This thread can be considered a critical response to Beth's thread entitled "Reincarnation in Judaism and Christianity." The reader is advised to scroll down and read the standard New Age position expressed in her thread. Lifebreath's reply to her thread is also worth reading.
Many New Agers mistakenly believe that the Bible, Jesus, the early orthodox church, and the Palestinian Judaism of late antiquity all embraced reincarnation.
The New Age movement is still too insular and cultic to gain widespread intellectual respectability. What is needed is greater input from experts in collateral fields, e.g. Bible scholars, church historians, physicists, parapsychologists, and neurologists. At least, this site attracts more diversity than most in this area and, therefore, has some potential to promote interdisciplinary dialogue.
I am an academic specialist in the field of biblical and early church studies. I am creating this thread as a small attempt to help bring an interdisciplinary perspective to bear on the subject of reincarnation. The thread will successively flesh out these 4 contentions:
1. The claim that the Catholic Church condemned reincarnation
at the Council of Nicaea is a New Age myth.
2. New Agers often mistake Jewish and Gospel texts about resurrection for
texts about reincarnation.
3. New Agers often mistake Jewish and Gospel texts about the soul's
preexistence for texts about reincarnation.
4. Philo, Jewish mysticism, and the Gnostics did believe in reincarnation,
but had little influence on the Bible or early orthodox Christianity.
I ask for the reader's patience because it might take me a few days to complete this thread. When I am finished, I of course hope for stimulating discussion.
1. THE CLAIM THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONDEMNED
REINCARNATION AT THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA IS A NEW AGE MYTH.
Actress-author Shirley MacLaine parrots the popular New Age line about biblical reincarnationism: "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around AD 553, called the Council of Nicaea ("Out on a Limb," 234-35)." Actually, neither of the two councils at Nicaea were held in 553 and neither confronted reincarnation. Further, neither the Council of Constantinople in 553 nor any other early councils addressed this issue. New Agers, especially those with Catholic backgrounds, might ironically find comfort in the fact that the Catholic Church has never officially condemned reincarnation!
In a single sentence, the Council of 553 AD did condemn Origen (185-253 AD), the New Age poster boy for Christian reincarnation. New Agers confuse Origen's controversial doctrine of the soul's preexistence prior to birth with a belief in reincarnation. In fact, Origen was one of the most prolific early patristic writers AGAINST reincarnation! A brief survey of just some of Origen's ant-reincarnation comments should suffice:
"He [the Gnostic Basilides] relates the apostolic word to preposterous and impious fables, and tries to base on this apostolic word the doctrine of reincarnation, that is, the doctrine that the soul keeps passing from body to body (Origen, Commentary on Romans 5:1--Origen makes the same point in Against Celsus 8:30)."
More emphatic is the way Origen refutes the Gnostic claim that the Gospels identify John the Baptist as the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah:
"In this [Gospel] text it does not appear to me that by `Elijah' the soul is spoken of, LEST I FALL INTO THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSMIGRATION, WHICH IS FOREIGN TO THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND NOT HANDED DOWN BY THE APOSTLES, NOR ANYWHERE SET FORTH IN SCRIPTURE (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 13:1)."
Origen is well aware of two facts: (1) that an angel appears to John the Baptist's mother and announces that John will minister "in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17);" (2) that John's spiritual gift is analogous to Elisha's reception of "a double portion" of Elijah's prophetic spirit immediately after Elijah's departure in a chariot to Heaven (2 Kings 2:9-12). In other words, John is not the reincarnation of Elijah, but rather will exercise an Elijah-like role and charism. To quote Origen:
"[Scripture says:] And they asked him [John], `What then? Are you Elijah?' And he said, `I am not (John 1:21).' No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: `If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come (Matthew 11:14).' How then does John come to say to those who ask him, 'Are you Elijah?'--I am not?'. . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself with a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . .HOWEVER, A CHURCHMAN WHO REPUDIATES THE DOCTRINE OF REINCARNATION AS A FALSE ONE AND DOES NOT ADMIT THAT THE SOUL OF JOHN WAS EVER ELIJAH, MAY APPEAL TO THE ABOVE-QUOTED WORDS OF THE ANGEL (Luke 1:17) AND POINT OUT THAT IT IS NOT THE SOUL OF ELIJAH THAT IS SPOKEN OF AT JOHN'S BIRTH, BUT THE SPIRIT AND POWER OF ELIJAH (Origen, Commentary on John 6:7)."
Origen proceeds to bolster this anti-reincarnation understanding of John's Elijah-role by pointing out that a belief in reincarnation was virtually unknown in Hebrew thought:
"If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to make pronouncements about it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonist to ask experts in secret Hebrew doctrines if they really do entertain such a belief. FOR IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT THEY DO NOT, THEN THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THAT SUPPOSITION IS SHOWN TO BE QUITE BASELESS (Origen, Ibid)."
Some New Agers resort to the desperate expedient of claiming that Origen merely condemns the doctrine that people reincarnate in animals; others allege that he only objects to the claim that people reincarnate immediately after their death with no intervening time for postmortem purification. But the lives of Elijah and John are separated by roughly 850 years. So Origen is repudiating all the forms of reincarnation on this earth. Such examples of Origen's anti-reincarnation stance could be multiplied.
2. NEW AGERS OFTEN MISTAKE JEWISH AND GOSPEL TEXTS ABOUT
RESURRECTION FOR TEXTS ABOUT REINCARNATION.
In the New Age community, it is widely believed that the Pharisees embrace reincarnation. In fact, the Pharisees are instead the product of a long historical trajectory of Jewish resurrection belief (e.g. Daniel 12:1-3; 1 Enoch 22-27, 92-105; 2 Maccabees 7). We know from both rabbinic and Christian writings (e.g. Acts 23:6-8) that the Pharisees believed not in reincarnation but in bodily resurrection at the end of the age. New Agers tend to rip ancient texts out of their historical context and impose a pro-reincarnation interpretation on them without considering modern scholarship. There is a scholarly consensus that the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection, not reincarnation.
New Agers like to cite the attempt of the Pharisee Josephus to persuade
the trapped Jewish soldiers under his command that surrender to the Romans is preferable to mass suicide:
"The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter; but the soul is ever immortal, and is a portion of the divinity that inhabits our bodies. . .Do you not remember that all pure spirits, when they depart from this life, obtain a most holy place in heaven, FROM WHENCE, IN THE REVOLUTIONS OF AGES, THEY ARE AGAIN SENT INTO PURE BODIES, while the souls of those who have committed self-destruction are doomed to a region in the darkness of Hades (Josephus, Jewish Wars 3.8.5)."
This is a text about the general resurrection at the end of the ages. It excludes the possibility of reincarnation prior to this end. Josephus's claim that souls are "sent into pure bodies" refers to the acquisition of a spiritual body at the final consummation. His use of the expression "pure bodies" rather than mere "bodies" already points to a heavenly body suited for pure heavenly realms. While St. Paul is still under the influence of his former identity as a Pharisee, he feels compelled to discuss that nature of the resurrection body that believers receive at the end (1 Corinthians 15:35ff.). But upon receiving further revelation, his position evolves into an acceptance of the view that as soon as we die we go to Heaven to be with Christ (2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Philippians 1:23-24).
That the issue for Josephus is postmortem survival rather than reincarnation is clear from his later summation of Pharisaic beliefs: "They believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them. . .and that [the wicked] are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that [the righteous] will have power to revive and live again (Antiquities 18.1.3)." Here the expression "to revive and live again" is the equivalent of the expression "passes into another body" in his other summation of Pharisaic beliefs: "Every soul, they maintain, is imperishable, BUT THE SOUL OF THE GOOD ALONE PASSES INTO ANOTHER BODY, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment (Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.8.14)."
New Agers often claim to detect a belief in reincarnation in the Jewish speculation about Jesus' identity: "Jesus asked His disciples, `Who do people say that I am?' and they answered Him, `John the Baptist, and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets (Mark 8:28)." But as Luke's version of this speculation makes clear, these Jewish conjectures assume Jesus' identity as one of these prophets raised from the dead, not reincarnated: "Jesus asked them, `Who do the crowds say that I am?' They answered, `John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has ARISEN (Luke 9:19)." John and Jesus were contemporaries of about the same age. The modern notion of parallel incarnations of the same soul is alien to Jewish thought in late antiquity. So Jews could hardly identify Jesus as the reincarnation of John. Instead, some Jews wonder if Jesus might be John, Elijah, or one of the ancient prophets resurrected from the dead: "Now Herod the ruler heard about all that had taken place, and he was perplexed BECAUSE IT WAS SAID BY SOME THAT JOHN HAD BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the ancient prophets had arisen (Luke 8:7-9)." In the case of Elijah, it is possible that some Jews believed not that he had risen from the dead, but that he had ridden down from Heaven in the same chariot that had allowed him to cheat death by riding up to Heaven (2 Kings 2:11)."
Jesus' identification of John with Elijah (Mark 9:12-13) must be explained differently. For Jesus, John's prophetic ministry fulfills the prophecy in Malachi 4:5: "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes." Origen got it right: John fulfills the same prophetic role as Elijah by displaying the same "spirit and power (Luke 1:17)" just as Elijah's friend and successor, Elisha, carried on Elijah's ministry with a "double portion" of Elijah's prophetic spirit (2 Kings 2:9-10). In a first century Palestinian Jewish milieu, John's Elijah role cannot be understood in terms of reincarnation. When asked about this role, John vehemently denies that he is Elijah (John 1:21). Perhaps, John understood the questioner to be asking if he were the reincarnation of Elijah.
3. NEW AGERS OFTEN MISTAKE JEWISH AND GOSPEL TEXTS ABOUT THE
SOUL'S PREEXISTENCE FOR TEXTS ABOUT REINCARNATION.
Most scholars identify the Dead Sea community at Qumran as Essene. There is no evidence in the Dead Sea scrolls for a belief in reincarnation. Yet New Agers often mistake the Essene belief in the soul's preexistence for a belief in reincarnation. The preexistence of the soul is a standard Jewish notion in late antiquity. Thus, the Essenes believed that "the soul is immortal and imperishable. Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison house of the body, to which they were dragged down by a sort of natural enticement (Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.8.11)." And when were souls created prior to their birth? 2 Enoch, an apocalyptic Jewish work from 1-50 AD, offers this answer: "For all the souls are prepared for eternity before the formation of the earth (23:5)." In the Old Testament, Jeremiah's prophetic calling seems to have been prearranged during his soul's preexistent phase: "The Word of God came to me, saying, `Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you came to birth, I consecrated you; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1:4-5)." More intriguing is the implication in the Catholic Old Testament that the soul can acquire a good or bad character prior to birth: "I was a boy of happy disposition. I had received a good soul as my lot, OR RATHER, BEING GOOD, I HAD ENTERED AN UNDEFILED BODY (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20)."
Many New Agers mistakenly assume that the disciples' question in John 9:1-2 implies a belief in reincarnation: "As Jesus went along, He saw a man born blind from birth. His disciples asked Him, `Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' `Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, `but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'" Bible commentaries typically contend that the disciples' question reflects a rabbinic belief that a fetus can sin in its mother's womb. But this rabbinic belief stems from around 300 AD--far too late to serve as the background for John 9:1-2. Rather, the disciples' question reflects the belief attested in the Wisdom of Solomon that the soul can acquire a good or bad character prior to birth. Jesus does not dispute this belief, but merely asserts that this particular blind man was not born blind because of of his own sins committed in his preexistent state.
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings of Jesus put together in eastern Syria between the late first and early second centuries. Two sayings in this Gospel ascribe a belief in the soul's preexistence to Jesus: "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being (Gospel of Thomas 19)." "The man who is old in days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live (Gospel of Thomas 4)." The latter saying is an example of Semitic hyperbole: it does not seriously assume that babies that young can talk; rather, it implies that if they could talk, they could potentially recount their prior existence in Heaven.
This notion that souls can incur guilt in their preexistent state is graphically developed by Origen, who, far from expressing heresy, is merely elaborating teaching held by Jesus and the apostles:
". . .there were certain exact causes from prior existence by consequence of which all souls, before their birth in the present body, contracted a certain amount of guilt in their reasoning nature, or perhaps by the actions, on account of which they have been condemned by the divine providence to be placed in their present life (Origen, First Principles 3.3.6)."
At first sight, Origen seems to imply that all souls work out their karmic debt through reincarnation into different countries and with different ethnic and religious orientations than their prior earthly lifetimes:
"Every one of the souls descending to the earth is strictly following his merits, or according to the position that he formerly occupied, is destined or be returned to this world in a different country or among a different nation, or in a different sphere of existence on earth, or afflicted with infirmities of another kind, or perhaps to be the children of religious parents or of parents who are not religious: so that of course it may sometimes happen that a Hebrew will be born among the Syrians, or an unfortunate Egyptian may be born in Judea (First Principles 4.1.23)."
Is Origen contradicting himself? Not at all. He creates that impression because of his bizarre interpretation of biblical texts about earthly locales. In his interpretation of Isaiah and Ezekiel, preexistent souls reside in heavens that closesly resemble the earth and are the heavenly equivalent of cities like Tyre, Sidon, Babylon, and Jerusalem or countries like Egypt and Judea (First Principles 4.1.22-23). Origen confuses the issue by speaking of "the purer ethereal regions of Heaven" in terms of a "physical material place" and by insisting that a new body is needed for each heavenly level of existence:
"Our doctrine as regards the resurrection is not derived from anything we have heard about the transmigration doctrine. . ., but we believe that the rational soul...exists in no physical material place without having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly, at one time it puts off a body...which is no longer adequate for its improved state, and exchanges it for another body, and at another time it takes up still another body...which is needed as a better clothing suited to the purer ethereal regions of Heaven (Origen, Against Celsus 7:32)."
The acquisition of a new body suited to each new etheric world is for Origen the equivalent of a new birth in each new world:
"Perhaps, however, the gloom and darkness [of a bad soul] should be taken to mean this coarse and earthly body, through which, at the end of the world, each man that must pass into ANOTHER WORLD will receive THE BEGINNINGS OF A NEW BIRTH."
Origen apparently inserted the latter passage at the conclusion of First Principles 2.10.8. The quoted passage was apparently edited out of Rufinus's Latin translation of Origen, but has been preserved by Jerome (See G. W. Butterworth, ed., "Origin: On First Principles [1973], 145.). Rufinus's translation occasionally deletes the odd sentence from Origen, but his hardly justifies the claim that reincarnation was secretly taught by many early Catholic leaders. The most important early Catholic leaders all oppose reincarnation: e.g. Justin Martyr (165 AD), Irenaeus (180 AD), Tertullian (197 AD), Lactantius (317 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (379 AD), Ambrose (380 AD), John Chrysostom (391 AD), Basil (393 AD), and Jerome (410 AD).
In my view, this historical survey establishes a much more solid basis for dialogue between traditional Christians and New Age reincarnationists. Assume for the sake of argument that reincarnation is a true doctrine. Then one might assume that the Judaeo-Christian doctrine of preexistence is an incomplete expression of this truth--an expression that goes just half way to reincarnation. The New Ager might suggest that only cultural bias prevents mainstream Judaeo-Christian tradition from taking the next step and approving reincarnation. The New Ager might also suggest that this tradition points to this next step by conceding that, in our preexistent lives, we can both develop good or bad character and establish what our earthly vocation will be.
4. PHILO, MYSTICAL JUDAISM, AND THE GNOSTICS DID BELIEVE IN
REINCARNATION, BUT HAD LITTLE INFLUENCE ON THE BIBLE OR
EARLY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY.
Unlike most of early Palestinian Judaism, both Philo of Alexandria (20 BC -50 AD) and the Gnostics are heavily influenced by Middle Platonic thought. The teachings of Jesus and His apostles are virtually untouched by Platonism. Middle Platonic thought nudges Philo and Gnosticism towards a belief in reincarnation. To quote Philo:
"All these souls, those which are influenced by desires for mortal existence and which have been previously familiarized with it, return to mortal life, but others, refuse bodily life as a great folly. . ., pronouncing it a prison or a grave, and flee from it by the impulses of their nature. . . and raise themselves on the light wings of their nature towards the ether where they devote all their lives to speculations of a divine type. . .(Philo, De somniis 1:22)."
Philo's acceptance of reincarnation is irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus or His Aramaic-speaking apostles endorse reincarnation. The Greek-speaking Philo lives in Egypt and has no discernible influence on the Jews in Jesus' day who speak Hebrew or Aramaic. So it should come as no surprise that Philo is the only known Jewish thinker prior to 800 AD to believe in reincarnation.
Besides, Philo does not believe the earthly personality survives death:
"Where did the soul come from and where will it go, and how long will it live with us?. . . And when did we come to possess it? Before birth? BUT THEN WE DID NOT EXIST. After death? But then we, who, in our junction with our bodies, are mixtures and have qualities, SHALL NOT EXIST, but push on into the rebirth, by which we become joined to immaterial things and we shall become unmixed and without qualities (Philo, De cherubim 113f.)."
Gnosticism arguably originates in Samaria as a pagan cult. The Church Fathers uniformly acknowledge the Samaritan Simon Magus (c. 60 AD) as the father of Gnosticism. Simon was so impressed by the miracles performed by Philip the Evangelist that he was baptized and then offered Peter money for the power to impart the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:9-25). But Simon's brand of Gnosticism displays no Christian influence whatsoever. Simon taught that his consort Helena (a prostitute) had once incarnated as Helen of Troy and had repeatedly reincarnated thereafter (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.2). Neither of Simon's Gnostic successors, Dositheus and Menander, were Christians even in a heretical sense. Full-blown Christian Gnosticism does not make its debut until the early second century.
There is no basis for the frequent New Age claim that Gnosticism and its belief in reincarnation reflect the authentic teaching of Jesus. True, the Gnostic Basilides teaches reincarnation and "claims Glaucias as his teacher, who, as they boast, was Peter's interpreter (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7:17)." The author of Mark's Gospel was Peter's interpreter by the end of his ministry (so Papias), but there is no evidence that Peter ever used Glaucias as his interpreter. Basilides taught until the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161 AD) and Peter died in 64 AD. So if a very young Glaucias interpreted for Peter and a very young Basilides was taught by Glaucias in his old age, Basilides' claim is possible, if unlikely. Even if Glaucias existed, we know nothing about what he believed or what he might have told Basilides about Jesus' teaching.
The Christian Gnostic leader, Carpocrates, is active from 117 to 138 AD. His followers "practice magic arts and incantations, love potions and love feasts, familiar spirits and dream-inducers (Irenaeus 1.25.3)." The Carpocratian Gnostics believe in salvation through their own brand of love and faith, but insist: "All other things are indifferent, being accounted now good, now evil, according to the opinion of men, but nothing is evil by nature (1.25.5)." They reject all moral absolutes and insist that such absolutes play no role in the reincarnation cycle:
"They say that conduct is good and evil only in human opinion. And after the transmigrations, the souls must have been in every kind of life and every kind of deed. . .but they must labor lest, because something is lacking in their freedom, they may be compelled again to be sent into bodies. . .A person must continually be reincarnated until he has been in absolutely every action in the world. When no more is lacking, then his soul, set free, goes to that God who is above the creator angels, and so it is saved (Irenaeus 1.25.4)."
In this respect, the Carpocration Gnostics sound like Robert Monroe. On the basis of his many OBEs, Monroe accepts as a "known" this principle: "There is no good, there is no evil. There is only expression ("Ultimate Journey,' 217)." On this view, reincarnation is not about working out bad karma from prior immoral lives; it is about full expression of one's freedom to create and experience.
If Robert Monroe and the Carpocratians are right, then tolerance cannot be a moral absolute. So why be tolerant when it doesn't suit you? To see what such a philosophy can lead to, consider what happens at libertine Gnostic love feasts. Gnostics transform Holy Communion into sex orgies. For Communion bread and wine, they substitute semen and menstrual fluid:
"And they serve up lavish helpings of meat and wine, even if they are poor. Then, when they have had their drinking party,. . .they give themselves over to passion. For the husband withdraws from his wife, and says these words to his own wife, `Rise up, make love with our brother.'. . .The woman and the man take the man's sexual emission in their own hands, and stand there looking up towards heaven,...saying, `We offer You this gift, the body of Christ,' And so they eat it. . . Similarly, with the woman's emission of her period, they collect the menstrual blood which is unclean, take it and eat it together, and say, `This is the blood of Christ (Epiphanius, Panarion 26.4.3-8).'"
The mystical form of Judaism known as the Kabbalah also teaches reincarnation. Some New Agers cite the intertestamental Jewish polemic against secret teachings (e.g. Sirach 3:22) as evidence for a pre-Christian form of Kabbalism. But this polemic reveals nothing about the nature of the secret teaching, let alone whether it includes reincarnation. The Zohar is the Kabbalistic work par excellence. It purports to be the work of 2nd century rabbi Shimon ben Yohai. Even if this attribution is correct, the Zohar is too late to have influenced Jesus and the apostles.
But this attribution is almost certainly false. It can be called into question on 3 grounds: (1) It is hard to believe that the greatest classic of Jewish mysticism would not be mentioned prior to the 13th century. (2) The claim that Shimon composed the Zohar during a 13 year cave vigil sounds implausibly romantic. Besides, where would a cave rabbi find the thousands of papyrus sheets needed to compose so voluminous a work? (3) Gershom Sholem plausibly demonstrates that the Zohar was more likely written by its alleged discoverer, Moshe de Lyon in the 13th century. To give a new document more weight, it was common practice to attribute it to a revered ancient rabbi. Moshe's own widow confessed that Moshe wrote it himself, but thought it would be more lucrative to attribute it to Shimon! A Palestinian rabbi as distinguished as Shimon ben Yohai would hardly make as many mistakes in Aramaic grammar as the Zohar does and its many traces of Spanish words and sentence patterns argue for Spanish authorship.
Kabbalism is much too late for its teaching on reincarnation to have influenced the formative phase of Christianity. The presence in the Kabbalah of notions from 2nd and 3rd century Gnosticism points to Gnosticism as a possible impetus for Kabbalistic reincarnationism. But 8th century Karaitism provides an even more likely impetus. In Hebrew and Aramaic literature, the idea of reincarnation first appears in the writings of Anan ben David (6th century AD), the founder of the Karaite sect. This sect employed the odd term "gilgul", which means "turning" or "rolling over", to refer to reincarnation. Because this odd term later resurfaces in Kabbalism, the Karaite sect looms as a likely source for Kabbalistic reincarnationism.
I used to be a New Ager and thought that christianity embraced reincarnation before it was edited out, but now I realise what nonsense that is.
I think this is a must read for all New Agers.
It is clear to me that New Age or at least some to many of its key elements are a result of venturing into the world of the occult and estoricism but carrying the attatched stigma and not being able to let go of christianity despite trying to act as though they are against organized religion.
The New Age movement is still too insular and cultic to gain widespread intellectual respectability. What is needed is greater input from experts in collateral fields, e.g. Bible scholars, church historians, physicists, parapsychologists, and neurologists. At least, this site attracts more diversity than most in this area and, therefore, has some potential to promote interdisciplinary dialogue.
I find this above paragraph suspect... it sounds like you have an agenda and that agenda is to attack the 'new age' movement with everything you've got... neurologists? Careful they might turn on you as well!
I know that you say this is purely to do with the nu-age misinterpretation of the bible and reincarnation, which I agree with you on, but your above paragrapgh hints at a much greater agenda:
While pretending to come across as objective, you are in fact hiding a quite fanatical disdain for this perceived 'enemy' called the 'new age movement', which you want to destroy as you view it as a threat to civilisation... as any nu-age pot smoking hippy would happily say to you, 'chill out man!'
Doug.
PS
I am an academic specialist in the field of biblical and early church studies.
There's a suprise! A bible thumper you mean? :wink:
Dear Gandalf,
Fanatical disdain for the New Age Movement? No, terrible exegesis!
Read my last post on my thread "A Fresh Look at Heaven." I survey the most important biblical and early Christian examples of astral projection as a rebuttal to summary Christian attempts to label such experiences as "occult" and anti-Christian. Christian OBEs can be classified as a manifestation of the gift of prophecy. I intend to buy Robert Bruce's new book and try to master astral projections myself.
So far I have had some classic OBE experiences (floating near the ceiling, gazing down on my sleeping body, trying to reenter, dream conversations as vivid as real-life contacts, etc.). But upon later reflection, I regard all my OBE experiences as nothing more than lucid dreams. Still, I wonder if a waking OBE might be more compelling.
I wouldn't mind becoming the New Swedenborg. Swedenborg's astral projections have far more convincing verifications than any modern OBE adepts that I have encountered---and I am widely read in this area. But Swedenborg differs from modern adepts in at least 3 important respects:
(1) His structure of the astral realms is very different than the Monroe model and the Robert Bruce model. I am unconvinced that these contradictions can be explained in terms of different perspectives and belief systems. I wonder if this contradictions invalidate all OBEs.
(2) Swedenborg revels in the presence of the divine Christ throughout his
astral travels. I wonder if Bruce's and Monroe's failure to do so is
simply a function of their virulent anti-Christian bias.
(3) Swedenborg initially experiences past lives in the lower planes, but then is corrected by angels from the higher heavens, who deny reincarnation and demonstrate how the reincarnation illusion is created. If a spirit bonds with the astral traveler without his knowledge, that spirit's memories will flood into the traveler and will be experienced as if they derive from a prior incarnation. In Swedenborg's presence, these angels offered to demonstrate this to reincarnationists on the lower planes, but denizens of those realms refused to witness the demonstration.
I asked Robert Bruce about his reaction to this, but he ducked the question by pointing out that the higher planes are timeless realms where sequential reincarnation seems meaningless. The issue for Swedenborg and his guides is not the possibility of parallel incarnations, but whether all past life recall is a misperception of spirit mergers.
You survey my plea for more far-reaching interdisciplinary dialogue and chide me for including neurologists ("Careful, they might turn on you as well.") That prospect is precisely why I want them involved in the dialogue. Neurologists pose some good arguments against the possibility of genuine OBEs. Some of their research suggests that OBEs are no more than poorly understood brain states. As a wannabe astral traveler, I want to determine whether I am headed for more self-delusion.
If all OBEs and NDEs are illusory, then the validity of Christian revelation would at least be somewhat called into question, since much of this depends on altered states of consciousness. I make no apology for being a Christian or for trying to convince others to become Christians.
Berserk
So a belief in reincarnation made scant inroads in both the Judaism of late antiquity and early Christianity. It is even a very minor view in early Christian Gnosticism. And contrary to many New Age claims, it was never condemned at the Council of Nicea; its was quite simply too marginal a belief in Judaeo-Christian circles to warrant repudiation! But Origen (c. 225 CE) attests a fully developed doctrine of the preexistence of the soul which was widespread in both Jewish and Christian circles in late antiquity.
Of course, what these circles believed raises the question of the validity of modern New Age belief in linear and parallel reincarnations. I will offer a preliminary assessment of this question in my evolving Swedenborg thread when it becomes appropriate to discuss his discoveries about past life recall during his astral journeys.
I'm sorry that I came into this thread too late, but I feel I have to respond to something in the original post:
Quotethis thread can be considered a critical response to Beth's thread entitled "Reincarnation in Judaism and Christianity." The reader is advised to scroll down and read the standard New Age position expressed in her thread.
I have to point out that Beth hasn't been active here for over a year, so she can't come in and discuss/debate the thoughts espoused here point by point. Also, she is a religious scholar, who studied christianity, and came to her own conclusions as to it's historicity. To say that her ideas are 'New Agey' is not correct- they are the ideas of a bible historian, pure and simple.
Because I haven't talked to her in years, I have no idea where she is or what she's doing, so I'll bow out now.
CF Traveller,
I didn't know that Beth has apparently left the site. She has so many posts in this section. Her position about reincarnation in the Judaism and Christianity of late antiquity IS commonly embraced by New Agers and is easy to refute. That's my point. Whether Beth herself warrants the New Age label matters little to me, since I myself actively read New Age books, post on New Age websites, and in that sense might be deemed a "New Ager." It is naive New Age Fundamentalism that I oppose, just as I oppose uncritical Christian Fundamentalism. I know New Agers who are thoughtful, open, and critically reflective.
The idea that you can't reincarnate comes mostly from Roman Catholics. The council of Constantinople had reincarnation stricken from records and the Church subsequently destroyed information about it.
I guess - like most of modern christianity - the idea that you can only incarnate once had its roots in early paganism, which said your spirit is forcibly taken to eternal resting places after death.
zareste: "The idea that you can't reincarnate comes mostly from Roman Catholics. The council of Constantinople had reincarnation stricken from records and the Church subsequently destroyed information about it."
This pontification is decisively refuted by my thread which you obviously haven't bothered to read. You need to come out of the New Age Ghetto and breathe the fresh air of honest and open inquiry. Whe you do that, you will immediately realize that you have been had by New Age kooks who don't eve bother to check their sources. Reincarnation is not even mentioned by the Council of Constantinople. So nothing was "stricken from records." The closest Constantinople comes to addressing reincarnation is its one-sentence condemnation of Origen. But Origen taught the pre-existence of the soul, not reincarnation; and as my thread demonstrates, Origen repeatedly condemns reincarnation. Reincarnation made negligible inroads even within Christian Goosticism. My thread cites the few exceptions that proves this rule.
I have a comment and a question- it appears to me that you are taking a few ideas and assuming everyone knows what you're talking about- the idea that the spirit and the soul are the same thing, calling transmigration 'reincarnation' and the eternity (or preexistence) of the soul or the spirit, something else (What do you call it?) and failing to clarify that in the early churches (or even in the Old Testament) the spirit and the soul were not considered to be the same thing- a distinction most christians are not even aware of, yet to summarily dismiss the modern idea of reincarnation that doesn't often differentiate one idea from the other, seems overly selective to me. Except for people of eastern religious beliefs, who have a good grasp of the mechanism of their belief systems, I'm afraid (and this might be wrong of me to assume) that what most 'new ager's ideas of what reincarnation is may be identical to what Origen described as preexistence.
I would like for you to clarify this with your own distinctions, if possible.
btw and ps. Did you agree with Origen's ideas? Just curious about that.
C. F. Traveler,
Modern books on Pauline anthropology do not allow for a tripartite understanding--body, soul, and spirit, despite 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Yet it is clear that the early church recognized hidden depths of the self tha mask our true intentions. In the interests of academic integrity, I would support any attempt to find the equivalent of Eastern concepts in early patristic writings. For example, I have always been puzzled by the doctrine in the Shepherd of Hermas of the pre-existence Church ("Ecclesia'). As for the preexistence of the soul, I accerpt this, but am still working out exactly what this entails. The Bible makes it clear that my present vocation and moral stature may have been influenced by my actions in a preexistent state. Origen takes this idea way over the top by suggesting that we have lived in several worlds, each requiring an environmentally appropriate body.
I would agree with the church's censure of Origen were it not for the fact that some genuine NDE encounters with Jesus reinforce Origen's position. The NDErs have no doubt never read Origen. I suspect that the best theodicy must take our decisions and actions in a preexistent state into account to adequately explain the problem of "unfair" suffering.
[zarete:] "The Council of Constantinople didn't just wake up one morning and decide to erase reincarnation - they just took a major step in that direction."
No amount of coaxing can entice you from your dark New Age cave to explore "the other side" of the question. Go to your nearest public library and look of "The Council of Constantinople" in various encyclopedias. You will quickly learn that reincarnation was never discussed there or, for that matter, at any Catholic council. Yes, the Catholic church has never officially condemned reincarnation, and therefore, many of its members believe they have lived past lives on this earth.