Published on Aug 24, 2015: Presentation given by Barrie Schwortz founder of https://www.shroud.com and a member of the team that carried out research on the Shroud in 1978. Presentation was given at The Ahmadiyya Annual Convention 2015 in Alton, Hampshire UK.
Rizwan Shabir uploaded this to YouTube and for some reason blocked embedding; so when you click on the image you will be taken to YouTube.
“The group is generally not accepted as Islamic.” What a pity. I was tremendously impressed by the Ahmadiyya Community, all of whom advocated peace and tolerance, and rejected any interpretation of the Koran leading to violence or repression. Although their faith is firmly rooted in the Koran, they understand and concur with Western misgivings about some Islamic countries’ approach to human rights, the treatment of women, free speech and education.
For a magnificent, if highly technical, debate about the how Islamic the Ahmadiyya are, see:
Hugh has now gone beyond science to become an expert in religion:
One is obliged to ask what was he doing at Hampshire, if he thinks that the Shroud is not authentic? He could watch on video.
I also do believe that the Ahamdiyyas advocate peace and tolerance, which should indeed serve as an example, but it is evident why they are generally not accepted as Muslims.
If in Christianity the Mormons jumped from Jerusalem to Utah, in Islam the Ahmadiyyas jumped from Mecca to (British) India.
I said it once and unfortunately have to say it again: I have not found any Jewish archaeologist or scholar, whether secular, religious, or believer in both Old and New Testaments who does not believe that Jesus was not buried (dead) in Jerusalem. The New Testament is largely a Jewish document, written mostly by Jews, and within a Jewish milieu:
Or does Hugh believe that Jesus was buried in Kashmir?
Thanks for the background info on this sect. But I don’t understand why you are taking Hugh to task for attending the event and providing some very broad observations. Where does he claim to be an expert in religion?
Hugh has commented more than once on topics beyond his field and here his comment is proferred as though he knows the whole story. I have been a Religion Writer for around twenty years and only comment on science when it involves science-theology dialogue because it is not my field. Beyond this, my on-site research into very different kinds of sects and religions, sometimes even involving danger, has provided me with considerable experience, enabling me to write what I have to.
Why go to Hampshire if one thinks that the Turin Shroud is a forgery? That is understandable if the intention was to meet “Shroudies” personally. A good editor should get as much information as possible before making comments as though he knows the whole story. The “broad observations” are not part of the whole story.
No wonder the Pope is ignoring the petitions sent to him.
What are you on about, Louis? What whole story? I spoke as I found, not because I’m an “authority” like yourself. You know my views on that. I know the Ahmadiyya are not accepted by other Muslims, and, thanks to the debate I posted, I also know why. So what? Everything I said about them you apparently agree with, so why the high horse?
I was invited to the Jalsa by the editor of the Review of Religions Journal, on Barrie Schwortz’s recommendation, because I an am unconventional ‘Shroudie’ being both a determined Catholic and a doubter regarding the Shroud’s authenticity, and also, I hope, because I am friendly and lighthearted, and prepared to listen to all and to treat their opinions seriously.
As it happens, the Ahmadiyya Community believe that Jesus survived the crucifixion. As such, the possibility that the Shroud does not confirm Jesus’s death, either because it shows he was buried alive, or because it is not authentic anyway, is welcome news, but really I think many of them simply wanted to know more about it. Gathered in the tent were representatives of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, for whom the Shroud was a common point of interest. In the unlikely event that this comes to the attention of His Holiness, I have no doubt whatever that he would be delighted.
You are not being coherent, so please read what you wrote above. You were defending something about which you did not seem to have a clear picture.
Are you sure that this event is unlikely to come to the attention of His Holiness? What is written on this blog is read in both Turin and Rome. Pope Francis is always accompanied by Archbishop Georg Gaenswein, has Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (with whom you corresponded) to whisper into his ears, has Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia ready when information is needed. Not to speak of those in the Curia who keep an eye on everything and can be tough.
So His Holiness would be delighted to read that Jesus was buried in Kashmir? How nice.
I am being as polite as I can. I am not being like Stephen Jones, who wants you dismissed as BSTS Newsletter editor. Please be careful what you write there and don’t waste your time signing any petition to Rome if a request is sent to you.
The last time a petition was sent to Pope Francis and reported by Dan, with the best of intentions, I told him that it would be ignored. That is exactly what happened and matters are far worse now.
I suspect Hugh is also being as polite as he can. If the red hats in Rome and Turin are reading this then they have much too much time on their hands and perhaps should be looking after a parish somewhere. Hugh comments were totally coherent. Francis would delight in any inter-religious dialogue — as opposed to inter-religious warfare. Naturally he isn’t going to accept a Jesus in Kashmir theory, nor would anyone expect him to.
How do you know what you are saying, David? Do you enough about how the Church functions?
I know too well how it functions, Louis.
Give me details, David. Take your time to comment, for I will show you where you have not been coherent.
I worked for many years with a Catholic Cardinal. I have a brother-in-law in Rome who is a priest and high-up in his order. I worked with missionaries in Africa and the South Pacific. I follow commentary by Vatican insiders on the NCR blog. I have been involved with the church most of my life. I have seen, from experience, how clericalism corrupts, how power corrupts. I have known over ten abusers and seen how – until recently – nothing was done to stop them. I appreciate the hard slog Francis has in trying to revitalize the leadership of the Church. There are those that would stop him. The Church is on the verge of schism in my opinion, as traditionalists battle to return us to the days of Trent. Even as there are those that would take us too far, too fast in the other direction.
My brother-in-law told me that when Francis made his wonderful statement that “a shepherd should smell like his flock” many in the Italian hierarchy responded “but my flock smell of Versace.” Would I trust these kinds of men with a new investigation of the Shroud? Would you?
I have had several priests, one in Rome at the uppermost level of the Jesuit order, one monsignor, one bishop and one archbishop as cousins, not to speak of the Jesuits with whom I studied in school, college and beyond. Most of them were good people.
What you see in the Church sometimes is also seen among the clergy in other religions, because they are men first.
The clergymen you refer to would probably have no say in a new investigation of the Shroud as Rome would need to have a team of scientists, not necessarily Catholics, who would work with qualified clergymen.
Louis I noticed the same thing. I could not believe the explanations given by Hugh to the community.
I regret having had to post the comments, but there was no choice. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing in the realm of Shroud studies, even after Pope Francis is seen sitting and meditating in front of the Shroud, not kneeling. Are the clerics in Rome being taken for fools? Not even the Pope can contradict the Magisterium. The matter is delicate, it is serious, you cannot play with beliefs.
The Church is not interested in clearing doubts about whether the Resurrection was a historical event or whether there is life after death by means of the Turin Shroud.
It is extremEly important to remember that Jesus had his own views about God, Moses and Scripture. The secret lies there, not in any relic.
Sorry, Louis, I don’t really do all this cloak and dagger stuff, and I don’t think I have anything to fear from the Inquisition. And I don’t believe this blog bothers anybody in the Curia, even if they read it. And nobody has sent me a petition, but if they did, whether I signed it or not would depend on what it said. And His Holiness would be delighted that different religions could meet in harmony over a Christian relic, regardless of their differing beliefs in the fate of Jesus.
Hugh, I would be remiss if I didn’t remind you that “No one expects the Inquisition!”
(a little levity seems to be required right now….)
David, I get what you mean, but there are problems. This is not “cloak and dagger stuff”, things are being said openly here and Rome does monitor what is being said everywhere. The Central Belief of Christianity, dear to all Christian denominations, is being laughed at.
How can you write “Sacred Turin Shroud” if you believe that a hoax is involved, making Jesus the greatest trickster in history? Do you believe that His Holiness will swallow that?
Different religions can indeed meet in harmony, and they should do that. But why involve a relic that is still controversial, and which is being interpreted to challenge the belief I mentioned? Is that harmony? No, it isn’t. There are many places where people of different religions can meet in harmony, where there is respect for the differing beliefs.
Why do Hindus in India and other places accept Jesus as Avatar, incarnation of God, without ever having heard of the Turin Shroud? They have either read the Gospels or have been guided by the great Hindu sages, many of them saintly men. During my on-site research into non-Christian sects and religions I have met and spoken to their leaders, whether preachers, priests, witches, wizards, and so on. One of them even told me that he was afraid how God would judge him because he was also worshipping evil entities. I then asked him why he did not stop worshipping them. He said that God was above all of them, and he was referring to the Christian God. I told him that I thought God would pardon him because he was doing a lot of charity and putting food on the tables of the needy and he had no obligation to do so. He believed in Jesus without ever having heard of the Turin Shroud.
There are non-Christian scholars who believe in the Resurrection and have not bothered about the Turin Shroud:
‘ Rome does monitor what is being said everywhere.’ Quite like the old days then.
not sure what that means, but with all the evil and false teaching, I’m glad IF they are monitoring
There is much more than that, Rick. Monitoring is necessary.
Surely the problem has been the lack of monitoring, especially within the Vatican City itself – see also under Bank, Vatican. Meanwhile whole regions such as Ireland have been effectively lost to the Church.
I cannot imagine that anyone commissioned by pope Francis to clean all this up and reassert authority is going to be reading this blog. Relics are no longer a big issue within the Church as Catholic faith is in no way dependent on them. Pope Francis did no more than convention required in offering veneration of the Shroud.
I am also mystified at Louis’ comments on Hugh who seems to be approaching the issues with a much more open (intellectually) and generous mind than most.
The Church took it for granted that clergymen would be doing their best to get things done the correct way and that was a mistake. The cleaning up has started with Cardinal George Pell, who is doing a good job.
As for relics, I have commented about a dozen times here that they are not a big issue, canonisation is.
Is it being open (intellectually) to ignore my research into the Kashmir tomb and entertain unfounded claims voiced by a community to further its ends?:
If there is any doubt about what I have written, my suggestion, now that the Pope is certain to ignore new petitions from “Shroudies”, is that a petition be sent to the mullah of the Kashmir area where the tomb is located requesting permission for further research, if possible an excavation, not to make any documentary like the sensationalists.
I have also noted that the people in Hampshire were told that there was no guarantee that the man depicted on the Shroud was dead. Fine, that is a matter of opinion. What I would like to see is the same thing thing said in talks about the Shroud in evangelical churches in the USA.
It is years ago that I wrote a review where I pointed out that Jesus’ burial cloth only received passing mention in the Gospel. Now a big fuss is being made about the Shroud by people who want to “prove” that Jesus was buried alive in Jerusalem, others to find out if there is some evidence of life after death, or if what we see corresponds to what Jesus said about himself.
Is it also intellectually open to ignore the fact that there is no known Jewish archaeologist or scholar who does not believe that Jesus was crucified, died and was buried (dead) in Jerusalem? Is the literature written in India during the nineteenth century to promote a particular viewpoint more convincing?: https://www.academia.edu/7471223/Jesus_was_not_buried_in_Talpiot_-_Part_III
It is years ago that I wrote a review where I pointed out that Jesus’ burial cloth only received passing mention in the Gospel:
The old prejudices are no longer in vogue. Emeritus Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor preached to the Royal Family, Cardinal Vincent Nichols preached at the reinternment of Richard III at Leicester’s Anglican Cathedral and HRH Prince Charles donated money to the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako, after which they exchanged lettters:
And… Dan is a member of the Episcopal Church.
Extract from Liturgy of the Word, 22nd Sun in Ordinary Time, Year B, set for this Sun, 30 Aug, 2015:
“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows* in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” James 1:27
In light of the above thread of polemic, it seems particularly apt! Cuts to the chase, with no allusion to any particular religious tradition, which don’t seem to matter a great deal!
Comments are closed.