Re: GThomas = Yeshu post-crucifixion
- At 08:55 AM 2/1/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Here is some of the information you requested:
>...how many of you out there are familiar with the Seat
>>of Solomon Temple in Kashmir? How many of you know of it's inscription
>>Yeshu from the year 78? How many of you know about the birchbark scripture
>>in the Shardic language dated 115, regarding events from the year 78? How
>>many scholars are aware of the written history of Kashmir? How many know
>>that Kashmir's oldest written histories report that 40 Christian priests
>>attended the Court of the King during the second century C.E.?
>OK, Joe, tell us about them, but please include *evidence* for those dates
1.The Throne (Seat) of Solomon Temple is a structure still standing in
Srinegar. I believe most estimates place it about 500 BCE or earlier. ( I
will not go into it here, but there is a large body of evidence of a
migration of Jews east after Cyrus' release of Jews from Babylonia in 535
BCE. Quite possibly, however, the migration started earlier, circa 721 with
the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrian Sargon II, or by the siege and
destruction of Jerusalem in 587. Some claim the Temple is from Solomon's
time, but that seems far-fetched.)
2. Jews were welcomed in Kashmir, many settled, and there are many Hebrew
words in the Kashmiri language. In Kashmir, these people have been called
the Bani-Israel, the children of Israel. Apparently these early immigrants
built the Seat of Solomon Temple. According to Persian (the Jewish masons
came from Persia) inscriptions on the Temple, it was rebuilt in a certain
year in a certain kingdom, and this date is placed as 78 CE.
3.The inscriptions, unfortunately have been mutilated over time. Photographs
exist of portions of the inscriptions. A sixteenth century source (Chadura),
however, recorded the original inscription. Among other matters the
inscription says that at the time of the rebuilding of the Temple, "Yuzu
Asaph, declared his ministry. He was Yuzu, the prophet of the Bani--Israel."
4.Yuzu (or Jusu), it should be noted is reportedly the Urdu form of Yeshu.
It is apparently widely accepted that there was a historical holy man known
as Yuzu Asaph. Reports regarding him place him throughout Parthia and into
Afghanistan and Kashmir. The reports place him in western Parthia not long
after Paul's "vision" in Damascus, and in eastern Parthia and Kashmir in the
second half of the first century. In addition to the widespread reports,
certain reports come from Kashmir.
5. The meaning of the name Asaph is beyond the scope of this post.
Apparently, however, the name Yuzu Asaph also translates as the teacher of
the purified, implying one who heals lepers.
6. The Throne of Solomon inscription is also confirmed by a 1420 work by
Mulla Nadairi. Nadiri wrote an early history of Kashmir. Nadiri also
provides further history regarding the rebuilding of the Temple and Yuzu's
role. Nadiri also makes it clear that Yuzu is Hazrat Issa, i.e. Jesus.
7. What other factors could explain the inscription? The reports support a
belief that there was such an inscription. Note that the reports stem from
Moslem periods during which time Christianity did not exist in Kashmir.
8. The date of the inscription coincides with the time period of a report of
Yeshu in Srinegar in an ancient Hindu scripture. Note that this comes from
an entirely different source than the Seat of Solomon inscription, which was
written in Persian. The scripture, known as a Purana was recorded by Sutta
in the year 115 CE. This date is reported by Professor Fida Hassnain, the
former State of Kashmir Director of Archives, Museums, and Archaeology. The
earliest version of this scripture is written on birch bark papyrus in the
Sharda alphabet of ancient Kashmir. I have seen a photograph. Now possessed
by the Maharajah of Kashmir, the birch bark papyrus was studied by the
Oriental Research Institute in Poona, India in 1910.
9. Professor Hassnain had the scripture translated by four professors from
Kashmir University. The scripture is a part of a larger work which cataloged
certain significant events, information and prophecies, starting in the year
300 BCE. Sutta continued the work, i.e., his portion, around 115 CE.
10. Sutta records that King Shalivahana ruled over Kashmir around the year
78 CE. During this period the King of the Sakas (Scythians) met a saintly
person and engaged him in conversation, at the site near certain mineral
springs in the mountains outside of Srinegar. From the discussion it is made
absolutely clear that the saint identifies himself as Yeshu, one who was
declared as a Messiah in a land of unbelievers.
11. According to Professor Hassnain, and certain Arabic and Urdu texts,
Christian communities were present in Kashmir, at least until the third
century. They were called Nasara and Kristani. The Nasara reportedly had
forty priests who served in the royal court. The earliest histories on this
subject are traced to Shaik-us-Sadik, who died in 962.
Far be it from me to suggest that all of these matters are true as reported.
But they are reported from very early times, and are part of a much larger
body of information. At the very minimum, they suggest the presence of very
early Jewish and Christian influences in places previously unknown. That by
itself suggests a need to re-think a number of assumptions made by many NT
With kind regards,
- Responding to Joe's continued stuff about a post-crucifixion survival/revival:
It is difficult to argue against something when no argument has been put
forward other than that, because the gospels say that Jesus had a
terrestrial existence after his oft reputed death, Jesus (I gather in this
case that hypothetical beast "HJ") must not have died. Duh.
The argument of survival seems to assume that because there are things that
have divine attribution to them, they must be rendered in some real world
terms. One might care to look at the literatures of other cultures to see
that many of them also have divine manifestations as well, but I don't see
anyone championing the real world existence (be it reduced to simple human
explanation) of some non-biblical divine manifestations. Joe seems to have
a cross to bear in the case of the gospels.
Joe responds to my
>> It's very hard to argue that he didn't die when all yourIt might be fine to tell only a part of the story, leaving out the middle
>> reports say he did.
>Actually, all the reports say he lived after the crucifixion.
step, ie that he is reported to have died, but it doesn't give much hope
>Do we accept all this at face value simply because it is said? I will notThere is no necessary question of accepting things on face value, but we
>ridicule those who have faith in these things, but will Ian permit us to
>apply our critical skills?
must look at the evidence that we have, not speculate on what we haven't.
Joe may begin to apply his critical skills whenever he likes. Many of us
have been waiting for quite a while.
Another Joe question:
>>3) The Matthean writer interprets what happened to Jesus as aNo, there's no "must" about it. I am merely showing a part of the only
>> resurrection. Mt27:53.
>Must we accept Matthew's point of view?
evidence available, evidence which Joe chooses to ignore, though without
producing anything more than speculation to justify his musings.
He also asks
>>4) According to GMatt, the tomb was guarded for a day while JesusIf we humour the speculation that Jesus lived on after being taken down the
>> lay inert inside.
>Does guarding a live man kill him?
cross, the guarding of the tomb would have prevented any aid being given to
a person in what was normally considered a terminal state (as was shown by
two of the people taken down from crucifixion as told in Josephus). Our
hypothetically live Jesus lay stretched out with a wound that pierced his
side (visibly causing the elimination of what seemed like blood and water)
open and untreated, a wound big enough to place one's hand in, wrapt head
to toe in linen cloths as per the burial customs, though no signs of
reanimation are reported during this process, and left from Friday evening
till Sunday morning. One goes from simple speculation to extreme
improbability to believe that someone having gone through that could walk
away -- sorry, could be carried away by hypothetical assistants, of whom
the gospels and the disciples show no knowledge of -- and be seen healthy
within an hour of his "liberation" from the tomb.
Joe responds to
>>8) The idea of Jesus's death is strongly foreshadowed by the previouswith more dimness:
>> death and subsequent of Lazarus who had lain in his tomb for four
>> days -- and was thus plainly dead. (Perhaps Lazarus didn't die
>As I said, Ian, God bless you if you believe in the resurrection. I will notWhy pick on the resurrection to extend one's wings by applying what one
>argue against it. But can we in this forum consider other possible
>explanations for these events which are not within common experience?
considers to be "common experience"? Why not the feeding of five, or was it
seven, thousand? Why not the meeting with Moses and Elijah? Why not his
virgin birth? We are dealing with religion traditions and should not find
it strange to find non-common experience contained in such traditions. Does
one necessarily have to reduce such non-rational traditions to wearing some
clothing of rationality? This doesn't seem to be dealing with the texts:
this is only expressing one's desire to make the texts fit one's
expectations. One has to assume that there is some fact behind the
narratives, though such fact has not been established, and, once the
assumption has been made, one has to assume that they can select which fact
is acceptable and which isn't, though no coherent criterion is supplied.
Once again no actual argument has been shown to support this thesis and so
the case proceeds by a rationalist's attempt at naive literalism to eke out
his a priori conclusion. Before applying this rationalist's version of
naive literalism to the gospels, it might be worthwhile attempting first to
show that there are any facts related to the world of events that can be
isolated in the narratives. By merely assuming such facts one bases their
argument on nothing.