear about the difference between resuscitation and resurrection. They were not so foolish to confuse the two. They knew as much as we now know that dead people don't come to back life.)

How plausible it is for scourged and bleeding Jesus to survive the cross for 3-6 hours? And how plausible it is to suppose that the Roman soldiers mistook Jesus to be dead for having fainted when such mistake would invite death sentence for the soldiers? And how plausible it is to suggest that scourged and speared Jesus on his own would be able to roll away the stone that sealed the tomb? And how plausible it is for wounded and frail Jesus to claim that he has conquered death and his disciples are now to tell the whole world including the Roman soldiers and religious leaders who crucified him that he is now the king of kings and lord of lords?

The disciples did indeed preach to the Roman world that Jesus is risen and every knee, including the emperor's, is summoned to bow before Jesus. For preaching this “Gospel”, they were jailed, beaten, thrown to the lions, burnt to death and so on for approximately 300 years. Only in 313 AD through the Edict of Milan did Christianity become one of the religions that could be practised without inviting persecution. Why did the disciples who run away when Jesus was arrested began to worship and adore him in spite of death haunting them? What gain would they receive for telling a lie that Jesus is resurrected when what they actually was witnessed was only the resuscitated Jesus and who now have fled to Kashmir? In the face of hunger, imprisonment, head being chopped or being thrown into lion's den which is more plausible: To say that the disciples had such boldness to proclaim to the Roman world that Jesus is resurrected and he is Lord because they actually witnessed the crucified and risen Jesus or to suppose that they they witnessed the battered Jesus surviving the tomb and later escaped to India. Well, I choose the former explanation: that Jesus was truly resurrected from the dead and he is who he claimed to be.

How Christianity Transformed a Village

It was in 1942 that one white missionary, Dr. Broad, came to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to an obscure village. The name of the village was Phuba (Phyabu in local language), in present North East India, which was then 8 hours of walking from the nearest conveyance available. Similar kind of preaching by missionaries continued on and off in 1943. In 1944, seven families decided to follow Jesus Christ. And among those 7 families, one of them was  my paternal grandparents.

The obvious thing for these 7 families was to set up a new pattern of life in a new village. So in February 12, 1944, they moved some 3 kilometres away and set up a new village which is now called Phuba Thapham (Khyoubu, the village is shown in the picture). In this new village, they gave up drinking completely. And this was a very significant step for them; and this continues to be significant even today whenever someone becomes a follower of Jesus in that particular context. This was so because drinking was so much part of their life. In fact, the local dialect for someone of my place who was and is not a Christian is "drinking people". Since people would be drunk for many hours of the day, they were not hygienic. They did not have time for learning too and therefore literacy rate would probably have been around 1%. Roughly 40%-50% of the children that were born would die due to lack of medical facility and unhygienic way of life. But often the villagers would attribute death to the work of the spirits. So it was common to give filthy names ( of filthy words) to the children thinking that spirits would not take away children with such names.

Here I wish to mention that those who converted did not receive "rice" from anyone. They were not all rich, but the reason for them to convert was not because they were offered "rice" by anyone. 

In the new village they quit drinking. They lived hygienic life. The children mortality rate went up.  My dad was 12 years old then when his parents shifted to this new village. The same year my paternal grandfather went around to neighbouring villages to preach the Gospel and help those who converted to set up new homes. In 1946, after WW II, the Allied troops were pulling out from the region. My grandfather and many others served as porters for the troops who were going back home. While returning to the village in rainy  July after his service as a porter my grandfather developed a certain sickness. Few days later he passed away leaving behind 3 sons and 2 daughters.  But the new church and the village these 7 families have started by then have more than 5 times the original number. My grandmother lived till 1994.

In 1948 my maternal grandfather came as a missionary- teacher to the village, with his family members. Besides teaching Bible to the youth group of the village,  he was the first man who taught women of the village how to read and write. The following years he taught people of this village how to build orchard and also how to plough the fields using buffaloes. He also taught them how to cultivate many items of vegatables and pulses. Till then villagers relied mostly on wild plants for food. (Even today plants in the forest continue to be an important source of food items). After roughly 10 years of fruitful service to this obscure village my maternal grandparents left the family with their children, leaving behind my mother who by then had got married to my father. This grandfather died in 1979; and grandmother is still alive.

Today the village has over 1800 members; more so because new converts came to live in the village and mortality rate decrease significantly. The literacy rate would be somewhere around 98%.Seeing the significant differences between Christian and non-christian almost every family  in the mother village has become Christian now. Some people criticise Christianity for destroying the tribal way of life. Well, I would very much prefer this life to the life then. My parents would say the same. And my grandparents would not disagree with the preference, I know!