Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: grail message question Message-ID: Date: 29 Nov 90 06:02:54 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 189 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu joseph@cs.albany.edu (Jody Richardson) writes: >Sandrock writes: >>Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. >>Why not try to think about it and evaluate the concept on its own merits, >>instead of simply rejecting it as "unchristian" because it was not recorded >>that Jesus ever spoke of it? Because the fact is that reincarnation was a >>part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. 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?") >Mark, >I'm not convinced that this paragraph makes any sense. >1) If what you say is true (that Jesus and the Disciples >acknowledged reincarnation), then it would seem to follow that >anyone of that day who was interested in the disposition of >their soul would acknowledge reincarnation, including Nicodemus >since he was a Pharisee and taught people like the Disciples. >In that case, why would he be so surprised when Jesus told him he >must be born again? It seems unlikely that it's a translation >problem. It is clear he knew Jesus was talking about >rebirth by his response citing physical birth. Jody, I hadn't considered this particular point hitherto, but then the truth of reincarnation is so clear to me that I no longer feel the need to try to prove/disprove its correctness to myself! In thinking about the question you raise, however, it seems to me that there is no inconsistency here. One could just as easily take the view that since the idea of reincarnation was indeed so widely known at that time, that it was therefore obvious to Nicodemus that Jesus must have had something other than reincarnation in mind. Indeed, it is not surprising that such a profound *spiritual* concept as that of as being "born again" would be difficult for the immature human spirit to grasp at first hearing! I don't know, but I would also suppose that the particular wording used by Jesus, as well as from the actual context in which the words were given, might have made it clear to Nicodemus that Jesus was not referring to rein- carnation in this instance. In the case of "who had sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind", the fact is that there were *three* possibilities for this part- icular happening, rather than the usual *two* possibilies. The reason that there was additional possibility--one which had not been considered by the disciples--was the fact that this *particular* event concerned the Mission of Jesus, and thus did Jesus so explain when questioned by the disciples. It should be noted, however, that Jesus DID NOT therewith deny nor reject *either* of the other two possibilities raised by the disciples. The first of which concerned the sins of parents, and the second of which concerned the possibility of the man's own sin. In the second case, the only way one can explain how someone could sin before having been born would be to use the idea of the pre-existence of the soul. But more specifically, the idea of reincarnation, which naturally requires the pre-existence of the soul. Although the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) did approve the condemnation of the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul (and there- with by implication the idea of reincarnation), there is some question as to the validity of these actions as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned. For instance, the Roman Catholic Archbishop Passavalli (1820-1897) was reported to have accepted the truth of reincarnation at the age of 64. He argued that reincarnation was not condemned by the Church and that it was not at all in conflict with any Catholic dogma. The Belgian Cardinal and philosopher, Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926), is also reported to have acknowledged that belief in pre-existence and reincarnation had never been formally considered heretical by the Church. His views were contained in a letter to a Polish Catholic, Professor Wincenty Lutoslawski, who himself taught a form of reincarnation that he preferred to call palingenesis. Finally, Church historians point out that no papal encyclical against reincarnation has ever been issued--a point that should be of particular interest to Roman Catholics. Some references: "Reincarnation: an East-West anthology" compiled and edited by Joseph Head and S.L. Cranston. "The Case for Reincarnation" by Rev. (Dr.) Leslie D. Weatherhead. Since you are new to this discussion, however, I will point out again that in my opinion there are other instances in the NT where the idea of rein- carnation is implicit. A very important instance is the prophecy that "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:34-35, Mark 13:30-31) We now know that Jesus was not referring to the *physical* generation of that day, so therefore He could only have intended His words in the *spiritual* sense, as was so often the case when He spoke. And it is only in the knowledge of reincarnation that the full meaning of these crucial words of Jesus can be understood. The meaning is that all those who did not understand nor accept the Teaching of Jesus at that time, would be permitted to incarnate on earth again (at the time of the Last Judgement) so that they can make their *final* decision for or against the Message of God. >2) Doesn't the quote you cited ("Who had sinned,...") make much >more sense in the light of OT teachings regarding the sins of >people being visited on their children and their children's >children to the Nth generation, than in the darkness [sorry :-)] >of absent OT reincarnation references? As I pointed out previously, the sins of the parents was but one of the *three* possible explanations in that particular case. Pre-existence, or reincarnation, being another of the possible explanations suggested by the disciples. Neither of these possible explanations was contradicted when Jesus pointed out a third explanation, which happened to be the correct explanation in this particular case. There are other statements in the NT which suggest the fact of rein- carnation: "And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matt 11:14-15) Or when priests and Levites were sent from Jerusalem to ask John the Baptist who he was. He told them he was not the Christ. "And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? He said, I am not." (John 1:21) He also said he was not the prophet that God promised (in Deut 18:15). Or when the disciples asked Jesus concerning the teaching of the Scribes (presumbably based on the prophecy recorded in Malachi 4:5) that Elijah must come before the Messiah. In reply Jesus is reported to have said: "But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased." (Matt 17:12) Or finally, let's take a look at the Revelation: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out..." (Rev 3:12) A reasonable interpretation of this passage is in the sense of the cycle of reincarnations, which ends only with the complete maturity of the spirit. Once a spirit has attained to such maturity, he is alloted a place in paradise and remains there forever. His reincarnations on earth come to an end. He has become one of those who "have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev 7:14) >Finally, I would like to know the references citing reincarnation >as part of Church doctrine in the hundreds of years following the >life of Christ. >Joseph Richardson | "If you don't get a goodnight kiss, you >joseph@cs.albany.edu | get Kafka dreams." -- Hobbes I may not have stated this point correctly. I don't know the official Church doctrine was throughout its history. I was referring more to the teachings of Origen (who passed on in 254 A.D.), and the fact that in spite of the actions of the Second Council of Constantinople, that the idea of reincarnation has always had adherents among various Christian sects, at all times in the history of Christianity. These adherents have included Church officials and theologians. Some of whom I have named earlier in this article. Thus I wish to retract my statement about "Church doctrine" in that sense, but also point out again that in the view of some, official Church doctrine has never excluded reincarnation! Whether the teachings of Origen concerning the "pre-existence of the soul" were ever considered "official" Church doctrine I do not know, so I do apologize if I did overstate this point. I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 [There was a rabinnical tradition that people born with birth defects committed a sin while in the womb. This could be the possibility that was being referred to in the question addressed to Jesus. --clh]