Wedsaz:
BS. It's true that ppl have claimed that Jesus didn't die on the cross but returned to India - but all evidence in support of that was gathered in the 20th century when lots of ppl were crazy about India - and about Jesus. Now that those ppl were crazy about India doesn't mean that Jesus was crazy about it too. In fact Jews weren't very eager to adopt ideas from alien civs by then - so even if Jews were living in India by then (quite possible) it doesn't mean that they mixed with Buddhists, Hindus or Brahmans, not to mention the Sikhs. Jesus destroyed a fig tree once - you call that a Buddhist behavior?
Almost nothing was known about the first fifteen years of his life - sure, but if that is an excuse to say he had been living in India, it's also an excuse to say he lived almost anywhere else. Why would Joseph of Arimathea go to England with the grail and all if Jesus hadn't lived there? He might have learned something from the druids there, who knows?
Nobody ever took Jesus' miracles seriously. He didn't preach guerrilla warfare - he preached blowing up society by much more radical means - by stopping the economy. Feeding 5000 people in the way he did at one occasion - you think any baker would like that? Be sure they'd hate it. Do you think any doctor at the time would like his healing of people? They could stop practicing if he went on like that.
If you turn your back to society at large and enough people do the same, it will fall apart eventually. If you settle conflicts with other people out of court, the courts will lose their function. If you fight them, you merely strengthen them. This idea was put forward by David Flusser. According to him, Jesus believed that God didn't protect people from a shameful death, the consequences of debts and the like, regardless of how righteous they were. Nothing else could make sense of what was going on at that time.
The Phoenix:
You're quite right - but for the wrong reasons. Anyway there weren't only Buddhists in India then, were there?