• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Early christianity and reincarnation

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
what is really true? Some people on the internett have written that no cearly christian sects believed in reincarnation
.
But other people on internet have written reincarnation was a popular belief among christians in the first 500 years after christ death.

I am confused... What is the real truth?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
what is really true? Some people on the internett have written that no cearly christian sects believed in reincarnation
.
But other people on internet have written reincarnation was a popular belief among christians in the first 500 years after christ death.

I am confused... What is the real truth?
I suppose you are asking if Reincarnation is a teaching that was found among the early Christians.
Reincarnation is an old teaching that originated before the first century AD.
It was indeed adopted by apostate Christianity, around the late first century - early second century, but was never thought by the first century Christians.
I suppose you would like proof of that.
Searching the scriptures for one thing, reveals the truth about the dead, as taught by Jesus and his apostles.
Teachings contrary to this, came later, after the death of the last living apostle.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
what is really true? Some people on the internett have written that no cearly christian sects believed in reincarnation
.
But other people on internet have written reincarnation was a popular belief among christians in the first 500 years after christ death.

I am confused... What is the real truth?
Yes, there was a belief in reincarnation amongst prominent Christian teachers at the time in the early church. This article goes into details about that: Flesh and Fire: Reincarnation and Universal Salvation in the Early Church
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
what is really true? Some people on the internett have written that no cearly christian sects believed in reincarnation
.
But other people on internet have written reincarnation was a popular belief among christians in the first 500 years after christ death.

I am confused... What is the real truth?
I think it was determined at the early church:

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Just once.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
what is really true? Some people on the internett have written that no cearly christian sects believed in reincarnation
.
But other people on internet have written reincarnation was a popular belief among christians in the first 500 years after christ death.

I am confused... What is the real truth?

I'm not sure anyone, Christian or not, can give you a definite answer, Starlight. I know I can't give you a definite answer.

I thought I would re-post what I wrote in another thread because I commented on a similar topic.

The Bible isn't exactly clear on what happens to a person after they die. For instance, Hebrews 9:27 says, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." On the contrary, Revelation 20:13 says, "The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done."

It appears that Hebrews 9:27 also contradicts Daniel 12:2, which says, "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Furthermore, 2 Chronicles 32:33 says, "And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the upper part of the tombs of the sons of David, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honor at his death." And Manasseh, his son, reigned in his place. " There are several other verses similar to 2 Chronicles 32:33, such as 2 Chronicles 33:20; 1 Kings 15:8; 1 Kings 16:28; 2 Kings 13:13; 2 Kings 14:29, and so forth.

In an account of Jesus' alleged resurrection, Matthew 27:51-53 says, "Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

In John 11:11-15, it's written that Jesus said, "After saying these things, he said to them, 'Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.' The disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover." Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe." But let us go to him." Jesus didn't say that Lazarus' soul went straight to heaven and faced judgment after he died. He said that Lazarus had fallen asleep and that he would go wake up Lazarus, but Lazarus was dead.

Grant it, there are scriptures that seem to indicate judgment right after death, such as Hebrews 9:27 and 2 Corinthians 5:8, which says, "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." But there are scriptures that evidently contradict Hebrews 9:27 and 2 Corinthians 5:8, such as the ones I quoted in this post and several other scriptures.

Once again, the Bible is unclear on what it teaches.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think it was determined at the early church:

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Just once.
Sure, "men" or a person dies once. Then they are judged, and then they can come back as another person in another life to be refined in the fire, so to speak. The soul is what keeps coming back. That "man" or that flesh or lifetime is what dies once. No contradiction there. We live this life one time, then we die, then we are judged. If we are 'sent back', it's not as that same person.

Origen believed in reincarnation, and he knew of this verse, didn't he? He is highly regarded by many of the greats of the Western church, despite the Church's branding of him as a heretic. Even it's own "Saints" respected him. So you can't say the "early church" settled it, by quoting Hebrews. Origen is the early church, and he knew Hebrews too.

Flesh and Fire: Reincarnation and Universal Salvation in the Early Church
 

KW

Well-Known Member
Sure, "men" or a person dies once. Then they are judged, and come back as another person in another life. The soul keeps coming back. That "man" or that flesh or lifetime is what dies once. No contradiction there. We live this life one time, then we die, then we are judged. If we are 'sent back', it's not as that same person. Eventually, we get it right. That's the goal at least.

Origen believed in reincarnation, and he knew of this verse, didn't he? He is highly regarded by many of the greats of the Western church, despite the Church's branding of him as a heretic. Even it's own "Saints" respected him. So you can't say the "early church" settled it, by quoting Hebrews. Origen is the early church, and he knew Hebrews too.

Flesh and Fire: Reincarnation and Universal Salvation in the Early Church


Origen did NOT believe in reincarnation;

What the Early Church Believed: Reincarnation
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
what is really true? Some people on the internett have written that no cearly christian sects believed in reincarnation
.
But other people on internet have written reincarnation was a popular belief among christians in the first 500 years after christ death.

I am confused... What is the real truth?

Yes, they did believe in reincarnation. Some of the church fathers believed in it. Also, some of Jesus' followers thought he might have been Elijah come again.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
In the Bible there are basically two beliefs: no afterlife/resurrection (which is actually a unique kind of reincarnation).

As an exception there is is also a baffling passage:
"Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Sure, "men" or a person dies once. Then they are judged, and then they can come back as another person in another life to be refined in the fire, so to speak. The soul is what keeps coming back. That "man" or that flesh or lifetime is what dies once. No contradiction there. We live this life one time, then we die, then we are judged. If we are 'sent back', it's not as that same person.

Origen believed in reincarnation, and he knew of this verse, didn't he? He is highly regarded by many of the greats of the Western church, despite the Church's branding of him as a heretic. Even it's own "Saints" respected him. So you can't say the "early church" settled it, by quoting Hebrews. Origen is the early church, and he knew Hebrews too.

Flesh and Fire: Reincarnation and Universal Salvation in the Early Church
Yes, that is where Christianity and Hinduism are different.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Origen did NOT believe in reincarnation;

What the Early Church Believed: Reincarnation
What you linked me to is not shooting straight. The quotes from Origen are out of context. I'll explain. But first, unlike what the link you shared said, the link I provided to you is NOT New Age belief. This was from a professor at Harvard Divinity school, not Shirlie Mclain. What I provided is credible and respectable. Here it is again for your easy reference: Flesh and Fire: Reincarnation and Universal Salvation in the Early Church

Now onto what you shared. They are either being very careless with their quotes, or are being outright dishonest about them for the sake of denying the complexity of the matter. For instance, Origen is quoted by them as saying,

"[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”
This is intended to convince you the reader that Origen is denying reincarnation. However, what he is doing here is giving examples of the types of arguments that people were having. One the one hand you have here this "churchman who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation", saying what follows. That is not Origen's thoughts on the matter. He is presenting the different sides of the argument.

But let's' pause here for a second. The fact he is saying there are multiple sides to this matter, which he continues to explain in detail in his commentary (the whole of which may be found here: CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on John, Book VI (Origen) ), this alone proves that there were disputes amongst those back then during the early church of those who DID believe in reincarnation! Why would he be commented on a belief that no one had? So in their attempt to say Origen didn't believe in it, citing his supposed refutation of it, they are also informing us that there were those in the early church who did believe in it! And that proves my point, as well as that of the scholar from Harvard I linked to.

To continue on, they also badly misrepresent Origen in citing the commentary about the Canaanite woman's, saying,

"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).​

What Origen is saying here, is that nowhere in scripture does it teach that men are reincarnated backwards into dogs. This is not denying reincarnation. It is denying the it means you go backwards to lower life forms. Again, here is the full commentary to read in context to understand, once again, he was talking about how different people in the early church were viewing these matters, and providing his thoughts to some of those things. CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on Matthew, Book XI (Origen)

Once again, this proves reincarnation was believed in back then. And as far as what Origen thought himself, I refer you back to the article from the Harvard professor, who is not a New Age follower of Shirley McLain. :)
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes, that is where Christianity and Hinduism are different.
Maybe not as much you think. :) Origen wasn't talking about Hindus who believed in reincarnation in his commentaries. See my post before this one just now.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Maybe not as much you think. :) Origen wasn't talking about Hindus who believed in reincarnation in his commentaries. See my post before this one just now.
Yes, the Bible does address that there are those who come with a different gospel. Just because someone says he is a Christian doesn't mean everything he says is correct.

It is quite obvious that it was in direct contradiction to what scriptures say. That is why Martin Luther nailed a detailed list of contradictions to Christian leaders of his time.

That isn't to say that there aren't some thing that are similar in Hinduism with Christianity but we aren't addressing that.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes, the Bible does address that there are those who come with a different gospel. Just because someone says he is a Christian doesn't mean everything he says is correct.
According to Romans 14, Christians have lots of different beliefs, and it's not up to you as a Christian to sit as their judge over whether this belief is correct or that belief is not. It's a great chapter. I think this whole "you're a heretic because you think differently than me", is carnal in nature. It's the ego, not the Spirit of Love.

It is quite obvious that it was in direct contradiction to what scriptures say. That is why Martin Luther nailed a detailed list of contradictions to Christian leaders of his time.
No it is not. He was not railing against those who had different theological ideas. He was upset with corruptions against basic Christian principles, such as fairness, truth, and love, and turning positions of authority into abuses of power. That's not the same thing as a "true believer" who thinks they are going to heaven as a reward for having the "true beliefs" of the apostles, or some such nonsense.

That isn't to say that there aren't some thing that are similar in Hinduism with Christianity but we aren't addressing that.
Beliefs in reincarnation are commonplace in agricultural societies. That both Jews and Christians had them as well as Hindus, is not because they are Hindu beliefs. They both have a common source really.

And does it really matter to one's salvation if that belief is "factual" or not? Do you think how you think about these things, or your ideas about anything for that matter, is what God judges? Is heaven, in your mind, contingent upon getting a passing grade on a quiz about theological concepts?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
According to Romans 14, Christians have lots of different beliefs, and it's not up to you as a Christian to sit as their judge over whether this belief is correct or that belief is not. It's a great chapter. I think this whole "you're a heretic because you think differently than me", is carnal in nature. It's the ego, not the Spirit of Love.

No... Romans 14 isn't addressing reincarnation. I would call that a misappropriation of scripture and application.

Paul is the one who quoted "another gospel" so you would have to take that up with him.

In God's grace, you may well believe that you will die multiple deaths but you will still find out it is just once. :)

You can't change what is written.

No it is not. He was not railing against those who had different theological ideas. He was upset with corruptions against basic Christian principles, such as fairness, truth, and love, and turning positions of authority into abuses of power. That's not the same thing as a "true believer" who thinks they are going to heaven as a reward for having the "true beliefs" of the apostles, or some such nonsense.

i think you are making an issue where there isn't one. All I am saying is that we die once and then judgment. We don't have reincarnations of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Beliefs in reincarnation are commonplace in agricultural societies. That both Jews and Christians had them as well as Hindus, is not because they are Hindu beliefs. They both have a common source really.

And does it really matter to one's salvation if that belief is "factual" or not? Do you think how you think about these things, or your ideas about anything for that matter, is what God judges?

I'm not sure what "commonplace" has to do with what we are talking about. If Jesus says "No man comes to the Father but through me", it may be commonplace that people say "But I have another way" but it doesn't change truth for what Christians believe. It is our faith.

Shalom
 
Top