Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "Grail Message" (was Re: Creation) Message-ID: Date: 26 Nov 90 01:18:37 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 95 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: > Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. ... > Because the fact is that reincarnation was a > part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. One "proof text" which has sometimes been advanced in favour of reincarnation is that the disciples said that people were saying that Jesus was one of the prophets, maybe Elijah. Mark Sandrock hasn't said this, but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone was wondering. The passage is Matthew 16:13--20, I'll just quote 13--14 from the NIV. Mt 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 16:14 They replied, "Some say JOHN THE BAPTIST, others say Elijah, and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets". Now this does not affirm reincarnation. The point of the passage is that he _isn't_ any of these people, but as Peter says in v16, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". What's more, it provides no evidence that the disciples believed in reincarnation. Does it prove that "the people" believed in reincarnation? Bear in mind that John the Baptist was about a year older than Jesus. Both men would have been in their 30s at the time of John's execution. This is a very strange form of "reincarnation". Whatever the people who thought that Jesus "was" John the Baptist meant, they didn't mean that John had died and then been reborn as Jesus. Bear in mind also that Elijah is not recorded as having died. You can be as liberal as you please and still accept the relevant point: the popular belief was that Elijah had been taken up living into heaven. So "people" who thought that Jesus "was" Elijah didn't think that Elijah had died and been reborn as Jesus either, because they didn't think that he had died, not in the usual sense anyway. Is there something significant about Elijah here? Remember that Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah's spirit (2Kings 2:9). When it was said in 2Kings 2:15 "The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha", does that refer to reincarnation? It appears to mean that the spirit which had inspired Elija now inspired Elisha. We have here two men who had been alive at the same time, one of whom carried on the other's mission. The least strained interpretation of the verses in Matthew, then, seems to be that the people believed that the spirit of or from G-d that had inspired Elijah was now with Jesus, or that He was carrying on John's mission with the same spirit of or from G-d, _not_ that the "soul" or personality of John or Elijah now inhabited Jesus' body. So, whatever the popular belief was, -- it can't have been reincarnation in the usual sense -- we don't have any evidence that the disciples shared it -- Matthew doesn't teach that it was true. > The > fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of reincarnation, > which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny it when the Disciples > indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, this man or his parents, > that he was born blind?") That comes from John 9. The disciples' belief WASN'T reincarnation, and Jesus *did* deny that the belief they had was true in this case. The relevant passage is Exodus 20:5 (there are others): Ex 20:5 You shall not bow down to [idols] of worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, PUNISHING THE CHILDREN FOR THE SINS OF THE FATHERS TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION OF THOSE WHO HATE ME, Ex 20:6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Surely the reference to the man's parents (still alive!) gave the game away: the disciples were not asking whether the man had been born blind because of sins *HE* had committed in a previous earthly life, but whether he had been punished for sins he had committed (in a pre-mortal existence maybe? in the womb maybe? or predictably in G-d's perfect foreknowledge?) or whether he had been punished for the sins HIS PARENTS had committed. That is not karma! It is the very opposite of karma! If the man's grandparents or greatgrandparents had been idolaters, the disciples might have expected him to suffer in consequence of their sins too. But Jesus' reply was "NEITHER". The man wasn't being punished for ANYONE's sins. I haven't the Greek here today, but the NIV has it that "Neither this man nor his parents sinned", and however literally we are to understand that, it stands out very clearly as a claim that some suffering does NOT result from the operation of karma. To summarize: -- the disciples did not express a belief in reincarnation, but in punishment for the sins of ones ancestors -- Jesus denied that all suffering resulted from sin -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne.