|
Post by StAnne on Jul 15, 2013 16:44:53 GMT -5
Here's something interesting I discovered today from reviewing these sacred texts from the past and one fact will shock you as it did me concerning reincarnation being taught within the early church as doctrine. I discovered that the Roman Catholic Church actually taught this spiritual concept up until A.D. 553, which a reigning Pope changed his mind on the subject and began to call it heresy. The story is quite interesting to read and I never thought I would discover such a find from my research. www.near-death.com/experiences/origen03.htmlNot true. Unless you can provide something substantial. Reincarnation
Members of what is commonly called the "New Age" movement often claim that early Christians believed in reincarnation. Shirley MacLaine, an avid New Age disciple, recalls being taught: "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around A.D. 553, called the Council of Nicaea [sic]" (Out on a Limb, 234–35).
Historical facts provide no basis for this claim. In fact, there was no Council of Nicaea in A.D. 553. Further, the two ecumenical councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325 and A.D. 787) took place in the city of Nicaea (hence their names)—and neither dealt with reincarnation. What did take place in A.D. 553 was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. But records from this Council show that it, too, did not address the subject of reincarnation. None of the early councils did.
The closest the Second Council of Constantinople came to addressing reincarnation was, in one sentence, to condemn Origen, an early Church writer who believed souls exist in heaven before coming to earth to be born. New Agers confuse this belief in the preexistence of the soul with reincarnation and claim that Origen was a reincarnationist. Actually, he was one of the most prolific early writers against reincarnation! Because he is so continually misrepresented by New Agers, we have included a number of his quotes below, along with passages from other sources, all of which date from before A.D. 553, when the doctrine of reincarnation was supposedly "taken out of the Bible."
The origin of Shirley MacLaine’s mistaken notion that Origen taught reincarnation is probably Reincarnation in Christianity, by Geddes MacGregor—a book published by the Theosophical Publishing House in 1978. The author speculates 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). You may judge from the passages below whether this seems likely.
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]).
this and more quotes from the Early Church Fathers as to what was REALLY taught - at the link ... www.catholic.com/tracts/reincarnation
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 15, 2013 16:59:48 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Here is one response with an explanation about what transpired, which may help clarify this matter for you? However, I intend to dig deeper to see what can be found on this subject, as it really has gotten my attention today. Also, I noticed you quoted from a Catholic answer site. Do you have a secular one that can back up this information as well?
www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2236843/pg1
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 15, 2013 17:30:34 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Here is another site that deals with the historical aspects of these Catholic Councils and what was discussed. Please note the outline found in the Bibliography Section to check any references. towards the end with the Second Council of Constantinople, which occurred in A.D. 553 referenced below in red highlights: www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 15, 2013 17:54:22 GMT -5
Well, perhaps this site will answer some of these questions more clearly. Please can read from the original documents and decide for themselves what is truth and what is fiction? The discussion of Origen's life and influence I found quite interesting to read at this site. He was definitely more enlightened than others during his time and was more like a Rennaisance Man in many respects from his writings. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen www.tertullian.org/fathers2/
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 15, 2013 18:30:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 15, 2013 18:37:25 GMT -5
From your link ... The second topic that this council is most known for is the anathematization of Origen, and its 15 condemnations of his teaching, which included such things as the pre-existence of souls, supposed “subordinationism,” and universal reconciliation of all things, including the possibly of Satan’s reconciliation to God in the end (something Origen did not teach!). Gregory the Great was one church father that did not submit to Origen’s excommunication. Indeed, throughout history many have questioned the validity of this council since it was called by Emperor Justinian, and not by the Pope. Furthermore, in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a homily concerning Origen in which he says that Origen was “crucial to the whole development of Christian thought.” Okay. So what does it prove - other than much of what he taught was good; some was not in-line with Church teaching. Origen is not and never was the Church. Origen is not recognized as a Saint by the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 15, 2013 18:42:39 GMT -5
So. You proved my point. Thank you. The Church did not accept some of Origen's teachings - from your quote - the anathematization of OrigenThe Church did not teach reincarnation.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 15, 2013 19:44:42 GMT -5
Further - that's what the Church councils were always about - to define what was believed and to declare what was not believed. From the first council to replace Judas - to how and why the Creeds developed - to how the Bible was canonized ...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 15, 2013 23:11:33 GMT -5
StAnne ~ My whole point here is to present some information I found from my research for discussion. I make no claims either way. However, I did discover something about Judaism that was quite interesting regarding the afterlife from a Jewish information site. However to investigate the church fathers more thoroughly and what was discussed during these Councils, you can check this site out which deals with actual documents: The discussion regarding Origin was quite interesting to read at this site. He was quite adevanced for his time and it shows in his religious views. www.tertullian.org/fathers2/Here's a Jewish site that also confirms to some degree that the Jews believed in an after-life and maybe reincarnation: http://www.jewfaq.org/ (Main site) www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm (This site deals with their thoughts about the afterlife.)
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 16, 2013 7:20:32 GMT -5
www.tertullian.org/fathers2/StAnne ~ My whole point here is to present some information I found from my research for discussion. I make no claims either way. However, I did discover something about Judaism that was quite interesting regarding the afterlife from a Jewish information site. However to investigate the church fathers more thoroughly and what was discussed during these Councils, you can check this site out which deals with actual documents: The discussion regarding Origin was quite interesting to read at this site. He was quite adevanced for his time and it shows in his religious views. www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ Yes, Origen was - in your words - 'advanced' enough that it got him anathemized from the Church (see your earlier quote above).
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 9:50:42 GMT -5
StAnne ~ My whole point here is to present some information I found from my research for discussion. I make no claims either way. However, I did discover something about Judaism that was quite interesting regarding the afterlife from a Jewish information site. However to investigate the church fathers more thoroughly and what was discussed during these Councils, you can check this site out which deals with actual documents: The discussion regarding Origin was quite interesting to read at this site. He was quite advanced for his time and it shows in his religious views. www.tertullian.org/fathers2/Yes, Origen was - in your words - 'advanced' enough that it got him anathemized from the Church (see your earlier quote above). Considering all the claims against him at this Council in A.D. 553, it's remarkable that so many good things were written about him back in time and even by Pope Benedict in 2007, commenting on his many contributions to Christianity and the early church. From my site above you can read about him under The Church Fathers of the Third Century. He obviously was too well educated for his time and quite the analytical thinker from this quote from at the end of an Introduction to his writings at the site above. However, the fact that the Inquisition and the religious Crusades caused the deaths of a large number of people down through the centuries who would not convert to the Church's way of thinking, seems to speak of the times that Origin lived in?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 10:46:46 GMT -5
Here's a site that deals with exactly what transpired during these various Inquisitions within the Church history down through the centuries from 100 A.D. and onward up through the mid-1700's in America. This was what you could look forward to if accused of heresy with the Church or being a witch later on in medieval times into the 18th century. These historical accountings give an entirely different picture of Christianity down through the ages, which is far from complimentary of the Church's actions down through the archives of history. www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htmAnd here's a reference to the history of the Catholic Church and how it evolved down through the ages to its status today: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 16, 2013 11:30:23 GMT -5
Pretty much what I thought this was ... a bashing session under the guise of 'oh, guess what ... the Church taught reincarnation and then abandoned it ... ' and when that proved not to be true, then out comes more ...
Remember - we will all be held responsible for our words - written or otherwise.
So carry on. May it serve your purposes.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 15:25:50 GMT -5
Pretty much what I thought this was ... a bashing session under the guise of ' oh, guess what ... the Church taught reincarnation and then abandoned it ... ' and when that proved not to be true, then out comes more ... Remember - we will all be held responsible for our words - written or otherwise. So carry on. May it serve your purposes. When did presenting historical facts become a bashing session? Unfortunately, these things described in this article did take place over a period of many centuries and under different Popes over cases they deemed as "heresy." In essence, anything different from what the the Church taught and allowed was considered heresy in that day. There were many different sects of Christianity around the first and second century, including the Gnostics among others, and they were virtually obliterated by the actions the Church employed to retain their power over the people. In addition, their joining with the Roman authorities of that day just helped to solidify their place in history. www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 16:03:22 GMT -5
Now to get back to the teachings of the early church with the supposed theories on "reincarnation" being taught within early Christianity. Here's another article that deals with this subject matter and goes into some detail as to what may have transpired back in time: truthorheresy.com/reincarnation-in-early-christianity(Truth or Heresy: Rincarnation In Eary Christianity?)
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 16, 2013 16:20:50 GMT -5
Pretty much what I thought this was ... a bashing session under the guise of ' oh, guess what ... the Church taught reincarnation and then abandoned it ... ' and when that proved not to be true, then out comes more ... Remember - we will all be held responsible for our words - written or otherwise. So carry on. May it serve your purposes. When did presenting historical facts become a bashing session? It is bashing when you present a false claim that the Church taught reincarnation - and additionally make an accusation of an attempt to hide it - and then fail to correct the error and retract the false statements. It is bashing when you present a version of the Inquisitions directed only at the Church - failing to present all sides of it - as if it were Church teaching (which it never was) - and if you're in to Inquisition (rather than bashing) I don't believe I've seen any reference to the Protestant Inquisitions while conducting your busy work. We indeed do not know for a fact that the version you are presenting is indeed 'historical facts' - they are often heavily biased and grossly inaccurate - but you're attesting that you have verified it all as facts? ... and you will happily accept the burden of verity for what you have shared ...?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 16:55:39 GMT -5
StAnne ~ I'm only presenting what I have found recently on this subject and a number of articles have indicated that reincarnation possibly was taught at one time in the early church up until that Council in A.D. 553, presided over by the Emperor Justinian. The decision of that Council was not approved by the jailed Pope at that time, who didn't want to ex-communicate Origin or call his teachings heresy from the articles I cited. Also, grounds for ex-communication of Origin as a heretic was contributed to the Emperor Justinian opinion that Origin's teachings on "reincarnation," were heresy. So, obviously, it must have been taught at one time to even become an issue at this Second Council in Constantinople in A.D. 553? I'm sorry I can't change things to suit your opinion ~ however, it's just one hypothesis that has raised its head over a number of years concerning Origin. Perhaps information was surpressed, as happened a lot during that period of the Inquisitions for obvious reasons? However, I see no reason to apologize for sharing such information with others and allowing them to make their own decisions. Surpressing or changing information simply because it doesn't compliment Church history doesn't seem like an honest thing to do and surely doesn't promote the search for biblical truth. truthorheresy.com/famous-church-fathers
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 16, 2013 17:03:08 GMT -5
StAnne ~ I'm only presenting what I have found recently on this subject and a number of articles have indicated that reincarnation possibly was taught at one time in the early church up until that Council in A.D. 553, presided over by the Emperor Justinian. The decision of that Council was not approved by the jailed Pope at that time, who didn't want to ex-communicate Origin or call his teachings heresy from the articles I cited. Also, grounds for ex-communication of Origin as a heretic was contributed to the Emperor Justinian opinion that Origin's teachings on "reincarnation," were heresy. So, obviously, it must have been taught at one time to even become an issue at this Second Council in Constantinople in A.D. 553? I'm sorry I can't change things to suit your opinion ~ however, it's just one hypothesis that has raised its head over a number of years concerning Origin. Perhaps information was surpressed, as happened a lot during that period of the inquisitions for obvious reasons? However, I see no reason to apologize for sharing such information with others and allowing them to make their own decisions. Surpressing or changing information simply because it doesn't compliment Church history doesn't seem like an honest thing to do and surely doesn't promote the search for biblical truth. truthorheresy.com/famous-church-fathers It was declared heresy because it was NOT a teaching of the Church. That should be rather obvious. Ah. And then just keep adding to the list of bashing ... it doesn't end ... I'm sorry I can't change things to suit your opinionMy opinion matters not. It's the difference in truth and falsehood. However, I see no reason to apologize for sharing such information with others and allowing them to make their own decisions. And if it's bearing false witness ... you're comfortable with that?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 17:22:10 GMT -5
In my defense of presenting a balanced argument, I also presented articles that defended your premise, if you check back in my posts? You also commented on me doing the same. I was just presenting the various opinions on this subject and really don't know for sure what is accurate or not, since there were a lot of forgeries circulating during the first century and after and many schools of religious thought ~ even among the early Christians. For example, the Gnostics is a typical example of this fact? Although their teachings and writings were surpressed by the Catholic Church, that group did exists along with other sects, which were labeled as heretics. Also, here is another article that defends your own premise that I just found a few minutes ago, that I would like also to add to my postings to keep a balance in this discussion: www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222727/k.4FCD/Was_Reincarnation_Ever_in_the_Bible.htm
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 16, 2013 17:31:24 GMT -5
StAnne ~ I'm only presenting what I have found recently on this subject and a number of articles have indicated that reincarnation possibly was taught at one time in the early church up until that Council in A.D. 553, presided over by the Emperor Justinian. The decision of that Council was not approved by the jailed Pope at that time, who didn't want to ex-communicate Origin or call his teachings heresy from the articles I cited. Also, grounds for ex-communication of Origin as a heretic was contributed to the Emperor Justinian opinion that Origin's teachings on "reincarnation," were heresy. So, obviously, it must have been taught at one time to even become an issue at this Second Council in Constantinople in A.D. 553? I'm sorry I can't change things to suit your opinion ~ however, it's just one hypothesis that has raised its head over a number of years concerning Origin. Perhaps information was surpressed, as happened a lot during that period of the inquisitions for obvious reasons? However, I see no reason to apologize for sharing such information with others and allowing them to make their own decisions. Surpressing or changing information simply because it doesn't compliment Church history doesn't seem like an honest thing to do and surely doesn't promote the search for biblical truth. truthorheresy.com/famous-church-fathers faune, it is laudable that you are studying ancient sacred texts, however, don't you know that you are knocking your head against a stone wall, a very large stone wall?
The "stone wall" of Roman Catholic dogma.
The "church" been around a long time insisting only they are the "True Church," -founded on Peter. (who would probably turn over in his grave if he had one.)
THE CHURCH does try to change their dogma about morality- very slowly, I admit- adjusting a bit here, a bit there,- in order to try & keep up with the times- never quite making it morally.
But man,! they do keep trying, while at the same time doing their level best to keep people under their control!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 16, 2013 17:31:56 GMT -5
In my defense of presenting a balanced argument, I also presented articles that defended your premise, if you check back in my posts? You also commented on the same. I was just presenting the various opinions on this subject and really don't know for sure what is accurate or not, since there were a lot of forgeries circulating during the first century and after and many schools of religious thought ~ even among the early Christians. For example, the Gnostics is a typical example of this fact? Although their teachings and writings were surpressed by the Catholic Church, that group did exists along with other sects. Also, here is another article that defends your own premise that I just found a few minutes ago, that I would like also to add to my postings to keep a balance in this discussion: www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222727/k.4FCD/Was_Reincarnation_Ever_in_the_Bible.htm Although their teachings and writings were surpressed by the Catholic Church, that group did exists along with other sects. Odd then that we have the Gnostic gospel(s) - isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 16, 2013 17:44:34 GMT -5
Remember - we will all be held responsible for our words - written or otherwise. Interesting - a light just came on for me. This helps me understand your motivation, and why you stick strictly to acceptable catholic doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 16, 2013 17:46:20 GMT -5
In my defense of presenting a balanced argument, I also presented articles that defended your premise, if you check back in my posts? You also commented on the same. I was just presenting the various opinions on this subject and really don't know for sure what is accurate or not, since there were a lot of forgeries circulating during the first century and after and many schools of religious thought ~ even among the early Christians. For example, the Gnostics is a typical example of this fact? Although their teachings and writings were surpressed by the Catholic Church, that group did exists along with other sects. Also, here is another article that defends your own premise that I just found a few minutes ago, that I would like also to add to my postings to keep a balance in this discussion: www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222727/k.4FCD/Was_Reincarnation_Ever_in_the_Bible.htm Although their teachings and writings were surpressed by the Catholic Church, that group did exists along with other sects. Odd then that we have the Gnostic gospel(s) - isn't it. Well, the fact that we have the Gnostic gospels surely isn't due to the "CHURCH FATHERS" admitting them into their "canon" to preserve them- is it?!Gnostic GospelsFrom Wikipedia, The Gnostic Gospels are a collection of about fifty-two ancient texts based upon the teachings of several spiritual leaders including Jesus, written from the 2nd to the 4th century AD. The sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, compiled circa 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, possibly as early as the second half of the first century. [1] These gospels are not part of the standard Biblical canon of any major Christian denomination, and as such are part of what is called the New Testament apocrypha. Recent novels and films that refer to the gospels have increased public interest.[2][3] The word gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "knowledge", which is often used in Greek philosophy in a manner more consistent with the English "enlightenment". Some scholars continue to maintain traditional dating for the emergence of Gnostic philosophy and religious movements.[4] It is now generally believed that the evidence suggests that Gnosticism was a Jewish movement which subsequently reacted to Christianity or that Gnosticism emerged directly in reaction to Christianity.[5] The name Christian gnostics came to represent a segment of the Early Christian community that believed that salvation lay not in merely worshipping Christ, but in psychic or pneumatic souls learning to free themselves from the material world via the revelation.[6] According to this tradition, the answers to spiritual questions are to be found within, not without.[2] Furthermore, the gnostic path does not require the intermediation of a church for salvation. Some scholars, such as Edward Conze and Elaine Pagels, have suggested that gnosticism blends teachings like those attributed to Jesus Christ with teachings found in Eastern traditions.[1]
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 17:48:47 GMT -5
In my defense of presenting a balanced argument, I also presented articles that defended your premise, if you check back in my posts? You also commented on the same. I was just presenting the various opinions on this subject and really don't know for sure what is accurate or not, since there were a lot of forgeries circulating during the first century and after and many schools of religious thought ~ even among the early Christians. For example, the Gnostics is a typical example of this fact? Although their teachings and writings were surpressed by the Catholic Church, that group did exists along with other sects. Also, here is another article that defends your own premise that I just found a few minutes ago, that I would like also to add to my postings to keep a balance in this discussion: www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222727/k.4FCD/Was_Reincarnation_Ever_in_the_Bible.htm Although their teachings and writings were surpressed by the Catholic Church, that group did exists along with other sects. Odd then that we have the Gnostic gospel(s) - isn't it. These Gnostic Gospels were not discovered until 1945 and were buried in a sealed jar to prevent them from being confiscated and destroyed by the Catholic Church, which was the fate of any writings deemed heretical according to the Church. So, if there are gaps in early Christian history, perhaps it can also be attributed to such actions by these early Church leaders, in which many historical documents were completely destroyed? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 18:05:32 GMT -5
Perhaps another reason that Origen was later ex-communicated by the Catholic Church was his search for truth in scripture and abhorrence of all the falsehoods circulating during his time? It seems that agreeing with the status quo and the dogma of the Church had a lot to do with staying alive during that time in history? Unfortunately, many lost their lives over trivial things to increase the treasury of the Vatican. Although the selling of indulgences provided a good source of income, confiscating the properties of people they deemed heretics really increased the Vatican's treasury! Such practices were quite a lucrative business during the Church Inquistions and extended over centuries. truthorheresy.com/famous-church-fathers
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 16, 2013 18:40:18 GMT -5
Although their teachings and writings were surpressed by the Catholic Church, that group did exists along with other sects. Odd then that we have the Gnostic gospel(s) - isn't it. These Gnostic Gospels were not discovered until 1945 and were buried in a seared jar to prevent them from being confiscated and destroyed by the Catholic Church, Is that atypical for the time period? Or a cave for the Dead Sea Scrolls ... discovered around the same time period of 1945. I don't think they had safe-deposit boxes.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 16, 2013 18:57:48 GMT -5
These Gnostic Gospels were not discovered until 1945 and were buried in a seared jar to prevent them from being confiscated and destroyed by the Catholic Church, Is that atypical for the time period? Or a cave for the Dead Sea Scrolls ... discovered around the same time period of 1945. I don't think they had safe-deposit boxes. As usual, when some people can no longer defend their position, they start being silly!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 16, 2013 19:05:08 GMT -5
|
|