One Soul, Many Bodies: The Case for Reincarnation

i cant beleive you made this thread yesterday!!

I was suppose to make a reincarnation thread yesterday, but things came up and I had no time!

Well thanks for saving me time I suppose

Good job Soul, thank you

I used to believe any talk of reincarnation was bunk. And to some extent I still do when adults speak of it.

BUT... I have heard too many accounts of very young children talking about "when the used to be big". Some close to me have said things no young child should be able to imagine, much less speak out without thinking in response to whatever prompted their input.

I am convinced and I also understand that as we age we lose whatever memories we had of past lives we had as children. That said, I wonder why we end up in the families and situations that we do. I have a theory I'd like to explore but that is a project considering the dynamics of my own family.

reply to post by Pitons


What if science isn't actually advanced enough to answer these questions, but is being used to answer them anyway? We end up with wrong answers.

reply to post by windword


Like I said earlier, Origen did talk about transmigration but when he did he was coming from his philosophy side. Origen has made it perfectly clear in his writings about scripture that he does not hold that view from a Christian stand point and that such ideas are not of part the Christian doctrine.

Notice how he says "I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names". As you may know Origen was against Celsus.

Again, Let's take a look at his own words regarding this.

"Let others, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we, who do not find this at all in the divine Scripture,..."
~ Origen, Exposition of the Details in the Narrative.

"Nay, if we should cure those who have fallen into the folly of believing in the transmigration of souls through the teaching of physicians, who will have it that the rational nature descends sometimes into all kinds of irrational animals, and sometimes into that state of being which is incapable of using the imagination,..." ~ Origen, Agains Celsus Book 3 chapter 75

"For the former abstain on account of the fable about the transmigration of souls..." ~ Origen, Agains Celsus Book 5 chapter 49

"We do not believe that souls pass from one body to another, and that they may descend so low as to enter the bodies of the brutes." ~ Origen, Agains Celsus Book 8 chapter 30

"Another, however, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of transcorporation as a false one, and does not admit that the soul of John ever was Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, 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. "He shall go before him," it is said, "in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children." ~ Origen, Commentary on John 6.7

"In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures; for it is also in opposition to the saying that “things seen are temporal,” and that “this age shall have a consummation,” and also to the fulfilment of the saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away,” and “the fashion of this world passeth away,” and “the heavens shall perish,” and what follows." ~ Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 13.1

While Origen may have had some wild philosophies regarding the pre-existence of the soul he never really held them as true according to the scriptures. And as shown above he has never truly embraced the idea of reincarnation.

I understand Jerome's argument that Origen was saying some pretty wild stuff in his some of his works. However, I think that Jerome may have jumped to conclusions regarding Origen beliefs about reincarnation.

Jerome had access to all Origen's works including his commentaries, yet Jerome makes no effort to debunk any of the things written by Origen regarding reincarnation from his commentaries. He only seems to speak about the heresies written in Origen's "First Princplies".

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


If Origen didn't believe and teach reincarnation, then why were he and his teachings labeled heretical by Justinian in the 6th century? There had to be a reason don't you think? I'm pretty sure that reason is because of his teachings on transmigration and preexistence of the soul, along with apokatastasis. Reincarnation is a great example of apokatastasis, because it gives everyone the chance to return to God, which is the theology behind apokatastasis.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

Jerome had access to all Origen's works including his commentaries, yet Jerome makes no effort to debunk any of the things written by Origen regarding reincarnation from his commentaries. He only seems to speak about the heresies written in Origen's "First Princplies".

What is it about Jerome's statement " The following passage is a convincing proof that he (Origen) holds the transmigration of souls and annihilation of bodies." that's eluding you? Jerome condemned Origen's belief in reincarnation.

Jerome had a pure copy of First Pinciples and his friends wanted him to send it to them, so that they could compare it with their copy, because they were so horrified by what they were reading. Jerome condemned Origen's writing to protect himself from being charged with heresy because of his love of Origen's works. He claimed to own 2000 of Origen's writings. I wonder where those books are?

It is charged against me that I have sometimes praised Origen.

I speak as a Christian to Christians: believe one who has tried him. His doctrines are poisonous, they are unknown to the Holy Scriptures, nay more, they do them violence. I have read Origen, I repeat, I have read him; and if it is a crime to read him, I admit my guilt: indeed, these Alexandrian writings have emptied my purse. If you will believe me, I have never been an Origenist: if you will not believe me, I have now ceased to be one.
www.newadvent.org...

It's clear that Origen taught reincarnation. Reincarnation was widely believed by Jews and early Christians alike. We have the Gnostic texts to prove that. Many have called Origen an Gnostic father.

Where did we find Gnostic texts? Not at the Vatican. Nope, they were buried in the desert cave to protect them from the Vatican. When Origen was condemn, the order went out to destroy his books. What they couldn't destroy, because of their notoriety, they sanitized.

Notice how he says "I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names".

Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons ........................................................... is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?

Notice how he agrees with them. What he disagrees with is souls reincarnating into animals.

A number of Christian Church Fathers believed in and wrote about reincarnation:

St. Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.) expressly stated that the soul inhabits more than one human body.

Another Church Father, St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (257–332 A.D.), wrote: “It is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth it must be accomplished in future lives. . . . The soul . . . is immaterial and invisible in nature, it at one time puts off one body . . . and exchanges it for a second.”

St. Gregory also wrote: “Every soul comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life.”

St. Augustine (354–430 A.D.), one of the greatest theologians of the Christian church, speculated that philosopher Plotinus was the reincarnation of Plato. St. Augustine wrote: “The message of Plato . . . now shines forth mainly in Plotinus, a Platonist so like his master that one would think . . . that Plato is born again in Plotinus.”

"Did my infancy succeed another age of mine that dies before it? Was it that which I spent within my mother's womb? . . . And what before that life again, O God of my joy, was I anywhere or in any body?"
Confessions of St. Augustine, Edward Pusey, translator, Book I

www.iisis.net...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I believe he was labeled that because of his philosophies of the "First Principles" which he wrote in the early stages of his life. Not because of his commentaries in which he clearly spoke against the idea of reincarnation.

reply to post by windword


As I said before, the charges which Jerome brought against Origen were for his teachings in "First Princples" not his commentaries.

"I have merely praised the simplicity of his rendering and commentary and neither the faith nor the dogmas of the Church come in at all". Letter LXXXIV. To Pammachius and Oceanus.

"He knew the scriptures by heart and labored hard day and night to explain their meaning. He delivered in church more than a thousand sermons, and published innumerable commentaries which he called tomes. These I now pass over, for it is not my purpose to catalogue his writings. Which of us can read all that he has written? and who can fail to admire is enthusiasm for the scriptures?"

From these quotes we can see that Jerome never had a problem with the Origen commentaries. Which clearly reject the idea of reincarnation. Jerome even admits that no one could have read everything that Origen had written. This makes me question if Jerome ever got around to reading Origen's commentaries on Matthew and John regarding his views on the transmigration.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


And what in "First Principles" was he labeled a heretic for? Transmigration of souls and apokatastasis. Like I said, reincarnation is a great example of apokatastasis, because it allows everything and everyone to be united with God in the end.

Origen wasn't labeled a heretic until 300 years after he died, so his teachings couldn't have been that controversial while he was alive, which must mean his teachings were common and well-known during his time.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


No one debates that Origen spoke on these things in his early writtings, what people fail to realize is that he changed his views on the matter once he became Christian. Origen wrote "First Princples" when he was a Platonist, he was labled a heretic because he attempted to integrate Platonic philosophy and Christian thinking in his earliest writings, not because of what he wrote in his commentaries.

It should also be noted that Justin Martyr did not hold the reincarnation view:

Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165): In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in chapter IV while discussing “souls”, this conclusion is reached.

Trypho: “Therefore, souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies… Justin: “You are right, I replied.”

And neither did Augustine:

Augustine (A.D. 354-430): Because he was in a Gnostic Sect and steeped in Platonic thought prior to his conversion to Christianity, Augustine was certainly in a position to tout reincarnationism. However, he never did. In fact in his letter to Optatus he wrote, “For it is impossible that you should hold the opinion that it is for the deeds in a former life that souls are confined in earthly and mortal bodies.”

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


Unless Origen didn't start writing until 40 years old, "On First Principles" wasn't one of his early works.

Could you give a link that shows "Principles" was one of his earlier works? Because I see it was written no earlier than 225 CE, which would make him 40 at the time.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I don't know when First Principles was written, but Against Celcius was his last work

Against Celsus, preserved entire in Greek, was Origen's last treatise, written about 248AD.

Where he said this:

. . .but we know that the soul, which is immaterial and invisible in its nature, exists in no material place, without having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth.

On the other hand, his "supposed" Commentary on Matthew wasn't even translated until after a hundred years after he was declared a heretic.

In his Comment on the Gospel of Matthew, which stems from a 6th-century Latin translation, it is written: "In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] 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 the scriptures"

en.wikipedia.org...

Rufinus and Jerome were bickering back and forth about Rufinus "editing" Origen's work to make them fit more closely with church doctrine. Imagine what the translators in the 700's would have taken liberties with!

. Rufinus, on the other hand, sought to legitimize Origen's controversial work by obscuring its false doctrines, on the unfounded supposition that these were later additions to the text. He was therefore untrustworthy as a translator.

If Rufinus censored some Trinitarian heresies out of concern for scandalizing simple Christians, he ought to have censored the other heresies as well. In his prologue, Rufinus says he removed what was bad, which would seem to endorse what remained in the translation.

www.arcaneknowledge.org...

Here are a few of things that the council of bishops condemned in First Pinciples.

The books of Origen have been read before a council of bishops and unanimously condemned. The following are his chief errors, mainly found in the "Peri Archon" (De Principiis)":
1. The Son compared with us is truth, but compared with the Father he is falsehood.
2. Christ’s kingdom will one day come to an end.
3. We ought to pray to the Father alone, not to the Son.

4. Our bodies after the resurrection will be corruptible and mortal.

THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN
1. If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

www.copticchurch.net...

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by Pitons

 

What if science isn't actually advanced enough to answer these questions, but is being used to answer them anyway? We end up with wrong answers.

We always end up with wrong answers because there can't be any question and so there can't be any answers at all too. Questioning what can't be known by mind is absurd. Science will never be able to answer these questions too. Because we use minds for science. And minds are limited. Of course science can speculate "Oh there was a big bang, there is God, there is not" and so on, but it will never grasp the real truth. The mind asks these questions because it knows that there is no answer. That's how mind rolls. It has to do so to be able to control "you". Your fear of the unknown is your hell. Of course you try to believe in whatever lie your mind creates (heaven after death, in God, or don't believe in God). But this state is not a natural state of yourself. And if the mind controls you through fear or whatever, you are not at peace in this dream.

Originally posted by Pitons
And if the mind controls you through fear or whatever, you are not at peace in this dream.

Hey, I agree with that for the most part
I don't agree with science not being able to look into spirituality. Take dreaming, for example, or quantum entanglement and the mind, or free will, or whatever.

Even cognitive behavioral therapy is starting to include choice theory - this is the idea that we have a choice over our actions - so that is where the future of psychology is headed, and this is mainstream.

Choice theory? Isn't someone going to take that up one day and look into how choices work?

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by Pitons
And if the mind controls you through fear or whatever, you are not at peace in this dream.

Hey, I agree with that for the most part

I don't agree with science not being able to look into spirituality. Take dreaming, for example, or quantum entanglement and the mind, or free will, or whatever.

Even cognitive behavioral therapy is starting to include choice theory - this is the idea that we have a choice over our actions - so that is where the future of psychology is headed, and this is mainstream.

Choice theory? Isn't someone going to take that up one day and look into how choices work?

I don't say science can't speculate. Of course it speculates about many things. But it will never be able to grasp the real truth. Because it is the mind that is asking the questions which can't be answered. The mind knows it well. But the game must go on. The search for answers must go on. Otherwise what is left for the mind to do if there are no questions left? Mind is afraid of such a situation and does everything it can to create questions and seek answers.

Reincarnation is real. I can only tell from my experiences with regression. I think people are going through their own type of perfection. Be it physical, mental, spiritual. In my opinion, you keep traits and qualities from one life to another. We are also multidimensional.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


On First Principles was most likely written for his more advanced pupils at Alexandria and probably composed between 212 and 215. en.wikipedia.org...

His commentaries were all preached in a three-year liturgical cycle some time between 238 and 244 which can also be verified by Jerome "he delivered in church more than a thousand sermons, and published innumerable commentaries which he called tomes." Letter LXXXIV. To Pammachius and Oceanus.

You have to understand that when Origen wrote about transmigration of the soul he was referring to the Greeks (not Christian)' transmigration of the soul, with which he did not agree. This can be confirmed from the extant writings of Origen. He was cognizant of the concept of transmigration from Greek philosophy, but he repeatedly stated that this concept is not a part of the Christian teaching or scripture.

Origen was labeled a heretic only because of 3 chapters in "First Principles" and because a group of Egyptian monks who came to be known as Origenists was causing an uproar during the time of Emperor Justinian.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council addressed what was called "The Three Chapters" and was against a form of Origenism which truly had nothing to do with Origen and Origenist views. In fact, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), and Gregory the Great (590-604) were only aware the Fifth Council specifically dealt with the Three Chapters and make no mention of Origenism or Universalism, nor spoke as if they knew of its condemnation even though Gregory the Great was opposed to the belief of universalism. en.wikipedia.org...

It is important to note that although Origen had a few followers who stuck with his views from "First Principles" those views were not held or even taught among the early church. As stated before, Origen had made it clear that these views were foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures. Origen did not learn those views from other Church Fathers before him, he learned them Plato. So the idea that this was some kind of widespread teaching among the early Christians is false and a poor study of history on the subject.

It should also be noted that Origen did not hold the views of Gnosticism either, even though in many other places he implied or expressly cited Gnostic views, he always refuted them. Just like all the other church fathers before him.

Were these views known around the communities? Yes. Were they being taught by members of the early church? No.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

You have to understand that when Origen wrote about transmigration of the soul he was referring to the Greeks (not Christian)' transmigration of the soul, with which he did not agree. This can be confirmed from the extant writings of Origen. He was cognizant of the concept of transmigration from Greek philosophy, but he repeatedly stated that this concept is not a part of the Christian teaching or scripture.

Wrong! Origin believed in and taught reincarnation all the way up to his last treaty Contra Celsus, in which he refuted the idea that souls can be reincarnated into animals. He rejected the Jewish and Christian ideology of resurrection of the physical body, replacing it with reincarnation over and over again!

Origen set aside Plato's idea of a transference of souls from one human body to another, and rejected the Pythagorean metempsychosis, which teaches that human souls pass into the bodies of animals. www.copticchurch.net...

Our teaching on the subject of the resurrection is not, as Celsus imagines, derived from anything that we have heard on the doctrine of metempsychosis; but we know that the soul, which is immaterial and invisible in its nature, exists in no material place, without having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth. Contra Celsus Book VII Ch XXXII
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Origen rejected the concept of the physical resurrection of the corpse.

Second Council of Constantinople. Henry Chadwick explains Origen’s doctrine according to the Emperor Justinian and the Council of Constantinople in the following points:

I. Origen’s first attack against the risen bodies is the nature of the body (soma).

II. Origen’s second line of attack is the contention that at death the body returns into its constituent elements, and although the composing elements do not in any sense cease to exist, yet they cannot be put together again in their original form.

III. Origen scores a palpable hit when he asks what will happen to the bodies of people eaten by wild beasts, since, just as the food we eat is absorbed by the veins and becomes part of the constitution of our body, so also men’s bodies devoured by animals become part of them.

IV. Origen’s fourth objection is that if the flesh is to rise again in the same form, then what use is going to be found for its organs? Are we serious to suppose; he asks, that the wicked are going to be provided with teeth to gnash with? If the simple view of the resurrection is accepted, then risen bodies will have the same needs as earthly bodies; we shall need to eat and drink in the heavenly places; some use will have to be found for our hands and feet.

The only works of Origen and refute reincarnation are books that were translated in the 700's AD over 500 years after his death and hundreds of years after his condemnation. Do you really think that the church is going to release new documents that confim a church father teaching reincarnation? Nope. They changed them then just a they were changing them in Jerome's and Rufinus' day.

There is no doubt that Origen thought that God works through reincarnation. This is irrefutable. He was condemned publicly for these beliefs and teachings.

reply to post by windword


We could go back and forth all day regarding this. But I'm bored with Origen history. To be honest, I to think the guy was a heretic, his teachings were definitely way out there. I was merely trying to show that regardless of what he taught he did not get this information from the early church fathers or the apostles.

People are trying to use his teachings as proof that reincarnation was apart of early christian doctrine. They assume that since he spoke on these matters the rest of the early church held and taught the same views. Nothing can be further from the truth.

If you want to hold the idea that because Origen spoke on these things in early church history then it must have been part of the original teachings of the church father's then all I can is that you are greatly mistaking.

Sure, the idea of reincarnation was floating around, but the idea was not handed down by anyone who was apart of the early church. If it had, we would see alot more evidence other than "On First Principles".

People want so badly for reincarnation to be one of Jesus' teachings, but there is no evidence that Jesus, the apostles or the apostles disciples ever taught such views.

We can go into other details regarding this, but I'm done with Origen, the guy is giving me a headache, lol.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

People want so badly for reincarnation to be one of Jesus' teachings, but there is no evidence that Jesus, the apostles or the apostles disciples ever taught such views.

There is a very valid case for reincarnation in the bible. Jesus said you must be born again. He said that John the Baptist was Elijah. When asked about the man blinded from birth, and who sinned he or his parents, that was indicative that the apostles believed in reincarnation.

When Jesus said what you bind on earth you bind in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven in indicative of reincarnation. Some of the apostles indicated to Jesus that many people thought that he was a reincarnated prophet, maybe Jeremiah.

The Essenes / Ebonites believed in reincarnation are credited with being the first Christians. The Gnostics, who were also Christians believed in reincarnation.

Origen WAS a church father. He had many beloved followers for centuries after his death.

The fact that the Catholic church officially banned the concept of reincarnation in 550AD doesn't take away from the fact that some early Christians did, in fact, believe in reincarnation.