I have yet many things to say... For more information you can freely download my Book
Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the
Church as a PDF file in the European A4 format. Jesus
said: «Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot
see the
Cf. Rudolf Schnackenburg on John 3,3: «In Aramaic there is no
word that like in Greek would allow for both meanings...» [1]. One
may also ask what «born from above» is supposed to mean. Are some of us «born
from below»? Maybe even some in high positions in the Churches? Jesus
then says «...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the The
common interpretation of the here uncertain word «water» refers to baptism. One
would have to be baptized before one could see the The commission to baptize in Math. 28.19 is,
however, by many researchers in theology regarded as a falsification. The Greek
word for «baptism», báptisma, appears only in
the New Testament and is derived from the word bápto,
which means «immerse». To «immerse in the Holy Spirit» and to pour a handful of
water on the head can, after all, be quite different things… However,
«water» could be seen as referring to the physical part, to the body with its
blood and «water of life», its liveliness resulting from having a soul –
and not only to baptism – and «spirit» as referring to the soul part, so
that the words could be understood as «be born with a body and a soul»… If Jesus really used these words (see above). Kirkegaard
[2] mentions that the Aramaic word for «water» could also mean «semen». Thus we
would again, even though it may be a bit further fetched, arrive at the same
result: The body conceived through semen, with its soul (or spirit). A
bit later in the text a peculiar statement follows: «The wind bloweth where it listeth, and
thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell
whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every
one that is born of the Spirit»
(John 3.8). Who can understand that? The Greek word pneuma
is here translated in two ways, first as «wind» and then as «spirit». Greek
dictionaries explain that the translation «spirit» is valid only in an
«indirect sense». The common meaning in the theological context is, however,
«breath of life» or «soul», that, which gives life to the body. Furthermore the
word phoné is not very well translated as «sound», because it rather
means «voice». Thus we arrive at the following translation, which is linguistically
correct: «The soul goes as it wants to and you hear its whispering, but you
cannot tell from where it comes nor where it goes: so is every one born with a
soul.» Here Jesus talks about
a preexistence of the soul, since it comes from somewhere, where it was before
conception. Preexistence doesn’t necessarily include reincarnation, but
reincarnation includes preexistence. These
examples show how translations are often made according to dogmatically
established «rules» in order to lead the understanding in a desired direction,
covering up that it could also be understood in another way – but that we
shouldn’t know… This
highly important passage contradicts another allegation that Jesus would have
spoken of a rebirth in this life and that Nicodemus would have
understood him in this sense. Obviously Nicodemus didn’t understand what Jesus
meant, since he was told: «Art thou a master of Was John the Baptist Elias? Jesus
said about John: «And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to
come» (Math. 11.14). «And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already … Then the
disciples understood that he spake unto them of John
the Baptist» (Math. 17.10-13). This much discussed Bible passage can literally
be understood such that John would be the reincarnation of Elias. As a
refutation another quotation is resorted to: «And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.
Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No» (John 1.21). But if Jesus claims
that he would really be Elias, should we believe John more than Jesus? [I here
use the more modern form «Elias»
instead of the older one «Elijah».] In
any case, John is right with his answer. He is, as he is asked, actually
not Elias, but John. This doesn’t exclude the possibility that he once was
Elias. Maybe he himself knew what Jesus knew, but answered in this sense on
purpose. Maybe he knew as little as we know who he was in a past life and
answered accordingly. Already the fact that he was asked this question shows
that people considered it possible that he could have been a reincarnation of
Elias! Theology
in this context repeatedly refers to the Bible report that Elias would not
have died like others do, but have ascended to heaven with his body (2
Kings 2.11, in another counting 4 Kings 2.11). Therefore, he could not have
reincarnated in another body, but his spirit would have «overshadowed» John. Is
heaven a physical world in which we have physical bodies like on Earth? It
seems that hardly anyone imagines heaven to be like that. Thus Elias’ body
will have transformed to a «heavenly body» (as Paul writes). This would not
contradict the possibility of an incarnation in a new earthly body. And
if Elias would have «overshadowed» John, where was his body? If it stayed in
heaven, Elias’ soul could, after all, separate from his body and, maybe, even
incarnate. Otherwise one would have seen his body floating above John…. Here
theologians are owing us an
explanation… Another
attempt to refute is that Elias appeared in front of Jesus and the disciples
on a mountain, together with Moses (Math. 17.3, Mark 9.3). This is, however,
not a contradiction, since at that time John was already dead. Reincarnationistically speaking, Elias was no more in the
body of John and could well have shown himself in his earlier appearance! One
of the best known authors of the Swedish literature is Victor Rydberg. He wrote a comprehensive treatise: The
Teachings of the Bible about Christ, which was only published in Swedish
and Danish [3]. Its Swedish text was from 1862 on published in five each time
improved editions and later in several reprints. The learned and well-read
author shows important discrepancies between the dogma and the New Testament.
In an extensive appendix: On the Preexistence of Man, he clearly shows
the following, referring to rabbinic literature: In the Judaism of that time it
was a general view that Elias would through a «second coming in flesh» prepare
the way for Messiah and anoint him, and that is what John did! The Bible says
about John: «Prepare ye the way of the Lord» (Math. 3.3, John 1.23). Most Jews
didn’t know that Elias had returned in the appearance of John, and this is
according to Justin the Martyr one of the reasons, why they didn’t want to see
the expected Messiah in Jesus. Did
John have a karma? John
was decapitated. Could this fate have a karmic reason? The Bible reports that
Elias by his own hands killed the prophets of Baal at the stream Kishon (1 Kings 18.40). Thus Elias had murdered! Should
for that reason John experience being decapitated? The man
born blind – a reincarnation? Jesus
healed a man who was born blind. The disciples the ask him: «Master, who did
sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?» (John 9.2). Who
asks like that definitely thinks about preexistence of the soul before this
life, otherwise the formulation of the question would have no sense. To be born
blind as a consequence of own sin – the one alternative in the question – the
sin must have been committed before birth. The one who asked is likely to have
thought of a physical existence before birth rather than a preexistence without a physical body. Now,
how does Jesus react to this obvious hint? He doesn’t reject the idea that is
included in the question (and misses a good opportunity if he would have wanted
to refute the concept). Instead he says: « Neither hath this man sinned, nor
his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him» (John
9.3). It has been repeatedly attempted to interpret a rejection of the
reincarnation idea in this statement, but there is no logical ground for it.
The most that can be concluded is that in this special case the
suffering doesn’t seem to be the consequence of earlier misdeeds. With
reference to Siémons [4] this can certainly be
understood such that the man born blind – that is, the person sitting there,
the blind body with a soul – had not sinned, but the one his soul was in
another incarnation. Seeing it that way, he was (in the worldly aspect)
that time another than that blind-born one, but with the same soul. Here it
would be in a similar way as with the answer above to the question if John was
Elias. It
rather appears that Jesus avoided the issue since he didn’t want to make a
public statement about it. Another
«explanation», which is rarely stated, is that the man born blind could have
sinned in the mother’s womb (for example through «evil thoughts»). This
allegation is simply too
absurd to be taken seriously.
I have yet many
things to say ...
«I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye
cannot bear them now.» (John 16.12). What did Jesus mean with these words? It
would probably be rather far fetched to claim that reincarnation could not be
among these things...
Jesus has in none of the texts that witness him rejected
reincarnation. The attempt to interpret the case with the man born blind in this
direction is artificial and wishful thinking (see above). On the contrary there
are, as shown above, several sayings of Jesus which can be interpreted in
the sense of reincarnation.
References:
New
Thoughts about Old Bible Verses
The talk with Nicodemus
Was John the Baptist Elias?
The man born
blind – a reincarnation?
If you instead want it in the US Letter format, you can download it
here.Jesus’
talk with Nicodemus