This post was previously sent in Spanish, but no answers were recieved. The quote given by my friend was taken from the book: MORE PLATO AND LESS PROZAC. I made a translation of the same into English, hoping that I get some answers:

“But what it interests me particularly is not the above. I used it rather to give an introduction to the text, but what interests me more is a questionable affirmation and doubtful historical reality A part of the book speaks about the reencarnation and it says: Plato, Pitágoras, Empedocles and other old Greeks believed in the transmigratión of the souls (p. ej., reencarnación), an idea that possibly had taken lent of East

and it adds:

The majority of the western thought on death passed later to Christanity (even then, it can be said that the primitive Church maintained a doctrine of reencarnación to well advanced the VI century)”.

My questions:

- How much of this is true? - Are there really texts from the Church Fathers accepting REENCARNATION ?

If not where did the author get so strange an idea?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), December 07, 2003

Answers

Response to REENCARNATION IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

Here I go again.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), December 07, 2003.

Response to REENCARNATION IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

As a general rule when someone makes a claim like this the burdon of proof is on them to prove it, not us to disprove it. Let's see the evidence.

To the best of my knowledge, only Origen among the Church Fathers believed in reincarnation, which the Church has always regarded as a heresy. This is one of the reasons Origen was never canonized. I know of no teaching by any pope that embraced the theories of reincarnation.

The doctrine of reincarnation conflicts with the teachings of the Church on Heaven and Hell. For scripture quotations see the Gospel of St. Mathew, Chapter 25, verses 31-46; Chapter Five, verses 22 and 29; Chapter 13, verses 42-50.

There's an explicit statement that men die only once, in Hebrews 9:27

I hope this helps... again show what evidence do they have and we can discuss it.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

Response to REENCARNATION IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

Jmj

Hello, Enrique and Bill.
There is no justification at all for the author of that book (Lou Marinoff) to make such a claim ("... la Iglesia primitiva mantuvo una doctrina de reencarnación hasta bien avanzado el siglo vi" -- "... the primitive Church maintained a doctrine of reincarnation until well into the 6th Century"). The only thing I can guess is that this author is a non-Christian (Jewish?) and does not really understand what comprised the "primitive Church." Perhaps he was including various heretical sects (Gnostics, Manicheans, etc.).

Bill, you are right to mention Origen as being in error on this. He is even better known for (allegedly) holding beliefs in other ideas that the Church has rejected -- such as the pre-existence of souls [prior to bodily conception] and the possible eventual salvation of satan and the damned. Errors attributed to him are lumped together as Origenism.

If anyone sought information about "reincarnation" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, but came up empty, that's because it is present under an older name for the error: "metempsychosis," Greek for "transmigration of souls." Here is the section of the article that pertains to Christianity:

"St. Jerome tells us that metempsychosis was a secret doctrine of certain sectaries in his day, but it was too evidently opposed to the Catholic doctrine of Redemption ever to obtain a settled footing. It was held, however, in a Platonic form by the [heretical] Gnostics, and was so taught by Origen in his great work, 'Peri archon.' Bodily existence, according to Origen, is a penal and unnatural condition, a punishment for sin committed in a previous state of bliss, the grossness of the sin being the measure of the fall. Another effect of that sin is inequality; all were created equal. He speaks only of rational creatures -- namely, men and demons, the two classes of the fallen. He does not seem to have considered it necessary to extend his theory to include lower forms of life. Punishment for sin done in the body is not vindictive or eternal, but temporal and remedial. Indeed, Origen's theory excludes both eternal punishment and eternal bliss; for the soul which has been restored at last to union with God will again infallibly decline from its high state through satiety of the good, and be again relegated to material existence; and so on through endless cycles of apostasy, banishment, and return.

"The [heretical] Manichaeans combined metempsychosis with belief in eternal punishment. After death, the sinner is thrust into the place of punishment till partially cleansed. He is then reclaimed to the light and given another trial in this world. If after ten such experiments he is still unfit for bliss he is condemned forever. The Manichaean system of metempsychosis was extremely consistent and thorough-going. St. Augustine in his 'De Moribus Manichaeorum' ridicules the absurd observances to which it gave rise. For traces of the doctrine in the Middle Ages, see articles on the Albigensians and the Cathari. These [heretical] sects inherited many of the cardinal doctrines of Manichaeanism, and may be considered, in fact, as Neo-Manichaeans."

The full article, which tells about beliefs in non-Christian religions is here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

Response to REENCARNATION IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

I forgot to mention one other thing.

At this forum, a belief in reincarnation was put forward twice by a certain "cafeteria Catholic" who must have read some kind of New Age rubbish that presented a misinterpretation of this passage from Matthew 17 (describing what happens immediately after the Transfiguration):
"And the disciples asked him, 'Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?' He replied, 'Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.' Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist."

But St. John the Baptist was not Elijah reincarnated. The proper way to understand Jesus's words was revealed by an angel to the Baptist's father, Zachary/Zechariah, as recorded in Luke 1:
"... And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

Response to REENCARNATION IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

"At this forum, a belief in reincarnation was put forward twice by a certain "cafeteria Catholic" who must have read some kind of New Age rubbish that presented a misinterpretation of this passage from Matthew 17 (describing what happens immediately after the Transfiguration)..."

Who did this?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 07, 2003.

I'm curious re: the reference to "men only die once". We probably all agree that all men will die. Yes? Now, does a man = his soul? It seems to me that even though they are connected, that they are not equivalents. If they were, then when a man dies, so too would his soul, yes? Therefore, don't we all accept that the soul goes on even after the man has died? The proponents of reincarnation would probably agree that all men die once. What is at issue is what happens after death, and after judgement, which (to me) doesn't appear to be altogether addressed by Heb. 9:27. Do you understand otherwise? Just curious.

-- Nick (spamfree@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.

No, it is not true that a man = his soul, for the soul is only one of the essential components that make up a man. The body is as much a part of a man as the soul is. The two come into existence simultaneously, and are integrally united as one being during earthly life. What we call "death" is the separation of the two. However, as you rightly pointed out, it is only the body that dies, not the soul.

Hebrews 9:27 clearly states that judgement immediately follows death, and other scriptures, as well as the constant teaching of the Church of God, reveal that judgement is the final event in a person's life, after which the soul is eternally consigned either to heaven or to hell. That would exclude any possibility of "returning" to earth. Besides, my soul is uniquely mine, as are my body and mind. No, not uniquely "mine", but uniquely ME. The idea that either one could be recycled as part of another person is absurd, as is the idea that "I" could return as someone - or worse, something - else. That is a contradiction in terms. It isn't just theologically unsound, it is logically bizarre.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2003.

"The two come into existence simultaneously" Is there a biblical reference for this?

"...judgement is the final event in a person's life, after which the soul is eternally consigned either to heaven or to hell." Based on Heb. 9:27 wouldn't judgement be the first event of the afterlife? Also, the definition of eternal based on most dictionaries is that which has no beginning and no end. Therefore, eternal life could not begin following death otherwise it would not be eternal. Is there a mistranslation of eternal within the New Testament?

"my soul is uniquely mine, as are my body and mind. No, not uniquely "mine", but uniquely ME." How do you interpret Paul's numerous references to many parts, but one body? It seems to me that both Jesus and Paul are continually speaking of a unity that connects everyone. A logic defying unity.

"it is logically bizarre." - Isn't much of spirituality "logically bizarre"? The Holy Trinity is logically bizarre and yet it Is. I try not to let logically bizarre define my beliefs.

This is a very fascinating discussion. I have had some of these questions for some time. Thanks for your insight. :-)

-- Nick (spamfree@nospam.com), December 08, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Nick.
I'll take a crack at some of your questions ...

1. "'The two come into existence simultaneously.' Is there a biblical reference for this?"

I don't believe that there is a direct reference. The people of biblical times (and even for many centuries thereafter) had only a primitive idea of how conception took place and were not sure when "ensoulment" took place. But in our era, advanced knowledge of biology has made it clear that the life of a new human being begins at conception (at the end of the process of sperm uniting with ovum). Since that which is considered the spiritual "life force" of a human being is the soul, it follows logically that God creates the soul at the moment of conception. The Church has not formally declared this as a dogma, but many doctrinal statements over the past several decades seem to be reiterating this teaching.

2. "Based on Heb. 9:27 wouldn't judgement be the first event of the afterlife?"

My answer is "yes." Perhaps Paul M would argue differently. (I reacted to his words just as you did.)

3. "... the definition of eternal based on most dictionaries is that which has no beginning and no end. Therefore, eternal life could not begin following death otherwise it would not be eternal. Is there a mistranslation of eternal within the New Testament?"

No. You are paying attention to only one definition of "eternal" -- the one that fits God alone ("no beginning, no end"). A second definition of "eternal" is "perpetual, having no end." Under this definition, human life after death is "eternal."

4. "How do you interpret [St.] Paul's numerous references to many parts, but one body? It seems to me that both Jesus and [St.] Paul are continually speaking of a unity that connects everyone. A logic defying unity."

Yes, we are "connected" -- united in faith and practice, so united that we form the Mystical Body of Christ (he the head, we the "members"). But St. Paul has no intent to overextend this sacred metaphor so far as to imply that each person is not a separate individual in need of salvation. Be careful not to fall for a New Age (or East Asian religious) concept in this area.

5. "Isn't much of spirituality 'logically bizarre?' The Holy Trinity is logically bizarre and yet it is. I try not to let logically bizarre define my beliefs."

I don't think that the Church refers to "mysteries" as things that are "logically bizarre." A mystery is a spiritual truth that is not illogical, but instead is beyond our limited human understanding -- so we accept it based on our faith in the Person revealing it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.

Hi John, Thanks for the reply. If you can bear with me, I've got a few more questions.

1. Ensoulment? Interesting description. So if I understand, you are saying that life begins at conception and that is also the point of ensoulment, or the point at which God creates the soul. But there isn't any specific Biblical evidence for this. Is that correct? Then isn't it possible that maybe God made the soul prior to conception and it is at conception that the pre-existing soul is united with the specific life-form? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a better understanding of why we believe as we do (and not just because the Church says so - not that that isn't enough, but because if I believed everything people told me I'd probably find myself drinking poisoned kool-aid ;-). 2. re: logically bizarre. I don't mean to offend by using this phrase to describe certain mysteries. I guess I understood the term logically bizarre to mean logically 'foreign' or different, not necessarily illogical. In fact, I would say the truth of the trinity is not illogical, but in logic terms it is a paradox, a truth that appears contradictory but is in fact true. 3. Paul M. stated "the soul is eternally consigned either to heaven or to hell. That would exclude any possibility of "returning" to earth." Is heaven (or hell for that matter) the polar opposite of earth? Does the Bible explicitly say that heaven and earth are exclusively separate? Again, I'm just curious, full of lots of questions and just trying to make sense of it all. Thanks so much for your feedback.

-- Nick (spamfree@nospam.com), December 08, 2003.

"The two come into existence simultaneously" Is there a biblical reference for this?"

A: Yes. The biblical description of the creation of man reads: "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being". (Genesis 2:7) The "life" described here is not mere biological life, which was also received by every form of animal. It is something distinctly human. The nature of this life is symbolzed by the image of breathing into the man. "Breath" and "spirit" were seen as synonymous, based largely on the observation that at death the spirit/breath departs from the body. Therefore, Jesus breathing into the man indicates Jesus imparting His own spirit, his own nature, and in so doing, creating a man from the spiritually lifeless body He had already created. Before God did this, what He had formed from the dust of the ground was not yet a man. It became a man when the immortal soul was infused.

Paul later refers to the same scripture: "So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Such passages may give us insights into spiritual realities, but of course for Catholics the passage which supplies all the needed reference for every doctrine of the Church is Matthew 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." That says it pretty clearly. The fact that union of body and soul forms a human being is bound in heaven, for it is binding teaching of the Church on earth.

"...judgement is the final event in a person's life, after which the soul is eternally consigned either to heaven or to hell." Based on Heb. 9:27 wouldn't judgement be the first event of the afterlife?"

A: You are absolutely right. I was typing faster than I was thinking on that point. Death is actually the final event in a person's earthly life. Judgment takes place outside of time and space, in eternity.

"Also, the definition of eternal based on most dictionaries is that which has no beginning and no end. Therefore, eternal life could not begin following death otherwise it would not be eternal. Is there a mistranslation of eternal within the New Testament?"

A: No. "Eternal" can mean "having no beginning and no end", but it can also mean "existing outside of time and space", that is, "in eternity". The scriptures use the word both ways, more frequently the latter way. When we read: "The eternal god is a dwelling place" (Deuteronomy 33:27); or "His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen" (Romans 1:20), that is the first meaning. When we read "For man goes to his eternal home while mourners go about in the street." (Ecclesiastes 12:5); or "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" (Matthew 19:16); or "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:46), that is the second meaning.

"my soul is uniquely mine, as are my body and mind. No, not uniquely "mine", but uniquely ME." How do you interpret Paul's numerous references to many parts, but one body? It seems to me that both Jesus and Paul are continually speaking of a unity that connects everyone."

A: Yes, of course. How does this relate to the statement of mine which you quoted? The fact that unique individuals can be bound together in unity doesn't conflict with my statement. In fact, the analogy of the physical body emphasizes both the uniqueness of the individual parts AND the potential for those diverse parts, without losing their individual identity, to work in harmony to create a living body which is more than the sum of the parts.

"it is logically bizarre." - Isn't much of spirituality "logically bizarre"? The Holy Trinity is logically bizarre and yet it Is. I try not to let logically bizarre define my beliefs. "

A: By saying that the idea of reincarnation is "logically bizarre", I was not overlooking the fact that many spiritual realities are beyond human comprehension or human logic. What I meant was that the idea was logically bizarre in light of what God has revealed about human nature, earthly life, judgment and eternity. It is not logically bizarre simply because it is beyond our limited scope, but because it defys everything else God has revealed on the subject.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2003.

Hi Paul, Thanks for the reply.

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being". I like this answer. So I am to understand that in fact the "immortal soul" did in fact exist prior to union with the body - it existed in God and was imparted by the "breath of life"?

Thanks for the clarification on eternal ... perhaps everlasting might have been a better translation.

Lots to contemplate. Thanks for the input.

-- Nick (spamfree@nospam.com), December 08, 2003.

"So I am to understand that in fact the "immortal soul" did in fact exist prior to union with the body - it existed in God and was imparted by the "breath of life"?

A: No. Not as a discrete entity. An immortal soul is an integral part of a human being, just as a body is. God doesn't maintain a stock of "parts". The idea that God has a supply of human souls awaiting the creation of human bodies is no more tenable than the notion that He has a stock of human bodies awaiting the creation of souls. When He creates a human being, He creates a human being - ALL of the essential components. By "imparted" we mean that something was "granted" by God, a sharing in the life of God Himself. However, that "sharing" in the nature of God is not something God "had", in the sense that it was something separate from Himself. God simply has his nature. He simply IS. When He creates a human being, one of the components of that newly created being is a sharing in the life of God. Once God imparts that spiritual gift in the formation of a human being, it becomes something distinct from Himself, a part of His creation; but before that it was not a distinct entity. It was not a human soul. It was just the nature of God. That's why the scriptures tell us we are created "In His image and likeness" - because He breathes into each of us a bit of Himself at the moment of our personal creation, allowing what was Himself to become an integral part of us. Sounds a lot like the Eucharist, doesn't it?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2003.

"Once God imparts that spiritual gift in the formation of a human being, it becomes something distinct from Himself"

Why would that make it distinct aka separate from Himself? Wouldn't it still be part of Himself?

You seem to be arguing both dualism "distinct from Himself" and non- dualism "a sharing in the life of God Himself". To me it seems that the objection of reincarnation is somehow linked to this dualism - this supposed black and white distinction between one and another. And yet both Jesus and St. Paul often talk of oneness - of a non- dualism, the wholeness of God.

I am not suggesting that God has some assembly line with stocks of souls and bodies, but that all souls arise out of God's wholeness and in that regard, the soul would preexist the body. Wouldn't it? Although I suppose you could say that the body also arises out of God's wholeness and so they could have been created simultaneously. Oddly, Genesis seems to suggest that the body is created and the soul is added to the body post bodily creation. Still in the image of genesis, the soul originates from the consciousness of God, which is timeless.

Can you tell I'm still working all this through? Thanks for lending a hand. :-)

-- Nick (spamfree@nospam.com), December 09, 2003.

WOW!!!!Thanks everybody for your answers. When I sent this post I never imagined that the thread would become so interesting. It is my opinion that's the way to go about debating on this forum, that is, not through attacks, insults or condemnations, but with honest, sincere posts that really clarify the issue at hand.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Nick. You wrote:
"I am not suggesting that God has some assembly line with stocks of souls and bodies, but that all souls arise out of God's wholeness and in that regard, the soul would preexist the body. Wouldn't it?"

No. One thing that I think no one has come right out and said is this:
Just as God created everything from nothing, so God creates a human soul from nothing, uniting it to a body at conception.
Therefore, a soul does not pre-exist the body (an idea that was part of the Origenist heresy, rejected by the Church).
Nor is the human soul something divine -- not a "chip off God" inserted into that which is human (the body).

Nick, you wrote: "Oddly, Genesis seems to suggest that the body is created and the soul is added to the body post bodily creation."

Don't let this deceive you. Adam and Eve were unique, their bodies not having resulted from sexual reproduction. Exactly how God created our first parents -- and whether or not there really was a "delay" in the infusion of their souls into bodies -- is unclear. But since their creation was different from that of all of us, their descendants, and since Genesis is not describing things from a scientist's point-of-view, we can only conclude so much from it.

Earlier, you wrote: "[Paul M said:] 'The two [body and soul] come into existence simultaneously.' Is there a biblical reference for this?"
To this, I answered, "I don't believe that there is a direct reference. The people of biblical times (and even for many centuries thereafter) had only a primitive idea of how conception took place and were not sure when 'ensoulment' took place."
I was surprised when Paul M gave a different answer -- one with which I disagree: "Yes. The biblical description of the creation of man reads: 'Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being' (Genesis 2:7)."

The reason I disagree with Paul is that this "biblical reference" does not prove that "body and soul come into existence simultaneously." If it did prove that, then all Jew and Christians -- at least from the time of Moses, to whom the writing of Genesis is attributed -- would have known this, instead of having debates for centuries (even involving great saint-philosophers) about whether or not the human body exists for some days or weeks before God creates a soul for it. I believe that, within the Church, a certainty that body and soul "come into existence simultaneously" -- at conception (completion of fertilization) -- is a fairly recent thing. I'm sure that it has been suspected/theorized by some within the Church for a very long time, but now at last there seems to be certainty, thanks especially to the ability to observe events on a microscopic scale.

Nick, a suggestion ...
After you quote something that we have written, cause a blank line to appear -- by hitting your "enter" key twice -- before making your comment. Just hittint "enter" once will not start a new paragraph. So far, some of your comments have been right up against quotation, and this can get confusing for me as a reader.

God bless you.
John PS: Hi, Enrique. Glad you're enjoying the discussion!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

Hi John,

"God creates a human soul from nothing."

Not to say that this isn't true, but how do we know this? I agree that we can say all of creation was created out of nothing, but how do we know that the soul is the same as a "created" thing?

It seems to me that if we claim God and a soul are entirely separate (e.g. God is transcendent, entirely other) then we have difficulty explaining that God is immanent (ever-present, within, the True center of our being). Again this seems to come back to a paradox, a seeming contradiction that is in fact truth.

Do you happen to know why Origen's ideas about the pre-existence of the soul were dismissed as heresy?

I do agree that the Bible is not explicit in stating that the soul and the body come into existence simultaneously. And, even though through microscopic biology we know when life begins, there is no microscope that can see the soul. Therefore, just because we can say life begins at conception does not necessarily mean that we can say the soul begins at conception. I would say that it seems impossible to have a body without a soul, but it seems entirely plausible to have a soul without a body. In essence that is what occurs in the afterlife, yes? So how can we be so sure there isn't a before-life for the soul?

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

-- Nick (spamfree@nospam.com), December 09, 2003.

Nick, before I answer you, may I ask two questions? Bypass either or both, if you wish:
1. Are you a practicing Catholic?
2. What is your age?
I think that it would help some of us to know whether or not you are extremely familiar with Catholic beliefs and practices. Knowing whether or not you are Catholic -- and (if you are one) whether you have been through catechesis recently or long ago -- would help me (and may help others) to decide how to formulate answers to you.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

Hi John,

I was raised in the Catholic Church and was a practicing Catholic until I married a Lutheran. Oddly, we found a home in the Presbyterian Church - not so much for doctrinal reasons but more as a middle ground - a place to continue to practice our faith whilst examining the similarites and differences in greater detail. To date we haven't left. Although I do miss many things about the Catholic Church. I attended Catechism a long long time ago.

Not sure what my age has to do anything. Mainly because age and understanding are not necessarily equivalent. I've known folks long in years but short in understanding and folks short in years but long in understanding. If you think it helps, just consider me in mid-life.

-- Nick (spamfree@nospam.com), December 09, 2003.

Furthermore, I don't consider myself a "Protestant". The more I examine this in detail, it is just a label. And I do not think a soul is defined by a label. Also, the term protestant sets up the image of a battle or a fight and creates all sorts of defensive postures designed to "win" the battle and "defeat" the opponent. I am not interested in fights or battles, only understanding. Truth IS. It needs no qualifier.

-- Nick (spamfree@nospam.com), December 09, 2003.