Did Jesus really teach reincarnation? Ummm, no.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

From another thread on a different subject ...

I would recomment checking out your nearest bookstore, not, as you stated, flimsy websites. Just because the few websites which you have read did not hold up to critical examination, does not mean you cannot find them.

I’m the last person you need to suggest should read books rather than web-sites – I suggest that to people all the time, given the fact that about 85% of the stuff on the web is oversimplified, total crap or a combination of both.

But, if you recall, it was you who couldn’t think of a book to recommend so you suggested Goggling for some information on this supposed “Buddhist influence” on Christianity. I’ve been reading about the historical background to early Christianity for about 20 years now, so I’ve read many hundreds of books on the various influences on the origins of this religion (thanks all the same ) None of them substantiate what you’re claiming in any way.

Of course, I’m talking here about scholarly books by real historians. I have read some non-scholarly, highly crappy New Age books that argue that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism and taught reincarnation, but they present precisely the same garbled misinterpreted arguments that I found on those web-sites.

Do some research and read a book, you will find that there were buddhist sects in the middle east and as far as greece (when I said large, I meant more than just a few migrant famlilies.)

I'm pretty familiar with the evidence regarding western contacts with and knowledge of Buddhism in the ancient period, so it's odd that evidence of these supposed "large Buddhist sects" in the west has eluded me. Or any of the scholars I've read.

Evidence please.

I also feel that you should look at other sources than the bible. When I said that many early christians believed in reincarnation but you must remember that the current bible was not yet assembled.

You think I’m not aware that some Gnostics picked up Greek philosophical ideas about the transmigration of souls and worked that into their version of Christianity? Yes, there is some evidence that some Gnostics believed this. Yes, this is reflected (possibly, we think) in some of their later writings. And yes, these writings were rejected as non-canonical on account of their late date, fraudulent claims to authorship and weird theologies.

But you originally claimed that there was Buddhist influence on “the teachings of Jesus”. It’s tenuous enough to read the canonical gospels – the earliest ones which are closest to his original followers – and try work out what the actual, original “teachings of Jesus” may have been. But to take texts written 150-300 years later by some strange offshoot variants that combined Christian theology with a range of other, more exotic ideas, pick out some of those ideas and declare them to represent the “teachings of Jesus” is so tenuous as to be ridiculous.

So no, sorry: the fact that some Gnostics writing a century or more after Jesus’ time preserve teachings that (somehow) got missed entirely by earlier works closer to his original traditions is a rather feeble piece of “argument from selective evidence”. There is no reason to assume these later beliefs from later texts are original to Jesus and good reasons to believe they are not.

I would recommend reading up on origen, who most certainly did teach reincarnation and the transmigration of souls, here is a CITED QUOTE

Origen, Against Celsus, I.32, as cited in Head and Cranston, 147.
Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its [former] residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.

Hmmm, and it’s interesting that the site you cut-and-pasted that quote from also tries to use the very sloppy misinterpretations of out-of-context quotes from the NT that I highlighted in my last post.

And its selective quotation of Origen shows, again, that these sloppy researchers are only interested in presenting anything that seems to support their pre-assumed idea that reincarnation was part of early Christianity. If they had the faintest clue as to who Origen was, what he believed and what he wrote about the transmigration of souls, they would have been aware of some of his other pronouncements. For example:

‘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"

"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"
(Origen, Commentary on John 6:7)

A bit odd, no? If, as your website claims, Origen was a believer in reincarnation, do we find here the very same Origen arguing against reincarnation?

So what was the passage in Against Celsus they cite all about?

If the writers of that website had bothered to put it in context (or if they had even read it in context, rather than taking it at face value from someone else without checking the source for themselves) it would have been clear that Origen had some ideas of his own about how souls pre-existed in a spiritual realm, transgressed somehow in that spiritual realm and so were imprisoned in material bodies as punishment. He did not, however, believe in souls moving from body to body – as his lengthy dismissal of “the transmigration of souls” in his commentary on John shows.

Origen’s personal ideas about spiritual pre-existence of souls were his own (certainly not traceable to any earlier traditions, let alone anything Jesus said). They were also contested and condemned by his contemporaries as his own innovations. But what they definitely were not was reincarnation – as his other writings clearly indicate.

As I said before, I think that you are limiting your scope to the bible and should open up to the other gospels and teachings. No one will disagree that an early church leader taught a form of reincarnation.

See above. Anyone who says what Origen taught was “a form of reincarnation” needs to either check their facts or check their honesty.

If you are really interested in this, it is interesting to get your hands on a dharmapada and compare it to the teachings of Christ.

Again, I am not saying that these are proof of a Buddhist influence on Christianity, but it is certainly interesting to note the similarities. What you must understand is that I am not trying to prove this; I am simply offering evidence to suggest that it is possible.

There are all kinds of parallels between all kinds of totally unconnected religions. Parallels are not good evidence of influence, precisely because they are so damn common and so easy to find (particularly if you look hard enough).

Really, read the dharmapada and examine the similarities to Jesus' teachings, and make you mind for yourself. The fact is though, they are very similar and these views of nonviolence and selflessness are not found in other (western) religions of the time.

All of Jesus’ views on non-violence and selflessness are based squarely on strong Jewish precedents and traditions and have parallels in the teachings of other rabbis of his time. They require no vague “parallels” with Buddhist ideas to explain them given they are very much part of his Jewish context.

[pranicmegan]

So no, sorry: the fact that some Gnostics writing a century or more after Jesus’ time preserve teachings that (somehow) got missed entirely by earlier works closer to his original traditions is a rather feeble piece of “argument from selective evidence”. There is no reason to assume these later beliefs from later texts are original to Jesus and good reasons to believe they are not.

Interesting. No-one who ever met Jesus ever wrote a word that is contained in the Bible. Most of the NT was written by Saul/Paul who never lived at the same time as Jesus.

Not only that but that which we call the Bible was 'put together' at the Council of Nicea during the fourth century. Only that which was approved by the powers that be at the time was included. Anything that didnt fit with their political theology was ommitted.

We have no original copies of the NT. Only copies of copies. Yet much of the gnostic gospels are originals. But they are not good enough??

The dead sea scrolls were preserved in their original form without interference from church officialdom for hundreds of years, yet you would rather believe the church's official version, which was even tampered with by the king at one time?? Re King James.

LOL. Fine. Go for it.

But even if you do take the Bible at face value, if you are niave enough to, then how do you explain Matthew 17 The Transfiguration?

1: And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart.
2: And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light.
3: And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli'jah, talking with him.
4: And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli'jah."
5: He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
6: When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe.
7: But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and have no fear."
8: And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.
9: And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, "Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead."
10: And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?"
11: He replied, "Eli'jah does come, and he is to restore all things;
12: but I tell you that Eli'jah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands."
13: Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Interesting. No-one who ever met Jesus ever wrote a word that is contained in the Bible. Most of the NT was written by Saul/Paul who never lived at the same time as Jesus.

Saul did live at the same time as Jesus, and had contact with people who knew Jesus personally, even if he didn't himself (as far as we can tell).

Not only that but that which we call the Bible was 'put together' at the Council of Nicea during the fourth century. Only that which was approved by the powers that be at the time was included. Anything that didnt fit with their political theology was ommitted.

Wrong. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the canon of the NT. The consensus as to which gospels were canonical predates the early Fourth Century by about 150 year or more

We have no original copies of the NT. Only copies of copies. Yet much of the gnostic gospels are originals. But they are not good enough??

Wrong again. Name one gnostic text that is an autograph copy. You won't be able to - because there are none. That aside, the Gnostic texts all date to the Second Century or later. The canonical gospels all date to the First Century. They are the earliest sources.

Does this mean they can be taken "at face value" then? Hell no, but I've never said that and I'm the last person on earth who'd say so.

You seem to have assumed I'm a Christian BTW - I'm an atheist.

The dead sea scrolls were preserved in their original form without interference from church officialdom for hundreds of years, yet you would rather believe the church's official version, which was even tampered with by the king at one time?? Re King James.

No, I wouldn't. But what the hell have the DSS got to do with anything?

LOL. Fine. Go for it.

Go for what? You need to check your erroneous assumptions.

But even if you do take the Bible at face value ...

I don't.

then how do you explain Matthew 17 The Transfiguration?

What's to explain? That's a legend that arose in the decades after Jesus' death. Your point?

You seem very confused about what I'm actually saying.

[pranicmegan]

Quote:
Not only that but that which we call the Bible was 'put together' at the Council of Nicea during the fourth century. Only that which was approved by the powers that be at the time was included. Anything that didnt fit with their political theology was ommitted.
Wrong. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the canon of the NT. The consensus as to which gospels were canonical predates the early Fourth Century by about 150 year or more

The Gospels and Epistles thus voted into favor were not arranged together in the form of an authentic Bible until...the Council of Laodicea in the year 353. After this, council after council was called to vote in or vote out some of the books adopted by previous councils, and to settle some important church dogmas. The first council voted the Acts of the Apostles and Revelations out of the Bible...but the second council, which met in 363 voted them in again. Another council, which met in 406, voted them, with several other books, out of the Bible again. And thus were books and dogmas voted in and voted out of "the infallible and inspired word of god," and altered and corrected, time after time and century after century, by twenty-four different councils, composed by bigoted bishops and clergymen, so quarrelsome and belligerent that they resorted to fisticuffs fighting in several of the councils - (Bible of Bibles, 1863 AD)

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The Gospels and Epistles thus voted into favor were not arranged together in the form of an authentic Bible until...the Council of Laodicea in the year 353.

Woops - what happened to your bold assertion about the Council of Nicea? It seems to have suddenly disappeared! :hmmm:

The Synod of Laodicea was a regional council, not an ecumenical one. And its 60th canon - the one listing the canonical books - seems to have been added later. The first church council that definitely did list a canon was the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. But no ecumenical council did so until the Council of Trent in 1546.

But if your point is that the church came to a consensus about which books were early and reliable and which weren't, there's nothing to debate there. The point is that when it comes to a consensus about which gospels to include, that had been reached by the mid-Second Century. Any later debate was quibbling over minor epistles.

Read Bart D. Erhman's Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders The Canon Debate for a detailed, scholarly account of what happened when and why.

And thus were books and dogmas voted in and voted out of "the infallible and inspired word of god," and altered and corrected, time after time and century after century, by twenty-four different councils, composed by bigoted bishops and clergymen, so quarrelsome and belligerent that they resorted to fisticuffs fighting in several of the councils

Yep. And? Your point?