Since the birthplace of Jesus is too far from the Indian subcontinent, there is a viable chance for him travelling to India or Tibet. All the story of Jesus is mythological like Indian mythology. Hence, there is solid proof that Jesus Christ came to India and has made a deep study of Hindu religion. After returning to Jerusalem, he might have stated teaching and making a copy of Indian religion. The date of birth of Jesus is not very far in the past likeee the iron age. It is only 2013 year ago, before that, there was already existence of Buddha in India, so there is more chance that Jesus came to India. This question is not a religious one, but it is historical. I hope you will give viable reply.
I hope I can say this without being disrespectful. Your suggestion really makes no sense, in my opinion. First of all, you say that the birthplace of Jesus is too far from the Indian subcontinent (I assume you mean too far for it to be likely that Jesus went there). I agree with you on this. It is unlikely in the extreme that a poor Israelite such as Jesus, who was not a merchant, would have traveled to India. Then, in a rather obvious contradiction to what you just said, you say that there is solid proof that Jesus came to India! This statement is really utter nonsense. There is literally zero “proof” never mind any significant evidence at all that Jesus ever set foot in the Indian subcontinent. I believe that this theory is wishful thinking on the part of the advocates for Hindu ways of thinking–hoping that they can associate Jesus and his teachings with Hinduism.
Then you make what I believe is a patently false statement. You say that the whole story of Jesus is a myth–somewhat like Hindu mythology. I assume you are referring to such Hindu myths as the stories of Rama and Krishna. This statement can only come from a person who has not studied the evidence about Jesus carefully. We know where Jesus was born (Bethlehem, near Jerusalem). We know where he was raised (Nazareth: about 15 miles west of the Sea of Galilee). We know where he lived during the time of his ministry (Capernaum, on the Sea of Galilee). We know where, when and how he died (in Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, by crucifixion, in AD 30). All these facts are confirmed by both Christian and non-Christian sources. We know the name of Jesus’ mother and father. We know the names of dozens of his friends. Several of then actually wrote about Jesus, including John, Peter, Matthew and two of his brothers, James and Jude. The idea that Jesus is a mythological figure like the mythical characters Krishna or Rama is not to be taken seriously by anyone who has studied the historical evidence.
By the way, I agree with you that Siddhartha Gautama, otherwise known as Budda is a historical person. He did live a bit more than 500 years before Jesus. We know a lot more about Jesus than about Buddha, but we do know a fairly significant amount about Buddha, including where he was born and the family he came from. Like Jesus, Buddha is definitely not a mythical character. You are really inconsistent when you insist that Buddha was not mythical but Jesus was. This make no sense from an evidential point of view.
I am sorry, but people should really stop throwing out this completely illogical and unsubstantiated idea that Jesus learned his religion from India. It is very disrespectful to Judaism in general and is not supported by a single shred of evidence. Judaism shows no sign of being derived from Hinduism and, in any case, Jesus certainly did not travel to India.