Talk:Bible and reincarnation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 first talks 2 Another theory of reincarnation 3 External Links 4 Rewrite 5 Constantine 6 Origen 7 Straw man 8 State church of rome 9 Recent edits by DJ Clayworth 10 Issues in Christianity and Reincarnation 11 Jesus's Grace and the Thief 12 About the new "Illogical" section. 13 POV 14 Please enlighten me 15 From the person who originally created this entry 16 Bible has no support for reincarnation 17 Removal of POV 18 Added POV 19 samson 20 INTRODUCTION (section developing into Abrahamic religions, including Christianity) 21 DON'T REMOVE POV UNTIL THE ISSUES WERE SORTED OUT 22 NOTES by Jan Erik Sigdell TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT REINCARNATION, THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY 23 Neutrality from a neutral observer 24 REINCARNATION (God's tool for his infinite mercy upon man) 25 Cathars

[edit] first talks

I've added a whole heap of information that tries to balance out both sides of the debate. In many cases I have sought to give the traditional interpretation of the verse first, and then explain how some Christians may interpret them.

I also added a big section in the beginning that focuses upon differences in interpreting the Bible. I think this is an important introductory point because it explains how Christians can disagree over whether a belief in reincarnation can co-exist with a belief in Biblical teaching.

I also had to NPOV a few things. The section that dealt with the book of Hebrews being anti-Jewish is not necessarily true, so I removed it and replaced it with a section that speaks of the book of Hebrews being addressed to Jewish Christians. Please see the wiki article on The Epistle to the Hebrews as a support for my assertion here.

One Salient Oversight 06:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the entirety of the second part of the article, as it had nothing to do with the article subject (Bible and reincarnation). The material could perhaps be used in another article, or this article could be renamed so as to include this material, but as it stands, it has no place here.

Here is the removed section

***************** BEGIN REMOVED SECTION *************************

In addition, Origen, an early Christian theologian that lived during the third century, wrote that "The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives" (De Principiis). This belief was not unique to Origen; many early Christians believed that the soul exists prior to the conception and birth of a person, a belief that many then-popular variants of pagan Greek philosophy accepted. However, this does not in and of itself imply reincarnation, cf. the Mormon view of the "beforelife" of the soul. In AD 553, more than three hundred years after Origen's death, the Emperor Justinian issued an edict against Origen, whose writings had by then become very divisive especially among the monks, and convened Second Council of Constantinople (see there for more details). This Council issued "The Anathemas Against Origen". The first sentence reads, "IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."

The Anathemas Against Origen not only suppressed the teachings of Origen within the Church, but also any teaching supportive of Origen's views on the pre-existence of the soul. Anyone publicly espousing such beliefs could be reprimanded, and, if he persisted, excommunicated from the Church. The taboo against belief in pre-existence or reincarnation survived the reformation, and to this day few Christian denominations embrace the possibility that a soul might exist through multiple lifetimes.

Strangely enough, for a doctrine that so few Christian denominations espouse, it is interesting that most Christian apologists feel the need to attempt to refute this belief; though it is maybe not so strange when one consideres the popularity that Hinduism and Buddhism have gained in some circles of the West. In many cases, they do so by claiming that the verses that appear to support the idea of reincarnation are taken out of context, while apparently applying a different standard to verses that appear to deny the possibility. Unfortunately, the practice of taking verses out of context (and sometimes, stringing unrelated verses together in a way that makes them appear related) to prove a favored belief or disprove someone else's belief is nothing new to Christianity; according to some, this technique has already been applied in composition of the New Testament writings itself.

Some think that the Jewish belief in "resurrection" could have been nearly synonymous with reincarnation. Some Orthodox Jewish groups today indeed hold reincarnation, but like all Jews do not make the afterlife a central focus of ther teaching and preaching.

[edit] Another theory of reincarnation

It should be noted that a belief in reincarnation does not in and of itself disprove the existence of heaven, hell, or a final judgment. There are a number of small children who have reported having memories of past lives prior to their present life, and some also report being able to recall a time between lives (see books by Dr. Ian Stevenson, Carol Bowman, and Elisabeth Hallett). In some cases these children have also reported being in a place like heaven between lives, and sometimes that they were given some degree of choice as to whether and when to be reborn, and even in selecting their future parents. It is however unclear how truthfully their statements have been reported, and also how much of it is fantasy and how much is reality.

Some of these children have indicated that being reborn is not necessarily a punishment for past bad "karma", but rather an opportunity for a soul to grow spiritually. Additional lifetimes culd give individual souls a greater opportunity to accomplish more for God, if that is a person's goal, and to develop better character traits. It should be noted that such a concept is at odds with Eastern views of reincarnation, which almost universally regards it as a bad thing.

Some Christians object to reincarnation because they believe it is not compatible with the idea of salvation through Jesus. But another view would be that Jesus' death on the cross freed Christian believers from the necessity to reincarnate if they do not wish to do so. In any case, reincarnation might simply delay a person's ultimate destiny - even most religions that believe in reincarnation do not believe that a person continues to reincarnate indefinitely.

There are those who feel that after Constantine made Christianity the state religion in 360 AD, Christianity became tainted with elements of Paganism. After that, the church began to select acceptable doctrines based in part on what would cause the church (and its leaders) to have the greatest influence in society. If someone believed that they had multiple lifetimes to gain favor with God, they might not be as inclined to obey the church teachings, or to serve the church leaders. On the other hand, if people could be convinced that they had but one lifetime to "get it right", and that eternal punishment in hell awaited those who failed to heed the teachings of the church, they would be more inclined to do whatever the church leaders expected of them, including supporting the church financially. It therefore would not come as any surprise that a church that had strayed from the original teachings of Jesus would emphasize doctrines that increased the amount of control that the church had over its members. This notion requires that a clear separation between "the church" and "its members" already existed in such early times; a notion that is not really borne out all that well by historical science, and does not make much theological sense either.

So there is the theory that reincarnation is not incompatible with Christianity, but was suppressed by the church in order to increase the power and influence of that institution. The texts that offered the greatest support to official church doctrine were made part of biblical canon; those that tended to reduce the influence of the church were declared as heresy. This theory might be termed a conspiracy theory by critics.

[edit] External Links

• Children's Past Lives, especially Dogma Bites Man — Reincarnation and the Early Christian Church
• State Church Of The Roman Empire
• [[List of Incarnations of Jesus Christ]]

***********************END REMOVED SECTION************

Rholton 12:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I rewrote the article, reinserting some of the removed content above, and merging some of it w reincarnation. Sam [Spade] 00:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine

Section Paganism contains the phrase: "Constantine made Christianity the state religion in 360 AD". This is definitely not according to historical facts: Constantine made Christianity a tolerated religion in 313 and died in 335. Christianity was made a state religion by Theodosius in 391. I can't decide which was meant by the writer, but it definitely should be corrected. --Irmgard 13:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This link is pretty handy [1]. Sam [Spade] 07:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's written that Constantine did die in 337 and that he did not make Christianity a state religion. OK, I knew that. But what is meant with that 360 AD sentence??? --Irmgard 16:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea, I didn't write it. Sam [Spade] 19:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Origen

another handy link. Sam [Spade] 07:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - there was some sorting out of facts and legend needed, too. I've done so. ;-) --Irmgard 16:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Straw man

Some also maintain, that the (Catholic) church (or a Council or Constantine or the Pope) in later centuries had removed all traces of reincarnation from the Bible. Shirley MacLaine quotes this teaching in her book "Out on a Limb" (1983): ";The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around A.D. 553, called the Council of Nicaea [sic]".

This theory cannot be confirmed by church history: There was no Council of Nicaea in the year 553 and neither the First Council of Nicaea in 325 nor the Second Council of Nicaea 787 do even mention anything like reincarnation. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 (which was not conducted by the Pope but by the emperor Justinian I does not mention reincarnation either. The origin of the theory could be the fact that this council, rather as an aside, rejected Origen's teachings on the pre-existence of the soul: "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."

I don't find it useful for you to present silly, baseless arguments and then easilly thrash them on this page, as an example of the foolishness of your opposition. I have no idea who this Shirley MacLaine lady is, I am not quoting her. When you quote someone only to prove them wrong, it strikes me as a variation of "Black Propoganda". Sam [Spade] 20:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, Shirley MacLaine is an American actress who is a strong supporter of reincarnation, New Age version. She published several popular books on the subject. The point is, that she is the main source for this theory - actually, there is Geddes MacGregor who earlier mentioned the idea of a "censured" Origenes in (admittedly with no evidence)- but Shirley MacLaine's books are much more popular and her arguments are today widely mentioned as facts. (Just have a look in Usenet).

While there is no evidence that the mainstream Christian church ever adopted reincarnation, there sure are valid reasons to maintain that some Gnostic Christians did believe in reincarnation (though of a different kind as the western New Age reincarnation of today). This is, though, no defense for some current manifestly uninformed arguments for reincarnation in Christianity, and these should be declared as such - they sure do no good to the cause. --Irmgard 09:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am very uncertain as to her credentials, being an actress hardly makes her an expert on the subject, and would help to explain why she would be so full of patent nonsense. I heartily disagree as to her importance as well, since I'm an adult American and don't even know who she is ;) My basis is on the teachings of Christ, statements like "as you sow, so shall you reap", as well as my respect for interdenominationialism. On all subjects, I tend to put all the various opinions on the matter together, and sort for common denominators. Reincarnation strikes me as a common denominator amongst world religions. I understand that many Christians don't see it as an aspect of their faith, but I myself see no incompatibility whatsoever. Anyways, if you must mention this silly woman, please put her in her own "celebrity opinion" section, and clarify that she is a new age nutjob, please :) Sam [Spade] 17:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Being a celebrity does make her an authority for quite some people - though I, personally, agree with your view. And there are quite some people who are only too ready to repeat as truth what a "celebrity authority" said, no matter the level of actual expertise. I never read a line of her either, until I started to investigate where those very peculiar ideas about church history are coming from. It's a good idea to put her in a separate section. BTW what has the link about the state church of the Roman empire to do with reincarnation? I browsed the article but got no hint about it. --Irmgard 21:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] State church of rome

Well, this leads directly into some of the "party line" of those who advocate Christian compatability with Reincarnation. Unfortunately there are not-a-few tie in's w anti-Roman Catholicism, but I try to minimize that. The gist of it is that Roman Catholicism is tainted by Roman paganism, and is therefore (at least in some ways at some times) not Christian at all, and therefore also not truely Catholic. I'm not sure how much you know about "non-roman" catholics, but a solid understanding of the Ancient Catholic, Old Catholic, Liberal Catholic and Orthadox Church doctrines would be almost essential to understanding how its so easy for some to accept seemingly "alien" concepts like karma and reincarnation, while rejecting certain other seemingly Christian concepts like traditional views of Heaven (Elysian Fields) and Hell (Tartarus), an anthropomorphic "Zeus-like" God, amongst many others, as being Roman-pagan in origen. Sam [Spade] 21:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite get how this historically fits in. Christianity became official religion of the Roman Empire 389 (decree by Theodosius). The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church shared in all main points the same doctrine until at least 600 (Pope Gregory the Great, e.g. (~600) is an esteemed Saint and church teacher in both churches), real doctrinal differences later on were the Filioque and the papal primacy, which both have nothing to do with Roman paganism. Major churches that did split off earlier were the Assyrian Church of the East and the Monophysite churches (split both off 451 for different reasons). The Ancient Catholic church was part of the Roman Catholic church until after the Reformation and officially split off in the 18th century. The Old Catholic church separated in 1870 from the Roman Catholic Church - so how one is influenced by Roman Paganism and the other not needs some explaining. The Liberal Catholic Church started in the twentieth century and has taken quite some teachings from 19th century Theosophy which has discernible roots Hindu, Gnostic and Evolution but not in Christianity. BTW, the tartaros, the elysian fields and Zeus were not Roman mythology but Greek mythology and the main rival of Christianity was not Greek mythology but Greek philosophy (mainly Neoplatonism and Stoicism). In view of these historical facts, how could it be, that the Roman Catholic church is influenced by Roman paganism and all the other churches not - though they shared the same teaching and the same influences during that time, and especially under the aspect the Greek philosophy influences were much stronger in the Orthodox and Monophysite mainlands than in Rome)?--Irmgard 09:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, every church and every religion traces itself back to ancient roots, even Scientology and Eckankar, and as the basic options regarding afterlife are somewhat limited (no soul and no body, resurrection of same soul and same body, same soul and no body, same soul and different body) everyone does find a parallel in the past, but this is no evidence of historical dependence and tradition.--Irmgard 09:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In a time of religious freedom, everyone for sure has the right to adopt his own religious belief - be it the teachings of a specific church or a mixture of teachings of different churches and religions. The Bible is read and is interpreted from an enlightenment worldview, a new age world view, a postmodern worldview, a capitalistic worldview, etc. and this leads to new views of its teachings, compared to interpretations according to antique, medieval, or reformation worldview. This is religious freedom. It only gets problematic, if someone with such new insights feels the need to prove that these new insights have always been part of the real Christian teachings and tradition and all ideas to the contrary were later introductions. There is a historical mainstream of basic Christian teachings throughout history, teachings which Paul of Tarsus, Ambrose of Milan, Athanasius, Gregory the Great, Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Ignace of Loyola, Wesley and Newman would agree upon without discussion (all these teachings are also part of the official teachings of the Ancient Catholic, Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church). Of course, no one has to believe these same teachings today - but if someone tries to prove that these teachings are not the historical Christian teachings, he gets into conflict with history. --Irmgard 09:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by DJ Clayworth

First I would like to thank you for your interest in such an obscure topic, and for your helping to minimize some unbalanced statements (particularly in the introduction). I would however caution what I see as a tendancy to provide the reader with an interpretation of a given peice of information. When this does need to be done, it is generally best to use a quote, or otherwise attribute a given view to some particular personage or group. I understand that you were making points that are less than suprising, and are likely to be made by many a christian apon hearing these concepts, but it is best to allow them to reach their own, unguided conclusion on such weighty matters (at least in an encyclopedia, rather than a church ;) Sam [Spade] 22:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think its exactly the reverse. For example in John 9:1-3 you wrote "Some interpret this question to imply that the man would have had some opportunity to sin prior to birth", which is blatently giving the pro-reincarntion viewpoint and a long way from "allowing them to reach their own, unguided conclusion"; yet you replaced my summary of the anti-reincarnation viewpoint with the exceptionally vague "This can be and has been interpreted in many ways.". Now looking at the passage logicically I think you would agree that the most that could be understood was the the disciples may have believed in reincarnation (or alternatively, and more conventionally, that God is all-knowing and could punish before the event). We cannot derive from it that reincarnation did actually happen, or that Jesus believed in it. That's the view of millions of Christians around the world. Do you think we should include it? DJ Clayworth 13:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually there was a pope who suggested that Christ was allowing for the infant to have sinned in the womb. This is a subject which has been actively discussed thruout the ages. I can find a citations for "Some interpret this question to imply that the man would have had some opportunity to sin prior to birth" pretty easilly, but I'd ask that you do the same regarding the statement you want placed there, rather than expecting it to stand asan editorial from the wikipedia itself . Sam [Spade] 18:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Havn't found that pope part yet, but here is an article sympathetic to your POV which clearly illustrates why many have seen a possibility for sin prior to birth

However, Jewish theology attributed birth defects to two factors. Prenatal sin committed by the baby after conception, but before birth, or sin committed by the parents. Genesis 25:22, the struggle of Jacob and Esau in Rachel’s womb, was interpreted as a conflict that resulted from prenatal sin. Exodus 20:5 states that the parents’ sin often had repercussions on their offspring.[2]

Sam [Spade] 19:03, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Issues in Christianity and Reincarnation

I believe in reincarnation but am also a Catholic. I would personally like the Catholic Church to accept reincarnation. That way I don't have to hide my beliefs and can openly participate in bible/theology studies and other Catholic/Christian groups. I still attend Catholic mass/services.

I feel however that for the masses, knowledge requires responsibility. They are not ready for it. i.e. Too many people put off evolution/growth. --'I'll be holy in the next life'. Also it only becomes an 'interesting knowledge' article. They don't realize that everything has consequences. i.e. Develop virtues to have a better life.

One reason why reincarnation is discouraged is that it removes the justification for the vicarious atonement of Christ. i.e. I believe that Christ died for his chosen to accelarate or enable spiritual evolution. Many Hindu gurus temporarily take over the Karma of their disciples to enhance their evolution. --Jondel 00:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at State church of rome just above. Sam [Spade] 04:55, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That the Roman Catholic Church is Roman paganism? Well, I just wish could join a 'bible-study 'group here in Tokyo but there are not many, let alone those that acknowledge or incorporate Reincarnation. I'm heavy into Edgar Cayce since he too was grounded in Christianity. Like him , karma and reincarnation were 'shockers' and Hindu -pagan anathema like, at first. A core issue that the traditional Christians raised is that reincarnation nullifies the need for Jesus dying for us (vicarious atonement) (?) I'll try to investigate if those other groups, like Liberal Catholics, exists here.Jondel

[edit] Jesus's Grace and the Thief

My point can rebut the argument against reincarnation with respect to that story of Jesus and the thief. One alternative view by Hindus, God's grace can overcome past karma. So the notion of Jesus as God giving grace to a thief is not necessarily inconsistent with reincarnation to face punishment. There is a famous story in the Bhagavata Purana, a sinful man named Ajamila, who done a lot of bad deeds during his life such as stealing, abandoning his wife and children, and marrying a prostitute, at the moment of death, involuntarily chanted the name of Naryana, the Hindu term for God, and attained moksha or union with God. When I mean involuntarily, he actually was thinking the name of his youngest son. But the name of God has powerful effects and he was forgiven for his great sins. Please see http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1148/k8.html for the story. user:Raj20004

Well argued. And if you look at the Bagavad Gita you get a similar idea that, through Krishna, one can be delivered from further incarnations after death (I've always found hige similarities between the spirituality of the BG & the Gospels) and be returned to God. By this thesis, Christ gives the Penitent Thief immediate release. A beautiful idea, and one which always moves me to tears when I read that passage.

With this the idea that Heaven & Reincarnation are antithetical ideas is nullified. If you regard Nirvana and Heaven as two words for the same thing, and God and Brahman as the same word you bridge the gap between East and West and begin to see the unifying idea beneath all exoteric religion. ThePeg 13:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the new "Illogical" section.

It seems amazingly out of frequency with the whole text. It seems it was added quite recently and it's completely biased. Unfortunately I can't login right now (and I don't want to undo the changes anonymously), but I'm spreading the word.

reverted. I would really appreciate it if an admin would block 204.153.88.3. They are repeatedly vandalizing multiple pages. I've already reported them at WP:VIP.

[edit] POV

I'm putting a POV warning on this. The whole article seems to me to be trying to argue that reincarnation might is compatible with all but Fundamentalist Christianity - that's a POV. what about Catholicism, orthadoxy, and mainstream non-fundamentalist Christianity?

It's full of slippery moves. It attributes mainstream orthodox Christian ideas to 'Fundies' and implies that other Christians may take a differing view. Well a few may, but most don't (and remember that Christianity is a lot bigger than the debates of a few liberal intelectuals in the modern west). So much here could be seen as weasel words - 'some maintain', there are 'some who say' - small minorities and the overwhelming mainstream are put as equal voices

Hebrews 'does not, by itself, rule out reincarnation' - well post-structurally no text rules out anything -as any interpretation is valid. But most Christians theologians (and I mean 99%+) would view this as putting reincarnation in serious doubt.

Personally, I think the notion of Christianity and reincarnation deserves a paragraph in an eschatology article - and not this treatment. This article can only be neutral if it states the traditional eschatology of Christianity (and Judaism) aknowledges that it overwhelmingly does not favour reincarnation - and then records the views (with citations) of those theologians who take a different view - making clear that they are a monority in among the churches. --Doc (?) 01:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I largely disagree, and would like to see the dispute header removed.

"This article can only be neutral if it states the traditional eschatology of Christianity (and Judaism) aknowledges that it overwhelmingly does not favour reincarnation"

I don't feel this is a neutral request, but rather a demand for enforcement of a POV. As far as cites, there are plenty, look closer, or scroll down to the bottom of the article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia rules, especially in the case of a contested article, all somewhat controversial statements need to be clearly attributed either to a person or to a defined group. Not "some say X, some say Y" but "Shirley McLain says, Billy Graham says, mainstream protestant theologians say, church fathers say, etc." Also if a view is maintained by an unspecified number of unspecified people, there must have been some source or major proponent of this view. Not "some believe the Catholic church should...", but "Hans Küng proposes ..." --Irmgard 08:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the pov notice. Doc - you need to realise that "Fundies" have a lot in common with "Traditional" and "Orthodox" Christian belief - both of which do not support reincarnation within Christian thinking.

The only way reincarnation is being promoted in modern churches is when that church is influenced by more "liberal" and "progressive" theology, which includes differences in approaching and interpreting biblical text. Orthodox Christianity has historically interpreted the Bible in a structuralist way when it comes to dealing with Reincarnation.

But please feel free to provide further information about anything you dig up.

--One Salient Oversight 10:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The mention to Judaism in the introduction of the article is inconsistent with the mention in the body of the article. The introduction is very reticent about Judaism's acceptance of reincarnation, while the body shows more information in the sense that Judaism does accept reincarnation.

I'm going to edit the introduction. Most of Ortodox Judaism nowadays is Chassidic, and Chassidism is quite positive on reincarnation and such. Judaism in general isn't actually very concerned with life after death, or even with the comming of the Messiah, when compared to Christianity. It doesn't mean, though, that Jews are indiferent to these matters. Just that they don't place them in such a high priority as other religions. Ricardo Dirani 16:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is not true that "most of Orthodox Judaism nowadays is Chassidic", it is true that most of Orthodox Judaism today accepts reincarnation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern Orthodox, Litvaks, Yemenites and Sephardic Orthodox, are all the non-Hassidic I could find out. I didn't get numbers, but I'm still of the impression that the Hassidim outnumber them all together. Ricardo Dirani 04:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Judaism doesn't care or there is no focus or much teaching on reincarnation. Some may believe, some may not.There is no strong denial nor affirmation or support of reincarnation. Some Hassidic literature mentions that Mr. A will/was be born again to do so and so.--Jondel 08:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please enlighten me

Please enlighten me, what is this supposed to mean? The anatemas were not against Origen in general but against specific teachings, among them the pre-existence of souls - by him or by others (If anyone asserts ...) --Irmgard 07:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC) "Some see the Anathemas Against Origen not only suppressing the early Christian teachings within the Church, but also any teaching supportive of views on the pre-existence of the soul. "

[edit] From the person who originally created this entry

I originally created this entry (over a year ago), basically because I thought that the subject deserved a mention. I fully expected it would be edited and revised by others but I don't think I ever expected it to become this controversial.

I just want to make a few points:

First and foremost, nothing in my original article was ever based on anything written by Shirley MacLaine. I am one of those people who believes that actors and actresses are paid to act, and that hardly makes them credible authorities on anything other than the craft of acting, and possibly the cinema. I have never personally read Ms. MacLaine, therefore if anything I posted paralleled anything she has said, it was certainly not intentional.

Second, I don't believe that I ever stated that this represented the views of "orthodox" Christianity. But there are Christians that believe that reincarnation is not incompatible with Christianity. To use a parallel, many would say that the approval of homosexuality is outside of orthodox Christianity, yet no one would deny that there are gay people who claim to be practicing Christians and who say that their lifestyle is not incompatible with Christianity.

The question I would ask is whether Wikipedia is supposed to present only the most "orthodox" view of something, in which case the "tyranny of the majority" can be invoked, or whether there is room for alternative viewpoints. Perhaps my original article was a bit weak on presenting the "orthodox" view, but if that is true it seems that others have stepped up to compensate for my negligence. I'm certainly not asking nor expecting that orthodox Christians will immediate change their beliefs because of this article, however I was simply attempting to acknowledge that this belief has existed historically, and that there are still people who believe this way. They may not attend a church that officially recognizes reincarnation; in fact I suspect that today it may be a privately held belief for many. But that does not mean that Christians who believe in reincarnation do not exist.

Also, I would remind everyone that when you look at the history of the church, there have been many times when the "orthodox" view turned out to be entirely and provably incorrect (e.g. "the earth is the center of the universe"). At this point we have scientific evidence that reincarnation occurs (see the Wikipedia entry on Reincarnation), should that "evidence" ever become widely accepted as "proof" then the church would be forced to modify its views to accommodate this proof. We are certainly not to that point yet, but I certainly would not want to see Wikipedia be in the position of only allowing the "orthodox" or "majority" view to be presented, in effect being in the position of "refusing to look through the telescope" at any evidence that might refute the majority view.

Finally, I will say that religion is an intense personal thing and I don't imagine that those who support the orthodox viewpoint are particularly happy with me for raising this issue. However, again I question whether such persons should be able to control the content of Wikipedia, or to brand the viewpoint of others with a non-NPOV warning that sort of reminds one of a Surgeon General's warning (the only thing it lacks is a notation that these ideas might be hazardous to your health!). To any "true believer", there IS no such thing as a "neutral" point of view - you either present the orthodox view or you are a heretic. I don't know of any way to resolve this so that everyone would be happy, but I do personally feel that the NPOV warning may be inappropriate here, especially since it appears that the "orthodox" supporters have already hacked up my original text to get their viewpoint represented (but apparently that isn't sufficient, even the very idea is so dangerous that they must brand it with a warning!) I'm not going to change anything on this page but I think it is kind of sad when alternative viewpoints get this type of treatment.

[edit] Bible has no support for reincarnation

Bible has no support for reincarnation , Saying otherwise is a violation on Reincarnation, It says the sprit will go under continues rebirth until it qualified to union with GOD so there is no place for hell/salvation in reincarnation but in bible we see lot of references to hell. Jesus referring hell while telling the story of Lazarus, John the Revelator saying that the evildoers will be caste into lake of fire. Totally Reincarnation is denying the Judgment and the sacrifice of Christ, which is centerfold of Christianity Reincarnation assumes the death of one body before the soul can reincarnate into another body. Since Elijah never died but was caught up to heaven (2 Kings 2:11), his soul was "not available." At the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-6), Elijah himself showed up. Three Chapters earlier (Matt. 14:1-12), John the Baptist had been beheaded. So when Elijah appeared to Jesus on the mountain, John the Baptist had Already died. In Luke 1:17, we read that John the Baptist will go before Christ "in The spirit and power of Elijah." This is a clear reference to the power of the prophetic ministry of John the Baptist, not a reference to the Reincarnation of Elijah. John the Baptist himself renounced the idea that he might be Elijah. When asked if he was Elijah, John the Baptist replied, "I am not" (John 1:21). From the old testament II kings 2:14 says “..The Spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.” This did not change Elisha to be Elijah but gave him the same authority through the ministry of the Spirit. John had the same Spirit upon him that Elijah did.

Bible verses MIS Quoted as proof texts for the reincarnation teachings of early Christians are, e.g. Mt 11:14 and 17:12f and John 9,1 ff. these texts can indeed be interpreted by new agers as referring to reincarnation. These verses has to deal with original sin not reincarnation

in Matthews 11:14.When the disciples ask Jesus about a blind man who had sinned: John 9:2 (NIV) His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

JESUS REPLIED NOT BOTH!

John 9:34 (NIV) To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.

In the Old Testament, David writes:

Psalms 51:5 (NIV) Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. The above verses is to deal with Original sin not reincarnation. Paul says very clearly Heb 9:27 "it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment"

After all Reincarnation negates Resurrection and Christ!

The gospel according to Hebrews wasn't written by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ most probably knew about Reincarnation but didn't want to focus on it just as Jews today don't focus too much on the afterlife. Reincarnation DOES NOT negate Resurrection and Christ. Christ 's dying was his taking on , the 'karma' of his followers. Christ and Lazarus were'nt the only recorded resurrections. Read/Research about Sai Baba and Swami Sri Yukteswar. The wikipedia articles lack descriptions/recordings about resurrection in India. If a soul can exist eternally after death, can't it be possible that it existed eternally before. CAN YOU REALLY BELIEVE that a billion Hindu's are going to Hell or a billion Chinese are going to eternal damnation???!! Eternity is a looong time! COME ON!Jondel 00:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear, right on Jondel! Sam Spade 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Jondel, This is not a place to write what ever you believe, I don't know how come Gita was more authority than Hebrews about Christianity and Christ! If you believe reincarnation and eastern mysticism then fine BUT DON'T say it was supported by Bible or Christ that was Blasphemy , Don't try to teach me about Sai Baba because I am from India (Living very near to his place) BTW don't you see that spectacular episode on BBC which captured his cheap tricks ! May be the link would help

I am not hear to take a decision about Hindus and Chinese and I don’t wish to create a cult because something doesn’t make sense for my finite mind, BTW something cannot be true because masses of people believing that it was true, For example, Centuries ago, All the people in this earth believed earth was flat but that never changed the truth! --Karma2Grace 18:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Guys - just be cool for a while. Like Karma2Grace I also believe that Reincarnation is incompabable with the Bible, but that is because I hold presuppositions about the bible that other contributors to the article do not have. I wrote the section "Differences between conservative and liberal Christian views" because I knew that at some point there would be a butting of heads over this.

The fact is that both views need to be put into the article - the Orthodox view that the Bible does not support reincarnation, and the progressive view that it does (or, at least, does not negate it). For this article to be more complete as an article both points of view need to be described and, if possible, critiqued in some way during the article. Since many of the critiques will focus on biblical interpretation and the holding of presuppositions, much of the argument can be found in other articles (such as Biblical inerrancy).

--One Salient Oversight 10:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no views or positions in this regard, Bible says NO for reincarnation , The article contains Garbage, It is just a wishful thinking, If you find support for reincarnation in Gnostic Gospels then don't say "bible and reincarnation" because the bible doesn't contain Gnostic Gospels! I don't see any of the passages in bible to support reincarnation rather i do see lot of them opposite to reincarnation. Say for example I have a view/opinion on New Age and Hinduism I believe it is satanic and i can back up my claims from Bible (i.e. my faith), Can i go to all the New Age articles and force them to include Biblical view on New Age or Hinduism?--Karma2Grace 18:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV

Can we remove it?
1)I obviously have strong opinions but as best as possibe, I am neutral and factual with respect to the article. My opinions are exrpessed only on this discussion page. I respect KarmatoGrace's and OneSalientGrace opinions and do hope that the truth does become more obvious. If there are neutral deletions, I probably will not revert but check for encyclopedic accuracy. To Karma, please remove any 'Garbage'. To One Salient I'll be sure to check if both views are encyclopedically represented.
2) There is no revert edit war going on. I haven't reverted any of the deletions. A POV is ussually appropriate when revert edit wars are impassable/unresolvable. Am I or my responce above, the reason for the POV notice? Please understand that there are many reincarnation believers with Christian/Catholic backgrounds.--Jondel 00:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the POV notice OK?--Jondel 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added POV

None of the issues raised has been sorted out, we cannot title an article 'Bible and Reincarnation' and argue that there are 'liberal' Christians who believes in reincarnation. For the sake of augment, I can write an article say "Islam supports terrorism or killing innocents " because some of it's followers like Osama or Saddam were terrorists and use to kill innocents , It doesn't make sense I think this whole article should go unless otherwise if any one have ‘ANY’ valid proof from bible. By the way what "New Age view" is to do with bible??--Karma2Grace 20:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Equal weight is given to both opposing and pro -views . You want to push a POV because you insist that the Bible does not support reincarnation? The new age view is another alternative view for readers to consider. You want to block this new age view? There are an equal no. of passages indicative of reincarnation. What about Jesus's reference to John the Baptist as Elijah? I don't want to rewrite the article here for the sake of argument. If you attempt to delete the article, there will be a an equal or more supporters to will want this article retained, pro or con reincarnationists. Why don't you edit out what you don't like in the article so we can dispense with the POV notice? --Jondel 01:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not an article showing that the Bible supports reincarnation, nor should it be. This is an article explaining why some people believe that the Bible supports reincarnation. Therefore, it is necessary and there is no reason for Karma2Grace to be uneasy with it. As Jondel said, equal weight is given here. I propose we remove the POV tag. Subramanian ^talk 00:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. There is even no need to propose because there is no revert edit war and there is a Be Bold rule here.--Jondel 01:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

True. Done then. Subramanian ^talk 02:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to add the POV back, Your Question "What about Jesus’ reference to John the Baptist as Elijah?"

That was clearly explained in my previous post, Elijah coming before Jesus was a prophetic passage, the verse clearly reads that "the power and sprit of Elijah" not reincarnation and moreover Elijah NEVER died. As I said reincarnation assumes that each soul should pay it’s debt through the cycle of rebirth but Christianity says it was paid on the cross by Jesus (once for all). It is a blasphemy to teach otherwise

In the same context, I consider the Hindu gods and their doctrines as an act of "fallen angels" referred in Genesis, Can I go to each one of the Hindu related links (including their gods, places, theories) and include my view? I am sincerely expecting you answer!--Karma2Grace 20:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems you have all the definitive answers and a "truth" which seems to need no more quest, in spite of the universal words spoken by Christ: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12, KJV). Was it not recorded that: "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)? Was it not told to His disciples: "but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."? (Luke 8:10). Is it so difficult for your mind to understand why "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." (Mark 10:15)? Sincere regards, In Christian Fellowship ("GOD IS LIGHT. If we walk in the Light as He is in the Light we have FELLOWSHIP one with another.") --212.113.164.104 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Jondel's responce:Sincerely?? Really?? I doubt it. You argue because you like to argue. I wish everyone in the world sincerely would sincerely seek the answer. Did you know that inquisitors broke the bones , drowned, and burned people who they thought were blasphemers and witches? They too were sincere and thought they were doing God's will. If you want to be sincere , focus on loving God and your neighbour, this is hard enough. All this debate has repeating itself for more than thousand years. Also keep searching for the truth until you reach an impasse, then we can dispute again.

To answer your question, yes, sure you can post your view that fallen angels are the Hindu Gods but you would be required for references, proofs and you would be reequired to to prove relevancy and significance. In minutes I'm very sure those edits will be deleted as being unencyclopedic and irrelevant. This article is notable an relevant however however because many people can not stop being Chrisitians, being born that way and experiencing spiritual growth and yet can not deny the reincarnation exists. You are right that John T.B. inherited his power and spirit but also his persnality and characteristics. If he was that spiritually mature, even memories. We all inherit the power , spirit and personality of our past life(but this is a reincarnationist belief ).

You can insist all you want on your interpretation or the conventional Christian doctrine that John T.B. only inherited his power and spirit but to many reincarnationist , this is anunequivocal statement by the Master that John T.B. and Elijah are the same. You don't need to physically die to incarnate. Elijah doesn't need a physical body (in heaven).

Your ignoring that blasphemy is nothing more than a defamation of God's name as I mentioned in the other Karma page. We are not defaming God's name here. Is this some kind of a witch hunt?

The crucification doesn't need to be justified to you. The crucifixtion would have gone on whether reincarnation exists or not. God won't fit his master plan into your narrow view or need for justification of the crucifixation.

A lot of Grace is required for even for spiritual understanding and salvation. e.g. Eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. There is an interpretaion that Christ's crucifixation openned up graces and allowed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Many Chrisitans and Reincarnationists can not believe that the crucifixation allows a once and for all salvation but that you need to evolve and develop the maturity or consciousness, virtue/grace of salvation. The crucifixation enhanced this specially for his disciples/followers. (Most of these material is from the Edgar Cayce readings)

I am not trying to convert you here but I do encourage you to find out the truth for yourself and; returninng to the original topic(I'd like to say your regular program :) ), to keep this article encylcopedic and neutral. Let' s agree to disagree. This article will be useful even to people like yourself, theologians and people who don't believe in reincarnations. --Jondel 05:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the POV , Jondel - Now you started to preach, I am really not here to debate with you (Though I can do it very comfortably) I really don't want to hear 'Edgar Cayce' or 'Vivekananda' views on Bible or Jesus because that is not the way we Christians see Jesus or bible.

I am very well aware of this 'consciousness', 'looking inward' business but that is not Christianity, it is New Age, Man cannot earn his own salvation PERIOD. According to bible Man going into the loop of incarnations to pay back his debt is RIDICULUS and it is a BLASPHEMY on Christ’s sacrifice and it really hurts. I kindly request you to remove this article.

--Karma2Grace 18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You know that the Master himself was accused of blasphemy? You know what the real meaning of blasphemy is? Just because God's plan doesn't fit into your view of salvation doesn't mean that reincarnation is blasphemy. I believe Christ fully knew about reincarnation but despite this went on with the crucifixtion. He didn't say much about it because he just didn't want to focus on it. I will not preach. I don't need to mention Cayce.No need to mention Vivekenanda. I came to this belief independently but needed to reconcile my Christian beliefs , hence Cayce. If you are a follower of Chist, do continue to read the bible and grow in Prayer and spirituality. Spiritual growth is sooo easy to underestimate. Prayer really is a good weapon for conversion. This debates really don't achieve much.If you can not look inward you start to develop 'Eyes that can not see , ears that can not hear'. I believe that the Master himself spent a lot of time looking inward.

Removing the article:I would be violating rules if I deleted this on my own. Besides there are is a great majority who believe in Reincarnation. It is ironic and I'm surprised that I who comes from a predominantly Catholic culture, am arguing the case for reincarnation to you who comes from a predominantly Hindu culture. No need to tell me to not preach. If you continue your campaign of removing this concept of Reincarnation you know there are many more who will insist on retaining reincarnation.--Jondel 00:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] samson

I have removed the section on Samson as original research. Please supply a reference to an author who interprets the Samson verse as evidence of reincarnation. — goethean ॐ 21:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Rosicrucians: Rebirth and the Bible & all students of esoteric knowledge worlwide who search for the eternal Truth and may be willing to understand with the mind of a "little child". --212.113.164.104 19:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The edition was reverted again in whatever grounds; now I can understand earlier events related to this article. Much more was being edited at this time to show you, from me they come as I am able to perceive them, but if you are not prepared to recognize a few basic concepts, how can you be willing to understand the complexity, wonders and wider infinity of Life which surrounds the general self-dormant human beings? How can you take part in the development of a subject, as presented in this article, if you are not willing to grasp what this subject is about and your actions seem to avoid the offer by those who may know something, as minimum as it may be? Deep seems is the truth found in the words of the Mystic: "Set" ideas render them impervious to rays of truth. Well, Regards. --20:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)212.113.164.104

Well, dear friend, after another deletion done by you and as an answer to the words you wrote, which I understand as intellectual arrogance (not taking your actions and words as having any invious purpose), I let you know something more: I have nothing to prove to you dear friend, it was an offer, with hope, to a sound future: which we will all have to search and create through our own individual effort.
Sometimes, I think about those who saddly planned and committed murder in large scale - at the service of the human dogmas which obscured Sacred religious teachings - toward other human beings or dominated them through imposing ignorance at all cost during those past times.
Think, my friend: if the "belief" that some users around want to stop, at all cost, is found to be Truth; well, then, many of the individuals of those times, who planned and practiced those crimes, will have to be around in these present days: then, if Truth, look into their fruits: If they were not able to be true Christians (Christ-like) in those times, are they going to be able to reform themselves in their next rebirth (today)? Or will those individuals keep the same path of destruction?: that is, to carry on - at a different level according to the type of society which has developed from then - the task they were doing before: creating ignorance and murder of innocents in the current-day society which they would want, at all cost, to keep under their invious control/power; as it has happened in the past, having them no consciousness of what they were/are doing. (how familiar they sound, these words...) There is no Judgment of any fellow human being here: to each one of us Its own Judgement... Of course, many will say "What is this individual talking about?".
Last, do you expect any "salvation" when you act to hurt your friend human fellow? (this it is not yet a reference to evil actions against any expression Life around us). Still, I have to include myself in all these words. Deep seems to be the truth found in the words of the Mystic: We venture to make the assertion that there is but one sin: IGNORANCE, and but one salvation: APPLIED KNOWLEDGE. Best regards, In Christian Fellowship ("GOD IS LIGHT. If we walk in the Light as He is in the Light we have FELLOWSHIP one with another.") --212.113.164.104 22:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] INTRODUCTION (section developing into Abrahamic religions, including Christianity)

Below is the edition of the article's Introduction which was reverted/deleted without discussion; this reversion/deletion is an action which is based on no knowledge grounds and in biased views of literal radicalism of mainstream denominations related to Christianity: --212.113.164.104 22:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC) --194.65.22.226 23:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV

Belief in reincarnation is held by many Hindus, Buddhists, and Taoists but such beliefs are held by relatively few Christians, Jews, and Muslims. No mainstream Christian denomination includes reincarnation among their doctrines. The Christian creeds and confession have consistently proclaimed a belief in a single judgement of humanity and in the eschatological hope of the resurrection of the dead. Some small sects, such as the Liberal Catholic Church, and esoteric groups, as the Rosicrucian Fellowship, do however include the concept of reincarnation.

Judaism's attitude is broad enough to allow many Jews within Orthodox Judaism to hold "reincarnation" doctrines (see Jewish eschatology) and at the same time it does not emphasize these difficult notions. Judaism does not totally deny it but does not focus on it nor attest to it. It is a central concept within the Kabbalah though.

Most of modern Abrahamic religions mainstream denominations, however, reject belief in reincarnation, sometimes even viewing it as heresy. Nevertheless, all these religions always had small movements which taught, along the lines of the specific religion, the doctrine of reincarnation; as example, the Sufism related to Mahometism, the Kabbalah related to Judaism, the Alchemy related to Christianity.

In the last centuries there has been a huge amount of publications worldwide expressing the possibility of groups - as the Alexandria Gnostics, Cathars, Knights Templar, Operative Masonry, Mystical Rosicrucians, and others persecuted as heretics at those times - which may have been taughting, throughout the last two millennia, a form of Christianity teachings, or "mysteries", which integrated the theory of rebirth and its associated law - related to Paul of Tarsus' "sting of death" - to a minority of prepared individuals.

Some theologians, however, have already questioned or rejected the exclusion made by mainstream denominations, and so in modern, western Christendom, a few churches and denominations have first begun to explore this issue - both from a philosophy of inclusion and integration with Eastern philosophy, as well as a struggle to return to alleged teachings of the original, pre-Roman church.

[edit] DON'T REMOVE POV UNTIL THE ISSUES WERE SORTED OUT

Jondel, I am really against creating cults by taking two opposite world views and make a monkey out of it, May be I can explain a bit for you to understand better , Christian Idea of heaven is not same as the Hindu version of Moksha , A Hindu assumes that a Moksha is being united with God, if I barrow from Vivekananda , it is like a drop of water into ocean, so after moksha man/soul will loose his/her identity and he/she will become God

Christian heaven is a communion with God (not union), Man never become or merged with God, Even in heaven man will retain his/her identity , For example in the Transfiguration mountain Disciples were able to Identify Moses and Elijah, if Elijah’s soul was given to John T.B then it makes great confusion (One soul for million Bodies?? ) There are passages about Abraham in the story of Lazarus.

Hinduism (a.k.a New Age in west) cannot co-exist with Christianity because there are 180 degree differences in the concept of God, Salvation, Heaven and Hell. So don't mock both the world views by encouraging cult! , I am repeating it is an ABSOLUTE BLASHPHEMY of Jesus and His sacrifice! , I am totally against people creating cult because concepts like reincarnation give them more comfort than one life and once chance--Karma2Grace 15:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

195.210.193.129 11:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

(trying to keep a low head in a controversial topic)

I don't understand how this article merits a POV tag when it espouses that Group X believe Y evidenced by Z and passes no view as to the correctness of their conclusions. I see nothing to suggest more than some Christians do not find reincarnation incompatible with Christianity - I fail to see the controversy in this; I am sure that some Christians hold reincarnation as compatible with their Christian beliefs. The article is not providing a critique of whether reincarnation is biblically proven or justifiable, it is simply saying that some people believe it can take place. Is there a way to move this article forward rather than just leaving it with a POV tag, I'm sure those who have contributed so far are intelligent enough to reach an agreed NPOV article?

Just my two-penneth worth...

Trevorboys 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article does not merit a POV tag. Both sides seem to be equally represented. I would still like to debate with K2G with my POV. (A debate that has been repeated and will repeate for thousands of years)...--Jondel 09:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOTES by Jan Erik Sigdell TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT REINCARNATION, THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY

Some facts contributed by the author of the book in German: Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma – “Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church” (Ibera, Vienna, 2001).

I have allowed myself to add some comments which to me seem relevant in the interest of a balanced discussion, as Wikipedia seems to invite readers to do. If this is not OK, let me know, and I will put it in somewhere else (e-mail address at the end of this contribution).

To die once, Hebr. 9:27
“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”, hence: die once – live once – no reincarnation. The Greek word here translated as “once” is hapax. Greek dictionaries tell us that the word can also mean: “once and for all”, “at once, suddenly”, “one day, eventually”. Hence, the contradiction to reincarnation is only apparent and related to a tendentious and subjectively chosen translation that fits the purpose.

John and Elias, Matth. 11:14, 17:10-13
John the Baptist is Elias (in earlier texts: Elijah). As a contradiction to this literal understanding, John 1:21 is referred to, where John the Baptist denies being Elias. His words are chosen to contradict what Jesus said! Should we believe him more than Jesus? The Christian view must be, that Jesus knew what John didn’t know. Very few consciously know their past personality and it may very well be that John wasn’t one of them. Or he may have avoided the question, telling only half the truth: “I am not Elias (now, but I once was)”. In any case, the mere fact that people asked him about this demonstrates that they took Jesus’ words literally.
John the Baptist was killed. Could this have been his karma? Read 1 Kings 18:40: “And Elias said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elias brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there” [some 400 persons…].

The man born blind, John 9:2
A disciple asked Jesus about the possibility that the man was born blind because of what he did before he was born (one of the two alternatives in his question). This shows that the disciple believed in preexistence. Jesus doesn’t correct him in that, but instead indicates that in this individual case the blindness had nothing to do with having sinned before being born. A general conclusion cannot be drawn.
Medieval theology has suggested, referring to rabbinical sources, that the man could have sinned in the mother’s womb (having had “evil thoughts” there), a suggestion too absurd to take seriously.

Two crucified malefactors, Luke 23:39-43
One of them regretted and believed in Jesus, and Jesus said to him: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” He will have had his last incarnation. The other malefactor didn’t regret but mocked Jesus. He will still have had many reincarnations to come…
This, furthermore, contradicts the dogma of inseparability of soul and body. If they were inseparable, his soul couldn’t go to paradise with Jesus the same day.

Discussion with Nicodemus, John 3:3-4 and 8
Jesus said: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Nicodemus asked: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” He didn’t see that it would have to be a new mother. This quotation of Jesus is in modern text versions usually translated: “Except a man be born from above…”, and it is explained that Nicodemus would have misunderstood Jesus as saying “…be born again…” This explanation refers to the double sense of the Greek word anothen, which can mean both (and a few more things, too). But this is clearly nonsense, because they didn’t speak Greek! They spoke Aramaic! The Aramaic language has no double-sense word that fits here, but a single-sense word mille’ela = “from above” and another single-sense word tanyanut = “again, anew”. Clearly, Jesus used the latter, since that is how Nocodemus understood it and a misunderstanding is ruled out in the original language.
Later, Jesus says: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” This seems to make no sense. Here, the word pneuma occurs twice in the Greek text, and has first been translated as “wind” and later as “Spirit”. Pneuma means “wind” and in an indirect sense “spirit” – but also “soul”, that which makes the body alive, the “breath of life” (cf. Hebrew ruah). The latter meaning is common in religious texts. Furthermore, “sound” is here a translation of the Greek phoné, which rather means “voice”. Hence an alternative and correct translation is: “The soul goes where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice [whispering] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born with a soul.” Now it makes sense. Jesus talks about preexistence: The soul comes from somewhere, where it was before, and goes on to somewhere else when the body dies. Of course, preexistence doesn’t necessarily mean reincarnation – but reincarnation necessarily involves preexistence…

Whom say people that I am? Luke 9:18-19
Jesus said: “’Whom say the people that I am?’ They answering said ‘John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again’.” John the Baptist would obviously not be possible, but the other alternatives indicate that some people in him saw a possible reincarnation of Elias or another old prophet.

Origen and reincarnation
Origen’s relevant original texts were burnt in the 6th century. The only texts remaining to-day are the Latin translations by Rufinus and Hieronymus, the latter only in fragments. Both admit in the introduction to the translation that they have adjusted the text to fit the Dogma and omitted certain “offensive” parts. Thus, clearly, if Origen had written positively about reincarnation, they will have omitted that or changed its wording.
Through burning the original texts, the Church has withdrawn for itself the grounds for proving its allegation that Origen would have contradicted reincarnation.

The anathemata against Origen
In the protocols of the Council in Constantinople of 553, the condemnations of Origen were mentioned. They were not a subject discussed in the council itself, but this merely confirmed a condemnation formulated ten years earlier in a local synod in Constantinople. The Council instead dealt with the “three Chapters”, three texts by long dead bishops, now condemned as heretical. But before the Council was opened, waiting for the pope to appear, emperor Justinian presented the text from 543 and requested the bishops present to sign it. The pope didn’t come and the Council, therefore, wasn’t opened yet. A week later they gathered again, but the pope didn’t agree and still didn’t come. The emperor, therefore, declared the Council opened without the presence of the pope, clearly against the rules for a Council.
Emperor Justinian wrote in his edict against Origen, in which he ordered the condemnation at the synod of 543, that, according to Origen: “spiritual entities were fallen in sin and as punishment banned into bodies… becoming imprisoned in a body a second and a third time or even still more times…”
The first anathema reads: “If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” The Greek words here translated as “monstrous restoration” are teratodi apokatastasin. Apokatastasis normally refers to the restoration of God’s creation in its original holy order, which is certainly not monstrous… hence it will here refer to something else, but to what? Does it refer to the restoration of a new body for the soul? This would truly be “monstrous” to the Dogma… This may be a reference to reincarnation, without mentioning it by name. And if so, it confirms that Origen was viewed as advocating reincarnation.
Since the condemnation of Origen isn’t a decision by an allegedly “infallible” Council, it has never been officially forbidden to the Christian to believe in preexistence, nor in reincarnation…

The Council in Nicaea in 325
It has been repeatedly alleged that belief in reincarnation was condemned during the Council in Nicaea in 325. No reference to that is found in protocols of the Council. However, it is known that these protocols are incomplete. Parts of them are missing. It is also known that emperor Constantine didn’t allow the Gnostic Christians to speak at the Council and that he gave their propositions and petitions to the fire without opening them. It is historically documented that most of the Gnostic Christians believed in reincarnation, but he didn’t give them the chance to present their views.

The third and fourth generation? Num. 14:18
“The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” If this were so, it would be a horrible injustice to punish innocent children, grandchildren and so on for what an ancestor did! And what “mercy” would that be? Such an interpretation is contradicted in Deut. 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” The Christian Gnostics interpreted the text in Num. 14:18 as referring to the “third and forth incarnation” of a sinner. That would be just…

E-mail of the author: sigdell (a) siol.net - written this way to avoid having it scanned by search robots for spam (if they can also scan Wikipedia documents). Replace (a) by @ and leave the spaces out. My own website is now on-line: *Christian Reincarnation, and includes a downloadable PDF file with the complete English translation of my book Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma.
Jan Erik Sigdell 213.250.12.57 17:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality from a neutral observer

Doing research on reincarnation beliefs in various faiths, I happened on this article. The NPOV notice at the beginning puzzled me. Reading the discussion, it seems to me that it has been put on by someone who disagrees with the ideas voiced within the article. This is insufficient reason for a NPOV notice. All contemporary ideas have their place in an encyclopedia, so long as they are clearly identified as being connected to particular voices within our society. The article (in its present form; it obviously has gone through considerable editing in this regard) seems to bend over backwards to attribute the ideas to particular streams within society and Christianity. In particular, the introduction makes very clear that it is not the mainstream view. I am removing the NPOV tag, and suggest that any remaining issues be dealt with by editing individual sections of the text for balance, should this be necessary. Hgilbert 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REINCARNATION (God's tool for his infinite mercy upon man)

Reincarnation is widely understood to be the rebirth of a dead person; better still the coming back to life of a person by birth. There has been different beliefs concerning reincarnation, some believe that a reincarnated person came back to life to fulfil a promise or oath he swore, one which he could not accomplish during his previous life time, some believe it is the return of a past heroes, while some believe it’s just one of the normal things that come with nature.

Which ever way one sees Reincarnation, we all believe it has to do with the coming back to life of a dead person by birth.

In the south western part of Nigeria, a country in the western part of Africa, the Yoruba tribe identifies the sex of a reincarnated person by the names they are given when given birth to. A male reincarnated person is calles Babajide or Babatunde, Babajide meaning the waking of a dead the father (daddy), while the babatunde means the re-arrival of the father (daddy). Both names have to do with the male FATHER. While the female is called Iyabo, meaning the arrival or coming of the mother, this identifies her as a reincarnated female.

There is more to reincarnation than all that has been stated. Of all I have heard and read about this word REINCARNATION, i strongly do believe that many have not seen beyond all that has been stated above.

I would like to make you understand that reincarnation goes far beyond just the rebirth of a person, either to fulfil past promises or just to come back to life. This is will explain using the two basic kinds of reincarnation.

1) The reincarnation of the Righteous and 2) The reincarnation of the sinner.

The reincarnation of the righteous is the rebirth of a faithful and holy person who is reincarnated so as to come back to life and continue God’s works, like the saints.

While the reincarnation of the sinner is divided into two groups, which are: i) Reincarnation of the cursed and ii) Reincarnation of the ordinary sinner

Before these two categories of reincarnation can be understood, I would have to explain those I refer to as the cursed. The cursed i call those who have sinned against the Holy spirit and not God the father, this is explained in the book of Mathew 3:28-30 “28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.”

Note that vs.29 it is stated that all manner of sins and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto man except the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Which is explained in the 29th verse. Hence there is a sort of sin which shall not be forgiven unto men. One must not under estimate the power of these words, if it is said that one shall not be forgiven, for his sins, it simply implies that no matter how much he prays or how much seeks to be forgiven, his prayers shall be turned down, and is destined for eternal destruction. This sort of sin is what I term to be cursed, because he shall no more receive forgiveness. I used the word cursed so as to be understood properly and not being overlooked. For a curse is a sort of ban or stopping someone from living a normal way of life, like the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly and feed on dust, thereby banning or stopping from living its normal way of life even unto eternal damnation.

Hence whoever blasphemes the holy spirit is not being forgiven, of his sins thereby restricting him or her from certain benefits or achievements, which could be attained or received by one who has not blasphemed the holy spirit. this restriction in what ever way it may seem is like unto a curse for no man can take off the restriction, thereby making the individual restricted for life. This could be termed as a curse because in the normal self, i.e without blaspheming the spirit of God the person has the ability to attain a certain stage, be it divine or spiritual, but the fact that there has been a ban or stopping for life, it becomes a curse. In other words who ever blasphemes the Holy Spirit shall be eternally stopped from attaining a particular level either in the physical or spiritual, sake of his not being forgiven by God.

Haven said all these, and knowing fully well that God deals with the souls of man and not his physical person, I believe that who ever has blasphemed the holy spirit not to be forgiven can live a righteous life once again, but this can only be done, through one way, which I believe is reincarnation.

One may ask how this can be possible, since it has been stated in the bible that such people shall not and will not be forgiven. The answer simply is that as long as there shall be a time of judgement, which is explained in rev.20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Reading this we’ll realise that there shall be a time when all shall be judged, yet we must not fail to understand that before this time comes reincarnation shall still continue, which I believe will include or involve those who have blasphemed the holy spirit, and they (their souls) shall also be reincarnated just like any other soul is reincarnated. When these souls are reincarnated, I believe its God’s infinite mercy that man should not perish unto everlasting damnation, but to have eternal life, and for these sorts of people it will be through reincarnation.

I strongly do believe that the reincarnation of the sinner is God’s infinite mercy upon man.

If we do believe that God’s ways are far beyond the understanding of man, we must also believe that his infinite mercy is far beyond our understanding, none the less, it is left to us to strive to understand his ways and his manner of mercy.

It is often said that when a man dies in his sins, he shall be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented eternally, which is often known as eternal damnation, but I say unto you, that when a man dies in his sins, God is merciful enough to allow him come back to life by birth so as to be given another chance to live his life a righteous way. It is written that God does not want the death of a sinner, but that the sinner should come to repentance. This explains the great power of reincarnation. This is to let us see beyond the literal or other meanings of reincarnation, and understand that reincarnation can be used to save man’s soul from eternal damnation.

But I would like to note that there shall be a time when reincarnation shall no more be used to save man’s soul from eternal damnation. This means there shall be a time in which the sinner shall no more be reincarnated, so as to be given another chance to live a righteous and holy life for at this time all sinners shall find their place in the lake of fire burning with fire and brim stone, this is regarded as the second death stated in the book of revelations.

Let me explain; we all know about the coming of the anti-Christ, a man who shall magnify himself above the most high, a man who shall, wear out the saints and cast down some of the hosts to the ground, a man who shall cast the truth to the ground, a man with mouth speaking great things and blasphemes the most high.

Let us briefly explain the allowance of this man’s rulership, I strongly believe that no man on the surface of the earth can posses all the qualities possessed by the Anti-Christ. This implies that he shall not only be allowed by God but also be given the power and dominion to perform all these things, but for a period of time. This makes us realize the reason for the coming of the anti-Christ, which is to bring forth punishment or tribulation upon those who refused to accept Christ whole heartedly, before his coming and during his reign. Further more who ever accepts the mark of the beast or the number of his name on their right hand or the fore head shall have their place I the lake of fire, while those who refuse to have the number of his name or the mark of the beast shall be put to death by the beast, these one are elect, who shall pay for eternal salvation with their blood during the reign of the anti-Christ, a salvation they would have received freely before his coming.

--Olu-nowoola 23:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I want to post something here for consideration in the article. There is a belief held by many but nowhere near all Mormons and most or all Mormon Fundamentalists in something we often refer to as "Multiple Mortal Probations" (google it). The article already makes reference to the Mormon idea of before-earth life, the soul having lived, but MMP is more like reincarnation except that we believe those incarnations span across different earths, in different ages of time. I hope this can be worked into the article in some way because the current Mormon reference is inaccurate because it doesn't express the full range of our beliefs.

209.40.69.13 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathars

I've added a line about the Cathars and Reincarnation. This was the one Christian movement which held the doctrine of reincarnation as being central to their interpretation of Christianity. To them the soul was doomed to be constantly reincarnated into this world until it found deliverance through Christ and the Holy Spirit, when it could return to the bosom of God and be freed from further incarnations. This meant that, for the Cathars, the earth was a kind of Hell from which the fallen Soul sought to escape. ThePeg 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)