Reincarnation and the Bible

[amptramp]

In John 3:3

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."

It is always fun to see Biblical literalists tap-dance around that statement.

and in Matthew 17:12-13

"But I tell you Elijah has 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.

whereas we already know that John was born shortly before Jesus in Luke 1:44

"As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears the baby in my womb leaped for joy."

So we know that John the Baptist had a normal birth near the time of Jesus' birth but that he had been Elijah and Jesus had told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. This seems to point to a literal rebirth rather than a figurative change in life. It appears that reincarnation (which was also preached by Origen among other leaders of the early church) has been eliminated from the doctrine. I believe reincarnation and the doctrine of karma is the only way to understand that none of the law shall pass away for each individual and that there is an actual consequence rather than a go / no-go gauging of each person at the end of life.

Anyone ready to comment on this?

[InTheFlesh]

Not sure the question for debate, but...

1Cor.15

[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption

The so called "born again Christians" of this world are still flesh and blood. The natural man must be born again (spiritual).

[amptramp]

Thank you for acknowledging that your reply is pertinent but does not address the question directly and I agree with your skepticism about self-designated "born again Christians".

The question I am asking is whether the passages I have quoted are sufficient proof that the Bible accepts the doctrine of reincarnation in which people live, die, live again, die again and so on until through the action of karma, they have been deemed to be sufficiently advanced to move on to the heavenly realm. This is a concept that is consistent with Hindu and Buddhist doctrine and also with the doctrines expounded by Edgar Cayce, who was certainly a Christian.

Exodus 20:4 contains the statement about graven images: "...punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me..." whereas Ezekiel 18 is a long-winded explanation that the fathers shall not be punished for the sins of the children, nor the children for the sins of the fathers and states in the chapter header that "the soul who sins will die". This implies that the third and fourth generation should be interpreted as third and fourth incarnation and if this is true the word "generation" can indeed be interpreted both ways.

If this is true then maybe a lot of what we think the Bible says such as Mark 13:30 where Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." may have a different meaning. If we take the common definition of generation, everything must have happened already because all these people are dead. But if we define generation as incarnation, then everything is still in play. These souls are not gone and may be alive today and the predicted events have not necessarily happened. We could also take a "microcosm / macrocosm" view that things happened then to one degree for the people in Judea in the time of Jesus but will occur again for everyone.

[Bede]

In John 3:3

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."

It is always fun to see Biblical literalists tap-dance around that statement.

and in Matthew 17:12-13

"But I tell you Elijah has 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.

whereas we already know that John was born shortly before Jesus in Luke 1:44

"As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears the baby in my womb leaped for joy."

So we know that John the Baptist had a normal birth near the time of Jesus' birth but that he had been Elijah and Jesus had told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. This seems to point to a literal rebirth rather than a figurative change in life. It appears that reincarnation (which was also preached by Origen among other leaders of the early church) has been eliminated from the doctrine. I believe reincarnation and the doctrine of karma is the only way to understand that none of the law shall pass away for each individual and that there is an actual consequence rather than a go / no-go gauging of each person at the end of life.

Anyone ready to comment on this?

The translation of John 3:3 is much discussed among Christians.

Some translations say born from above, some say born again. The Greek word anathonen in the New Testament is normally translated from above, although it can mean again. In the KJV it is only translated again in this one passage, otherwise it is translated from above.

It is true it can mean both and the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus relies to some extent on this double usage, with Jesus meaning born from above, but Nicodemus taking it as born again and not understanding how he could be born twice literally. Moreover the born from above ties in with Jesus being the one who comes from above (verse 31).

Nicodemus thinking of physical birth says , “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot re-enter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?�

But Jesus is thinking of a spiritual rebirth “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

This is not a person re-entering the womb, or re-incarnation, but a spiritual regeneration of man to become a child of God.

As to John being Elijah – Elijah was taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire and Jews believed that he would return in a literal sense. Malachi prophesies his return “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes.� But that literal return is not a Christian belief.

John the Baptist was a prophet in the manner of Eijah, calling God’s people back to him.

[sleepyhead]

The question I am asking is whether the passages I have quoted are sufficient proof that the Bible accepts the doctrine of reincarnation in which people live, die, live again, die again and so on until through the action of karma, they have been deemed to be sufficiently advanced to move on to the heavenly realm. This is a concept that is consistent with Hindu and Buddhist doctrine and also with the doctrines expounded by Edgar Cayce, who was certainly a Christian.

Hello amptramp,

accept = to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.

One thing which should be pointed out is that, (and this is assuming the bible is accurate), God had 40 years to tell Moses what the afterlife is like and for all we know didn't. We have to assume that while all of the OT had their opinion, none of them knew what the afterlife was like. Jesus (from his kingdom of heaven parables) certainly claimed to know but there is no evidence that he passed down this info to his apostles and there is no record that I know of where they passed this information on to us. We are left with looking for verses written by people who didn't know what the afterlife is like, and forming our own opinion of the afterlife. In answer to your question I agree that the bible consents to reincarnation.

[Bede]

The question I am asking is whether the passages I have quoted are sufficient proof that the Bible accepts the doctrine of reincarnation in which people live, die, live again, die again and so on until through the action of karma, they have been deemed to be sufficiently advanced to move on to the heavenly realm. This is a concept that is consistent with Hindu and Buddhist doctrine and also with the doctrines expounded by Edgar Cayce, who was certainly a Christian.

Hello amptramp,

accept = to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.

One thing which should be pointed out is that, (and this is assuming the bible is accurate), God had 40 years to tell Moses what the afterlife is like and for all we know didn't. We have to assume that while all of the OT had their opinion, none of them knew what the afterlife was like. Jesus (from his kingdom of heaven parables) certainly claimed to know but there is no evidence that he passed down this info to his apostles and there is no record that I know of where they passed this information on to us. We are left with looking for verses written by people who didn't know what the afterlife is like, and forming our own opinion of the afterlife. In answer to your question I agree that the bible consents to reincarnation.

I agree that in Old Testament times they did not know what happened after death. But in New Testament times it becomes much clearer. I can find no evidence at all of re-incarnation

The book of Hebrews says:
"And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (Heb 9:27-28)

2Cor 5:8&10
We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body [i.e. dead] and at home with the Lord [in heaven]....... For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

In Jesus story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-36) it it quite clear that once dead there is no going back to the living once dead.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 6 by Bede]
Taking the questions in reverse order: Lazarus and the rich man is a parable, not really something to base doctrine upon. Besides, in traditionalist Roman Catholic terms he seems to be in Purgatory, not Hell. Maybe we serve our terms in Purgatory sometimes by being reborn in unpleasant states.

As for II Corinthians, we may be with "the Lord" during the interval before the next life. As for final judgment, that might be as Haredi Jews teach that the Judgment comes after many lifetimes on this Earth. What about 2000 years of Christains who have already died? There is NO agreement of what the state of them is, whether (temporarily) dead or asleep, in Heaven, or in Purgatory.

Hebrews 9:27 supposes we can build a teaching upon a mistranslation if a part of a verse in a letter written by who-knows-who (maybe as some suggest just by a -- woman!).

No evidence in the NT? Apparently someone posted without reading the OP!

[Bede]

[Replying to post 6 by Bede]
Taking the questions in reverse order: Lazarus and the rich man is a parable, not really something to base doctrine upon.

Parables are a teaching vehicle not mere story telling.

Besides, in traditionalist Roman Catholic terms he seems to be in Purgatory, not Hell.

I disagree. It's about hell not purgatory. Besides the point I was making is that there is not going back.

Maybe we serve our terms in Purgatory sometimes by being reborn in unpleasant states.

Maybe the moon is made of cheese. Come on that's just a wild speculation with no evidence in sight.

As for II Corinthians, we may be with "the Lord" during the interval before the next life. As for final judgment, that might be as Haredi Jews teach that the Judgment comes after many lifetimes on this Earth. What about 2000 years of Christains who have already died? There is NO agreement of what the state of them is, whether (temporarily) dead or asleep, in Heaven, or in Purgatory.

There is no indication that final judgement comes after multiple lifetimes. There is NOTHING in the Bible about re-incarnation.

Haredi Jews are a relatively new sect in Judaism so their beliefs are irrelevant.

Hebrews 9:27 supposes we can build a teaching upon a mistranslation if a part of a verse in a letter written by who-knows-who (maybe as some suggest just by a -- woman!).

Unsupported nonesense.

No evidence in the NT? Apparently someone posted without reading the OP!

I answered the OP in an earlier post. This post that you are criticising was in response to to a point raised by sleepyhead

[amptramp]

It is known that Origen, one of the original Christian theologians who lived from 185 to 254 AD, was a believer in reincarnation and also, there was no such thing as the New Testament until the emperor Constantine insisted on knowing what Christianity was all about (a reasonable request) and the Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 AD. There was about a month of debate over what could be included and what could not be included in the New Testament, indicating that there was considerable disagreement about doctrine.

But one thing that is a reasonably safe guess is that decisions were made on the basis of what doctrine concentrated power in the hands of the elite. This would include both church leaders and politicians. Obviously, if there is a choice between a doctrine that says you have multiple lives to get your spiritual act together and a doctrine that says you only have one life in which to cleanse your spirit, the latter would favour the layman's subordination to a priesthood whose intervention is required to get into heaven.

The writings of Origen were declared anathema at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD, not because they were not true, but because they did not support the growth of power of the church in society.

There is another view of this - that reincarnation would be used as an excuse by the laity and power elite alike to permit people to "sin now, pay later" in a future life they had no interest in preparing for, so the doctrine of reincarnation was suppressed to ensure people would be more likely to pay attention to spiritual matters. I take the attitude that I am running in a relay race and handing off my soul to the next runner/incarnation after my death and therefore, as in a race, any good or bad decision I make affects the position of my spiritual descendants.

[Bede]

It is known that Origen, one of the original Christian theologians who lived from 185 to 254 AD, was a believer in reincarnation

Origen may have believed in re-incarnation but it seems no-one else did.

Before Origen's time, Irenaeus wrote the five volume Against Heresies and wrote against re-incarnation. See Against Heresies, vol 2, chap 33 - "Absurdity of the doctrine of the transmigration of souls."

Previous to that, Justin Martry also wrote extensively against heresies and wrote against re-incarnation in "Dialogue with Trypho"

and also, there was no such thing as the New Testament until the emperor Constantine insisted on knowing what Christianity was all about (a reasonable request) and the Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 AD. There was about a month of debate over what could be included and what could not be included in the New Testament, indicating that there was considerable disagreement about doctrine.

The Council of Nicaea was called primarily to discuss the nature of Christ (against Arianism). As far as I know the canon of scripture was not discussed. It was certainly not defined there.

Moreover discussion about what should included in the New Testament is not a discussion about doctrine.

But one thing that is a reasonably safe guess is that decisions were made on the basis of what doctrine concentrated power in the hands of the elite.

Not a safe guess at all. That guess just represents your viewpoint about Christianity.