Reincarnation in early Christianity

[Guest guest]

REINCARNATION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

 

In the first five hundred years of Christianity, reincarnation was

most certainly on the main stage. It was a prominent and well-

respected merchant in the bazaar of Christian theology.

 

A significant number of early church pillars such as St. Augustine,

Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Justin Martyr, and St.

Jerome believed in the doctrine of reincarnation. In his Confessions,

St. Augustine ponders the common sense viability of reincarnation:

Did my infancy succeed another age of mine that dies before it? Was

it that which I spent within my mother's womb? . . . And what before

that life again, O God of my joy, was I anywhere or in any body?

Confessions of St. Augustine, Edward Pusey, translator, Book I.

There is one early church father who is the central figure in this

complex story of intrigue and deception. According to the

Encyclopedia Britannica, Origen (C.E. 185-254) was the most

prominent, most distinguished and most influential of the early

church fathers. We would do well to consider the enormity of this

statement. The Encyclopedia Britannica also declares that he was the

most prolific writer and theologian of early Christianity with works

numbering around 6,000. St. Jerome asks, " Which of us can read all

that he has written? " It is important to understand that Origen's

story, is not about the trials and tribulations of an obscure

backwoods rogue theologian. How such an important and prominent

luminary receded into the blackness of obscurity is a fascinating

story and underscores the ego's perennial effort to have its own way.

 

The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Origen as both a Neo-Platonist

and a Gnostic. Socrates and Plato were arguably the most important

bearers of the doctrine of reincarnation to the Western world. The

first clear presentation of reincarnation by these two is in Plato's

Meno and later in the Phaedo where the concept is fully articulated.

In the Phaedo, Socrates (under the pen of Plato) goes to great

lengths to explain the philosophy proposing that the soul is immortal

and does not cease to exist when the body expires. In Plato's

Republic, the character Er describes the after death journey of the

soul in graphic detail before " coming back. " These ideas are expanded

in the Timaeus and the Phaedrus in which Socrates presents

reincarnation in the strongest terms.

 

Aristotle emphasized a more empirical materialism which focused on

the here-and-now; the observable. It should be pointed out that

through the centuries many philosophers have strongly disagreed with

Aristotle's " logic of categories " axiom which proposes a tidy

compartmentalization of all aspects of existence both cosmic and

human. This theory supposes no overlapping connection of the various

categories of knowledge such as science, history and religion. Thomas

Aquinas, who played a large role in shaping Christianity as we know

it today, based his entire view of life on Aristotelian logic thus

abandoning the mystical experiential traditions altogether. In this

light we can understand more clearly the Encyclopedia Britannica's

categorization of Origen as a Neo-Platonist with a decidedly Gnostic

flavor. The Gnostics, as described earlier, believed that truth could

be gained only through " Gnosis " or direct experience of God. They

emphasized ecstatic communion and the inward path toward God. About

reincarnation, Origen has this to say:

 

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 contrawise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to

better things their bodies are once more annihilated. They are thus

ever vanishing and ever reappearing. Origen, from A Select Library of

the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, P. Schaff

and H. Wace editors

 

By some inclination toward evil, certain spirit souls come into

bodies, first of men; then, due to their association with the

irrational passions after the allotted span of human life, they are

changed into beasts, from which they sink to the level of plants.

From this condition they rise again through the same stages and are

restored to their heavenly place. Origen, On First Principles, B. W.

Butterworth, translator.

 

As with many great saints of the past, there was nothing lukewarm

about Origen. While his supporters were passionate in heralding his

views, his detractors passionately pursued his destruction. Origen

was banished forever from official church recognition at the Second

Council of Constantinople (the Fifth Ecumenical Council) amidst a

back drop of swirling political intrigue and dissension that was so

severe it leaves many students of the event to question whether or

not Christians are bound by the edicts and anathemas that were

adopted there.

 

Emperor Justinian wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople

naming Origen as one of the pernicious heretics. To be a heretic is

bad enough but pernicious means " 1. insidious harm or ruin; 2. deadly

or fatal. " In other words, there are no human beings worse than this.

Justinian then convened a synod at Constantinople in 543 C.E. which

issued an edict refuting Origen. Pope Vigilius opposed the edict and

promptly suspended all communication with the Patriarch of

Constantinople. When the Pope arrived in Constantinople he reversed

himself issuing a document supporting the Justinian edict. Many

speculate that this document was issued at the gunpoint of intense

political pressure. These speculations are confirmed by the fact that

Pope Vigilius withdrew the document seven years later in 550 C.E.

After much rancorous discussion and many maneuvers, Justinian called

for a meeting of the entire Church in 553 C.E. known as the Fifth

Ecumenical Council or the Second Council of Constantinople. The

Church was geographically divided into East and West with these lines

of division also extending into religious and philosophical matters.

In general, the West was supportive of Origen while the East was not.

Justinian himself presided over the meeting because Pope Vigilius had

boycotted the gathering as an act of protest over irregularities such

as stacking the arrangements for attendance against the West. It was

highly irregular for Justinian and not the Pope to preside over this

conclave. Of the 165 bishops who signed the acts of the Council not

more than six were from the West because they were not in attendance.

Let us recap for emphasis. The Pope refused to attend, Justinian ran

the meeting and half of the bishops, the ones most likely to support

Origen, did not attend the Council meeting.

 

In the long run, Pope Vigilius accepted the Council but the West did

not recognize the Council as legitimate for some time. Several

Western dioceses even broke off communication with Rome. Milan was so

righteously indignant over this blatant skewering of propriety that

they did not rejoin Rome until the end of the sixth century. To add

to the vagary of Origen's demise, it should be noted that in the end

of the Fifth Ecumenical Council's fourteen anathemas, Origen's name

is mentioned in only one of them nestled in a list of heretics. There

is some evidence that even this was an error. The tragedy is that

Christians have been led to believe that the doctrine of

reincarnation has never been part of Christian faith. Others have

supposed that the question of reincarnation was forever closed at the

Fifth Ecumenical Council.

 

To further clarify the picture of Origen's crucifixion, it is

important to understand his principle antagonist, emperor Justinian.

The Encyclopedia Britannica has interesting things to say about him.

The truth seems to be that Justinian was not a great ruler in the

higher sense of the word, that is to say, a man of large views, deep

insight...

 

Justinian was quick rather than strong or profound; his policy does

not strike one as the result of deliberate and well-considered views,

but dictated by the hopes and fancies of the moment.

In contrast, no previous ruler had taken such an interest in church

policy as did Justinian. In what way is a man who is a shallow-minded

opportunist (to summarize the Encyclopedia Britannica's

characterization) interested in deeper spiritual matters? This

question has left many to speculate that Justinian saw the Church as

a means of control and exploitation with the whip being his " one life

then heaven or hell " policy.

 

While Justinian is portrayed as soft and indecisive, his wife the

empress Theodora, was an indomitable freight train of decisiveness

and strength. It should be clearly understood that she was not merely

his consort but was empress regnant which means she had the legal

right to interfere and run the empire. Officials took an oath to her

as well as to Justinian. In the great Nika insurrection of 532, her

courage alone saved her husband from being overthrown.

 

According to Procopius the historian, Theodora was the daughter of a

bear feeder of the amphitheater at Constantinople, and she began

working as an actress (regarded as an extremely low vocation) while

still a child. Later she became a well-known courtesan and eventually

met Justinian in Constantinople. Justinian's aunt, who was the

empress at the time, forbade the marriage but upon her death

Justinian repealed a law which prohibited senators from marrying

women of the stage. In 527, at the death of Justinian's uncle the

emperor Justin, Justinian and Theodora became rulers of the Roman

Empire. He was forty-four and she was twenty-four.

 

According to Procopius as written in the Encyclopedia Britannica,

" She surrounded herself with ceremonious pomp, and required all who

approached to abase themselves in a manner new even to that half-

Oriental court. She constituted herself the protectress of faithless

wives against outraged husbands, yet professed great zeal for the

moral reformation of the city, enforcing severely the laws against

vice, and confining five hundred courtesans, whom she had swept out

of the streets of the capital, in a " house of repentance " on the

Asiatic side of the Bosphous strait. Procopius portrays her as acting

with the greatest cruelties. The Encyclopedia Britannica goes on to

state that we are able to gather from other writers that Theodora was

indeed extremely harsh and tyrannical.

 

The following is an excerpt from the Anecdota by Procopius describing

Justinian. I think this is as good a time as any to describe the

personal appearance of the man. Now in physique he was neither tall

nor short, but of average height; not thin, but moderately plump; his

face was round, and not bad looking, for he had good color, even when

he fasted for two days. To make a long description short, he much

resembled Domitian, Vespasian's son....

 

Now such was Justinian in appearance; but his character was something

I could not fully describe. For he was at once villainous and

amenable; as people say colloquially, a moron. He was never truthful

with anyone, but always guileful in what he said and did, yet easily

hoodwinked by any who wanted to deceive him. His nature was an

unnatural mixture of folly and wickedness. What in olden times a

peripatetic philosopher said was also true of him, that opposite

qualities combine in a man as in the mixing of colors. I will try to

portray him, however, insofar as I can fathom his complexity.

 

This Emperor, then, was deceitful, devious, false, hypocritical, two-

faced, cruel, skilled in dissembling his thought, never moved to

tears by either joy or pain, though he could summon them artfully at

will when the occasion demanded, a liar always, not only offhand, but

in writing, and when he swore sacred oaths to his subjects in their

very hearing. Then he would immediately break his agreements and

pledges, like the vilest of slaves, whom indeed only the fear of

torture drives to confess their perjury. A faithless friend, he was a

treacherous enemy, insane for murder and plunder, quarrelsome and

revolutionary, easily led to anything, but never willing to listen to

good counsel, quick to plan mischief and carry it out, but finding

even the hearing of anything good distasteful to his ears.

 

How could anyone put Justinian's ways into words? These and many even

worse vices were disclosed in him as in no other mortal: nature

seemed to have taken the wickedness of all other men combined and

planted it in this man's soul. And besides this, he was too prone to

listen to accusations; and too quick to punish. For he decided such

cases without full examination, naming the punishment when he had

heard only the accuser's side of the matter. Without hesitation he

wrote decrees for the plundering of countries, sacking of cities, and

slavery of whole nations, for no cause whatever. So that if one

wished to take all the calamities which had befallen the Romans

before this time and weigh them against his crimes, I think it would

be found that more men had been murdered by this single man than in

all previous history.

 

He had no scruples about appropriating other people's property, and

did not even think any excuse necessary, legal or illegal, for

confiscating what did not belong to him. And when it was his, he was

more than ready to squander it in insane display, or give it as an

unnecessary bribe to the barbarians. In short, he neither held on to

any money himself nor let anyone else keep any: as if his reason were

not avarice, but jealousy of those who had riches. Driving all wealth

from the country of the Romans in this manner, he became the cause of

universal poverty.

 

Now this was the character of Justinian, so far as I can portray it.

 

Translated by Richard Atwater, in Procopius, Secret History,

(Chicago: P. Covicii; New York: Covicii Friedal, 1927), reprinted by

University of Michigan Press, 1961

 

The historian Procopius, who wrote the above narrative, was appointed

secretary to General Belisarius in 527 C.E. The General was

Justinian's right-hand man and personal confidant. Procopius also

wrote the well known Histories in eight books, the Buildings of

Justinian in six books and the Anecdota. For obvious reasons, the

Anecdota was not published until after the death of Procopius. As a

historian and chronicler of Justinian and his court, he was

constrained to write only positive accounts while everyone concerned

was still alive. Secretly he wrote the Anecdota to expose the utter

immorality and disregard for decency expressed in the lives of

Justinian and Theodora. The Encyclopedia Britannica says:

 

Owing to the ferocity and brutality of the attacks upon Justinian,

the authenticity of the Anecdota has been called in question, but the

claims of Procopius to the authorship are now generally recognized.

In other words, the Anecdota reflected so badly on Justinian and

Theodora that it was difficult to believe it could be true. It is not

the intent of this book to serve as an indictment of these two souls -

may they find peace and love wherever they are. The information

about Justinian and Theodora and the demise of Origen is printed here

as an aid to understanding that the fortunes of the Holy Scriptures

and Christian doctrine in general have not always been in the hands

of God's servants. The removal of the doctrine of reincarnation may

not have been God's doing. God may have originated or inspired the

scriptures that we have now accepted to be Christian but since then,

they have, on occasion, been placed in the hands of those with little

understanding. Because of this, we should abandon the expectation

that these scriptures would arrive in the twenty-first century

unscathed.

 

The doctrine of reincarnation was banished because it gives power and

authority to the people. Reincarnation contradicted the aspirations

of a few bishops and deacons who felt they alone should dispense the

truth to the multitudes. This authoritarian strangle-hold is

strengthened by the doctrine of " one chance-one life " because a

person who wrongly chose to think for themselves, dismissing the

authority of the hierarchy, would not get another chance to put

things aright if they guessed wrongly. The position of the hierarchy

is that eternal damnation without parole would be the irrevocable

fate of those who dared to question the hierarchy's authority.

 

REINCARNATION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

http://www.reincarnation.ws/reincarnation_in_early_christianity.html