joseph@cs.albany.edu (Jody Richardson) (11/21/90)
There is much I do not know regarding this discussion. I only just started reading this group and only the last couple of messages on this thread remain in our spool. Nevertheless, one part of Mark's last message jumped out at me and I would like to ask a question. Sandrock writes: >Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. >Why not try to think about it and evaluate the concept on its own merits, >instead of simply rejecting it as "unchristian" because it was not recorded >that Jesus ever spoke of it? Because the fact is that reincarnation was a >part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. The >fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of reincarnation, >which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny it when the Disciples >indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, this man or his parents, >that he was born blind?") Mark, I'm not convinced that this paragraph makes any sense. 1) If what you say is true (that Jesus and the Disciples acknowledged reincarnation), then it would seem to follow that anyone of that day who was interested in the disposition of their soul would acknowledge reincarnation, including Nicodemus since he was a Pharisee and taught people like the Disciples. In that case, why would he be so surprised when Jesus told him he must be born again? It seems unlikely that it's a translation problem. It is clear he knew Jesus was talking about rebirth by his response citing physical birth. 2) Doesn't the quote you cited ("Who had sinned,...") make much more sense in the light of OT teachings regarding the sins of people being visited on their children and their children's children to the Nth generation, than in the darkness [sorry :-)] of absent OT reincarnation references? Finally, I would like to know the references citing reincarnation as part of Church doctrine in the hundreds of years following the life of Christ. Joseph Richardson | "If you don't get a goodnight kiss, you joseph@cs.albany.edu | get Kafka dreams." -- Hobbes
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (11/29/90)
joseph@cs.albany.edu (Jody Richardson) writes: >Sandrock writes: >>Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. >>Why not try to think about it and evaluate the concept on its own merits, >>instead of simply rejecting it as "unchristian" because it was not recorded >>that Jesus ever spoke of it? Because the fact is that reincarnation was a >>part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. The >>fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of reincarnation, >>which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny it when the Disciples >>indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, this man or his parents, >>that he was born blind?") >Mark, >I'm not convinced that this paragraph makes any sense. >1) If what you say is true (that Jesus and the Disciples >acknowledged reincarnation), then it would seem to follow that >anyone of that day who was interested in the disposition of >their soul would acknowledge reincarnation, including Nicodemus >since he was a Pharisee and taught people like the Disciples. >In that case, why would he be so surprised when Jesus told him he >must be born again? It seems unlikely that it's a translation >problem. It is clear he knew Jesus was talking about >rebirth by his response citing physical birth. Jody, I hadn't considered this particular point hitherto, but then the truth of reincarnation is so clear to me that I no longer feel the need to try to prove/disprove its correctness to myself! In thinking about the question you raise, however, it seems to me that there is no inconsistency here. One could just as easily take the view that since the idea of reincarnation was indeed so widely known at that time, that it was therefore obvious to Nicodemus that Jesus must have had something other than reincarnation in mind. Indeed, it is not surprising that such a profound *spiritual* concept as that of as being "born again" would be difficult for the immature human spirit to grasp at first hearing! I don't know, but I would also suppose that the particular wording used by Jesus, as well as from the actual context in which the words were given, might have made it clear to Nicodemus that Jesus was not referring to rein- carnation in this instance. In the case of "who had sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind", the fact is that there were *three* possibilities for this part- icular happening, rather than the usual *two* possibilies. The reason that there was additional possibility--one which had not been considered by the disciples--was the fact that this *particular* event concerned the Mission of Jesus, and thus did Jesus so explain when questioned by the disciples. It should be noted, however, that Jesus DID NOT therewith deny nor reject *either* of the other two possibilities raised by the disciples. The first of which concerned the sins of parents, and the second of which concerned the possibility of the man's own sin. In the second case, the only way one can explain how someone could sin before having been born would be to use the idea of the pre-existence of the soul. But more specifically, the idea of reincarnation, which naturally requires the pre-existence of the soul. Although the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) did approve the condemnation of the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul (and there- with by implication the idea of reincarnation), there is some question as to the validity of these actions as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned. For instance, the Roman Catholic Archbishop Passavalli (1820-1897) was reported to have accepted the truth of reincarnation at the age of 64. He argued that reincarnation was not condemned by the Church and that it was not at all in conflict with any Catholic dogma. The Belgian Cardinal and philosopher, Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926), is also reported to have acknowledged that belief in pre-existence and reincarnation had never been formally considered heretical by the Church. His views were contained in a letter to a Polish Catholic, Professor Wincenty Lutoslawski, who himself taught a form of reincarnation that he preferred to call palingenesis. Finally, Church historians point out that no papal encyclical against reincarnation has ever been issued--a point that should be of particular interest to Roman Catholics. Some references: "Reincarnation: an East-West anthology" compiled and edited by Joseph Head and S.L. Cranston. "The Case for Reincarnation" by Rev. (Dr.) Leslie D. Weatherhead. Since you are new to this discussion, however, I will point out again that in my opinion there are other instances in the NT where the idea of rein- carnation is implicit. A very important instance is the prophecy that "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:34-35, Mark 13:30-31) We now know that Jesus was not referring to the *physical* generation of that day, so therefore He could only have intended His words in the *spiritual* sense, as was so often the case when He spoke. And it is only in the knowledge of reincarnation that the full meaning of these crucial words of Jesus can be understood. The meaning is that all those who did not understand nor accept the Teaching of Jesus at that time, would be permitted to incarnate on earth again (at the time of the Last Judgement) so that they can make their *final* decision for or against the Message of God. >2) Doesn't the quote you cited ("Who had sinned,...") make much >more sense in the light of OT teachings regarding the sins of >people being visited on their children and their children's >children to the Nth generation, than in the darkness [sorry :-)] >of absent OT reincarnation references? As I pointed out previously, the sins of the parents was but one of the *three* possible explanations in that particular case. Pre-existence, or reincarnation, being another of the possible explanations suggested by the disciples. Neither of these possible explanations was contradicted when Jesus pointed out a third explanation, which happened to be the correct explanation in this particular case. There are other statements in the NT which suggest the fact of rein- carnation: "And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matt 11:14-15) Or when priests and Levites were sent from Jerusalem to ask John the Baptist who he was. He told them he was not the Christ. "And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? He said, I am not." (John 1:21) He also said he was not the prophet that God promised (in Deut 18:15). Or when the disciples asked Jesus concerning the teaching of the Scribes (presumbably based on the prophecy recorded in Malachi 4:5) that Elijah must come before the Messiah. In reply Jesus is reported to have said: "But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased." (Matt 17:12) Or finally, let's take a look at the Revelation: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out..." (Rev 3:12) A reasonable interpretation of this passage is in the sense of the cycle of reincarnations, which ends only with the complete maturity of the spirit. Once a spirit has attained to such maturity, he is alloted a place in paradise and remains there forever. His reincarnations on earth come to an end. He has become one of those who "have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev 7:14) >Finally, I would like to know the references citing reincarnation >as part of Church doctrine in the hundreds of years following the >life of Christ. >Joseph Richardson | "If you don't get a goodnight kiss, you >joseph@cs.albany.edu | get Kafka dreams." -- Hobbes I may not have stated this point correctly. I don't know the official Church doctrine was throughout its history. I was referring more to the teachings of Origen (who passed on in 254 A.D.), and the fact that in spite of the actions of the Second Council of Constantinople, that the idea of reincarnation has always had adherents among various Christian sects, at all times in the history of Christianity. These adherents have included Church officials and theologians. Some of whom I have named earlier in this article. Thus I wish to retract my statement about "Church doctrine" in that sense, but also point out again that in the view of some, official Church doctrine has never excluded reincarnation! Whether the teachings of Origen concerning the "pre-existence of the soul" were ever considered "official" Church doctrine I do not know, so I do apologize if I did overstate this point. I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 [There was a rabinnical tradition that people born with birth defects committed a sin while in the womb. This could be the possibility that was being referred to in the question addressed to Jesus. --clh]
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (12/04/90)
Mark Sandrock wrote:
Although the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) did approve
the condemnation of the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul
(and there- with by implication the idea of reincarnation), there is
some question as to the validity of these actions as far as the
Roman Catholic Church is concerned.
For instance, the Roman Catholic Archbishop Passavalli (1820-1897)
was reported to have accepted the truth of reincarnation at the age
of 64. He argued that reincarnation was not condemned by the Church
and that it was not at all in conflict with any Catholic dogma. The
Belgian Cardinal and philosopher, Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926), is
also reported to have acknowledged that belief in pre-existence and
reincarnation had never been formally considered heretical by the
Church. His views were contained in a letter to a Polish Catholic,
Professor Wincenty Lutoslawski, who himself taught a form of
reincarnation that he preferred to call palingenesis.
Finally, Church historians point out that no papal encyclical
against reincarnation has ever been issued--a point that should be
of particular interest to Roman Catholics.
And sort of piqued my curiosity as to what this was all about.
Reincarnation itself is radically incompatible with Catholicism,
especially as regards the last things: death, judgement, Heaven, Hell.
Once you're dead, your fate is decided for all eternity.
The council referred to was in 543; it wasn't the general council
Constantinople II, which was indeed in 553. The council was against the
errors of Origen. One of them regarded the origin of the soul.
That's what this is all about: confusion in the cited reference between
reincarnation and various theories of the origin of the human soul.
There has been, in the past, some argument over the exact mode and
manner of the origin of the human soul. That is undoubtedly how
Cardinal Mercier got into this; he was a famous theologian, and was
presumably involved in some discussion over pre-existence, which has
nothing to do with reincarnation.
The present state of Catholic doctrine is that souls are immediately
created by God out of nothing, then infused into the body.
In the early Church, several views were held. St. Augustine, in
particular, wavered between that just mentioned and the idea that the
soul of a child was somehow derived from the soul of the parents. This
made it easier to understand original sin, I suppose. But most of the
Fathers and later teachers held the creation theory.
Joe Buehlerjoseph@cs.albany.edu (Jody Richardson) (12/04/90)
Mark, I think that the scriptures you use to support your position are questionable at best. (My apologies if this has been hashed before. I will be succinct with my opinions.) Any reference to Elijah as support for reincarnation seems suspect since 2 Kings records that he was taken up without having to die. Richard O'Keefe deals with this quite adaquately in an earlier posting. > "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till > all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, > but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:34-35, Mark 13:30-31) > > We now know that Jesus was not referring to the *physical* > generation of that day, so therefore He could only have > intended His words in the *spiritual* sense, as was so often > the case when He spoke. How about *metaphorical*? My Bible includes a footnote that replaces "generation" with "race". > Or finally, let's take a look at the Revelation: > > "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple > of my God, and he shall go no more out..." (Rev 3:12) > > A reasonable interpretation of this passage is in the sense of the > cycle of reincarnations, which ends only with the complete maturity of > the spirit. Once a spirit has attained to such maturity, he is alloted > a place in paradise and remains there forever. His reincarnations on > earth come to an end. He has become one of those who "have washed their > robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev 7:14) This again sounds like a stretch. How about, "go out no more..." from the presence (temple) of God? That is, in the sense of rebeling or sinning or maybe spreading the Word or... Finally, WRT the man born blind, our moderator has offered another "reasonable interpretation" for our consideration. I think the best point is made when you write (regarding Nicodemus): > I hadn't considered this particular point hitherto, but then > the truth of reincarnation is so clear to me that I no longer > feel the need to try to prove/disprove its correctness to > myself! This quite clearly puts you in the position of having either 1) to invent a senario to explain an apparent(!) contradiction (as you did quite interestingly WRT Nicodemus) or 2) to simply reject it without explanation. I don't say this in a derogatory manner. I think we all have to do this in order to cope with some fairly inocuous life-events. And therefore much more so with what one considers to be religous truth. I appreciate your candor. I have never met (electronically or otherwise) someone who used the Bible as support for reincarnation. I still disagree with you but, hey, life would be boring otherwise. :-) > I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. My curiousity is nearly sastisfied. I have not yet seen your response to Hebrews 9:27. If I have missed it or you don't care to continue this on-line, I would appreciate a mail message. I'm interested in finding out whether your response is of type 1) or 2) from my Contradiction Resolution Strategies above. Could you (or someone) mail me the real name of the grail messages as I negleted to save the earlier posting that contained it. Jody Richardson | Why is "abbreviated" joseph@cs.albany.edu | such a long word?
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (12/06/90)
joseph@cs.albany.edu (Jody Richardson) writes: (The >> lines are from my previous posting. -Mark Sandrock) >> "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till >> all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, >> but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:34-35, Mark 13:30-31) >> >> We now know that Jesus was not referring to the *physical* >> generation of that day, so therefore He could only have >> intended His words in the *spiritual* sense, as was so often >> the case when He spoke. >How about *metaphorical*? My Bible includes a footnote that >replaces "generation" with "race". Sure, if you are content with that explanation, but as you pointed out, one has to beware of "inventing" scenerios to "explain" that which one is otherwise unable to understand. I.e., in this case: "race". I remain firmly convinced that the correct word here is "generation", that Christ's words were meant *spiritually*, and that the explanation I have given is the correct one. Of course Jesus did teach through parables, but the above passage seems quite directly stated, and is best understood in the *spiritual* sense. >> Or finally, let's take a look at the Revelation: >> >> "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple >> of my God, and he shall go no more out..." (Rev 3:12) >> >> A reasonable interpretation of this passage is in the sense of the >> cycle of reincarnations, which ends only with the complete maturity of >> the spirit. Once a spirit has attained to such maturity, he is alloted >> a place in paradise and remains there forever. His reincarnations on >> earth come to an end. He has become one of those who "have washed their >> robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev 7:14) >This again sounds like a stretch. How about, "go out no more..." >from the presence (temple) of God? That is, in the sense of >rebeling or sinning or maybe spreading the Word or... Sounds like you're the one "stretching" for an explanation here! We originally had to "go out" from Paradise as *unconscious* spirit "germs" in order to descend into the World of Matter for the purpose of spiritual development. Once we have *completed* this development (through the course of several earthlives) we are able to return to Paradise, to the "temple of God", and "go out no more"! No more simple and clear explanation is possible! >> I hadn't considered this particular point hitherto, but then >> the truth of reincarnation is so clear to me that I no longer >> feel the need to try to prove/disprove its correctness to >> myself! >This quite clearly puts you in the position of having either 1) >to invent a senario to explain an apparent(!) contradiction (as >you did quite interestingly WRT Nicodemus) or 2) to simply reject >it without explanation. I don't say this in a derogatory manner. >I think we all have to do this in order to cope with some fairly >inocuous life-events. And therefore much more so with what one >considers to be religous truth. 1) Why? My own interpretation is certainly at least as reasonable as the one raised originally. The point being that this particular passage happens to shed little if any light on the question about reincarnation, but rather is dealing with another concept entirely, namely, that of the need for *spiritual* awakening. Regardless of the number of earthlives one passes through, it is only spiritual awakening that can bring liberation and redemption to a human being. The fact that I had not hitherto considered this particular passage has entirely nothing to do with the correctness or lack thereof of my explanation. My explanation is in no way inconsistent with the sense of Christ's explanation: for it is NOT reincarnation in and of itself that brings salvation, but only the necessary *spiritual* awakening or rebirth which can do so. Neither of these concepts excludes the other, but rather are both correct. 2) I myself do not believe in "rejecting without an explanation". It is my own view that *everything* can be explained, although sometimes the explanation is that it is incorrect. That which is true, however, must always make full sense, and need not be ignored nor glossed over in any way, shape or form! Take the need to find justice in the World. The only explanations which can clearly and simply demonstrate the existence of Divine Justice in the World, i.e., in Creation, are exactly those concerning the Law of Sowing and Reaping as well as the concept of reincarnation. Otherwise, one can only say either (1) there is no justice, or (2) we are unable to know and understand the ways of the Lord. But we are meant to know and understand the Will of God in Creation -- this is why we experience His Will made manifest in this Creation, through the Natural Laws thereof! Sowing and Reaping is so easy to observe in the *physical* manifestation that we often fail to realize that this is indeed a Natural Law at work. Thus too, do we often fail to realize that this Law of Sowing and Reaping also applies *equally* much in the *spiritual* sense to our thoughts, words, and deeds. And just herein lies the key to Divine Justice! It may be true that the NT does not record any words of Jesus with respect to this Law of Sowing and Reaping, but I am convinced that He did speak of it, and there are certainly many clear references to it in Scripture. >My curiousity is nearly sastisfied. I have not yet seen your >response to Hebrews 9:27. If I have missed it or you don't care >to continue this on-line, I would appreciate a mail message. I'm >interested in finding out whether your response is of type 1) or >2) from my Contradiction Resolution Strategies above. My response to Hebrews 9:27 showed up here several days ago, so you may have seen it by now. In any case, I think there is a 3rd possibility that you need to add to your "Contradiction Resolution Strategy" list, namely, the fact that the *truth* about any matter will *always* naturally resolve any and all hitherto existing "contradictions". >Could you (or someone) mail me the real name of the grail >messages as I negleted to save the earlier posting that contained >it. I take it you are referring to: the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth", by Abd-ru-shin. Interested persons can email me for order information. >Jody Richardson | Why is "abbreviated" >joseph@cs.albany.edu | such a long word? Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801