twirlytoast

Hello!

I am not a Bahai, although I do respect the Bahai Faith most highly, and if I were ever to join a religion then I would choose the Bahai Faith.

I have in the past been a Buddhist, Christian and a Taoist; amongst other things! I have a nomadic streak in me!

My question relates to the lack of historical evidence for Jesus Christ. I believe the term Christ simply means teacher, please correct me if I am wrong. I am reading a book, "Jesus, Last of The Pharoahs" by Ralph Ellis, which is extremely well written and well researched:-

Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs: Jesus Was an Egyptian Prince in Exile Egyptian Testament: Amazon.co.uk: Ralph Ellis: Books

You can also watch Ralph Ellis on You Tube, and bored you shall not be!!!

I look forward to your replies

In Peace,

Twirlytoast

arthra

If you check I think the name or title "Christ" means Anointed .. but anyway.. the patriarchs in the Bible as Hyksos pharaohs is an interesting concept I hadn't come across.. I used to think that maybe Moses name was abbreviated or what was left from an earlier Pharaonic name because of His exile.

Baha'is do accept that Jesus was historical and not say a figure that was concocted by someone later.. We're not so much as Baha'is focused on proving His historicity.

We see Krishna , Buddha, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and latest Baha'u'llah as Manifestations of God based on our Writings. As far as the Baha'i view of Jesus ..one of the best essays on the subject is avaialble here:

Jesus Christ in the Baha'i Writings

Orthodox

there is ample historical evidence as to Christ. Don't let pretentious documentaries such as the God who wasn't there or Zeitgeist suggest otherwise. Now I might suggest a real and recognized Jesus Scholar, NT Wright an Anglican Bishop the book you seem to be reading is on the level of what I said before.

But Christ does not mean simply teacher. it is essentially the hebrew word Messiah "Annointed one" in greek. How do we know this? Christ or Christos is derived from the greek Chrism which the ancient greeks used to annoint their athletes, thus they applied a title based around that to Christ, meaning annointed one.

And i might suggest for the historical Jesus, primary sources instead of bahai, the gospels obviously, 1st corinthians 15, Josephus, Tacitus. and church father commentary is valuable as well.

LordOfGoblins

I think we must be careful about books that talk about Jesus or other religious figures with the intent to sell as many copies as they can. Dan Browns stuff is a good example. New ideas will always entertain people as they keep something old fresh. Also the idea of a scandal with Jesus and mary yes it appeals to people- people are immature. Its like turning the sacred religion into a gossip column. Anyway Its okay to read those things just remember it might not be the best true portrayel of what the religion is really about.
cheers

twirlytoast

arthra,

thanks for your reply. Krishna and Buddha, are both reincarnationists(is that a word?!), and the rest are not, so were do they fit in to the Bahai scheme of things?

LordOfGoblins, thanks for your input. Ralph Ellis is a person I know, and he is far removed from the Dan Brown circus! Ralph is a fine researcher and is not seeking fame or notoriety! I would recommend you read at least one of his books and you will agree with me!

Orthodox, and thanks for your contribution too! As for Zeitgeist, I have watched the first one, but its reading books like Ralph Ellis which interest me more. As for the gospels, well they have plenty of contradictions, plus their are the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Gospel of Thomas et al. I shall check out the scholar you mentioned though.

In Peace,

Twirlytoast

Pollwr

twirlytoast,
I think this lenghty quotation best encapsulates the Báha'í view on reincarnation:

REINCARNATION

Question. -- What is the truth of the question of reincarnation, which is believed by some people?

Answer. -- The object of what we are about to say is to explain the reality -- not to deride the beliefs of other people; it is only to explain the facts; that is all. We do not oppose anyone's ideas, nor do we approve of criticism.

Know, then, that those who believe in reincarnation are of two classes: one class does not believe in the spiritual punishments and rewards of the other world, and they suppose that man by reincarnation and return to this world gains rewards and recompenses; they consider heaven and hell to be restricted to this world and do not speak of the existence of the other world. Among these there are two further divisions. One division thinks that man sometimes returns to this world in the form of an animal in order to undergo severe punishment and that, after enduring this painful torment, he will be released from the animal world and will come again into the human world; this is called transmigration. The other division thinks that from the human world one again returns to the human world, and that by this return rewards and punishments for a former life are obtained; this is called reincarnation. Neither of these classes speak of any other world besides this one.

The second sort of believers in reincarnation affirm the existence of the other world, and they consider reincarnation the means of becoming perfect -- that is, they think that man, by going from and coming again to this world, will gradually acquire perfections, until he reaches the inmost perfection. In other words, that men are composed of matter and force: matter in the beginning -- that is to say, in the first cycle -- is imperfect, but on coming repeatedly to this world it progresses and acquires refinement and delicacy, until it becomes like a polished mirror; and force, which is no other than spirit, is realized in it with all the perfections.

This is the presentation of the subject by those who believe in reincarnation and transmigration. We have condensed it; if we entered into the details, it would take much time. This summary is sufficient. No logical arguments and proofs of this question are brought forward; they are only suppositions and inferences from conjectures, and not conclusive arguments. Proofs must be asked for from the believers in reincarnation, and not conjectures, suppositions and imaginations.

But you have asked for arguments of the impossibility of reincarnation. This is what we must now explain. The first argument for its impossibility is that the outward is the expression of the inward; the earth is the mirror of the Kingdom; the material world corresponds to the spiritual world. Now observe that in the sensible world appearances are not repeated, for no being in any respect is identical with, nor the same as, another being. The sign of singleness is visible and apparent in all things. If all the granaries of the world were full of grain, you would not find two grains absolutely alike, the same and identical without any distinction. It is certain that there will be differences and distinctions between them. As the proof of uniqueness exists in all things, and the Oneness and Unity of God is apparent in the reality of all things, the repetition of the same appearance is absolutely impossible. Therefore, reincarnation, which is the repeated appearance of the same spirit with its former essence and condition in this same world of appearance, is impossible and unrealizable. As the repetition of the same appearance is impossible and interdicted for each of the material beings, so for spiritual beings also, a return to the same condition, whether in the arc of descent or in the arc of ascent, is interdicted and impossible, for the material corresponds to the spiritual.

Nevertheless, the return of material beings with regard to species is evident; so the trees which during former years brought forth leaves, blossoms and fruits in the coming years will bring forth exactly the same leaves, blossoms and fruits. This is called the repetition of species. If anyone makes an objection saying that the leaf, the blossom and the fruit have been decomposed, and have descended from the vegetable world to the mineral world, and again have come back from the mineral world to the vegetable world, and, therefore, there has been a repetition -- the answer is that the blossom, the leaf and the fruit of last year were decomposed, and these combined elements were disintegrated and were dispersed in space, and that the particles of the leaf and fruit of last year, after decomposition, have not again become combined, and have not returned. On the contrary, by the composition of new elements, the species has returned. It is the same with the human body, which after decomposition becomes disintegrated, and the elements which composed it are dispersed. If, in like manner, this body should again return from the mineral or vegetable world, it would not have exactly the same composition of elements as the former man. Those elements have been decomposed and dispersed; they are dissipated in this vast space. Afterward, other particles of elements have been combined, and a second body has been formed; it may be that one of the particles of the former individual has entered into the composition of the succeeding individual, but these particles have not been conserved and kept, exactly and completely, without addition or diminution, so that they may be combined again, and from that composition and mingling another individual may come into existence. So it cannot be proved that this body with all its particles has returned; that the former man has become the latter; and that, consequently, there has been repetition; that the spirit also, like the body, has returned; and that after death its essence has come back to this world.

If we say that this reincarnation is for acquiring perfections so that matter may become refined and delicate, and that the light of the spirit may be manifest in it with the greatest perfection, this also is mere imagination. For, even supposing we believe in this argument, still change of nature is impossible through renewal and return. The essence of imperfection, by returning, does not become the reality of perfection; complete darkness, by returning, does not become the source of light; the essence of weakness is not transformed into power and might by returning, and an earthly nature does not become a heavenly reality. The tree of Zaqqum,[1] no matter how frequently it may come back, will not bring forth sweet fruit, and the good tree, no matter how often it may return, will not bear a bitter fruit. Therefore, it is evident that returning and coming back to the material world does not become the cause of perfection. This theory has no proofs nor evidences; it is simply an idea. No, in reality the cause of acquiring perfections is the bounty of God.
[1 The infernal tree mentioned in the Qur'án.]

The Theosophists believe that man on the arc of ascent [1] will return many times until he reaches the Supreme Center; in that condition matter becomes a clear mirror, the light of the spirit will shine upon it with its full power, and essential perfection will be acquired. Now, this is an established and deep theological proposition, that the material worlds are terminated at the end of the arc of descent, and that the condition of man is at the end of the arc of descent, and at the beginning of the arc of ascent, which is opposite to the Supreme Center. Also, from the beginning to the end of the arc of ascent, there are numerous spiritual degrees. The arc of descent is called beginning,[2] and that of ascent is called progress.[3] The arc of descent ends in materialities, and the arc of ascent ends in spiritualities. The point of the compass in describing a circle makes no retrograde motion, for this would be contrary to the natural movement and the divine order; otherwise, the symmetry of the circle would be spoiled.
[1 I.e., of the Circle of Existence.]
[2 Lit., bringing forth.]
[3 Lit., producing something new.]

Moreover, this material world has not such value or such excellence that man, after having escaped from this cage, will desire a second time to fall into this snare. No, through the Eternal Bounty the worth and true ability of man becomes apparent and visible by traversing the degrees of existence, and not by returning. When the shell is once opened, it will be apparent and evident whether it contains a pearl or worthless matter. When once the plant has grown it will bring forth either thorns or flowers; there is no need for it to grow up again. Besides, advancing and moving in the worlds in a direct order according to the natural law is the cause of existence, and a movement contrary to the system and law of nature is the cause of nonexistence. The return of the soul after death is contrary to the natural movement, and opposed to the divine system.

Therefore, by returning, it is absolutely impossible to obtain existence; it is as if man, after being freed from the womb, should return to it a second time. Consider what a puerile imagination this is which is implied by the belief in reincarnation and transmigration. Believers in it consider the body as a vessel in which the spirit is contained, as water is contained in a cup; this water has been taken from one cup and poured into another. This is child's play. They do not realize that the spirit is an incorporeal being, and does not enter and come forth, but is only connected with the body as the sun is with the mirror. If it were thus, and the spirit by returning to this material world could pass through the degrees and attain to essential perfection, it would be better if God prolonged the life of the spirit in the material world until it had acquired perfections and graces; it then would not be necessary for it to taste of the cup of death, or to acquire a second life.

The idea that existence is restricted to this perishable world, and the denial of the existence of divine worlds, originally proceeded from the imaginations of certain believers in reincarnation; but the divine worlds are infinite. If the divine worlds culminated in this material world, creation would be futile: nay, existence would be pure child's play. The result of these endless beings, which is the noble existence of man, would come and go for a few days in this perishable dwelling, and after receiving punishments and rewards, at last all would become perfect. The divine creation and the infinite existing beings would be perfected and completed, and then the Divinity of the Lord, and the names and qualities of God, on behalf of these spiritual beings, would, as regards their effect, result in laziness and inaction! "Glory to thy Lord, the Lord Who is sanctified from all their descriptions."[1]
[1 Cf. Qur'án 37:180.]

Such were the limited minds of the former philosophers, like Ptolemy and the others who believed and imagined that the world, life and existence were restricted to this terrestrial globe, and that this boundless space was confined within the nine spheres of heaven, and that all were empty and void. Consider how greatly their thoughts were limited and how weak their minds. Those who believe in reincarnation think that the spiritual worlds are restricted to the worlds of human imagination. Moreover, some of them, like the Druzes and the Nusayris, think that existence is restricted to this physical world. What an ignorant supposition! For in this universe of God, which appears in the most complete perfection, beauty and grandeur, the luminous stars of the material universe are innumerable! Then we must reflect how limitless and infinite are the spiritual worlds, which are the essential foundation. "Take heed ye who are endued with discernment."[1]
[1 Qur'án 59:2.]

But let us return to our subject. In the Divine Scriptures and Holy Books "return" is spoken of, but the ignorant have not understood the meaning, and those who believed in reincarnation have made conjectures on the subject. For what the divine Prophets meant by "return" is not the return of the essence, but that of the qualities; it is not the return of the Manifestation, but that of the perfections. In the Gospel it says that John, the son of Zacharias, is Elias. These words do not mean the return of the rational soul and personality of Elias in the body of John, but rather that the perfections and qualities of Elias were manifested and appeared in John.

A lamp shone in this room last night, and when tonight another lamp shines, we say the light of last night is again shining. Water flows from a fountain; then it ceases; and when it begins to flow a second time, we say this water is the same water flowing again; or we say this light is identical with the former light. It is the same with the spring of last year, when blossoms, flowers and sweet-scented herbs bloomed, and delicious fruits were brought forth; next year we say that those delicious fruits have come back, and those blossoms, flowers and blooms have returned and come again. This does not mean that exactly the same particles composing the flowers of last year have, after decomposition, been again combined and have then come back and returned. On the contrary, the meaning is that the delicacy, freshness, delicious perfume and wonderful color of the flowers of last year are visible and apparent in exactly the same manner in the flowers of this year. Briefly, this expression refers only to the resemblance and likeness which exist between the former and latter flowers. The "return" which is mentioned in the Divine Scriptures is this: it is fully explained by the Supreme Pen [1] in the Kitáb-i-Íqán. Refer to it, so that you may be informed of the truth of the divine mysteries.
[1 Bahá'u'lláh.]

Upon you be greetings and praise

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 287)

twirlytoast

Pollwr,

thank you for your post. I have a Bahai book which includes a chapter on reincarnation, I will need to read it again, but I do recognise some of the passages which you included.

My belief in reincarnation began at an early age, 11. Then I read Lobsang Rampa's book, "The Third Eye" which reinforced my belief.

I belong to the school of thought which believes that humans reincarnate as humans, and animals reincarnate within their own species. When we reincarnate we experience both genders, which may explain why some people are homosexual, lesbian or transgender.

Do We Live More Than Once? | Krishna.com


Do We Live More Than Once?


Jayadvaita Swami

The case history of a little girl from West Bengal suggests she remembered a life she had lived before.

Sukla
When Sukla Gupta was a year and a half old and barely able to talk, she used to cradle a pillow or a block of wood in her arms and address it as “Minu.” Minu, she said, was her daughter.

And if you believe the story Sukla gradually told over the next three years, Minu actually was her daughter—but in a previous life.

Sukla, the daughter of a railway worker in Kampa, a village in West Bengal, India, was one of those rare children whose testimony and behavior give evidence for the theory that your personality survives the death of your body and travels on to live in another body. This is the theory of reincarnation.

For some five hundred million of the world’s people, reincarnation is more than a theory—it is a fact, a given, a part of their everyday understanding. It’s what they’ve learned from their scriptures, and what generations of their forefathers have believed for thousands of years.

Aside from people in the East, Western philosophers at least as far back as Plato have found it reasonable to believe that our souls have lived before, in other bodies, other lives, and will live again in new ones.

If we have lived other lives, you might ask, why don’t we remember them? But memory is a tricky thing. We’re lucky if we can remember where we’ve put our car keys. So even if past lives are a fact, it’s not surprising we can’t remember them.

But at least a few of us apparently can.

Sukla talked not only about her daughter, Minu, but also about her husband, “the father of Minu” (a good Hindu wife avoids speaking of her husband by name). She also talked about his younger brothers Khetu and Karuna. They all lived, she said, at Rathtala in Bhatpara.

Sukla’s family, the Guptas, knew Bhatpara slightly—it was a city about eleven miles south—but they had never heard of a place called Rathtala, nor of the people Sukla had named. Yet Sukla developed a desire to go there, and she insisted that if her parents didn’t take her she would go alone.

What do you do when your daughter starts speaking that way? Sri K. N. Sen Gupta, Sukla’s father, talked about the matter with some friends. He also mentioned it to one of his railway co-workers, Sri S. C. Pal, an assistant station master. Sri Pal lived near Bhatpara and had two cousins there. Through these cousins he learned that Bhatpara indeed had a district called Rathtala. He also learned of a man there named Khetu. Khetu had had a sister-in-law named Mana who had died several years before, in 1948, leaving behind an infant daughter named Minu.

Sri Sen Gupta decided to investigate further.

The story of Sukla is one of nearly two thousand in the files of Dr. Ian Stevenson, Carlson Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia. Over the past two decades. Dr. Stevenson has gathered reports of people in various parts of the world who showed evidence suggesting that they had remembered past lives. About one thousand three hundred of these cases Dr. Stevenson has investigated personally, including the case of Sukla. [Among Dr. Stevenson’s books are Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (in which the case of Sukla appears) and the multivolume Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Both are published by the University of Virginia.]

When someone seems to have truthful memories of a former life, Dr. Stevenson interviews him, the people around him, and if possible the people of the life apparently remembered, looking for a more ordinary, normal way to explain things. He looks for fraud. He looks for stories with holes in them and conflicting, unreliable reports. But sometimes, as in the case of Sukla, normal explanations just don’t seem to fit.

After Sri Sen Gupta learned of the family in Rathtala, he decided to yield to Sukla’s desire to go there. With the consent of that family, he arranged for a visit. Sukla said that she could show the way to the house.

So in 1959, when Sukla was a little more than five, Sri Sen Gupta and five other members of his family journeyed with her to Bhatpara. When they arrived, Sukla took the lead. Avoiding various possible wrong turns, she brought them straight to the house of Sri Amritalal Chakravarty, allegedly her father-in- law in her past life.

As the party approached, Sri Chakravarty happened to be out on the street. When Sukla saw him, she looked down shyly, following the usual custom for a young woman in the presence of an older male relative.

But when Sukla went to enter the house she was confused. She didn’t seem to know the right entrance. Her confusion, however, made sense: after the death of Mana, the woman whose life Sukla seemed to remember, the entrance had been moved from the main street to an alley on the side.

And the party soon found that Sukla recognized not only the house but also the people in it, including those she said were her mother-in-law, her brothers-in-law, her husband, and her daughter.

Fraud? When some Hollywood movie actress claims to remember a past life as the Queen of Persia, that’s likely the right explanation. But here we’re dealing with a little village girl. She starts talking about a past life as soon as she’s old enough to speak. She knows all sorts of things about people neither she nor her family has ever met. Careful investigators find no evidence of fraud and no normal way the girl could have learned what she knows. And her behavior actually fits the story of her previous life.

Inside Amritalal Chakravarty’s house, Sukla found herself in a room with some twenty or thirty people. But when she was asked, “Can you point out your husband?” she correctly indicated Sri Hari-dhana Chakravarty. Following the proper Hindu etiquette, she identified him as “Minu’s father.”

Sukla and Haridhana Chakravarty were to meet again several times, and Sukla always longed for these meetings. When he was to visit her house, Sukla told her family to make him a meal with prawns and buli. She said that this was his favorite food. Her family did what she said and later found that she had chosen correctly.

Sukla behaved toward Haridhana Chakravarty like a perfect Hindu wife. After he ate his meal, she would eat whatever food was left on his plate, as a devoted Hindu wife would do. But she never ate food from the plate of anyone else.

To try to account normally for this kind of behavior, another explanation sometimes put forward is what is technically known as cryptomnesia, “hidden memory.”

Psychologists know that our minds record more than we consciously remember. Under hypnosis, an old man may vividly describe his fifth birthday party, an event for which his normal consciousness has lost all the details. Or he may recall exactly what he read in a long-forgotten book some thirty years before.

So the hypothesis of cryptomnesia supposes that what appear to be memories of a past life are merely memories of something one has heard or read and consciously forgotten.

This may in fact be the best explanation for many of the “past-life regressions” now becoming popular in journeys through hypnosis. Asked by a hypnotist to go back to a past life, a subject obediently searches his forgotten memories and uses them to dramatize an entirely fictitious “former existence.”

In one notable case, back in 1906, a clergyman’s daughter under hypnosis told vividly of a past life in the court of King Richard II. She poured out a wealth of details, nearly all of which proved to be true, even though many of them were so obscure that they sent researchers hunting through scholarly English histories the girl was most unlikely to have read. Finally, however, it came out that all these detailed facts appeared in a novel. Countess Maud, that the girl had read when twelve years old and had entirely forgotten.

But the case of Sukla, remember, is that of a girl less than five years old. And her recollections of a past life took place not under hypnosis but as part of her usual waking consciousness.

We may suppose that she gathered these memories normally, but this is only a supposition—there’s no evidence of any normal channel through which these memories could have come.

Moreover, Sukla didn’t just recall information—she actually recognized people, people who in this life were complete strangers.

She recognized Mana’s mother-in-law from a group of thirty people. She pointed out Mana’s brother-in-law Kshetranath, and she knew his nickname, “Khetu.” She also recognized another brother-in-law, whose nickname was “Kuti.” But she identified him correctly by his given name, Karuna, which even his neighbors didn’t know.

She also said that her first child, a son, had died while still an infant. This was true for the life of Mana. And Sukla tearfully recognized Mana’s daughter, Minu, and showered her with affection.

If there isn’t a normal way to explain this, maybe there is some other less-than-normal explanation. Perhaps Sukla learned about Mana and her family through extrasensory perception.

Research has clearly shown that there is such a thing as ESP. In rigidly controlled experiments, the late Dr. J. B. Rhine and other parapsychologists have shown persuasive evidence for telepathy (the ability to read another person’s thoughts) and clairvoyance (the ability to perceive objects and events without using your senses). And experiments have shown that both telepathy and clairvoyance can work over long distances.

But although ESP may seem hard to believe, to use it to explain a case like Sukla’s you’d have to believe in super-ESP. Not only would this five-year-old girl have to have incredible psychic powers, but she would have to use them to zero in on a specific family in an unfamiliar city and learn intimate details of their lives. She’d also have to be selective about what her psychic radar picked out, so that she’d “remember,” for example, the location of her father-in-law’s house but be unaware that the entrance had changed, since that took place after Mana’s death.

And then, for purposes yet unknown, Sukla would have to mold what she’d learned into a drama in which she immersed herself in the role of the departed Mana.

Most dramatic in Sukla’s case were her strong maternal emotions towards Minu. From babyhood Sukla had played at cradling Minu in her arms, and after she learned to talk she spoke of her longing to be with Minu. Sukla’s meeting with Minu had all the appearances of a tearful reunion between mother and daughter.

Once Mana’s cousin tested Sukla by falsely telling her that Minu, away in Rathtala, was ill with a high fever. Sukla began to weep, and it took a long time for her family to reassure her that Minu was actually well.

Minu was twelve and Sukla only five. And Minu had grown taller, so Sukla said, “I am small.” “But within this limitation,” Dr. Stevenson says, “Sukla exactly acted the role of a mother towards a beloved daughter.”

And after taking other possibilities into account, Dr. Stevenson cautiously submits that perhaps we can understand this case most suitably by accepting that Sukla was Minu’s mother, just as she thought herself to be.

This brings us back to the idea of reincarnation. Of course, science can never “prove” that reincarnation is a fact. For that matter, science can never actually “prove” anything. Through science, all we can do is gather data as carefully as possible and then try to explain them in the most consistent and reasonable way. And when the body of data grows, our explanations have to grow with it.

Because of the work of Dr. Stevenson and other researchers, we now find ourselves facing a considerable body of data suggesting that reincarnation is a fact.

Yet science doesn’t go far in making clear to us what that fact is.

How does it work? Why does it happen? Who or what is reincarnated? How long do you have to wait between births? Does it happen to all of us, or only a few?

Perhaps one day scientific investigation will come up with answers to these questions. For now, investigators can do little more than gather data and speculate.

So if reincarnation happens to everyone, you can figure on going through it yourself—perhaps countless times—before science even begins to figure out what’s going on.

The members of the Hare Krishna movement, however, have a different way of getting understanding.

Faced with an unfamiliar but complex machine, you can observe it and try to figure out how it works. You can monkey with the thing and see what happens. You can call in friends and get their ideas of what the pulleys, gears, and wires are supposed to do. And maybe you’ll figure it out. Maybe.

But the sure way to understand the machine is to learn about it from the person who built it.

So the direct way to understand the machinery of the universe—including the subtle machinery of reincarnation—is to learn about it from the person behind it.

That there’s a person behind this machine comes near to being self-evident. It’s axiomatic. Of course, you’re free to reject the axiom. But then you’re faced with the task of explaining how things “just happen” to work, how everything in the universe “just happens” to fit together, without any intelligence behind it.

You can say that everything happens “by chance” (which is no explanation at all). You can ascribe everything to some ultimate impersonal force that, without intelligence or volition, gets everything to work. Or you can sidestep the problem by saying that everything we see is merely an illusion: “The machine doesn’t even exist.” But then you have to explain where the illusion comes from. And that puts you right back where you started.

It’s easier and more reasonable, therefore, to assume that behind the workings of the cosmic machine is the supreme intelligence, or the Supreme Person. This is the entity to whom we refer when we use the name Krishna.

For various excellent reasons (explained elsewhere in the issues of this magazine), we accept that the book known as Bhagavad-gita conveys the words of Krishna Himself. So the members of the Hare Krishna movement, like devotees of Krishna for thousands of years, learn about reincarnation from the words of Bhagavad-gita

In Bhagavad-gita Krishna tells us that reincarnation happens to everyone. “For one who is born,” Krishna says, “death is certain. And after death one is sure to be born again.”

Krishna compares this journey through a succession of lives to the changing of clothing. Your true self—your “soul”—is eternal, but it goes through temporary bodies, one after another.

So it’s not that you “become a different person” when you change from one body to the next, any more than you become somebody else when you change your clothes or when you grow from a child to an adult. You’re always the same you, but you watch your body and mind transform from those of a child to those of a youth and then those of an old man or woman. Similarly, Krishna says, death is but a transformation from one body to the next.

Still, death is like nothing else under the sun. It’s the biggest jolt there is. And when we get to the other side, we forget all about what we were doing in the life before, just as a person who falls asleep forgets what he was doing during the day and then wakes up and forgets about his dreams.

In rare cases, though, memories may persist, as they apparently did with Sukla Gupta. Sukla remembered her home, her family, and her clothing from the previous life. She talked about the three saris she used to wear, especially the two made of fine Benares silk. And when she visited what she said was her former home, she found the saris stored in a trunk, jumbled in with clothing that belonged to others. She picked out the three saris she said were hers, and in fact they had been Mana’s.

Sukla talked about a brass pitcher in a particular room of the house. When she visited, the pitcher was still there. The room had been Mana’s bedroom, and Sukla correctly showed where Mana’s cot had previously been. And tears came to Sukla’s eyes when she saw her old sewing machine, the one that Mana had previously used.

But even if we forget our previous lives, they influence our present one nonetheless. The Bhagavad-gita says that it’s what we’ve done and thought in our past lives that determines what kind of body we start out with in this one. And by what we do in this life, we’re paving our way to the next.

According to the Bhagavad-gita, we’ve already been through many millions of lifetimes, and it’s possible we’ll have to go through many millions more. Some of them may be in human bodies and some in the bodies of lower forms like animals and trees.

But by spiritual realization, the Gita says, we can free ourselves from spinning through this endless cycle of incarnations. We can transcend material existence altogether and return to our eternal home, in the spiritual world with Krishna.

The Gita points out that each of us is eternal and Krishna is also eternal. And our real existence is our eternal life with Krishna.

As we travel from lifetime to lifetime, we can’t hold on to anything, for everything in the material world is temporary. Everything material fades away and ultimately loses meaning.

The Bhagavad-gita therefore advises that now, in this present human life, we should fully use our energy and time for spiritual realization.

By the time Sukla was seven, her memories of her former life had begun to fade. Yet even before the memories left her, that life was already gone. Sukla had mentioned that in her former life, as Mana, she’d had two cows and a parrot. But after Mana’s death the cows had died, and the parrot had flown away.


In Peace,

Twirlytoast

arthra

Baha'is do not accept reincarnation...nor do we accept the concept of incarnation..that the soul is incarnated in the body.

The soul we believe is associated with the body..The soul comes into being at conception and continues in the after life.

"Likewise the rewards of the other world are the eternal life which is clearly mentioned in all the Holy Books, the divine perfections, the eternal bounties, and everlasting felicity. The rewards of the other world are the perfections and the peace obtained in the spiritual worlds after leaving this world; whilst the rewards of this life are the real luminous perfections which are realized in this world, and which are the cause of eternal life, for they are the very progress of existence."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, pp. 323 - 324



We believe the soul after death ascends to the worlds of God.

twirlytoast

arthra, I know that the Bahai Faith doesn't accept reincarnation, however including Krishna and Buddha as Manifestations of God is surely strange as both promote reincarnation!

I believe that the soul is created before we enter our physical body and when the soul leaves the physical body at death it then returns Home, and is re-united with his/her loved ones. I also believe that there are many other planets which host other life forms - both in the physical and spiritual domains. Our wonderful planet Earth I believe also has a soul because she is a living being, which is proven by all that grows upon her



In Peace,

Twirlytoast,

Pollwr

I observed an interesting hypnosis when a person was taken back through their life and remembered a lot. Then the hypnotist took them futher and they started to remember another life. The woman who was hypnotised did not remember what street she lived in although she did remember the town. She was very believable.

The hypnotist said that it was his theory that people try to answer any questions and that she was trying to fabricate answers based on what information she had. He brought her out of the trance. He later started a conversation about the town she mentioned under hypnosis and happened to mention knowing someone living in a certain street. He had not discussed what she said under hypnosis.

The Hypnotist then put her under hypnosis again and took her right back to before when she was born and guess what? She said she lived on the street that he had mentioned with total conviction.

The hypnotist was a doctor who lectured on hypnosis and the medical uses of it. He had been present at my birth some years earlier. He did want to hypnotise me to recall my birth but I was not really comfortable with that idea and by the time I thought it would be interesting he was no longer alive!

Sboyce

Do they support incarnation? or has that been the interpretation man?
As for the Buddhist works which I read daily, i see nothing that the written word of Buddha says directly about a physical reincarnation.

Some people are born again in the womb;
wrong-doers go to hell;
the good go to heaven;
those free from worldly desires attain nirvana.

(Buddhist, Dhammapada - Sayings of the Buddha 2 (tr. J. Richards))

Sboyce

I think i came off a little aggressive, sorry toast!

What I'm trying to say is that the reincarnation that is thought of is the spiritual reincarnation when one is "reborn" finds "nirvana" and lives according to divine principles of the age.

It can also be a process of spiritual growth, in both this world and the world to come.

arthra

In our belief the original teachings of Krishna and the Buddha have been lost over time..

Thou hast asked concerning reincarnation: Reincarnation as understood by the people, is untrue; but in the Gospel, "return" is referred to, and that is the return of qualities [1] and not the return of entities.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v3, p. 549)

There is a statement though that refers to the Manifestations:

There is a reincarnation of the prophetic mission. Jesus Christ, speaking of John the Baptist, declared he was Elias. When John the 168 Baptist was questioned, "Art thou Elias?" he said, "I am not." These two statements are apparently contradictory, but in reality they do not contradict. The light is one light.

The light which illumined this lamp last night is illuminating it tonight. This does not mean that the identical rays of light have reappeared but the virtues of illumination. The light which revealed itself through the glass reveals itself again so that we can say the light of this evening is the light of last evening relighted. This is as regards its virtues and not as regards its former identity.

This is our view of reincarnation. We believe in that which Jesus Christ and all the Prophets have believed. For example, the Báb states, "I am the return of all the Prophets." This is significant of the oneness of the prophetic virtues, the oneness of power, the oneness of bestowal, the oneness of radiation, the oneness of expression, the oneness of revelation.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 167

The Bahá'í view of "reincarnation" is essentially different from the Hindu conception. The Bahá'ís believe in the return of the attributes and qualities, but maintain that the essence or the reality of things cannot be made to return. Every being keeps its own individuality, but some of his qualities can be transmitted. The doctrine of metempsychosis upheld by the Hindus is fallacious.

~ Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day, p. 201


I pretty sure of this but might have to research it but earth in our belief does not have a soul..nor does the sun ...

Only man or sentient beings have a soul.

Sboyce

I believe youre correct arthara. something along the lines of "man was chosen for this supernal grace"

arthra

Right you are..!

Found a quote from Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah:

Having created the world and all that liveth and moveth therein, He, through the direct operation of His unconstrained and sovereign Will, chose to confer upon man the unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him -- a capacity that must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation.... Upon the inmost reality of each and every created thing He hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a recipient of the glory of one of His attributes.

Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty.

~ Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 65

LordOfGoblins

Reincarnation like all religious things, is difficult to disprove for anyone willing to believe in it.
I have come up with a couple of points:
1. If everything that leaves returns then nothing new is created and this is contrary to Gods creativity.
2. If everything that leaves returns only to leave again and return until they reach enlightenment then its like we have infinite chances to reach our high stations. Therefore there is no urgency to be good the first time around as we can always be good on the 500th time we come back and then attain to heaven. This seems contrary to fairness...
3. A man cannot become an animal because he has a mans soul. For him to become an animal his soul must be changed to an animal soul therefore he is no longer a man. Besides once a become reincarnated as a bacterium how can I do good deeds to climb back up the ladder? Animals dont do good or evil they just do (according to instincts).

What do you think of my points?
cheers

LordOfGoblins

lastly it should be noted Bahais also believe in reincarnation in a sense. But our reincarnation is into the spiritual world not back into this one...

BruceDLimber

Which means, of course, that the "carnation" part of the word is simply false on its face because since the Next Life is spiritual, there IS no body, no "carnal" part!

Thus the entire term is misleading at best--hence Baha'is' general non-use of it and the abovementioned stress on attiributes rather than bodies.

Peace,

Bruce

twirlytoast

arthra,

In our belief the original teachings of Krishna and the Buddha have been lost over time..

arthra, can you back this up? "It is our belief" is not enough!!! It is akin to my saying I believe that our wonderful planet has a soul! I cannot prove this, but you cannot disprove it either! Each living entity has a life force(spirit, soul, energy - whatever you care to choose), and must be treated with respect; imagine if we all lived by this one simple sentence, how different life would be!

All life is precious! Take this brief example as proof:-

a plant, an ordinary every day plant was being experimented upon. Its leaves were attached to electrodes to monitor its reactions. The scientist then lit a match and burnt a leaf, the plant reacted! The graph "spiked"! Then the scientist asked a person to think of striking a match and burning the leaf, and you know what! The plant reacted and the graph "spiked"!
Remember years ago how people laughed at Prince Charles because he spoke to his plants?! They aren't laughing now! More tests were carried out on plants, this time with music; plants prefer classical music and don't like rock music! This shows that plants do have feelings, and that all life is precious; and to say that Man is the pinnacle of God's creation is absurd!
Whoever created Life must have great reservations about having created Man! We are a destructive race, a violent and war thirsty breed. We kill for pleasure! We are destroying this beautiful planet, and all for greed! Their are no animals who even come close to our vile standards! I am ashamed of the human race, and I view it as a two legged virus. Being human saddens me!
I also appreciate that their are good people on this planet, but they are outweighed by those who are not! We are a deluded species who think we are superior to every species on planet Earth, I would disagree! I admire and love dolphins, whales, horses, dogs and rats! These animals have a strong sense of loyalty and honor the family and society they are from. Even the ant looks after his own! I read of a study where worker ants upon reaching a certain age were given an easier role within their community; amazing, simply amazing - the "lowly" ant!
I have digressed somewhat! I hope I have contributed in some way to this discussion! Life is more complex than what is written in what are termed holy scriptures, and Man needs to realise how insignificant he really is in the scheme of things. He can fool himself by thinking he is God's prize creation, but I would say show me the proof! And no one can!!!

Sboyce - hey man, you didn't come across as aggressive

LordOfGoblins Reincarnation like all religious things, is difficult to disprove for anyone willing to believe in it.
I have come up with a couple of points:
1. If everything that leaves returns then nothing new is created and this is contrary to Gods creativity.

Toast says: not so! new life is always being discovered here on planet Earth. Take the oceans, deep ocean life; only about 3% of what exists in the deepest depths have been discovered! Up on the sunny side of Earth we are discovering new animal species and insect life! The creator is always, ahem, creating! What spiritual worlds await us?! We can only guess!!! My guess is we are in for an amazing journey when we exit this physical plane of existence!
2. If everything that leaves returns only to leave again and return until they reach enlightenment then its like we have infinite chances to reach our high stations. Therefore there is no urgency to be good the first time around as we can always be good on the 500th time we come back and then attain to heaven. This seems contrary to fairness...
Toast says: speculation! I appreciate were your coming from, and some folk will think like this; and yet other will not, and will want to evolve as fast as they can! When one realises the truth of our existence then one works to achieve that goal. I certainly have an urgency to achieve the standards required to leave this place behind!
3. A man cannot become an animal because he has a mans soul. For him to become an animal his soul must be changed to an animal soul therefore he is no longer a man. Besides once a become reincarnated as a bacterium how can I do good deeds to climb back up the ladder? Animals dont do good or evil they just do (according to instincts).
Toast says: I agree, Man cannot become an animal! We are all created differently, and so our individual destinies are unique. Animals do carry out good deeds, an example, a dolphin who rescued a man whose ship had sunk; without the dolphin this man would have died. In my eyes this is an act of goodness! It depends upon the animal concerned, and the dolphin is a highly evolved creature who lives in a family and society setting. So animals do in fact do good deeds! My own pet dog did many good deeds, she kept me going when I was seriously ill; she knew how ill I was and kept a close watch on me. Their are many, many stories of animals doing good deeds, they don't all behave according to instincts! On the other side of the coin what of people who physically and sexually abuse children? We all agree this is a most horrific crime, and yet such vile crimes are committed daily. The human being is capable of much more callous acts than animals! So, are we really as special as some think we are? Personally, I don't!

In Peace,

Twirlytoast

Livindesert

This will explain what you are looking for.

Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith

Lunitik

I have not read this thread, for this I apologize.

What I would like to ask, however, is what exactly your purpose is to questioning the existence of Jesus?

arthra

Basically if you inquire about various issues here and ask what the Baha'i perspective is and how we view things then the response will be what we have learned from our Writings and what we can deduce from other sources..so what follows is a response to the statement:

In our belief the original teachings of Krishna and the Buddha have been lost over time..

arthra, can you back this up? "It is our belief" is not enough!!!

It's enough for Baha'is..actually what we're describing is very common:

A Messenger of God comes and over time His teachings get lost.. They're misunderstood or forgotten:

Some of these heavenly messengers have been killed, some imprisoned; all of them despised and rejected while proclaiming the reality of divinity. Soon after their departure from this world, the essential truth of their teachings was lost sight of and dogmatic imitations adhered to.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 225

We cannot be sure of the authenticity, word for word, of any of the past Holy Scriptures except the Qur'án, as they were either not written down during the Prophet's lifetime or have been changed in the course of time and the originals lost;

Letter from the Guardian 6/22/1943

(Compilations, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 21)


The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Baha'u'llah

. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)


The books of the Báb have not as yet been printed in the original. Except for the Bayan, the Seven Proofs and Commentary on the Surih of Joseph, we cannot be sure of the authenticity of most of His other works as the text has been corrupted by the unfaithful.

(Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day, p. 94)

From other sources..

There are at least three canons of Buddhist scriptures and the earliest was composed centuries after the Buddha lived:

The various histories of Buddhism record two Fourth Buddhist Councils, and at one of these, convened in Sri Lanka in the 1st century BCE, the Tripitaka was written out on palm leaves. After centuries of being memorized and chanted, the Pali Canon finally existed as written text.

How the Tripitaka Came to Be Written

See:

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....2,9668,0,0,1,0

If you consider the Bhagavad Gita

The date and authorship of the Gītā are not known with certainty and scholars of an earlier generation opined that it was composed between the 5th and the 2nd century BCE.[11][15][16] Radhakrishnan, for example, asserted that the origin of the Gītā is in the pre-Christian era.[11] More recent assessments of Sanskrit literature, however, have tended to bring the chronological horizon of the texts up in time. In the case of the Gītā, John Brockington has now made cogent arguments that it can be placed in the first century CE.[17

Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not that we don't respect past scriptures because we do.. It's simply that we can't be sure they're authentic.

twirlytoast

This is OP:-


Historical Evidence - lack of?!
Hello!

I am not a Bahai, although I do respect the Bahai Faith most highly, and if I were ever to join a religion then I would choose the Bahai Faith.

I have in the past been a Buddhist, Christian and a Taoist; amongst other things! I have a nomadic streak in me!

My question relates to the lack of historical evidence for Jesus Christ. I believe the term Christ simply means teacher, please correct me if I am wrong. I am reading a book, "Jesus, Last of The Pharoahs" by Ralph Ellis, which is extremely well written and well researched:-

Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs: Jesus Was an Egyptian Prince in Exile Egyptian Testament: Amazon.co.uk: Ralph Ellis: Books

You can also watch Ralph Ellis on You Tube, and bored you shall not be!!!

I look forward to your replies

In Peace,

Twirlytoast

Lunitik, I hope the above was self explanatory

If it were to discovered that Jesus Christ(Messiah) never existed, then you can imagine what the knock on effects would be from that! The edge of darkness would then consume all religion adhering folk!

Again, In Peace,

TT

twirlytoast

arthra,

I fully respect the Bahai viewpoint, I mean no disrespect. But just to dwell on this word, "viewpoint", isn't this the same viewpoint that seperates the christian faith? Thats why we have baptists, adventists etc! Are their similar fractions within the Baith?

If I were to choose a religion, then Bahai it would be; I have come close several times!

And I would like to express my sincerest thanks to all who have contributed to this thread, I have learnt much.

In Peace,

TT

Clex19

twirlytoast, I'd like to say that we are not trying to convince you of our beliefs as Bahá'ís; we just want to be able to answer your questions as best we can and help you understand our answers.

twirlytoast

CLex19, don't think our paths have crossed! so hello from TT!!!

I know! But I want everyone to know that I am being respectful. I am an honorable man.

In Peace,

TT

Clex19

@TT

Yeah, I'm not on here frequently. I think the last time I logged on was several months ago. Anyways, thanks for being respectful, and I hope to follow your shining example.

Orthodox

Im not going to read everything you said but I would just point out that the dead sea scrolls did not contain the gospel of Thomas you are thinking of the Nag hammadi manuscripts, which are likely coptic versions of earlier greek texts written in the mid late second century. THe Gospel of Thomas has no real credibilioty and there is good reason to assert that it's primary source are the four canonical gospels. It was not written by the apostle. Now you say the gospels contradict. I say certain gospels omit certain details but I haven't seen any so called contradiction which cannot be resolved. But I will grant this premise. That does not disprove the historicity of such gospels as even the most skeptic of scholars will tell you Christ died on the cross and the Apostles had experiences in which they saw the risen Christ.

LordOfGoblins

1. Nothing new is created. If things are reincarnated from a previous form then everything comes from something already existing. Thus Gods creativity is not acknowledged. ie God creating from scratch shows his creativity not God just changing the forms of things to reincarnate them into a new form once they die.
2. But infinate chances implies unfairness. Ie if we can take as long as we can to obtain the same station as someone who is sincere to begin with then that is unfair. I guess its a matter of opinion.
3.Bahais would argue as would some scientists that animals infact to not do good or bad deads they just act according to their nature. It may seem like a good or bad deed to us but in fact it is their nature. ie Dolphins will always act this way and save men in certain circumstances by pushing them to the surface because that is how they assist their own kind because they are mammels. A shark however who is no more evil than a dolphin will never do this because it is contrary to its nature. Man however is the only animal we see that acts to both extremes... Think about. A bacterium will never commit a good deed. It will just act like a bacterium acts.
many people would argue animals have no free will. A well behaved dog likewise will act that way because it is trained to do so. Either that or it is well-natured or a combination.

twirlytoast

Lord of Goblins, I view death as a natural process, its a door which leads us back Home. I have had an out of body experience, and so have seen a part of what awaits us - and yes it is a beautiful Place.

In Peace,

TT

twirlytoast

Orthodox, thanks for putting me right on the Nag Hammadi. However their are contradictions and not omitions in the New Testament Gospel's, and here are a few examples:-

Who Carries Jesus’ Cross?:

In the Passion narratives, did Jesus carry his own cross or not?

Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene
and in
John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way

not exactly an omission!

more:-

Does Jesus Drink Wine or Vinegar?:

Jesus is given something to drink while he is on the cross, but what?

Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink
Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink
John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks

not exactly an omission!

finally:-

Jesus’ last words before dying are important, but no one seems to have written then down.

Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”)
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”


Orthodox, these are contradictions and not omissions. Books written by men are fallible, even the "inspired by God" line doesn't hold water for me! Even now their are men who claim to be either the messiah or the chosen one, inspired by God; lock 'em up I say!

Alan Watts
How We Got The Bible


Alan Watts! Incedible piece!

In Peace,

TT

arthra

Alan Watts.. Thanks for sharing that.

He did have a background in the Christian church..

Pursuing a career, he attended Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, where he received a master's degree in theology. Watts became an Episcopalian priest but left the ministry in 1950

- wikipedia bio. on Alan Watts

I read his

1953 Myth and Ritual in Christianity, Beacon Press 1971, ISBN 0-8070-1375-7

Many many years ago..It's an interesting read.

One of the main points of his lecture is that scriptures in the past were largely concocted or assembled later and were hence not reliable sources.. for the most part.

In the Baha'i view the Qur'an is more reliable.. the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah even more so..

twirlytoast

LordOfGoblins;12111]1. Nothing new is created. If things are reincarnated from a previous form then everything comes from something already existing. Thus Gods creativity is not acknowledged. ie God creating from scratch shows his creativity not God just changing the forms of things to reincarnate them into a new form once they die.

Toast says: you, not I, can say that nothing new is created; you are implying a stagnant Universe, and this is not so! We can never say with confidence what God does or doesn't do, we cannot even comprehend what God is! New lifeforms are still being discovered today, so obviously their are new lifeforms being created.
2. But infinate chances implies unfairness. Ie if we can take as long as we can to obtain the same station as someone who is sincere to begin with then that is unfair. I guess its a matter of opinion.
Toasty says: I disagree! Infinite chances implies a truly loving Creator! Not the jealous and vengeful God of the Old Testament! Each soul being unique will evolve at different rates, not all are going to take "forever" to attain enlightenment!
3.Bahais would argue as would some scientists that animals infact to not do good or bad deads they just act according to their nature. It may seem like a good or bad deed to us but in fact it is their nature. ie Dolphins will always act this way and save men in certain circumstances by pushing them to the surface because that is how they assist their own kind because they are mammels. A shark however who is no more evil than a dolphin will never do this because it is contrary to its nature. Man however is the only animal we see that acts to both extremes... Think about. A bacterium will never commit a good deed. It will just act like a bacterium acts.
many people would argue animals have no free will. A well behaved dog likewise will act that way because it is trained to do so. Either that or it is well-natured or a combination.
Toast says: the earth was flat acording to scientists! scientists are not infallible either! On the matter of dolphins, I believe the act of saving a human was done so because the dolphin cares. Which is exceptional when you consider how humans treat dolphins, check out how the Japanese murder these wonderful creatures in a most hellish manner. As for the shark, it has a different nature, and so it is a creature which we would rather avoid! I know of another story were a dog and an elephant developed a most beautiful friendship which is unheard of! How many friendships do you know of between a dog and an elephant! None I would guess! Man needs to realise that he knows nothing of what life is truly about, because the more that is known then the more that their is that is unknown. On the nature of man, we are capable of extremes of behaviour, we can love, and we can abuse! So in reality LOG we are still savages! I would not put Man on any kind of pedestal. In my opinion we are but a destructive virus which gets worse day by day. Just take a look at what is happening today in our world, take Man out of the equation and then Earth would be a beautiful Paradise. We are spoilers who need to fool ourselves into thinking differently!

In Peace,

TT

Orthodox

17 And bearing his own cross, he went forth to the place which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha.

It does not say he bore his cross all the way. It is omition.

Now as for the last part of the last words of Jesus, they are just omition, they do not all say they are the last words of Christ so they do not contradict each other.

Now I don't need Alan watt to explain how we got the bible. I know how we got it. the bible books of the Nt were predominantly written in the first century and carried by specific churches and used in specific areas. As Christianity became more prominent something called a canon began to develop, the earliest of which are the four gospels whom the church tells us are authoritative, recorded by St Iraneaus. The time in which we get a complete list is thanks to saint Athanasius in which he lists the 27 New testament canon, though the canon from what I have seen has never been officially defined in eccumenical council. Read real historians.

Lunitik

I do not care to dispute this, except to ask who is defining "real historian"... we cannot simply pick and choose based on which matches our point best.

Fact of the matter is, there exists versions of the Bible that extend certain texts, proving the Catholic Church has edited them. There are also various books omitted because they don't comply with Catholic dogma. Based on this ability to pick and choose, can we trust those obviously hiding things?

Orthodox

I agree, but people who claim Jesus is based off older myths, can be pretty much rejected. Archyra S and all her ilk. They are not historians.

Lunitik

Well, the similarities are unavoidable, I'm afraid. As I stated, Paul says he has made Christianity all things for all people - basically telling us, right in the bible, that he has catered to others when writing.

Personally, I like to go by dates when deciding which came first... call me crazy.

Orthodox

Lunatik, untill you can provide your primary sources you have no right to accuse the apostle Paul of lying to make Jesus more acceptable. The Apostles and the NT as a whole is clear on who Jesus is. Similarities do exist such as various figures committing miracles, but they are not miracles in the nature of Christ. That is just patently rediculous. And if you like to decide by which was first, give your pre Christian primary source. Or a reputable historical scholar, like NT Wright.

Lunitik

Name a single miracle of Christ that is original to him alone.

Orthodox

His physical ressurection. No miracle committed by a pagan God matches that of this miracle. There are stories of people being reborn as a tree or something similar in sense that represents nature, but to be ressurected for the sake of gloryfying yourself is not a theme amongst paganism. The Closest you come to is that myth about the Egyptian God Horus who has his limbs chopped up and sown back to gether and he becomes the God of the underworld. Which isn't relatable to the sense Jesus was raised.