"Can I be a Christian and still believe in reincarnation?" a woman once asked me. I explained to the woman that up until the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 533, reincarnation was accepted in Christian thought. But the Synod of Constantinople condemned the teaching of reincarnation, and there are some biblical scholars that believe most references to it were then expunged from the Bible.
Even after the official church rejection of reincarnation, the concept was still accepted by such well-known figures as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Augustine.
St. Augustine, accepted by many scholars as being the most important figure in the ancient Western church, wrote in his "Confessions": "Did I not live in another body, or somewhere else, before entering my mother's womb?"
Origen, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers, declared, "Every soul comes into this world strengthened by the victories or awakened by the defeats of its previous lives."
Jesus Christ did not deal directly with reincarnation, but he did refer to it. It was part of the teachings of the Essenes, a prominent Jewish sect of his day. There are some who believe that Jesus was an Essene in his thought, if not in fact.
There are some interesting observations recorded in the New Testament books of Matthew and Mark. In Matthew 11:14-15, Jesus refers to John the Baptist, saying, "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"
In Mark 9:11-13 we read: "And they asked him, 'Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?' And he said to them, 'Elijah does come first to restore all things....I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.'" It is generally accepted that Jesus was declaring that John the Baptist was one and the same as--or the reincarnation of--Elijah.
In Matthew 16:13-14 we read that Jesus asked his disciples: "'Who do men say that the Son of man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.'" From this statement alone, we can conclude that reincarnation was a common idea.
Reincarnation is an ancient teaching that has been around far longer than Christianity. It was accepted by the ancient civilizations in Egypt, Greece and China and is still a prominent teaching in Hinduism and Buddhism.
If you believe in reincarnation, you are in good company. Here are some of the other well-known believers: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Huxley, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Percy Shelley, John Greenleaf Whittier, Walt Whitman, Robert Browning, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and General George Patton. These are just a few of the more notable ones.
A Harris poll conducted in 2003 showed that 27% of Americans believe in reincarnation. Of the respondents interviewed between the ages of 25-29, 40% believed in reincarnation. The percentage went down to 14% for respondents 65 or over.
I believe that everyone must come to their own conclusions about reincarnation. I would never tell anyone what to believe. For those of us who have experienced past-life regressions, spontaneously or otherwise, it has become real to us and very personal.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 63
Nameste
Lost Soul, I would suggest you read the books by Dr. Brian Weiss including "Many Lives, Many Masters" and "Same Soul, Many Bodies". Dr. Weiss attended Columbia University and Yale Medical School and is a psychotherapist. He was very skeptical about reincarnation until a patient of his began to remember past lives. Thus began his study of it. He now teaches others how to perform regressions. You may find out more about him on his web site: http://www.brianweiss.com/
Much of the Christian dogma preached insists that heathen peoples like the Indian Hindoos believe that reincarnation means you come back as an animal even ... an intentional dis-information distortion because though there may be a small sect that believes such, the vast bulk of the others do not.
The christian church tells many false stories to their people to make themselves 'seem' better than others they evidently must fear.
I am somewhat dismayed by your claim that;
"the concept (of reincarnation) was still accepted by such well-known figures as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Augustine"
I know of no evidence of such acceptance by St, Francis, and know that it was not accepted by St. Augustine. It is telling that the quote you offer is not about reincarnation, but a question about his soul having existed prior to inhabiting a human body. The pre-existence theory of how the soul comes into being has nothing to do with reincarnation in the classic sense. And in fact, the entire question of pre-existence was never more than a part of a four part hypothetical treatment by Augustine, and never a conclusion of any kind. Indeed, by his later writings, the hypothesis which relates to the quote you made is dropped altogether, and clearly lost favor with this man.
That you would present such a nebulous claim is hardly encouraging in considering your authority, or any assertion that reincarnation is in any way related to Christianity. What you quote from Christ is again not about reincarnation at all, but some form of fulfillment of prophecy by God. You see, Elijah never died according to the Book, but was taken up in a chariot of fire by God directly. Therefore, no "reincarnation' is required for him to be in the form of John the Baptist, not in the classic sense you surely mean it.
The reference to what people at the time of Christ might have believed about reincarnation based on what you quote of their answer to him, has no relevance of any kind. They are not speaking for God or Christ.
If this is the best you've got, you have virtually nothing at all. You're perfectly free to believe whatever you wish and call yourself a Christian if you like, but claiming reincarnation is backed up by these folks you mention is simply not justified in any way I can see. The blanket excuse that references may have been removed from the Bible, constitutes a simple statement that the Book is untrustworthy, and that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ himself. This in turn renders any claim that reincarnation is supported by the Bible nothing more than a self contradicting use of an authority you already dismissed.
They quote the Bible to claim that Jesus was the reincarnation of Abraham based on Jn.8:58, which is ridiculous; and they quote Matt.11:4 to say that the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah, ignoring the answer given by the Baptist himself to those who raised this possibility: "I am not", he emphatically declared in Jn.1:21.
They also quote the Bible, Matt.14:2, claiming that Jesus was a reincarnation of John the Baptist, which is impossible, because Jesus was a grown adult when John was beheaded.
Reincarnation and the Bible are mutually exclusive. If you believe in reincarnation, you are not believing in the Bible...if you believe the Bible, reincarnation is a contradiction to the Bible, because it offers no loving God, no forgiving grace, and robs the Almighty of his attribute of mercy. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the shedding of his blood cannot be compatible with a system of belief that denies his atonement.
The Bible teaches over and over that you and I will go to Heaven or Hell after our only life on earth, without any reincarnation, "As it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27)
Felix, your assertion that people believing in reincarnation thought Christ was the reincarnation of John the Baptist is ridiculous--Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. You also bring up a passage in the book of John that I did not mention.
My assertion was not that Jesus was the reincarnation of anyone. The verses from Matthew and Mark were used to substantiate that reincarnation was a belief which existed during that time and was commonly accepted by certain Jewish sects.
As far as the other research, it still stands. Have you read "Confessions" by St. Augustine? Have you read about St. Francis of Assisi? Do the research. It is all there.
My question to all of you is: I understand why you feel this concept is threatening to your Christian theology; that is why it was condemned by the Council of Constantinople. But prior to that time, Christian followers accepted the idea.
Jesus has told us and shown us that life is eternal. Paul told us that we have two bodies, the spiritual and the body of flesh. My belief is that the soul or spirit can choose to live on in another body after the death of the one that has died. I am not saying that this is a TRADITIONAL Christian teaching. I am saying that you can be a Christian and still believe in reincarnation.
The "Book" is only inerrant IF you insist, that then becomes a 'relative' truth for only the believer ... it need not apply to others.
What seems to entrap most Christian believers, is their sworn testimony to God and Christ (their perception of) of the Nicene Creed ... which was a major product of the Council of Nicaea in 324 AD when at the direction of Constantine emperor of Rome, the Bible used today was narrowed down to what we have now, excluding countless other 'books' that were deemed for various reason inappropriate. That not to mention countless 'other' qualified discovery's that have since turned up that would completely change the meanings of much of the 'Book" had they been available then, OR had there been 'other' motives involved about how best to configure the Church and 'help' (control ?) mankind.
"The verses from Matthew and Mark were used to substantiate that reincarnation was a belief which existed during that time and was commonly accepted by certain Jewish sec"
Again, there simply is no relevance between what is "Christian doctrine" and what some people may have believed at the time of Christ, or any other time. The whole of the Bible is filled from start to finish with accounts of people adhering to false religion, and of course Christ was crucified at the behest of certain members of the Jewish priesthood. A Christian simply doesn't consider what one or another sect professed, to have any bearing on the matter.
"As far as the other research, it still stands. Have you read "Confessions" by St. Augustine? Have you read about St. Francis of Assisi? Do the research. It is all there."
Well, that's not how the game is played when one makes claims about what historical figures believed. It's pretty much up to the claimant to produce some evidence, not up to those questioning the assertions to search endlessly for what evidence might exist. You have not provided any substantial evidence. What you have provided in the form of a singe quote has already been pointed out to not bear on the question of reincarnation, and I have already provided a refutation to the claim that St. Aquinas adhered to that concept. Simply saying "It is all there" is not a meaningful response.
You don't seem to understand that the Book is extremely clear about the need to avoid false doctrine. It's not a suggestion, or optional approach. Accepting ideas about Christ or God which are not derived from the Book in at least a plausible fashion, is a big "no no". The mere fact that you don't seem to acknowledge that, is itself an indication that you do not consider Christ your Lord, in the same sense that Christians mean that term. We actually mean he's the boss, not just a teacher or sage of some significance.
Your article asks a direct question in the title, and some of us are trying to respond to that question as we see the matter. It's not the same sort of thing as asking; If one had confidence in science, could they also believe in reincarnation? You are dealing in a realm which is central to what it means to be "Christian", and not some incidental detail. It really matters to us what the Book actually says about these things, and if it could be demonstrated that it supports reincarnation, we would be obliged to accept that concept. We don't get to pick and choose which parts we like or find discomforting. It's a package deal.
"The problem with the believers of only "The Book" ... is that when they take it as the gospel word direct from God and ignore ALL of the 'other' words that are at least as direct from God"
Um, NO. Christians do not "ignore all others", we simply don't take rumors about text emanating from God as some sort of fact. Anyone can claim to be speaking for God, and only a fool would assume all who make such claims are correct. Exercising some discretion in what a person accepts as a communication from God may seem like a "problem" to you, but it seems like rational thought to many.
The fact is; you are not accepting MORE as the handiwork of God, but far LESS. Nothing at all do you treat as a communication inspired by God, it is all the work of men to you, subject to your approval and editing. It's merely your own feelings and opinions you adhere to, not any serious faith in scripture of any sort. So from your vantage point, believers of the Word are being exclusive. In reality, you are excluding the possibility that God actually wrote anything, or has any power to get an actual message to you. I realize you figure that's the "highest" one can achieve, but again, that is merely taking your own thoughts as gospel, not accepting any form of inspired text at all.
Carla, when I commented I was commenting on the subject matter not specifically on anyhting you said in your' article. My opinion was on the issue being discussed not on your' opinion.
I research the Bible not what Tom, Dick or Harry said. Why would I bother with St. Augustine or St. Francis when I can go to the source:
"As it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27)
A lark doesn't sing any clearer.
Have you read the story of Lazarus...in the Bible (not Augustine or Francis):
Luke 16:
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Too bad the rich man couldn't opt for reincarnation. This theory is not a threat to my christian theology. The Bible, if properly read and understood doesn't in any way, shape or form support this theory.
You say,
"Paul told us that we have two bodies, the spiritual and the body of flesh."
Yes, but:
" Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." - Ecclesiastes 12.7
So, no...you don't get to choose to pick another body...just like the rich man in Lazarus story, simply because:
"... it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27)"
Carla, you're just brimming with all sorts of misinformation. The Council of Nicea had to do with the polemic over arianism and the divinity of Christ. The canon of the Bible came later.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
The Emperor...Constantine died in 337 A.D.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
So your' assertion that the Council of Nicea 'determined what books would be included in our bibles.'...is quite, unsurprisingly, dead on wrong.
Reincarnation and the message of Christ are diametrically opposed.
Let me break it down for you...to the level where even a lost soul can understand it...if you're arguing a constitutional issue...the Constitution is the authoritative source to go to not National Geographic or the T'V' Guide.
I know you were just trying to be funny. Lol.
First to Adam, Let me use a loose analogy concerning God and Christ. If God were Electronics as a whole, and Christ was the Sony line ... then the Sony handbooks would be used and believed in for reference to those products ...
Then Toshiba or some other 'branch' of electronics would also have their own handbooks.
God is God and Christ is Christ ... neither left around any 'books', though I am quite sure that they have both INspired many many to be written. To take one book on one branch and claim it as God's own and at the same time neglecting ALL of the others as either worthless OR just not up to your 'standards' ... only shows lack of real concern about real truth ... OR ... a chosen Faith to devote to. You are then all about Sony, Toshiba, or Christ ... BUT NOT Electronics nor God.
One then can quote chapter and verse and even believe they fully understand it all, but it is quite likely that others just as adamant about their 'faith' will have different understandings ... even using the very same book.
There are countless believers in Jesus Christ and others in Christ Jesus ... and there is a big difference in those understandings for discerning people.
As for the New Testament and it's 'primary' author Paul. He was Saul of Tarsus on the way to Damascus when he had his "Spiritual Awakening" ... but he had a background involving Jesus Christ and His followers ... so naturally he related to that when he considered himself the spiritual (Christian now) Paul.
The point being, he was but one of countless others of which I am one also, that had a spiritual awakening to the degree that we could better understand the Spirit of God. I could name names of many that have shown up through history, all actually Brothers to Jesus and then the 'Family' of Christ ...
But the believers since Paul have put him and his writings on a pedestal and worshipped it all as an idol ... (a golden calf ?). In swearing to the meanings that so many of you have derived from those relatively few 'books' of words, you have just limited yourselves to that one concept of faith. Most have put themselves on some righteous and pious pedestal above all 'others' and in doing so have actually went against the very teachings you claim as your own. World wide you have probably made far more enemies in doing that than even friends within your own faith.
There are many other people in this world that are at least as spiritual and many far more so, that have a handle on God and even Christ, even a relationship of a personal nature with 'both' ... that may well have a meaning and standing that you would be envious of IF you were able to comprehend the transcendent truths of such.
So quote all you want, but you only impress favorably like thinkers, it proves nothing otherwise except that you have limited vision concerning God.
As for John, you know more about my beliefs than most, yet you fail to either understand them or honor them when you make the statements as you have above about it all. Either ignorant or disingenuous ... ?
" ... Exercising some discretion in what a person accepts as a communication from God may seem like a "problem" to you, but it seems like rational thought to many. ... "
I just may well turn the above around and send it right back to you ... it fits you better than it does me.
And your last entire paragraph of the preceding comment is pure garbage also, just an insinuation on your part of things you either do not understand or will just not accept ... maybe I will go into more detail about that later.
Yes, you get to claim you accept more text as God inspired communication than I, nothing prevents you from saying and believing that. What remains a provable fact is that you accept NO communication as actually being from God. Your claims may or may not be true, as with any made, but it is simply not true that you are more inclusive about what words are the words of God. None is less than a whole bunch, the matter is not debatable. Either point out which texts you accept as trustworthy declarations of God, or acknowledge that there are none you accept.
You argue both sides of this matter quite consistently; Insisting on the one hand that no scripture is actually a reliable message from God, which of course any God worthy of that title could easily arrange, and on the other hand, that Christians, and presumably any who see any text as God's legitimate creation, as somehow lacking in willingness to set aside their own beliefs to find God. It simply cannot compute. It is you who cling to a belief in the infallibility of your own mind, not those who have accepted that God actually sent them a message.
The goofy notion that picking tidbits from among various doctrines and philosophies which one happens to find tasty, constitutes a willingness to accept that God is real and active in the universe, is nonsensical. It's precisely what those who do not accept the possibility that God is real do. Tacking on some rationalizations about how God allows His words to be corrupted by any who feel like it, and turning right around and claiming you alone have the power to weed out tiny fragments of God's thoughts from among whatever you happen to read, changes nothing.
Your "God" is utterly powerless and amoral, permitting It's intentions to be messed with by all. Unable to formulate a clear thought, or words worthy of serious consideration by anyone. Your "God" is just an extension of your opinions, and your "faith" is just an extension of your pride. Pulling the "how dare you question someone's faith" card, amounts to nothing more than saying "how dare you question my hunches". I dare.
Your clearly logical approach to this matter is most commendable. The mythological "mutability" of Biblical text is so widely accepted as to constitute "blind faith" in rumors and gossip. The actual work that has gone into verifying the authenticity and accuracy of something like the modern King James version of the Bible, puts all other similar pursuits by determined scholars to shame.
Most folks have no idea of the lengths gone to by those who have preserved and protected the original words of the prophets and disciples. The notion that people were casual or slapdash in any way shape or form about what those original words were, is surely one of the most naive beliefs in the history of man. A simple cursory examination of the earliest reliable Hebrew texts available, demonstrates a level of commitment far in excess of any other attempt at literary fidelity know to exist.
That those texts bore incredibly detailed "fail-safes" of numerous kinds, to the point of listing the exact number of every word, and each letter in the Hebrew alphabet, in each and every "book", is completely unknown to most critics. Would be experts go on and on about how the tendency for human error over all those years must have resulted in gross corruptions and mistranscriptions, without even suspecting that because of those fastidious safeguards we can actually go back and find individual errors by individual scribes down to the level of a words subtle inflection or inference.
The concept that those who take that Book to be the actual words intended by God for us to read, are somehow gullible followers of what this or that person wishes to "indoctrinate" us to believe, is so utterly merit-less as to be pathetic. Rivaled only by the childish notion that what the words actually say is conducive to a state of "blind faith" in anything at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entirety of the Book is packed to overflowing with challenges to our assumptiveness and gullibility. Virtually nothing in or about it can be rationally construed as encouraging the suspension of the tiniest bit of skepticism and critical thinking. One is confronted at every turn with a demand for reason and intelligent consideration. It is, in the final analysis, an inoculation against "blind faith" of any kind.
As far as you telling me that I'm not a Christian--well, that doesn't bother me at all boys. My relationship with God is deeper and more profound than you will ever know or understand.
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis 2:7
Oh, Carla feels put upon...ahhh...a sure sign of an argument lost.
"This group was formed to discuss topics with an open-mind and not to judge others or their beliefs. Sharing your opinions is one thing, but personal attacks are something else altogether"
"My relationship with God is deeper and more profound than you will ever know or understand"
Apparently you are incapable of seeing the tremendous contradiction in these two statements, or you would not make them in succession. ¿Ask a question, and get some answers, and then condemn folks for taking you seriously???? Say what?
And you call this open-minded?
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all ..." (1 Timothy 2:5)
"There is one body and one Spirit ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)
"I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and find pasture ... I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." (John 10:9)
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." (John 11:25)
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)
"... whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:15-16)
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24)
"... And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son of God does not have life." (1 John 5:11)
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (1 John 4:14)
"... God our Savior, who desires ALL MEN to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For WHOEVER calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:12)
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes ... " (Romans 1:16)
I believe in Christ...not in anyone else...it's my prerogative.
Joshua 24:15
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve;...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
You ask an excellent question, and cannot be faulted in any way for wondering if reincarnation might be a fact. I must say that it is indeed a rather good sounding means of education folks over a great span of time (by our count), and would not doubt for an instant that God might have considered that method in his doubtless thorough consideration of what He would do.
"Why would that be impossible?"
It's not really a question of it being "possible", for surely God could manage it. It's just that He must have actually employed some particular form of going about the education of His children, and it appears quite clearly from the point of view which Christ comes to us through (God's Word), that He chose another means. Perhaps in some distant past we know nothing of, or some distant future we cannot imagine, He WILL employ some form of re-incarnation. We just get a look at a very small segment of eternity, and cannot know much about other portions.
There are many conflicting ideas in the Bible and a lot of symbolism. We cannot take everything in the Bible literally. Felix, do you see God as a big man on a cloud that breathed into the nostrils of every person on this earth? There are great truths in the Bible that are missed when we try to take everything literally. God gave us brains to think. Jesus spoke in parables and knew that his greatest truths would not be understood by the majority of people living at that time. And still, in this day and age, people overlook the truth because they get hung up on literalism.
And yes, Lynn, I do believe that it is feasible that you are allowed to return to live in a different body. Think of the child that dies three days after it is born. Are we to believe that the soul of that child would never be given the opportunity to experience a normal lifetime? I do not believe that. Lynn, do not be pressured into accepting ideas that do not feel right to you--not mine or anyone else's. You have to listen to your heart. Do not fall victim to those that would attack you and say that you are not a Christian unless you believe what they say you should. Your walk with God is personal and sacred. Trust God to show you the way. There are different denominations of Christianity. There are Progressive Christians, Emergent Christians, Christian mystics, Gnostic Christians and then there are fundamentalist Christians. There is room for all.
Enjoy your perceived 'superiority' on matters spiritual John, there is a 'shelf life' problem with that in eternal considerations, but of course in this world there are ample like thinkers to rally to your defense and spew forth quotes and platitudes from and about the one great infallible 'book' ... I hate to tell you this because you are great at spinning everything I say in your own direction, but personal experience counts for far more than words from books ... I would think you would be smart enough to realize that ...
How good of you to share that thought. It is indeed a seductive concept, and one which I believe is rather commonly entertained to some degree in various forms by many people. And another which seems to be implied by your comment, is that what we find appealing has some inherent truth value, which is considered by some, self deprecating to seriously question.
These two concepts in combination; that what we imagine has significance, and what we find pleasant has real value, can lead to some pretty powerful impulses. Even though we know that we can imagine virtually anything we wish, and that what gives us pleasure can be worthless or even harmful, it is still possible to become hopeful about pleasant things we imagine, and even defensive about ideas that find favor with us. What I would wish people to consider is that all that glitters just can't be gold.
Perfectly beautifully ideas can be simply beautiful ideas, and not reflections of a larger reality. Great intuitions can be simply great intuitions, and not the truth. Please realize; The most serious folks here, defending resurrection style "rebirth", are not claiming that all non-biblical concepts are worthless or ugly. There is no reason to take criticism of a particular attempt to relate an idea to the words in the Bible, as criticism of the idea itself, or those who are delving into such possibilities. Perfectly wonderful ideas come to people all the time, many have no relationship to the Book, and some do.
I have examined this question to what I feel is a significant extent, and I find reincarnation incompatible with the teaching in the Bible. The concept of having once observed a "heavenly" state of existence is not so clearly "out of bounds", but does have some problematic aspects. But for a few alterations of what you appear to mean by "knowing God" and the like, I would agree with this basic concept, independent of any "pre-life" at all. We are the much esteemed handiwork of a stupendously talented Creator.
Before the world gets it's claws on us, we are a rather profound example of His skills. That opening sequence of simply being the intelligent creature of His design, might very well implant in most people a profoundly appealing and significant sense of a "heavenly" state, in close proximity to the very architect of all that we are, and our closest and most loving relative in all the universe; our True Father. We are, at the beginning, quite alive and conscious. There is a person in there, and they are born wondering.
We ARE such a person. They did not get replaced by what we now see and think, that is them seeing and thinking. If that opening sequence is observing from a condition which God Himself generated from Himself, we DO start out "knowing God" in a manner of speaking. In a most all embracing and intimate way.
I'm using the King James Verison:
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen002.html
'Us' and 'Our'... the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Lynn, you can abide by the Word of God (the Bible) or you can abide by the word of Carla.
Does this verse mean nothing to you?
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
Hebrews 9:27
One final example is the criminal who was crucified next to Jesus. When he asked the Lord, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom," Jesus replied, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). Now Jesus' body could not have been in Paradise later that day, for it was taken down from the cross and buried until the third day. His soul, however, as mentioned above, could and did go to Paradise, into the Father's hands. The same, then, must be true for the criminal. He died (John 19:32 tells us that his legs were broken, which would have dramatically hastened his death), his body taken from the cross. But his soul went to Paradise, as did the soul of Jesus.
One of the things that makes me the most upset about fundamentalist Christianity is just what I read here. It strives to make others "wrong" who believe differently. Those who see the Bible as inspired writing by men, are attacked as being against Christianity. The truth is that the major schools of theology--Yale and Harvard divinity schools included, teach that the Bible contains allegory, myth, and symbolism and is not to be taken literally. Felix, you can quote the Bible till the end of time--which you seem to do, but you have to understand the history and culture of the times. But most fundamentalist Christians do not take classes in theology or the history of Christianity. They learn from pastors who have had no theological education and who like to stand up and spew forth messages of fear to their congregations in order to manipulate them.
The personal attacks that have been made upon me goes back to the idea that when one cannot truly dispute the facts that are in a story, they choose to attack the messenger himself/herself. Again, the facts in my article stand. One is left to make his or her own decision. The quotes from the Bible are very clear. No, Jesus did not teach reincarnation--that was never my assertion--it was to show that even Jesus acknowledged that it was a well-known belief at the time. Was Jesus reincarnated? I don't know and I will not speculate. It doesn't really matter to my faith.
Felix, you say that the reference to "Us" in the creation story is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How do you then explain the teaching that God brought his only begotten son into the world to redeem it from sin? In the beginning, with the creation, there was no sin. The world was only at that time being created! How could there be sin, Felix? Didn't God create the perfect universe? The concept of the Holy Trinity was not even fully embraced and accepted by the church until the Council of Constantiople in 381 AD.
And Felix, how can you say to Lynn that she can "abide by the word of God (Bible) or the word of Carla"? I had just told her that she needed to listen and heed the guidance of God within her. I told her specifically not to accept my ideas or anyone else's unless they felt right to her. Why do you feel compelled to twist my words and lie? Do you feel so threatened by what I have to say?
For anyone who would like to really see how fundamentalist Christians have used literalism in such a way as to promote prejudice, war and hatred, there are a number of good books out there. My favorite is "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopal bishop.
As far as I know the Essenes were not Jews by birthm by blood or by religion and were often referred to as GENTILES in many of the sacred writings, even in the Christian bible. They were a branch of the illuminated brotherhood which has its birt in the country of Egypt during the years preceding Amenhotep the 4th, Pharaoh of Egypt. The several schools of mystics were united under one head constituting the Great White Brotherhood.
I would love to talk more about it with you!
Thank you somuch for a most beautiful article
And you talk about testing my beliefs against God's infallible truth. To you, that is about scripture. My truth comes directly through my communion with God. As I have said previously, I believe that the Bible was inspired scripture, and it is an inspiration to me, but it was written by man not by God sitting on a cloud with a pen.
Do you believe that God stopped communicating with us humans back some 2000 years ago? Is it possible that God is still communicating to us even today? I spend time in prayer and meditation every day and receive my guidance through Spirit, or the Christ within. The fact that you choose to only rely on scripture is your business.
I am tired of this tug of war with you Adam (and John and Felix). You have come into this discussion with the motive of making me and others wrong about our beliefs because they do not fit with your own personal theology. As I said to you in the other article that you sought to commandeer the discussion on, you are invited to find a group that fits your theology. This group was created by me for open-minded discussion. Your mind is clearly made up and you are using this as a pulpit to put down other's beliefs. I will not defend my faith with you. My faith is personal and sacred and that faith is in the living God.
I am amazed that you feel the need to defend Christianity as you know it. If your teachings are Truth, then they stand as such regardless of what others believe. Why should you feel the need to do battle with others who do not agree with you? Do you want to do battle with every Buddhist, Muslim or Jew? I hate to tell you this, but there are many other Christians who do not agree with what you say here. The majority of today's Christian scholars do not believe in a literal interpretation of scripture. They do not believe in a virgin birth. But when your beliefs depend so much on a literal interpretation...well, I can see why you would fight so hard to defend them.
Adam, you speak with such self assured authority that one would suspect that you were named after the 'original' and really feel a connection (literally of course).
As I was reading your comment to Carla, I was copying and pasting some of what you said for my intended comment to you (and John especially included, and maybe Felix as an aside only for understanding, as I have no axe to grind with him because he, unlike John, has not resorted to distorting intentionally my views ).
But then I got to and read Carla's comment in reply to you … and was extremely impressed with her response, it being very much what I could say also with truth and conviction.
But I will continue with my intended response to you (and who ever else the shoe fits). This because as I have repeatedly attempted to tell John in the past, I see a real difference in thought between literalist fundamental Christian viewpoints which I call the exoteric and objective as compared to people like Carla and myself that have esoteric and subjective considerations to apply to that of the previous. The result is quite a lot different, the difference between religion and spirituality in many cases, the word and the actual experience.
So, here we go:
>>> This is an essential issue of the historic Christian faith that you have trampled on. Resurrection is clearly taught throughout the pages of Scripture, and yet you want to label yourself "Christian" and go against perhaps THE essential of essentials to Christianity. My goodness…what does the Christian look forward to in the afterlife?? He does not look forward to an endless progression of so-called previous lives circulating over each other! No, he looks forward to being resurrected as Christ taught and promised and did Himself. <<<<br>
Remember carefully just what you have said above Adam, because this concept uses yours but transcends it one level, from your more objective concern with physicality associated with a 'body' (resurrected) after death to earth life, a more literal objective consideration … and that of myself that looks at the 'term' as the spiritual body that one then has after death to earth life which is our inheritance … which in the case of Jesus he returned to earth in it after his crucifixion where he convinced the disciples/apostles that it was 'real' … the 'intended' message being that life did not end at death, that what he had been preaching during life was meant to prepare all followers for doing "as he did, only more" … (I will let you Bible scholars dig up the quote I paraphrased).
My point being, there is your understanding that is basically objective that sets importance on the 5 senses and physical proofs … that being why the really big day in the future for your types will be the return (the second coming) of Jesus in body (again) … really a very literal and objective OUTlook.
Then there is the transcendent view of Mystics and those more Spiritual, that of the personal experience of receiving Christ/ Holy Spirit/ God/ our Higher Self, or a host of other descriptors that amount to the very same thing … thus where the exoteric church member is baptized with water (by a priest yet), we are Baptized with Fire by Spirit Itself ! We then see that as subjective 'proof' to us because it was personally EXPERIENCED and leaves no doubt whatsoever when one seeks the truth of the matter.
Of course the exoteric then denounce the esoteric as of the occult (dark form, there is a white form also) because the church officials do so, calling all such heretical and even evil … that is the way it has always been so the church can keep it's flock under it's wing of 'protection' (otherwise known as 'control').
I will say no more at this moment and go on to the 'next':
>>> In any event, if you consider yourself to be a Christian, then why have you not tested your subjective personal experiences in light of God's infallible truth? Why do subjective experiences have the trump card over what God has already said? This is most inconsistent with how a true follower of Christ should conduct himself or herself. <<<<br>
I would say that you have there said it all … from the perspective of the literalist fundamentalist objective believer.
>>> So, again, at the end of the day, this is not about "what does Carla think?"…rather the question will be "what does Scripture say?" I am hard pressed to figure out why a follower of Christ (at least so-called) would even attempt to reconcile these two diametrically opposed worldviews. <<<<br>
There again, you say it all based upon your only having that one objective understanding which comes from words only.
Maybe you attach so much importance to the 'word' because prior to creation there was first the word of God) ?
But the word of God manifested (relatively) into 'spiritual' people, Adam 'before' the fall into physicality. What you seem to fail to see, is that the realm that you and I are now in is that physical realm of objective bodies and experiences … before we can hope to get back 'up' (vibration levels) to the 'higher' realm 'above', we have to 'qualify' … that usually means we have to come to understand the real difference between the two realms and acknowledge that they exist … I maintain that the Spirit (by what ever applicable name) of God, IS that qualifier … and until one has actually had 'that' experience, they would be hard pressed to know anything about it … except maybe 'words' … which in ignorance, as I have already alluded, they will reject the notion. This where you and John seem to be in my estimation … or, IMnsHO.
Now keep in mind here PLEASE. I say this NOT as a putdown … but as a Teaching only. Those that would reject would be coming from an 'ego' (small s self) position because what they now believe to be their reality would seem (SEEM only) threatened … because the current thinking would have to be modified to accept the new … and people are often in fear, admitted or not, that will not look upon the new as beneficial rather than threatening.
In God's universe, from the healthy perspective of real knowing (gnosis), the reality is that of unconditional love via spirit and THAT is the truth that will set one free … probably the only thing that will.
For the full story Adam, check out Spirit Calls … a voice from the wilderness.
Peace, j.
"I have been disappointed that this discussion has been hijacked by those who are not in alignment with the group itself and its purpose, which was to discuss topics with an open mind and to share ideas without judging"
Can you not see that YOU are judging others because they are "not in alignement with the group", and do not agree with YOUR "personal theology'? Have I stumbled into some sort of "cult" meeting here? Where referencing the Bible is out of place in a discussion about whether something is ultimately compatible with what it means to be "Christian"?
No one has "attacked" you, it is you who have slung all the personal insults, and derogatory comments about people's motives, and being judgmental or overly zealous. Others have given their positions and reasoning and evidence, just as one would think appropriate for such a discussion. Why is that considered an "attack" of any sort? Why is that not welcomed in this "open-minded" meeting? When you say "open-mind", does that actually mean "open to things other than Biblical teaching" ????? Is it actually seen as judgmental to even consult the Word of God, in a discussion about whether some concept is compatible with being Christian????
This is spooky business going on.
Well here we are a few thousand years later, and as a part of cosmic cycles that the Astrological (oooh … fear and disbelief I hear murmuring from some) charts delineate as that between the Piscean age (of the literalist religious) and the Aquarian age (from which the term New Age comes) … with the misunderstandings and conflicts associated with the Dualistic view of differentiation held so strongly by the old, the objective that distrusts and fears the subjective … just food for thought.
It is most unfortunate that we humans get so riled up when someone challenges our beliefs.
Thanks for a splendid essay!