I think it's plausible that reincarnation was edited from the Bible.

Fishalt

Moderator
Staff member
Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2023
Messages
3,275
Reaction score
3,956
Interesting article about this here. The Bible is an adaptation of Jewish Texts--or could perhaps be regarded as a reformation of Judaism. Reincarnation is actually canon in Judaism, and it is discussed quite broadly in the Kabbalah. It's generally accepted, I believe, that the Bible has been edited especially by the Catholic institution over the centuries.


I remember listening to a Rabbi a few years ago discuss this, and was shocked to learn that Jews even have their own versions of exorcists, whose role it is to expunge parasitic souls from unwilling human hosts. These entities are referred to Dybbuk, and I suppose are conceptually a kind of wish's version of what are referred to loosely as 'Hungry Ghosts' in Buddhism. Kind of. However, it seems fundamentally different in the sense that reincarnation in Judaism results in rebirth of the soul into the very high form of consciousness--the human. Buddhist reincarnation is not like this. Soul-energy, let's use that nominal term, may arrive reborn at different levels of ability of consciousness and this is relative to karmic balance, as in Siddartha:

“He no longer saw the face of his friend Siddhartha, instead he saw other faces, many, a long sequence, a flowing river of faces, of hundreds, of thousands, which all came and disappeared, and yet all seemed to be there simultaneously, which all constantly changed and renewed themselves, and which were still all Siddhartha. He saw the face of a fish, a carp, with an infinitely painfully opened mouth, the face of a dying fish, with fading eyes—he saw the face of a new-born child, red and full of wrinkles, distorted from crying—he saw the face of a murderer, he saw him plunging a knife into the body of another person—he saw, in the same second, this criminal in bondage, kneeling and his head being chopped off by the executioner with one blow of his sword—he saw the bodies of men and women, naked in positions and cramps of frenzied love—he saw corpses stretched out, motionless, cold, void— he saw the heads of animals, of boars, of crocodiles, of elephants, of bulls, of birds—he saw gods, saw Krishna, saw Agni—he saw all of these figures and faces in a thousand relationships with one another, each one helping the other, loving it, hating it, destroying it, giving re-birth to it, each one was a will to die, a passionately painful confession of transitoriness, and yet none of them died, each one only transformed, was always re-born, received evermore a new face, without any time having passed between the one and the other face—and all of these figures and faces rested, flowed, generated themselves, floated along and merged with each other, and they were all constantly covered by something thin, without individuality of its own, but yet existing, like a thin glass or ice, like a transparent skin, a shell or mold or mask of water, and this mask was smiling, and this mask was Siddhartha's smiling face, which he, Govinda, in this very same moment touched with his lips. And, Govinda saw it like this, this smile of the mask, this smile of oneness above the flowing forms, this smile of simultaneousness above the thousand births and deaths, this smile of Siddhartha was precisely the same, was precisely of the same kind as the quiet, delicate, impenetrable, perhaps benevolent, perhaps mocking, wise, thousand-fold smile of Gotama, the Buddha, as he had seen it himself with great respect a hundred times. Like this, Govinda knew, the perfected ones are smiling.”​

 
Last edited:

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,716
Reaction score
3,526
Interesting article about this here. The Bible is an adaptation of Jewish Texts--or could perhaps be regarded as a reformation of Judaism. Reincarnation is actually canon in Judaism, and it is discussed quite broadly in the Kabbalah. It's generally accepted, I believe, that the Bible has been edited especially by the Catholic institution over the centuries.
Generally accepted you say? Go on, tell us more, should be good. 🍿

It's almost like textural scholarship isn't thing for some folk 😄

The Bible predates Kabbalah by a long margin. You might wanna get your timelines straight.

And the old testament is literally Jewish (pre-talumidc/kabbalah).

No adaption required.
 

Fishalt

Moderator
Staff member
Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2023
Messages
3,275
Reaction score
3,956
Generally accepted you say? Go on, tell us more, should be good. 🍿

It's almost like textural scholarship isn't thing for some folk 😄

The Bible predates Kabbalah by a long margin. You might wanna get your timelines straight.

And the old testament is literally Jewish (pre-talumidc/kabbalah).

No adaption required.
True, but the way I understand this is that the Kabbalah is more or less just Merkabah mysticism, which predates the Bible. So you'd expect a fair level of continuity/similarity between both.

Apologies, generally accepted etc et al was bad writing. I believe what I was thinking of is the number of Books being different in Protestant vs Catholic transcriptions of the Bible, and I was under the impression that the latter had less books when in fact it has more. But this is interesting: So it's the case that it was the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible--is this correct? It appears that Catholicism did add pre-bible scripture to the Bible itself at a later date, during the reformation (1516) which were sourced from something nebulously referred to as the Apocrypha:

the Roman Catholic church has added certain books to the canon of scripture. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the Apocrypha. The word Apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the Apocrypha is: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.

I suppose what I'm driving at is that it's possible at least that the Church could have dispensed with reincarnated-related texts from the Apocrypha possibly drawn from Merkabah mysticism which seems to go back as early as 100BCE, around the same time as the testament was written.

It's not a terrifically long bow to draw.
 

Zipporah's Flint

Moderator
Staff member
Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2022
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
1,341
Generally accepted you say? Go on, tell us more, should be good. 🍿

It was not accepted in the first thousand years of Rabbinic Judaism- never mind the in Old Testament times.

Now it is accepted as an idea that you can hold but that does not mean that most Jews generally believe it. Rabbinic Judaism does not focus on the Afterlife the way that Christianity (and Islam) does and also defines Orthodoxy much more in terms of practice than in terms of belief (Maimonides understanding of Rabbinic Judaism is radically different from that of the Zohar never mind later Kabbalah).
 

scolairebocht

Moderator
Staff member
Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
428
Reaction score
558
You are giving a good explanation here of the kind of thinking of the Occult groups, I guess you must trip across that kind of thing in your researches?

Personally I don't know of any Apocrypha Books or any texts added into the Catholic canon of the bible in 1516, or really at any time after about 100AD when the canon was set. I wonder are you getting it mixed up with the other way around? Protestants at around that time set their canon of the Bible, meaning what they wanted in the text, and they then dropped a number of books and texts from it that the Catholics still use.

Apocrypha texts are certainly a phenomenon that have been around for ages. (Its also a phrase used in Shakespeare studies by the way, to mark those texts some people say were at least partly written by Shakespeare but this is not accepted by all scholars and remains a matter of debate.) These are old texts, which in some cases might be as old as biblical texts and contain useful information, but were never accepted as being true transmissions of Divine Revelation (which is what theologians call the word of God in the Bible). In otherwords some facts and statements in them may be untrue, and known to be so among people who knew the real truth at around the time the canon was set, and hence they were never to be included with the Bible as such.

That said some modern biblical editions, particularly some Protestant ones, will add in some of these books into their edition of the Bible, for the information of their readers I guess. Its also true that during the history of the Catholic Church from c.100AD, when they agreed on the texts to be used for the Bible, and 1516, you will find some variations and at least local quirks in some biblical texts. For example many of the great Irish manuscript copies of the Bible will put Matthew verse 1.18 as the beginning of that Gospel, and instead treat the genealogy before that as a separate text, rather than the usual modern way. Also I admit there is a number of other dates, not just 100 AD that could be thrown in there in the agreement as to the proper canon of the Bible, like the Council of Rome in 382 AD and, like so much else in the Catholic Church, matters were laid out very clearly at the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century.

I don't think at all that any of this would give a person comfort that the Catholic Church ever favoured reincarnation, I believe it totally cannot and doesn't happen.
 

Anderson

🇮🇪 ☘️ 🇮🇪
Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2022
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
1,812
I consider Reincarnation Limbo, in other words, your soul remains if you haven't been either good or bad.
 

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
1,539
I consider Reincarnation Limbo, in other words, your soul remains if you haven't been either good or bad.
Saint Frances of Rome claimed to have been shown hell, purgatory and heaven.

She also said there was a place called Limbo which was were people who were good, but not worthy of heaven (for various reasons) go.

She described it as a place of permanent calmness.
 

Fishalt

Moderator
Staff member
Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2023
Messages
3,275
Reaction score
3,956
I consider Reincarnation Limbo, in other words, your soul remains if you haven't been either good or bad.
Well, the Buddhists more or less say that the only way not to be reincarnated is through perfection of the mind state, which is what is meant by the term Nibbana. The cessation of the cycle of death and rebirth. Very few people will actually achieve this, however, and will instead keep going back into the wheel of Samsara--existence. The goal is to not be reincarnated.
You are giving a good explanation here of the kind of thinking of the Occult groups, I guess you must trip across that kind of thing in your researches?

Personally I don't know of any Apocrypha Books or any texts added into the Catholic canon of the bible in 1516, or really at any time after about 100AD when the canon was set. I wonder are you getting it mixed up with the other way around? Protestants at around that time set their canon of the Bible, meaning what they wanted in the text, and they then dropped a number of books and texts from it that the Catholics still use.

Apocrypha texts are certainly a phenomenon that have been around for ages. (Its also a phrase used in Shakespeare studies by the way, to mark those texts some people say were at least partly written by Shakespeare but this is not accepted by all scholars and remains a matter of debate.) These are old texts, which in some cases might be as old as biblical texts and contain useful information, but were never accepted as being true transmissions of Divine Revelation (which is what theologians call the word of God in the Bible). In otherwords some facts and statements in them may be untrue, and known to be so among people who knew the real truth at around the time the canon was set, and hence they were never to be included with the Bible as such.

That said some modern biblical editions, particularly some Protestant ones, will add in some of these books into their edition of the Bible, for the information of their readers I guess. Its also true that during the history of the Catholic Church from c.100AD, when they agreed on the texts to be used for the Bible, and 1516, you will find some variations and at least local quirks in some biblical texts. For example many of the great Irish manuscript copies of the Bible will put Matthew verse 1.18 as the beginning of that Gospel, and instead treat the genealogy before that as a separate text, rather than the usual modern way. Also I admit there is a number of other dates, not just 100 AD that could be thrown in there in the agreement as to the proper canon of the Bible, like the Council of Rome in 382 AD and, like so much else in the Catholic Church, matters were laid out very clearly at the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century.

I don't think at all that any of this would give a person comfort that the Catholic Church ever favoured reincarnation, I believe it totally cannot and doesn't happen.

I don't really research Christianity specifically, this thread and subject is more or less just another rabbit hole I was drawn to for some reason or other. Mostly if I'm doing research, it's related to Victorian-era stuff, especially language (slang) and the underclass during that time.

I think a good example of the Church excluding or perhaps agenda-setting via inclusion and omission would be the book(s) of Enoch. I read somewhere yesterday that apparently Jesus refers to these, or at least heavily alludes to them. One example below, there are others, apparently.

Luke 20:34-36 we read the following:

"Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection."

Which has a parallel in Mark 12:24-25

"Jesus said to them, ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

As there are literally zero passages in the old Testament that refer to any theological teaching regarding angels and marriage, to which Scripture is Jesus referring the scribes and Pharisees, who knew their scriptures well?

The only passage known to them at that time that could be being referenced by Jesus regarding this teaching is 1 Enoch 15:1-7

1And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: “Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. 2And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: ‘You should intercede for men, and not men for you: 3Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants as your sons? 4And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten children with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. 5Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.”

So Jesus seems to have regarded this as Scripture, despite the church (apart from the Ethiopian and Eritrean) around 300AD onwards as not Scripture.

Enoch really does unlock those tricky passages, because it provides a missing link between the old and new testament.


More here:

 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Top Bottom