Reincarnation?

[dianalee4jc]

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?

Wasn't Origen a heretic? (Deity of Christ?)

Cheers,
Diana

[Darth Executor]

Does it matter? That quote does not seem to be talking about reincarnation at all.

[Jezz]

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.
The quote is from Origen's "Against Celsus", Chapter XXXII. You can find it online here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-04/Origen/12/t137.htm).

Does anyone know if it is an actual quote from Origen...
Yes, it is. Please see above.

Well, it is almost a quote from Origen. Please see below.

...whether it was taken out of context somehow,
Yes.

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).

...or if this is just another fishing expedition by folks who want to twist history to fit their own whim?
Yes. A good hint of this is the fact that they didn't give you a decent reference to the source so that you could go check the source for yourself.

Wasn't Origen a heretic? (Deity of Christ?)
Some of Origen's teachings were indeed declared heretical, at the 5th Ecumenical Council. One of these teachings was the eternal pre-existence of human souls (Orthodoxy teaches that souls are created at conception).

But there is not necessarily anything heretical in the above quote from Origen. I don't think that Origen was particularly "heretical" with regard to the deity of Christ, either.

[Adam]

The quote is from Origen's "Against Celsus", Chapter XXXII. You can find it online here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-04/Origen/12/t137.htm).

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.
Some of Origen's teachings were indeed declared heretical, at the 5th Ecumenical Council. One of these teachings was the eternal pre-existence of human souls (Orthodoxy teaches that souls are created at conception).
But there is not necessarily anything heretical in the above quote from Origen. I don't think that Origen was particularly "heretical" with regard to the deity of Christ, either.
It is a standard mistake that Origen and his teachings were condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553. They *almost* were, but this failed to be affirmed. The most definitive denial of this claim is found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia from about 1907. I don't know how to do links (I am an old fogie, 63 years old), but you can look it up in NewAdvent or Cathen, click "O" for Origen or whatever you want to look at.

I hunted up the quote from "Origen and Origenism" from CE:
"It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
"It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
"The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
"It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council."

The famous philosopher Cardinal Mercier was orthodox, not a believer in reincarnation, but he stated that reincarnation was not incompatible with Roman Catholicism.
I was a believer in reincarnation for all but the first few months of my Roman Catholic period (1969-92) and have retained the belief as my alteration of the Tradition of Purgatory.
No, I don't claim that Origen taught reincarnation, though of course he did teach pre-existence of the soul as taught by Paul at Eph. 1:4-5. But Jesus did, and Elihu did. So did the Pharisees and the Hasitic Jews to this day. So it cannot be dismissed as an alien Eastern import. Further, it has to be presupposed to make sense of the Old Testament, and pre-existence has to be accepted to make the theology of Paul not monstrous.
Adam

[Jezz]

It is a standard mistake that Origen and his teachings were condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553. They *almost* were, but this failed to be affirmed. The most definitive denial of this claim is found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia from about 1907. I don't know how to do links (I am an old fogie, 63 years old), but you can look it up in NewAdvent or Cathen, click "O" for Origen or whatever you want to look at.
To do a link, just put [ url=<URL here> ]text [ /url ]. Except take out the spaces inscide the square brackets.

I've used the Catholic Encyclopedia a lot, and it is generally a very good reference, but it is also an apologetic work for the papacy.

I hunted up the quote from "Origen and Origenism" from CE:
"It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
"It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
"The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
"It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council."
This source assumes a Roman Catholic approach towards ecclesiology and Ecumenical Councils - ie, that unless the pope officially acknowledges the canons of a council, they are not ecumenical. This is of course unsurprising as it is a Roman Catholic encyclopedia. But in Orthodox reckoning, the decisions of a council are considered ecumenical by virtue of the fact that they were made at an Ecumenical Council. The last quote that you gave even admits that the bishops at the council subscribed to the fifteen anathemas, which by Orthodox reckoning means that they were Ecumenical decisions.

Unless you believe in the ultimate supremacy of the Pope (which clearly you don't, as otherwise you'd still be Roman Catholic), there seems to be no good reason to adhere to the papal understanding of an Ecumenical Council.

The famous philosopher Cardinal Mercier was orthodox, not a believer in reincarnation, but he stated that reincarnation was not incompatible with Roman Catholicism.
I was a believer in reincarnation for all but the first few months of my Roman Catholic period (1969-92) and have retained the belief as my alteration of the Tradition of Purgatory.
Well, I believe that Purgatory is a heresy too.

No, I don't claim that Origen taught reincarnation, though of course he did teach pre-existence of the soul as taught by Paul at Eph. 1:4-5.
I don't see how you get the pre-existence of the soul out of that passage. All I see is God's foreknowledge.

When God breathed life into Adam, it said he became a living soul. It indicates that Adam's soul was created when Adam's life was created. Because this happened after the creation of the world, Eph 1:4-5 cannot be referring to the time when the souls were created.

But Jesus did, and Elihu did. So did the Pharisees and the Hasitic Jews to this day.
References? Goes against all scholarly literature I've read on the Semitic concept of body and soul, and against Genesis as I pointed out above.

So it cannot be dismissed as an alien Eastern import.
I didn't say preexistence of the soul as an alien Eastern import. As a matter of fact, I said nothing about where it was imported from.

I think it likely that it was imported from the Platonic tradition. Plato taught the pre-existence of souls, based on the idea that the physical, material world was evil.

Further, it has to be presupposed to make sense of the Old Testament, and pre-existence has to be accepted to make the theology of Paul not monstrous.
Adam
The Orthodox understanding of St Paul is not monstrous, and they don't assume the preexistence of the soul. I must therefore diagree with your last statement. Neither do I agree with the first.

[Adam]

To do a link, just put [ url=<URL here> ]text [ /url ]. Except take out the spaces inside the square brackets.
I've used the Catholic Encyclopedia a lot, and it is generally a very good reference, but it is also an apologetic work for the papacy.
This source assumes a Roman Catholic approach towards ecclesiology and Ecumenical Councils - ie, that unless the pope officially acknowledges the canons of a council, they are not ecumenical. This is of course unsurprising as it is a Roman Catholic encyclopedia. But in Orthodox reckoning, the decisions of a council are considered ecumenical by virtue of the fact that they were made at an Ecumenical Council. The last quote that you gave even admits that the bishops at the council subscribed to the fifteen anathemas, which by Orthodox reckoning means that they were Ecumenical decisions.
When God breathed life into Adam, it said he became a living soul. It indicates that Adam's soul was created when Adam's life was created. Because this happened after the creation of the world, Eph 1:4-5 cannot be referring to the time when the souls were created.
I didn't say preexistence of the soul is an alien Eastern import. As a matter of fact, I said nothing about where it was imported from.
I think it likely that it was imported from the Platonic tradition. Plato taught the pre-existence of souls, based on the idea that the physical, material world was evil.
The Orthodox understanding of St Paul is not monstrous, and they don't assume the preexistence of the soul. I must therefore diagree with your last statement. Neither do I agree with the first.
By coincidence, Jezz, I was just reading your reply to George Murphy in the Not Just Anglicans and Methodists Any More thread. The "Mr. Spock" avatar truly fits you, but not so much for his universalist rationality, but for his stiffness. Your orthodoxy is quite brittle.
I do not accept *any* church councils. I believe that John 16:13 means that the Holy Spirit will guide the *worship* of the believers to be in the main (whatever is taught everywhere and always) infallible. As the Nicene Creed (or in its absence, the Apostles Creed) is recited at every mass, we do have a solid foundation for belief, but the councils started going sectarian with the Third condemning Monophysites (*mostly* with good reason) and the Fourth rejecting Nestorianism (mostly in error, as the best Roman Catholic theologians of the open-minded 1970's realized that the Chalcedonian Compromise was illogical and Nestorianism better stated the Nature and Person of God).
Yes, Adam was a special case, *he* (and Eve) was a new creation, but all the rest of us are recycled from prior worlds or states of being; unlike you, I accept the obvious meaning of Eph. 1:4,5. I am a full-blown Origenist.
The scholarly and self-proclaimed opinion that the Pharisees and current Hasidic Jews accept reincarnation is too well known for me to take my time to prove it to you. Also try reflecting on John 9:1-3.
Congratulations, Jezz, *you* did not disparage reincarnation as alien Eastern nonsense, but everybody else does. Apparently you are sophisticated enough to know about the Zoroastrian roots of the later parts of the OT, though you did not shoot yourself in the foot by mentioning it.
You might wonder what church I attend, as I am obviously not RC any more.
I was Episcopalian from 1992-2004, but am hoping to ride out this pansexuality crisis in the ELCA, unless it goes unbiblical, too.
Adam

[Adam]

I had written July 10:
"Yes, Adam was a special case, *he* (and Eve) was a new creation, but all the rest of us are recycled from prior worlds or states of being; unlike you, I accept the obvious meaning of Eph. 1:4,5. I am a full-blown Origenist."
And that was too facile. Up until 1992 when I left Romanism, I could be very precise about the nature of the soul, spirit, and life outside the body. I still believe about the same, but with no church councils or papal pronouncements to back me up.
Still, what I should have said is that I regard humans as trichotomous. The spirit of each person is immortal, and it can be condemned to Hell for its wrong-doing now or however many thousands or millions of years ago. The soul is mortal, and came into existence not sooner than the creation of Adam. Whereas the spirit surely reincarnates (Lk. 1:17), the soul may be specific to one lifetime. My original conversion to reincarnation belief in 1969 was that the spirit reincarnates, not the soul. I tend to believe now that both reincarnate, but the soul as a new creation of God cannot be destined for wrath. I am thus ultimately universalist (or the other possibility in annihilationist) about the soul, but the immortal spirit may continue forever to fight God. I don't know, frankly.
Adam

[betzerg]

By coincidence, Jezz, I was just reading your reply to George Murphy in the Not Just Anglicans and Methodists Any More thread. The "Mr. Spock" avatar truly fits you, but not so much for his universalist rationality, but for his stiffness. Your orthodoxy is quite brittle.
I do not accept *any* church councils. I believe that John 16:13 means that the Holy Spirit will guide the *worship* of the believers to be in the main (whatever is taught everywhere and always) infallible. As the Nicene Creed (or in its absence, the Apostles Creed) is recited at every mass, we do have a solid foundation for belief, but the councils started going sectarian with the Third condemning Monophysites (*mostly* with good reason) and the Fourth rejecting Nestorianism (mostly in error, as the best Roman Catholic theologians of the open-minded 1970's realized that the Chalcedonian Compromise was illogical and Nestorianism better stated the Nature and Person of God).
Yes, Adam was a special case, *he* (and Eve) was a new creation, but all the rest of us are recycled from prior worlds or states of being; unlike you, I accept the obvious meaning of Eph. 1:4,5. I am a full-blown Origenist.
The scholarly and self-proclaimed opinion that the Pharisees and current Hasidic Jews accept reincarnation is too well known for me to take my time to prove it to you. Also try reflecting on John 9:1-3.
Congratulations, Jezz, *you* did not disparage reincarnation as alien Eastern nonsense, but everybody else does. Apparently you are sophisticated enough to know about the Zoroastrian roots of the later parts of the OT, though you did not shoot yourself in the foot by mentioning it.
You might wonder what church I attend, as I am obviously not RC any more.
I was Episcopalian from 1992-2004, but am hoping to ride out this pansexuality crisis in the ELCA, unless it goes unbiblical, too.
Adam


the Chasidic belief is that there are SOME souls that are reincarnated for the purposes of haShem. So, Enoch, Elisha, Elijah, ...these prophetic figures may, in fact, return to earth to accomplish a purpose for G-d. Pilate was worried that John the Baptist may have been one of these special "souls"...remember. This differs from eastern religions in that reincarnation for the perfection of the man....while Jewish concepts believe that reinicarnation is for perfection of the earth.

just my 3 cents worth.

Shalom,

BETZER

[Adam]

the Chasidic belief is that there are SOME souls that are reincarnated for the purposes of haShem. So, Enoch, Elisha, Elijah, ...these prophetic figures may, in fact, return to earth to accomplish a purpose for G-d. Pilate was worried that John the Baptist may have been one of these special "souls"...remember. This differs from eastern religions in that reincarnation for the perfection of the man....while Jewish concepts believe that reinicarnation is for perfection of the earth.

just my 3 cents worth.

Shalom,

BETZER
Thank you, Betzer,
And your evidence that Chasidic belief in reincarnation is limited to a few mighty souls? I think you are referring instead to the Hasidic belief in the holy men of a higher status than rabbi known as the tzadikkim. These are the Elijah-like status founders and highest leader of the various Hasidic sects like the Lubavitcher and Satmar for example, like Baal Shem Tov. I have read Gershom Sholem, so I am a knowledgeable Gentile.
Two of my favorite authors are Chaim Potok and Sholem Asch (have you tried Salvation?
As I understand it, Hasidic Jews believe their souls continue to be reincarnated among their descendents until Messiah comes, when the union of body and soul will become permanent.
Adam
PS: I have also written on reincarnation in Ecclesiology 201, Man on a Solitary Island, and in Theology 201 (mostly as the pre-existence of the soul), Hyper-Calvinism.

[franktalk]

Adam,

With all of this reincarnation thread you seem to be twisting the Word to fit your purpose. There are many verses that clearly state that we have but one shot at salvation. Yes, God does choose some spirits to come back for more work but they all appear to have passed the test before the additional work.

Foreknowledge does not make preexistence. You have to get your head wrapped around God's ability to be outside of time. Then all of the verses make sense without adding things which clearly don't fit with other verses.

God means what He says and says what He means. It all fits together very well. Sometimes I get way off track and have to ground myself by looking at the plain text meaning of the words. They must fit into all other scripture without bending.

I will pull out the verses you referenced and try and show that they are much simpler than you make them out to be.

[Adam]

While I'm waiting for more franktalk, I'll take this opportunity to flesh out my position by copying in my own article that appeared in Vidya, the journal of the Triple Nine Society in #114, Nov.-Dec.1990:
Reincarnation Justified
The case for reincarnation includes the vastness and complexity of what we know. Socrates argued that we must be relearning what we already knew (Meno). How otherwise do we explain it than as God's intervention to keep making it possible? The atheist should be the person least opposed to reincarnation because of its helpfulness in explaining our present world without resorting to the supernatural. Yet, paradoxically, we often find the atheists and agnostics the leading scorners of reincarnation. This discredits them.
Can we as easily idsmiss as absurd their opposites, the fundamentalists? Yes. (1) the Bible as literally understood by them leads them to limit salvation to a tiny minority. If the remainder go to Hell instead of going through reincarnation, then the absurd result is that life produces more suffering than joy. (2) Christians assert that reincarnationiasts are all heathen, with no claimto Biblical justification. Yet the most sophisticated reincarnationists are Jewish Kabbalists and Moslem Sufi, both "People of the Book." Thi failure of Christian apologists to mention these groups discredits their case.
Can we similarly ridicule the reincarnationists themselves, yet rescue their insights? Yes. (1) Popular reincarnationists never mention Bible-based or Koran-based sects that believe in reincarnation, namely the Jewish Hasidics and the Moslem Sufi. It would bolster reincarnationist teachings if they could be tied in with presently existing, demographically significant groups of Western, relatively orthodox belief. (2) Reincarnationist writers try to establish that the Bible supports the doctrine. They rely on isolated texts which give the impression of mere proof-texting. They can be rebutted by Christians well enough. However, sophistication in Christian theology would reveal that the rebuttals fail. Reincarnationists lack this sophistication. They fail to point out that the rebuttals assume dichotomy of man as a given. Yet the Bible itself teaches a threefold (or even more manifold) nature of man. Reincarnationists are probably just negligent, but their failure to press the issue to completion may be because they are dichotomists themselves.
The foregoing sets out the basic argument that reincarnation must be true, even if no one has set it out right. More specific argument is necessary to give it some anchor, however.
Taking the Biblica case, for instance, how can we prove that the Bible does teach reincarnaiton? (1) The justic of God requires that reincarnation be presupposed as true of the whole Bible. Otherwise, God would have been wrong, in the Old Testament, to punish descendants of wrongdoers and in the New to fail to give a second chance to people who hadn't had an opportunity to become converted. (2) The Bible explicity says that reincarnation is true at Matthew 17:13 (Maork 9:13). Fundamentalists point out that Luke 1:17 states that Elijah will come back merely "in the spirit and power of Elijah"--that the real Elijah apparently won't come back. This assumes that this spirit is not integral to Elijah. Yet St. Paul states that man is body, soul, and spirit (* Thessalonians 3:23). With the trichotomy of man true, the fundamentalist objection fails.
How do we get around the objection that it's ridiculous to propose reincarnation as primary Christianity? No Christians have organized for it. The doctrine is not a needed or useful one to emphasize , because it removes motivation to try in this (each) life. Good pastoral theology focuses on Heaven and Hell as the result of our actions in this life. This works. In contrast, reincarnationist countries are notorious for their indifference to each lifetime. Their societies are a mess.
Western reincarnationism blends in traditional Heaven and Hell as the outcome after a number of lifetimes. At the "end of time' the two doctrines thus merge. At some point in time reincarnation becomes true only of the past. After this last life will come Heaven or Hell. All disputes between the views become academic. (This sets aside specualtions on an intervening Millennium and as to whether Heaven and Hell might turn out to be continuing existences in new worlds.)
30
[A marginal note--I was still Roman Catholic at that time and did not consider myself unorthodox.]

[abu njoroge]

I personally believe what Edgar Cayce believed,That is that we return here again until we spiritually evolve enough to go on to higher worlds or heavens. I also believe John the baptist was Elija. Edgar Cayce also believed Jesus was here four times in a physical body. I guess believing what I do would makes me a gnostic christian. Edgar Cayce was a man that read the bible once for every year that he lived.I believe Jesus was a wayshower,that is one who shows the way home. The controversy comes in the form of me not relying on any orthadox teaching. We all must choose our own path. Baraka Bashad Abu Njoroge

[Adam]

I personally believe what Edgar Cayce believed,That is that we return here again until we spiritually evolve enough to go on to higher worlds or heavens. I also believe John the baptist was Elija. Edgar Cayce also believed Jesus was here four times in a physical body. I guess believing what I do would makes me a gnostic christian. Edgar Cayce was a man that read the bible once for every year that he lived.I believe Jesus was a wayshower,that is one who shows the way home. The controversy comes in the form of me not relying on any orthadox teaching. We all must choose our own path. Baraka Bashad Abu Njoroge
I studied Edgar Cayce 40 years ago. I found all sorts of conflicts with the gospels and with geological history subsequent to his day. No, the extreme reincarnationists, those who accept Eastern doctrines, are wrong. They can't be reconciled with the Bible.
As for Western reincarnationism, however, I read all the anti-reincarnation books by the Evangelicals Albrecht, Norman Geisler, and F. Lagard Smith (Out on a Broken Limb), and none of them dealt with Western reincarnationism, neither Jewish Hasidism, Moslem Sufi, nor the various Christian versions. Has any more recent writer tackled this subject? These earlier writers sufficiently refuted Shirley MacLaine, but has anyone come forward with a serious study and critique of Western reincarnationism? I would be happy to buy it and study it. Meanwhile, I consider myself unrefuted in this thread, and nothing came of franktalk's boastfulness.
Adam

[abu njoroge]

I studied Edgar Cayce 40 years ago. I found all sorts of conflicts with the gospels and with geological history subsequent to his day. No, the extreme reincarnationists, those who accept Eastern doctrines, are wrong. They can't be reconciled with the Bible.
As for Western reincarnationism, however, I read all the anti-reincarnation books by the Evangelicals Albrecht, Norman Geisler, and F. Lagard Smith (Out on a Broken Limb), and none of them dealt with Western reincarnationism, neither Jewish Hasidism, Moslem Sufi, nor the various Christian versions. Has any more recent writer tackled this subject? These earlier writers sufficiently refuted Shirley MacLaine, but has anyone come forward with a serious study and critique of Western reincarnationism? I would be happy to buy it and study it. Meanwhile, I consider myself unrefuted in this thread, and nothing came of franktalk's boastfulness.
Adam
What happens when a western christian studies eastern tradition? With preconcieved beliefs much of the eastern belief rings untrue or even heretic. Yet some go to teach the gospel and instead become a student of a different view of the divine.This is what happened to Julian Johnson. For more info. on Dr. Johnson see The Path of The Masters by Julian Johnson. It is not for everyone. Johnsons beliefs are very similar to my own. Personally I am first an Eckist,second a Unitarian ,and third a Gnostic Christian. I believe in the oneness of God. In relation to Jesus my views are similar to Islam. To follow Jesus is to follow the Master of divine love. This is one reason his words are so powerful. I love Jesus ,I try to practice his teachings. I no longer worship him. Yet these are only words for I worship God. To worship the Master of love is to worship God. This is a divine dichotomy, that is two seamingly conflicting ideas,yet both being true. One is Jesus is not God. The second , the spirit of Jesus(Christ) is God. The way that I am more like a muslim is I only worship the Father. To me the Father, Yahway, Allah are all the same. When a christian worships Jesus their intent is to worship God,thus I believe God sees it as so. Its a play on words. one side says you must call on Christ. The other says no you must call on God for God is one. We must choose our own path. God knows the nature of ones heart. As for reincarnation, I believe what Islam calls Iman Mahdi is the reincarnated spirit of Christ. Baraka Bashad Abu Njoroge

[praxeus]

Hi Folks,

Diana, good question, especially since there is a lot problematic about Origen's doctrines. Such as the preexistence of the soul stuff. Some feel he was influenced by Egyptian (Alexandrian) gnosticism.

However the reincarnation accusation looks overdone. Andrew Criddle even pointed out (in another context, Marcion knowledge of Paul) that Origen wrote specifically against another's reincarnation view in his Commentary on Romans.

Origen Commentary on Romans

But Basilides, missing the fact that this passage must be understood to refer to natural law has related the Apostle's statement to irrelevant blasphemous tales; on the basis of this saying of the Apostle's he tries to defend the doctrine of reincarnation, namely the idea that souls get transferred from one body to another. He says "Indeed the Apostle has said [Romans 7:9] 'I was once alive apart from the law' at some time or other. That is before I came into this body I lived in the kind of body that is not subject to the law; the body of a domestic animal or a bird.

This was on IIDB and Andrew is involved in a couple of blogs and email forums. He is very reliable in scholarly matters, you could find out whether the extant text is in Greek or Latin, and whether it was early Origen or later through Rufinus or others, and the exact text, and what is the word translated as 'reincarnation'.

However it looks like this can help put to rest the accusation that Origen actually believed in 'reincarnation', an accusation which is popular in new age circles.

You can find other similar quotes, where Origen speaks against transmigration of the soul (essentially reincarnation) on the web, in Origen's Commentaries on Matthew and John, such as referring to Herod possibly having such a false belief.

Shalom,
Steven Avery