Jesus in India ( Himalayas)

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

The books of the bible were decided upon at the council of Hippo in 393ce and Carthage in 397ce. Constantine not the council of Nicaea had anything to do with it. 

 

 

So,  that's what happened to those missing bits  ! 

 

 

[oak]

9 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

No and no. You both re-read my posts.

All I did was to confront Bob with his ignorance towards the text that he quotes with such certainty. 

Usually my posts are concise and to the point so I find it strange that such a smart individual like you may misunderstand them 🤔

Anyway this could go on forever, which won't because I have better things to do with my time. What was written is written for anyone who wants to read it.

Cheers.

Edited January 12 by oak

[oak]

15 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

 

I'll add something else here which is both obvious and yet not obvious... Christians, even Protestants who say they only follow the Bible, learn their Christianity from other Christians first. Before they read the Bible they are taught what to expect there. Often they are fed short snippets of text and told what they are supposed to mean. So as soon as they crack the book open they are already coming with preconceptions about what's important in this book, what it means, etc. The many passages that don't fit, that are obscure, that are just plain weird, are passed over in silence. Then the apologists can say, "The Bible obviously teaches x, y, z" because everyone around them has already been conditioned to read certain passages in terms of x,y,z. 

 

If you handed the Bible to someone who knew nothing about Christianity and said, "Hey, what kind of religion do you deduce from this?" you're not going to get something that looks like any Christianity we know about. It certainly wouldn't resemble the post-Nicene orthodoxy that most Christian sects profess. They don't have the lens so they won't see what they're supposed to see according to Christians. 

 

For western Christians, the person most important in forging this lens was Augustine. Just like most modern people have never read Copernicus or Newton yet are very much under their influence, western Christians imbibe Augustine even if they know nothing about him. Augustine was in many ways a fascinating and brilliant man but, for Latin Christians, he was pretty much the Church father, which meant that his speculations and idiosyncrasies proved far more influential than they might have been if there had been comparable figures to balance him out. And a lot of the worst tendencies of Latin Christianity can be traced to his influence. His thoughts on eternal damnation, predestination, persecution of heretics, etc. became synonymous with the doctrine of the church itself. I'm not saying he invented any of these things but he gave them a particularly grim and stark expression that hardened into dogma for later generations. 

 

Great post. You describe accurately what is wrong with christianity. Thanks for it.

[snowymountains]

7 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

What I’m saying is, it didn’t happen. There was no council where someone went through a Bible ripping out pages and said, “Okay, here’s our new Bible guys.” The origins of the New Testament texts as we have them today, and their relation to Marcion’s canon, is pretty murky but there’s no evidence that there were some passages about reincarnation that were later excised.

 

You refer to page ripping or to removal from dogma, the later did happen, without this meaning it was part of Canon before , it could had been a practice or be part of other theological texts.

[snowymountains]

10 hours ago, Maddie said:

The books of the bible were decided upon at the council of Hippo in 393ce and Carthage in 397ce. Constantine not the council of Nicaea had anything to do with it. 

 

The story doesn't say he ripped bible pages, could be any document that was widely used in churches back then. In any case I don't take ripping literally as this is clerkwork, not emperor level work.

[snowymountains]

So I turned to Google's infinite wisdom and found this

 

https://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/historia/article/view/578#:~:text=Although the idea of reincarnation,as Valentinus and Basilides of

 

It happened after Constantine's time, they banned the Church Fathers who believed in it, it was also not an official doctrine before the ban.

 

" It is believed that in 553 A.D. during the Second Council of Constantinople the idea of reincarnation was found to have no place in the Christian Church. Although reincarnation was not officially rejected at this council, those early Church Fathers who were accused of teaching the idea of reincarnation had their works banned. 553 A.D. did mark the end of the debate on reincarnation within the Christian community. Observing the fact that reincarnation is not a doctrine typically taught within Christianity today one might assume that this council was called to settle an argument about reincarnation and its supplemental ideas between Christians and non-Christians. This was not the case. Although the idea of reincarnation was rejected by the Christian Church as a doctrine because it was believed to contradict the doctrine of corporeal resurrection and undermine the need for Christ's redemptive sacrifices, it was a belief held by many early Christian theologians such as Valentinus and Basilides of Alexandria"

 

Origene, as @SirPalomides said, also believed in it, Origen's view is discussed here https://hds.harvard.edu/news/2019/03/19/flesh-and-fire-reincarnation-and-universal-salvation-early-church

Edited January 12 by snowymountains

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Out of curiosity, in pre Christian Europe, belief in reincarnation was common, no?

[snowymountains]

9 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Out of curiosity, in pre Christian Europe, belief in reincarnation was common, no?

 

Difficult to provide an answer, pre-Christian Europe was very diverse.

 

The Orphics believed in reincarnation, as did Plato in later times.

 

What I think is an interesting question and had been trying to find out some years ago is to see if Plato also used any experiental techniques related to this [*], or it was just a philosophical concept for him. 

I didn't find anything in either direction, neither supporting nor rejecting this idea.

 

[*] what motivated me is that Greeks did use regression techniques for medical purposes and was wondering if they had some form of past-life regression as well.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Personally, i think reincarnation is the most «logical» stance on the «afterlife.» Nothing disappear or is created from nothing, it only changes form.

 “From earth you have come, to earth you shall return, and from earth you shall arise.”

 

 

 

 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Asked ChatGPT If there is reason to belive pagan Europe belived in reincarnation:

 

Here is the translation of the Norwegian text into English:

"There is some historical and archaeological evidence suggesting that certain pre-Christian European cultures might have believed in a form of reincarnation. However, these pieces of evidence are often indirect and open to interpretation. Here are some examples:

1. **Celtic Belief**: Some historical sources, such as the works of the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus and the Roman philosopher and historian Julius Caesar, suggest that the Celts might have believed in reincarnation or the immortality of the soul. Julius Caesar wrote that the Celts believed the soul moved from one body to another after death, which can be interpreted as a form of reincarnation.

2. **Nordic Mythology**: There is less direct evidence for reincarnation in pre-Christian Nordic belief. Some interpretations of the Edda poems and other ancient texts suggest a belief in the continuation of the soul after death, but it is unclear if this refers to reincarnation in the traditional sense.

3. **Greek Philosophy**: Although not technically 'pre-Christian European' in the same cultural context as Celtic or Nordic beliefs, ancient Greek philosophers like Pythagoras and later Plato had ideas that can be interpreted as reincarnation. Plato's works, especially 'Phaedo' and 'The Republic', contain references to the immortality of the soul and reincarnation.

4. **Archaeological Findings**: Some archaeological findings, such as burial customs and ritual objects, have been interpreted as indications of a belief in life after death, but there are rarely clear pieces of evidence for reincarnation.

It is important to note that much of our understanding of pre-Christian European belief systems comes from secondary sources, often written by outsiders (like Roman historians) or from oral traditions that were recorded after the advent of Christianity. Therefore, interpretations of these sources should be taken with a certain degree of caution."

 

Also asked for relevant articles. Havent read them myself (yet), but If anyone are interrested:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/hidden-beliefs-covered-church-resurrection-and-reincarnation-early-christianity-006320
 

 

https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/afterlife-germanic-concepts

 

edit: allthough distantly related, it is interresting to note that the closest living tradition to the various european pagan once, is hinduism.

Edited January 12 by NaturaNaturans

[Maddie]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

The story doesn't say he ripped bible pages, could be any document that was widely used in churches back then. In any case I don't take ripping literally as this is clerkwork, not emperor level work.

 

I'm not sure where you heard that story but Constantine had nothing to do with the Bible whatsoever.

[snowymountains]

7 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I'm not sure where you heard that story but Constantine had nothing to do with the Bible whatsoever.

 

It looks like removal of reincarnation has nothing to do with Constantine either 😁

[SirPalomides]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

The story doesn't say he ripped bible pages, could be any document that was widely used in churches back then. In any case I don't take ripping literally as this is clerkwork, not emperor level work.

 

The empire did not have that kind of control over the churches. The council of Nicaea itself, over which the Emperor presided, was a failure almost as soon as it concluded, as it was rejected by many bishops and the Arians remained dominant in many regions. So how in the world would the emperor be able to enforce a change of the scriptural canon? A lot of these guys had endured torture under prior emperors. If some bureaucrats tried rewriting the scriptures for them, there would have been a riot. This is to say nothing of the churches outside of Roman political control altogether, e.g. in Persia or Ethiopia. 

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Personally, i think reincarnation is the most «logical» stance on the «afterlife.» Nothing disappear or is created from nothing, it only changes form.

 “From earth you have come, to earth you shall return, and from earth you shall arise.”

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what is the most logical.

 

You may want to look into the work of Weiss (psychiatrist), Tucker (also psychiatrist) and others who worked with children who claimed to have memories of past lives.

These are still not proof however, eg Carl Sagan didn't believe Weiss' studies to be conclusive.

[snowymountains]

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

 

The empire did not have that kind of control over the churches. The council of Nicaea itself, over which the Emperor presided, was a failure almost as soon as it concluded, as it was rejected by many bishops and the Arians remained dominant in many regions. So how in the world would the emperor be able to enforce a change of the scriptural canon? A lot of these guys had endured torture under prior emperors. If some bureaucrats tried rewriting the scriptures for them, there would have been a riot. This is to say nothing of the churches outside of Roman political control altogether, e.g. in Persia or Ethiopia. 

 

If the emperor presided it, isn't that already significant control?

[SirPalomides]

24 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

If the emperor presided it, isn't that already significant control?

 

It means he was able to get a bunch of bishops into a room together to work out their differences. The actual outcome was not up to him. Nor was he able to enforce it across the empire. 

Edited January 12 by SirPalomides

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

It means he was able to get a bunch of bishops into a room together to work out their differences. The actual outcome was not up to him. Nor was he able to enforce it across the empire. 

 

Well, presiding is not only about mediation. Dominating a decision making group is also different to percolating decisions throughout a large organisation. But in any case we can only speculate on this.

 

Anyhow the council in which they banned the church fathers who believed in reincarnation and their texts is after Constantine's era, so he definitely didn't do it directly nor indirectly.

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

 

It looks like removal of reincarnation has nothing to do with Constantine either 😁

 

Prior to Constantine there wasn't one Christianity but it's more accurate to say there were christianities. There are many different versions of Christianity some may have believed in reincarnation but others did not. It wasn't across the board thing. The group that eventually became orthodox get away with other groups such as the ones that believed in reincarnation though.

[snowymountains]

26 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Prior to Constantine there wasn't one Christianity but it's more accurate to say there were christianities. There are many different versions of Christianity some may have believed in reincarnation but others did not. It wasn't across the board thing. The group that eventually became orthodox get away with other groups such as the ones that believed in reincarnation though.

 

There were many Christianities, that is correct.

 

Whether the church fathers that got banned, due to their positions on reincarnation, were all in non-orthodox Christianities, or if some of them were orthodox (before they were banned that is), this a separate question that I don't know the answer to.

Edited January 12 by snowymountains

[Maddie]

31 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

There were many Christianities, that is correct.

 

Whether the church fathers that got banned, due to their positions on reincarnation, were all in non-orthodox Christianities, or if some of them were orthodox (before they were banned that is), this a separate question that I don't know the answer to.

They don't really like to talk about it very much but there's actually a lot of rabbis that believe in reincarnation and considering that Christianity split off of Judaism that's probably note worthy.

[SirPalomides]

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Anyhow the council in which they banned the church fathers who believed in reincarnation and their texts is after Constantine's era, so he definitely didn't do it directly nor indirectly.

 

Emperor Justinian's 2nd Council of Constantinople, in 553, did include an anathema against Origen. Origen lived before "orthodoxy" had really formed yet, but he was deeply influential on later "orthodox" church fathers, so his views about pre-existence of souls, the subordination of the Son, and other issues became a problem. 

 

However, it should be noted that the primary purpose of this council was to reconcile the numerous Christians (called "monophysites" by their enemies) who had rejected the council of Chalcedon (451) and who were the vast majority in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia. This proved to be an even bigger failure than Nicaea, as the monophysites not only did not reconcile with the official doctrine, but went on to form their own parallel hierarchy which persists today in the Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, and Armenian orthodox churches, who form a separate communion from the Eastern Orthodox churches. Again this shows the serious limits of imperial power in imposing unity on the church. 

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

Emperor Justinian's 2nd Council of Constantinople, in 553, did include an anathema against Origen. Origen lived before "orthodoxy" had really formed yet, but he was deeply influential on later "orthodox" church fathers, so his views about pre-existence of souls, the subordination of the Son, and other issues became a problem. 

 

However, it should be noted that the primary purpose of this council was to reconcile the numerous Christians (called "monophysites" by their enemies) who had rejected the council of Chalcedon (451) and who were the vast majority in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia. 

 

See my quotation from few posts up, it implies more than just one/Origen, they banned all who were supportive of reincarnation

"Although reincarnation was not officially rejected at this council, those early Church Fathers who were accused of teaching the idea of reincarnation had their works banned. 553 A.D. did mark the end of the debate on reincarnation within the Christian community"

 

 

5 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

This proved to be an even bigger failure than Nicaea, as the monophysites not only did not reconcile with the official doctrine, but went on to form their own parallel hierarchy which persists today in the Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, and Armenian orthodox churches, who form a separate communion from the Eastern Orthodox churches. Again this shows the serious limits of imperial power in imposing unity on the church. 

 

That indeed shows limits of his power on religious matters, still as he still presided a religious council, that is indication of being able to have direct influence on the Church. So probably he had some power over Church matters but nowhere near absolute control.

[SirPalomides]

4 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

See my quotation from few posts up, it implies more than just one/Origen, they banned all who were supportive of reincarnation

"Although reincarnation was not officially rejected at this council, those early Church Fathers who were accused of teaching the idea of reincarnation had their works banned. 553 A.D. did mark the end of the debate on reincarnation within the Christian community"

 

The final anathema of the council names "Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings." Of those named persons, only Origen taught pre-existence of souls. In any case, many of Origen's writings continued to be copied and read by orthodox Christians, even though many more were lost. 

 

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

They don't really like to talk about it very much but there's actually a lot of rabbis that believe in reincarnation and considering that Christianity split off of Judaism that's probably note worthy.

 

interesting, did not know that.  Do you have examples?

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, old3bob said:

 

interesting, did not know that.  Do you have examples?

 

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/reincarnation-the-transmigration-of-a-jewish-idea/