Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1

Where is this ‘Tomb’ of Jesus Christ situated?

The Tomb featured at this site is in the Kan Yar District of Shrinagar, Kashmir, India. There is evidence to support the thesis put forward upon this site that Jesus Christ journeyed here after surviving the Crucifixion. There are historical records talking of his presence in India under the name of “Yus Asaph”.

The exact location of the tomb is: 34 05 39.10 N, 74 48 58.76 E

Through Google Earth we have obtained the following image and had it verified by those that have visited the tomb.

Question 2

How could anyone survive Crucifixion?

Crucifixion is often thought of as to mean death. People associate Crucifixion firstly with Jesus Christ and secondly with death. What can we find out about the practices of Crucifixion, and where there any peculiarities with Jesus’ Crucifixion?

The famous Jewish Historian, Josephus narrates the following story set in 1st century Palestine:

“I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered.”

Thus it was indeed possible for people to survive Crucifixion given treatment. There were also some features of Jesus’ ordeal that would make survival from likely an outcome.

For a detailed look at this issue click here

Question 3

Why would Jesus go to India?

Is there any reason why Jesus Christ would journey to India? Here are a few reasons why:

I. Jesus was sent to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24) and there is substantial evidence, including DNA tests, suggesting that people of India and Persia and Parthia are of Jewish descent. Thus he went there to continue his mission. This evidence can be viewed here.

II. Jesus may have been fulfilment of a prophecy in the Buddhist tradition, indeed many have suggested an even strong link between Jesus and Buddhism. This can be explored here.

III. More contemporary research, particularly by Susanne Olsson, seems to be uncovering more and more evidence that India was the burial place of many of the Israelite Prophets; Moses, Abraham and others.

IV. If Jesus had survived the Crucifixion he would be a wanted man with a price on his head. He would want to escape the Roman jurisdiction as quickly as he could.

Question 4

When did Jesus go to India?

Regards timing there is a difference of opinion.

There appear to be three divergent viewpoints among the scholars that have written about Jesus in India.

I. Jesus travelled to India in his Youth only.

This view is supported by authors such as Elizabeth Claire Prophet, and stems largely from a scroll found by Nicholas Notovitch in a monastery at Hemmis. The Bible does not detail the events of Jesus’ life between the ages of 12 and 30, and these years have become known as the “missing years” of Jesus. Proponents of this view believe it was during these years Jesus travelled to India, and later returned to Palestine.

II. Jesus did not travel to India in his youth, but in fact travelled there after the Crucifixion.

This viewpoint rejects the view that Jesus grew up and learnt as a Buddhist during his youth. It is put forward by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and outlined in his treatise, “Jesus in India”, written in the early 1900s.

III. Jesus travelled to India during his youth, and returned there after the Crucifixion. 

This appear to be the consensus now among the scholars. This viewpoint is that Jesus, having travelled to India in his youth, returned there after the Crucifixion. He spent most of his life there, and passed away there, and is burred in Shrinagar, Kashmir. This viewpoint is supported by people such as Holger Kersten, Dr Fida Hussnain and Andreas Faber-Kaiser, all who have written on the subject.

Question 5

What evidence is there that Jesus went to India?

A list of documents containing information about Jesus’ travels to the East and also his ministry in Kashmir can he seen here.

There is local legend and evidence that the man in the tomb is the same person as Jesus Christ. The Jewish origin of the people of Afghanistan and India is explored here and also forms part of the documented evidence about Jesus’ travels by providing a motive.

A list of authors and books on the subject can be explored at the Books Section

Question 6

What route could Jesus have taken?

The probable route that Jesus took toward Kashmir after the crucifixion can be viewed here.

Jesus started his journey from Jerusalem toward the eastern part of Damascus, Jesus then travelled to Eastern Turkey, Nisibis.

Iran was the next point of call for Jesus followed by Afghanistan to the small town of Herat and the toward Taxila in what is today Pakistan.

Jesus finally came to Srinagar, Kashmir, India.

Question 7

How could Jesus have travelled so far without transport?

It is an accepted fact that St Thomas journeyed to India in the 1st century from Palestine thus there should be no problem with Jesus partaking a similar journey.

An interesting question is how he would undertake the journey, and also if such journeys were common. Narration during the BBC’s documentary – “Did Jesus Die?” – states that:

“The Journey East from Israel in the 1st century was surprisingly easy by land or by sea, on the Silk Route, or the spice route.”

This statement is then qualified as Friar Jerome Murphy O’Connor adds whilst talking about St Thomas’ journey to India:

“To travel to India would be no problem. He (St Thomas) just had to go down to Gaza and link up with one of the spice trains returning, and then from Yemen get a boat to India. It would have been a very easy simple procedure that was done regularly.”

Question 8

Has anyone written in support of this theory?

There are an increasing number of scholars writing about Jesus in India.

The theory has come to surface is modern day popular mainstream writings. It is mentioned in Yann Martel’s best seller “The Life of Pi”, and also covered by a UK based magazine called “The Fortean Times”. 

In the summer of 2003 the BBC showed a documetnary entilted “Did Jesus Die?” in which the theory put forward by this website was covered extensively and presented as the most viable answer to the Jesus story.

Numerous scholars have written about the theory specifically, but the topic has not been brought in to the public spotlight. The BBC documentary was the most public sharing of the Jesus in India treatise.

A review of literature mentioning Jesus in India can be accessed here.

Question 9

Which religion or group believe Jesus went to India?

The thesis of Jesus having travelled to India transcends religious, cultural and geographical boundaries. Often the theory is thought to be an invention of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community alone yet the idea is talked about in literature from Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic and Christian sources and texts

There are scholars from all major faiths who have written about the theory in one form or another. Judaism does not have a direct opinion on the theory yet evidence from Hebrew sources do help in understanding the scattering of the Jews to the East.

One of the most significant documents is the “The Bhavishya Mahapurana” – which is of Hindu origin.

Notovitch’s findings were of scrolls found in a Buddhist monastery. The subject is not just limited to people from the east, with scholars of the west such as Kersten, Faber-Kaiser and Gene Matlock (a Christian) all writing in support of the theory.

Question 10

Why is there no evidence about this theory in the Holy Bible or Quran?

There may not be explicit referneces to Jesus in India in the Quran and the Bible, but there are verses that certainly open the possibility.

The verses in quesiton and subsequent interpretation and inference are presented below:

I. A closer look at Jesus in the Quran.

II. An examination of Christian texts.

Question 11

How does this relate to the so-called “Shroud of Turin”?

The link between Jesus’ survival from the cross and the Shroud of Turin is a fascinating one.

Some research has suggested that from the blood marks on the shroud and the way the image was formed proves that the man in the shroud was still alive when placed in it.

The dating and confirmation of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has become a very controversial area with strong opponents and proponents of the authenticity of the shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus.

This area can be examined here.

Question 12

What is meant by Jesus was a Buddhist?

There has been lots of interesting research in the area of Buddhism and Jesus. Jesus’ teachings seem to show a strong similarity with some Buddhist teaching. What is the reason for this?

Was Jesus a Buddhist or was Buddhist teaching influenced by Jesus’ teaching? Or were they both of Israelite origin?

This fascinating area can be examined here.

Question 13

Are the ‘Ancient Documents’ on this website reliable?

Often the reliability and authenticity of the documents mentioned upon this website are questioned. The documents have not been radio carbon dated, but their authenticity is supported by the number of differing sources that provide the same information.

One interesting aspect is that not much would be gained from fabricating the information. It has been said that no single religion supports the theory and the orthodox beliefs of both Islam and Christianity do not support the theory. Finding Hindu material supporting it is perhaps the most significant of all, as the Hindus do not claim Jesus to be one of their followers in any way. Indeed when he is mentioned in the Bhavishya Mahapuranahe is referred to as “the teacher of the non-believers”. Thus what he said and did is of little significance to the Hindus, yet we find mention of his presence in Kashmir.

More and more documents are being brought to light, and just a selection are placed upon this website. There is room for research to be done in to the authenticity of these documents, but the gut reaction of many seems to be “They must be fakes” and this seems to be unwarranted.

Question 14

What do we know about the man who is said to be in Srinagar, Kashmir Tomb?

Clearly there is someone buried in Roza Bol. The name of the person buried there according to the sign post and local records is Yus Asaph. The Bhavishya Mahapuranadetails a holy man in Kashmir at the time who refered to himself as “Isa-masih” and said he was born of a virgin, and some referred to him as “a Son of God”.

Local information about Yus Asaph is that he was a prophet who journeyed to Kashmir from a foreign land. The direction of his grave indicates that he was of Israelite origin. The carved footprints next to the tomb suggest that he once survived crucifixion or some other punishment leading to visible scaring of the feet.

More information about this can be examined at the Historical Sources page and Founders page.

Question 15

Who are the living experts on this theory?

There are scholars who have written in support of the theory and most of them are still alive. More information upon the various books is here with a list of the Major Players.

The theory covers so many vast areas of research that there are many experts each in their own field.

The Shroud of Turin has its own experts and proponents. The Jesus in India theory has its own list of supporters, and the scholars writing in support of Jesus having survived the Crucifixion form their own group. There is often overlap between these authors, but not that much of it.

Thus there are many experts, but not too many put together the pieces of the puzzle and reach the conclusions reached at this site. The current living authority is most likely Dr Fida Hussnain, Aziz Kashmiri is also a prominent expert, with Holger Kersten being an active worker, as is Suzanne Olsson.

Question 16

Is this website designed to hurt Christianity? Does it not ignore the religious sensitivities of Christians?

No. We are not trying to hurt Christianity. We are engaged in the wholly legitimate exercise, accepted in the modern world, of research and discovery; of providing information. 

Also, it must be kept in mind that for well over one-thousand years, Christian dogma, buttressed by a rigid Church hierarchy and authority, was rigidly enforced, especially by the Church of Rome (now called the Catholic Church). Any information about Jesus was information that would have to agree with official Church doctrine.

For instance, Church authorities would reject information about Jesus, such as the Gospel of Thomas (which dates back as far as any of the canonical Gospels), the Gospel of Mary Magadalene, etc., and deem them “apocraphal.” Anyone who presented information about Jesus that was contrary to accepted Church doctrine, was actually putting his life on the line. 

Martin Luther posed the first great challenge to Church authority in 1517, thus starting the Protestant sect of Christianity. Later, the American Revolution created the first break in human history from the Old World ideas of the Divine Right of Kings (an idea that influenced the entire old world, including China), as well as the absolute unquestioning authority of any religious hierarchy, such as the Church of Rome. This began the liberation of the human intellect from hierarchical religious authoritarianism.

This website, as such, is merely one expression of that liberation. We are now able to exercise our freedom, and ask some fundamental and legitimate questions. Also, out of the six billion human beings on earth, approximately five billion of them are not Christians. So, when documents about Jesus are found in Kashmir, or anywhere else, those five billion non-Christians have every right to examine those documents. 

For five billion human beings, Christianity does not hold a monopoly on information about Jesus Christ. Christians themselves may feel bidden to limit their reading to the documents that are provided by Christian religious authorities, Christian writers, etc. But, again, the other five billion human beings on this earth are free to examine any information about Jesus that comes forward, and are not bound by religious doctrine to accept Christian ideas about Jesus Christ.

As regards the sensitivities of Christians, since 1999, when the Tomb of Jesus Christ Website was loaded to the Internet, we have always presented our content in a professional manner. We have avoided using sarcastic, anti-Christian comments about Christianity. We clearly recognize, of course, that this theory does pose a direct challenge to the currently accepted doctrines of Church-Christianity, especially the doctrine about the physical return of Jesus to this earth.

But, there is hardly a single subject on this earth that is not challenged, in one way or the other. Also, we at the Tomb of Jesus Christ Website view the possibility that Jesus survived the crucifixion and went on to teach throughout Asia as something exhiliratingly positive, not as something that challenges someone’s religious beliefs. That’s the position we take: That this is good news.”

Question 17

What about Archarya S’ writings on the theory and the footprints?

A) Footprints – Archarya states on her websites that foot carvings like these are common

Jeff Saltz, in his documentary, interviewed Dr. Fida Hassnain, former Director of Archives, Archaeology, Research and Museums for the state of Kashmir. Jeff says, ‘Feet sculptures like these are common, but Hassnain had never seen anything with these crescent shaped markings.’ So, the footprints at Rozabal are not ordinary footprints. Also, Dr. Fida Hassnain is a degreed archaeologist who was once listed in Who’s Who in Archaeology. Acharya S. is not an archaeologist, and does not posses the expertise needed to make determinations regarding stone carvings. She has never examined the footprints at Rozabal. Dr. Hassnain, along with an assistant, has examined those footprints, right there at the site. The foot carvings at Rozabal are unique.

B) Isn’t ‘Yus’ in Yus Asaph just another form of Joseph?

Unfortunately, Acharya S. is woefully unfamiliar with the books ot the East. The bibliography at the end of her book, the Christ Conspiracy, contains only five pages of book references, none of which mentions a single Eastern source.

Contrast her bibliography with the massive work written by the great Asian scholar, Kwaja Nazir Ahmad, who, in his book, Jesus in Heaven on Earth, included 13 full pages of bibliography that includes tons of Western and Eastern sources. We fail to understand how Acharya S. can authoritatively comment on the origin of the name Yuz when she has such scant knowledge of the Eastern sources. As an example, here we offer a quote from Khawaja Nazir Ahmad’s book that gives a full explanation of various possibilities of meanings of the name Yuz Asaf (And note the number of Asian book references he offers), though he finally settles on one definition:

Since the people of Nisibis were out to kill Jesus, and he could not go far in a few days, Jesus traveled incognito under the name Yuz Asaf, and the books and local traditions of the countries he visited or passed through after Nisibis speak of him as Yuz Asaf. It has been said that Yuz stood for Yusu (Jesus) and Asaf in Hebrew means ‘gatherer.

In Farhang-i-Jahangiri, as in Anjuman-i-Arae Nasiri, we find that Asaf was one of the grandees of non-Arab (Ajami) countries. In Ghias-ul-Lughat and Burhan-i-Qate Asaf is given as the name of a son of Barkhia, who was one of the learned of Beni Israel [the Children of Israel, or, the Jews]. In Farhang-i-Anand Raj the word Yuz is explained as ‘seeker or leader.’ We are told that both these words are Hebrew. But here again non of these authoroties explain what Yuz Asaf stood for and conjointly in the light of these meanings they convey no sense. Farhang-i-Asafia, on good authorities cited therein, strikes the proper note and explains the meaning of Asaf in the following words:

‘In the time of Hazrat Isa (Jesus) when lepers were cured by him, they, on being admitted among the healthy people who were free from all diseases, were called Asaf.’

‘In other words, the word Asaf was applied to lepers cured by Jesus. Thus Yuz Asaf meant the Seeker or Leader of the lepers cured by Jesus. The word Asaf, thus having a special significance known at the time only to the few around Jesus, served the purpose and yet described him more appropriately than any other assumed name could have.”

(Jesus in Heaven on Earth [Columbus: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore Inc, 1998 (Originally published at Woking: Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, 1952)], p. 386

Acharya S, and others, are considered high-caliber scholars. If that is the case, then it would seem to be a simple matter for them to track down and read the varioius Asia sources, or at least read such English-language works as Jesus in Heaven on Earth.

C) But Jesus didn’t even exist! The Christian doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus; of his dying for the sins of the world; of his resurrection, ascension, and return to this earth, are all doctrines that existed long before Jesus. This story of Jesus is simply the latest god-man story, like the story of Mithra, Osiris, Horus, Krishna, etc. The figure of Jesus was probably invented by people who wanted to unite the Roman Empire. So, they resurrected the old savior-god mythos because it was a mythos people were familiar with. And they named the new god-man, “Jesus,” but kept the savior-god mythos that people had been used to.

First, it is not our purpose to defend the doctrines of Christianity, or to defend Christianity. But nor is it our purpose to attack the doctrines of Christianity, or to attack Christianity. Secondly, yes, the savior-god mythos of death, resurrection, ascension and return is not unique to Christianity, nor did Christianity invent this mythos. Savior-gods existed long before that which is now called Christianity adopted those same ideas.

But here is the problem with the claim that Jesus never existed, just because pre-Christian savior-god traditions became adopted by that which is now called Christianity: Not all of the early followers of Jesus followed the savior-god mythos that other followers of Jesus did. The Gnostics, the Nazarenes (Ebionites), and other Christian groups did not follow the pre-Christian savior-god model at all. In fact, they rejected the savior-god model. So, who were they following? If Jesus was the center of this new, savior-god religion, then why were there communities of his followers who did not view Jesus as a savior-god? For example, as the following excerpt from Wikipedia shows, the Ebionites saw Jesus as a prophet, not as a savior-god who died, rose, ascended, and returned to earth::

“In contrast to mainstream Christianity, the Ebionites insisted on a universal necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites,[12] which they interpreted in light of Jesus’ expounding of the Law.[13] They regarded Jesus as a mortal human messianic prophet but not as divine, revered his brother James as the head of the Jerusalem Church and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an “apostate of the Law”[citation needed]. Their name suggests that they placed a special value on religious poverty.”

Also, there were the Elcesaites, the Nazarenes, the Nazoraeans, the Sampsaeans, Carpocratians, the Cerinthians, some of which did not view Jesus as a savior-god. If, for whatever reason, Paul decided (as some believe) to borrow pre-Christian savior-god myths in order to appeal to the Romans, then that does not mean that Jesus was an invented savior-god. At most it would mean that Paul foisted the savior-god motif onto Jesus, not that Jesus himself was an invention. Indeed, some believe that Paul introduced a deep corruption of Jesus’ beliefs by casting Jesus as a savior-god.

The existence of these different groups, in fact, actually stands as proof that Jesus did exist. Who were these groups talking about? A phantom? If Jesus never existed, then how could such difference of opinion about Jesus have existed? The savior-gods that appeared long before Jesus were undisputed savior gods. No one challenged their status as gods. That is not the case with Jesus. There were a substantial number of groups, as we demonstrated above, that did not share the doctrine that Paul and his followers believed.

Last, we believe that the Indian and Asian documents that we present at this website also stand as proof that Jesus existed, in part because their depiction of Jesus matches that of the Ebionites and other groups.

Leave a Reply