Karma and Reincarnation - by Paramhansa Yogananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagbir,

 

Here is quite a good article about Karma and Reincarnation by Paramhansa

Yogananda. i was wondering if you could possibly put it into Editor's Choice at

Holy Spirit/Shekinah? i think it would go well, since the latest New Heading #

17 is on " Holy Spirit, Reincarnation and Karma " . Thanks Jagbir.

 

violet

 

 

 

Karma and Reincarnation

From " Karma and Reincarnation " by Paramhansa Yogananda

 

What Is Karma?

 

If we accept the principle of cause and effect in Nature, and of action and

reaction in physics, how can we not believe that this natural law extends also

to human beings? Once consciousness is understood as basic to everything the

question begs to be asked: Do not humans, too, belong to the natural order?

 

Such is the law of karma: As you sow, so shall you reap.* If you sow evil, you

will reap evil in the form of suffering. And if you sow goodness, you will reap

goodness in the form of inner joy.

 

To understand karma, you must realize that thoughts are things. The very

universe, in the final analysis, is composed not of matter but of consciousness.

Matter responds, far more than most people realize, to the power of thought. For

will power directs energy, and energy in turn acts upon matter. Matter, indeed,

is energy.

 

Every action, every thought, reaps its own corresponding rewards.

 

Human suffering is not a sign of God's, or Nature's, anger with mankind. It is a

sign, rather, of man's ignorance of the divine law.

 

The law is forever infallible in its workings.

 

The Soul Is Free

 

Souls are " made " in the image of God. Even the greatest of all sinners cannot be

damned forever. A finite cause cannot have an infinite effect. Due to the misuse

of his free will, a person might imagine himself to be evil, but within he is a

son of God. A king's son might, under the influence of liquor or of a bad dream,

think himself poor, but as soon as he recovers from his state of intoxication,

or as soon as he awakens, he forgets that delusion. The perfect soul, ever

sinless, eventually wakes up in God when it remembers its real, eternally good,

nature.

 

Man, being made in the image of God, is deluded only temporarily. This temporary

delusion leads him to think of himself as mortal. So long as he identifies with

mortality he must suffer.

 

A soul's delusion of mortality may extend to many incarnations. Through

self-effort, however, always influenced by the law of God, the Prodigal Son

develops discrimination, remembers his home in God, and attains wisdom. With

illumination the prodigal soul remembers its eternal image of God, and is

reunited with cosmic consciousness. His Father then serves him " the fatted calf "

of eternal bliss and wisdom, liberating him forever.

 

Delusion is Temporary

 

Man may misuse his free will for a time, considering himself mortal, but that

temporary delusion can never erase from within him the mark of immortality and

God's image of perfection. A baby's premature death cannot possibly have

permitted him the use of free will to be either virtuous or vicious. Nature must

bring that soul back to earth to give it a chance to use its free will to work

out also the past karma which caused it to die so young, and to perform the good

actions that lead to liberation.

 

If an immortal soul has not worked out in one lifetime of school those delusions

which bind him, he needs more lifetimes of schooling to bring him the

understanding of his innate immortality. Only then can he return to the state of

cosmic consciousness. Ordinary souls therefore reincarnate, compelled by their

earth-bound desires. Great souls, on the other hand, come on earth only partly

to work out their karma, but principally to act as noble sons of God to show

lost children the way to their heavenly Father's home.

 

Attracting a Bodily Home

 

When good parents unite in physical union, they produce a pure astral light as

the positive and negative currents at the base of their spines and in their sex

organs, unite. This light is a signal to good souls with compatible vibrations

in the astral world to be physically conceived in the union of the sperm and

ovum cells. When the soul enters, the embryo is formed, and the body is

gradually made ready to be born. Souls with bad karma have to enter into the

body of evil mothers. When evil parents come into physical union, they form a

dim, impure light at the base of the spine, signaling an invitation to souls

with evil karma.

 

Like attracts like. Souls with evil karma are born into evil families; souls

with good karma are born into good families. Evil families and good families

attract souls according to the magnetism of their inner likings. That is, evil

families attract souls with bad karma. Good families attract good souls. The

attraction is based on mutual likes and dislikes. Evil entities have an affinity

for evil families, whereas the affinity of good souls is for good families.

 

People with more opportunity in life, owing to their good karma, should help

those with lesser opportunity, otherwise they'll develop bad karma. Selfishness

is spiritually degrading and ultimately makes one unfortunate. God is not a

divine autocrat passing judgment on people for their actions. The judgments of

cosmic law are based on karmic cause and effect, and are just.

 

The divine law of harmony creates a natural equilibrium. When any soul acts

against this equilibrium, he hurts himself. For example, if you dip your hand in

cool water you enjoy a soothing sensation, but if you approach fire, the very

heat of it warns you that your hand may get burnt. The fire has no will to give

you pain, nor does cool water produce a pleasant sensation out of choice. The

responsibility for getting burnt by fire is his who puts his hand into it. And

the responsibility for feeling pleasure from cool water is, again, his who

inserts his hand into the water. Fire and water, heat and coolness, are part of

the overall state of the universe with which our duty is to live in harmony.

 

We Punish Ourselves

 

By wrong living one can create a physical and mental hell even worse than the

fiery hell that vengeful people imagine for others after death. By good living

one can create within himself a place even sweeter than the heaven people

imagine for themselves in the after-death state.

 

Man, influenced by delusion, ascribes to the all-loving God a vindictive spirit

that creates hells and purgatories. God, in his infinite love, is calling the

soul continuously to come back to His eternal kingdom of Bliss. But souls, when

they misuse their God-given independence, wander away from God and wallow in the

mire of suffering, punishing themselves by the effects of their own errors.

 

The idea of an eternal heaven is true, though most people's ideas of heaven are

very limited. We are made in the image of God and, at the end of the long trail

of incarnations, our wandering actuated by material desires, we will find the

blissful heavenly Father waiting to receive us, His prodigal children, and to

entertain us with everlasting, ever-new joy. But the idea of eternal damnation

for souls made in the image of God is untenable and should be exploded and

banished as a superstition from the minds of men.

 

Good Karma

 

This life is like a movie, and just like in an exciting movie, there has to be a

villain so we will learn to love the hero. If you imitate the villain's

behavior, however, you will receive his punishment. It's all a dream, but ask

yourselves, Why live a bad dream by creating bad karma? With good karma, you get

to enjoy the dream. Good karma also makes you want, in time, to wake up from the

dream. Bad karma, on the other hand, darkens the mind and keeps it bound to the

dreaming process.

 

From a mountaintop, one sees clearly the whole countryside, and also the open

sky above. From the heights it is natural to want to soar even higher, far above

the earth. In the fog-bound valley below, however, the most that one aspires to

may be only to climb a little bit higher.

 

Evil Karma and " Hell-fire "

 

The Heavenly Father could not possibly send his human children to hell forever

for making mistakes during their brief sojourn on earth. When they misuse their

God-given independence, they must suffer the material consequences of their own

evil actions, and reward themselves through their own good karma or virtuous

deeds.

 

Those humans who act wrongly create evil tendencies, which remain hidden in the

brain ready to pour out fiery suffering at a suitable time. These hidden,

misery-making tendencies-or hell-fires-are carried into the astral world at

death by a soul with bad karma. Souls in the after-death state have no physical

sensations and could not be burned by physical fire. But souls with bad karma

can suffer mental agonies worse than fiery burns.

 

The word " hell " is from the Anglo-Saxon root " helan, to conceal. " The Greek root

is " helios, sun or fire. " Therefore, the word " hell-fire " is very appropriate to

depict the concealed fire of agony that stored-up tendencies can produce in

one's earthly life or in the astral world. Just as a murderer burns with evil

conscience during wakefulness and with subconscious terror during sleep, so he

suffers from fiery evils in the sleep state of death.

 

A benign father could never eternally burn a soul made in His own image for its

temporary mistakes on earth. The idea of eternal punishment is illogical. A soul

is forever made in the image of God. Even a million years of sin could not

change its essential, divine character. Man's unforgiving wrath against the evil

actions of his brethren has created this misconception of eternal hell-fire.

 

My Experience with an Orthodox Believer in Hell-fire

 

Once I met an old man who lived near Seattle. I had been sitting near the sea,

much inspired by the vastness of divinity. After that inspiration subsided I

felt hungry, and went to the farmhouse of this man, seeking to buy some

cherries. The rosy-cheeked man looked very happy, and showed me kind

hospitality. A divine impulse then came over me, and I said to him, " Friend, you

look happy, but there is a hidden suffering in your life. " He asked, " Are you a

fortune-teller? " I answered, " No, but I tell people how to improve their

fortunes. "

 

He then said, " We are all sinners, and the Lord will burn our souls in hell-fire

and brimstone. "

 

I replied, " How could a man, losing his body at death and becoming an invisible

soul, be burned by fire created by material brimstones? " He surprised me by

repeating angrily, " We will certainly burn in hell-fire. " I said, " Did you get a

telegram about this from God, that He will burn us in hellfire? " At this the old

man became even more agitated.

 

To mollify him, I changed the subject and said, " What about your unhappiness

over your wicked son? " He was surprised at my words and acknowledged that he was

helpless to correct his son, whom he deemed incorrigible. This sorrow remained

as a burning fire at the back of his mind. I said, " I have a remedy that will

absolutely cure this situation. " The old man's eyes gleamed with joy as he

smiled. I, then, with a mysterious attitude as if about to reveal the grand

solution, whispered to him, " Have you got a very big oven with a broiler? "

 

" Why, yes, " he said. Then, suspiciously he asked, " Just what are you getting

at? "

 

" Don't worry, " I said reassuringly. " What I'm proposing will end all your

sorrows. "

 

Somewhat mollified, he said, " Go on. "

 

" Now then, " I continued, " Heat that oven, with the broiler, to red-hot

temperature. Do you have some strong rope and two trusted friends who would not

repeat anything against you? " Again he said, " Why, yes. " Then I said, " Call your

son here. With the help of your friends, bind him hand and foot, and slip him

into the red-hot oven. "

 

The old man was furious! Shaking his fist at me, he shouted, " You blackguard!

Who ever heard of a father burning his son, no matter how wicked? "

 

I then spoke soothingly, " That is exactly what I wanted to tell you. Where did

you, who are human, get this instinct of love except from the Divine Father?

Even a human father cannot stand the cruel thought of roasting his own son alive

to put him, or himself, out of misery. How could you think the Divine Father,

who has infinitely greater love than you, and who created parental love, would

burn His own children with hell-fire and brimstone? "

 

The old man's eyes filled with tears of repentance as he said, " I understand now

that the Heavenly Father is a God of love! "

 

We punish ourselves by our own evil actions, and reward ourselves by our own

good deeds.

 

Sin cannot change the soul. We, who are made in the image of God, can be lost in

the jungles of an evil environment for a while, but no amount of sin can change

our eternal, divine nature. Sin is a crust which hides the perfect soul, made

eternally in the image of God. When that crust is dissolved by meditation, the

perfection of the soul is revealed at last.

 

God Wants to Help Us

 

When God sees that a soul, by the misuse of free will and bad company, has lost

itself in the forest of egotism, He becomes very concerned for him, and sends

him spiritual aid to bring him back into His fold of divine, virtuous living. He

helps souls to reincarnate in places where they can work out their karmas and

liberate their souls by meditation and wisdom. All souls on earth belong to the

fold of God; the Invisible Shepherd ever looks after them.

 

* " Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall

he also reap. " (Galatians 6:7)

 

http://www.dailyom.com/library/000/001/000001020.html

[Guest guest]

, " Violet "

<violet.tubb wrote:

>

> Dear Jagbir,

>

> Here is quite a good article about Karma and Reincarnation by

Paramhansa Yogananda. i was wondering if you could possibly put it

into Editor's Choice at Holy Spirit/Shekinah? i think it would go

well, since the latest New Heading # 17 is on " Holy Spirit,

Reincarnation and Karma " . Thanks Jagbir.

>

> violet

>

>

 

i have something better and more detailed Violet.

 

jagbir

 

 

 

Christian Reincarnation

 

The controversy

During the period from A.D. 250 to 553 controversy raged, at least

intermittently, around the name of Origen, and from this controversy

emerged the major objections that orthodox Christianity raises

against reincarnation. Origen of Alexandria, one of Christianity's

greatest systematic theologians, was a believer in reincarnation.

 

Origen was a person devoted to scriptural authority, a scourge to the

enemies of the church, and a martyr for the faith. He was the

spiritual teacher of a large and grateful posterity and yet his

teachings were declared heresy in 553. The debates and controversies

that flared up around his teachings are in fact the record of

reincarnation in the church.

 

The case against Origen grew by fits and starts from about A.D. 300

(fifty years after his death) until 553. There were writers of great

eminence among his critics as well as some rather obscure

ecclesiasts. They included Methodius of Olympus, Eppiphanius of

Salamis, Theophilus, Bishop of Jerusalem, Jerome, and the Emperor

Justinian. The first of these, Methodius of Olympus, was a bishop in

Greece and died a martyr's death in the year 311. He and Peter of

Alexandria, whose works are almost entirely lost, represent the first

wave of anti-Origenism. They were concerned chiefly with the

preexistence of souls and Origen's notions about the resurrection of

the dead. Another more powerful current against Origenism arose

about a century later. The principals were Ephiphanius of Salamis,

Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome.

 

From about 395 to 403 Origen became the subject of heated debate

throughout Christendom. These three ecclesiats applied much energy

and thought in search of questionable doctrine in Origen. Again the

controversy flared up around 535, and in the wake of this the Emperor

Justinian composed a tract against Origen in 543, proposing nine

anathemas against " On First Principles " , Origen's chief theological

work. Origen was finally officially condemned in the Second Council

of Constantinople in 553, when fifteen anathemas were charged against

him.

 

The critics of Origen attacked him on individual points, and thus did

not create a systematic theology to oppose him. Nonetheless, one can

glean from their writings five major points that Christianity has

raised against reincarnation:

 

 

(1) It seems to minimize Christian salvation.

(2) It is in conflict with the resurrection of the body.

(3) It creates an unnatural separation between body and soul.

(4) It is built on a much too speculative use of Christian

scriptures.

(5) There is no recollection of previous lives.

 

 

Any discussion of these points will be greatly clarified by a

preliminary look at Origen's system. Although it is of course

impossible to do justice in a few pages to a thinker as subtle and

profound as Origen, some of the distinctive aspects of his thought

can be summarized.

 

 

The doctrine itself

Looking at the sequence of creation from its inception to its

conclusion, one could summarize Origen's theological system as

follows: Originally all beings existed as pure mind on an ideational

or thought level. Humans, angels, and heavenly bodies lacked

incarnate existence and had their being only as ideas. This is a

very natural view for anyone like Origen who was trained in both

Christian and Platonic thought. Since there is no account in the

scriptures of what preceded creation, it seemed perfectly natural to

Origen to appeal to Plato for his answers.

 

God, for the Platonist, is pure intelligence and all things were

reconciled with God before creation - an assumption which scripture

does not appear to contradict. Then as the process of the fall

began, individual beings became weary of their union with God and

chose to defect or grow cold in their divine ardor. As the mind

became cool toward God, it made the first step down in its fall and

became soul. The soul, now already once removed from its original

state, continued with its defection to the point of taking on a

body. This, as we know from Platonism, is indeed a degradation, for

the highest type of manifestation is on the mental level and the

lowest is on the physical.

 

Such an account of man's fall does not mean that Origen rejected

Genesis. It only means that he was willing to allow for allegorical

interpretation; thus Eden is not necessarily spatially located, but

is a cosmic and metaphysical event wherein pure disincarnate idea

became fettered to physical matter. What was essential for

Christianity, as Origen perceived, is that the fall be voluntary and

result in a degree of estrangement from God.

 

Where there is a fall, there must follow the drama of

reconciliation. Love is one of God's qualities, as Origen himself

acknowledged, and from this it follows that God will take an interest

in the redemption of his creatures. For Origen, this means that

after the drama of incarnation the soul assumes once again its

identity as mind and recovers its ardor for God.

 

It was to hasten this evolution that in the fullness of time God sent

the Christ. The Christ of Origen was the Incarnate Word (he was also

the only being that did not grow cold toward God), and he came both

as a mediator and as an incarnate image of God's goodness. By

allowing the wisdom and light of God to shine in one's life through

the inspiration of Christ, the individual soul could swiftly regain

its ardor for God, leave behind the burden of the body, and regain

complete reconciliation with God. In fact, said Origen, much to the

outrage of his critics, the extent and power of God's love is so

great that eventually all things will be restored to him, even Satan

and his legions.

 

Since the soul's tenancy of any given body is but one of many

episodes in its journey from God and back again, the doctrine of

reincarnation is implicit. As for the resurrection of the body,

Origen created a tempest of controversy by insisting that the

physical body wastes away and returns to dust, while the resurrection

takes on a spiritual or transformed body. This is of course handy

for the reincarnationist, for it means that the resurrected body

either can be the summation and climax of all the physical bodies

that came before or indeed may bear no resemblance at all to the many

physical bodies.

 

There will come a time when the great defection from God that

initiated physical creation will come to an end. All things, both

heavenly bodies and human souls, will be so pure and ardent in their

love for God that physical existence will no longer be necessary.

The entire cohesion of creation will come apart, for matter will be

superfluous. Then, to cite one of Origen's favorite passages, all

things will be made subject to God and God will be " all in all. " ( 1

Cor 15:28 ) This restoration of all things proposed by Origen gave

offense in later centuries. It seemed quite sensible to Origen that

anything that defects from God must eventually be brought back to

him. As he triumphantly affirmed at the end of his " On First

Principles " , men are the " blood brothers " of God himself and cannot

stay away forever.

 

Scriptural support for reincarnation

There are many Bible verses which are suggestive of reincarnation.

One episode in particular from the healing miracles of Christ seems

to point to reincarnation:

 

" And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his

disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his

parents, that he should be born blind? " Jesus answered, 'Neither

has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be

made manifest in him.' " (John 9:1)

 

The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed

the sin that led to his blindness. Given the fact that the man has

been blind from birth, we are confronted with a provocative

question. When could he have made such transgressions as to make him

blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some prenatal

state. The question as posed by the disciples explicitly presupposes

prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing

to dispel or correct the presupposition. Here is incontrovertible

support for a doctrine of human preexistence.

 

Also very suggestive of reincarnation is the episode where Jesus

identifies John the Baptist as Elijah.

 

" For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if

you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come. "

(Matthew 11:13-14)

 

" And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say

that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said, 'Elijah

indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that

Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him

whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their

hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the

Baptist. " (Matthew 17:10-13)

 

Here again is a clear statement of preexistence. Despite the edict

of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is

firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the

New Testament. Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding,

contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one

of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology.

 

As for the John the Baptist-Elijah episode, there can be little

question as to its purpose. By identifying the Baptist as Elijah,

Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. Throughout the gospel

narrative there are explicit references to the signs that will

precede the Messiah.

 

" Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the

great and dreadful day of the Lord. " (Malachi 4:5)

 

This is one of the many messianic promises of the Old Testament. One

of the signs that the true Messiah has come, according to this

passage from Malachi, is that he be preceded by a forerunner, by

Elijah.

 

Although the Bible also contains other reincarnational passages,

these Elijah-John passages constitute clear proof of reincarnation:

 

1. The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself (not

someone " like " him or someone " similar " to him, but Elijah himself)

would return before the advent of the Messiah.

 

2. Jesus declared that John the Baptist was Elijah who had

returned, stating bluntly " Elijah has come " .

 

Now, based on these passages alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:

 

(A) John the Baptist was Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah had

reincarnated. If this is true, then reincarnation must belong in

Christian theology, and the West's entire doctrinal interpretation

of " Life After Death " in general, and the " Last Day Resurrection " in

particular, must be radically revised, or...

 

(B) John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah

himself had not returned. If this is so, then either:

 

(1) The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the

Messiah failed to come to pass (meaning that Biblical prophecy is

fallible), OR

 

(2) Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

Basically, it comes down to this simple question: What do you want

to believe? One of the following A, B, or C, must logically be true:

 

A. Reincarnation is true, or

 

B. Jesus was not the Messiah, or

 

C. The prophecies of the Bible are unreliable.

 

As surely as two and two make four, one of the above must be true. At

any rate, the passage in which Jesus says in no uncertain terms that

John was Elijah is " overt " and direct:

 

" But I tell you, Elijah has come. " (Mark 9:13)

 

The following verse is used to refute the John the Baptist/Elijah

reincarnation connection. The Bible tells us that John the Baptist

possessed,

 

" ... the spirit and power of Elijah. " (Luke 1:17)

 

Those who refute this reincarnation connection say that John the

Baptist merely came in the spirit and power of Elijah. However,

this is a perfect description of reincarnation: the spirit and

power. This is reincarnation - the reincarnation of the spirit. The

Bible itself states that John the Baptist possessed the spirit that

had previously lived in, and as, the man Elijah - not his physical

being and memory, but his spirit.

 

John carried Elijah's living spirit, but not his physical memory. And

since John did not possess Elijah's physical memory, he did not

possess the memories of being the man Elijah. Thus, John the Baptist

denied being Elijah when asked:

 

They asked him, " Then who are you? Are you Elijah? " He said, " I am

not. " " Are you the Prophet? " He answered, " No. " Finally they

said, " Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent

us. What do you say about yourself? " John replied in the words of

Isaiah the prophet, " I am the voice of one calling in the

desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' " Now some Pharisees

who had been sent questioned him, " Why then do you baptize if you are

not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? " " I baptize with

water, " John replied, " but among you stands one you do not know. He

is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not

worthy to untie. " (John 1:21-27)

 

But Jesus knew better, and said so in the plainest words possible:

 

" This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the

Baptist.... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who

was to come. He who has ears, let him hear. " (Matthew 11:11-15).

 

It comes down to this: Jesus said John was Elijah, and John said he

wasn't. Which of the two is to be believed - Jesus or John?

 

There is a prophecy in the Book of Revelation concerning the days

before the second coming of Christ. Two prophets are predicted to

appear at this time working the same miracles and performing the same

ministries as those of Elijah and Moses.

 

" And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy

for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees

and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. If

anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours

their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die.

These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain

during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the

waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague

as often as they want. " (Revelation 11:3-6)

 

While the verses in Revelation do not specifically identify the two

prophets to come as Elijah and Moses, it strongly suggests that it is

them. If Elijah and Moses are to " rise " again before the second

coming of Christ, then it is clear they only possible way for them to

do so is through reincarnation. After the death of John the Baptist,

whom Jesus identified as Elijah, Elijah appears again along with

Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration:

 

" After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother

of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he

was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his

clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared

before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to

Jesus, " Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put

up three shelters-- one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah. "

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a

voice from the cloud said, " This is my Son, whom I love; with him I

am well pleased. Listen to him! " When the disciples heard this, they

fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched

them. " Get up, " he said. " Don't be afraid. " When they looked up, they

saw no one except Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain,

Jesus instructed them, " Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until

the Son of Man has been raised from the dead. " The disciples asked

him, " Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come

first? " Jesus replied, " To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore

all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did

not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In

the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands. " Then

the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the

Baptist. " (Matthew 17:1-13)

 

The scriptures strongly suggest a connection between Elijah and Moses

with the ministries of Jesus. Since Jesus already identified Elijah

as appearing during his first ministry, it is not hard to conclude

that Elijah will appear again at Jesus' second coming. Even the Old

Testament suggests this will be the case:

 

" Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the

great and dreadful day of the Lord. " (Malachi 4:5)

 

This is one of the many messianic promises of the Old Testament. It

was fulfilled during Jesus' first coming and there is reason to

believe it will happen again during Jesus' second coming.

 

Due to the condemnation of reincarnation by church authorities some

500 years after Jesus left the scene, this doctrine has become an

alien, even enemy concept to the Judeo-Christian West. However, it is

reasonably certain that reincarnation was not an alien concept to the

people Jesus preached to, nor, to Jesus himself. As a natural

geographic crossroads, the land of Israel enjoyed a strong and steady

flow of both foreign travelers and foreign ideas; the doctrine of

rebirth is not only likely to have been a familiar concept in 1st

century Israel, but actually seems to have been widely considered a

distinct possibility. Even though the idea later became a heresy to

the people of the Christian Empire, during the life of Jesus, at

least, reincarnation was an open question in the minds of many.

 

From time to time in Jewish history, there had been an insistent

belief that their prophets were reborn. The Samaritans believed that

Adam had reincarnated as Seth, then Noah, Abraham, and even Moses.

Christ's countrymen seem to have thought of the doctrine of

reincarnation as an intriguing, if unproven theory; the Israelites

were aware, of course, that their sacred scriptures didn't

specifically endorse this theory, but, since they didn't condemn it

either, the general population apparently felt it best to keep an

open mind about the whole idea. To the chagrin of traditional

Christian doctrine, it was apparently actually rather common for

Christ's contemporaries to innocently wonder aloud if Jesus himself

was the reincarnation of some earlier prophet:

 

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his

disciples,

 

" Who do people say the Son of Man is? " (Matthew 16:14)

 

His disciples replied:

 

" Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others,

Jeremiah or one of the prophets. "

 

Considering such widespread conjecture about the doctrine of

reincarnation in 1st century Israel, the people of his own time

undoubtedly assumed Jesus had been openly promoting this doctrine

when he claimed that the man now known as John the Baptist was the

same man who centuries earlier had been the famous prophet Elijah.

 

Confronted by these rumors that His countrymen believed in

reincarnation, did Jesus take this opportunity to deny and refute

this doctrine? No. Instead, He made statements that seem to support

reincarnation.

 

Jesus was sometimes taken to be a reincarnation of one of the

prophets. An example of this is when Jesus asked:

 

" Whom do people say that I am? " (Mark 8:27)

 

The consensus of opinion seems to have been that He was a

reincarnation of either John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the Old

Testament prophets. It is hard to see how Jesus could have been a

reincarnation of the prophet by whom He was baptized, but that has

not deterred these believers in reincarnation around Jesus.

 

Another Bible verse has Paul discussing the process of " resurrection "

(i.e. reincarnation):

 

" But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of

body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to

life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that

will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But

God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he

gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of

flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There

are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the

splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the

earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the

moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in

splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body

that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in

dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised

in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. "

(1 Corinthians 15:35-44).

 

Another verse suggestive of reincarnation can be found when Jesus

declares the following to the believers in the Church of

Philadelphia:

 

" Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.

Never again will he leave it. " (Revelation 3:12)

 

Jesus is stating that people were once inhabitants of the temple of

God. This is strongly suggestive of preexistence and reincarnation.

As soon as the person overcomes (the world) the person becomes a

permanent inhabitant of this temple and never again has to leave it.

The flip-side to this is that those who do not overcome must leave

this temple of God only to return when they overcome the world.

 

Another verse in the Book of Revelation suggests reincarnation:

 

" She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations

with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his

throne. " (Revelation 12:5)

 

This verse describes the birth of a child who is taken to heaven

after birth. The interesting aspect is that this child is to rule all

the nations with an iron scepter. Because the child was taken to

heaven after birth, reincarnation is the only way the child can

return to the world in order to grow up and " rule all nations " .

Although Revelations is mostly symbolic and is often quite abstract,

this verse implies the ability to incarnate more than once.

 

There is another reference to reincarnation in the gospels; an

indirect reference, yet an unmistakable one. In all three of the

synoptic gospels, Jesus promised that anyone leaving their homes,

wives, mothers, fathers, children, or farms to follow him would

personally receive hundreds more such homes, families, and so on in

the future. Jesus said:

 

" No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father

or wife or children or land for me and the gospel will fail to

receive a hundred times as much in this present age - homes,

brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields ... and in the age to

come, eternal life. " (Mark 10:29-30)

 

Outside of the doctrine of reincarnation it's difficult to imagine

how such a promise could be fulfilled. In one lifetime, one can only

have a single set of real parents, and no one seriously proposes that

each of the 70 original disciples, who actually did leave their homes

and families, ever received as compensation a hundred wives, a

hundred fields, and so on. Either this statement of Jesus' occurred

when he was waxing so poetic as to allow a falsehood to pass his

lips, or he was making a promise that only many reincarnations could

fulfill.

 

The following passage in the Book of Hebrews, especially the

italisized sentence, is a clear statement of the concept of

reincarnation.

 

" All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did

not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them

from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and

strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are

looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the

country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.

Instead, they were longing for a better country-- a heavenly one.

Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has

prepared a city for them. " (Hebrews 11:13-16)

 

Indeed the reincarnationist can even find scriptural support for

personal disincarnate preexistence. Origen took the following Bible

verse as proof of preexistence:

 

" He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we

should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love. "

(Ephesians 1:4)

 

Jerome, who is just as uncomfortable as Justinian about preexistence,

interprets the passage to mean that we preexisted, not in distinct

disincarnate form, but simply in the mind of God (Against Rufinus

1.22), and from this throng of thoughts God chose the elect before

the creation of the world. The distinction is indeed a fine one, for

Jerome is asking us to distinguish between that which exists as a

soul and that which exists as a thought. What is illuminating for

the reincarnationist is that this passage from Ephesians offers very

explicit scriptural testimony for individual preexistence.

 

Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:11-13 both state that God loved Jacob, but

hate Esau even before they were born. These verses are highly

suggestive of the pre-existence of Esau, a necessary tenet associated

with reincarnation.

 

The same concept of pre-existence can also be found in the following

Bible verse:

 

" I tell you the truth, " Jesus answered, " before Abraham was born, I

am! " (John 8:58)

 

Other words uttered by Christ are suggestive of reincarnation. In

the gospels, Jesus reveals information about His return and who will

witness it. Several times, He has mentioned that some people alive

during His day will be around when He returns. One example is when

Jesus gave His Olivet Discourse about His second coming. His

disciples ask about His return and inquire as to the signs that would

proceed His return. After Jesus reveals the signs of His coming, He

states,

 

" I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away

until all these things have happened. " (Matthew 24:34).

 

It can be argued that Jesus is pointing to a time in the future when

those around Him inquiring about this will reincarnate and experience

His second coming. Another example is when Jesus states,

 

" Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here

who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His

kingdom. " (Matthew 16:24-28).

 

The question now is this: what is it to " taste death until He comes " ?

The concept of a person having to " taste death until the Lord comes "

is a good description of reincarnation and of what the Bible refers

to as the " First Death " . The First Death is spiritual death,

separation from God. When we are born, we are born into spiritual

death and it requires some action on our part to break out of it and

enter into spiritual life. These verses all are suggestive of

reincarnation.

 

It can be deduced from the scriptures the fact that Christ Himself

had many incarnations in the flesh. It is well known that the apostle

Paul wrote of Adam as:

 

" ... a pattern of the one who was to come (i.e. Jesus) " (Romans

5:14)

 

Paul drew between Adam and Christ a parallel that was also a

contrast:

 

" The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam (i.e. Jesus)

became a life-giving spirit. " (1 Corinthians 15:45).

 

Christ is thus seen as the last Adam, the " one man " who by his

obedience undoes the results of the disobedience of the first (Romans

5:12-21). Jesus Christ recapitulated the stages of Adam's fall, but

in reverse order and quality.

 

The belief in many incarnation of Jesus is not a new belief. The

early Judeo-Christian group known as the Ebionites taught that the

Spirit had come as Adam and later reincarnated as Jesus. Other

Jewish Christian groups such as the Elkasaites and Nazarites also

believed this. The Clementine Homilies, an early Christian document,

also taught many incarnations of Jesus.

 

Another possible incarnation of Christ is the Old Testament figure

known as Melchizedek, the High Priest and King of Salem, who:

 

" ...without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of

days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest

forever. " (Hebrews 7:3).

 

It is clear from the scripture that Melchizedek was no ordinary man,

assuming He even was a man - for what kind of man has no father or

mother, is without genealogy, and without beginning of days or end of

life? Whoever this Melchizedek was, the scriptures declare Jesus to

be a:

 

" .. priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. " (Hebrews 7:17).

 

It may be argued that Melchizedek was one of the incarnations of

Jesus. Certainly it has to be acknowledged that Melchizedek was no

ordinary man.

 

There are Bible verses that are highly suggestive of the " mechanics "

of reincarnation. Before His arrest, Jesus stated:

 

" All who take the sword will perish by the sword. " (Matthew 26:52)

 

Common sense tells us that not all people who live " by the sword "

will die by the sword. This statement can only be true if meant in

the context of a future life. If in this life you " live by the

sword " , you will most certainly die, if not in the same life but a

future life, " by the sword " . In fact, this concept is the ancient

doctrine of " karma " as it is known in the East where reincarnation is

the foundation of reality. Here are some other Biblical references

to this concept:

 

" Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A person reaps what he

sows. " (Galatians 6:7)

 

" Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for

foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. " (Exodus

21:24-25)

 

" In anger his master turned him over to the jailers until he should

pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each

of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart. " (Matthew 18:

34-35)

 

" If any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. "

(Revelation 13:10)

 

" Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to

court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand

you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the

officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you

will not get out until you have paid the last penny. " (Matthew 5:25-

26)

 

The above passages can be seen to at least be suggestive of

reincarnation.

 

In James 3:6, some translations (such as the American Standard

Version) mention " the wheel of nature " which seems to resemble the

cycle of endless reincarnation stated by the Eastern religions.

However, in this context the reference is made to the control of

speech in order not to sin. The ASV translation states:

 

" And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is

the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the

wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell. " (James 3:6)

 

The tongue out of control is compared with a fire that affects all

aspects of existence, thought and deed, in a vicious cycle. This

means that sinful speech is at the origin of many other sins, which

are consequently generated, and conduct man to hell.

 

Nowhere in the Old Testament is reincarnation denied. Job asks:

 

" If a person dies will he live again? " (Job 14:14)

 

But he receives no answer.

 

Another Old Testament verse states:

 

" Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round

it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the

sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from,

there they return again...What has been will be again, what has been

done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. "

(Ecclesiastes 1:4-9)

 

The Hebrew kabbalists interpreted this quote to mean that a

generation dies and subsequently returns by the process of

reincarnation.

 

In the New Testament, one verse in particular is often used to refute

reincarnation. It is Hebrews 9:27.

 

" ... man is destined to die once, and after that to face

judgment.... " (Hebrews 9:27)

 

This is often assumed, reasonably enough, to declare that each human

being lives once as a mortal on earth, dies once, and then faces

judgment. But this verse, on it's surface, not only applies to

reincarnation, but to the modern concept of resurrection. In fact,

if anything, this verse can be most applied to refuting modern

Christianity's definition of resurrection. Reincarnation states

that the spirit leaves the body at death, faces judgment, then can

enter a new and different body at a later time. In this way, Hebrews

9:27 does not refute reincarnation because it is not the same body

that dies again. It implies one man/one death, which agrees with

reincarnation, but totally disagrees with modern Christianity's

definition of resurrection which holds that after a body dies and

faces judgment, his physical body will rise from the grave at a later

day to face possible death again and judgment. So Hebrews 9:27 does

not refute reincarnation after all, but does refute resurrection as

modern Christianity defines it.

 

From all that has been said here, one can safely draw the conclusion

that reincarnation was not only known by those in Christ's day, by

that Christ Himself and the Bible teaches it and reincarnation should

be a doctrine acceptable by every follower of Christ.

 

 

More scriptural support for reincarnation

Ancient writings were discovered in 1945 which revealed more

information about the concept of reincarnation from a sect of

Christians called " Gnostics " . This sect was ultimately destroyed by

the Roman orthodox church, their followers burned at the stake and

their writings wiped out. The writings included some long lost

gospels, some of which were written early than the known gospels of

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Gnostic Christians claimed to

possess the correct definition of " resurrection " - based on Jesus'

secret teachings, handed down to them by the apostles.

 

The existence of a secret tradition can be found in the New Testament:

 

" He [Jesus] told them, ' The secret of the kingdom of God has been

given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in

parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and

ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and

be forgiven!' " (Mark 4:11-12)

 

" No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden

and that God destined for our glory before time began. " (1

Corinthians 2:7)

 

" So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those

entrusted with the secret things of God. " (1 Corinthians 4:1)

 

A fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, one of the Gnostic texts

discovered, describes Jesus performing secret initiation rites.

Before the discovery of Gnostic writings, our only knowledge of it

came from a letter written by Church Father Clement of Alexandria

(150 AD - 211 AD), which quotes this secret gospel and refers to it

as " a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being

perfected. " He said, " It even yet is most carefully guarded [by the

church at Alexandria], being read only to those who are being

initiated into the great mysteries. " Clement insists elsewhere that

Jesus revealed a secret teaching to those who were " capable of

receiving it and being molded by it. " Clement indicates that he

possessed the secret tradition, which was handed down through the

apostles. Such Gnostics were spiritual critics of the orthodox

Church of what they saw as not so much a popularization as a

vulgarization of Christianity. The orthodox church stressed faith,

while the Gnostic church stressed knowledge (gnosis). This secret

knowledge emphasized spiritual resurrection rather than physical

resurrection. Indeed, the Gnostic Christians believed reincarnation

to be the true interpretation of " resurrection " for those who have

not attained a spiritual resurrection through this secret knowledge.

 

The New Testament talks about this gnosis (knowledge):

 

" Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the

common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of

wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same

Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of

healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another

prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another

speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the

interpretation of tongues. " (1 Corinthians 12:7-10)

 

" For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not

stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge

of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. "

(Colossians 1:9)

 

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus states that the

Pharisees, the founders of rabbinic Judaism for whom Paul once

belonged, believed in reincarnation. He writes that the Pharisees

believed that the souls of bad men are punished after death but that

the souls of good men are " removed into other bodies " and they

will " have power to revive and live again. " The Sadducees, the other

prominent Jewish sect in Palestine, did not emphasize life after

death and according to the Bible " say there is no resurrection "

(Matthew 22:23). From what we have just discussed, it is clear that

what Matthew really states is that the Sadducees " say there is no

reincarnation " .

 

The following are some the secret teachings of Jesus from the Gnostic

gospels that affirm reincarnation, revealing the secret knowledge:

 

" Watch and pray that you may not be born in the flesh, but that you

may leave the bitter bondage of this life. " (Book of Thomas the

Contender)

 

" When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your

images that came into being before and that neither die nor become

visible, how much you will bear! " (Gospel of Thomas)

 

In the Book of Thomas the Contender, Jesus tells the disciple Thomas

that after death those who were once believers but have remained

attached to things of " transitory beauty " will be consumed " in their

concern about life " and will be " brought back to the visible realm " .

 

In the Secret Book of John, reincarnation is placed at the heart of

its discussion of the salvation of souls. The book was written by

185 AD at the latest. Here is the Secret Book of John's perspective

on reincarnation:

 

All people have drunk the water of forgetfulness and exist in a state

of ignorance. Some are able to overcome ignorance through the Spirit

of life that descends upon them. These souls " will be saved and will

become perfect, " that is, escape the round of rebirth. John asks

Jesus what will happen to those who do not attain salvation. They

are hurled down " into forgetfulness " and thrown into " prison " , the

Gnostic code word for new body. The only way for these souls to

escape, says Jesus, is to emerge from forgetfulness and acquire

knowledge. A soul in this situation can do so by finding a teacher

or savior who has the strength to lead her home. " This soul needs to

follow another soul in whom the Spirit of life dwells, because she is

saved through the Spirit. Then she will never be thrust into flesh

again. " (Secret Book of John)

 

Another Gnostic text, Pistis Sophia, outlines an elaborate system of

reward and punishment that includes reincarnation. The text

explains differences in fate as the effects of past-life actions.

A " man who curses " is given a body that will be continually " troubled

in heart " . A " man who slanders " receives a body that will

be " oppressed " . A thief receives a " lame, crooked and blind

body " . A " proud " and " scornful " man receives " a lame and ugly body "

that " everyone continually despises. " Thus earth, as well as hell,

becomes the place of punishment.

 

According to Pistis Sophia, some souls do experience hell as a

shadowy place of torture where they go after death. But after

passing through this hell, the souls return for further experiences

on earth. Only a few extremely wicked souls are not allowed to

reincarnate. These are cast into " outer darkness " until the time

when they are destined to be " destroyed and dissolved " .

 

Several Gnostic texts combine the ideas of reincarnation and union

with God. The Apocalypse of Paul, a second-century text, describes

the Merkabah-style ascent of the apostle Paul as well as the

reincarnation of a soul who was not ready for such an ascent. It

shows how both reincarnation and ascents fit into Gnostic theology.

Click here to read more.

 

As Paul passes through the fourth heaven, he sees a soul being

punished for murder. This soul is being whipped by angels who have

brought him " out of the land of the dead " (earth). The soul calls

three witnesses, who charge him with murder. The soul then looks

down " in sorrow " and is " cast down " into a body that has been

prepared for it. The text goes on to describe Paul's further journey

through the heavens, a practice run for divine union.

 

Pistis Sophia combines the ideas of reincarnation and divine union in

a passage that begins with the question: What happens to " a man who

has committed no sin, but done good persistently, but has not found

the mysteries? " The Pistis Sophia tells us that the soul of the good

man who has not found the mysteries will receive " a cup filled with

thoughts and wisdom. " This will allow the soul to remember its

divine origin and so to pursue the " mysteries of the Light " until it

finds them and is able to " inherit the Light forever. " To " inherit

the Light forever " is a Gnostic code for union with God.

 

For the Gnostic Christians, resurrection was also a spiritual event -

simply the awakening of the soul. They believed that people who

experience the resurrection can experience eternal life, or union

with God, while on earth and then after death, escape rebirth.

People who don't experience the resurrection and union with God on

earth will reincarnate. Jesus states the following the Gnostic

Gospels:

 

" People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken. If

they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once

they have died they will receive nothing. " (Gospel of Philip)

 

Paul writes in several places that resurrection involves a spirit

body. Such a definition corresponds with spiritual resurrection and

reincarnation:

 

" It [the dead body] is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual

body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. " (1

Corinthians 15:44)

 

" I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the

kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. " (1

Corinthians 15:50)

 

" When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your

sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. " (Colossians 2:13)

 

The Gnostics claimed their terminology was sprinkled through the

Epistles. For example, the author of Ephesians uses the

words " awake " , " sleep " and " dead " in a Gnostic sense:

 

" But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light

that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: " Wake up, O

sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you. "

(Ephesians 5:13-14)

 

Some of the Greek words in the New Testament translated

as " resurrection " also mean to " rise " or " awake " . Therefore, argued

the Gnostics, when Paul says people can be part of the resurrection,

he is really saying that their souls can be awakened to the Spirit of

God.

 

We know that in some passages Paul writes about the resurrection as a

present rather than a future event:

 

" Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus

were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him

through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised

from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new

life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we

will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we

know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin

might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin -

because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died

with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know

that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again;

death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to

sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the

same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ

Jesus. " (Romans 6:3-11)

 

Colossians also seems to describe the resurrection as a present-day

event:

 

" Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on

things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. "

(Colossians 3:1)

 

" Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self

with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being

renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. " (Colossians 3:9-10)

 

In the above passage, taking off the old self and putting on the new

is a code for the resurrection, which, again, is described as a

present-life event.

 

The Gnostic manuscripts present a clear, simple and strong vision of

the resurrection. First, the Gospel of Thomas disabuses people of

the notion that the resurrection is a future event:

 

" His followers said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take

place, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you

look for has come, but you do not know it.' " (Gospel of Thomas)

 

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is saying that the resurrection and

the kingdom are already here. We simply do not realize it - or, in

the Gnostic sense, we simply have not integrated with them.

 

Jesus explained the concept of resurrection before raising Lazarus

from the dead:

 

" Jesus said to her, " Your brother will rise again. " Martha

answered, " I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last

day. " Jesus said to her, " I am the resurrection and the life. He who

believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and

believes in me will never die. Do you believe this? " (John 11:23-26)

 

In these verses, Jesus tells Martha her brother Lazarus will " rise

again " . Martha mistakenly thinks Jesus means Lazarus will come out of

his grave at Judgment Day. Jesus corrects her by stating that those

who believe in Him will live, even before they die. Jesus is

referring here to spiritual regeneration. Jesus also states that

those who die believing in Him, will never die. This clearly implies

reincarnation. The flip-side to this is that those who die not

believing in Him, will have to die again (i.e. reincarnate). It is

interesting to note that by raising Lazarus from death, Jesus is

forcing Lazarus to live out the rest of his life only to die

physically again. By raising Lazarus from death, Jesus seems to be

demonstrating that one does not wait until Judgment Day to rise.

 

Jesus flatly tells Nicodemus:

 

" I tell you a truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is

born again. " (John 3:3)

 

Nicodemus misunderstands what Jesus means by " born again " :

 

" How can a person be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a

second time into his mother's womb to be born! " (John 3:4)

 

In response, Jesus states:

 

" I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he

is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the

Spirit gives birth to spirit. " (John 3:5-6)

 

In context of these verses, Jesus is talking about the process of

resurrection, that is, being born of water and being born of the

Spirit. Jesus describes physical resurrection (to be born of water)

and spiritual resurrection (to be born of the Spirit). They are two

similar yet different processes. From these verses, the case can be

made that Jesus taught the concept of resurrection as being physical

rebirth as well as spiritual rebirth.

 

In the Apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon, recognized by the Catholic

Church, is the following verse:

 

" ... I was given a sound body to live in because I was already good. "

(Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20)

 

This verse raises the following question: How is it possible to get

a body after you have already been good if reincarnation is a fact?

 

Flavius Josephus records that the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls

lived " the same kind of life " as the followers of the Greek

philosopher Pythagoras who taught reincarnation. According to

Josephus, the Essenes believed that the soul is both immortal and

preexistent which is necessary for belief in reincarnation.

 

One scroll entitled " The Last Jubilee " mentions reincarnation. This

scroll is about the " last days " during which time it says,

a " Melchizedek redivivus " (reincarnate) will appear and destroy

Belial (Satan) and lead the children of God to eternal forgiveness.

Parts of this scroll has been unreadable and will be denoted by

this '. . .' symbol. Here is it's message:

 

" Men will turn away in rebellion, and there will be a re-

establishment of the reign of righteousness, perversity being

confounded by the judgements of God. This is what scripture implies

in the words, " Who says to Zion, your God has not claimed his

Kingdom! " The term Zion there denoting the total congregation of

the " sons of righteousness " that is, those who maintain the covenant

and turn away from the popular trend, and your God signifying the

King of Righteousness, alias Melchizedek Redivivus, who will destroy

Belial. Our text speaks also of sounding a loud trumpet blast

throughout the land on the tenth day of the seventh month. As

applied to the last days, this refers to the fanfare which will then

be sounded before the Messianic King. " (The Last Jubilee)

 

Melchizedek was the High Priest described in the Bible. It is

interesting to note that some early Christians believed Melchizedek

to be an early incarnation of Jesus. If this is true and the above

passage of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be believed, then the passage is

very likely referring to Jesus Himself and His second coming.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Jewish mystical tradition of

union with God went back to the first, if not the third, century

before Christ. Jewish mysticism has its roots in Greek mysticism

which espouced reincarnation. Some of the hymns found with the Dead

Sea Scrolls are similar to the Hekhalot hymns sung by the Jewish

mystics. One text gives us unmistakable evidence of Jewish

mysticism. It is called " Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice " . Also,

fragments of 1 Enoch, which is considered the oldest evidence of

Jewish mysticism, were also found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since

Jewish mysticism existed in the third century before Christ, as Enoch

indicates, then it would certainly have been present in first-century

Judaism. As stated earlier, this twin idea of divine union and

reincarnation can be found in early Christianity and one can easily

conclude that it was the key to the heart of Jesus' message.

 

Reincarnation has been a tenet for thousands of years for certain

Jews and Christians. The Zohar is a work of great weight and

authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that " all souls are

subject to revolutions. " This is metempsychosis or a'leen b'gilgoola;

but it declares that " men do not know the way they have been judged

in all time. " That is, in their " revolutions " they lose a complete

memory of the acts that have led to judgment. The Kether Malkuth

says, " If she, the soul, be pure, then she shall obtain favor.. . but

if she hath been defiled, then she shall wander for a time in pain

and despair. . . until the days of her purification. " If the soul be

pure and if she comes at once from God at birth, how could she be

defiled? And where is she to wander if not on this or some other

world until the days of her purification? The Rabbis always explained

it as meaning she wandered down from Paradise through many

revolutions or births until purity was regained.

 

Under the name of " Din Gilgol Neshomes " the doctrine of reincarnation

is constantly spoken of in the Talmud. The term means " the judgment

of the revolutions of the souls. " And Rabbi Manassa, son of Israel,

one of the most revered, says in his book Nishmath Hayem: " The belief

or the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and

infallible dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with

one accord, so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny

it. . . . Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold

firm to this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental

point of our religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to

accept this dogma with acclamation . . . as the truth of it has been

incontestably demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the

Kabalists. "

 

 

 

The mystery of God in humanity

Early in the fourth century, while Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was

expounding on the Trinity to his flock, a theological tsunami was

born.

 

A Libyan priest named Arius stood up and posed the following simple

question: " If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a

beginning of existence. " In other words, if the Father is the parent

of the Son, then didn't the Son have a beginning?

 

Apparently, no one had put it this way before. For many bishops,

Arius spoke heresy when he said that the Son had a beginning. A

debate erupted, led by Arius on the one side and by Alexander and his

deacon Athanasius on the other. Athanasius became the Church's lead

fighter in a struggle that lasted his entire life.

 

In 320, Alexander held a council of Alexandria to condemn the errors

of Arius. But this did not stop the controversy. The Church had

nearly split over the issue when the controversy reached the ears of

the Roman emperor Constantine. He decided to resolve it himself in a

move that permanently changed the course of Christianity.

 

The orthodox accused the Arians of attempting to lower the Son by

saying he had a beginning. But, in fact, the Arians gave him an

exalted position, honoring him as " first among creatures. " Arius

described the Son as one who became " perfect God, only begotten and

unchangeable, " but also argued that he had an origin.

 

The Arian controversy was really about the nature of humanity and how

we are saved. It involved two pictures of Jesus Christ: Either he

was a God who had always been God or he was a human who became God's

Son.

 

If he was a human who became God's Son, then that implied that other

humans could also become Sons of God. This idea was unacceptable to

the orthodox, hence their insistence that Jesus had always been God

and was entirely different from all created beings. As we shall see,

the Church's theological position was, in part, dictated by its

political needs. The Arian position had the potential to erode the

authority of the Church since it implied that the soul did not need

the Church to achieve salvation.

 

The outcome of the Arian controversy was crucial to the Church's

position on both reincarnation and the soul's opportunity to become

one with God. Earlier, the Church decided that the human soul is not

now and never has been a part of God. Instead it belongs to the

material world and is separated from God by a great chasm.

 

Rejecting the idea that the soul is immortal and spiritual, which was

a part of Christian thought at the time of Clement and Origen, the

Fathers developed the concept of " creatio ex nihilo " , creation out of

nothing. If the soul were not a part of God, the orthodox

theologians reasoned, it could not have been created out of His

essence.

 

The doctrine persists to this day. By denying man's divine origin

and potential, the doctrine of creation out of nothing rules out both

preexistence and reincarnation. Once the Church adopted the

doctrine, it was only a matter of time before it rejected both

Origenism and Arianism. In fact, the Arian controversy was only one

salvo in the battle to eradicate the mystical tradition Origen

represented.

 

Origen and his predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, lived in a

Platonist world. For them it was a given that there is an invisible

spiritual world which is permanent and a visible material world that

is changeable. The soul belongs to the spiritual world, while the

body belongs to the material world.

 

In the Platonists' view, the world and everything in it is not

created but emanates from God, the One. Souls come from the Divine

Mind, and even when they are encased in bodily form, they retain

their link to the Source.

 

Clement tells us that humanity is " of celestial birth, being a plant

of heavenly origin. " Origen taught that man, having been made after

the " image and likeness of God, " has " a kind of blood-relationship

with God. "

 

While Clement and Origen were teaching in Alexandria, another group

of Fathers was developing a countertheology. They rejected the

Greek concept of the soul in favor of a new and unheard of idea:

The soul is not a part of the spiritual world at all; but, like the

body, it is part of the mutable material world.

 

They based their theology on the changeability of the soul. How

could the soul be divine and immortal, they asked, if it is capable

of changing, falling and sinning? Because it is capable of change,

they reasoned, it cannot be like God, who is unchangeable.

 

Origen took up the problem of the soul's changeability but came up

with a different solution. He suggested that the soul was created

immortal and that even though it fell (for which he suggests various

reasons), it still has the power to restore itself to its original

state.

 

For him the soul is poised between spirit and matter and can choose

union with either: " The will of this soul is something intermediate

between the flesh and the spirit, undoubtedly serving and obeying one

of the two, whichever it has chosen to obey. " If the soul chooses to

join with spirit, Origen wrote, " the spirit will become one with it. "

 

This new theology, which linked the soul with the body, led to the

ruling out of preexistence. If the soul is material and not

spiritual, then it cannot have existed before the body. As Gregory

of Nyssa wrote: " Neither does the soul exist before the body, nor the

body apart from the soul, but ... there is only a single origin for

both of them. "

 

When is the soul created then? The Fathers came up with an

improbable answer: at the same time as the body - at

conception. " God is daily making souls, " wrote Church Father

Jerome. If souls and bodies are created at the same time, both

preexistence and reincarnation are out of the question since they

imply that souls exist before bodies and can be attached to different

bodies in succession.

 

The Church still teaches the soul is created at the same time as the

body and therefore the soul and the body are a unit.

 

This kind of thinking led straight to the Arian controversy. Now

that the Church had denied that the soul preexists the body and that

it belongs to the spiritual world, it also denied that souls, bodies

and the created world emanated from God.

 

The Arian controversy

When Arius asked whether the Son had a beginning, he was, in effect,

pointing out a fundamental flaw in that doctrine. The doctrine did

not clarify the nature of Christ. So he was asking: If there is an

abyss between Creator and creation, where does Christ belong? Was he

created out of nothing like the rest of the creatures? Or was he

part of God? If so, then how and why did he take on human form?

 

The Church tells us that the Arian controversy was a struggle against

blasphemers who said Christ was not God. But the crucial issue in

the debate was: How is humanity saved - through emulating Jesus or

through worshiping him?

 

The Arians claimed that Jesus became God's Son and thereby

demonstrated a universal principle that all created beings can

follow. But the orthodox Church said that he had always been God's

Son, was of the same essence as God (and therefore was God) and could

not be imitated by mere creatures, who lack God's essence. Salvation

could come only by accessing God's grace via the Church.

 

The Arians believed that human beings could also be adopted as Sons

of God by imitating Christ. For the Arians, the incarnation of

Christ was designed to show us that we can follow Jesus and become,

as Paul said, " joint heirs with Christ. "

 

The orthodox Church, by creating a gulf between Jesus and the rest of

us, denied that we could become Sons in the same way he did. The

reason why the Church had such a hard time seeing Jesus' humanity was

that they could not understand how anyone could be human and divine

at the same time. Either Jesus was human (and therefore changeable)

or he was divine (and therefore unchangeable).

 

The orthodox vision of Jesus as God is based in part on a

misunderstanding of the Gospel of John. John tells us: " In the

beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

God ... All things were made by him; and without him was not any

thing made that was made. " Later John tells us the " the Word was

made flesh and dwelt among us. " The orthodox concluded from these

passages that Jesus Christ is God, the Word, made flesh.

 

What they didn't understand was that when John called Jesus " the

Word, " he was referring to the Greek tradition of the Logos. When

John tells us that the Word created everything, he uses the Greek

term for Word - " Logos " . In Greek thought, Logos describes the part

of God that acts in the world. Philo called the Logos " God's

Likeness, by whom the whole cosmos was fashioned. " Origen called it

the soul that holds the universe together.

 

Philo believed that great human beings like Moses could personify the

Logos. Thus, when John writes that Jesus is the Logos, he does not

mean that the man Jesus has always been God the Logos. What John is

telling us is that Jesus the man became the Logos, the Christ.

 

Some early theologians believed that everyone has that opportunity.

Clement tells us that each human has the " image of the Word [Logos] "

within him and that it is for this reason that Genesis says that

humanity is made " in the image and likeness of God. "

 

The Logos, then, is the spark of divinity, the seed of Christ, that

is within our hearts. Apparently the orthodox either rejected or

ignored this concept.

 

We should understand that Jesus became the Logos just as he became

the Christ. But that didn't mean he was the only one who could ever

do it. Jesus explained this mystery when he broke the bread at the

Last Supper. He took a single loaf, symbolizing the one Logos, the

one Christ, and broke it and said, " This is my body, which is broken

for you. "

 

He was teaching the disciples that there is one absolute God and one

Universal Christ, or Logos, but that the body of that Universal

Christ can be broken and each piece will still retain all the

qualities of the whole. He was telling them that the seed of Christ

was within them, that he had come to quicken it and that the Christ

was not diminished no matter how many times his body was broken. The

smallest fragment of God, Logos, or Christ, contains the entire

nature of Christ's divinity - which, to this day, he would make our

own.

 

The orthodox misunderstood Jesus' teaching because they were unable

to accept the reality that each human being has both a human and a

divine nature and the potential to become wholly divine. They didn't

understand the human and the divine in Jesus and therefore they could

not understand the human and the divine within themselves. Having

seen the weakness of human nature, they thought they had to deny the

divine nature that occasionally flashes forth even in the lowliest of

human beings.

 

The Church did not understand (or could not admit) that Jesus came to

demonstrate the process by which the human nature is transformed into

the divine. But Origen had found it easy to explain.

 

He believed that the human and divine natures can be woven together

day by day. He tells us that in Jesus " the divine and human nature

began to interpenetrate in such a way that the human nature, by its

communion with the divine, would itself become divine. " Origen

tells us that the option for the transformation of humanity into

divinity is available not just for Jesus but for " all who take up in

faith the life which Jesus taught. "

 

Origen did not hesitate to describe the relationship of human beings

to the Son. He believed that we contain the same essence as the

Father and the Son: " We, therefore, having been made according to

the image, have the Son, the original, as the truth of the noble

qualities that are within us. And what we are to the Son, such is

the Son to the Father, who is the truth. " Since we have the noble

qualities of the Son within us, we can undergo the process of

divinization.

 

To the Arians, the divinization process was essential to salvation;

to the orthodox, it was heresy. In 324, the Roman emperor

Constantine, who had embraced Christianity twelve years earlier,

entered the Arian controversy. He wrote a letter to Arius and Bishop

Alexander urging them to reconcile their differences, and he sent

Bishop Hosius of Cordova to Alexandria to deliver it. But his letter

could not calm the storm that raged over the nature of God - and

man. Constantine realized that he would have to do more if he wanted

to resolve the impasse.

 

 

The Council of Nicea

In June 325 the council opened and continued for two months, with

Constantine attending. The bishops modified an existing creed to fit

their purposes. The creed, with some changes made at a later fourth

century council, is still given today in many churches. The Nicene

Creed, as it came to be called, takes elaborate care by repeating

several redundancies to identify the Son with the Father rather than

with the creation:

 

" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things

visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God

of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,

being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were

made ... Who ... was incarnate and was made human ... "

 

Only two bishops, along with Arius, refused to sign the creed.

Constantine banished them from the empire, while the other bishops

went on to celebrate their unity in a great feast at the imperial

palace.

 

The creed is much more than an affirmation of Jesus' divinity. It is

also an affirmation of our separation from God and Christ. It takes

great pains to describe Jesus as God in order to deny that he is part

of God's creation. He is " begotten, not made, " therefore totally

separate from us, the created beings. As scholar George Leonard

Prestige writes, the Nicene Creed's description of Jesus tells

us " that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the ... creatures. "

 

The description of Jesus as the only Son of God is carried forward in

the Apostles' Creed, which is used in many Protestant churches

today. It reads: " I believe in God, the Father Almighty... I

believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. " But even that

language - calling Jesus God's only Son - denies that we can ever

attain the sonship that Jesus did.

 

Christians may be interested to know that many scholars analyzing the

Bible now believe that Jesus never claimed to be the only Son of

God. This was a later development based on a misinterpretation of

the gospel of John.

 

There is further evidence to suggest that Jesus believed all people

could achieve the goal of becoming Sons of God. But the churches, by

retaining these creeds, remain in bondage to Constantine and his

three hundred bishops.

 

Some of the bishops who attended the council were uncomfortable with

the council's definition of the Son and thought they might have gone

too far. But the emperor, in a letter sent to the bishops who were

not in attendance at Nicea, required that they accept " this truly

Divine injunction. "

 

Constantine said that since the council's decision had

been " determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops, " the Church

officials must regard it as " indicative of the Divine will. "

 

The Roman god Constantine had spoken. Clearly, he had concluded that

the orthodox position was more conducive to a strong and unified

Church than the Arian position and that it therefore must be upheld.

 

Constantine also took the opportunity to inaugurate the first

systematic government persecution of dissident Christians. He issued

an edict against " heretics, " calling them " haters and enemies of

truth and life, in league with destruction. "

 

Even though he had begun his reign with an edict of religious

toleration, he now forbade the heretics (mostly Arians) to assemble

in any public or private place, including private homes, and ordered

that they be deprived of " every gathering point for [their]

superstitious meetings, " including " all the houses of prayer. " These

were to be given to the orthodox Church.

 

There heretical teachers were forced to flee, and many of their

students were coerced back into the orthodox fold. The emperor also

ordered a search for their books, which were to be confiscated and

destroyed. Hiding the works of Arius carried a severe penalty - the

death sentence.

 

Nicea, nevertheless, marked the beginning of the end of the concepts

of both preexistence, reincarnation, and salvation through union with

God in Christian doctrine. It took another two hundred years for the

ideas to be expunged.

 

But Constantine had given the Church the tools with which to do it

when he molded Christianity in his own image and made Jesus the only

Son of God. From now on, the Church would become representative of a

capricious and autocratic God - a God who was not unlike Constantine

and other Roman emperors.

 

Tertullian, a stanch anti-Origenian and a father of the Church, had

this to say about those who believed in reincarnation and not the

resurrection of the dead: " What a panorama of spectacle on that day

[the Resurrection]! What sight should I turn to first to laugh and

applaud? ... Wise philosophers, blushing before their students as

they burn together, the followers to whom they taught that the world

is no concern of God's, whom they assured that either they had no

souls at all or that what souls they had would never return to their

former bodies? .... These are things of greater delight, I believe,

than a circus, both kinds of theater, and any stadium. " Tertullian

was a great influence in having so-called " heretics " put to death.

 

The Fifth General Council

After Constantine and Nicea, Origen's writings had continued to be

popular among those seeking clarification about the nature of Christ,

the destiny of the soul and the manner of the resurrection. Some of

the more educated monks had taken Origen's ideas and were using them

in mystical practices with the aim of becoming one with God.

 

Toward the end of the fourth century, orthodox theologians again

began to attack Origen. Their chief areas of difficulty with

Origen's thought were his teachings on the nature of God and Christ,

the resurrection and the preexistence of the soul.

 

Their criticisms, which were often based on ignorance and an

inadequate understanding, found an audience in high places and led to

the Church's rejection of Origenism and reincarnation. The Church's

need to appeal to the uneducated masses prevailed over Origen's

coolheaded logic.

 

The bishop of Cyprus, Epiphanius, claimed that Origen denied the

resurrection of the flesh. However, as scholar Jon Dechow has

demonstrated, Epiphanius neither understood nor dealt with Origen's

ideas. Nevertheless, he was able to convince the Church that

Origen's ideas were incompatible with the merging literalist

theology. On the basis of Ephiphanius' writings, Origenism would be

finally condemned a century and a half later.

 

Jerome believed that resurrection bodies would be flesh and blood,

complete with genitals - which, however, would not be used in the

hereafter. But Origenists believed the resurrection bodies would be

spiritual.

 

The Origenist controversy spread to monasteries in the Egyptian

desert, especially at Nitria, home to about five thousand monks.

There were two kinds of monks in Egypt - the simple and uneducated,

who composed the majority, and the Origenists, an educated minority.

 

The controversy solidified around the question of whether God had a

body that could be seen and touched. The simple monks believed that

he did. But the Origenists thought that God was invisible and

transcendent. The simple monks could not fathom Origen's mystical

speculations on the nature of God.

 

In 399, Bishop Theophilus wrote a letter defending the Origenist

position. At this, the simple monks flocked to Alexandria, rioting

in the streets and even threatening to kill Theophilus.

 

The bishop quickly reversed himself, telling the monks that he could

now see that God did indeed have a body: " In seeing you, I behold the

face of God. " Theophilus' sudden switch was the catalyst for a

series of events that led to the condemnation of Origen and the

burning of the Nitrian monastery.

 

Under Theodosius, Christians, who had been persecuted for so many

years, now became the persecutors. God made in man's image proved to

be an intolerant one. The orthodox Christians practiced sanctions

and violence against all heretics (including Gnostics and

Origenists), pagans and Jews. In this climate, it became dangerous

to profess the ideas of innate divinity and the pursuit of union with

God.

 

It may have been during the reign of Theodosius that the Gnostic Nag

Hammadi manuscripts were buried - perhaps by Origenist monks. For

while the Origenist monks were not openly Gnostic, they would have

been sympathetic to the Gnostic viewpoint and may have hidden the

books after they became too hot to handle.

 

The Origenist monks of the desert did not accept Bishop Theophilus'

condemnations. They continued to practice their beliefs in Palestine

into the sixth century until a series of events drove Origenism

underground for good.

 

Justinian (ruled 527 - 565) was the most able emperor since

Constantine - and the most active in meddling with Christian

theology. Justinian issued edicts that he expected the Church to

rubber-stamp, appointed bishops and even imprisoned the pope.

 

After the collapse of the Roman Empire at the end of the fifth

century, Constantinople remained the capital of the Eastern, or

Byzantine, Empire. The story of how Origenism ultimately came to be

rejected involves the kind of labyrithine power plays that the

imperial court became famous for.

 

Around 543, Justinian seems to have taken the side of the anti-

Origenists since he issued an edict condemning ten principles of

Origenism, including preexistence. It declared " anathema to

Origen ... and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus. " In other

words, Origen and anyone who believes in these propositions would be

eternally damned. A local council at Constantinople ratified the

edict, which all bishops were required to sign.

 

In 553, Justinian convoked the Fifth General Council of the Church to

discuss the controversy over the so-called " Three Chapters " . These

were writings of three theologians whose views bordered on the

heretical. Justinian wanted the writings to be condemned and he

expected the council to oblige him.

 

He had been trying to coerce the pope into agreeing with him since

545. He had essentially arrested the pope in Rome and brought him to

Constantinople, where he held him for four years. When the pope

escaped and later refused to attend the council, Justinian went ahead

and convened it without him.

 

This council produced fourteen new anathemas against the authors of

the Three Chapters and other Christian theologians. The eleventh

anathema included Origen's name in a list of heretics.

 

The first anathema reads: " If anyone asserts the fabulous

preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration

which follows from it: let him be anathema. " ( " Restoration " means

the return of the soul to union with God. Origenists believed that

this took place through a path of reincarnation.) It would seem that

the death blow had been struck against Origenism and reincarnation in

Christianity.

 

After the council, the Origenist monks were expelled from their

Palestinian monastery, some bishops were deposed and once again

Origen's writings were destroyed. The anti-Origenist monks had won.

The emperor had come down firmly on their side.

 

In theory, it would seem that the missing papal approval of the

anathemas leaves a doctrinal loophole for the belief in reincarnation

among all Christians today. But since the Church accepted the

anathemas in practice, the result of the council was to end belief in

reincarnation in orthodox Christianity.

 

In any case, the argument is moot. Sooner or later the Church

probably would have forbade the beliefs. When the Church codified

its denial of the divine origin of the soul (at Nicea in 325), it

started a chain reaction that led directly to the curse on Origen.

 

Church councils notwithstanding, mystics in the Church continued to

practice divinization. They followed Origen's ideas, still seeking

union with God.

 

But the Christian mystics were continually dogged by charges of

heresy. At the same time as the Church was rejecting reincarnation,

it was accepting original sin, a doctrine that made it even more

difficult for mystics to practice.

 

 

Conclusion

With the condemnation of Origen, so much that is implied in

reincarnation was officially stigmatized as heresy that the

possibility of a direct confrontation with this belief was

effectively removed from the church. In dismissing Origen from its

midst, the church only indirectly addressed itself to the issue of

reincarnation. The encounter with Origenism did, however, draw

decisive lines in the matter of preexistence, the resurrection of the

dead, and the relationship between body and soul. What an

examination of Origen and the church does achieve, however, is to

show where the reincarnationist will come into collision with the

posture of orthodoxy. The extent to which he may wish to retreat

from such a collision is of course a matter of personal conscience.

 

With the Council of 553 one can just about close the book on this

entire controversy within the church. There are merely two footnotes

to be added to the story, emerging from church councils in 1274 and

1439. In the Council of Lyons, in 1274, it was stated that after

death the soul goes promptly either to heaven or to hell. On the Day

of Judgment, all will stand before the tribunal of Christ with their

bodies to render account of what they have done. The Council of

Florence of 1439 uses almost the same wording to describe the swift

passage of the soul either to heaven or to hell. Implicit in both

of these councils is the assumption that the soul does not again

venture into physical bodies.

 

 

 

 

Christian Reincarnation Index

 

The controversy erupts

The doctrine of reincarnation

Scriptural support for reincarnation

More scriptural support for reincarnation

The mystery of God in humanity

The Arian controversy

The Council of Nicea

The Fifth General Council

Conclusion

Proof of reincarnation?

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagbir,

 

i would be greatly obliged then, if you would please put your more detailed

version in the Editor's Choice then! It's excellent! Thanks!!!

 

violet

 

 

, " jagbir

singh " <adishakti_org wrote:

>

> , " Violet "

> <violet.tubb@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Jagbir,

> >

> > Here is quite a good article about Karma and Reincarnation by

> Paramhansa Yogananda. i was wondering if you could possibly put it

> into Editor's Choice at Holy Spirit/Shekinah? i think it would go

> well, since the latest New Heading # 17 is on " Holy Spirit,

> Reincarnation and Karma " . Thanks Jagbir.

> >

> > violet

> >

> >

>

> i have something better and more detailed Violet.

>

> jagbir

>

>

>

> Christian Reincarnation

>

> The controversy

> During the period from A.D. 250 to 553 controversy raged, at least

> intermittently, around the name of Origen, and from this

controversy

> emerged the major objections that orthodox Christianity raises

> against reincarnation. Origen of Alexandria, one of Christianity's

> greatest systematic theologians, was a believer in reincarnation.

>

> Origen was a person devoted to scriptural authority, a scourge to

the

> enemies of the church, and a martyr for the faith. He was the

> spiritual teacher of a large and grateful posterity and yet his

> teachings were declared heresy in 553. The debates and

controversies

> that flared up around his teachings are in fact the record of

> reincarnation in the church.

>

> The case against Origen grew by fits and starts from about A.D. 300

> (fifty years after his death) until 553. There were writers of

great

> eminence among his critics as well as some rather obscure

> ecclesiasts. They included Methodius of Olympus, Eppiphanius of

> Salamis, Theophilus, Bishop of Jerusalem, Jerome, and the Emperor

> Justinian. The first of these, Methodius of Olympus, was a bishop

in

> Greece and died a martyr's death in the year 311. He and Peter of

> Alexandria, whose works are almost entirely lost, represent the

first

> wave of anti-Origenism. They were concerned chiefly with the

> preexistence of souls and Origen's notions about the resurrection

of

> the dead. Another more powerful current against Origenism arose

> about a century later. The principals were Ephiphanius of Salamis,

> Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome.

>

> From about 395 to 403 Origen became the subject of heated debate

> throughout Christendom. These three ecclesiats applied much energy

> and thought in search of questionable doctrine in Origen. Again

the

> controversy flared up around 535, and in the wake of this the

Emperor

> Justinian composed a tract against Origen in 543, proposing nine

> anathemas against " On First Principles " , Origen's chief theological

> work. Origen was finally officially condemned in the Second

Council

> of Constantinople in 553, when fifteen anathemas were charged

against

> him.

>

> The critics of Origen attacked him on individual points, and thus

did

> not create a systematic theology to oppose him. Nonetheless, one

can

> glean from their writings five major points that Christianity has

> raised against reincarnation:

>

>

> (1) It seems to minimize Christian salvation.

> (2) It is in conflict with the resurrection of the body.

> (3) It creates an unnatural separation between body and soul.

> (4) It is built on a much too speculative use of Christian

> scriptures.

> (5) There is no recollection of previous lives.

>

>

> Any discussion of these points will be greatly clarified by a

> preliminary look at Origen's system. Although it is of course

> impossible to do justice in a few pages to a thinker as subtle and

> profound as Origen, some of the distinctive aspects of his thought

> can be summarized.

>

>

> The doctrine itself

> Looking at the sequence of creation from its inception to its

> conclusion, one could summarize Origen's theological system as

> follows: Originally all beings existed as pure mind on an

ideational

> or thought level. Humans, angels, and heavenly bodies lacked

> incarnate existence and had their being only as ideas. This is a

> very natural view for anyone like Origen who was trained in both

> Christian and Platonic thought. Since there is no account in the

> scriptures of what preceded creation, it seemed perfectly natural

to

> Origen to appeal to Plato for his answers.

>

> God, for the Platonist, is pure intelligence and all things were

> reconciled with God before creation - an assumption which scripture

> does not appear to contradict. Then as the process of the fall

> began, individual beings became weary of their union with God and

> chose to defect or grow cold in their divine ardor. As the mind

> became cool toward God, it made the first step down in its fall and

> became soul. The soul, now already once removed from its original

> state, continued with its defection to the point of taking on a

> body. This, as we know from Platonism, is indeed a degradation,

for

> the highest type of manifestation is on the mental level and the

> lowest is on the physical.

>

> Such an account of man's fall does not mean that Origen rejected

> Genesis. It only means that he was willing to allow for

allegorical

> interpretation; thus Eden is not necessarily spatially located,

but

> is a cosmic and metaphysical event wherein pure disincarnate idea

> became fettered to physical matter. What was essential for

> Christianity, as Origen perceived, is that the fall be voluntary

and

> result in a degree of estrangement from God.

>

> Where there is a fall, there must follow the drama of

> reconciliation. Love is one of God's qualities, as Origen himself

> acknowledged, and from this it follows that God will take an

interest

> in the redemption of his creatures. For Origen, this means that

> after the drama of incarnation the soul assumes once again its

> identity as mind and recovers its ardor for God.

>

> It was to hasten this evolution that in the fullness of time God

sent

> the Christ. The Christ of Origen was the Incarnate Word (he was

also

> the only being that did not grow cold toward God), and he came both

> as a mediator and as an incarnate image of God's goodness. By

> allowing the wisdom and light of God to shine in one's life through

> the inspiration of Christ, the individual soul could swiftly regain

> its ardor for God, leave behind the burden of the body, and regain

> complete reconciliation with God. In fact, said Origen, much to

the

> outrage of his critics, the extent and power of God's love is so

> great that eventually all things will be restored to him, even

Satan

> and his legions.

>

> Since the soul's tenancy of any given body is but one of many

> episodes in its journey from God and back again, the doctrine of

> reincarnation is implicit. As for the resurrection of the body,

> Origen created a tempest of controversy by insisting that the

> physical body wastes away and returns to dust, while the

resurrection

> takes on a spiritual or transformed body. This is of course handy

> for the reincarnationist, for it means that the resurrected body

> either can be the summation and climax of all the physical bodies

> that came before or indeed may bear no resemblance at all to the

many

> physical bodies.

>

> There will come a time when the great defection from God that

> initiated physical creation will come to an end. All things, both

> heavenly bodies and human souls, will be so pure and ardent in

their

> love for God that physical existence will no longer be necessary.

> The entire cohesion of creation will come apart, for matter will be

> superfluous. Then, to cite one of Origen's favorite passages, all

> things will be made subject to God and God will be " all in all. " (

1

> Cor 15:28 ) This restoration of all things proposed by Origen gave

> offense in later centuries. It seemed quite sensible to Origen

that

> anything that defects from God must eventually be brought back to

> him. As he triumphantly affirmed at the end of his " On First

> Principles " , men are the " blood brothers " of God himself and cannot

> stay away forever.

>

> Scriptural support for reincarnation

> There are many Bible verses which are suggestive of reincarnation.

> One episode in particular from the healing miracles of Christ seems

> to point to reincarnation:

>

> " And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his

> disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his

> parents, that he should be born blind? " Jesus answered, 'Neither

> has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to

be

> made manifest in him.' " (John 9:1)

>

> The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed

> the sin that led to his blindness. Given the fact that the man has

> been blind from birth, we are confronted with a provocative

> question. When could he have made such transgressions as to make

him

> blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some prenatal

> state. The question as posed by the disciples explicitly

presupposes

> prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing

> to dispel or correct the presupposition. Here is incontrovertible

> support for a doctrine of human preexistence.

>

> Also very suggestive of reincarnation is the episode where Jesus

> identifies John the Baptist as Elijah.

>

> " For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And

if

> you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come. "

> (Matthew 11:13-14)

>

> " And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say

> that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said,

'Elijah

> indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you

that

> Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him

> whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their

> hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John

the

> Baptist. " (Matthew 17:10-13)

>

> Here again is a clear statement of preexistence. Despite the edict

> of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there

is

> firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and

the

> New Testament. Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding,

> contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one

> of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology.

>

> As for the John the Baptist-Elijah episode, there can be little

> question as to its purpose. By identifying the Baptist as Elijah,

> Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. Throughout the gospel

> narrative there are explicit references to the signs that will

> precede the Messiah.

>

> " Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of

the

> great and dreadful day of the Lord. " (Malachi 4:5)

>

> This is one of the many messianic promises of the Old Testament.

One

> of the signs that the true Messiah has come, according to this

> passage from Malachi, is that he be preceded by a forerunner, by

> Elijah.

>

> Although the Bible also contains other reincarnational passages,

> these Elijah-John passages constitute clear proof of reincarnation:

>

> 1. The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself (not

> someone " like " him or someone " similar " to him, but Elijah himself)

> would return before the advent of the Messiah.

>

> 2. Jesus declared that John the Baptist was Elijah who had

> returned, stating bluntly " Elijah has come " .

>

> Now, based on these passages alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:

>

> (A) John the Baptist was Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah had

> reincarnated. If this is true, then reincarnation must belong in

> Christian theology, and the West's entire doctrinal interpretation

> of " Life After Death " in general, and the " Last Day Resurrection "

in

> particular, must be radically revised, or...

>

> (B) John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah

> himself had not returned. If this is so, then either:

>

> (1) The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the

> Messiah failed to come to pass (meaning that Biblical prophecy is

> fallible), OR

>

> (2) Jesus was not the Messiah.

>

> Basically, it comes down to this simple question: What do you want

> to believe? One of the following A, B, or C, must logically be

true:

>

> A. Reincarnation is true, or

>

> B. Jesus was not the Messiah, or

>

> C. The prophecies of the Bible are unreliable.

>

> As surely as two and two make four, one of the above must be true.

At

> any rate, the passage in which Jesus says in no uncertain terms

that

> John was Elijah is " overt " and direct:

>

> " But I tell you, Elijah has come. " (Mark 9:13)

>

> The following verse is used to refute the John the Baptist/Elijah

> reincarnation connection. The Bible tells us that John the Baptist

> possessed,

>

> " ... the spirit and power of Elijah. " (Luke 1:17)

>

> Those who refute this reincarnation connection say that John the

> Baptist merely came in the spirit and power of Elijah. However,

> this is a perfect description of reincarnation: the spirit and

> power. This is reincarnation - the reincarnation of the spirit.

The

> Bible itself states that John the Baptist possessed the spirit that

> had previously lived in, and as, the man Elijah - not his physical

> being and memory, but his spirit.

>

> John carried Elijah's living spirit, but not his physical memory.

And

> since John did not possess Elijah's physical memory, he did not

> possess the memories of being the man Elijah. Thus, John the

Baptist

> denied being Elijah when asked:

>

> They asked him, " Then who are you? Are you Elijah? " He said, " I am

> not. " " Are you the Prophet? " He answered, " No. " Finally they

> said, " Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who

sent

> us. What do you say about yourself? " John replied in the words of

> Isaiah the prophet, " I am the voice of one calling in the

> desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' " Now some Pharisees

> who had been sent questioned him, " Why then do you baptize if you

are

> not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? " " I baptize with

> water, " John replied, " but among you stands one you do not know.

He

> is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not

> worthy to untie. " (John 1:21-27)

>

> But Jesus knew better, and said so in the plainest words possible:

>

> " This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John

the

> Baptist.... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah

who

> was to come. He who has ears, let him hear. " (Matthew 11:11-15).

>

> It comes down to this: Jesus said John was Elijah, and John said

he

> wasn't. Which of the two is to be believed - Jesus or John?

>

> There is a prophecy in the Book of Revelation concerning the days

> before the second coming of Christ. Two prophets are predicted to

> appear at this time working the same miracles and performing the

same

> ministries as those of Elijah and Moses.

>

> " And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy

> for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees

> and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. If

> anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours

> their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die.

> These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain

> during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn

the

> waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague

> as often as they want. " (Revelation 11:3-6)

>

> While the verses in Revelation do not specifically identify the two

> prophets to come as Elijah and Moses, it strongly suggests that it

is

> them. If Elijah and Moses are to " rise " again before the second

> coming of Christ, then it is clear they only possible way for them

to

> do so is through reincarnation. After the death of John the

Baptist,

> whom Jesus identified as Elijah, Elijah appears again along with

> Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration:

>

> " After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the

brother

> of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he

> was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his

> clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared

> before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to

> Jesus, " Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put

> up three shelters-- one for you, one for Moses and one for

Elijah. "

> While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a

> voice from the cloud said, " This is my Son, whom I love; with him I

> am well pleased. Listen to him! " When the disciples heard this,

they

> fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched

> them. " Get up, " he said. " Don't be afraid. " When they looked up,

they

> saw no one except Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain,

> Jesus instructed them, " Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until

> the Son of Man has been raised from the dead. " The disciples asked

> him, " Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come

> first? " Jesus replied, " To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore

> all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did

> not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In

> the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands. "

Then

> the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the

> Baptist. " (Matthew 17:1-13)

>

> The scriptures strongly suggest a connection between Elijah and

Moses

> with the ministries of Jesus. Since Jesus already identified

Elijah

> as appearing during his first ministry, it is not hard to conclude

> that Elijah will appear again at Jesus' second coming. Even the

Old

> Testament suggests this will be the case:

>

> " Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of

the

> great and dreadful day of the Lord. " (Malachi 4:5)

>

> This is one of the many messianic promises of the Old Testament.

It

> was fulfilled during Jesus' first coming and there is reason to

> believe it will happen again during Jesus' second coming.

>

> Due to the condemnation of reincarnation by church authorities some

> 500 years after Jesus left the scene, this doctrine has become an

> alien, even enemy concept to the Judeo-Christian West. However, it

is

> reasonably certain that reincarnation was not an alien concept to

the

> people Jesus preached to, nor, to Jesus himself. As a natural

> geographic crossroads, the land of Israel enjoyed a strong and

steady

> flow of both foreign travelers and foreign ideas; the doctrine of

> rebirth is not only likely to have been a familiar concept in 1st

> century Israel, but actually seems to have been widely considered a

> distinct possibility. Even though the idea later became a heresy to

> the people of the Christian Empire, during the life of Jesus, at

> least, reincarnation was an open question in the minds of many.

>

> From time to time in Jewish history, there had been an insistent

> belief that their prophets were reborn. The Samaritans believed

that

> Adam had reincarnated as Seth, then Noah, Abraham, and even Moses.

> Christ's countrymen seem to have thought of the doctrine of

> reincarnation as an intriguing, if unproven theory; the Israelites

> were aware, of course, that their sacred scriptures didn't

> specifically endorse this theory, but, since they didn't condemn it

> either, the general population apparently felt it best to keep an

> open mind about the whole idea. To the chagrin of traditional

> Christian doctrine, it was apparently actually rather common for

> Christ's contemporaries to innocently wonder aloud if Jesus himself

> was the reincarnation of some earlier prophet:

>

> When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his

> disciples,

>

> " Who do people say the Son of Man is? " (Matthew 16:14)

>

> His disciples replied:

>

> " Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others,

> Jeremiah or one of the prophets. "

>

> Considering such widespread conjecture about the doctrine of

> reincarnation in 1st century Israel, the people of his own time

> undoubtedly assumed Jesus had been openly promoting this doctrine

> when he claimed that the man now known as John the Baptist was the

> same man who centuries earlier had been the famous prophet Elijah.

>

> Confronted by these rumors that His countrymen believed in

> reincarnation, did Jesus take this opportunity to deny and refute

> this doctrine? No. Instead, He made statements that seem to

support

> reincarnation.

>

> Jesus was sometimes taken to be a reincarnation of one of the

> prophets. An example of this is when Jesus asked:

>

> " Whom do people say that I am? " (Mark 8:27)

>

> The consensus of opinion seems to have been that He was a

> reincarnation of either John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the Old

> Testament prophets. It is hard to see how Jesus could have been a

> reincarnation of the prophet by whom He was baptized, but that has

> not deterred these believers in reincarnation around Jesus.

>

> Another Bible verse has Paul discussing the process of

" resurrection "

> (i.e. reincarnation):

>

> " But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of

> body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to

> life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that

> will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

But

> God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed

he

> gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind

of

> flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There

> are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the

> splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of

the

> earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the

> moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in

> splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The

body

> that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown

in

> dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is

raised

> in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual

body. "

> (1 Corinthians 15:35-44).

>

> Another verse suggestive of reincarnation can be found when Jesus

> declares the following to the believers in the Church of

> Philadelphia:

>

> " Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.

> Never again will he leave it. " (Revelation 3:12)

>

> Jesus is stating that people were once inhabitants of the temple of

> God. This is strongly suggestive of preexistence and

reincarnation.

> As soon as the person overcomes (the world) the person becomes a

> permanent inhabitant of this temple and never again has to leave

it.

> The flip-side to this is that those who do not overcome must leave

> this temple of God only to return when they overcome the world.

>

> Another verse in the Book of Revelation suggests reincarnation:

>

> " She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the

nations

> with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to

his

> throne. " (Revelation 12:5)

>

> This verse describes the birth of a child who is taken to heaven

> after birth. The interesting aspect is that this child is to rule

all

> the nations with an iron scepter. Because the child was taken to

> heaven after birth, reincarnation is the only way the child can

> return to the world in order to grow up and " rule all nations " .

> Although Revelations is mostly symbolic and is often quite

abstract,

> this verse implies the ability to incarnate more than once.

>

> There is another reference to reincarnation in the gospels; an

> indirect reference, yet an unmistakable one. In all three of the

> synoptic gospels, Jesus promised that anyone leaving their homes,

> wives, mothers, fathers, children, or farms to follow him would

> personally receive hundreds more such homes, families, and so on in

> the future. Jesus said:

>

> " No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or

father

> or wife or children or land for me and the gospel will fail to

> receive a hundred times as much in this present age - homes,

> brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields ... and in the age

to

> come, eternal life. " (Mark 10:29-30)

>

> Outside of the doctrine of reincarnation it's difficult to imagine

> how such a promise could be fulfilled. In one lifetime, one can

only

> have a single set of real parents, and no one seriously proposes

that

> each of the 70 original disciples, who actually did leave their

homes

> and families, ever received as compensation a hundred wives, a

> hundred fields, and so on. Either this statement of Jesus' occurred

> when he was waxing so poetic as to allow a falsehood to pass his

> lips, or he was making a promise that only many reincarnations

could

> fulfill.

>

> The following passage in the Book of Hebrews, especially the

> italisized sentence, is a clear statement of the concept of

> reincarnation.

>

> " All these people were still living by faith when they died. They

did

> not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed

them

> from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and

> strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are

> looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of

the

> country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.

> Instead, they were longing for a better country-- a heavenly one.

> Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has

> prepared a city for them. " (Hebrews 11:13-16)

>

> Indeed the reincarnationist can even find scriptural support for

> personal disincarnate preexistence. Origen took the following

Bible

> verse as proof of preexistence:

>

> " He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we

> should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love. "

> (Ephesians 1:4)

>

> Jerome, who is just as uncomfortable as Justinian about

preexistence,

> interprets the passage to mean that we preexisted, not in distinct

> disincarnate form, but simply in the mind of God (Against Rufinus

> 1.22), and from this throng of thoughts God chose the elect before

> the creation of the world. The distinction is indeed a fine one,

for

> Jerome is asking us to distinguish between that which exists as a

> soul and that which exists as a thought. What is illuminating for

> the reincarnationist is that this passage from Ephesians offers

very

> explicit scriptural testimony for individual preexistence.

>

> Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:11-13 both state that God loved Jacob,

but

> hate Esau even before they were born. These verses are highly

> suggestive of the pre-existence of Esau, a necessary tenet

associated

> with reincarnation.

>

> The same concept of pre-existence can also be found in the

following

> Bible verse:

>

> " I tell you the truth, " Jesus answered, " before Abraham was born, I

> am! " (John 8:58)

>

> Other words uttered by Christ are suggestive of reincarnation. In

> the gospels, Jesus reveals information about His return and who

will

> witness it. Several times, He has mentioned that some people alive

> during His day will be around when He returns. One example is when

> Jesus gave His Olivet Discourse about His second coming. His

> disciples ask about His return and inquire as to the signs that

would

> proceed His return. After Jesus reveals the signs of His coming, He

> states,

>

> " I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away

> until all these things have happened. " (Matthew 24:34).

>

> It can be argued that Jesus is pointing to a time in the future

when

> those around Him inquiring about this will reincarnate and

experience

> His second coming. Another example is when Jesus states,

>

> " Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here

> who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in

His

> kingdom. " (Matthew 16:24-28).

>

> The question now is this: what is it to " taste death until He

comes " ?

> The concept of a person having to " taste death until the Lord

comes "

> is a good description of reincarnation and of what the Bible refers

> to as the " First Death " . The First Death is spiritual death,

> separation from God. When we are born, we are born into spiritual

> death and it requires some action on our part to break out of it

and

> enter into spiritual life. These verses all are suggestive of

> reincarnation.

>

> It can be deduced from the scriptures the fact that Christ Himself

> had many incarnations in the flesh. It is well known that the

apostle

> Paul wrote of Adam as:

>

> " ... a pattern of the one who was to come (i.e. Jesus) " (Romans

> 5:14)

>

> Paul drew between Adam and Christ a parallel that was also a

> contrast:

>

> " The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam (i.e. Jesus)

> became a life-giving spirit. " (1 Corinthians 15:45).

>

> Christ is thus seen as the last Adam, the " one man " who by his

> obedience undoes the results of the disobedience of the first

(Romans

> 5:12-21). Jesus Christ recapitulated the stages of Adam's fall,

but

> in reverse order and quality.

>

> The belief in many incarnation of Jesus is not a new belief. The

> early Judeo-Christian group known as the Ebionites taught that the

> Spirit had come as Adam and later reincarnated as Jesus. Other

> Jewish Christian groups such as the Elkasaites and Nazarites also

> believed this. The Clementine Homilies, an early Christian

document,

> also taught many incarnations of Jesus.

>

> Another possible incarnation of Christ is the Old Testament figure

> known as Melchizedek, the High Priest and King of Salem, who:

>

> " ...without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning

of

> days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest

> forever. " (Hebrews 7:3).

>

> It is clear from the scripture that Melchizedek was no ordinary

man,

> assuming He even was a man - for what kind of man has no father or

> mother, is without genealogy, and without beginning of days or end

of

> life? Whoever this Melchizedek was, the scriptures declare Jesus

to

> be a:

>

> " .. priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. " (Hebrews 7:17).

>

> It may be argued that Melchizedek was one of the incarnations of

> Jesus. Certainly it has to be acknowledged that Melchizedek was no

> ordinary man.

>

> There are Bible verses that are highly suggestive of the

" mechanics "

> of reincarnation. Before His arrest, Jesus stated:

>

> " All who take the sword will perish by the sword. " (Matthew 26:52)

>

> Common sense tells us that not all people who live " by the sword "

> will die by the sword. This statement can only be true if meant in

> the context of a future life. If in this life you " live by the

> sword " , you will most certainly die, if not in the same life but a

> future life, " by the sword " . In fact, this concept is the ancient

> doctrine of " karma " as it is known in the East where reincarnation

is

> the foundation of reality. Here are some other Biblical references

> to this concept:

>

> " Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A person reaps what he

> sows. " (Galatians 6:7)

>

> " Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot

for

> foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. " (Exodus

> 21:24-25)

>

> " In anger his master turned him over to the jailers until he should

> pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat

each

> of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart. " (Matthew

18:

> 34-35)

>

> " If any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be

slain. "

> (Revelation 13:10)

>

> " Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to

> court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may

hand

> you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the

> officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth,

you

> will not get out until you have paid the last penny. " (Matthew 5:25-

> 26)

>

> The above passages can be seen to at least be suggestive of

> reincarnation.

>

> In James 3:6, some translations (such as the American Standard

> Version) mention " the wheel of nature " which seems to resemble the

> cycle of endless reincarnation stated by the Eastern religions.

> However, in this context the reference is made to the control of

> speech in order not to sin. The ASV translation states:

>

> " And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members

is

> the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the

> wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell. " (James 3:6)

>

> The tongue out of control is compared with a fire that affects all

> aspects of existence, thought and deed, in a vicious cycle. This

> means that sinful speech is at the origin of many other sins, which

> are consequently generated, and conduct man to hell.

>

> Nowhere in the Old Testament is reincarnation denied. Job asks:

>

> " If a person dies will he live again? " (Job 14:14)

>

> But he receives no answer.

>

> Another Old Testament verse states:

>

> " Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains

forever.

> The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it

rises.

> The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round

> it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the

> sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come

from,

> there they return again...What has been will be again, what has

been

> done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. "

> (Ecclesiastes 1:4-9)

>

> The Hebrew kabbalists interpreted this quote to mean that a

> generation dies and subsequently returns by the process of

> reincarnation.

>

> In the New Testament, one verse in particular is often used to

refute

> reincarnation. It is Hebrews 9:27.

>

> " ... man is destined to die once, and after that to face

> judgment.... " (Hebrews 9:27)

>

> This is often assumed, reasonably enough, to declare that each

human

> being lives once as a mortal on earth, dies once, and then faces

> judgment. But this verse, on it's surface, not only applies to

> reincarnation, but to the modern concept of resurrection. In fact,

> if anything, this verse can be most applied to refuting modern

> Christianity's definition of resurrection. Reincarnation states

> that the spirit leaves the body at death, faces judgment, then can

> enter a new and different body at a later time. In this way,

Hebrews

> 9:27 does not refute reincarnation because it is not the same body

> that dies again. It implies one man/one death, which agrees with

> reincarnation, but totally disagrees with modern Christianity's

> definition of resurrection which holds that after a body dies and

> faces judgment, his physical body will rise from the grave at a

later

> day to face possible death again and judgment. So Hebrews 9:27

does

> not refute reincarnation after all, but does refute resurrection as

> modern Christianity defines it.

>

> From all that has been said here, one can safely draw the

conclusion

> that reincarnation was not only known by those in Christ's day, by

> that Christ Himself and the Bible teaches it and reincarnation

should

> be a doctrine acceptable by every follower of Christ.

>

>

> More scriptural support for reincarnation

> Ancient writings were discovered in 1945 which revealed more

> information about the concept of reincarnation from a sect of

> Christians called " Gnostics " . This sect was ultimately destroyed

by

> the Roman orthodox church, their followers burned at the stake and

> their writings wiped out. The writings included some long lost

> gospels, some of which were written early than the known gospels of

> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Gnostic Christians claimed to

> possess the correct definition of " resurrection " - based on Jesus'

> secret teachings, handed down to them by the apostles.

>

> The existence of a secret tradition can be found in the New

Testament:

>

> " He [Jesus] told them, ' The secret of the kingdom of God has been

> given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in

> parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and

> ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and

> be forgiven!' " (Mark 4:11-12)

>

> " No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden

> and that God destined for our glory before time began. " (1

> Corinthians 2:7)

>

> " So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those

> entrusted with the secret things of God. " (1 Corinthians 4:1)

>

> A fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, one of the Gnostic texts

> discovered, describes Jesus performing secret initiation rites.

> Before the discovery of Gnostic writings, our only knowledge of it

> came from a letter written by Church Father Clement of Alexandria

> (150 AD - 211 AD), which quotes this secret gospel and refers to it

> as " a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being

> perfected. " He said, " It even yet is most carefully guarded [by

the

> church at Alexandria], being read only to those who are being

> initiated into the great mysteries. " Clement insists elsewhere

that

> Jesus revealed a secret teaching to those who were " capable of

> receiving it and being molded by it. " Clement indicates that he

> possessed the secret tradition, which was handed down through the

> apostles. Such Gnostics were spiritual critics of the orthodox

> Church of what they saw as not so much a popularization as a

> vulgarization of Christianity. The orthodox church stressed faith,

> while the Gnostic church stressed knowledge (gnosis). This secret

> knowledge emphasized spiritual resurrection rather than physical

> resurrection. Indeed, the Gnostic Christians believed

reincarnation

> to be the true interpretation of " resurrection " for those who have

> not attained a spiritual resurrection through this secret knowledge.

>

> The New Testament talks about this gnosis (knowledge):

>

> " Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the

> common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message

of

> wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same

> Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of

> healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to

another

> prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another

> speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the

> interpretation of tongues. " (1 Corinthians 12:7-10)

>

> " For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not

> stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the

knowledge

> of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. "

> (Colossians 1:9)

>

> The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus states that the

> Pharisees, the founders of rabbinic Judaism for whom Paul once

> belonged, believed in reincarnation. He writes that the Pharisees

> believed that the souls of bad men are punished after death but

that

> the souls of good men are " removed into other bodies " and they

> will " have power to revive and live again. " The Sadducees, the

other

> prominent Jewish sect in Palestine, did not emphasize life after

> death and according to the Bible " say there is no resurrection "

> (Matthew 22:23). From what we have just discussed, it is clear

that

> what Matthew really states is that the Sadducees " say there is no

> reincarnation " .

>

> The following are some the secret teachings of Jesus from the

Gnostic

> gospels that affirm reincarnation, revealing the secret knowledge:

>

> " Watch and pray that you may not be born in the flesh, but that you

> may leave the bitter bondage of this life. " (Book of Thomas the

> Contender)

>

> " When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your

> images that came into being before and that neither die nor become

> visible, how much you will bear! " (Gospel of Thomas)

>

> In the Book of Thomas the Contender, Jesus tells the disciple

Thomas

> that after death those who were once believers but have remained

> attached to things of " transitory beauty " will be consumed " in

their

> concern about life " and will be " brought back to the visible realm " .

>

> In the Secret Book of John, reincarnation is placed at the heart of

> its discussion of the salvation of souls. The book was written by

> 185 AD at the latest. Here is the Secret Book of John's

perspective

> on reincarnation:

>

> All people have drunk the water of forgetfulness and exist in a

state

> of ignorance. Some are able to overcome ignorance through the

Spirit

> of life that descends upon them. These souls " will be saved and

will

> become perfect, " that is, escape the round of rebirth. John asks

> Jesus what will happen to those who do not attain salvation. They

> are hurled down " into forgetfulness " and thrown into " prison " , the

> Gnostic code word for new body. The only way for these souls to

> escape, says Jesus, is to emerge from forgetfulness and acquire

> knowledge. A soul in this situation can do so by finding a teacher

> or savior who has the strength to lead her home. " This soul needs

to

> follow another soul in whom the Spirit of life dwells, because she

is

> saved through the Spirit. Then she will never be thrust into flesh

> again. " (Secret Book of John)

>

> Another Gnostic text, Pistis Sophia, outlines an elaborate system

of

> reward and punishment that includes reincarnation. The text

> explains differences in fate as the effects of past-life actions.

> A " man who curses " is given a body that will be continually

" troubled

> in heart " . A " man who slanders " receives a body that will

> be " oppressed " . A thief receives a " lame, crooked and blind

> body " . A " proud " and " scornful " man receives " a lame and ugly

body "

> that " everyone continually despises. " Thus earth, as well as hell,

> becomes the place of punishment.

>

> According to Pistis Sophia, some souls do experience hell as a

> shadowy place of torture where they go after death. But after

> passing through this hell, the souls return for further experiences

> on earth. Only a few extremely wicked souls are not allowed to

> reincarnate. These are cast into " outer darkness " until the time

> when they are destined to be " destroyed and dissolved " .

>

> Several Gnostic texts combine the ideas of reincarnation and union

> with God. The Apocalypse of Paul, a second-century text, describes

> the Merkabah-style ascent of the apostle Paul as well as the

> reincarnation of a soul who was not ready for such an ascent. It

> shows how both reincarnation and ascents fit into Gnostic theology.

> Click here to read more.

>

> As Paul passes through the fourth heaven, he sees a soul being

> punished for murder. This soul is being whipped by angels who have

> brought him " out of the land of the dead " (earth). The soul calls

> three witnesses, who charge him with murder. The soul then looks

> down " in sorrow " and is " cast down " into a body that has been

> prepared for it. The text goes on to describe Paul's further

journey

> through the heavens, a practice run for divine union.

>

> Pistis Sophia combines the ideas of reincarnation and divine union

in

> a passage that begins with the question: What happens to " a man

who

> has committed no sin, but done good persistently, but has not found

> the mysteries? " The Pistis Sophia tells us that the soul of the

good

> man who has not found the mysteries will receive " a cup filled with

> thoughts and wisdom. " This will allow the soul to remember its

> divine origin and so to pursue the " mysteries of the Light " until

it

> finds them and is able to " inherit the Light forever. " To " inherit

> the Light forever " is a Gnostic code for union with God.

>

> For the Gnostic Christians, resurrection was also a spiritual event

-

> simply the awakening of the soul. They believed that people who

> experience the resurrection can experience eternal life, or union

> with God, while on earth and then after death, escape rebirth.

> People who don't experience the resurrection and union with God on

> earth will reincarnate. Jesus states the following the Gnostic

> Gospels:

>

> " People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken.

If

> they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once

> they have died they will receive nothing. " (Gospel of Philip)

>

> Paul writes in several places that resurrection involves a spirit

> body. Such a definition corresponds with spiritual resurrection

and

> reincarnation:

>

> " It [the dead body] is sown a natural body, it is raised a

spiritual

> body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual

body. " (1

> Corinthians 15:44)

>

> " I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit

the

> kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the

imperishable. " (1

> Corinthians 15:50)

>

> " When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your

> sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. " (Colossians 2:13)

>

> The Gnostics claimed their terminology was sprinkled through the

> Epistles. For example, the author of Ephesians uses the

> words " awake " , " sleep " and " dead " in a Gnostic sense:

>

> " But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is

light

> that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: " Wake up, O

> sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you. "

> (Ephesians 5:13-14)

>

> Some of the Greek words in the New Testament translated

> as " resurrection " also mean to " rise " or " awake " . Therefore,

argued

> the Gnostics, when Paul says people can be part of the

resurrection,

> he is really saying that their souls can be awakened to the Spirit

of

> God.

>

> We know that in some passages Paul writes about the resurrection as

a

> present rather than a future event:

>

> " Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ

Jesus

> were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him

> through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised

> from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a

new

> life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we

> will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we

> know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of

sin

> might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin

-

> because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we

died

> with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we

know

> that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again;

> death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died

to

> sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the

> same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ

> Jesus. " (Romans 6:3-11)

>

> Colossians also seems to describe the resurrection as a present-day

> event:

>

> " Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on

> things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. "

> (Colossians 3:1)

>

> " Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self

> with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being

> renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. " (Colossians 3:9-

10)

>

> In the above passage, taking off the old self and putting on the

new

> is a code for the resurrection, which, again, is described as a

> present-life event.

>

> The Gnostic manuscripts present a clear, simple and strong vision

of

> the resurrection. First, the Gospel of Thomas disabuses people of

> the notion that the resurrection is a future event:

>

> " His followers said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take

> place, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What

you

> look for has come, but you do not know it.' " (Gospel of Thomas)

>

> In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is saying that the resurrection and

> the kingdom are already here. We simply do not realize it - or, in

> the Gnostic sense, we simply have not integrated with them.

>

> Jesus explained the concept of resurrection before raising Lazarus

> from the dead:

>

> " Jesus said to her, " Your brother will rise again. " Martha

> answered, " I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the

last

> day. " Jesus said to her, " I am the resurrection and the life. He

who

> believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives

and

> believes in me will never die. Do you believe this? " (John 11:23-26)

>

> In these verses, Jesus tells Martha her brother Lazarus will " rise

> again " . Martha mistakenly thinks Jesus means Lazarus will come out

of

> his grave at Judgment Day. Jesus corrects her by stating that those

> who believe in Him will live, even before they die. Jesus is

> referring here to spiritual regeneration. Jesus also states that

> those who die believing in Him, will never die. This clearly

implies

> reincarnation. The flip-side to this is that those who die not

> believing in Him, will have to die again (i.e. reincarnate). It is

> interesting to note that by raising Lazarus from death, Jesus is

> forcing Lazarus to live out the rest of his life only to die

> physically again. By raising Lazarus from death, Jesus seems to be

> demonstrating that one does not wait until Judgment Day to rise.

>

> Jesus flatly tells Nicodemus:

>

> " I tell you a truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is

> born again. " (John 3:3)

>

> Nicodemus misunderstands what Jesus means by " born again " :

>

> " How can a person be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter

a

> second time into his mother's womb to be born! " (John 3:4)

>

> In response, Jesus states:

>

> " I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless

he

> is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but

the

> Spirit gives birth to spirit. " (John 3:5-6)

>

> In context of these verses, Jesus is talking about the process of

> resurrection, that is, being born of water and being born of the

> Spirit. Jesus describes physical resurrection (to be born of

water)

> and spiritual resurrection (to be born of the Spirit). They are

two

> similar yet different processes. From these verses, the case can

be

> made that Jesus taught the concept of resurrection as being

physical

> rebirth as well as spiritual rebirth.

>

> In the Apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon, recognized by the

Catholic

> Church, is the following verse:

>

> " ... I was given a sound body to live in because I was already

good. "

> (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20)

>

> This verse raises the following question: How is it possible to

get

> a body after you have already been good if reincarnation is a fact?

>

> Flavius Josephus records that the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls

> lived " the same kind of life " as the followers of the Greek

> philosopher Pythagoras who taught reincarnation. According to

> Josephus, the Essenes believed that the soul is both immortal and

> preexistent which is necessary for belief in reincarnation.

>

> One scroll entitled " The Last Jubilee " mentions reincarnation.

This

> scroll is about the " last days " during which time it says,

> a " Melchizedek redivivus " (reincarnate) will appear and destroy

> Belial (Satan) and lead the children of God to eternal

forgiveness.

> Parts of this scroll has been unreadable and will be denoted by

> this '. . .' symbol. Here is it's message:

>

> " Men will turn away in rebellion, and there will be a re-

> establishment of the reign of righteousness, perversity being

> confounded by the judgements of God. This is what scripture

implies

> in the words, " Who says to Zion, your God has not claimed his

> Kingdom! " The term Zion there denoting the total congregation of

> the " sons of righteousness " that is, those who maintain the

covenant

> and turn away from the popular trend, and your God signifying the

> King of Righteousness, alias Melchizedek Redivivus, who will

destroy

> Belial. Our text speaks also of sounding a loud trumpet blast

> throughout the land on the tenth day of the seventh month. As

> applied to the last days, this refers to the fanfare which will

then

> be sounded before the Messianic King. " (The Last Jubilee)

>

> Melchizedek was the High Priest described in the Bible. It is

> interesting to note that some early Christians believed Melchizedek

> to be an early incarnation of Jesus. If this is true and the above

> passage of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be believed, then the passage

is

> very likely referring to Jesus Himself and His second coming.

>

> The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Jewish mystical tradition of

> union with God went back to the first, if not the third, century

> before Christ. Jewish mysticism has its roots in Greek mysticism

> which espouced reincarnation. Some of the hymns found with the

Dead

> Sea Scrolls are similar to the Hekhalot hymns sung by the Jewish

> mystics. One text gives us unmistakable evidence of Jewish

> mysticism. It is called " Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice " . Also,

> fragments of 1 Enoch, which is considered the oldest evidence of

> Jewish mysticism, were also found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since

> Jewish mysticism existed in the third century before Christ, as

Enoch

> indicates, then it would certainly have been present in first-

century

> Judaism. As stated earlier, this twin idea of divine union and

> reincarnation can be found in early Christianity and one can easily

> conclude that it was the key to the heart of Jesus' message.

>

> Reincarnation has been a tenet for thousands of years for certain

> Jews and Christians. The Zohar is a work of great weight and

> authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that " all souls are

> subject to revolutions. " This is metempsychosis or a'leen

b'gilgoola;

> but it declares that " men do not know the way they have been judged

> in all time. " That is, in their " revolutions " they lose a complete

> memory of the acts that have led to judgment. The Kether Malkuth

> says, " If she, the soul, be pure, then she shall obtain favor.. .

but

> if she hath been defiled, then she shall wander for a time in pain

> and despair. . . until the days of her purification. " If the soul

be

> pure and if she comes at once from God at birth, how could she be

> defiled? And where is she to wander if not on this or some other

> world until the days of her purification? The Rabbis always

explained

> it as meaning she wandered down from Paradise through many

> revolutions or births until purity was regained.

>

> Under the name of " Din Gilgol Neshomes " the doctrine of

reincarnation

> is constantly spoken of in the Talmud. The term means " the judgment

> of the revolutions of the souls. " And Rabbi Manassa, son of Israel,

> one of the most revered, says in his book Nishmath Hayem: " The

belief

> or the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and

> infallible dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church

with

> one accord, so that there is none to be found who would dare to

deny

> it. . . . Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who

hold

> firm to this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental

> point of our religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and

to

> accept this dogma with acclamation . . . as the truth of it has

been

> incontestably demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the

> Kabalists. "

>

>

>

> The mystery of God in humanity

> Early in the fourth century, while Bishop Alexander of Alexandria

was

> expounding on the Trinity to his flock, a theological tsunami was

> born.

>

> A Libyan priest named Arius stood up and posed the following simple

> question: " If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a

> beginning of existence. " In other words, if the Father is the

parent

> of the Son, then didn't the Son have a beginning?

>

> Apparently, no one had put it this way before. For many bishops,

> Arius spoke heresy when he said that the Son had a beginning. A

> debate erupted, led by Arius on the one side and by Alexander and

his

> deacon Athanasius on the other. Athanasius became the Church's

lead

> fighter in a struggle that lasted his entire life.

>

> In 320, Alexander held a council of Alexandria to condemn the

errors

> of Arius. But this did not stop the controversy. The Church had

> nearly split over the issue when the controversy reached the ears

of

> the Roman emperor Constantine. He decided to resolve it himself in

a

> move that permanently changed the course of Christianity.

>

> The orthodox accused the Arians of attempting to lower the Son by

> saying he had a beginning. But, in fact, the Arians gave him an

> exalted position, honoring him as " first among creatures. " Arius

> described the Son as one who became " perfect God, only begotten and

> unchangeable, " but also argued that he had an origin.

>

> The Arian controversy was really about the nature of humanity and

how

> we are saved. It involved two pictures of Jesus Christ: Either he

> was a God who had always been God or he was a human who became

God's

> Son.

>

> If he was a human who became God's Son, then that implied that

other

> humans could also become Sons of God. This idea was unacceptable

to

> the orthodox, hence their insistence that Jesus had always been God

> and was entirely different from all created beings. As we shall

see,

> the Church's theological position was, in part, dictated by its

> political needs. The Arian position had the potential to erode the

> authority of the Church since it implied that the soul did not need

> the Church to achieve salvation.

>

> The outcome of the Arian controversy was crucial to the Church's

> position on both reincarnation and the soul's opportunity to become

> one with God. Earlier, the Church decided that the human soul is

not

> now and never has been a part of God. Instead it belongs to the

> material world and is separated from God by a great chasm.

>

> Rejecting the idea that the soul is immortal and spiritual, which

was

> a part of Christian thought at the time of Clement and Origen, the

> Fathers developed the concept of " creatio ex nihilo " , creation out

of

> nothing. If the soul were not a part of God, the orthodox

> theologians reasoned, it could not have been created out of His

> essence.

>

> The doctrine persists to this day. By denying man's divine origin

> and potential, the doctrine of creation out of nothing rules out

both

> preexistence and reincarnation. Once the Church adopted the

> doctrine, it was only a matter of time before it rejected both

> Origenism and Arianism. In fact, the Arian controversy was only

one

> salvo in the battle to eradicate the mystical tradition Origen

> represented.

>

> Origen and his predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, lived in a

> Platonist world. For them it was a given that there is an

invisible

> spiritual world which is permanent and a visible material world

that

> is changeable. The soul belongs to the spiritual world, while the

> body belongs to the material world.

>

> In the Platonists' view, the world and everything in it is not

> created but emanates from God, the One. Souls come from the Divine

> Mind, and even when they are encased in bodily form, they retain

> their link to the Source.

>

> Clement tells us that humanity is " of celestial birth, being a

plant

> of heavenly origin. " Origen taught that man, having been made

after

> the " image and likeness of God, " has " a kind of blood-relationship

> with God. "

>

> While Clement and Origen were teaching in Alexandria, another group

> of Fathers was developing a countertheology. They rejected the

> Greek concept of the soul in favor of a new and unheard of idea:

> The soul is not a part of the spiritual world at all; but, like the

> body, it is part of the mutable material world.

>

> They based their theology on the changeability of the soul. How

> could the soul be divine and immortal, they asked, if it is capable

> of changing, falling and sinning? Because it is capable of change,

> they reasoned, it cannot be like God, who is unchangeable.

>

> Origen took up the problem of the soul's changeability but came up

> with a different solution. He suggested that the soul was created

> immortal and that even though it fell (for which he suggests

various

> reasons), it still has the power to restore itself to its original

> state.

>

> For him the soul is poised between spirit and matter and can choose

> union with either: " The will of this soul is something

intermediate

> between the flesh and the spirit, undoubtedly serving and obeying

one

> of the two, whichever it has chosen to obey. " If the soul chooses

to

> join with spirit, Origen wrote, " the spirit will become one with

it. "

>

> This new theology, which linked the soul with the body, led to the

> ruling out of preexistence. If the soul is material and not

> spiritual, then it cannot have existed before the body. As Gregory

> of Nyssa wrote: " Neither does the soul exist before the body, nor

the

> body apart from the soul, but ... there is only a single origin for

> both of them. "

>

> When is the soul created then? The Fathers came up with an

> improbable answer: at the same time as the body - at

> conception. " God is daily making souls, " wrote Church Father

> Jerome. If souls and bodies are created at the same time, both

> preexistence and reincarnation are out of the question since they

> imply that souls exist before bodies and can be attached to

different

> bodies in succession.

>

> The Church still teaches the soul is created at the same time as

the

> body and therefore the soul and the body are a unit.

>

> This kind of thinking led straight to the Arian controversy. Now

> that the Church had denied that the soul preexists the body and

that

> it belongs to the spiritual world, it also denied that souls,

bodies

> and the created world emanated from God.

>

> The Arian controversy

> When Arius asked whether the Son had a beginning, he was, in

effect,

> pointing out a fundamental flaw in that doctrine. The doctrine

did

> not clarify the nature of Christ. So he was asking: If there is

an

> abyss between Creator and creation, where does Christ belong? Was

he

> created out of nothing like the rest of the creatures? Or was he

> part of God? If so, then how and why did he take on human form?

>

> The Church tells us that the Arian controversy was a struggle

against

> blasphemers who said Christ was not God. But the crucial issue in

> the debate was: How is humanity saved - through emulating Jesus or

> through worshiping him?

>

> The Arians claimed that Jesus became God's Son and thereby

> demonstrated a universal principle that all created beings can

> follow. But the orthodox Church said that he had always been God's

> Son, was of the same essence as God (and therefore was God) and

could

> not be imitated by mere creatures, who lack God's essence.

Salvation

> could come only by accessing God's grace via the Church.

>

> The Arians believed that human beings could also be adopted as Sons

> of God by imitating Christ. For the Arians, the incarnation of

> Christ was designed to show us that we can follow Jesus and become,

> as Paul said, " joint heirs with Christ. "

>

> The orthodox Church, by creating a gulf between Jesus and the rest

of

> us, denied that we could become Sons in the same way he did. The

> reason why the Church had such a hard time seeing Jesus' humanity

was

> that they could not understand how anyone could be human and divine

> at the same time. Either Jesus was human (and therefore

changeable)

> or he was divine (and therefore unchangeable).

>

> The orthodox vision of Jesus as God is based in part on a

> misunderstanding of the Gospel of John. John tells us: " In the

> beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

> God ... All things were made by him; and without him was not any

> thing made that was made. " Later John tells us the " the Word was

> made flesh and dwelt among us. " The orthodox concluded from these

> passages that Jesus Christ is God, the Word, made flesh.

>

> What they didn't understand was that when John called Jesus " the

> Word, " he was referring to the Greek tradition of the Logos. When

> John tells us that the Word created everything, he uses the Greek

> term for Word - " Logos " . In Greek thought, Logos describes the

part

> of God that acts in the world. Philo called the Logos " God's

> Likeness, by whom the whole cosmos was fashioned. " Origen called

it

> the soul that holds the universe together.

>

> Philo believed that great human beings like Moses could personify

the

> Logos. Thus, when John writes that Jesus is the Logos, he does not

> mean that the man Jesus has always been God the Logos. What John

is

> telling us is that Jesus the man became the Logos, the Christ.

>

> Some early theologians believed that everyone has that

opportunity.

> Clement tells us that each human has the " image of the Word

[Logos] "

> within him and that it is for this reason that Genesis says that

> humanity is made " in the image and likeness of God. "

>

> The Logos, then, is the spark of divinity, the seed of Christ, that

> is within our hearts. Apparently the orthodox either rejected or

> ignored this concept.

>

> We should understand that Jesus became the Logos just as he became

> the Christ. But that didn't mean he was the only one who could

ever

> do it. Jesus explained this mystery when he broke the bread at the

> Last Supper. He took a single loaf, symbolizing the one Logos, the

> one Christ, and broke it and said, " This is my body, which is

broken

> for you. "

>

> He was teaching the disciples that there is one absolute God and

one

> Universal Christ, or Logos, but that the body of that Universal

> Christ can be broken and each piece will still retain all the

> qualities of the whole. He was telling them that the seed of

Christ

> was within them, that he had come to quicken it and that the Christ

> was not diminished no matter how many times his body was broken.

The

> smallest fragment of God, Logos, or Christ, contains the entire

> nature of Christ's divinity - which, to this day, he would make our

> own.

>

> The orthodox misunderstood Jesus' teaching because they were unable

> to accept the reality that each human being has both a human and a

> divine nature and the potential to become wholly divine. They

didn't

> understand the human and the divine in Jesus and therefore they

could

> not understand the human and the divine within themselves. Having

> seen the weakness of human nature, they thought they had to deny

the

> divine nature that occasionally flashes forth even in the lowliest

of

> human beings.

>

> The Church did not understand (or could not admit) that Jesus came

to

> demonstrate the process by which the human nature is transformed

into

> the divine. But Origen had found it easy to explain.

>

> He believed that the human and divine natures can be woven together

> day by day. He tells us that in Jesus " the divine and human nature

> began to interpenetrate in such a way that the human nature, by its

> communion with the divine, would itself become divine. " Origen

> tells us that the option for the transformation of humanity into

> divinity is available not just for Jesus but for " all who take up

in

> faith the life which Jesus taught. "

>

> Origen did not hesitate to describe the relationship of human

beings

> to the Son. He believed that we contain the same essence as the

> Father and the Son: " We, therefore, having been made according to

> the image, have the Son, the original, as the truth of the noble

> qualities that are within us. And what we are to the Son, such is

> the Son to the Father, who is the truth. " Since we have the noble

> qualities of the Son within us, we can undergo the process of

> divinization.

>

> To the Arians, the divinization process was essential to salvation;

> to the orthodox, it was heresy. In 324, the Roman emperor

> Constantine, who had embraced Christianity twelve years earlier,

> entered the Arian controversy. He wrote a letter to Arius and

Bishop

> Alexander urging them to reconcile their differences, and he sent

> Bishop Hosius of Cordova to Alexandria to deliver it. But his

letter

> could not calm the storm that raged over the nature of God - and

> man. Constantine realized that he would have to do more if he

wanted

> to resolve the impasse.

>

>

> The Council of Nicea

> In June 325 the council opened and continued for two months, with

> Constantine attending. The bishops modified an existing creed to

fit

> their purposes. The creed, with some changes made at a later

fourth

> century council, is still given today in many churches. The Nicene

> Creed, as it came to be called, takes elaborate care by repeating

> several redundancies to identify the Son with the Father rather

than

> with the creation:

>

> " We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things

> visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of

God,

> the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father,

God

> of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,

> being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were

> made ... Who ... was incarnate and was made human ... "

>

> Only two bishops, along with Arius, refused to sign the creed.

> Constantine banished them from the empire, while the other bishops

> went on to celebrate their unity in a great feast at the imperial

> palace.

>

> The creed is much more than an affirmation of Jesus' divinity. It

is

> also an affirmation of our separation from God and Christ. It

takes

> great pains to describe Jesus as God in order to deny that he is

part

> of God's creation. He is " begotten, not made, " therefore totally

> separate from us, the created beings. As scholar George Leonard

> Prestige writes, the Nicene Creed's description of Jesus tells

> us " that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the ... creatures. "

>

> The description of Jesus as the only Son of God is carried forward

in

> the Apostles' Creed, which is used in many Protestant churches

> today. It reads: " I believe in God, the Father Almighty... I

> believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. " But even that

> language - calling Jesus God's only Son - denies that we can ever

> attain the sonship that Jesus did.

>

> Christians may be interested to know that many scholars analyzing

the

> Bible now believe that Jesus never claimed to be the only Son of

> God. This was a later development based on a misinterpretation of

> the gospel of John.

>

> There is further evidence to suggest that Jesus believed all people

> could achieve the goal of becoming Sons of God. But the churches,

by

> retaining these creeds, remain in bondage to Constantine and his

> three hundred bishops.

>

> Some of the bishops who attended the council were uncomfortable

with

> the council's definition of the Son and thought they might have

gone

> too far. But the emperor, in a letter sent to the bishops who were

> not in attendance at Nicea, required that they accept " this truly

> Divine injunction. "

>

> Constantine said that since the council's decision had

> been " determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops, " the Church

> officials must regard it as " indicative of the Divine will. "

>

> The Roman god Constantine had spoken. Clearly, he had concluded

that

> the orthodox position was more conducive to a strong and unified

> Church than the Arian position and that it therefore must be upheld.

>

> Constantine also took the opportunity to inaugurate the first

> systematic government persecution of dissident Christians. He

issued

> an edict against " heretics, " calling them " haters and enemies of

> truth and life, in league with destruction. "

>

> Even though he had begun his reign with an edict of religious

> toleration, he now forbade the heretics (mostly Arians) to assemble

> in any public or private place, including private homes, and

ordered

> that they be deprived of " every gathering point for [their]

> superstitious meetings, " including " all the houses of prayer. "

These

> were to be given to the orthodox Church.

>

> There heretical teachers were forced to flee, and many of their

> students were coerced back into the orthodox fold. The emperor

also

> ordered a search for their books, which were to be confiscated and

> destroyed. Hiding the works of Arius carried a severe penalty -

the

> death sentence.

>

> Nicea, nevertheless, marked the beginning of the end of the

concepts

> of both preexistence, reincarnation, and salvation through union

with

> God in Christian doctrine. It took another two hundred years for

the

> ideas to be expunged.

>

> But Constantine had given the Church the tools with which to do it

> when he molded Christianity in his own image and made Jesus the

only

> Son of God. From now on, the Church would become representative of

a

> capricious and autocratic God - a God who was not unlike

Constantine

> and other Roman emperors.

>

> Tertullian, a stanch anti-Origenian and a father of the Church, had

> this to say about those who believed in reincarnation and not the

> resurrection of the dead: " What a panorama of spectacle on that

day

> [the Resurrection]! What sight should I turn to first to laugh and

> applaud? ... Wise philosophers, blushing before their students as

> they burn together, the followers to whom they taught that the

world

> is no concern of God's, whom they assured that either they had no

> souls at all or that what souls they had would never return to

their

> former bodies? .... These are things of greater delight, I believe,

> than a circus, both kinds of theater, and any stadium. " Tertullian

> was a great influence in having so-called " heretics " put to death.

>

> The Fifth General Council

> After Constantine and Nicea, Origen's writings had continued to be

> popular among those seeking clarification about the nature of

Christ,

> the destiny of the soul and the manner of the resurrection. Some

of

> the more educated monks had taken Origen's ideas and were using

them

> in mystical practices with the aim of becoming one with God.

>

> Toward the end of the fourth century, orthodox theologians again

> began to attack Origen. Their chief areas of difficulty with

> Origen's thought were his teachings on the nature of God and

Christ,

> the resurrection and the preexistence of the soul.

>

> Their criticisms, which were often based on ignorance and an

> inadequate understanding, found an audience in high places and led

to

> the Church's rejection of Origenism and reincarnation. The

Church's

> need to appeal to the uneducated masses prevailed over Origen's

> coolheaded logic.

>

> The bishop of Cyprus, Epiphanius, claimed that Origen denied the

> resurrection of the flesh. However, as scholar Jon Dechow has

> demonstrated, Epiphanius neither understood nor dealt with Origen's

> ideas. Nevertheless, he was able to convince the Church that

> Origen's ideas were incompatible with the merging literalist

> theology. On the basis of Ephiphanius' writings, Origenism would

be

> finally condemned a century and a half later.

>

> Jerome believed that resurrection bodies would be flesh and blood,

> complete with genitals - which, however, would not be used in the

> hereafter. But Origenists believed the resurrection bodies would

be

> spiritual.

>

> The Origenist controversy spread to monasteries in the Egyptian

> desert, especially at Nitria, home to about five thousand monks.

> There were two kinds of monks in Egypt - the simple and uneducated,

> who composed the majority, and the Origenists, an educated minority.

>

> The controversy solidified around the question of whether God had a

> body that could be seen and touched. The simple monks believed

that

> he did. But the Origenists thought that God was invisible and

> transcendent. The simple monks could not fathom Origen's mystical

> speculations on the nature of God.

>

> In 399, Bishop Theophilus wrote a letter defending the Origenist

> position. At this, the simple monks flocked to Alexandria, rioting

> in the streets and even threatening to kill Theophilus.

>

> The bishop quickly reversed himself, telling the monks that he

could

> now see that God did indeed have a body: " In seeing you, I behold

the

> face of God. " Theophilus' sudden switch was the catalyst for a

> series of events that led to the condemnation of Origen and the

> burning of the Nitrian monastery.

>

> Under Theodosius, Christians, who had been persecuted for so many

> years, now became the persecutors. God made in man's image proved

to

> be an intolerant one. The orthodox Christians practiced sanctions

> and violence against all heretics (including Gnostics and

> Origenists), pagans and Jews. In this climate, it became

dangerous

> to profess the ideas of innate divinity and the pursuit of union

with

> God.

>

> It may have been during the reign of Theodosius that the Gnostic

Nag

> Hammadi manuscripts were buried - perhaps by Origenist monks. For

> while the Origenist monks were not openly Gnostic, they would have

> been sympathetic to the Gnostic viewpoint and may have hidden the

> books after they became too hot to handle.

>

> The Origenist monks of the desert did not accept Bishop Theophilus'

> condemnations. They continued to practice their beliefs in

Palestine

> into the sixth century until a series of events drove Origenism

> underground for good.

>

> Justinian (ruled 527 - 565) was the most able emperor since

> Constantine - and the most active in meddling with Christian

> theology. Justinian issued edicts that he expected the Church to

> rubber-stamp, appointed bishops and even imprisoned the pope.

>

> After the collapse of the Roman Empire at the end of the fifth

> century, Constantinople remained the capital of the Eastern, or

> Byzantine, Empire. The story of how Origenism ultimately came to

be

> rejected involves the kind of labyrithine power plays that the

> imperial court became famous for.

>

> Around 543, Justinian seems to have taken the side of the anti-

> Origenists since he issued an edict condemning ten principles of

> Origenism, including preexistence. It declared " anathema to

> Origen ... and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus. " In other

> words, Origen and anyone who believes in these propositions would

be

> eternally damned. A local council at Constantinople ratified the

> edict, which all bishops were required to sign.

>

> In 553, Justinian convoked the Fifth General Council of the Church

to

> discuss the controversy over the so-called " Three Chapters " . These

> were writings of three theologians whose views bordered on the

> heretical. Justinian wanted the writings to be condemned and he

> expected the council to oblige him.

>

> He had been trying to coerce the pope into agreeing with him since

> 545. He had essentially arrested the pope in Rome and brought him

to

> Constantinople, where he held him for four years. When the pope

> escaped and later refused to attend the council, Justinian went

ahead

> and convened it without him.

>

> This council produced fourteen new anathemas against the authors of

> the Three Chapters and other Christian theologians. The eleventh

> anathema included Origen's name in a list of heretics.

>

> The first anathema reads: " If anyone asserts the fabulous

> preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration

> which follows from it: let him be anathema. " ( " Restoration " means

> the return of the soul to union with God. Origenists believed

that

> this took place through a path of reincarnation.) It would seem

that

> the death blow had been struck against Origenism and reincarnation

in

> Christianity.

>

> After the council, the Origenist monks were expelled from their

> Palestinian monastery, some bishops were deposed and once again

> Origen's writings were destroyed. The anti-Origenist monks had

won.

> The emperor had come down firmly on their side.

>

> In theory, it would seem that the missing papal approval of the

> anathemas leaves a doctrinal loophole for the belief in

reincarnation

> among all Christians today. But since the Church accepted the

> anathemas in practice, the result of the council was to end belief

in

> reincarnation in orthodox Christianity.

>

> In any case, the argument is moot. Sooner or later the Church

> probably would have forbade the beliefs. When the Church codified

> its denial of the divine origin of the soul (at Nicea in 325), it

> started a chain reaction that led directly to the curse on Origen.

>

> Church councils notwithstanding, mystics in the Church continued to

> practice divinization. They followed Origen's ideas, still seeking

> union with God.

>

> But the Christian mystics were continually dogged by charges of

> heresy. At the same time as the Church was rejecting reincarnation,

> it was accepting original sin, a doctrine that made it even more

> difficult for mystics to practice.

>

>

> Conclusion

> With the condemnation of Origen, so much that is implied in

> reincarnation was officially stigmatized as heresy that the

> possibility of a direct confrontation with this belief was

> effectively removed from the church. In dismissing Origen from its

> midst, the church only indirectly addressed itself to the issue of

> reincarnation. The encounter with Origenism did, however, draw

> decisive lines in the matter of preexistence, the resurrection of

the

> dead, and the relationship between body and soul. What an

> examination of Origen and the church does achieve, however, is to

> show where the reincarnationist will come into collision with the

> posture of orthodoxy. The extent to which he may wish to retreat

> from such a collision is of course a matter of personal conscience.

>

> With the Council of 553 one can just about close the book on this

> entire controversy within the church. There are merely two

footnotes

> to be added to the story, emerging from church councils in 1274 and

> 1439. In the Council of Lyons, in 1274, it was stated that after

> death the soul goes promptly either to heaven or to hell. On the

Day

> of Judgment, all will stand before the tribunal of Christ with

their

> bodies to render account of what they have done. The Council of

> Florence of 1439 uses almost the same wording to describe the swift

> passage of the soul either to heaven or to hell. Implicit in both

> of these councils is the assumption that the soul does not again

> venture into physical bodies.

>

>

>

>

> Christian Reincarnation Index

>

> The controversy erupts

> The doctrine of reincarnation

> Scriptural support for reincarnation

> More scriptural support for reincarnation

> The mystery of God in humanity

> The Arian controversy

> The Council of Nicea

> The Fifth General Council

> Conclusion

> Proof of reincarnation?

>