Are we worshiping the same God ?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Resurrection and reincarnation are very similar... I don't see how a believer in Jesus and the gospels can say with a straight face that reincarnation does not exist. It looks to me like another one of the very real differences between Christianity... and what Jesus said and did.

I think you misunderstand the crucial difference between reincarnation and resurrection — ther two are no way the same. Christianity is a religion of resurrection, not reincarnation.

Thomas

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Yes. To a greater or lesser degree.

Nicely put.

In one sense you could say that all devotional based religious practices are in some way worshipping the same God, because ultimately God in the monotheistic sense is the source of everything. But according to how and where you direct your devotion, some forms of worship would be more direct than others (depending on your point of view).

Welcome to the forums Vrindavan ! :-)

Jaya Vrindavan Dharm!


... Neemai

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Neemai

In one sense you could say that all devotional based religious practices are in some way worshipping the same God, because ultimately God in the monotheistic sense is the source of everything. But according to how and where you direct your devotion, some forms of worship would be more direct than others (depending on your point of view).

And nicely put, Neemai, in return!

But in the West you're not allowed to think or say such things, as this flies in the face of the philosophy of relativism.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Let's once and for all please stop this nonsense that Christianity taught or believed in reincarnation.

One might argue today that an argument for reincarnation can be read into Scripture, but the arguments presented so far usually founder on the misunderstanding of the text itself, and certainly the main weight of scholarship does not support some very ideosyncratic interpretations.

The fact remains however that reincarnation was never taught by Jesus, the Apostles, the Fathers, nor the Church — were it so, it would have been taught explicitly.

Shirley MacLaine, for example, is one of many with the mistaken notion that Origen (specifically) taught reincarnation, probably from Reincarnation in Christianity, by Geddes MacGregor, published by the Theosophical Publishing House, in 1978.

MacGreggor speculates (my emphasis) that Origen’s texts written in support of the belief in reincarnation somehow disappeared or were suppressed. Admitting he has no evidence, MacGregor nonetheless asserts: "I am convinced he taught reincarnation in some form" (58)[/b].

This is the Philosophy of Relativism in plain sight — "I believe this, so it must be true — if there's no evidence, then someone removed it."

MacGregor's fabricated evidence is quoted widely by Theosophical sources, even though the 'quote' is demonstrably someone's invention.

I am reminded of the 'evidence' that HPB sought to be received back into the Orthodox Faith towards the end of her life. It's a fact: "Although an ex-Theosophist and Orthodox convert told this writer that Blavatsky died repentant and reconciled to the Russian Church in her last days, this has not been confirmed"
Theosophy

But then, by MacGregor's rule, it doesn't need to be. I am convinced she did, even though "In her youth she rejected Orthodox Christianity and, in fact, proclaimed "a venomous hatred of Christianity" throughout her whole life (Marion Meade, Madame Blavatsky: The Woman Behind the Myth).

+++

Let's return to what Christianity has to say on the subject of reincarnation:

Irenaeus
"We may undermine [the Hellenists’] doctrine as to transmigration from body to body by this fact—that souls remember nothing whatever of the events which took place in their previous states of existence. For if they were sent forth with this object, that they should have experience of every kind of action, they must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things which have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they were still deficient, and not by always hovering, without intermission, through the same pursuits, spend their labor wretchedly in vain. . . . With reference to these objections, Plato . . . attempted no kind of proof, but simply replied dogmatically that when souls enter into this life they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches their entrance, before they effect an entrance into the bodies. It escaped him that he fell into another, greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion, after it has been drunk, can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, do you obtain the knowledge of this fact . . . ?" (Against Heresies 2:33:1–2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
"Come now, if some philosopher affirms, as Laberius holds, following an opinion of Pythagoras, that a man may have his origin from a mule, a serpent from a woman, and with skill of speech twists every argument to prove his view, will he not gain an acceptance for it [among the pagans], and work in some conviction that on account of this, they should abstain from eating animal food? May anyone have the persuasion that he should abstain, lest, by chance, in his beef he eats some ancestor of his? But if a Christian promises the return of a man from a man, and the very actual Gaius [resurrected] from Gaius . . . they will not . . . grant him a hearing. If there is any ground for the moving to and fro of human souls into different bodies, why may they not return to the very matter they have left . . . ?" (Apology 48 [A.D. 197]).

Origen
"[Scripture says] ‘And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" and he said, "I am not"’ [John 1:21]. No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: ‘If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, ‘Are you Elijah?’—‘I am not’? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John’s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah" (Commentary on John 6:7 [A.D. 229]).

"As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a manner their property [slaves], as ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ [1 Cor. 14:32] and ‘The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha’ [2 Kgs. 2:15]. Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah,’ turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called ‘Elijah who is to come’" (ibid.).

"If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless" (ibid.).

"Someone might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, ‘This is Elijah who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John’s case worked in him works of baptism and teaching—for John did not do one miracle [John 10:41]—but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents" (Commentary on Matthew 10:20 [A.D. 248]).

"Now the Canaanite woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, ‘Lord, help me,’ but he answered and said, ‘It is not possible to take the children’s bread and cast it to the little dogs.’ . . . [O]thers, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we . . . do not find this at all in the divine Scripture" (ibid., 11:17).

"In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures" (ibid., 13:1).

...

"But if . . . the Greeks, who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of things concerning the consummation; which even if they wish they will not be able to do" (ibid.).

Lactantius
"What of Pythagoras, who was first called a philosopher, who judged that souls were indeed immortal, but that they passed into other bodies, either of cattle or of birds or of beasts? Would it not have been better that they should be destroyed, together with their bodies, than thus to be condemned to pass into the bodies of other animals? Would it not be better not to exist at all than, after having had the form of a man, to live as a swine or a dog? And the foolish man, to gain credit for his saying, said that he himself had been Euphorbus in the Trojan war, and that when he had been slain he passed into other figures of animals, and at last became Pythagoras. O happy man!—to whom alone so great a memory was given! Or rather unhappy, who when changed into a sheep was not permitted to be ignorant of what he was! And [I] would to heaven that he [Pythagoras] alone had been thus senseless!" (Epitome of the Divine Institutes 36 [A.D. 317]).

Gregory of Nyssa
"If one should search carefully, he will find that their doctrine is of necessity brought down to this. They tell us that one of their sages said that he, being one and the same person, was born a man, and afterward assumed the form of a woman, and flew about with the birds, and grew as a bush, and obtained the life of an aquatic creature—and he who said these things of himself did not, so far as I can judge, go far from the truth, for such doctrines as this—of saying that one should pass through many changes—are really fitting for the chatter of frogs or jackdaws or the stupidity of fishes or the insensibility of trees" (The Making of Man 28:3 [A.D. 379]).

Ambrose of Milan
"It is a cause for wonder that though they [the heathen] . . . say that souls pass and migrate into other bodies. . . . But let those who have not been taught doubt [the resurrection]. For us who have read the law, the prophets, the apostles, and the gospel, it is not lawful to doubt" (Belief in the Resurrection 65–66 [A.D. 380]).

"But is their opinion preferable who say that our souls, when they have passed out of these bodies, migrate into the bodies of beasts or of various other living creatures? . . . For what is so like a marvel as to believe that men could have been changed into the forms of beasts? How much greater a marvel, however, would it be that the soul which rules man should take on itself the nature of a beast so opposed to that of man, and being capable of reason should be able to pass over to an irrational animal, than that the form of the body should have been changed?" (ibid., 127).

John Chrysostom
"As for doctrines on the soul, there is nothing excessively shameful that they [the disciples of Plato and Pythagoras] have left unsaid, asserting that the souls of men become flies and gnats and bushes and that God himself is a [similar] soul, with some other the like indecencies. . . . At one time he says that the soul is of the substance of God; at another, after having exalted it thus immoderately and impiously, he exceeds again in a different way, and treats it with insult, making it pass into swine and asses and other animals of yet less esteem than these" (Homilies on John 2:3, 6 [A.D. 391]).

Basil the Great
"[A]void the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog, who say that they have themselves formerly been women, shrubs, or fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know, but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish" (The Six Days’ Work 8:2 [A.D. 393]).

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Let's once and for all please stop this nonsense that Christianity taught or believed in reincarnation....The fact remains however that reincarnation was never taught by Jesus, the Apostles, the Fathers, nor the Church — were it so, it would have been taught explicitly.

It is my understanding that reincarnation was a common belief during the time of Jesus...

And I believe if it was to be denied it would have been denied explicitly.

Your indication that it should stop once and for all is for not, as it appears that it has been so pervasively discussed throughout Christianity that every century you could find a quote against it! Seems to me some mighty fine thinkers were arguing the other side of the coin all these years to get these folks so defensive.

What we resist persists...me thinks they protest too much.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

It is my understanding that reincarnation was a common belief during the time of Jesus...

Among the Greeks yes, but not among the Jews, or at least, not among those of Jewish orthodoxy.

The Wisdom Literature of the OT comprise some of the latests documents in the canon, I think the Book of Wisdom was just 100 years prior to Christ. Here we can read intimations of the immortality of the soul (or at least speculation about an alternative eschatology), rather than the sleep of Sheol, and trace the influence of Hellenism (the author of Wisdom was an Alexandrian Jew) — but nothing about reincarnation, the pre-existence of souls, etc., which is part and parcel of the package.

Originally Posted by wil

And I believe if it was to be denied it would have been denied explicitly.

If it was ever raised explicitly.

Originally Posted by wil

Your indication that it should stop once and for all is for not, as it appears that it has been so pervasively discussed throughout Christianity that every century you could find a quote against it! Seems to me some mighty fine thinkers were arguing the other side of the coin all these years to get these folks so defensive.

Everybody says that, but no-one produces any evidence.

The fact is that had it ever been an issue, it would have either been accepted or refuted in doctrine ... but as it has never been seriously mentioned by any Council of the Church, it was never a serious issue ... and the fact that the Fathers, from the 2nd century on, dismissed it as nothing to do with christian teaching, pretty well evidences the fact that it was never taught in any way by orthodoxy.

I know everyone would like it to be so, but it just ain't.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I know everyone would like it to be so, but it just ain't.

Everyone? many? or a few?

Most Jews I know don't speak much about afterlife, their focus is on this life. But over the years asking, most don't have an opinion about reincarnation...rejecting or accepting...some believe in it, some don't...again hereafter isn't a focus...

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Everyone? many? or a few?

Most Jews I know don't speak much about afterlife, their focus is on this life. But over the years asking, most don't have an opinion about reincarnation...rejecting or accepting...some believe in it, some don't...again hereafter isn't a focus...

Hardly a sound argument, is it?

If there is evidence of the discussion of the topic, bring it on ... otherwise it's all assumption without foundation.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Actually, I'm reminded of the work of John Henry Newman.

He began writing a book as an Anglican vicar, called "The Development of Christian Doctrine" — he started it as an Anglican, and finished it as a Catholic.

Newman came to realise that if a Christian of the first centuries came to earth today, the only religion they would recognise is Catholicism, the others having changed so radically from what they believed. In that sense, Catholicism is 'aithentic' in that it hasn't been reinvented as time goes on, but remaind true to its initial foundation.

So, my response to this question:
"Re: Are we worshiping the same God ?"
is, if we're talking Christian denominations ... no we are not ... and the fact remains that the Christ that is 'common' today is not the Christ the Apostles, Disciples, or followers, knew, believed in or preached, but a 'Christ of the Enlightenment', reduced to a comfortable shadow by relativism, the Historical Critical method and sophistry.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Actually, I'm reminded of the work of John Henry Newman.

He began writing a book as an Anglican vicar, called "The Development of Christian Doctrine" — he started it as an Anglican, and finished it as a Catholic.

Newman came to realise that if a Christian of the first centuries came to earth today, the only religion they would recognise is Catholicism, the others having changed so radically from what they believed. In that sense, Catholicism is 'aithentic' in that it hasn't been reinvented as time goes on, but remaind true to its initial foundation.

So, my response to this question:
"Re: Are we worshiping the same God ?"
is, if we're talking Christian denominations ... no we are not ... and the fact remains that the Christ that is 'common' today is not the Christ the Apostles, Disciples, or followers, knew, believed in or preached, but a 'Christ of the Enlightenment', reduced to a comfortable shadow by relativism, the Historical Critical method and sophistry.

Thomas

I love your knowledge Thomas, but give me a break! I don't hold a candle to your book learning and education, but you've got to get out man! It is absolutely wonderful that you love your denomination, but the my way or the high way arrogance is absolutely incredible.

Newman came to realise that if a Christian of the first centuries came to earth today, the only religion they would recognise is Catholicism, the others having changed so radically from what they believed

Surely this isn't the only author that states that...I'll bet there is an evangelical, a Baptist, a Jewish, a Methodist.....authors that all feel the same way....and ministers, preachers of all denominations...surely you don't think Catholics have a corner on the market 'we are right and you are wrong'....

Started out Anglican and ended up Catholic....right here on these boards we have a Christian who in her research ended up Muslim, we had another one who started out Amish and ended up progressive Christian....both through research and soul searching...it happens, folks change and grow and find something that suits them.

Thomas if we are not worshiping the same G!d then you must be a polytheist there must be other gods that we are worshiping....

Catholicism suits HIM, it suits YOU, it doesn't suit the rest of the world and not everyone buys the Popes we are the only one and true religion, just like not everyone bought John Paul's statement about followers of other faiths being in heaven.

Jesus spoke of the kingdom of heaven in our midst and Paul spoke of Christ in you and have in you the mind that Christ had.... Seems to me that was early Christianity... And do I think that the early Christians would recognize all the saints to hang around ones neck, the rosary, the statuary, the celibacy, the big hats, the huge churches, the call and response, the Eucharist? You know I just don't think so...but I admit, I could be wrong.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

The body is a temple. Maybe that is why many only worship from one temple?

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

That IS reincarnation... in Jesus' words. What attributes of reincarnation would differ from John 3:13? It is perfectly worded in my opinion.

I'd also suggest that it takes a lot more redirected energy to resurrect than it does to reincarnate, and the gospel provides not just one example, but two examples. Both Jesus and Lazareth. Take for example the multiplying of fish and bread... did Jesus have wheat fields, a bakery, and a fish pond hidden out back... or did fish and bread multiply in the baskets? If I believe in that capability who am I to disbelieve reincarnation? Reincarnation is far easier and Jesus literally spelled it out... as I read it.

Regardless, I submit that ressurection is a form of reincarnation... a return of the exact (or similar) form. If one believes in the capability of resurrection, then surely one has already accepted reincarnation. To illustrate... where was Jesus and Lazareth during the days in between?

I fail to see the connection here. You excise a verse out of John 3 and claim it to prove reincarnation?

In the first place, one must understand the context of the conversation. Jesus is speaking to Nicodemis able entering the kingdom of God:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

Now reincarnationists might see this and say, Ha! See I told you. But Jesus is distinguishing two things here in answer to Nicodemus's question about "how are we to be born back into the womb?. But Jesus answers that we all go through a physical birth, i.e except a man be born of water (that is through natural physical childbirth through the water that breaks upon the mother's labor). But there is also needed a birth of the Spirit of God, which is what man is lacking from the physical birth. There is a point in a man's life when the Spirit of God enters into his spirit, his life. "That which born of the flesh is flesh (physical birth), that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (spiritual birth)". Our spirit is the thing to be reborn, not our bodies. It is the Spirit of God that raised Christ from the dead that will raise up physically to life (Romans 8:11) in a resurrection, just like Christ.

After all that, Nicodemus is still confused. Why? Because he is still thinking physical, earthly things, rather than the spiritual, heavenly things.

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" - John 3:12

So going into your beloved verse 13,:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

we have a telling description of the state of man. No man has ascended up to heaven. But what Jesus is explaining here is that He is FROM heaven. That He was in the beginning in heaven with God (read John 1:1-3, 14, John 17:5). And is in fact somehow STILL THERE AT THE TIME HE SAID IT: even the Son of man which is in heaven. So it is not that Jesus ever ascended up to heaven prior to His earthly existance, it is that He was sent into the world from God. He was already there. Look at four verses later:

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." - John 3:17

Jesus being from heaven was sent from God into the world. Philippians 2:5-8 describes this process:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

This is only the incarnation of Jesus Christ. For He took on the form of a man and then died on the cross.

Moreover, when Jesus was resurrected, it wasn't reincarnation for one 1) He had His own body, He did not transmigrate into another. 2) the body that was raised was evidently not like the physical body we have now, but an incorruptable body (see I Corinthians 15:42-58), for it was able to appear and disappear, rise up into the heaven (probably into another plain of existance), yet it was corporal in the fact that Jesus ate fish and honey. It was a new body that won't feel the sting of death, or pain, or suffering.

Why would I want to be reincarnated into a dying body when I can a body like that?

[AndrewX]

Let's once and for all please stop this nonsense that Christianity taught or believed in reincarnation.

Thomas, the nonsense is your vigilant insistence that early Christians didn't teach and believe Reincarnation. You will find, if you EVER decide to finally pursue this issue with an open mind, that you are sorely, sadly mistaken.

Meanwhile, you are the blind man ... the proverbial horse, having been led to water's edge, yet just standing there, and dying of thirst ...



And there is NOTHING that anyone can do about it.

~andrew

Oh, and btw, STOP bashing the Theosophists, any time you like, Thomas! You claim that you dislike it when people speak out against your precious Roman Catholicism, so why is it okay to then turn around and throw stones at others? That's talking the talk, but NOT walking the walk.

I am reminded of the 'evidence' that HPB sought to be received back into the Orthodox Faith towards the end of her life. It's a fact: "Although an ex-Theosophist and Orthodox convert told this writer that Blavatsky died repentant and reconciled to the Russian Church in her last days, this has not been confirmed"

AND STOP THE VICIOUS SLANDER against HPB ... this absolute HORSESH*T about seeking to be Baptized into a Church whose doctrines she ABHORRED, and knew to be pure BUNK.

NO SH*T it's not been confirmed!!! GOOD GOD man, why do you feel it is necessary to post such crap!?! You insult the Good name of the ONE woman who was able to sort out your NONSENSE form Christ's actual Teaching! She was doing His Work from the moment she agreed to serve the Master M., and her last speech - delivered via Annie Besant only because she was too sick to attend herself - attests PLAINLY to her ongoing support of the TS and its MISSION (about which she speaks clearly in her letter).

This can be googled, but then, we know our beloved Thomas will prefer to argue with a signpost and STILL go the wrong way, as I've heard it said.

SUIT YOURSELF ...

[Guardianofthesecret]

he throws stones because there is a law that states that the pope is right and that's that and no one can say otherwise. In older times, people would be killed mercilessly if they believed anything different. It's probably engrained into him so deep that he is unable to see things from another standpoint.
oh... and the verses on reincarnation are locked away in the Vatican or have been burned

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Guardianofthesecret

he throws stones because there is a law that states that the pope is right and that's that and no one can say otherwise. In older times, people would be killed mercilessly if they believed anything different. It's probably engrained into him so deep that he is unable to see things from another standpoint.
oh... and the verses on reincarnation are locked away in the Vatican or have been burned

Yes, you're correct, Guardian.

I think pictures sometimes say it all ...


I tend to be the same way when he dredges up this vile business about HPB, as I wince every time I hear that she "renounced Theosophy."

I mean, seriously, that amounts to FAR worse than something like, Pope John Paul II RENOUNCED Catholicism ... or His Holiness the Dalai Lama RENOUNCED Tibetan Buddhism!

Uh-huh. Yeah RIGHT!

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Originally Posted by wil

I love your knowledge Thomas, but give me a break! I don't hold a candle to your book learning and education, but you've got to get out man!

What d'you mean, ignore it?

Originally Posted by wil

It is absolutely wonderful that you love your denomination, but the my way or the high way arrogance is absolutely incredible.

OK. Tell that to Jesus:
John 14:1-6
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God ; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

How's that for arrogance?

Ir is it simply the truth?

Thomas