First, I apologize in advance if this post is offensive to Christians. I'm new here, and I did not realize that this was a Christian forum. I thought it was about "unexplained mysteries." But I saw a post in which a Christian was complaining about bashing Christians. Please tell me whether or not this is a Christian forum.
Anyway, I feel that sharing information is not "bashing." I created the Tomb of Jesus Christ Website [ www.tombofjesus.com ], and loaded it to the Internet on December 10, 1999. After converting to the Baha'i Faith, I gave the site away. Not because of any Baha'i prohibition, but chiefly because of other considerations [such as time].
I was fortunate to have made the acquaintance of Dr. Fida Hassnain, former Director of Archaeology, Archives, Research and Museums for Kashmir. He also wrote the book, The Search fo the Historical Jesus. He was very helpful, exchanging both snail mail and email.
I have tried [unsuccessfully] to extricate myself from this topic. The topic has no bearing on Baha'i beliefs, as the essential belief's of the Baha'i Faith are about the Oneness of God, the oneness of the religions and the oneness of mankind.
But, I'll say this: I think the theory of Jesus in Kashmir poses some questions that one cannot easily answer. I'm not a scholar, by the way. But there are some strange issues, and perhaps you guys might be interested in discussing them [I probably won't: too busy. But I thought you'd be interested]. Here are some of the issues:
1. The actual alleged grave of Jesus is
not one of the two sarcophagii you see when you enter the Rauza Bal mausoleum. The actual alleged grave of Jesus is
under that building, and at one time could be seen from the ground floor, through a small aperture. What's interesting is that the actual underground casket faces the direction that the Jews bury their dead, with the head facing north and the feet facing south. The Hindus cremate their dead. Why does the casket face that direction?
2. The traditions, both written and oral, state that "Yuz Asaf," the name of the individual buried there, "came from the Holy Land," i.e., Canaan, today called, Israel, some 2000 years ago, around the same time that Jesus is alleged to have lived and taught.
3. Inside the Rauza Bal mausoleum is a stone carving that someone made. This stone carving is a representation of the feet of Yuz Asaf. And that carving has markings that indicate wounds (see:
http://www.tombofjesus.com/Footprints.htm ). It's difficult to understand why someone from that area, that was and is not a Christian area, would create such markings. This carving alone is meaningless. But taken together with the other elements of this theory, it at least raises the eyebrow.
4. In a book called, Tarikh-i-Kashmir, the very name of Jesus is said to have been carved on a building in Kashmir that, at one time, was named the Takhat Sulaiman Temple. This temple was renamed Sankarachariya by the Hindu Maharaja in 1848. The carvings read:
"The mason of this pillar is Bihishti Zargar, Year fifty and four.
Khwaja Rukun, son of Murjan, erected this pillar
At this time, Yuz Asaf proclaimed his prophethood. Year fifty and four.
He is Isa, Prophet of the Children of Israel."
Now, this is all very strange. The name "Isa" is used in Hindu literature to refer to Jesus. That name is also used in the Qur'an. Some Hindus believe that Jesus travelled to India.
5. Yuz Asaf is called a "nabi" [prophet] in the written and oral traditions of Kashmir. Well, the word "nabi" does not exist in the Sanskrit language. It is exclusive to Hebrew and Arabic. Now, here's an interesting point: Some have suggested that the individual buried under the Rauza Bal was a Muslim. But that can't be the case, for the following reason. The general Islamic teachings are that no nabi [prophet] can come after Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam. So, whoever is buried there is not a Muslim, because he would not have described himself as a prophet, knowing full well that his religion forbids such an idea. He was referred to by the local people as "nabi," and other literature says that when he arrived in Kashmir, he actually announced himself as a nabi, a prophet. And he arrived long before the Islamic period, some 600 years before Prophet Muhammad--precisely the time when Jesus is alleged to have lived in Israel.
So, some man who came to Kashmir from the Holy Land; who announced himself, using the Hebrew word, "nabi," as a prophet; and who was buried in the direction that Jews bury their dead; and for whom someone carved footprints as some kind of memorial, those footprints haveing wound marks [crucifixion wounds?] is buried under the Rauza Bal mausoleum. Who is he?
Incidentally, this is the difference between the France, England and Japan theories. None of those theories has an ounce of evidence, although some point to very, very vague things, such as code language. But in the case of Kashmir, there is a physical tomb; there are carvings, both the footmarks and on the Takhat Sulaiman Manument; there is the direction of the burial; there is his announcement that he was a "nabi," and the fact that he arrived there from the Holy Land some 2000 years ago; and, most interestingly, is the matter-of-fact way that the Kashmir people--especially the elders--will answer when you asked them who's buried in that tomb: "Hazrat Isa." To them, it's no big deal, because Jesus was just a minor prophet in the Islamic teachings. So, if he happened to end up in Kashmir, no big deal to them. These are not easy things to dismiss.
It might have some logical explanation that is not connected with Jesus at all. This has to be admitted. But this
accumulation of circumstantial evidence is disturbing [more so for Christians, of course, as these findings, if proved true, would put the axe to the Christian belief that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world].
6. Then there are the varoius written traditions, and one finds no such written traditions in England, France or Japan. For instance:
a. The Rauzat-us-Safa
b. Ikmal-ud-Din
c. The Book of Balauhar and Budasaf (Yus Asaf)
d. The Tarikh-i-Kashmir
e. The Tarikh-i-Kashmir [author unknown]
f. The History of Religions and Doctrines [Chinese document]
g. The Tarikh-i-Kabir-i-Kashmir
h. The Wajees-ut-Tawarikh
i. The Bagh-i-Sulaiman
j. The Acta Thomae [a Christian document]
And there are other documents.
7. There is the rather strange account in the Bible [well, strange to me, anyway], that records Jesus, after having left the tomb, walking around and eating food ["fish and a honeycomb"]. One wonders why a dead person would need food. The Christian explanation was that he was "both human and God." Well, that is a religious explanation. But there are some 4 billion human beings who are not Christian. So, the rest of us have to look at that passage outside of the Christian doctrinal teachings, and ask ourselves what that verse means. On its face, it seems to mean that he was hungry [which means he was alive], and needed something to eat.
"Feel me and see that I am flesh and bones. For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." It's as if he was trying to convince his disciples that, "Yes, I survived the ordeal."
8. There is the account by Josephus, in which he stated that he saw a friend of his who was being crucified, and begged Caesar to allow him to take his friend down off the cross before he died. This shows that crucifixion could be survived. Here is that historical account:
"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." (The Life of Flavius Josephus (Vita), Section 75) .
Now, there are a good number of other pieces of evidence, coming directly out of Kashmir. But I've already inundated you guys, so I don't want to go overboard.
As a Baha'i, the issue of how Jesus died is meaningless. Our focus is on the essential teachings of all religions, and that those essential teachings are the same--all religions are the same at the root. Only the laws and stuff vary.
But, as a curious human being, this topic still fascinates me. Even if Jesus is somehow discovered to have been buried in Kashmir, it would have no impact on my faith as a Baha'i, because Jesus' death is not an issue in the Baha'i Faith at all. We're not looking for Jesus himself to return to earth, as the Christians are.
So, the topic is interesting still, despite my attempts to try to extricate myself form it. Incidentally, The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website has greatly improved cosmetically since I gave it over, though the text is essentially the same.
I think that Christians do not need to feel offended. Christianity has been challenged from the very beginning. In the beginning, there simply did not exist any one Christian doctrine. That's simply an historical fact. Early sects differed on what Christianity was.
But, whatever the case, the Christian idea has withstood almost 2000 years of challenges. So, Christians should not be overly concerned. And even if it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is buried in the Rauza Bal mausoleum, in the Kan Yar district of Srinagar, Kashmir, India; even if the underground casket is opened, and a document reads, "I am Jesus--prophet of the Children of Israel," I personally doubt that much would change, at least not at first.
Because the first reaction from Christians would be that the discovery was fabricated. The Pope, of course, would condemn any such finding. And just imagine trying to assemble an impartial team of scientists and scholars to go there and dig up the grave [which, by the way, the Muslims of that area have not allowed, despite repeated requests by different people].
Would the Pope trust the composition of the team members? It would not be an easy task. The essential teachings of Jesus are eternal. They cannot be challenged or destroyed, whether or not he died on the cross.
In my opinion, Christians should be sophisticated enough to look at this as an interesting topic. One does not have to become emotional about it [which, incidentally, is one reason I got out of this stuff: too many people were, in my opinion, unnecessarily pissed off, even though I didn't attack anyone at the website].
The topic is not going to go away, incidentally, especially since the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has recently declared a certain tribe in Kashmir to be true Jews. This recent declaration points to a possible reason that Jesus may have travelled to Kashmir: to find refuge with some of the 10, so-called "lost" tribes of Israel that had been scattered around the world prior to his advent--tribes that are no considered true Jews by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel [which, incidentally, may explain my Israeli travel to Kashmir is on the increase these days, with Israelis visiting both the alleged tomb of Jesus, as well as the alleged tomb of Moses, although I cannot understand why Jews would visit the tomb of Jesus--an individual they don't believe to have been anything. Maybe they see it as some proof against Christianity, I don't know].
Another sign that the topic is not going away are the documentaries that are popping up. In August of 2003, BBC-4 televised the documentary, "Did Jesus Die," by Richard Denton. It dealt with the France, England and Kashmir theories. But the Kashmir theory was done last, and boy it was powerful. They interviewed Dr. Aziz Kashmiri, a native scholar of Srinagar, the city that houses the Rauza Bal. They also showed the inside of the Rauza Bal, the footprints, etc. You can find an interview with Richard Denton about that BBC-4 documentary on the web.
At this very moment, a group of well-established young Irish documentarians is hustling hard to put together a documentary that will include this Kashmir theory, and be broadcast on one of the major British television stations, if they get permission [I have my doubts that they'll get permission. But maybe the BBC-4 piece opened the doors to larger TV stations]. From what I've been told, this one might be stronger than Denton's piece. You will have noticed, incidentally, that U.S. television has ignored the subject. Rumor has it that this is due to direct pressure put to bear by fundamentalistsChristians of the Bible Belt.
I do not know if such rumors are true. But one such rumor allegedly comes from a letter that was written by the Discovery Channel itself, according to someone who claimed to be a close friend of Holger Kersten's, in which the Discovery Channel, some years back, cited its supposed "fear" of Bible Belt reaction in its decision to bail out of financially backing a proposed Jesus-in-India documentary to be broadcast all over the place [including the U.S.]. Again, these are nothing more than rumors. Yet, it does seem strange that, after decades, this subject has not been covered by U.S. TV, although it has been covered in Europe and England. Also, Dier Spiegel, a German magazine, ran a long piece on the subject many years ago, and other European articles have dealt with it. For
some reason, the U.S. seems ignorant of it.
Peace,
Abubakr Ben Ishmael Salahuddin
Author of,
Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion?Published by Jammu Press, 2001, and the most recent book on the subject.
P.S. Click the picture below to see a larger view of the Rauza Bal, the alleged tomb of Jesus Christ.
the Aliens beamed him up?
