Question about Christianity and reincarnation

[FreezBee]

I have had some discussions with a member of ISKCON (Hare Krishna) about Chrsitianity and reincarnation. He claim that some 2nd century Church fathers (including Origen) were for reincarnation, but unfortunately he couldn't give more precse references.

I know that the Gnostics believed in reincarnation, and my opponent may have mistaken critique of the Gnostics for a defense of reincarnation.

Does anybody here know whether there were any church fathers that were for reincarnation?

Thanks in advance for any response :bow:


:cheers: FreezBee

[Jaltus]

None that I know of. Origin held to the permanency of souls, but not reincarnation (I have studied Origin quite a bit).

[Amazing Rando]

Ditto Clement of Alexandria. Most of the early church writers who came out of the Alexandrian school were quasi platonic in that sense.

[FreezBee]

None that I know of. Origin held to the permanency of souls, but not reincarnation (I have studied Origin quite a bit).

Ditto Clement of Alexandria. Most of the early church writers who came out of the Alexandrian school were quasi platonic in that sense.

Ok, thanks for your responses :thumb:

So I can report back that it's probably a misunderstanding?


- FreezBee

[Jaltus]

Sure seems like it to me. Mind you, in very early Christianity some weird stuff was floated around, but I never heard of anyone holding to reincarnation.

[Sheepdog]

a Jaltas post :gasp:

[Adam]

Sure seems like it to me. Mind you, in very early Christianity some weird stuff was floated around, but I never heard of anyone holding to reincarnation.
I can't find any proof-positive references to the early Church fathers in the thread, but the OP by dianalee4jc in the "Reincarnation?" thread (last post July 12, 2005, here in Church History 201 archived on page 2) cites a supposed quote by Origen and asked if anyone could assess its authenticity:
I'm involved in a debate on another discussion board, in which we are discussing whether or not the Bible (or the early Christians) teaches reincarnation. The other person posted this quote from Origen: "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 exhanges it for a second."
I have yet to find this quote on the Internet outside of sources that are also arguing in favor of reincarnation. Does anyone know if it is an actual quote from Origen, whether it was taken out of context somehow, or if this is just another fishing expedition by folks who want to twist history to fit their own whim?
I believe it's probable Origen taught reincarnation, but so much of his work is lost or available only in dubious translations and copies, that nobody knows for sure.
In numerous posts on various threads I have challenged anyone to post against me on the "Reincarnation?" thread, but apparently I won that reincarnation is acceptable Bible and Christian teaching, as no one has taken the challenge in two and a half years.
Dos anyone know the degree of authenticity of the quote by Origen cited above?
Adam

[Jaltus]

What about Hebrews?

Hebrews 9:27-28 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 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.

[FreezBee]

I can't find any proof-positive references to the early Church fathers in the thread, but the OP by dianalee4jc in the "Reincarnation?" thread (last post July 12, 2005, here in Church History 201 archived on page 2) cites a supposed quote by Origen and asked if anyone could assess its authenticity:

I believe it's probable Origen taught reincarnation, but so much of his work is lost or available only in dubious translations and copies, that nobody knows for sure.
In numerous posts on various threads I have challenged anyone to post against me on the "Reincarnation?" thread, but apparently I won that reincarnation is acceptable Bible and Christian teaching, as no one has taken the challenge in two and a half years.
Dos anyone know the degree of authenticity of the quote by Origen cited above?
Adam

Thanks Adam :thumb:

I'll go have a look at that thread

[FreezBee]

What about Hebrews?

Hebrews 9:27-28 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 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.

Yes, exactly -- certain things in Christianity lose their meaning, if reincarnation is part of the bargain.

[FreezBee]

I can't find any proof-positive references to the early Church fathers in the thread, but the OP by dianalee4jc in the "Reincarnation?" thread (last post July 12, 2005, here in Church History 201 archived on page 2) cites a supposed quote by Origen and asked if anyone could assess its authenticity:

I found the Reincarnation? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55581) thread, and according to Jezz the quote is genuine, but incomplete:

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.

The bit that I have emboldened is the quote that you provided. They have made it into a standalone sentence, whereas in the original it is part of a dependent clause. Origen is clearly talking about resurrection when he refers to the second body that the soul is infused in. As Darth Executor pointed out, he is not teaching reincarnation here.

Actually, there is a an element of truth to the "Christian reincarnation" theory, which is what makes the heretical form all the more dangerous and deceptive. Orthodox Christianity does indeed teach re-incarnation, in the literal sense - which means that the soul is re-embodied in a new body. Where it differs from (say) Buddhism or Hinduism is that Orthodox Christianity doesn't teach endless reincarnation. Instead, it teaches that we are currently in our first incarnation, and in the future we will be reincarnated once at the final judgement - at which point we become immortal and no longer die (and hence will no longer be reincarnated).

So yes, Christianity teaches "reincarnation" in the most literal sense of the word. However, it is not reincarnation in the sense that most people would usually understand it (as people usually think of reincarnation as an endless cycle).

So, Origen simply refers to the resurrection, not a hinduistic reincarnation.


Thanks all for your responses :bow:


- FreezBee

[Adam]

Yes, exactly -- certain things in Christianity lose their meaning, if reincarnation is part of the bargain.
And if reincarnation is not part of Christianity the whole Old Testament loses its meaning.
Time and again God punishes a people for the sins of people of prior generations. Not just the Hebrews, but the Amalekites,etc. The people of the prior generations have to be present again in the current generation or God is being cruel, irrational, and unfair.
Adam

[Adam]

I found the Reincarnation? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55581) thread, and according to Jezz the quote is genuine, but incomplete:
So, Origen simply refers to the resurrection, not a hinduistic reincarnation.
Thanks all for your responses :bow:
- FreezBee
Thanks, Freezbee, for clearing this up. I had forgotten that Jezz had disposed of the original point made by an improper citation by extreme reincarnationists.
Yes, Eastern reincarnationists do teach that reincarnation is endless. Most of current Western reincarnationists incorporate the Eastern paradigm.
However, the true Western reincarnationists, those who have always taught the doctrine, are primarily Hasidic Jews, who in turn are continuing the belief in reincarnation as taught by the Pharisees of Jesus's time. That the Pharisees taught reincarnation is obvious from John 9:1-2. This Western form of reincarnation is that the spirit reincarnates in an earthly body only up until the time Messiah comes. This is the type of reincarnation I teach. I have read all the polemic books by Evangelicals and such, and none (as of the late 80's the date of the latest books I know of cited to me) admit the existence of this Jewish form of reincarnation. They just ignore it as if it does not exist. As it relates to me and the Hasids, they're just presenting a Straw Man.
I won't bother arguing about the mistranslation of a part of a verse.
Adam

[FreezBee]

And if reincarnation is not part of Christianity the whole Old Testament loses its meaning.
Time and again God punishes a people for the sins of people of prior generations. Not just the Hebrews, but the Amalekites,etc. The people of the prior generations have to be present again in the current generation or God is being cruel, irrational, and unfair.
Adam

As I stated in the OP, my question was in relation to a discussion with a member of ISKCON (Hare Krishna), so reincarnation doesn't mean resurrection in this context.

- FreezBee

[PatristicArcana]

Does anybody here know whether there were any church fathers that were for reincarnation?

On the contrary, there is proof that the early orthodox Christians were universally opposed to the belief in reincarnation. The following quotes are but a sample, and I could more than double their quantity...

"souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards."
(Justin Martyr, ca. 160, Dialogue with Trypho 4, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:197)

"We may subvert [the Gnostics'] doctrine as to transmigration from body to body by this fact, that souls remember nothing whatever of the events which took place in their [supposed] previous states of existence."
(Irenaeus, ca. 180, Against Heresies 2:33:1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:409)

"the hypothesis of Basilides [a Gnostic teacher] says that the soul, having sinned before in another life, endures punishment in this"
(Clement of Alexandria, ca. 195, Stromata 4:12, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:424)

"how much more worthy of acceptance is our belief which maintains that they will return to the same bodies! And how much more ridiculous is your inherited [pagan] conceit, that the human spirit is to reappear in a dog, or a mule, or a peacock!"
(Tertullian, ca. 197, Ad Nationes 1:19, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:127)

"Pythagoras first, and Plato chiefly, have delivered the doctrine of resurrection with a corrupt and divided faith . . . . they add also this, by way of misrepresenting the truth, that the souls of men return into cattle, birds, and beasts."
(Mark Felix, ca. 200, Octavius 34, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:194)

"He will accomplish a resurrection of all, not by transferring souls into other bodies, but by raising the bodies themselves."
(Hippolytus, ca. 205, Against Plato 2, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:222)

Referring to John the Baptist: "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"
(Origen, ca. 245, Commentary on Matthew 13:1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 9:474)

"Pythagoras, who contends that souls migrate from bodies worn out with old age and death, and gain admission into those which are new and recently born; and that the same souls are always reproduced at one time in a man, at another time in a sheep, at another in a wild beast, at another in a bird; and that they are immortal on this account, because they often change their abodes, consisting of various and dissimilar bodies. And this opinion of a senseless man, since it is ridiculous and more worthy of a stage-player than of a school of philosophy"
(Lactantius, ca. 304, Divine Institutes 7:12, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 7:210)

[Adam]

On the contrary, there is proof that the early orthodox Christians were universally opposed to the belief in reincarnation. The following quotes are but a sample, and I could more than double their quantity...
"the hypothesis of Basilides [a Gnostic teacher] says that the soul, having sinned before in another life, endures punishment in this"
(Clement of Alexandria, ca. 195, Stromata 4:12, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:424)
"how much more worthy of acceptance is our belief which maintains that they will return to the same bodies! And how much more ridiculous is your inherited [pagan] conceit, that the human spirit is to reappear in a dog, or a mule, or a peacock!"
(Tertullian, ca. 197, Ad Nationes 1:19, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:127)
"Pythagoras first, and Plato chiefly, have delivered the doctrine of resurrection with a corrupt and divided faith . . . . they add also this, by way of misrepresenting the truth, that the souls of men return into cattle, birds, and beasts."
(Mark Felix, ca. 200, Octavius 34, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:194)
"He will accomplish a resurrection of all, not by transferring souls into other bodies, but by raising the bodies themselves."
(Hippolytus, ca. 205, Against Plato 2, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:222)
Referring to John the Baptist: "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"
(Origen, ca. 245, Commentary on Matthew 13:1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 9:474)
"Pythagoras, who contends that souls migrate from bodies worn out with old age and death, and gain admission into those which are new and recently born; and that the same souls are always reproduced at one time in a man, at another time in a sheep, at another in a wild beast, at another in a bird; and that they are immortal on this account, because they often change their abodes, consisting of various and dissimilar bodies. And this opinion of a senseless man, since it is ridiculous and more worthy of a stage-player than of a school of philosophy"
(Lactantius, ca. 304, Divine Institutes 7:12, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 7:210)
Good work, Prisca, I don't dispute your evidence that the Church Fathers wrote strongly against transmigration. I retained some of your quotes above to show, however, that the Greek belief in souls passing from humans to animals is what is clearly and unequivocally rejected. That's typically called "transmigration", with "reincarnation' limited to reappearance only among humans. To which I would further restrict any proper Christian reincarnation to a process that stops at Jesus's Second Coming--paralleling Jewish Hasidic belief that reincarnation stops when Messiah comes.
Regarding Origen, yes the above passage refutes even this restricted reincarnation, but we can never know which passages of Origen's have been toned down (by his disciples defending his orthodoxy) or which have been hardened (by enemies or by later "Origenist" people who were themselves too pantheistic to be true followers of Origen). Note also that the above passage speaks only of the "soul" of Elijah. By the Platonic tripartite view of humans accepted at that time. Origen may have been implying that the "spirit" reincarnates, even though the soul does not.. I believed that very thing from 1969 to about 1980, and have been "agnostic", you might say, on that issue for the past fifteen years.
Note also above that the quote from Clement of Alexandria acknowledges that Basilides did teach reincarnation, but does not in itself condemn Basilides himself nor his doctrine. True, Basidides is regarded as a Gnostic and heretic, but the below quote from Wikipedia tells us that Basilides was a Christian who wrote extensively on Christian dualism. Basilides's followers formed a Gnostic sect. Ironically, his teachings became so confounded that Hippolytus in error condemned Basilides as a monist, the farthest theoretical point from his Zoroastrian dualism. Thus what Hippolytus says above about reincarnation may be disproving a straw man as regarding what Basilides earlier had taught (if Hippolytus speaks of Basilides at all) or what I believe now.
Here's what Wikipedia says:
Basilides (early 2nd century) was an early Christian religious teacher in Alexandria, Egypt. He apparently wrote twenty-four books on the Gospel and promoted a dualism influenced by Zoroastrianism. His followers formed a Gnostic sect, the Basilideans. Historians know of Basilides and his teachings only through the writings of his detractors, Agrippa Castor, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus of Rome. It is impossible to determine how reliable these hostile accounts are.
Basilides
Basilides was a pupil of an alleged interpreter of St. Peter, Glaucias by name, and taught at Alexandria during the reign of Hadrian (117–138). He may have been previously a disciple of Menander at Antioch, together with Saturnilus. The Acta Archelai state that for a time he taught among the Persians. He composed twenty-four books on the Gospel, which, according to Clement of Alexandria were entitled Exegetics. Some fragments, preserved by Clement and in the Acta Archelai, supplement the knowledge of Basilides furnished by his opponents.
The oldest refutation of the teachings of Basilides, by Agrippa Castor, is lost, and we are dependent upon the later accounts of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus of Rome, who in his Philosophumena, gives a presentation entirely different from the other sources. It either rests on corrupt accounts, or, more probably, on those of a later, post-Basilidian phase of the system. Hippolytus describes a monistic system, in which Hellenic, or rather Stoic, conceptions stand in the foreground, whereas the genuine Basilides is an Oriental through and through, who stands in closer relationship to Zoroaster than to Aristotle.
[End of what Wikipedia says, "Basilides"]
Adam

[PatristicArcana]

Good work, Prisca, I don't dispute your evidence that the Church Fathers wrote strongly against transmigration. I retained some of your quotes above to show, however, that the Greek belief in souls passing from humans to animals is what is clearly and unequivocally rejected.

That's an interesting perspective, though the quotations of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius still, in and of themselves, appear quite contrary to reincarnation. As to the others...

Regarding Origen, yes the above passage refutes even this restricted reincarnation, but we can never know which passages of Origen's have been toned down (by his disciples defending his orthodoxy) or which have been hardened (by enemies or by later "Origenist" people who were themselves too pantheistic to be true followers of Origen).

True, though such could, in theory, be said of virtually any historical document. Sometimes we must simply take these things at face value.

Note also above that the quote from Clement of Alexandria acknowledges that Basilides did teach reincarnation, but does not in itself condemn Basilides himself nor his doctrine.

That is correct, but allow me to provide some additional context; Clement went on to say, in the same chapter...

"How can this be true, when the confessing and suffering punishment or not depends on ourselves? For in the case of the man who shall deny, Providence, as held by Basilides, is done away with."

And Clement goes on to reject Basilides and his reincarnation doctrine at considerable length.

In addition to all of this, we have the universal belief among the early Christians that the souls of the dead go to Hades (which is an intermediate state) and wait there for the time of resurrection and judgment, at which point they return to the same body that they had in this life (as, for example, Tertullian intimated in the quotation that I previously provided). I'm not sure where reincarnation could viably fit into that scheme of things.

[Adam]

That's an interesting perspective, though the quotations of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius still, in and of themselves, appear quite contrary to reincarnation. As to the others...
That is correct, but allow me to provide some additional context; Clement went on to say, in the same chapter...
How can this be true, when the confessing and suffering punishment or not depends on ourselves? For in the case of the man who shall deny, Providence, as held by Basilides, is done away with."
And Clement goes on to reject Basilides and his reincarnation doctrine at considerable length.
In addition to all of this, we have the universal belief among the early Christians that the souls of the dead go to Hades (which is an intermediate state) and wait there for the time of resurrection and judgment, at which point they return to the same body that they had in this life (as, for example, Tertullian intimated in the quotation that I previously provided). I'm not sure where reincarnation could viably fit into that scheme of things.
That Clement of Alexandria was so explicit against reincarnation would make all the more likely that his pupil Origen would reject reincarnation. Good points about Clement. About the authenticity of Origen's own works, however, great doubt remains. Only about a century ago did it become accepted, for example, that the works of one Adamantius was really Origen's true work.
Golly. An intermediate state. How like Roman Catholic Purgatory and Eastern Orthodox Stations. How easily any of the three concepts could allow the trials and cleansing of the intermediate state to be by means of entering earthly life again and spend time bearing the consequences of one's own sins. Like the cruel, vindictive man returning to a life where he suffers oppression at the hands of someone like his former self. The Purgatory concept even centers on temporal punishments of specific length, more suitable for measuring by again living an earthly life.
I won't refer here to my Biblical proofs of reincarnation, as they are already in the other "Reincarnation?" thread archived on page 2. I see that no one has dared to reopen that thread in almost two and a half years.
Adam

[PatristicArcana]

That Clement of Alexandria was so explicit against reincarnation would make all the more likely that his pupil Origen would reject reincarnation. Good points about Clement. About the authenticity of Origen's own works, however, great doubt remains.

I'm not sure that I would say there's "great" doubt; whereas scholars once suspected some tampering with Origen's works on the part of scribes like Rufinus, comparison of the Latin and Greek editions of the texts have largely vindicated the accuracy with which they have been recorded, and this would also include the thirteenth chapter of the Commentary on Matthew that I quoted from.

Golly. An intermediate state. How like Roman Catholic Purgatory and Eastern Orthodox Stations. How easily any of the three concepts could allow the trials and cleansing of the intermediate state to be by means of entering earthly life again and spend time bearing the consequences of one's own sins.

Perhaps they could, but, as I noted before, it was the universal belief of the early orthodox that the souls of the dead waited in Hades until the time of resurrection and judgment. Examples of this can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novation, Cyprian, Methodius, Lactantius, and others.

I won't refer here to my Biblical proofs of reincarnation, as they are already in the other "Reincarnation?" thread archived on page 2. I see that no one has dared to reopen that thread in almost two and a half years.

Perhaps they would be better suited for a forum dedicated to Biblical exegesis, rather than one that focuses on the historical perspectives of the Church.