by VorJack
In the greco-roman world, each decent sized city had it’s own civic cult – a collection of traditional stories and rituals that honored a deity who was recognized as particularly important to that city. Each city had special stories about this “patron deity” and what miracles they had wrought for the people of the city. You can listen to Dr. Philip Harland’s podcast Honoring the Gods in the Roman Empire for more information.
The change to Christianity left the basic outlines of this practice intact. Gods were replaced by saints who were associated with different cities or regions. The stories, rituals and miracles continued as each city tried to elevate their saints over their neighbors.
It was particularly good for the city to claim some great disciple as having visited, established a church and, if possible, died and been buried in the region. Mark was said to have gone to Egypt and Thomas to India, while Rome could claim both Peter and Paul. Not only did this elevate the city, but gave that region’s church some claim to extra authority among it peers.
Not satisfied with that, some folks created more elaborate stories. The grail myths of Britain could probably fit into this genre. The most famous, and maybe most extreme, is the modern myth that the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks are descended from Jesus through Mary Magdalene. All this has been called “biblical fanfic.”
But of course the ultimate would be to have some claim over Jesus himself. Joesph Smith did it, and there are certain old stories that have Jesus visiting Britain as a young man. That’s the context for this story from the BBC News:
Tourists flock to ‘Jesus’s tomb’ in Kashmir
A belief that Jesus survived the crucifixion and spent his remaining years in Kashmir has led to a run-down shrine in Srinagar making it firmly onto the must-visit-in India tourist trail.
In the backstreets of downtown Srinagar is an old building known as the Rozabal shrine.
[...]
Officially, the tomb is the burial site of Youza Asaph, a medieval Muslim preacher – but a growing number of people believe that it is in fact the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.
They believe that Jesus survived the crucifixion almost 2,000 Easters ago, and went to live out his days in Kashmir.
If Jesus survived the crucifiction and lived out his natural in Kashmir, it seems a bit daft caring where he is buried…
I’ve never heard of Kashmir before. What is it?
A contested region between India and Pakistan.
And also a material for making lovely jumpers.
They Call it Cashmere
Its not contested Winter, its a part of India which Pakistan wants to grab at any cost and they have been funding the terrorist activities in Kashmir since 1990.
Alec
It is a great deal more complicated than that.
Hi Elemenope
Can you expand your view on that as to how is it more complicated? What I said above is the basic gist of the issue! The Pakistani state sponsored terrorist activities caused a genocide of the Hindu population in the state of Kashmir and they had to flee or be killed. I fail to see what part of it are you referring to be complicated?
Alec
Hmm. Well, we’ll start with this and go from there. It seems a *little* complicated, but that could just be me. Maybe there is just one side of the story, and that side is entirely right. In my experience, though, that is never the case.
Well nice start but as you can see from that entry, the Maharaja had joined India after Pak sponsored tribals attacked his country. It was a state which was at peace until 1989-90 after that the whole Hindu genocide occurred and the problems are still escalating.
The 2 side theory doesn’t hold much as Hindus and Muslims had lived peacefully untill the late 80s when the cross border terrorism began. Kashmir is and should be a part of India. Can’t really see how there can be 2 thoughts about that.
Alec
The idea that the Maharaja spoke for all his people is absurd, especially given that the partition was under mostly religious lines and the Maharaja did not share the same religion as the vast majority of his subjects.
Why is it absurd? in those days Kings were the state figure heads. Also the partition was not across religious lines [I mean the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Jammu-Kashmir state partition, If you mean the Indo-Pak partition then yes] Imagine the President of the USA decides to accept something as a titular head of the country he can do so, even if some of his countrymen don’t feel the same[on a side topic isn't that the case with George W. Bush & the Iraq war]. How was the Maharaja wrong is doing what he thought best for his country. Even the fact that the Mahraja did not share the same religion is moot as India has had Muslim kings with a strong Hindu population who acceded to India.
Alec
PS: Sorry for the wrong post position as I couldn’t reply directly below Elemenope’s post.
Yes, I’m aware of the argument that the Maharaja was legitimately capable of deciding the fate of a region he was about to lose by force of arms and the fate of a people whose interests could not be further from his own, but my point is not that Pakistan is right and India is wrong.
My point is simply that the situation is complicated and India’s argument is not as dispositive as you’d like it to be. The fate of the region is bound up in the complicated local politics of the area and its former and current leaders, religion, territorial and ethnic strife, and international politics. To say that India has a (contested) legal claim to the area is not sufficient to hand wave away the several legitimate issues that arise from that position. And, to use your corollary, if the President of the United States wished to act to cede sovereignty of American territory to another state because he agreed with that state’s religious views, I hope you are under no illusion that such a decision would be seen by anyone as legitimate.
Yes, I’m aware of the argument that the Maharaja was legitimately capable of deciding the fate of a region he was about to lose by force of arms and the fate of a people whose interests could not be further from his own, but my point is not that Pakistan is right and India is wrong.
Well then you should also be aware Elemenope that for 40 years Kashmir was a peaceful place. The Maharaja’s interests were the state’s interests. India didn’t attack their Country, Pakistan covertly did! The population was about 60-40 Muslim-Hindu percentage wise.
My point is simply that the situation is complicated and India’s argument is not as dispositive as you’d like it to be. The fate of the region is bound up in the complicated local politics of the area and its former and current leaders, religion, territorial and ethnic strife, and international politics. To say that India has a (contested) legal claim to the area is not sufficient to hand wave away the several legitimate issues that arise from that position.
Again I’m going to disagree with yu India has a very valid claim, politics aside. The People of J&K had prospered under the Indian regime before the 1990 militancy problem. Using covert forces against India doesn’t lessen India’s claim.
And, to use your corollary, if the President of the United States wished to act to cede sovereignty of American territory to another state because he agreed with that state’s religious views, I hope you are under no illusion that such a decision would be seen by anyone as legitimate.
Thanks for twisting the corollary, I meant that the state head can take a decision which some of his cnstituents might not agree with, hwever in the end, they will have to accept it.
Alec
Well now I’m definitely going to have the Zeppelin tune stuck in my head.
Kashmere is a contested song territory between Plantistan and Pageia.
Very droll.
Oh, let the sun beat down upon my face, stars fill my dreams
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
To sit with elders of the gentle race, this world has seldom seen
They talk of days for which they sit and wait, all will be revealed…
*strings section*
*brass section*
Thanks for that podcast link. What a treasure trove!
You mean he didn’t join Mary Magdalene and his kid in Provence? What a cad.
Absentee fatherhood runs in the family.
Excellent! :-)
Now, wait, I KNOW that Jesus made his way to Japan, and settled with a local woman to live out his days as a fisherman near the present day city of Aomori!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingō,_Aomori
No, Jesus just left Chicago and he’s bound for New Orleans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN69GC2amTg
It’s easy to claim a “history” of someone…especially if he never even existed.
“..of course it’s kashmir…”
-George Costanza
Remind me of a story I seen in an Israeli paper recently about this guy who was driving a group of religious morons when they passed a marker claiming to be the tomb of [forgot exact name] the righteous (an honorific often used on tombs of famous rabbis). The groups asked him to stop so they can say a prayer over the great man grave. After the guide managed to stop laughing he explained that the stone mark the grave of a cart horse who’s owner referred to as the righteous since he was such a good work animal and erected the marker as a bit of a joke. I can easily see a situation in the not so distant future when the original story is forgotten and the grave of a horse become identified as a holy site with people come especially to ask for the great man to intervene with god on their behalf.
Praying to a horse would be as good as praying to anyone (or anything) else. If what you want to happen actually happens, then the horse be praised. If not, then the horse moves in mysterious ways.
This made me laugh. :)
I thought it was the late Ed Wood who was buried in Kashmir.
Did Jesus stay put this time?