Reincarnation Within Monotheism?
- Thread starter Amica
- Start date
Probably because mostly, that's what we do mean. But the question was posed of the Abrahamic Religions, and that includes Judaism and Islam.
Judaism does not teach reincarnation. Certainly, of the three Abrahamics, Judaism has precious little to say about the afterlife at all. A quick check suggests the idea was alien until about the 12th century AD, and then it appears in Kabbalistic writings.
Traditional and orthodox Christianity does not teach reincarnation. It's not there in RC, Orthodox or Protestant doctrines. Its appearance is a 20th century phenomena, and usually where someone is trying to conflate doctrines. Metempsychosis, as it was known in Greek philosophy (the transmigration of souls) was only mentioned when it was being refuted.
As for Islam, I'm pretty sure it's absent from that, too, although, as with anything, there are contemporary voices trying to make the point.
Oh dear, you seem to suppose the two are exclusive? If you'll excuse me, that's a rather flip and wildly inaccurate assumption! Anyone would think you're trying to show Christianity is a poor light!
In fact, if you think about it, both Buddhism and Hinduism, two of the primary sources of the teaching on reincarnation, also teach forgiveness of sin.
And Christianity most definitely tells us we will be held responsible for our actions!
And all three have, in their own way, a doctrine of 'grace'. Buddhism, one might think, would not, but the famous essay by the Tibetan Buddhist Marco Pallis, Is there room for Grace in Buddhism, has something to say on the matter!
And finally, of course, Christianity does have the Mystery of the Resurrection, which touches on the topic, but not as commonly thought or expressed.
Something to contemplate for Lent.
(Personally I can never see the attraction of a doctrine of reincarnation as we go on about it in the West, the blind and endless repetition of lives, in which everything — hundreds of generations of existence — can be lost at the very last! Oh, how cruel and capricious a cosmos is that!
Snake and Ladders for the soul? I hope not!)
Read the text....nice Thomas...I read the text, I brought up the discussion...you've yet to provide a rebuttal that makes sense to me...hence my question.
Some reading on non existent Judaic beliefs in reincarnation and why the jews of Jesus day may have questioned 'who he was' ....
Ask the Rabbi - Reincarnation
Judaism and Reincarnation - First Steps
as to Attraction to belief? Is that what it is about? It is often...folks get old and suddenly get religious (note average age in most churches (not counting the age of youth that are 'required' to be there by their parents)...folks are 'attracted' to thinking there is something else as their bodies are withering away and death is closer....
Some reading on non existent Judaic beliefs in reincarnation and why the jews of Jesus day may have questioned 'who he was' ....
Ask the Rabbi - Reincarnation
Judaism and Reincarnation - First Steps
as to Attraction to belief? Is that what it is about? It is often...folks get old and suddenly get religious (note average age in most churches (not counting the age of youth that are 'required' to be there by their parents)...folks are 'attracted' to thinking there is something else as their bodies are withering away and death is closer....
OK. I assume you're talking about the man born blind in John 9?
"And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth: And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world" (v1-5).
This echoes Isaiah's prophecy of the servant: "And I have given thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles: That thou mightest open the eyes of the blind" (Isaiah 42:6-7). The particular miracle is further evidence of who Christ is: "I am the light of the world".
The disciples ask if the man was born blind as recompence for the sin of his parents, or his own sin. The answer is neither. If blindness presupposes sin, a moral disorder, then the blindness spoken of must be blindness of the will.
But Our Lord refuses to impute blindness — physical blindness — as a punishment for sin, even though that not an uncommon orthodox Jewish belief.
Thus the man was born blind, not for any reason of guilt (inherited or otherwise), but that the man signifies the blindess of the fallen human state. He is blind because he lives in a world without light, but Our Lord is the light come into the world. His ministry is to bring light.
The miracle that follows: "When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay on his eyes, And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing" (v6-7).
John offers the meaning of the name of the pool: Sent, because Our Lord was Himself sent into the world. The Son sent by the Father. John emphasises the symbolism of the event. (There is no implication that the event did not take place, in fact, far from it. John records the reaction of those who knew the blind man, of his family and of the Pharisees, after it.)
The entire miracle is seen as a symbol of baptism. Both Tertullian and Augustine speak of it so. There is a link to Mark, who also records Our Lord using spit to restore a lost sense, blindness (8:23) and deafness (7:33). In the latter, Our Lord offers a prayer: "And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened" (v34). The Aramaic word ephphatha has become part of the Baptismal Liturgy.
The whole thrust of the chapter is Christ leading man from darkness to the light. It's about the profession of faith: "And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind. And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard: and they said unto him: Are we also blind? Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth." (v39-41),
This last rebuke refers to the Scriptures themselves: If man were blind – did not have the Scriptures – then he could not be held culpable for his sin, but the Jews have the sacra doctrina, and so cannot claim they do not know. St Paul draws out this connectiuon between sin and the Law.
Reincarnation is no part of the text — it points not to the man born blind at all, but to the one who healed him.
But those the texts date from the 12th century! Not from Jesus' day at all... if you can show me reference to a commentary on reincarnation from Jesus' day, I'd be open to being persuaded, but you'll find none in early Christian writings, and none, I would think, in contemporary Jewish writings – the idea of life after death was only recently making an appearance!
Today, one can find an opinion to support any position one cares to take, all too easily resting on the assumption that because this speaks of reincarnation, and the idea appeals to me, that must do, too! (And, you cheeky so-and-so, you can't dismiss the Fathers on the one hand, then claim a 12th cen=tury source on the other!
)Is it? It's certainly sentimentally comforting to think so, it seems to me.
Although I do find the doctrine very pessimistic. The idea one can live a thousand lives of near perfection, then blow the whole lot at the very last ... that's too dire to contemplate for me! That's what snakes and ladders is all about.
I would have thought modern science, which shows more and more how the self is inescapably fused to the body, refutes reincarnation. Bodies are not disposable containers for this person or that, rather this person and that are as much the product of their bodies as anything else (and some would say that's all they are).
So what reincarnates? I think reincarnation can only mean 'life goes on', not that this particular soul flits to that particular body, decided by someone who's keeping a tally of points scored in the last round.
Blessings,
To me reincarnation is the only logical answer to an otherwise unjust world. I know the classical response is that only GOD knows – who are we to question? No thanks to that. If we accept that GOD is a loving GOD, then that excuse just does not cut it. Either GOD is a vindictive child with a magnifying glass, or GOD is Love. I believe the latter. So then, that leaves only one answer: we create our own heaven and hell. If heaven is at hand – so is hell.
The fact that reincarnation was accepted by some early Jewish sects and the fact that many of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and so forth made a point of addressing the issue does gives some credence to the belief that at least some Christians believed in it. We could say that they carried it over from their old beliefs – but then again – we could say that about many Christian beliefs that are accepted as dogma today.
One scriptural quote often overlooked is Matthew 19:16-22. In it, a rich man asks Jesus what he can do to have eternal life and Jesus tells him to follow the Commandments. The rich man had followed the Commandments since youth. He wanted more, he want to become perfect – to enter into heaven. Some consider heaven not to be some golden palace filled with all our wishes and none of our fears, but an actual unity with the Divine. To me that is what the Path of Christ leads us towards (John 17:22-23). If we wish to have ever-lasting life then we remain attached to this world. If we want a heavenly life then we follow the Commandments – a hellish one, just follow our desires to the grave. Otherwise, we sell all that we have and follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus is a doorway out of here (John 10:7). When we are ready to let go, all we have to do is knock, pick up our cross, and follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Following in his footsteps of course means doing what Jesus instructed us to do.
It sounds easy, but the truth of the matter is, being a Christian is one of the hardest Paths to follow. Thank goodness we have more than one life to work on it!
Blessings Be…
To me reincarnation is the only logical answer to an otherwise unjust world. I know the classical response is that only GOD knows – who are we to question? No thanks to that. If we accept that GOD is a loving GOD, then that excuse just does not cut it. Either GOD is a vindictive child with a magnifying glass, or GOD is Love. I believe the latter. So then, that leaves only one answer: we create our own heaven and hell. If heaven is at hand – so is hell.
The fact that reincarnation was accepted by some early Jewish sects and the fact that many of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and so forth made a point of addressing the issue does gives some credence to the belief that at least some Christians believed in it. We could say that they carried it over from their old beliefs – but then again – we could say that about many Christian beliefs that are accepted as dogma today.
One scriptural quote often overlooked is Matthew 19:16-22. In it, a rich man asks Jesus what he can do to have eternal life and Jesus tells him to follow the Commandments. The rich man had followed the Commandments since youth. He wanted more, he want to become perfect – to enter into heaven. Some consider heaven not to be some golden palace filled with all our wishes and none of our fears, but an actual unity with the Divine. To me that is what the Path of Christ leads us towards (John 17:22-23). If we wish to have ever-lasting life then we remain attached to this world. If we want a heavenly life then we follow the Commandments – a hellish one, just follow our desires to the grave. Otherwise, we sell all that we have and follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus is a doorway out of here (John 10:7). When we are ready to let go, all we have to do is knock, pick up our cross, and follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Following in his footsteps of course means doing what Jesus instructed us to do.
It sounds easy, but the truth of the matter is, being a Christian is one of the hardest Paths to follow. Thank goodness we have more than one life to work on it!
Blessings Be…
Yes hard to believe a loving forgivng G!d would only give one one chance....
While I am completely agnostic about this....I just don't freakin know....I am also completely open to exploring and discussing its potential (heck any sprititual topic) no matter how heretical some folks think questioning may be.
My undercurrent of belief (possibly wishful wistful thinking) is that we are given this big blue ball, the body, and these sentient beings to play with...and like a good parent that says..."you can't have any more toys till you learn to play with the ones you've got" We have to show that we are ready to graduate to the next (grade) plane of existence....by taking care of our toys in this one.....and we'll be back until we do..
Clean up, clean up, everybody do your share...
While I am completely agnostic about this....I just don't freakin know....I am also completely open to exploring and discussing its potential (heck any sprititual topic) no matter how heretical some folks think questioning may be.
My undercurrent of belief (possibly wishful wistful thinking) is that we are given this big blue ball, the body, and these sentient beings to play with...and like a good parent that says..."you can't have any more toys till you learn to play with the ones you've got" We have to show that we are ready to graduate to the next (grade) plane of existence....by taking care of our toys in this one.....and we'll be back until we do..
Clean up, clean up, everybody do your share...
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
I think the problem is that you want to justify your assertion that the world is unjust. You want to believe there is some defined order in the world, and you want that definition to your own - even if you base it on some theory.
The problem here is that it will be cause and effect, you can't simply look at what is right now and be ok with it...
Why not?
What does any explanation actually get you?
If karma made this person blind, the fact of the matter is the person is blind. Does this make them any more or less worthy of life? If someone important to you dies, does any explanation actually help cope with the loss? No, it is just a story to make it ok for you.
Why can't you just be ok with it, for instance in the case of someone dying that is important to you, grieve as you may - that is perfectly natural if it comes, but do not force it or feel bad if it doesn't. Then simply look at the cause of the pain you're feeling, it is because you've lost them, not because they're gone. Fundamentally it is a selfish thing to cry for another, you want them to stay in your life. This thought is what is actually saddening you, not their actual death.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
I just thought of a question for you Wil, why do you call yourself Christian? You don't seem very tied to any particular aspect of any Christian domination. There's no judgement of criticism from my side, as I hope you know, I'm just very curious. Based on your views, I would just call you a agnostic in general.
To me, it's Christ risen.
Really?
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgement: [28] So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Hebrews 9:27-28)
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
For me, he seems to call himself Christian because he loves Christ.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
How does this justify anything?
What actually changed by the belief in resurrection?
It is just another thought you hold as important in your life.
It is exactly more identification.
Love oriented paths are not intended to end with love, they are intended to end in the ceasing of two - that is what love is.
If you remain loving Jesus, you have missed his whole teaching.
Blessings,
Thanks AdvaitaZen for your thoughts. I agree, the world is unjust any many ways. I do not feel the need to justify my beliefs on the basis that somehow karma makes the world just – only that it makes sense. If I throw a ball against the wall – it comes back. Maybe not at the same speed, angle, under the same light, or anything else that is recognizable other than the ball (energy) comes back: energy is energy.
The fact that heaven, reincarnation, and every other afterlife theory is constructed not off of any certainty but from the reason to cope and accept what otherwise is ridiculously random appearing instances in life – life being one of those random instances – does not necessarily mean there is no value to them.
Ideally these theories should at the very least give me pause when I act. The fact that virtuous action is not only beneficial to society as a whole, but to our individual practices is cause enough to consider them. Most any practice and belief is geared towards shifting our way we see, interact, and ultimately live in the world. If the result of a person's beliefs leads to a fulfilled, joyful, happy, abundant, and compassionate life – then at some level I believe there is something of worth there.
As to your words, "If someone important to you dies, does any explanation actually help cope with the loss?" I absolutely know that holding a belief in reincarnation, heaven, inheriting a world full of virgins (Mormons) or whatever other belief is a great salve on a person's suffering. It does not change the suffering that comes from loss, but at a very basic level, as with a parent who ultimately wants their children to be happy, a person that truly loves another would find solace in the knowledge (however uncertain) that their loved ones are okay.
As to your last paragraph – I must say – that is pretty interesting. I am not sure how that would fly with some people. I understand what you are saying: I have been rejected by three different families, watched the only person that actually cared about me have a heart attack right in front of me: I was eight and all alone with him while puck and piss, glass and chaos roared all around me. On top of that, I never spent more than six months in any place – so losing is something I am quite familiar with. And I can tell you – it is not as easy as just feeling bad and dealing with it.
Thanks Thomas for your reference to Hebrews. The only problem with that quote is that I do not accept it as teachings of Jesus but of Paul. I know this is going to raise hairs on many: but we are talking about Christianity and not Paulianity. I think many of Paul's writings are nice, inspired letters, but not words coming from Jesus: for one, Jesus taught to the Hebrews – those that actually would understand what he was saying. The fact that Paul fought with the actual disciples over these issues and the fact that it is very possible that Paul was sent to shift the teachings away from the Chosen by taking it out of its original context is questionable to say the least: killing them was just not working anymore. Another major shift is that rather than renunciation which Jesus preached, things started to shift away from that towards being in the world and of it.
A simple argument I could give to this scripture is that reincarnation still fits in with this verse. We die once – it is not like many of us get to die more than once – we are judged, and then reap what we sow: another life can very well be that reward! Of course, there is also the fact that people do die, see the light, and then come back – that seems interesting to say the least.
Blessings Be…
Thanks AdvaitaZen for your thoughts. I agree, the world is unjust any many ways. I do not feel the need to justify my beliefs on the basis that somehow karma makes the world just – only that it makes sense. If I throw a ball against the wall – it comes back. Maybe not at the same speed, angle, under the same light, or anything else that is recognizable other than the ball (energy) comes back: energy is energy.
The fact that heaven, reincarnation, and every other afterlife theory is constructed not off of any certainty but from the reason to cope and accept what otherwise is ridiculously random appearing instances in life – life being one of those random instances – does not necessarily mean there is no value to them.
Ideally these theories should at the very least give me pause when I act. The fact that virtuous action is not only beneficial to society as a whole, but to our individual practices is cause enough to consider them. Most any practice and belief is geared towards shifting our way we see, interact, and ultimately live in the world. If the result of a person's beliefs leads to a fulfilled, joyful, happy, abundant, and compassionate life – then at some level I believe there is something of worth there.
As to your words, "If someone important to you dies, does any explanation actually help cope with the loss?" I absolutely know that holding a belief in reincarnation, heaven, inheriting a world full of virgins (Mormons) or whatever other belief is a great salve on a person's suffering. It does not change the suffering that comes from loss, but at a very basic level, as with a parent who ultimately wants their children to be happy, a person that truly loves another would find solace in the knowledge (however uncertain) that their loved ones are okay.
As to your last paragraph – I must say – that is pretty interesting. I am not sure how that would fly with some people. I understand what you are saying: I have been rejected by three different families, watched the only person that actually cared about me have a heart attack right in front of me: I was eight and all alone with him while puck and piss, glass and chaos roared all around me. On top of that, I never spent more than six months in any place – so losing is something I am quite familiar with. And I can tell you – it is not as easy as just feeling bad and dealing with it.
Thanks Thomas for your reference to Hebrews. The only problem with that quote is that I do not accept it as teachings of Jesus but of Paul. I know this is going to raise hairs on many: but we are talking about Christianity and not Paulianity. I think many of Paul's writings are nice, inspired letters, but not words coming from Jesus: for one, Jesus taught to the Hebrews – those that actually would understand what he was saying. The fact that Paul fought with the actual disciples over these issues and the fact that it is very possible that Paul was sent to shift the teachings away from the Chosen by taking it out of its original context is questionable to say the least: killing them was just not working anymore. Another major shift is that rather than renunciation which Jesus preached, things started to shift away from that towards being in the world and of it.
A simple argument I could give to this scripture is that reincarnation still fits in with this verse. We die once – it is not like many of us get to die more than once – we are judged, and then reap what we sow: another life can very well be that reward! Of course, there is also the fact that people do die, see the light, and then come back – that seems interesting to say the least.
Blessings Be…
Last edited:
OK.
My point remains that it was never taught in Christianity, it was never held as a doctrine, as much as people like to think it was, and as commonly expressed in the West today, is totally incompatible with orthodox Christian thinking with regard to the nature of person and being.
The more orthodox doctrines, such as reincarnation within Tibetan Buddhism, are another matter. At that level, the issue is discussed in Catholicism. Karl Rahner, one of the greatest theologians of the last century, has discussed it, so have others.
I have tried to pursue the issue here on IO more than once.
My point remains that it was never taught in Christianity, it was never held as a doctrine, as much as people like to think it was, and as commonly expressed in the West today, is totally incompatible with orthodox Christian thinking with regard to the nature of person and being.
The more orthodox doctrines, such as reincarnation within Tibetan Buddhism, are another matter. At that level, the issue is discussed in Catholicism. Karl Rahner, one of the greatest theologians of the last century, has discussed it, so have others.
I have tried to pursue the issue here on IO more than once.
Blessings,
I am with you on that Thomas - reincarnation has never been actively taught nor accepted by Christian doctrine as we have it today and that its introduction is for the most part a modern phenomenon. While it is incompatible, it is definitely an issue I believe many Christians are debating. Thank you for throwing Karl Rahner's name out there. I am going to have a look at what he has to say.
Blessings Be…
I am with you on that Thomas - reincarnation has never been actively taught nor accepted by Christian doctrine as we have it today and that its introduction is for the most part a modern phenomenon. While it is incompatible, it is definitely an issue I believe many Christians are debating. Thank you for throwing Karl Rahner's name out there. I am going to have a look at what he has to say.
Blessings Be…
Hi Suba —
I have to say that, in my experience, when someone starts deciding what bits of Scripture to accept and what to ignore, then invariably what follows is a highly ideosyncratic notion of who Jesus was, and what Christianity is.
And, I have to say, those who decrey 'Paulianity' invariably demonstrate some rather negative pre-conceptions rather than an in-depth knowledge of the texts or the circumstance of their composition ...
If you're following your own ideas, then you are free to include reincarnation in the mix. My point would be that it has no grounding in reality.
The doctrine of reincarnation, as it is commonly understood in the West (an understanding which I believe to be populist and deeply flawed), was never preached within Christianity, and was never even a 'pagan doctrine' that required commentary or rebuttal!
I read the New Testament as a unified whole: the Gospels present the life and work of Jesus; the Epistles locate Jesus in our daily lives. Matthew 28, for example, narrates the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 explains its significance and meaning for us. Again, the Synoptics point to the rending of the veil of the temple, but it is Hebrews 10 that points to the import of that event. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Gospels inspired the Epistles. To treat them otherwise is to render them 'second-rate' to the Gospels, which I suggest would be a great mistake.
Without Paul, there's every possibility that Christianity would have remained a 'secret sect' within Judaism, and with the destruction of the Temple, it's equally as possible that Christianity would have gone the way of the Essenes, and died out altogether. It's certainly true that the Gentile Christian would always be a 'second-rate Christian' with regard to his Jewish-Christian neighbour. Paul fought hard against that.
What Paul's letters do are tackle the issues faced by those who are Christians, not introduce Christ to those who are not. Luke's Gospel is not the same as Luke's Acts of the Apostles, and the Johannine Epistles are not the same as the Gospel of John, but I suggest it's a huger error to discount them on such a thin premise.
That Paul could be a cantankerous old bugger, I accept, but then, no-one's perfect! But he's right, no-one of his generation laboured in the field harder to spread the Gospel.
His writings are born of the confrontation with Christ, whether one belives Paul's conversion was the result of a divine intervention or a psychodynamic episode and a moment of 'enlightenment'.
Paul's gospel is certainly no more nor less 'authentic' a testimony than that of the authors of the gospels. And the words coming from Jesus actually come from them, ascribed to Jesus, which we receive in faith.
Paul argued with the disciples over the universality of the Gospel and of the New Commandment in Christ. If Paul is wrong, then you and I cannot call ourselves Christian — unless you are an orthodox Jew?
And shift what teachings away from what? I find the idea that Paul, who was once a persecutor of Christians, turning up claiming to be a convert, and then promoting a gospel utterly at odds with what the disciples were teaching, and the disciples and followers of Christ just stood there and did nothing?
No, I don't think that holds water at all.
And you'd have to demonstrate the differences.
And explain how come Luke, a disciple of Paul, wrote a Gospel that comes from a variety of sources (including Mary herself), that doesn't show any contradiction you suggest, Mark was most likely known to Paul, too ...
Too much imagination there, I think ...
Everyone thought the world was going to end tomorrow — even Paul. Then it dawned on everyone that maybe Jesus wasn't coming back anytime soon. Someone had to handle it.
But Jesus did not preach renunciation of the world, He taught renunciation of sin, and conversion of the world. He is the light of the world (John 8:12, 9:5, 12:46), as we should be, for His light is our light (cf John 1:10).
And does not Paul call for that renunciation in the most explicit terms: "For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4, cf Colossians 2:12)?
Make no mistake — to be a Christian is to be in the world, Christianity is not the same as Neoplatonism's 'flight of the alone to the Alone'. The Sermon on the Mount locates the Christian firmly in the world, Christ's discourse on the Last Judgement sorts the good and the bad according to what we do in the world — Christianity is not escapism, it is very confrontational.
Ah, you don't accept the New Testament? Not even Jesus' own words with regard to the Holy Spirit (cf John 15:26 and 16:13)?
Oh dear, Paul didn't write The Letter to the Hebrews, so I don't think the anti-Pauline prejudice applies?
I have to say that, in my experience, when someone starts deciding what bits of Scripture to accept and what to ignore, then invariably what follows is a highly ideosyncratic notion of who Jesus was, and what Christianity is.
And, I have to say, those who decrey 'Paulianity' invariably demonstrate some rather negative pre-conceptions rather than an in-depth knowledge of the texts or the circumstance of their composition ...
If you're following your own ideas, then you are free to include reincarnation in the mix. My point would be that it has no grounding in reality.
The doctrine of reincarnation, as it is commonly understood in the West (an understanding which I believe to be populist and deeply flawed), was never preached within Christianity, and was never even a 'pagan doctrine' that required commentary or rebuttal!
I read the New Testament as a unified whole: the Gospels present the life and work of Jesus; the Epistles locate Jesus in our daily lives. Matthew 28, for example, narrates the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 explains its significance and meaning for us. Again, the Synoptics point to the rending of the veil of the temple, but it is Hebrews 10 that points to the import of that event. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Gospels inspired the Epistles. To treat them otherwise is to render them 'second-rate' to the Gospels, which I suggest would be a great mistake.
Without Paul, there's every possibility that Christianity would have remained a 'secret sect' within Judaism, and with the destruction of the Temple, it's equally as possible that Christianity would have gone the way of the Essenes, and died out altogether. It's certainly true that the Gentile Christian would always be a 'second-rate Christian' with regard to his Jewish-Christian neighbour. Paul fought hard against that.
What Paul's letters do are tackle the issues faced by those who are Christians, not introduce Christ to those who are not. Luke's Gospel is not the same as Luke's Acts of the Apostles, and the Johannine Epistles are not the same as the Gospel of John, but I suggest it's a huger error to discount them on such a thin premise.
That Paul could be a cantankerous old bugger, I accept, but then, no-one's perfect! But he's right, no-one of his generation laboured in the field harder to spread the Gospel.
How wrong can someone be! From his pen flowed some of the most luminous and spiritually uplifting texts in the entire New Testament. Certainly he gave us two of the most awesome metaphors concerning Divine Union ... Get those blinkers off, you'd be amazed and inspired, I'm sure of it!
His writings are born of the confrontation with Christ, whether one belives Paul's conversion was the result of a divine intervention or a psychodynamic episode and a moment of 'enlightenment'.
Paul's gospel is certainly no more nor less 'authentic' a testimony than that of the authors of the gospels. And the words coming from Jesus actually come from them, ascribed to Jesus, which we receive in faith.
I'm not sure what you're talking about now. Certtainly that's not what the evidence says.
Paul argued with the disciples over the universality of the Gospel and of the New Commandment in Christ. If Paul is wrong, then you and I cannot call ourselves Christian — unless you are an orthodox Jew?
And shift what teachings away from what? I find the idea that Paul, who was once a persecutor of Christians, turning up claiming to be a convert, and then promoting a gospel utterly at odds with what the disciples were teaching, and the disciples and followers of Christ just stood there and did nothing?
No, I don't think that holds water at all.
And you'd have to demonstrate the differences.
And explain how come Luke, a disciple of Paul, wrote a Gospel that comes from a variety of sources (including Mary herself), that doesn't show any contradiction you suggest, Mark was most likely known to Paul, too ...
Too much imagination there, I think ...
About what? He argued with Peter for sitting and eating apart from the Gentiles! He argued that one did not have to be a circumcised Jew to be a Christian!
That sounds like an awfully gnostic notion to me.
Everyone thought the world was going to end tomorrow — even Paul. Then it dawned on everyone that maybe Jesus wasn't coming back anytime soon. Someone had to handle it.
But Jesus did not preach renunciation of the world, He taught renunciation of sin, and conversion of the world. He is the light of the world (John 8:12, 9:5, 12:46), as we should be, for His light is our light (cf John 1:10).
And does not Paul call for that renunciation in the most explicit terms: "For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4, cf Colossians 2:12)?
Make no mistake — to be a Christian is to be in the world, Christianity is not the same as Neoplatonism's 'flight of the alone to the Alone'. The Sermon on the Mount locates the Christian firmly in the world, Christ's discourse on the Last Judgement sorts the good and the bad according to what we do in the world — Christianity is not escapism, it is very confrontational.
Then it could also mean you've won a free trip to Disneyland Paris, or to the Moon ... sorry, Suba, but that's no argument at all, just a massive assumption.
Indeed. I'm not saying they see nothing, nor that nothing's there ... but we can draw nothing conclusive from NDE. Too much like psychic phenomena for me to set anything by, I'm afraid.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Suba,
The two ideas of reincarnation and Christianity are totally incompatible. Christianity teaches that Jesus can take away our sins -- an idea that will never be compatible with the idea of reincarnation.
The two ideas of reincarnation and Christianity are totally incompatible. Christianity teaches that Jesus can take away our sins -- an idea that will never be compatible with the idea of reincarnation.
Thomas, have you ever put Pauls letters in chronological order and read them as he wrote them?
Now while it would be absolutely awesome to have the corresponce and rumors that he is writing to....unfortunately we don't have those...we only have is outgoing responses...and what we can glean from them.
But reading them in order and looking at a life of growth and change in understanding of Christianity as he saw it....in the earliest days predating the gospels by decades.... through his last letters one would only think as he aged those changes in his interpretations and words over that time would mean his later letters trump the earlier ones if they change in tenor, belief and understanding?
Now while it would be absolutely awesome to have the corresponce and rumors that he is writing to....unfortunately we don't have those...we only have is outgoing responses...and what we can glean from them.
But reading them in order and looking at a life of growth and change in understanding of Christianity as he saw it....in the earliest days predating the gospels by decades.... through his last letters one would only think as he aged those changes in his interpretations and words over that time would mean his later letters trump the earlier ones if they change in tenor, belief and understanding?
Blessings,
Hey Nick the Pilot, I know "reincarnation and Christianity are totally incompatible." I definitely do not argue that. That Jesus dying for our sins – well, that is an interesting issue unto itself. I think next week I will open that can of worms in a new thread.
Thanks for your response Thomas. I did not say I do not accept the New Testament. While I recognize Hebrews and a few other letters acclaimed to be Paul' are not in truth, Paul's. But as we have it – some ascribe it to him. Either way, it does not change what I said. Also, while I know the Gospels as we have them are likely words claimed to be said by Jesus from the disciples of the disciples – it is the closest we have. So the Gospels to me are the Word's of Jesus – that I do not debate nor doubt. To me, the Gospel is the first and final word when it comes to following what Jesus said. That is the only thing I base my understandings of Christianity on.
So when I decide which scriptures to follow – it is only the Gospels. I think most Christians would at the very least concede that is all we really need – the actual words of Jesus.
As to what you said "Without Paul, there's every possibility that Christianity would have remained a 'secret sect' within Judaism." I agree wholeheartedly – and what's worse – that is what I am talking about when I say there was a shift from the original teachings. I am not sure how it could be argued that Jesus did not preach renunciation, in that he tells us over and over again to carry our own cross, sell all that we have, follow him, and a host of other sayings that directly and indirectly support letting go, trusting, letting the day take care of itself, not premeditating, and renunciation.
As to the Sermon on the Mount, I am not sure how that locates us firmly in the world, but rather, teaches us how to interact with the world: being in it, not of it (John 15:19 and John 17:14). As for the notion that renunciation is escapism, that is actually the inverse of the truth – being of the world, getting caught up, attaching ourselves to the things of the world: that is escapism – that is not the teachings of Jesus – that is the works of Mammon! Listen to Jesus' words – he really is telling us to renounce the things of this world: "Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21). I am not sure how that verse can be interpreted any other way – and that is not the only verse explicating renunciation. Jesus tells us hundreds of times to renounce in one way or another: turn the other cheek, not to lust after women in the mind or for that matter any other desire, et cetera.
I believe the Path of Christianity is one of the hardest Paths to follow. To really do what Jesus says, to really follow in his footsteps – I cannot do it, and that is the truth. I try, I really do try – but I still look back: "And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62). The fact that Jesus' teachings have been watered down, and I believe that started with Paul, makes it all the worse two thousand years later when it has become dogmatized and solidified into a system that while godly, is not completely what Jesus' words emphasizes.
While the Gospels are scientifically questioned to be or not to be actual words of Jesus – to me – that is all we got. Early on the Church fathers chose for their own reasons which of the scriptures to include. They chose it in their councils – those in power! The Gospels: That is the Word I follow. Am I wrong to say that? Do I really need any of Paul's or any other New Testament scripture to Follow Jesus? Which is closer to the truth: the words of Jesus or those who profess in his name?
Blessings Be…
Hey Nick the Pilot, I know "reincarnation and Christianity are totally incompatible." I definitely do not argue that. That Jesus dying for our sins – well, that is an interesting issue unto itself. I think next week I will open that can of worms in a new thread.
Thanks for your response Thomas. I did not say I do not accept the New Testament. While I recognize Hebrews and a few other letters acclaimed to be Paul' are not in truth, Paul's. But as we have it – some ascribe it to him. Either way, it does not change what I said. Also, while I know the Gospels as we have them are likely words claimed to be said by Jesus from the disciples of the disciples – it is the closest we have. So the Gospels to me are the Word's of Jesus – that I do not debate nor doubt. To me, the Gospel is the first and final word when it comes to following what Jesus said. That is the only thing I base my understandings of Christianity on.
So when I decide which scriptures to follow – it is only the Gospels. I think most Christians would at the very least concede that is all we really need – the actual words of Jesus.
As to what you said "Without Paul, there's every possibility that Christianity would have remained a 'secret sect' within Judaism." I agree wholeheartedly – and what's worse – that is what I am talking about when I say there was a shift from the original teachings. I am not sure how it could be argued that Jesus did not preach renunciation, in that he tells us over and over again to carry our own cross, sell all that we have, follow him, and a host of other sayings that directly and indirectly support letting go, trusting, letting the day take care of itself, not premeditating, and renunciation.
As to the Sermon on the Mount, I am not sure how that locates us firmly in the world, but rather, teaches us how to interact with the world: being in it, not of it (John 15:19 and John 17:14). As for the notion that renunciation is escapism, that is actually the inverse of the truth – being of the world, getting caught up, attaching ourselves to the things of the world: that is escapism – that is not the teachings of Jesus – that is the works of Mammon! Listen to Jesus' words – he really is telling us to renounce the things of this world: "Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21). I am not sure how that verse can be interpreted any other way – and that is not the only verse explicating renunciation. Jesus tells us hundreds of times to renounce in one way or another: turn the other cheek, not to lust after women in the mind or for that matter any other desire, et cetera.
I believe the Path of Christianity is one of the hardest Paths to follow. To really do what Jesus says, to really follow in his footsteps – I cannot do it, and that is the truth. I try, I really do try – but I still look back: "And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62). The fact that Jesus' teachings have been watered down, and I believe that started with Paul, makes it all the worse two thousand years later when it has become dogmatized and solidified into a system that while godly, is not completely what Jesus' words emphasizes.
While the Gospels are scientifically questioned to be or not to be actual words of Jesus – to me – that is all we got. Early on the Church fathers chose for their own reasons which of the scriptures to include. They chose it in their councils – those in power! The Gospels: That is the Word I follow. Am I wrong to say that? Do I really need any of Paul's or any other New Testament scripture to Follow Jesus? Which is closer to the truth: the words of Jesus or those who profess in his name?
Blessings Be…
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
"That Jesus dying for our sins – well, that is an interesting issue unto itself. I think next week I will open that can of worms in a new thread. "
--> Will you be saying that Jesus cannot take away our sins?
--> Will you be saying that Jesus cannot take away our sins?
Well, not totally, we believe in resurrection, after all. And we also speculate on eschatalogical states, I think there's room for discussion around the Buddhist concept of bardo ...
+++
This does rather put you at a logical disadvantage.
And I hope you will further excuse me if, as it seems to me, what you're saying is: "What the text says, as far as I understand it, is the first and final word on what the text can say". I'm sure you will appreciate I find this problematic, both in its assumption of all-knowing, and infallibility.
And how do you handle the contradiction of Jesus Himself saying it's not given to us to understand? (Matthew 13:13-14, Luke 8:10).
It is not by any means, but you seem bent on resisting the other evidence.
That includes the Gospels. I can't see how you can argue the veracity of the Gospels, when you also say they were chosen by the Fathers 'for their own reasons'. The same reasoning would apply to the Gospels (which you accept) as to the Epistles (which you refute). It's an illogical position?
I suggest they saw the same light illuminating the Epistles as they did the Gospels.
Can I ask, do you follow just the sayings of Jesus as contained in the Gospels, or the entire message?