Yeshua

I'm not suggesting he was a flawless angel, a Son of God, a Manifestation or a prophet He was an Emperor who lived in one of the most barbarous periods of history when common citizens of Rome actually enjoyed watching innocent men and women hacking each other apart and getting eaten by lions in the colesseum. For his time and taking into account the fact that he'd been brought up a warrior in a bloody time of civil war, the worst period of Roman history, I think he was very advanced for his era. He brought in full religious liberty, for the first time in history, ended the Roman Gladiatorial Games, banned crucifixtion and other cruel forms of torture and increased the social welfare of citizens of the Empire.

He wasn't flawless but I think all in all he was a big improvement on say the likes of Nero or Calilgula.

And as I explained we don't know what really happened to Crispus and Fausta. Historians seem to agree that:

- Fausta and Crispus were having a sexual relationship
- Fausta claimed that Crispus had raped her
- For this Constantine exiled his son to a faraway island, as he usually did for adulterers
- Crispus, Constantine's beloved son (and I mean he REALLY appears to have doted upon him from the sources, since he groomed him to be the next caesar) was then found dead with poison. He should have been hanged, if he was executed, which tells us that he must have taken his own life
- His mother Helena was saddened and agrieved by her beloved grandson's death that she told Constantine that Fausta had lied. Crispus hadn't raped her, rather they'd been having an illicit relationship.
- Fausta appears to have become pregnant and gone into a hot bath to try and induce an abortion
- OR She died mysteriously and no one knows why.

Historians all agree that Fausta and Crispus were not political rivals to Constantine. So if he did have them executed then we are left with only one conclusion: They committed adultery and that was there crime.

But we do not know if Constantine did actually have them both killed.

Lunitik

I actually have looked into the dates, as well as watched several documentaries on the topic that had been researched in depth. It is most generally accepted (read, outside direct Church circles) that these documents are at the earliest around 150 AD. It is certainly not a forgone conclusion in academia that they were written by the stated authors, especially given that it is now evident that early thought leaders presented their views through recognized figures of authority. In actuality, it is suggested that the earliest Christian text in existence is actually the Gospel of Thomas and that this might be where much of the other material originates due to this.

Either way, however, dates are rather confusing. Are they actually using the Julian Calendar at this time? The Gregorian Calendar was not invented until around 1500 AD and was not started accurately, it is off by 45 years compared to the Julian Calendar - which, coincidentally, may support the Ptolemy positions. It is most widely accepted that Jesus was born between 10-5 BC however, thus he would have been 30 in around 20 AD. Most of the Apostles died relatively soon after Jesus was crucified, with only John living into old age. This means it is highly unlikely they were alive even in the years you posit, unless you know something I don't and these Apostles actually lived 20, 35 and 50 years longer - highly unlikely in this time.

It really gets complicated trying to conclude anything from these statements. For instance, if the original texts actually are dated by the Julian Calendar, this means that on the Gregorian Calendar Jesus would have been crucified around 12 BC and thus even the dates you posit are off considerably more than I have already stipulated.

Yeshua

Yes 150 AD. You have confirmed my point exactly! Thank you, thank you.

There are fragments of the Gospel of John, the last Gospel of the NT, dating from 120 AD! This means it was circulated much earlier, and written around 90 AD. And that's the last written Gospel! A mere 50-60 years after Jesus' death and some of the apostles could still even have been alive in AD 90!

Now compare that with 150 AD for the Gnostics. That's the earliest ones - at least 120 years after Jesus' death. That's like me writing the "Gospel of Baha'u'll'ah" today and claiming I knew him first-hand. The Gospel of Philip was written in the third century - we're talking 250 years after Jesus' death. The Baha'i Faith hasn't even reached its 250th year yet! And yet you're willing to believe the testimony of these writers over and above that of the canonical gospels? You see what I mean? You cannot possibly claim these texts are as authentic or more authentic than the canonicals or Thomas. That's like trying to deny that the sun exists, or that we all have two eyes. I'm amazed.

All of the Canon Gospels where written in the first century. Yes, they weren't written directly by any of the Twelve Apostles but their based upon their memoirs and writings and are a mere generation or two apart.

The Gospel of Thomas, yes I fully agree it is very early in origin. Most scholars date it to 50-150 AD. I personally side with the early camp. In its original form I'd say it was written at the same time as Mark, about 60 AD. But Thomas is not a Gnostic gospel my friend Its commonly misunderstood as Gnostic but there is no Gnostic theology in it at all.

Now that's not to say Gnostic texts are "rubbish" or mere fiction just because there written between 120-230 years after Jesus' death. If I wrote a biography about Baha'u'llah this year, I would base my biography on the basis of first-hand, early material on his life. That's my point. Gnostic material is often based upon older written documents and oral traditions. These documents have been gnosticized and redacted but genuine ancient traditions exist. This is the scholarly view, since texts in the ancient world were often written upon the basis of older texts. But you cannot possibly call these "first-hand".

To claim that the Gospel of Judas, or the Gospel of Philip or the Apochryphon of John is a first-hand account of Jesus, with more veracity than the canonicals, is like me saying that Moojan Momen's biography of Baha'u'llah is more accurate than the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha or first-hand accounts of Baha'u'llah's life.

And I don't understand what the Julian or Gregorian calendar has to do with anything. The Gregorian calendar does not have a 45 year difference from the Julian, where on earth did you hear that from? The Julian Calendar off by 45 years!? The Julian Calendar was off by 11 SECONDS between vernal equinoxes!!!!!

I'm gob-smacked.

The Gospel of John was written around AD 90. The first of the Gnostic Gospels were written around 150 AD.

This means that the FIRST of the Gnostic Gospels were written 60 YEARS AFTER the LAST of the New Testament Gospels. Now if scholars can cast doubt on the historicity of parts or most of the Gospel of John, what do you think this means for the Gnostic Gospels?

Lunitik

Julian calendar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Julian calendar began in 45 BC (709 AUC) as a reform of the Roman calendar by Julius Caesar." It set Ptolemy's birth as the first year - you'll recall he is the child of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar, former accepted as the incarnation of Isis the virgin Goddess of Egypt the latter declared God by the Roman republic. Thus, a child born of a virgin mother who was also the Son of God. I find it interesting that Catholic documents do not at least attempt to justify the error in some dates due to Pope Gregory XIII's mistake. Of course, Ptolemy spent much time in India leaving when he was 12, and most of the stories in the Bible can be found in Indian tradition.

Anyway, can you explain how you draw conclusion that since the earliest known copies are from 150 AD we can conclude these are from much earlier. Also, what rationale do you have for any of the Apostles living to 90 AD even if you posit correctly? It is rare for people in modern times to live this long, let alone 2000 years ago. Also, carbon dating shows when the document came to being, and is fairly accurate. I uphold that there would have been traditions prior already, but how do we know these were the most prevalent? Of course, we might never know since the victors always write the history.

Lunitik

This would also explain why Jesus was placed on the cross, he would have been seen as the rightful air to Rome and likely started a revolt. I am not saying this cannot mean he is the Messiah, but many things correlate if we assume early texts use the Julian Calendar and that Pope Gregory XIII masked this fact by realigning the dates. In early tradition Jesus was born in the year 0 of the calendar, now the best we can get is "sometime prior to year 0". There is no record of a person called Jesus despite Joseph returning to register himself and Mary for taxes while she was pregnant, why? Surely the Romans would have preferred to take as much as possible? It is quite clear that Jesus was not born with the name Yeshua and that it is a title.

Effectively, however, according to history Jesus simply never existed. All we are given to base his existence on is the accounts of various poor people and a tax collector - suspicious to say the least. I personally prefer to align him with a historical figure as it gives credence.

Lunitik

I mean, convincing people to pay 10% of their finances to a tax collector and his clients to avoid them being killed for failure to pay is pretty reasonable. This, however, leaves us with a 2000+ year hoax.

Yet, the core teachings are found in disparate groups, often times at complete odds. Groups that simply could not have come into contact, yet they have drawn the exact same conclusions about the world - why? What if all religions are based on various stories attempting to explain something they were exposed to? What if none of it is necessarily based on fact, only attempting to explain the sheer power of the one commonly known as God? The more I study different faiths, the more this theory seems to surface.

Thing is, in studying things ranging from the Big Bang to Quantum mechanics to String theory, I see the same things in the Science community as many religious circles have always taught... coincidence?

arthra

This thread seems to have gone far beyond it's original purpose and has very little to do with Baha'i beliefs..

Regarding the story above regarding Constantine..

The reason for this act remains unclear and historians have long debated Constantine's motivation:

Zosimus in the 5th century and Joannes Zonaras in the 12th century both reported that Fausta, stepmother of Crispus, was extremely jealous of him. She was reportedly afraid that Constantine would put aside the sons she bore him. So, in order to get rid of Crispus, Fausta set him up. She reportedly told the young Caesar that she was in love with him and suggested an illegitimate love affair. Crispus denied the immoral wishes of Fausta and left the palace in a state of a shock. Then Fausta said to Constantine that Crispus had no respect for his father, since the Caesar was in love with his father's own wife. She reported to Constantine that she dismissed him after his attempt to rape her. Constantine believed her and, true to his strong personality and short temper, executed his beloved son. A few months later, Constantine reportedly found out the whole truth and then killed Fausta.

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispus


It is not unlike that to me of the tragic and often sordid lives of the previous Roman Emperors.. Constantine was not that different from his forebears..

Same could be said of the Emperor Asoka:

Ashoka is said to have been of a wicked nature and bad temper. He submitted his ministers to a test of loyalty and had 500 of them killed. He also kept a harem of around 500 women. Once when certain lot of these women insulted him, he had the whole lot of them burnt to death.

But his contributions to India were also great later in his lifetime..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_...est_of_Kalinga

They might have been able administrators but they were hardly saints...but as converts to the new Manifestations they helped form a greater unity in society in their respective realms thus the Religion of God brings forth an ever advancing civilization..and like the lotus in it's beauty rises from the common mud..

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-4.html

Yeshua

I see completely what you are saying Arthra But I don't think it really negates what I'm saying either.

Constantine and Ashoka were both flawed men. But through them Jesus and Buddha impacted positively upon civilisation. Lunitik does not however seem to recognize the benefits Constantine's rule brought.

I thank you though for striking the balance. We can often put people up on a pedastel but these two men, great as they were, were both Emperors. They had Empires.

Can I ask one question though: That horrible episode, tragic like Constantine's, in which Ashoka murdered those women - did it take place before or after his conversion to Buddhism?

As far as I was aware, Ashoka was very cruel before becoming a Buddhist. It was after his conversion that he became a great and humanistic ruler. If it happened before his conversion, then I don't think we can use it as an example of his brutality since, he had not yet been "enlightened" by Buddhist ethics. According to the story a Buddhist friend told me (although he may be biased) Ashoka was waging a war one day when he came upon the teachings of Buddha and suddenely looked around in horror at all the taking of innocent lives. He then swore from that minute onward never to take life again uneccessarily and became, in effect, pacifist-minded.

As for Constantine, we know that he had a very quick and rash temper. He often acted impulsively, as we can see in the case of his son and wife. And yet he was loved by Pagans - and hailed even by non-Christians as a liberator.

During his life and those of his sons, Constantine was presented as a paragon of virtue. Even pagans like Praxagoras of Athens and Libanius showered him with praise. Since non-Christians are not going to be biased, I find it strange that they did not seem to perceive his "cruel side". Also you yourself must admit that we don't really have a clue what actually happened to his wife and son. The jury is out so to speak, its very mysterious and we can suspect foul play on Constantine's part but without hard evidence can we actually use this strange episode as evidence of his "dark side"?

He was certainly flawed though - deeply - but I just don't now if we can use an episode we basically know nothing about, except hypotheses and speculations, to make a decision on his character...

But quite apart fom his character - I merely wish for Lunitik to understand that his effect on civilisation was positive on the whole, just as was Ashoka's and Cyrus the Great's and the Caliph Al-Ma-mun...regardless of their well "peculiar" traits and "personal faults"....They were each the most powerful men at their time - and absolute power can go to one's head!

That's the saving grace of modern democracy...Ultimately though it is Buddha and Jesus that matter - not Ashoka and Constantine - but if one cannot recognize the benefits that Buddha and Jesus brought through Ashoka and Constantine, then to my mind its sort of a slap v Buddha and Jesus...

Yeshua

Also, please read this Lunitik:

"The sayings ascribed to Jesus can be found in four very short gospels, plus several apochryphal gospels and a scattering of quotes...All of these writings (except some of the apochryphal gospels) are generally agreed to have been composed within a lifespan of Jesus' teaching ministry, that is, by around 100AD. Teachings ascribed to Buddha are by contrast immense, spanning several cultures and languages, and mostly written several centuries after the death of the Buddha. It would be impossible to discern which of these sayings are 'authentic' to the Buddha. As a result a huge academic industry has developed in modern times devoted to discerning the 'authentic' sayings of Jesus. There is (obviously) no equivalent industry in Buddhism" - Ross Thompson

I feel this is self-explanatory. Apart from the Qur'an - which is of Muhammad - the Islamic Hadiths are near completely unreliable. The Gospels are a more reliable representation of the life of Jesus than any of the other biographies of Krishna, Buddha or Muhammad from ancient times are.

We can never find the 'authentic' sayings of Muhammad outwith the Qur'an. We can never find any of the authentic sayings of Buddha. We certainly can never find any of the authentic sayings of Krishna.

With Jesus, we have a core nexus of authentic sayings that have been corroborated by scholarship.

You simply don't have that level of concrete evidence with any other religious figure of history apart from Baha'u'llah. Indeed I'd go as far as saying that apart from Jesus, the Qur'an, the Bab and Baha'u'llah - we have NO evidence or authentic teachings from ANY other major religious leader.

Lunitik

Was there such a thing as heresy in the Church before Constantine declared a uniformed Gospel? I certainly have not see such a thing mentioned by Jesus, perhaps you can correct me on this? I can't help wonder how much more advanced spiritually man could have been if a given faith had not become a way to keep subjects in line by those in power. To praise the actions of these individuals is - in my opinion - to favor adoption over depth.

I am not familiar with Ashoko particularly, but I find it strange you have brought up Caliph Al-Ma-mun since he basically spent his life waring with Christians in Byzantine. You state, however, that being so powerful can go to ones head. For me, this is exactly why I cannot praise any of them. God is the only one worthy of power in this universe, these are men that have allowed themselves to take on the role of God in their society. Baha'u'llah has written quite a lot about no man being above or below another, that we are all equal creatures below God. Even those given power are given it by God and should be fair with it, but in each of the men that have been brought up in this discussion we see glaring examples of how they were FAR from fair.

Yeshua

"Heresy" or rather beliefs deemed to be false and not from Jesus, are mentioned as early as the Book of Revelation 90AD, in which the writer condemns numerous "false Churches" such as the followers of the self-proclaimed prophet Jezebel. The Three Letters of John are all about "traitors" and "false believers" leading "astray the flock". In fact the entire New Testament is full of such references - and these books were all written (on the whole) within the first century AD!

It is no different from modern Baha'i covenant-breakers. Jesus even warned about "false prophets" who are "wolves in sheeps clothing"...I really don't know what Bible you've been reading lol

So Constantine did not invent 'heresy'. He had nothing to do with the council apart from convening it, he was not a theologian but a secular ruler, he took no part in religious proceedings apart from providing the venue. Woah! That's a heck of a lot of influence isn't it?

Yeshua

Well I have bad news Every religion has had a mighty Emperor or King who has converted to it and established it. Baha'u'llah predicted such a King who would arise to spread the Baha'i Faith. He might be a President, perhaps, in todays terms but since Baha'u'llah favoured constitutional monarchy I would place a bet that he might actually be royal...

So the Baha'i 'Constantine' will one day come on the scene Will history repeat itself? Well Cyrus, Ashoka and Constantine - are all almost IDENTICAL to each other. For Judaism it was King Solomon and lo! and behold he was the wisest man in the whole world but at the end of his life and golden age became enamoured of foreign women and even dabbled with false gods. Great man? Yes. Incredible positive influence on world? yes. But deeply flawed? Oh yeahhh....

Its actually EERIE when you read about them, there lives are so similar and they were all the most powerful men in the world at their respective times.

So yeah, keep your eyes peeled

Lunitik

Being more reliable does not mean they are infallible at all. Much in the Hadiths are rejected by various groups within Islam, and is actually where things like the war aspects of Jihad come into the picture as a glaring example. This word, as far as I can tell, is actually the Arabic form of the Hebrew Israel - both mean "to strive or struggle with God".

We know that even in Buddhas time, there was in that part of the world the ability to record every word, so why did no one do so? Same goes for Christ, if there were so many people around him - not only the apostles, but it seems often he had much larger groups including the women and others attracted to him - why did none consider writing anything down? For me, this is a glaring omission, and exactly why I choose to research all religious texts and extract that which is the same through them all - which is essentially everything except the characters involved - and glorify God rather than the lives of men (yes, this includes separating Christian discussions into the actions of the flesh and spirit, and thus recognizing much of what is glorified about Jesus as actually describing God.)

Lunitik

Most scholars paint quite a different role for Constantine, most would agree that everything included had to pass by his inspection for instance. The Bishops present essentially only set out the basic tenants they wanted to remain. Many would agree that in fact Constantine created a new Faith based on how much was omitted that was popular at that time.

arthra

Yeshua wrote:

Ultimately though it is Buddha and Jesus that matter - not Ashoka and Constantine - but if one cannot recognize the benefits that Buddha and Jesus brought through Ashoka and Constantine, then to my mind its sort of a slap v Buddha and Jesus...

This was the Baha'i principle I was citing above..

Implicit in these paragraphs is a perspective which represents the most challenging feature of Bahá'u'lláh's exposition of the function of the Manifestation of God. Divine Revelation is, He says, the motive power of civilization. When it occurs, its transforming effect on the minds and souls of those who respond to it is replicated in the new society that slowly takes shape around their experience. A new center of loyalty emerges that can win the commitment of peoples from the widest range of cultures; music and the arts seize on symbols that mediate far richer and more mature inspirations; a radical redefinition of concepts of right and wrong makes possible the formulation of new codes of civil law and conduct; new institutions are conceived in order to give expression to impulses of moral responsibility previously ignored or unknown: "He was in the world, and the world was made by him..."47 As the new culture evolves into a civilization, it assimilates achievements and insights of past eras in a multitude of fresh permutations. Features of past cultures that cannot be incorporated atrophy or are taken up by marginal elements among the population. The Word of God creates new possibilities within both the individual consciousness and human relationships.

Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God is endowed with such potency as can instill new life into every human frame... All the wondrous works ye behold in this world have been manifested through the operation of His supreme and most exalted Will, His wondrous and inflexible Purpose.... No sooner is this resplendent word uttered, than its animating energies, stirring within all created things, give birth to the means and instruments whereby such arts can be produced and perfected.... In the days to come, ye will, verily, behold things of which ye have never heard before.... Every single letter proceeding out of the mouth of God is indeed a mother letter, and every word uttered by Him Who is the Well Spring of Divine Revelation is a mother word....48

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-4.html

Again we seem to be no closer though to the original purpose of this thread..

Lunitik

Just because the same is prophesied to occur in the Baha'i Faith does not mean I agree with it at all. In fact, I somewhat fear it as what might be subdued this time around? I am already distancing myself from the faith based on the several things Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi have said about certain wrongs of other faiths, creating a less consultative entrance for those approaching the faith. The words related to this King in the Baha'i texts worry me a great deal. It essentially says that Baha'is are to do whatever he says no matter what, up to and including dying for him - as a Christian my worries should be quite clear to you here. Beyond the obvious, much of my attraction to this faith has been due to the sense of equality, that no person is above another, that no one man is honored as a leader among his community. This prophecy speaks about such a man that should be honored by all Baha'is worldwide, though.

Yeshua

Wow This is actually very profound, thank you!

Yeshua

Hey

I can't really comment on the ramifications of this prophecy, since I'm not Baha'i. I was merely flagging it up as an example of how secular world leaders are often used as mediums through which religious ethics and teachings are established and spread. I'm not entirely sure, precisely, what Baha'is expect from such a figure. He does sound similar tho too Constantine and Ashoka and Cyrus, so perhaps we have an inkling from history.

I really don't know.

arthra

Generally in my opinion what Baha'is are expecting is that the rulers will begin to finally follow the recommendations of Baha'u'llah recorded in the "Summons of the Lord of Hosts" essentially (1) that a representative world parliament will be established.. perhaps using the framework of the United Nations because it is the closest form available.. and (2) that there be an international court of arbitration.. We already have such a Court today in conjunction with the United Nations.

The International Baha'i Community has an Office as an NGO (Non Governmental Org.) that works closely at international conferences to educate about Baha'i perspectives on a wide host of issues.

The World Order of Baha'u'llah by Shoghi Effendi provides many of the details of the future Baha'i World Commonwealth.

Baha'is are also called upon to be obedient to those in authority.. We will not be seditious but law abiding and we will seek within the framework of law to redress grievances where possible..

Beyond that in circumstances where there is no legal authority we are entitled to defend ourselves..

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunitik Just because [a Baha'i "Constantine"] is prophesied to occur in the Baha'i Faith . . .

In fact, it has already happened!

Malietoa, the King of Samoa, was a Baha'i and publicly announced himself as such!

And further, he was a wise and much-loved king who didn't force his religion on others.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

ronyjoy40

Market Research is conducted for use by companies hoping to gain an insight into the behaviour and demography of a market. Market research is valuable for companies to develop products position their brand, and gain a competitive edge against competitors in any industry.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronyjoy40 Market Research is . . .

And what possible relevance has this to do with the topic under discussion here?


Bruce

Emilia

Bruce, just use the Report button.

It's unlikely the spammer, having dropped his load here, will even return to read your response.

These days, unlike a couple of decades ago, spam is mostly delivered via software.