Who were you in your prior life?

Originally Posted by iamthat

Huge question. Trying to make sense of all the early Christian teachings and creeds is beyond me. There are those who claim that reincarnation was openly taught, then there are those (usually Christian) who deny this.

There is evidence that Origen, a Church father in early Christian times, taught reincarnation in his lifetime but that when his works were translated into Latin these references were concealed. One of the epistles written by St. Jerome, writes about "convincing proof" that Origen teaches reincarnation in the original version of the book On First Principles:

The following passage is a convincing proof that he holds the transmigration of the souls and annihilation of bodies. 'If it can be shown that an incorporeal and reasonable being has life in itself independently of the body and that it is worse off in the body than out of it; then beyond a doubt bodies are only of secondary importance and arise from time to time to meet the varying conditions of reasonable creatures. Those who require bodies are clothed with them, and contrariwise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to better things, their bodies are once more annihilated. They are thus ever vanishing and ever reappearing.'

The two key dates are the first Council of Nicaea (325) called by Constantine and the fifth Council of the Church called by Justinian in 553. Supposedly in 325 they decided which books to include in the New Testament (and significantly, which books to leave out). And in 553 the teachings of Origen and others were declared anathema.

The significance of reincarnation is that it reduces the power of the Church. If a human has only one life and they then face eternity in heaven or hell then it makes the Church very powerful as the "only" way to save the soul from eternal damnation.

Some examples of reincarnation remain in the New Testament.

Jesus assured his disciples that John the Baptist really was Elijah returned:
"But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him…" Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. (Matt 17:12-13)

That it was quite usual to believe in reincarnation in Jesus' day is shown by this passage from John:

As he went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2)

If the man was being punished for his own sin, and he was born blind, his sin must have been from a previous life - obviously Jesus' disciples were familiar with the idea of reincarnation, and it was quite acceptable to talk about it. In this case, Jesus' disciples assumed a belief in reincarnation, and Jesus did not correct the assumption.

But this is a controversial subject and the experts seem unable to agree.

Peace

Lol,you know more than me.I just picked up that little snippet while doing my research.Until it is proven otherwise,I shall go on believing about reincarnation.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by hazada guess

Lol,you know more than me.I just picked up that little snippet while doing my research.Until it is proven otherwise,I shall go on believing about reincarnation.

I am with you on this. And as I said, most of these early Christian doctrines are beyond me. Arianism / Nestorianism / monophysitism/ Manichaeism????? Way too confusing, even with the assistance of Professor Google.

Peace

[Altair]

The quotes could be interpreted in different ways. I reckon that if the Biblical authors wanted people to accept or believe in reincarnation they would be more clear about it. Pythagoras didn't beat around the bush. Eastern religions don't beat around it either. They're all clear about it. The Biblical quotes that are brought forward in favour of reincarnation are incidental and unclear. I'm not saying there is no reincarnation but if I were to follow the Bible I don't think I would believe in it. Besides, a key message in the N.T. is that Jesus is a saviour and grants eternal life to believers, which means atoning for one's sins through multiple lives is not needed.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

The quotes could be interpreted in different ways. I reckon that if the Biblical authors wanted people to accept or believe in reincarnation they would be more clear about it. Pythagoras didn't beat around the bush. Eastern religions don't beat around it either. They're all clear about it. The Biblical quotes that are brought forward in favour of reincarnation are incidental and unclear. I'm not saying there is no reincarnation but if I were to follow the Bible I don't think I would believe in it. Besides, a key message in the N.T. is that Jesus is a saviour and grants eternal life to believers, which means atoning for one's sins through multiple lives is not needed.

Although the issue for many is that the New Testament is an arbitrary selection of the available writings, chosen because they supported the aims of a small group of people. Those writings which gave a different message were discarded.

Peace

[Altair]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Although the issue for many is that the New Testament is an arbitrary selection of the available writings, chosen because they supported the aims of a small group of people. Those writings which gave a different message were discarded.
Peace

So how would reincarnation align with the Biblical message of eternal life through faith in Jesus?

You're saying people should believe there were scores of pages that had clear support of reincarnation but they somehow vanished ((this is *negative evidence*)) and that the message of the N.T. is a cover up and used ''to benefit a small group of people'' ((a *conspiracy*)).

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

So how would reincarnation align with the Biblical message of eternal life through faith in Jesus?

You're saying people should believe there were scores of pages that had clear support of reincarnation but they somehow vanished ((this is *negative evidence*)) and that the message of the N.T. is a cover up and used ''to benefit a small group of people'' ((a *conspiracy*)).

I am simply saying that there seem to be various other gospels and writings from that era which were not included in the Bible.

I am not calling it a conspiracy, but it seems reasonable to suppose that those who selected what should be included in the New Testament had a particular agenda.

Because obviously, the Bible was not written by God. It is a selection of texts written by human beings. That selection was made by a small number of men in a position of authority. They chose what to include and what to leave out.

So the Biblical message of eternal life through faith in Jesus could just be a cynical choice to increase the power of the Church.

Peace

[Altair]

Originally Posted by iamthat

I am simply saying that there seem to be various other gospels and writings from that era which were not included in the Bible.

I am not calling it a conspiracy, but it seems reasonable to suppose that those who selected what should be included in the New Testament had a particular agenda.

Because obviously, the Bible was not written by God. It is a selection of texts written by human beings. That selection was made by a small number of men in a position of authority. They chose what to include and what to leave out.

Of course. No disagreements there. But what you do next is you use this historical messiness of the formulation of a canon and steer it towards your own belief in reincarnation, using a handful of quotes as support of it but which only vaguely could indicate reincarnation. Again, the message of the NT seems counter-intuitive to reincarnation. If you say to that ''My support for pages that mentioned reincarnation were all erased'' then you have what is called Negative Evidence.

[BigJohn]

But then......... according to some, negative evidence holds greater credence then does facts. The fact seem to always be wrong.

Wait....... that is what people say after they have been arrested.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

Of course. No disagreements there. But what you do next is you use this historical messiness of the formulation of a canon and steer it towards your own belief in reincarnation, using a handful of quotes as support of it but which only vaguely could indicate reincarnation. Again, the message of the NT seems counter-intuitive to reincarnation. If you say to that ''My support for pages that mentioned reincarnation were all erased'' then you have what is called Negative Evidence.

I am no authority on early Christianity - my interest in it is somewhat limited. It is difficult to wade through all the scholastic arguments to find concrete facts.

Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four canonical gospels are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110.

Then there are the various non-canonical gospels, sometimes known as the Gnostic Gospels, such as those found at Nag Hammadi in 1945. These include the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip. There is also the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas. In some cases, only fragments remain which makes complete translation difficult.

Without getting further bogged down in historical controversy, the message of the New Testament is very selective and cannot be considered as a complete and accurate presentation of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Peace

[linen53]

These links were given to me years ago and I pass them along to you.

https://www.share-international.org/...aw_bannned.htm

https://reluctant-messenger.com/origen6.html

http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat.../item1414.html

The ecumenical councils (held from 325 to 1965) determined much of what the Catholic Church is and believes. If interested enough there are books written on these councils.