There is the Idea, that Jesus in his unrecorded years might have travelled to India and there studied Buddhist Teachings. This would explain the similarities between the two religions - "the meek shall inherit the earth", "love your neighbour". Additionally in Kashmir there is a shrine where the body of a man form the first century is buried. He apparently had scars, indicating that he once had been nailed to a cross. The theory goes that Jesus - having surived the crucifiction went back there where he spent the rest of his days, even getting quite old age.
I would love to know, how much merit this theory has and what - if any - consensus among historians there is about it. Thanks in advance!
Where does this theory come from? Also for the photo of the supposed scars, do you have a source for that? In all likelihood this is nothing more than a myth. Entertaining, yes, but I wouldn't put much faith in it.
The answer is almost certainly no.
There is a consensus among historians on this issue, and that is that the theory has no merit.
Actually, the things you mention are two unrelated theories. The shrine at Roza Bal and those who advocate it as a place for the burial of Jesus do not believe that Jesus had earlier travelled to India and learnt Buddhist teachings, which was the claim made by Notovitch. The buried in India claim is related to Ghulam Ahmad and the Ahmadiyya movement.
Firstly, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that Jesus travelled to India, either in an earlier period or post-crucifixion. Indeed, there is no particular reason to suppose that he survived crucifixion.
Secondly, rock carvings of scarred feet are not suggestive of anything particularly. Crucifixion was not uncommon in the Roman empire, and was not restricted to the Romans. Moreover it was not the only form of punishment that might occasion scars. It would be an incredible extrapolation to suggest that one, Jewish peasant, having survived crucifixion, travelled to India for retirement and that we had definitively identified his resting place.
Thirdly, the 'parallels' you cite in religious teaching are of the most vague and unconvincing type. If Jesus were a buddhist monk, he would have been a pretty poor one, since his teachings as recorded in the New Testament documents show very little that could genuinely be paralleled with Buddhism, and nothing that indicates Buddhist type metaphysics or ethical teaching, let alone meditation, reincarnation, or enlightenment.
Notovitch's claims were discredited as a hoax and he later confessed to fabrication of evidence. Ghulam Ahmad's claims are widely considered historical legend without a shred of evidence.
I've heard this topic brought up before, but the contrary opinion is that concepts of Buddhism and Christianity other major religions are universal. They are founded on life lessons and objective truths that permeate all of human history and different cultures.
The conflict between our ability to see morality and our base emotions is nothing new, and existed before Jesus and Buddha
