Talk:Roza Bal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Minor Errors to be corrected

Some errors which need correction

• 1) Rasail Ikhwan al Saja : should be 'al Saffa'
• 2) Quoting from Jesus in Heaven on Earth ...."translation into English from Urdu translation from Persian Original 'Ikmal ud din ...." give an impression as if the book "Ikmal ud din " was originally in Persin. It is in Arabic , all else are translations.
• 3) Incorrect sentence:

...head to the West and his face to the East ...(incorrect) “He then stretched his legs towards the West and head towards the East and died”. (Shaikh Al-Said-us-Sadiq, Kamal-ud-Din, p.359)

“He laid himself with his head towards the East and stretched his legs towards the West”.( Ibn-i-Muhammad Hadi Muhammad Ismail, Ainul- Hayat, Vol. 2, Ch. 2 : 177-178.) Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I made the necessary corrections. Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr Ali, 1). thanks for picking up the Saja-Safa typo, I have corrected link to Rasail Ikhwan al-Safa.

Re 2). You're certain Khwaja translated from Arabic? Norbert Klatt implies Khwaja Nazir Ahmad translated from Urdu. Anyway, it's not a big issue. As regards 3). the translations:

A. "Then he stretched out his legs and turned his head to the west and his face to the east. He died in this position." http://www.scribd.com/doc/27461079/Kamal-Al-Deen-wa-Tamam-Al-Ni-mah-Volume-2

B. "He then stretched his legs towards the West and head towards the East and died” Jesus in heaven on earth - Page 362 Khwaja Nazir Ahmad 1952

Even though there are only cosmetic differences I think it would be better to retain the independent Arabic translation, so if you don't mind I have restored 3). the standard English translation. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi In Ictu Oculi OK that is fine. But you did not comment upon the Mulla Nadri source ? Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

See above. Thanks for the page ref to 1946 photograph. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Rajatarangini

Is anyone here familiar with the History of Kashmir titled the Rajatarangini? The Sanskrit translation is 'River of Kings". It is a history of Kashmir rulers. In one section covering the time of Jesus is mention of a young prince who was crucified by an evil king (an usurper) but he survived and returned to Kashmir years later. This is the only mention of a crucifixion anywhere in India history, and that it did not occur in India. Further, a king known as Pravarasena had a ceremonial sword that he loved. Inside Roza Bal tomb is a ceremonial sword, now stripped of all ornamentation. It is displayed upright in a stone base, discovered in the Roza Bal tomb. Anyone?  :-) SuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne, there is no mention of a crucifixion in the Rajatarangini. Yes the reincarnation of the dead Hindu minister as the next Hindu king is mentioned in the article. What relevance does this have to Ahmadiyya belief? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

ictu oculi, The dates of Sandimatti and Jesus do not line up precisely-off by about 20-25 years. However, there are many similarities. Sandimatti was a Chief Minister, a young prince to an illegal King. He was betrayed (Judas) and taken illegally by night (Sandhedrin did this to Jesus) and hanged from a limb (crucifixion-with or without a cross bar). When his 'guru' named Isaana (apostles?) went to find him, the body was gone (empty tomb). He found the angels restoring Sandimatti (aloe and healing herbs-resuscitation). On Sandimatti's forehead was a sign that predicted he would survive(a reference to the the titulus hung above Jesus' head on the cross). The story of Sandimatti bears a lot of key similarities with the story of Jesus. The differences may be the result of events occurring in one place, then getting changed and mixed up as they got passed along and eventually written in another place. If Jesus returned to Kashmir by one name or another, this is why the story remained a part of the Rajatarangini. This is how some interpret the Sandimatti story and relate it to India. Peace. SuzanneOlsson (talk)

Suzanne. Yes a connection between Aryaraja and Jesus is given by the Spanish UFOlogist Andreas Faber-Kaiser in 1976. Is there any before 1976? But has any WP:RS ever seen any meaningful connection between the New Testament and the 1000 year later story of reincarnation or raising of Samdhimati as Aryaraja? If there is then please add an ISBN and page number on Talk:Aryaraja, but there is no relevance here to the muslim shrine in Srinagar. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi In Ictu Oculi, there is a repeated mention of these lines "Another Kashmiri history, the Rajatarangini, written in 1148 A.D., says that a great saint named Issana lived at Issabar on the bank of Dal Lake and had many disciples, one of which he raised from the dead. " . I have downloaded the 3 Volumes of the book but did not see these lines... can you help ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did a simple search (not a complete search) and you may be right that it may not be in the book itself. It may just be an internet invention like many others that get copied and repeated everywhere. History2007 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Inscriptions

(3 and 4): on the Shankar Acharya Temple / Takht e Sulaiman Shankaracharya temple Two of the Inscriptions (no.3, 4) (see pictures page 407 of book 'Jesus in Heaven on Earth') present even today (on the flank walls encasing the staircase ) attests the contents of page 69 of Mullah Nadiri “Tarikh e Kashmir” as follows:

• 3. Dar een waqt Yuz Asaf da'wa-i-paighambari mikunad, Sal punjah wa chahar. (At this time Yuz Asaf proclaimed his prophethood. Year fifty and four.).
• 4. Aishan Yusu paighambar-i-Bani Israil ast. (He is Jesus, Prophet of the Children of Israel).

These Persian Inscriptions are probably of the times of Mughul King Shah Jehan (1592-1666) Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in a link to an online photo of p407 of Jesus in Heaven and on Earth. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr Ali, sorry to be lazy. What language exactly is inscription No.4 in? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Inscription on the staircase, photographed is in Persian. But due to the unique Calligraphy it seems hard to read it. However, I can myself read easily the two words in the upper line: ".... saal punjah Chaharum (the year 50 and 4). It is Persian of, the Official working language in the Mughul days. Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually now that I have taken another look, Pappas (page 115) does refer to Nazir Ahmad's book Jesus in Heaven on Earth, and states:

Nazir Ahmad also concludes that the meeting between Yuz Asaf and Shalewahin must have taken place about 78 AD. He indicates (p. 381) that about 60 AD (or in the 50's), Kadephsis I of the Kushans... forced the rulers of this area to pay tribute to him.

About 78 A.D. he (referring to Shalewahin) left northern India for for the Deccan in the south to crush a rebellion there. Therefore, he must have met Yuz Asaf in Wien (Voyen) near Srinagar shortly before his departure for the Deccan during the same year. But how could Shalewahin have waged war in Kashmir when supposedly King Gondophares, who was the sole master of this area, was still the ruler?

Al-Haj Nazir Ahmad's work Jesus in Heaven on Earth, which constitutes the Ahmadi's best historical defense of Jesus' presence in Kashmir as Yuz Asaf, appears to be full of flaws, especially concerning Gondophares' reign.

So that is what Papas says at any rate. History2007 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

My view is that it is a NEW idea that Jesus is buried in a grave. It may not at all be provable with historical evidences. Death is a surety, location of Grave a conjecture. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think most scholars agree with your general statement, in that historically speaking death is subject to agreement among scholars (resurrection is a theological teaching) and the location of the grave is not established - in Judea, Japan or Kashmir. In fact Pagels joked at one point that Jesus may have gone to India or may have been abducted by extraterrestrials in a UFO, and no one know either way. But what you and I think matters not in Wikipedia, it is what the WP:RS sources say, of course. History2007 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi , this UFO story is rather interesting. You are very correct what matters in Wikipedia, rather which sources the editors deem fit to include, matters most ! ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ghulam Ahmad publication date

Roza Bal and Ahmadiyya:…the MSS of ”Msih Hindustaan Men” (Urdu: Christ in India) published only after his death in 1908.

Someone fancied in the article that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed, Roza Bal was the Tomb of Jesus, only to prove his identity with Christ.This is incorrect. In fact it is ONLY a minor corollary of the faith of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community that Roza Bal is the “Tomb of Jesus”. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not even publish the book “Masih Hindustaan Men” (Urdu: Christ in India) in his life time, he died on 26th May 1908. The book was published ONLY AFTER HIS DEATH, in November 1908.

The fact is, it a consequence to the researches of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that Jesus did not die upon the cross and was rescued and travelled to a Mountainous high ground full of Springs (the Holy Qur’an says: “And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs.” (Quran 23:50) ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr Ali,

1. Do you have the page reference where Ghulam Ahmad applies Quran 23:50 to Kashmir?

The verse 23:50 has not been referred to in his book “Masih Hindustan Men”, but has been mentioned repeatedly in other of his books: In the exegesis of verse 50 chapter 23 (al-Mominoon) the Qur’an; “And We made the son of Mary and his mother a Sign, and gave them shelter on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running water” (23:50), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad clearly states that this verse of the Qura’an purports to Jesus and his mother Mary being granted shelter, security and peace in Kashmir (Sirinagar) in the following references:

1. Read Book ‘Kashti e Noah’ [the Ark of Noah], page 19, (footnote) and page 77 (footnote), Published October 5, 1902. [Ruhani Khazain, Volume 19, p.33]. here. http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Kashti_Nooh/?l=Urdu#page/19/mode/1up And also on page 77 ( of same book)

2. http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Kashti_Nooh/?l=Urdu#page/77/mode/1up

3. Book “Ijaz e Ahmadi (Zameema Nazool ul Mahih)”, (p.23) (RK Vol 19, page 127 read here: http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Ijaz_e_Ahmadi/?l=Urdu#page/127/mode/1up

4. Book “Al Huda” (p. 124), and page 368 of Vol 19 RK, (June 1902), read here: http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Al_Huda/?l=Urdu#page/368/mode/1up

5. Book Tadh kira tushahadatain (Oct 1903) (p. 29), RK, Vol 20, page 29, read here: http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Tadhkirat_ush_Shahadatain/?l=Urdu#page/29/mode/1up

6. Book ‘Baraheen Ahmadiyya Part 5th, (1905) (page 229), RK Vol 21, page 404, read here: http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Braheen_e_Ahmadiyya/?l=Urdu&p=5#page/404/mode/1up

7. Book ‘Haqeeqa tul Wahi” (1907) (p.232) RK Vol 22, page 243, read here: http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Haqiqat_ul_Wahi/?l=Urdu#page/243/mode/1up

ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

2. The following source says 1899:

Leonard Fernando, Dr George Gispert-Sauch Christianity In India: Two Thousand Years of Faith 2004 p28 "A third source of the legend of Christ in India comes from a late Muslim tradition, especially as popularized by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, in his book Masih Hindustan Main, first published in Urdu in 1899 "

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the publisher's note in the book itself (page v) says: "Written in 1899, and partly serialized in Review of Religions in 1902 and 1903, the book itself was posthumously published on 20th November 1908". Just search for that and it will show. And Navras Jaat Aafreedi in Shofar Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 1-14 suggests 1899. Mark Bothe in Die "Jesus-in-Indien-Legende" (page 6) also says 1899. The Spanish version of Hassnain's La otra historia de Jesus page 212 says: "Masih Hindustan Mein, compilada en 1899 y publicada en 1908". Paul Constantine Pappas in Jesus' Tomb in India (page 69) says it was first published in 1899. So the publisher's note may make sense, as does Dr Ali's statement. The Review of Religions is an Ahmaddi publication, so he wrote it in 1899, started to disseminate it in parts in 1902, and it was then published about 6 months after his death in 1908. History2007 (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks H, do you want to add to Jesus in India (book). In ictu oculi (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I had just done that. You read my mind... History2007 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Youtube promoting book

I made a trailer for my book about Roza Bal....first film I ever made! The book contains information and references and sources for virtually everything discussed on this talk page...however, I am learning an amazing new amount of info from these exchanges! Thank you all. The inscriptions at Takt-i-Sulieman are in the Sulu-Persian script, in the Arabic family. A variation of this script came into common use in the Pakistan-Afghan region after the advent of Islam..Professor Asko Parpola "Deciphering the Indus Script", published by University of Cambridge, 1994...pp 129-130: "There are more than 20 Neo-Iranian languages, including modern Persian...Archaeological and textual evidence attests to Sumerian visits from c. 3300 BC onwards. Harappans had been trading in the Gulf since at least Akkadian times." The book goes on to give many examples of these blended scripts and how they came about, so dating them to modern Arabic is not possible. For those who are geographically challenged, Iran borders modern Pakistan which was once ancient India- these scripts flowed back and forth constantly among traders and travelers, especially because this is the heart of the Old Silk Road. I have also used 'A Companion to Sanskrit Literature' by Sures Chandra Banerji..Delhi, 1971; pp 67-671: It is impossible to ascertain precisely when the art of writing originated in India. There are three distinct periods of scripts; Pre-Mauryan, Mauryan, and Indus Valley. Ashoka used Yavanani (a Greek version) Brahmi, and Karoshti. The alphabets written from right to left in India were predominantly in the extreme northwest areas, considered Persian domains since before 300 BC" (p.671-672) Here's the link to my book trailer-

Jesus in Kashmir The Lost Tomb

I worked hard on this so please don't be too critical. All the best, Suzanne Olsson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.27.120 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne, here is Asko Parpola's homepage. http://www.helsinki.fi/~aparpola/ I suggest you email him the url for the two inscriptions for the Shankaracharya Temple and ask him to date them. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sue, it is a wonderful addition.Engr John (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Engr John. It has given me much trepidation to make that first and only book trailer..I feel I am up against some really good professionals! I am sure that so many editors here will have some usful advise for me. For ictu oculi, thank you for the URL to Parpola's page..Good idea to contact him directly but I am not sure that he is still living.Will check it out...I've had his book for years and used it often. I too wonder what he would make of the inscription! Along the KKH there are over ten thousand inscriptions, left in every script known to man! In places like India and Pakistan there are 'intellectual clubs' that form and make a game of trying to decipher the ancient scripts. They take this very seriously and scolarly. Many used books like Parpola's for guidelines..In fact he acquired a lot of his knowledge about the scripts this way! Best regards, SueSuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Drat. I got the email ready to send Parpola, and cannot find a link to the scripts in question. Anyone? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne http://www.muslim.org/bookspdf/jihoe/jihoe24-27.pdf In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Films to Include

I am just curious why a fiction book is mentioned,yet this no mention of recent documentary films about Roza Bal, such as the one by Government of India. Couldn't a section on films and documentaries be added to improve the page ? I notice this is on other pages at Wiki. If you would like a list of current English documentaries, I can post it here.Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it really "by" Government of India, and not just approved for public wiewing or something like that? http://www.thegreatplanet.com/the-rozabal-shrine-of-srinagar-india-documentary/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I can see something like this being mentioned, preferably sourced to a rewiew in a indian newspaper or film-magazine, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Grabs Graa Sang, I have had extensive communications with Yashendra Prasad, the India film maker, and he assures that the Gov. of India sent him to make the documentary. Further, they had to review it and approve its contents and release...The film made by Paul Davids is independent. There are also films by BBC, History Channel, and others. Should I start to compile a list that you all might review for inclusion here? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, as I understand it, "The Rozabal Line" got some attention in media and sold well, thus we mention it. I feel that any documentary/whatever we want to mention have to be sourced to a WP:RS (the more the better), a dedicated webpage/blog written by the filmmaker won´t be enough. So I would focus on those you can find WP:RS for. Come to think of it, having "Did Jesus Die?" in the article is a bit of a stretch, it´s more about swoon hypothesis and perhaps Unknown years of Jesus than Roza Bal, but since BBC means both Notable and Reliable to most of us, it should stay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Grabergs Graa Sang. I will start a small list and include references from outside sources as you suggested WP:RS... Hope I can have the list posted here in a few days. Peace and blessings....Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Backatya! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I should probably say that I am a pretty uncomfortable with a list of semi-unknown movies by semi-nobody film makers such as Prasad. I mean unless there is a new theory that Roger Ebert has now been buried at Roza Bal and has somehow communicated to people that he wants Wikipedia to become a movie review site about it, then this should still remain "an encyclopedia almost entirely driven by scholarship" not a new reincarnation of TV Guide.

I mean unless these movies have renowned scholars like Pagels saying things there, what encyclopedic value do they have? Why should they get any attention at all?

The Roza Bal line gets a sentence because it was a huge best seller, just as The Da Vinci Code gets a sentence here and there. But beyond those best sellers, what encyclopedic value is provided by the wannabe-Spielbergs like Prasad who may make a movie for $20k or so? He also makes movies about yoga, etc. and has zero credentials and zero credibility in terms of scholarship on this topic. And that he received a letter from someone in the government in India means nothing, unless the letter had appointed him to be a distinguished professor of history in some university. I seriously doubt that. I therefore think that just because low budget movies may have been made, their inclusion in encyclopedia items has no merit unless they have achieved significant notability by virtue of dramatic commercial success or they include significant scholarship. The current film does not; and others like it should also be excluded for they would just hint at things while providing zero scholarship. History2007 (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree, but since the subject is pretty obscure, I think "The Rozabal Shrine of Srinagar" (or what´s out there), can be mentioned if it can be shown that it had an article/review in 2-3 decent indian newspapers/moviemagazines. Being produced by an indian equivalent of the BBC should probably count some as well (I´m not saying it was). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let us see where it was mentioned and more importantly, who was in it. The Richard Denton BBC item is OK not just because it was on BBC (Fawlty Towers was also on BBC...) but because it had Crossan, Fredriksen, Wright, etc. These are all really big names and highly notable scholars with their own Wiki pages, scholarly publications, holding professorships in major universities. As you said, that program was about swoon more than Roza Bal, but still to have all those scholars talk on a program makes it notable. So let us see who is talking on these films then go from there based on the scholarship it may offer. The interesting phenomenon here is that somehow the public believes half-baked movies more than scholarly books, but encyclopedias can not be driven by that phenomenon. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe it´ll have the Indian Governments head of religious artifacts or something. And Fawlty Towers was GOOD ;-)Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should say "head of artifacts" today... Maybe we can cook up new theory about this one too... History2007 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It´s obvious: a secret remake of Life of Brian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the documentary comments about Jesus in India by Dr. James Tabor. "James Tabor in the BBC4 documentary Did Jesus Die?: “Jesus would have to leave the territory, and we would have to ask the question ‘where would he go?’. If we look on a map, Palestine is on the far Eastern border of the Roman Empire. If you go west, you are going right into the heart of the Roman territory, where we have our 15 legions stationed around the world. If you go east, you are crossing over into Parthia, and you are going towards Persia eventually and India and Afganistan, that direction”

He later goes on to say: "People forget that the Messiah’s got to do essentially two things. Everyone knows he’s got to bring world peace and justice and defeat evil. That’s all the way through the prophets. When the Messiah comes he is a prince of peace. But the other huge task is he’s got to gather all the scattered tribes of Israel back to the land of Israel. Now this takes a bit of explaining but it’s not too complicated. The people we know today as the Jews are only one tribe – the tribe of Judah. And we have in the Hebrew Bible the story of ten of the tribes been taken away to the east, to the north east, by the Assyrians - in the eighth century BC. They become know in the history as the “Lost Tribes” because nobody knows exactly what happened to them. We do though — We can speculate that if Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah, he might have had in mind, ‘I’ve got to go and present myself to these dispersed brothers and sisters — wherever they might be’ ”. (James Tabor, Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina) SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but I am sorry what does that have to do with anything historical? Apart from the obvious fact that Tabor these days has as much academic credibility as Elmer Fudd (not because of this, but for the rest of his theories) the above is just speculation about motives, and has zero historical references. And he does say "We can speculate that if ..." anyway. So it is all just speculation sans evidence. And anyway Tabor is supporting the Talipot tomb story these days, and I have not seem him formally endorse Roza Bal anywhere. Has he supported Roza bal as a burial place in a formal written document or in his books anywhere? If he is a formal supporter (which would have to be listed in the liability column for whatever he supports, anyway) where was that? History2007 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK History2007- I think we get your point. About the scripts carved into Takht i Sulieman, they support the theory that YuzAsaf came to kashmir as Jesus: If I knew how to post the jpg scripts here, I would do that. The translations ere inscribed to replace older, damaged scripts that would soon be lost..It was the job of Rishis to keep records of these ancient scripts- to write them over every few generations --as the old ones became too worn to be legible..this is still done by rishis in Kashmir to this day (and by Buddhist monks in Himalayan monasteries) "TWO 'INSCRIPTIONS' translate as follows..

These inscriptions are of the time of Mughal King Shah Jahan and written upon the stair case of the Temple Shankar Acharya, Sri Nagar. Kashmir (also called as 'Takht e Sulaiman')

1. Dar een waqt Yuz Asaf da'wa-i-paighambari mikunad, Sal punjah wa chahar. (At this time Yuz Asaf proclaimed his prophethood. Year fifty and four.).

2. Aishan Yusu paighambar-i-Bani Israil ast. (He is Jesus, Prophet of the Children of Israel). SuzanneOlsson

So, first I now assume that we have no actual source that states that Tabor supports Roza bal. Right?

Secondly is there a source that dates the inscriptions? I thought Asko Parpola was going to see if he can date them. Has he agreed to do so? If/when he does and publishes that, then it will be of use. Or is there another source beyond folklore for this?

And in any case, regarding the re-inscriptions every few generations, is there evidence that it was done accurately and corresponds to the original (if any)? Or does it just place faith in the traditions of the Rishi? Did some Rishi ever pull a Bourbaki? I wonder... I always liked Weil and Cartan for doing that... Weil even had business card printed an all. They must have had a good laugh... Never had a chance to do one myself... History2007 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The inscription are no more.... all obliterated. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A source for that would settle it once and for all. And so why are the inscriptions even being discussed? History2007 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The inscriptions are being discussed because they support the discussions about Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal. In all circumstances I am aware of..rishi translations, copy and preservation of old records match those recovered as well in ancient Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Can you prove to us anything to the contrary? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So I now assume you are not going to present a source. Right? So again, talk sans source. And WP:Burden says that I do not have to prove anything to you. Wikipedia does not "work by proof", it works by sources. I am tempted to suggest a reading of the WP:RS page... History2007 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Foot Prints and Crucifixion

I Quote from a blog.... The grave site shows two footprints. A crucifix and a rosary once decorated the grave. In Asia, foot prints on Graves of spiritual people are a widespread tradition. The foot prints always display certain characteristic features. Thus, Buddha’s footprints were adorned with a swastika. The swastika was originally an old Indian symbol for good luck. The foot prints of Yuz Asaf display the wounds of a crucifixion. This is so evident that it cannot be denied. Nevertheless, critics refuse to accept the evident characteristics on those footprints. Denying what is so obvious to many historians will save an entire world religion from its demise --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

But WP:USERG says that Wikipedia can not use blogs. History2007 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't quote from a blog...Just look at the footprints and at medical drawings of crucifixion wounds (matching wound scars on the Shroud of Turin) when one foot is twisted over another and both held in place with a spike..same scars on Shroud of Turin and at Roza bal.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

But WP:NOR says not to do what you just said. History2007 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

what is so obvious to many historians will save an entire world religion from its demise, ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Then all history is a failure, and so is common sense and all research.SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

WP:NOR says not to do what you just did. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

where is the OR in above para ? ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Just look at the footprints and at medical drawings of crucifixion wounds" would be WP:OR. And there is no source that says "all history is a failure", of course. Both are source free and hence original unattributed research. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. The remarks must have been rather differently worded, "as according to XXXX and ZZZZ " the footprints....: I agree with you History2007. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not just the "wording", but the absolute requirement for a WP:RS source; else it is WP:OR. But I have said that more times now than there are people buried in India... History2007 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we shall never find a Source to the effect that "Jesus is buried here in Roza Bal".... a theoretical impossibility . But yes "the Piping" Yuz|Yusu|Yuz. Regardsڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, as they say.... I will leave him a message to look for the source. But I think what we can confidently say now after all this research is that

As of May 2013, no one has presented a modern WP:RS source that has presented evidence of Jesus being buried in Roza Bal, but several WP:RS sources indicate that the assertion of his burial at Roza Bal was based on misprints and historical confusions.

That is what all these discussions and research has indicated. And we have looked, and looked and looked. The only modern sources that claim that Jesus is at Roza Bal are self-published or unreliable sources. That is totally clear. So we really need to agree on that and move on until some new sources appear in the scholarly literature. Unles the next thread here starts with "... relics again". Then I will just have to go and ask to get myself buried at Roza Bal... History2007 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh my gosh...History 2007- why did you chooses such a nickname? Misprints and historical confusion? "Modern sources" for ancient historical evidence? That's not likely in a place where you'll be shot for approaching the tomb with a science lab kit. The only failure to produce sufficient evidence is in the head of beholders trying to defend their weakened historical-religious positions. So sad. So very sad. If/when you ever get buried in Roza Bal I promise I will be the first to send you flowers. Should I then self-publish a biography all about you? From my POV?SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

Do you have a source for "The only failure to produce sufficient evidence is in the head of beholders"? And I hear they don't shoot people who try to dig up Roza Bal, they just file FIRs... (inside joke, for those who do not know the story...) History2007 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to this talk page

Since her topic ban was put in place on 15:15, 19 February 2013 she has made 70 edits to this talk page, what percentage of these are POV pushing her ideas? What percent are legitimately contributing to improving this article from a WP:NPOV stance? Are her edits on the talk page helping or just being disruptive? — raekyt 01:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, if I see her type one more time "Relics again" and then present unsourced material, suggest films instead of WP:RS sources, quote items out of a movie and back off, say all history is a failure, etc. I will just have to go and get myself buried at Roza Bal alive. It will be just too much... It already is. We have not seen one single WP:RS source from these 70 edits - not one. History2007 (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If others agree then it may be something to take to ANI to get the topic ban extended to the talk page as well, or just outright block. — raekyt 01:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would not object, as you may have guessed. As you saw, I had to suggest reading WP:RS again a short while ago... History2007 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate but with the best will in the world Suzanne, sorry, no matter how sincere you are in your belief, you haven't I can't recall supplied a single useful piece of information which would improve the article on this Talk page since the ban (which specifically allowed this page), it has been Dr Ali who has provided Ahmadi interpretations, Ahmadi sources, Ahmadi page references. And even with what Dr Ali has provided we've now absolutely reached the limit of anything which has ever been even near a reliable source. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Moreover Dr Ali is logical. He suggested a book by Pappas , the book was WP:RS, I looked in the book and found material that he may not have exactly liked. I presented it, and he was logical about it and we had a civil discussion. That is how talk pages should be. Not like these constant repetitions of the same obliterated inscriptions, relics again, films instead of sources, etc. History2007 (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I should also say that the reason I see no end to this ever and I mean ever, is that Ms Olsson is one of the most determined people we have seen. I made a joke about the FIR above but there is a key indication therein. I think she really believes she is the 59th descendant of Jesus, so she went to Roza Bal saying that it is her "private family tomb", tried to dig it up to get DNA to compare to prove it, and insisted to the point that they had to padlock the shrine, file a FIR (i.e. police report) revoke her visa and I assume she had to leave at that point - it is in the newspaper reports. A person with that type of belief in the mission and determination is not going to stop. They padlocked the shrine because of it, have to padlock the page. History2007 (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, History 2007, if you had read all the articles to come out of Kashmir, you would have realized that only the fundamentalists put out those statements and padlocked the tomb.. You fail to include all the college professors and politicians who wanted the tomb open for science. You failed to mention the effects of all this was to draw attention away from a family that was under siege there.

I am sorry you dont see anything of value in my contributions. Yes, it is about the relics. It makes no sense to proceed without that evidence found in Roza Bal. Yes, it is about the inscriptions on the steps that are now destroyed but had been photographed. Yes, it is about the documentary films. Someone here asked me what films James Tabor mentions Jesus going to India. I replied with only one film I was told about at the momnent. I know there are more. I knew the moment that HIstory 2007 returned here, it would go in this direction. He has made several false and misleading claims. I am sad and disappointed.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

History2007- you have just made seven (7) statements above to support yourself in your desire to have me banned....again. But all your info is misleading and biased. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne you have made a personal accusation of dishonesty against another editor, you have provided no evidence of dishonesty, and to be honest the Times of India story does suggest we do need to padlock the page. But you should have an opportunity to confirm or deny the most sensational thing in the Times of India story; do you believe that you are the 59th descendant of Jesus? Seeing as the Times of India ref is in the article and you are a living person, that is a BLP issue and you can address it. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment of History2007. I have previously posted my rebuttal of the claims about 59th descendant. I have clearly explained why that was thought a necessity at the time, the reasons behind it, and why and how I rescinded those claims in my book and on these Wiki pages. Why would anyone quote only one part of the entire story, yet deliberately fail to mention what happened next? I have donated most of my research books away by now. I will make an effort over the next few days to answer your questions without quoting my own book and research. It will just be a little harder without the original sources now. All the best, SueSuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"I stand by my assessment of History2007" means you are standing by a personal attack. I cannot see above where you say "Times of India is incorrect, I do not claim to be descendant of Jesus". Please either link to it, or say it again. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding 3 New Ref

I have added three fresh references to the section "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad". I believe the oldest 'Source' that hints Jesus going to a " valley full of springs, high mountains and peaceful secure place " a source of 620 CE. (Quran 23:50). Mirza Ghulam Ahmad fresh quotations from other books, rather than Jesus in India. Friends may comment. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the text you added is a correct statement of the Ahmadi position. But as a Wikipedia policy formality you will need to use WP:Secondary sources that complement the Quran as a WP:Primary source. I am sure there are WP:Secondary sources for it, so it is a question of your finding and adding those, and perhaps rewording the "May very fittingly apply... " to have attribution to the Mirza, given that the Quran does not mention the Valley of Kashmir. History2007 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you History, please do make any changes you think will make it more appropriate, I am naturally writing from a 'biased' position being myself an Ahmadi. (no one can help that !). I think NO MUSLIM (or Christian) will provide us with a statement: to be WP:Secondary that "Jesus migrated to or is buried in Kashmir" as per 23:50 ". It is a uniquely Ahmadiyya position, otherwise it is a blasphemy for Muslims and Christians alike. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Secondary does not require that the source says "it happened" but that "Mr A said it happened". So it just has to say: "The Mirza said it happened that way" without endorsing or refuting it. That is all. History2007 (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. Now I am more clear, and can search such things... Regards. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way: there are professors who say global warming happens, there are those who say it does not. Wikipedia does not endorse either side, just reports what they say in WP:RS sources. That is all. History2007 (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Why Buddha was confused with Jesus ?

After a long time I re-read the article Roza Bal. I think it seems a bit skewed to the ‘skeptical’ side more that the ‘affirmative;

1. Confusing Buddha and Jesus with each other… the etymological problem is at the basis of some source references.

2. Certain titles, in due course of time do assume the status of ‘Proper Nouns’ [ e.g ‘apostles, messiah, ‘christ’, ] so is Buddha, an enlightened one… but later ne, no enlightened one is called Buddha’.

3. If there lived ‘Buddhist’ people , besides Jewish tribes in Kashmir, the new comer might have been called a “Buddha”.

4. The Indian religions, so commonly assume ‘Incarnation’ to be a ‘normal’ way of religious reformers.

5. So what we need is, are SOURCES which say, Jesus was “a Buddha”. e.g Dalai Lama said “ in 2001 the Dalai Lama stated that "Jesus Christ also lived previous lives," and added that "So, you see, he reached a high state, either as a Bodhisattva, or an enlightened person, through Buddhist practice or something like that" it [Beverley, James A., Hollywood's Idol, Christianity Today June 11 2001, Vol. 45, No. 8, Christianity Today, " Retrieved April 20, 2007]. [1] --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Dalai Lama did say that he believed Jesus had lived previous lives, but it is not clear that the same concept was accepted in 1889. At least we have seen no source that states that. Item 1 above regarding the confusion and spelling errors, etc. is clearly sourced to WP:RS sources in the article. Item 2 above is known to be the case for many names and titles, not just in this case. But the steps from item 2 to 4 seems like a new idea we had not seen before, and we have no sources for that. As you correctly stated yourself in the thread above, we have never seen a WP:RS source for the identification of Jesus with Yuzasaf, despite very long searches. As for the attribution of the title Buddha to Jesus that is a more general concept beyond the scope of this page, of course. And in any case, relating that to refute the sourced items in step 1 would need additional sources again. So you were right to type "sources" in capital above. That is what will be needed, but we have seen none, of course. History2007 (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It was just a food for thought.Strong and deep faith in Incarnation , is so universal in Indian religions, nothing about "1889". And i figure it this Dalai Lama might not have said something anathema to Buddhism in 2011, or that any past Lamas would have differed. (?). If Jesus had been called a "Buddha" in his time by the local Buddhists, some etymological issues could be resolved. e.g the Ikmal ud Din's ref. Bu-da-saf and Yuz-aa-saf , considered to be "misprints" of the Arabic 'dots' [ daal & zaal] . (well this is my very humble opinion ). Regards ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Indian belief is deep, and perhaps the word "reincarnation" may even apply more there. So you are right that it may be "food for thought" to consider the line of reasoning that through a title attribution Jesus came to be seen as a reincarnation of Buddha, then somehow the identification took place, etc. But that is a somewhat new theory and we have not seen that applied to Roza Bal anywhere in the scholarly (or other) literature. But once it has been suggested here, it may yet appear as a new theory next year by Holger Kersten etc. Please do ask him to send you royalties as he sells more books with it. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

lols, thank you . It will not remain "New" after sometime. hahahaڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya view on Buddha as Yuz Asaf...

"It has been proposed that the word Yuz Asaf, the name of the person entombed in Kashmir, is derived from Buddha Asaf, as Jesus would have been included in the Buddhist pantheon of saints. The term would thus mean a Buddha who rallied people, or gathered the flock of the true faith."[2]
"Buddhist texts contain a prophecy of future Buddha, a bodhisattva, named 'Bagwa Metteyya' a Pali phrase which literally means "fair-complexioned", or "white traveller". The etymological resemblance of the word "Metteyya" to "Messiah" is established and one meaning of the word "Messiah" is traveler." [Ref ? ] ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DrAli954, As I have tried to say on previous occasions, the idea that Jesus was a Buddha, and that Yuzasaf derives from Buddahsaf all came centuries later..According to Joe Cribbs, ancient coin expert from Oxford University, around the time of Jesus-Yuzasaf, the more common usage of the term asaf...was 'son of'. Further, about the similarities in the sayings of Buddha and Jesus, there are two considerations. First, Siddharta, according to some historians, may have had some Jewish blood. The Proverbs of the Buddha appear to be influenced by the Book of Proverbs and the Ecclesiastics of Solomon. Both were widely known in Buddha's era, having existed three and half centuries before the Buddha was born.All the Buddhist concepts about peace, tolerance, this world as a place of illusion and suffering, enlightenment, education to overcome ignorance (wisdom of Solomon)..Buddha had access to all these teachings, and so did Jesus as the Jewish rabbi.. Buddha and Jesus were practicing and preaching Judaism in its original form as written in Proverbs and by Solomon. He probably wrote chapters 1-29 of Proverbs, but Chapter 30 is attributed to Agur, the son of Jakeh (30:1). Chapter 31 is attributed to King Lemuel - the prophecy or teaching that his mother taught him (31:1). The point being, they were all Hebrews. Now another very important consideration is this: The Fourth Buddhist Council was held in Kashmir during the era of Kanishka. Pravarasena was asked to organize the council which was held in Harwan (Haroon, based on the name Aaron). If you visit Harwan today, you can see the outlines of the hundreds of shelters built for the Buddhist monks gathering here from the ancient world . The India Government has a sign erected on the site commemorating the Council, circa 79 AD. At the time the Council convened, Kashmir was still largely Jewish (and Dr. Ali has already referred to the historical substantiation that Jews guarded these borders at this time). When the Council was finished, the Buddhist temples and the Christian churches order of priests and hierarchy were virtually identical. So were many of Jesus' and Buddha's sayings. The Rajatarangini mentions that Pravarasena had a ceremonial display sword that he was very fond of. A ceremonial sword has been photographed inside Roza Bal tomb. It is one of the artifacts there that are associated with Yuz Asaf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OOOPs sorry...I forgot to sign in. The above comments are mine. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sue, thanks for the comment. I have some reservations, quoting your words in bold.

1. “Jesus was a Buddha,” , Yes in one sense. The Enlightened One, Even I may call myself a buddha in that sense, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is said to be a Buddha in that sense. But never a literal sense or a Reincarnation.

2. “According to Joe Cribbs, ancient coin expert from Oxford University, around the time of Jesus-Yuzasaf, “ [You may like to quote his Book name, Page etc. , thanks.]

3. “ term asaf...was 'son of'.” [ Please mention which Lexicon says “Asaf = Son of”, exact reference. ]

4. “similarities in the sayings of Buddha and Jesus” [This aspect may not be overstretched, it will lead us to an infinite wasteland … all spiritual personalities used almost similar things, same mind set, Jewish, Hindo, Buddhist, Muslim etc…]

5. “Siddharta, according to some historians, may have had some Jewish blood” [Which Historians ? Names, Books, Pages , would be welcome.]

6. “The Proverbs of the Buddha” [all Enlightened people are almost “Similar”see similarities above].

7. “Buddha had access to all these teachings” [How do we know that? references ]

8. “Roza Bal tomb. It is one of the artifacts there that are associated with Yuz Asaf.” When I read Khwaja Nazir Ahmad story about the “Rod” and its mysterious ‘powers’ in his book ‘’Jesus in Heaven on Earth’’. I seriously doubted his sanity and wisdom. The most shocking is he believed Moses was also buried at Kashmir. Shocking !

ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DrAli,in response to several of your above questions, I do not have access to the books or page numbers. I can post a link explaining Buddhism and Hellenistic Greece. This might lead you to more details you seek about Buddhism in Greece Also, I tried to locate the reference Joe Cribb had made about a coin with asaph as 'son of' ..it was during the time of Gondopharnes. I cannot find the reference now..I think it had appeared on one of his web pages. It has been a good 5 years since I last saw it. But I promise to continue searching for you. It's a fair question that deserves a correct answer. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sue, there is a discussion going on at ANI about whether you should be allowed to continue to post. Please take as a reminder of what has been said before, that as a project the talk page here is only for sources, that means that we are only interested in page numbers of books. Nothing else is wanted. Nothing else will be welcomed. If you post again, please let it be the page number of a book. Not your opinion, not chat, not some theory, not information, just the page numbers of books. Okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you can comment on the source in the article, Times of India, in what it says about you. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you could read what I have already posted here (and on the talk page for Suzanne Olsson) that explains the Times of India article and a whole lot more. Thank you. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne, sorry but it is very difficult to decipher your posts. I cannot see Times of India's "padlock" or "59th descendant of Jesus" in your statements about Times of India article. What specifically in the article is actually factually wrong? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer you is not aabout page and source. I am the source. I can only tell you what happened at Roza bal tomb that does not appear in the Times of India article: When I was in Kashmir seeking the DNA, it took almost a year of planning and meeting with many officials and University professors who would lead the scientific team for recovery of the DNA. The final permission had to come from Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah, who, at the time I believe, still controlled Roza bal through his WAQF (Trust). I had to go to his office four times to help with the preliminaries and get the required permissions for all of us. It was nothing we approached lightly or carelessly. This was shortly after 9-11 in America and very very troubled times for the entire region. Great thought and careful planning went into every phase. It was only due to the indiscretion of one local chowkidar who thought he was left out of backsheesh that the negative versions started being fed to the newspapers by him and him alone. He can also be seen in various documentary films bashing me, bashing Ahmadaddis..and generally ranting for fundamentalism to prevail. That was the time the letter was written about me being a 59th descendant..it was done to try and regain the tomb from his influence...however he had a lot of local relatives, young males who would then back him up and threaten anyone who approached the tomb. This is about the same time that Bashrat Shaheen was killed (ruled a "suicide"). This is the same man who was breaking up the tomb, tearing things out and selling off tomb artifacts to Pakistani agents. Holger Kersten bought a piece of carved wood relic from this same man and wrote about this in the notes of his book..This chowkidar lived a few doors down from the tomb and was in best position to greet visitors and meet people and get the donations being left for the tomb. I know of one woman in Italy who so believed that this was the tomb of Jesus that she sent a donation of US $5,000. to help with maintanence. This aforementioned chowkidar had come to regard Roza Bal as his own personal ATM machine. .had there been no intervention from me at all, the entire tomb would be destroyed by now. It was hoped we could persuade him to either leave the tomb, or llow "family" to take the remains to HariParbat Fort for reinterment there. But none of this worked as we hoped. When I left Kashmir and was able to write what I reaLLY believed, I totally recanted the statement that I was 59th descendant, and explained why in books and articles. Also at this time, CM Farooq Abdullah lost control of Roza Bal tomb to another group- it is now run by a Board of Directors, who control a WAQF so large that it exceeds the annual income for all of Kashmir. This group of Directors has kindly invited me back to continue the DNA Project. For health reasons (I've had a stroke and now dealing with other medical issues) and for financial reasons, I am unable to return. I rant and carry on and get as much info out there as may be heldful to those who will come after me. I have already given away most of my research books to help others. Soon I will not be able to contribute any more about Roza Bal. Hopefully what is left behind on these pages will help the next generation of researchers. I've tossed out crumbs everywhere hoping some land on fertile ground. I've done the best I can do. There is There is really nothing left for me to add here. I wish you luck. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, regarding this last revelation Ms Olsson, are we to understand that your claim in your letters to be "the 59th descendant of Jesus" was fake, and you have since retracted it? Is that so? But then there is the usual Wikipedia sourcing issue. Is there a WP:RS source that says you retracted it? The Times of India article (which is WP:RS) does not state that you have retracted your claim. So is there a source that states that you faked that claim? In the absence of that we may have to assume that it was genuine. Ironically WP:ABOUTSELF may apply here, however. History2007 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you the read the book I wrote..It clearly states the later results of my own research, which did not include a marraige between Magdalene and Jesus. Pages are devoted to explaining why this could not have happened. It was not a "fake" claim . The claim appears in many popular books that family lines in Europe were allegedly "desposyni" including my family name.. I stated clearly that I did not agree with that particular bloodline theory after completing my own research. What is your problem History2007? If you really dont like me so much, then simply go away. There is no need to follow me around Wiki and harrass, attack, and try to discredit me on every page. You seem to have a real problem here. YOu posted a response to Dr. Ali. Are we to assume you are deliberately misleading people and not taking your own advise? SuzanneOlsson

No you may not assume that, for it would be incorrect. And trust me, it is not just me.. I do web searches and come across these types of things... You may or may not know about that - she teaches at Amity University. But let us leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Then likewise, you may not assume that "59th descendant" is correct, especially when I am the source being quote, and the very same source telling you it is taken out of context and I have clarified this for you many ways on several pages. Are you really a seeker of truth and history? Or just interested in pushing your agenda and POV ? I wont make assumptions about you IF you please stop making assumptions about me. Now if you will please stop this, we can get to some proper research. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) P.S. You provided a link to a book review that was unfavorable. Due to British colonialism for centuries,a devout Hindu often has problems associating anything Vedic with links outside India. However, the facts support that the religions were well aware of one another as they developed, and often blended or incorporated elements from one another. I refer you to this Wiki article just to give you an idea of the scope. Further, if we support the views of that review (which is very pro Vedic-India) then how do we explain Jews in Kashmir? Or Buddhists? To help understand the Jewishness of Roza Bal tomb, please read this Jews in India and this, [Abraham] another book which examines the Brahma-Abraham-Sarah-Sarasvati links, and a book I quoted. As you told Dr. Ali, what 'facts' do we wish to create an article about global warming when so many views are possible? But I would strongly advise you that when you are speaking with the original source, it gives you an opportunity to understand things taken out of context. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

No, I can assume whatever reliable sources say. And the Times of India stated it. And I still do not have a clear answer as to whether "the letter was written to try and regain the tomb from his influence" as you said elsewhere or your own research did it. And it probably does not matter anyway. It is all about a self-published book. Regarding you being the "original source", I will not bother to ask you to read WP:RS again. We have asked that too meant times, to no avail... History2007 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Now we are going in ridiculous circles here. You insist on quoting an article in Times of India giving me as the source, but when I, the source, clarify this article, you now resort to telling me I have no right by Wiki rules to say anything, not even the truth here because I am the source of the article, whether I was properly quoted in context or not. History, you stated above that you didn't even want to return to this page. Perhaps you should take your own good advise? SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, no and no. I mentioned WP:ABOUTSELF. Please read it. You still have not given an exact source, but why do I bother. And you were not the only source in the Times, the caretaker was also quoted. But again, we have tried far too many times to explain "sourcing" here... To no avail... And I did say that I only came back because Dr Ali left a message on my talk page to come back. And I think you may want to say "advice" there instead of "advise"... History2007 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Should Yuz Asaf/Yuzasaf have a disambiguation page?

If you search Yuz Asaf on Wikipedia, you get this article. Yuzasaf gets you Barlaam and Josaphat. My guess is that if you are searching for those terms, those articles might be of interest, also possibly Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam and Jesus. What do editors think? Would a disambiguation page be generally helpful to readers, or not worth the bother? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think certainly one spelling should point to the other, e.g. "Yuz Asaf -> Yuzasaf". Then it gets difficult. So I made sure I solved just the easy part... History2007 (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think very early , the article Yuz Asaf / Yusasaf stood as independent articles than Roza Bal. Sometimes in history, they got merged. Personally, I would prefer Roza Bal, as a SEPARATE article, related to BUILDINGS, than Yuz Asaf/Yuzasaf/Budhasaf . --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Ali. I remember when it was suggested to merge the two articles, because so little was posted at Wiki about Yuz Asaf. But as more knowlegeable people are drawn in to the discussions, more information becomes known. Create Yuz Asaf/Asaph... and perhaps absorb Barlaam-Josaphat as a seperate topic page linked to Roza Bal.SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly not be logical or within policy to absorb Barlaam-Josaphat elsewhere, for it meets WP:NOTE by itself. History2007 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Like History 2007 said, then it gets difficult. To me Yuz Asaf and Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam are pretty much the same thing, and I could imagine the former wikilink to the latter. This article is of course relevant too, but the person-becomes-building thing bugs me a little. It´s not an uncommon thing on Wikipedia though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. The answer is not immediate. Let us wait for In ictu's opinion as well, and he knows more about it than me anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A disambiguation page could look something like this:

Yuzasaf (disambiguation page)

Also spelt Yuz Asaf/Budhasaf/Youza Asouph/Other may refer to:

• A person (character?) in Barlaam and Josaphat.
• Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam, believed by many Ahmadis today to be buried in the Roza Bal tomb.
• Jesus.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I almost agree with that as a first approximation, but... The issue is that the use in Barlaam and Josaphat may not be distinct from that in the other cases. The last one Jesus would probably not fly because you already have Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam, which belongs to a subcategory of Jesus. The point is that there are people who know the rules on disambig pages (have a project disambig) better and they go through those pages, so they may eventually change it anyway. But overall I think you have a good approximation which those people may eventually touch up. Is there any other usage apart from these? History2007 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I´m not sure I get your first though. Do you mean it´s problematic because J in AI and B & J have some overlap in their subjects? But in that case a reader would want to know about both articles, right?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that somehow both articles need to be mentioned. But I do not know how to word it exactly in the B&J case because I have not looked into the B&J details. That was/is my hesitation - not having looked into the B&J issues in detail. I added some images to that page some time ago, and mentioned Pappas, but that was as far as I went... There are the Yudasaf issues there as well... And I am not sure if one can say "also spelt X/Y/Z" without creating further ambiguity given that some are closer than others... So does need careful thinking in any case. So I think you have the framework, but adding the items need more thinking. History2007 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The problems with present situation are:

1. Any one searching and wishing to know about “Yuz Asaf” on the Net, suddenly finds himself in front of ‘TWO SARCOPHAGI’, and tons of confusion. Is Yuz Asaf a Tomb ?

2. In the present case, the Article is basically about a “BUILDING” and cannot be the site of most of the intellectual discussion that has gone on this Talk-Page.

3. The questions, about who Yuz Asaf was (or was not), whether a ‘disguise’ for Jesus ? Was this only a Buddhist Myth? Then why a Tomb? Was he a ‘Second Buddha’ or a Monk ? what? Questions out of the scope of the Building Tomb.

4. If he was a mortal human, is the Tomb somehow related to Yuz Asaf? How, when and why the various terms intermingled, mixed up and got confused? Was all this confusion only ‘typo’ spelling mistakes, mis-prints or something more or less? All such queries do not fit well into the TOMB article (?).

6. My humble submission is this Article is good enough, and probably has reached its logical completion (of confusion or un-awareness).

Therefore an independent Article be created about Yuz Asaf, including all shades and variations of this (more well known) name. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there is some agreement that a simple redirect here does not work, as you stated. So I think it is clear that Yuzasaf is not a tomb. But, (and problems usually start with "but") will that article will have so much overlap with this, Jesus in Ahmadi Islam and B&J to need just a dab page or not. I think the jury is still out on that one. The counter argument to that (which is Gråbergs's approach) is that Yuzasaf "is a name" and not clear if it was a person, or two people, etc. We have not heard that he was 3 people, but I guess that will be Kersten's next book. So redirecting it anywhere will in effect "make a decision" as to who he was; but a dab page makes no such decision. Hence Gråbergs's approach would probably meet WP:NPOV anyway with the least future fanfare. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the issue of whether it is "one word" or "two words" seems to be still less than clear. The Blackwell Companion to Jesus says that Mirza Ahmad made a specific decision here: "Ahmad divided Yuzasaf in two: Yuz Asaf. He declared that Yuz signified Jesus (who is not called by that name in any language) and that Asaf was the Hebrew verb for “gather.” Yuz Asaf would then be “Jesus the Gatherer."

And Pappas (page 78) also discusses the split of the name and states "But there is confusion concerning the meaning of the name Yuz Asaf. In two eastern works (Farhang-i-Jabangiri, and Anjnman-1'-Arac Nariri), we read that Asaf was one of the grandees or great noblemen of non-Arab (Ajami) countries." Which is what Nazir Ahmad's book also says on page 359.

I think that issue needs to be in the Jesus in Ahmadi Islam page. Pappas goes on to discuss other uses such as son of Barkhia, etc. So it is not an immediate or simple situation and the dab page may well be the way. In fact it may well be "the task" of the dab page to disambigute it as one word or two words, for that very decision will then branch off to a different form of logic; e.g. the Ahmadi may never use it as one word. Or do they? History2007 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

One more point. As every one knows, Kashmir has been a troubled flash point, as can be perceived from the Page, Tomb in Kashmir is also a flash point. The place where Jesus was born and the place where he finally was laid to rest, both are Flash Points. So an independent Article would be a 'Cool place. LOLs.ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That will be Kersten's next book: Jesus is buried in Greenland... History2007 (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I think he built Jerusalem in Englands green and pleasant land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a Wiki page that mentions name of one of the magi who visited Jesus at his birth. [HERE] then scroll down to NAMES- one of the names is Gushnasaph (Gad) Clearly asaph is a part of this name. I have sent email to Joe Cribbs trying to clarify how he interpreted Gush-asaph as son of Gush (a shortened version of Gushnyap-Gundopharnes) I recall he said this also appeared on a coin of the era.The point I am making is that Asaph was used as a name suffix in use in first century. We only have to determine that it meant 'son of' to determine the correct application for Yuz Asaph/Yuzasaph. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh Boy... I am sorry, but an email to someone does not constitute a "source". Wikipedia works by using WP:RS sources. I think from what I recall, we have discussed that at least twice now. And you are now floating another WP:Fringe item about the magi... The item Gråbergs was addressing was about a "disambiguation page" and it can not rely on our "determining it" by emailing people. Wikipedia uses that precious scarcity called a source. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I wrote to Joe Cribbs because he is a scholar on ancient coins-he is affiliated with Oxford University. He has written about the coins and the meaning of Asaph as it appears on these 1st century coins. I asked him for the published discussions about this, where can this be read in books or online.. It is quite relevant to this discussion. Someone of his caliber certainly is a reliable and expert source.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"In contrast, the Syrian Christians name the Magi Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas.[14]" While I have no idea what language these Syrian Christians spoke, or if asaph means "son" in it or not, I don´t see the relevance to this thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently syrians today speak Arabic (official); Kurdish, Neo-Aramaic, Circassian (Adyge), and Armenian. Which doesn´t help us, of course.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs that it has no relevance here. And out of frustration, let me save the effort of further WP:original research for Ms Olson. You do not need to email people to know if "Asaph" was used in the first century or to look at the page for Biblical magi. In the Hebrew Bible (which is rumored to have existed by the first century - but do correct me if I am wrong on that) includes the Book of Psalms and psalms 50 and 73-83 are called Psalms of Asaph, and Asaph appears in 1 Chronicles etc. to refer to people. And the entire, and I mean entire, magi line of reasoning has zero historical value and is pure, pure WP:Fringe because the magi are not known to be historical entities, and are just vague traditions. Now, after all the effort on this article to have it include scholarly items, do we need to go off on some fringe, self-published whim to make "determinations" by emailing people? History2007 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out above, through the email, I asked him for the published sources about coins of the 1st century using the phrase Asaph, and in what context at the time.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Though slightly off the actual thread, but very much within the larger scope of the article, just to benefit from the knowledge of the Bible some friends do possess, I read a question at a place: And what was Jesus' name? "Jesus" simply means "Savior" in hebrew, just like "Christ" is the Greek for "anointed" (a term used in the Old Testament for many kings). But what was his real name? ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Jesus (name) under Etymology. History2007 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that "Yuz Asaf" is a distinctly Ahmadi spelling. The Arabic/Persian MSS have Yuzasaf. The separation Yuz Asaf I believe happened in Urdu in 1899 to make the name sound more like Jesus. Isn't that what one of the German Buddhist expert sources says? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Beskow says that in the Blackwell Companion that it was a specific decision by Mirza Ahmad to separate it into two components. So depending on whether it is used as one or two words, a different logic will prevail. History2007 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would give more importance to the etymological evidences rather than so called "Historical: ones which I as a rule consider to be just figments of imagination, and can best be discredited; than believed, unless they fit very well into objective truths and day to day human experiences. I personally can not understand how to separate the word Yuz Asaf / Yuzasaf into TWO , in the Urdu/Persian and Arabic script. They can not be differentiated as we do in the Western languages. To over stress this point is just incomprehensible for one who speaks/writes Urdu/Arabic or Persian. Ok try to write them as one word and two words!

Another source which is not quoted in the Article (?) Jesus in Taxila ,,, in 49 AD, may be commented by friends:

“And the King requested the groomsmen to leave the bridal chamber. When all had left, and the doors were shut, the bridegroom raised the curtain of the bridal chamber, that he might bring the bride to himself. And he saw the Lord Jesus talking with the bride, and having the appearance of Judas Thomas, the apostle, who shortly before had blessed them, and gone out from them ; and he says to him, " Didst thou not go out before them all ? And how is it that thou art here now? And the Lord said to him, " I am not Judas, sur-named Thomas; I am his brother." And the Lord sat down on the bed, …

Page. 234, THE APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF PAUL, PETER, JOHN, ANDREW and THOMAS BY BERNHARD PICK (1909) The Open Court Publishing Company, CHICAGO. [3] ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue, I think what may be meant is that the Mirza separated the Hebrew into two components, not the Urdu, and he thus interpreted the second part Asaf as the Hebrew verb for gather. One the second issue of the general approach of historiography via philology different scholars rely on different methodologies, and Wikipedia can not prefer one method over another. But in fairness, you did say that you "personally" prefer. On the 3rd item Pick 1909 is too old as a modern WP:RS item and a more recent item is needed. History2007 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean to say a recent print of the Acta Thoma ? ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No a recent scholar who also interprets that. New theories may have emerged, new documents found since 1909, etc. That is the basic WP:RS approach to using more recent scholarship. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Gråbergs's dab page suggestion, and based on the above, it may be that his dab idea can be used based on the decision to spell it as one or two words and thus leading to different paths. And that is what dab pages are for. So the dab page may look like:

Yuz asaf or Yuzasaf may refer to:

• Yuzasaf (one word) which may refer to Yadasaf, Budasf or other variants in Barlaam and Josaphat
• Yuz Asaf (two words) which may refer to Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam, believed by the Ahmadi to be buried in Roza Bal.

And then the issues are discussed further based on that in the relevant articles. The only thing the disambig people will probably not allow in the long term is to have more than one link on each line, so we could mention Roza Bal somewhere, but if we add a link they will take it out in time per guidelines. History2007 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I can not have access to the book, but you may...THE APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THOMAS, Editors: Bremmer J.N. [Year: 2001] ISBN: 978-90-429-1070-6 Pages: XII-189 p. Price: 35 EURO. Summary: the first modern collection of studies on the most important aspects of the Acts of Thomas,ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually Pappas page 77 discusses it and is a good WP:Secondary source. So we just saved about $40 there... History2007 (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:DAB, we don't have dab pages for different words, let alone different spellings. Johnpaul + John Paul. This is a variant spelling, there is no need for a dab. We just state in article that Gulam Ahmad separated the name into two. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So where do you want to redirect them? There are two pages now as Gråbergs said at the top. History2007 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How would an article about Yuzasaf / Yuz Asaf / Budhasaf / Budh Asaf ...be a DAB to a Tomb ? May be a DAB to Buddha / Jesus / or some Myth etc. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it should go to a tomb. I think it should go to Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam because that is the most prevalent use of it in literature. It just happens that this article is cleaned up with sources, that is not yet. But that would be the natural target I think, with some material about it here and in B&J, but the main target should be there. History2007 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We do have dab pages for different things with the same name, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is the same thing with two spellings. There is only one Yuzasaf found in one corpus of literature. There are no separate "Yuz Asaf" texts in existance, it is an invented mispelling. In any case see also WP:TWODABS. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a source that states that it was a deliberate split. SO that part is established. And it is highly likely that there is just one item being referred to. So that may work. History2007 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you and In ictu need to compare notes on WP:DAB. Where does it say on that page that "John Paul" can or can not be disambiguated from JohnPaul or can be. Please check that and once you guys agree it will "disambiguate the decision". History2007 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree to you two too ... The article direct to a link in the Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam and of course at some point to the Roza Bal. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what would you suggest? No dab-page, but redirect Yuz Asaf to J in AI, or no change at all? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, just redirect Yuz Asaf to J in AI, as History2007 and DrAli In ictu oculi (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just do that redirect now, before the person buried at Roza Bal (whoever he may be) gets so tired of this thread to dig himself out, walk to a computer and redirect the page himself. History2007 (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, it´s an improvement. Do it for Youza Asouph as well, that also redirects to this article. Should J in AI and B & J now have corresponding "For Yuz Asaf/Yuzasaf, see the other article" messages? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that. And the section "Identification of Yuzasaf with Jesus" already links there as well. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, now Yuzasaf directs to J i AI as well. That wasn´t the plan, was it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That was what I thought: "they are the same thing", else redo it please. I am tired of this anyway... History2007 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think now this appears an improvement. Yuz Asaf and Yuzasaf directs the seeker to stories in Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but it may be too late now... There is a news story now that the person in the grave at Roza Bal just got up by himself to complain about all this talk about him... kidding of course. So let us end this. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

lols- :-)  :-)  :-) ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The news now says he is demanding his own Wkipedia page... History2007 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I am going to unwatch this for a while. Pappas page 77 may be the only item to add about Thomas, but it is pretty comprehensive now, otherwise. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Pappas and Nazir Ahmad

Dear History, I had added this 'source' Paul C. Pappas to the discussion, but myself did not have access to the complete book. Will you kindly give me a link to the book, (which is freely available from everywhere) . Regards, be well and blessed. sincerely ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was trying not to spend time here, but happened to look after the last additions we talked about, although I had unwatched the page.

Anyway, yes, I only found out about Pappas after you built a page for him and mentioned him to me. To see it, please just go http://books.google.com and search for "it is almost impossible to identify Yuz Asaf with Jesus" and you will get a link to page 115 of that book. One will need to know how to bypass some of the G-books limits to get almost all the pages, but there are ways. Anyway, you could also order the book from Amazon for $19.

On page 116 Pappas has a detailed analysis of the various possibilities for interpreting the dates proposed by Khwaja Nazir Ahmad and concludes that none of them can be consistent with the genral historical records such as the generally accepted dates for the reign of Gondophares. This is in part because Nazir Ahmad's theory and his dates rejected the Kalyugi era in favor of the Laukika by relying on the methods used in the court of Zain-ul-Abidin (1423-1474). Anyway Pappas has a detaild analysis about the inconsistency of Nazir Ahmad.

I will add this now that i was reminded of Pappas again, but now I must really, really, really stop watching here for a while. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you dear. About Nazir Ahmad, sometimes I doubt his sanity, when he described the "miraculous" powers of the Rod, and things that Moses was also buried in Kashmir.... hahaha.ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yus Asaf or Yusasaf and Hervey De Witt Griswold

Hervey De Witt Griswold was a contemporary of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and a Presbyterian Minister . He was a Professor, a Ph D and a scholar and wrote some 20 books and spent his whole life in India. (see my article on Griswold). He had the honour to write and speak against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In his book "The Messiah of Qadian" (1905) [4] he has comfortably used the name Yus Asaf as 2 words, he makes us think , it was NOT Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who had SPLIT the word "with a purpose" as a matter of fact he could not , being Arabic/Persian/Urdu script.

And why at all would Prof Griswold adopt a "wrong" invented by Ahmad? Can any body put a proof against it? --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nine others, beside Notovitch, that claimed to have viewed manuscripts at Hemis...

Greetings,

I submit this not for the sake of debate or argument, but only for the sake of offering information for possible further study. The Roza Bal article mentions that Notovitch, after having first claimed to have been shown manuscripts, at Hemis Monastery, that mentioned the travels of Jesus to India before the crucifixion, later "confessed" that he had fabricated the story.

But, according to information supplied at The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website, nine other people, after Notovitch, who visited Hemis on different occasions between the years 1921 to 1974, also claimed to have seen those documents. If that is true, then it calls into question Notovitch's "confession." Click here to see a table that gives the names of the individuals that allegedly travelled to Hemis and saw the documents; the date they visited, and what they saw, or heard.

I do not have the facility, at this moment, to track down the information offered in that chart. But it would be interesting, for those that enjoy this subject, to attempt to verify the information offered in that chart, and to possibly include it in the Roza Bal article, either to refute it, substantiate it, or just have it there for people to draw their own conclusions and to perform their own follow-up research.

Also, in the 2008 documentary, Jesus in India, produced by the Hollywood producer, Paul Davids, a Buddhist monk at Hemis is actually interviewed, and he states that those manuscripts do exist. So, obviously, the issue of Notovitch's alleged "confession" did not end with that confession.

This is shown in the documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.151.130 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 50.202.151.130 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

RonDChism (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you.

Yours,

Ron Chism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.151.130 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In Notovitch tale, Jesus travel to India, then goes home and gets crucified, so as this article notes, there is really no connection to Roza Bal (appart from Jesus being in India). I think your post would be better at Unknown years of Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Kamal ud-din

User:RDChism your edit here was reverted (by another editor though I agree). I believe that this book (which is unlinked in your edit) as a source for Buddha in Kashmir is already properly filled out in the Yuzasaf article? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)