<p>And, I am not really sure what reincarnation has to do with satan. I dont know what form of reincarnation you believe in or other religions believe in, but this Jewish one has little to do with Satan as far as I know, and by the way, I do not know very much compared to other Jews.</p>
<p>what some christians say abou the “evilness” of reincarnation- it is Satans trick, and evil, apparently…but early Christian and Jews both supported the idea of reincarnation, but Constantine took that part out, because, well any number of reasons, but in the first 4 centuries of Chrisitanity, reincarnation was “allowed” as teachings for Christians, and then Volia, it became Satan’s lie…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.elevated.fsnet.co.uk/index-page14.html[/url]”>http://www.elevated.fsnet.co.uk/index-page14.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://biblia.com/theology/reincarnation2.htm[/url]”>http://biblia.com/theology/reincarnation2.htm</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/manylife.htm[/url]”>http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/manylife.htm</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=669[/url]”>http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=669</a></p>
<p><a href=“What If Reincarnation Were True? | GARBC Baptist Bulletin”>What If Reincarnation Were True? | GARBC Baptist Bulletin;
<p>so, if you look at some Christians views, those that beleive in reincarnation believe in Satan’s lie…take that as you will…but remember reincarnation was in the early New Testement, but a political leader changed the bible to suit his needs…and that is why learning the history of the bible is so important</p>
<p>believing in reincarnation initially was not wrong…but man changed that…</p>
<p>so was that God’s word that reincarnation was Satan’s Big lie, or mans teachings? that is the conudrum</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, its not about early Judaism supporting “their version” of reincarnation, its a basic tenet of Judaism, in the simplified form that I earlier described. </p>
<p>As for Christianity, if it views reincarnation as satanic, then so be it. It is there right and their religion. I respect that and am completely not pertrubed by it. In fact, I applaud their strong faith because as non-Jews they do not need to believe or do the same things Jews do. So let them believe what they want. I am not sure what your religion affiliation is but I can assume you are either an athiest or a humanist or w/e, so I am not sure what you are so upset about.</p>
<p>You see, early Jews and Early Christians had the same basic beliefs about Reincarnation…all was fine…the 400 years later, a political leader changed that and decided that reincarnation did not suit his needs as a leader, and a human being decided to change God’s teachings on his whim</p>
<p>It was a political decision, not a religious one…a religion that was based on Judiasm, and supposed to be the word of God, but no so much…</p>
<p>Do you not acknowledge that this pretty powerful change, calling Jews believers in Satan’s teachings, a major one? And that attitude of Satan believers, well, that carries into a prejudice against Jews?</p>
<p>There is a connection throughout History of bigotry toward Jews because of the New Testement- people even said Jews killed Jesus, and the words of the bible were what Hitler used to justify his Hatred and murder of 6million people</p>
<p>But, hey, of Constanines change of the bible, the supposed word of God means nothing, and you can’t see how that is relelvant to peoples beliefs and interpratations today, well, that is indeed sad</p>
<p>You should be preturbed by it, because those kinds of changes, what was in the New Testement, man/s readings of the bible, well those people picked and chose what suited them to create the Holocust, and that my friend, is not in my imagination nor a lie</p>
<p>“Do you not acknowledge that this pretty powerful change, calling Jews believers in Satan’s teachings, a major one? And that attitude of Satan believers, well, that carries into a prejudice against Jews?” NO, either do other Jews.</p>
<p>“There is a connection throughout History of bigotry toward Jews because of the New Testement- people even said Jews killed Jesus, and the words of the bible were what Hitler used to justify his Hatred and murder of 6million people” That was not Hitler’s main reason or main justification for killing Jews. In fact, that justification was completely irrelevant.</p>
<p>“You should be preturbed by it, because those kinds of changes, what was in the New Testement, man/s readings of the bible, well those people picked and chose what suited them to create the Holocust, and that my friend, is not in my imagination nor a lie” Hitler did not kill Jews because of how he read the bible, he killed Jews because he hated them. I am PERTRUBED, to borrow your word, that you didnt know that.</p>
<p>^^^“Joseph Campbell goes into great depth on this topic in his classic work ‘The Power of Myth.’”^^^</p>
<p>I can assure you that you will not find in Joseph Campbell–any of his writings or lectures–the assumption that any of the sacred writing, in any major faith, to be brute “opinion”. Neither would you find this in the writings of those Campbell himself was educated on.</p>
<p>Moreover, I do not believe you will ever find Campbell using the dismissive and condescending tone employed here by those who have rejected the sacred traditions and teaching of their youth in favor of something else they have found in the fashions of the market place they were born into. Worse, Campbell himself <em>was</em> very dismissive of what now falls under the consumer category of “New Age.” He saw it as ungrounded fashion, a self styled worship rejected throughout human history by the prophets and poets of wisdom who knew better.</p>
<p>Campbell was quite capable of being dismissive of the ignorance so often attached to those of a fundamentalist disposition–in any religion–due to their narrow experience or education, but not of the texts and traditions their faith was built upon. It would have been, I believe, beneath him to act out like that. It would have been hubris and hubris is one sin that all the prophets and poets agree to be beyond sin. </p>
<p>It is ego, not transcendence.</p>
<p>"early Jews and Early Christians had the same basic beliefs about Reincarnation…all was fine…the 400 years later, a political leader changed that and decided that reincarnation did not suit his needs as a leader, and a human being decided to change God’s teachings on his whim</p>
<p>It was a political decision, not a religious one…"</p>
<p>Very true. Point being, that if the bible is God’s ‘word’ then how is it that humans so easily changed it?</p>
<p>Despite Constantine’s best efforts, some vestiges of reincarnation remain.
Here are some examples from <a href=“http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen3.html[/url]”>http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen3.html</a></p>
<p>“…
“And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” Jesus answered, ‘Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.’” (John 9:1) </p>
<p>The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed the sin that led to his blindness. Given the fact that the man has been blind from birth, we are confronted with a provocative question. When could he have made such transgressions as to make him blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some prenatal state. The question as posed by the disciples explicitly presupposes prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing to dispel or correct the presupposition. Here is incontrovertible support for a doctrine of human preexistence.</p>
<p>Also very suggestive of reincarnation is the episode where Jesus identifies John the Baptist as Elijah. </p>
<p>“For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come.” (Matthew 11:13-14) </p>
<p>“And the disciples asked him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ But he answered them and said, ‘Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.’ Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:10-13)</p>
<p>Here again is a clear statement of preexistence. Despite the edict of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the New Testament. Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding, contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology.</p>
<p>As for the John the Baptist-Elijah episode, there can be little question as to its purpose. By identifying the Baptist as Elijah, Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. Throughout the gospel narrative there are explicit references to the signs that will precede the Messiah. </p>
<p>“Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” (Malachi 4:5) </p>
<p>This is one of the many messianic promises of the Old Testament. One of the signs that the true Messiah has come, according to this passage from Malachi, is that he be preceded by a forerunner, by Elijah.</p>
<p>Although the Bible also contains other reincarnational passages, these Elijah-John passages constitute clear proof of reincarnation:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself (not someone “like” him or someone “similar” to him, but Elijah himself) would return before the advent of the Messiah.</p></li>
<li><p>Jesus declared that John the Baptist was Elijah who had returned, stating bluntly “Elijah has come”.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Now, based on these passages alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:</p>
<p>(A) John the Baptist was Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah had reincarnated. If this is true, then reincarnation must belong in Christian theology, and the West’s entire doctrinal interpretation of “Life After Death” in general, and the “Last Day Resurrection” in particular, must be radically revised, or…</p>
<p>(B) John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah himself had not returned. If this is so, then either:</p>
<p>(1) The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the Messiah failed to come to pass (meaning that Biblical prophecy is fallible), OR</p>
<p>(2) Jesus was not the Messiah.</p>
<p>Basically, it comes down to this simple question: What do you want to believe? One of the following A, B, or C, must logically be true:</p>
<p>A. Reincarnation is true, or</p>
<p>B. Jesus was not the Messiah, or</p>
<p>C. The prophecies of the Bible are unreliable.</p>
<p>As surely as two and two make four, one of the above must be true. At any rate, the passage in which Jesus says in no uncertain terms that John was Elijah is “overt” and direct…"</p>
<p>“reincarnation, its a basic tenet of Judaism, in the simplified form”</p>
<p>That is really interesting. I knew that it was commonly believed by Jews at the time of Jesus, but I didn’t realize that it was a basic tenet today. It’s very refreshing to hear that.</p>
<p>I am still puzzled why SOME Christians I have known make such a big deal about New Agers believing in reincarnation, but don’t seem to bother the Jewish people too much. Well, maybe I wouldn’t know about it they did, since I am not Jewish.</p>
<p>"I can assure you that you will not find in Joseph Campbell–any of his writings or lectures–the assumption that any of the sacred writing, in any major faith, to be brute “opinion”. Neither would you find this in the writings of those Campbell himself was educated on.</p>
<p>Moreover, I do not believe you will ever find Campbell using the dismissive and condescending tone employed here by those who have rejected the sacred traditions and teaching of their youth in favor of something else they have found in the fashions of the market place they were born into."</p>
<p>fresin, thanks for you accurate and insightful post. I apologize for not accurately conveying my comments about my beliefs about religion and about Joseph Campbell.</p>
<p>Actually, I agree completely with you and your assessment of Campbell’s beliefs!</p>
<p>I’m sorry that you thought I was dismissive of sacred traditions. Actually, I am not. I did say in a recent post that I believe there is great beauty and truth in most of the world’s religions, and they in fact all have a common thread of that truth and beauty.</p>
<p>Campbell went into great depth about the ARCHETYPES, which are to be found in all enduring myths.</p>
<p>It is important to note here the definition of ‘myth’</p>
<ol>
<li> a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.</li>
<li> stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.</li>
<li> any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.</li>
<li> an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.</li>
<li> an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.</li>
</ol>
<p>Campbell explained very clearly that he is using definition #1 NOT #3/4/5</p>
<p>He emphasized that the ‘power of myth’ is that it does NOT MATTER whether the story itself is LITERALLY true, but that, because the archetypes are REAL, the story itself has the capacity to awaken in us deep and profound truths. It is the meaning of the story. For example, the deep, symbolic meaning of the the Christ consciousness being birth admidst our animal natures is far more important than the literal meaning of whether Jesus was actually born in a physical manger among cows and sheep.</p>
<p>This is not in any way intended to demean the actual physical events, but to point out that the profound truths God is trying to teach us thru allegory and metaphor, can be found throughout all the world’s traditions and culture. This is not in any way demeaning God, but acknowledging that God’s truth is so HUGE and so ENDURING that these truths are to be found repeated over and over again, in various traditions.</p>
<p>An example is the pattern of an avatar being born to a virgin in humble surrounding, then being sacrificed (willingly) then resurrecting. </p>
<p>I’ll bet the readers of this forum will be quite surprised that this pattern did NOT originate with Jesus!</p>
<p>Another example is of the first humans being created in Paradise, then somehow screwing up and being cast from Paradise. This too predates the bible.</p>
<p>As for my own personal opinion about religion, acknowledging reverence for sacred texts is not the same as believing them to be the infallible word of God. Actually, I do believe there is a huge amount of inspiring material to be found in ‘sacred’ texts, the bible included.</p>
<p>Please try to understand that it is the rigid dogma that I have a problem with, not the texts themselves.</p>
<p>Even the old testament, which I admittedly do not like, can be quite useful when viewed as a chronical of history. There are multiple layers of meaning. But such is the case of many books, not just ‘sacred’ texts.</p>
<p>Just as (as I stated in a recent post) I would love to see the holidays if many various traditions celebrated, so too would I love to see various ‘sacred’ texts studied side by side, with an attitude of rejoicing in their similarities (as Campbell did) rather than trying to prove that 1 is perfect and the other all ‘satanic lies.’</p>
<p>No, I did not intend to be dismissive of the value of sacred texts. I am dismissive of the belief that a SINGLE sacred text is the infallible word of God, to the exclusion of all others, and then basing laws on SINGLE passages of that text, rather than seeing it as a document rich in metaphor and allegorical meaning.</p>
<p>In other words, I agree with Campbell that the value of sacred texts lies not in their literal interpretation, but in the power of the archetypal patterns as driving forces beneath the surface. These patterns are blueprints for seeking understanding of God and our place in the universe.</p>
<p>I even agree about Campbell’s disdain for New Age thought. However, it is important to realize that the New Age movement is NOT a religion, but a very loose umbrella for people who see the truth in other spiritual paths, and honor the right of each person to find his/her own path. By this definition, Campbell was actually rather New Age himself.</p>
<p>Lealdragon, the reason Jews were never attacked for reincarnation was probably because Christians are not Jews and they would have been pained by their own “people” believing in reincarnation but couldnt care less about Jews.</p>
<p>Last night we watched the movie. Thought it was OK, but could not understand the background. Also, didn’t this movie generate opposition from religious groups? why?</p>
<p>
There may have been other things , too but as I understand it most conservative Christians were very upset with Tom Hanks’ hairstyle. ;)</p>
<p>Because it suggests that the there was a lineage from Jesus…and which some history also suggests, and that to some, is heresy</p>
<p>The big concern was from Opus Dei, and don’t even get me started, but they took the story of the creepy albino masochist a bit personally</p>
<p>Don’t worry–we won’t get you started.</p>
<p>Well Christians aren’t New Agers either - even less so than Jews - but they seem to accept more in Jews. Odd.</p>
<p>Read ‘Holy Blood Holy Grail’ - a lot less fluffy.</p>
<p>Da Vinci Code was a good mainstream version of the ideas in the aforementioned book, which was a scholarly work, in contrast. Da Vinci Code was sensationalized fun, and I agree that they took the Opus Dei thing a bit far (well actually just zeroed in on one person who happened to take it farther than most others, but hey, they ARE into that self-flagellation stuff)…actually I found the book ok but not really very well-written. Too contrived. (but I kept turning the pages because I wanted to see what happened.) However, it did serve the very good purpose of getting people to think…and to question.</p>
<p>If anyone wants to read a more serious account, check out HBHG.</p>
<p>Hey did anyone else hear about those scrolls recently discovered, supposedly the Gospel of Mary Magdelene? There was an article in Newsweek (I think it was) a couple of months ago.</p>
<p>Well what I mean is that I’ve seen them really make a big deal about New Agers believing that. For example, at the born-again Christian homeschool co-op that my son attended for several years, families that were New Age, Pagan, or Mormon were very grudgingly accepted, and then they felt ostracized. They were not allowed to teach because the Christians were concerned that they might share some of their beliefs with the kids and therefore poison their minds. Now, I don’t blame them at all. I wouldn’t want someone with beliefs I thought were wrong teaching my kid either, especially if I went to all the trouble of homeschooling him and participating in a private co-op. So they were well within their rights. But what puzzles me is that I know of a Jewish family who was completely accepted, and the mom was even allowed to teach. I asked her about it one time and she said it was because the Christians consider the Jews to be ‘lost’ people are truly God’s ‘chosen’ and will see the light someday and be redeemed. Whereas, they believe that Pagan, Mormons, and New Agers are damned.</p>
<p>So I guess I just answered my own question. It has nothing to do with the beliefs, since all of these, including Jews, believe in reincarnation. It has to do with the ‘chosen people’ thing.</p>
<p>i read about the “new” scrolls…pretty amazing stuff, there the other scrolls that talked about Judas</p>
<p>I was listening to a program today about religion- a church in the south, with a preacher who didn’t preach about hell anymore, who didn’t believe in hell anymore…well listening to his pariishoners talk about getting stopped on the street, by well meaning people, asking if they weren’t afraid of being damned…it happened over and over</p>
<p>the people receiving the “advice” well, they found it uncomfortable and uninformed. They didn’t like people they barely knew telling them to watch out for they wer going to hell if they didn’t “believe”. THe speakers said they found it kind of offensive to be on the receiving end of the diatribe</p>
<p>Earlier, there was another program on science and religion.</p>
<p>My day was full.</p>
<p>I read the book above…and I have read some others along the same line…I love Vatican intrigue…</p>
<p>thank you for sharing</p>
<p>Golani said: “I thought a person’s faith and how they practiced was between them and their God, and not for another to even comment on, and to do so is arrogant, in my opinion”</p>
<p>shortly after saying: “no self-respecting Jew would have a Christmas tree.”</p>
<p>So golani, apparently you think that you were wrong to say what you did. I appreciate that.</p>