seeklove:

This issue of re-incarnation has already been treated in the past. Here is the thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-94905.0.html#msg1697718

Read justcool's, doescade's and m_nwankwo's posts in the above thread.

Since seeklove brought up a thread in which I heavily posted on, I wish to clarify some issues.
The theme of thread(Biblical accounts that suggest reincarnation) that seeklove brought is not exactly the same with the theme of this thread(Reincarnation - Deepsight, Let's Talk Here)


Therefore have these facts in mind while reading my posts in that thread.

1) I am not saying that the bible teaches reincarnation. The bible we have today does not teach reincarnation, although there are stories in it that suggest reincarnation. IE stories that suggest that the writers might have believed in reincarnation.

2) It is my perception that some of the early Christains believed in reincarnation. Reincarnation was one of the issues that was deliberated on in the council of Nicaea. And from then, it was removed from teachings of the church; the bishopes votes against it.

3) The Grail Message does not say that the bible teaches reincarnation. The Grail Message does not draw from the bible. The Grail message teaches about reincation, which is a manifestation of the love and justice of God.

4) The fact that something is not in the Bible does not mean that it is not true. Trinity is not really taught in the bible, although is suggested in the bible; but it is believed by most Christian churches today because the bishopes voted for it during the council of Nicea. Like reincarnation, trinity is a reality and not a fallacy; although in the bible, the word Trinity is not mentioned.

Thanks.

@ Justcool. . . I'm trying to find some info about reincarnation being an issue that was discussed and voted on at the council of Nicea and can't find anything from any credible source. I also took a Christian history course where we dealt with this stuff and that never came up. I think that is just conspiracy theory stuff, but I could be wrong. I can find websites that echo what you say, but like I said they are just claims, not even arguments. . . I can't find any academic sources that agree with it. NONE!! And if there was truth to it I'm pretty confident scholars would be all over it. I may be looking in the wrong places though so maybe you can direct me to a source. thanks.

@Krayola: Do you know that, thanks to all the disinformation here, I was starting to think that bu.ll$hit about reincarnation being voted off was academically and historically true? Thanks for telling the truth. Now I know I really need to dig deeper into historical events surrounding early Christianity. I told you I have a "little and aside degree" in Bible school beside my Engineering Degrees, very true, but it was taught from an entirely Christian perspective. I would like to see more of pure, uncorrupted, conspiracy-free facts about Judaistic views, Hellenistic views and Early Christian perspectives, so I can compare with what I already know and gain more insight.

P.S> Hey! What happened to the religious non-bull$hit stuff you were meant to send me? I am still mulling over it all but you decided to hold back the rest! Oya make it sharp sharp, my guy Please. Thanks.

@Justcool: Please oblige Krayola and myself with the historical information on reincarnation, the council of Nicea and the "voting off" process. We're waiting. Thanks.

Quote from Justcool -

The bible we have today does not teach reincarnation, [size=16pt]although there are stories in it that suggest reincarnation. IE stories that suggest that the writers might have believed in reincarnation.[/size]

Thank you. And some people want to break my head simply because i pointed out such stories.

I would havethought it would suffice to state that the words of Jesus were symbolic only and then prove that they were symbolic.

Is that so hard?

Mavenb0x:

Is that why you are yelling in CAPS? Can we not have a civilized discussion without raising our voices like barbarians? Thank God I am not there, maybe I would have gotten a complementary slap induced by your defeat-engendered red eyes!

Slap from me? Come on now. I have told you several times that I like being spanked by women, and not the other way round.

Yes of course I agree that Elijah was translated into the heavens BODILY. He DID NOT DIE. Death is a separation of spirit and body, which did not happen in his case.

1 . Tell me, where is it written that a physical body cannot enter into heaven?

Amazing the somersaults of these Christians. In another thread you insisted that Elijah never went to heaven. Do not bother to deny it or I will go fetch the quote. You were at pains to make a distinction between the Hebrew words for “sky” and “heaven”. You insisted that Elijah only went to the “sky” (to do what I wonder amongst the clouds? ? ?)

Now your mentor Viaro comes along and states clearly that Elijah went to the spiritual heavens with his physical body, and you somersault and fall into line with this!

Amazing, these guys!

My lunch is getting cold.

Deep Sight:

Quote from Justcool -

The bible we have today does not teach reincarnation, although there are stories in it that suggest reincarnation. IE stories that suggest that the writers might have believed in reincarnation.

Thank you. And some people want to break my head simply because i pointed out such stories.

Of course we know that justcool had his issues confused. No credible source carries that conspiracy theory of early Christians believing in reincarnation - and that point has long been settled very early in this thread, where I referred to the NDE website that carried your excerpted article suggesting such.

For this reason, I very much appreciate Krayola's comments following justcool's claims - and we're waiting to see any credible source that carries a scholarly publication of the said justcool's claims that:
[list](a) reincarnation was one of the issues that was deliberated on in the council of Nicaea;
(b) and from then, it was removed from teachings of the church.[/list]
Aside the misinformation out there on the web, let's see justcool serve us a credible source establishing his claims - or let's just consign them where they belong: the bin.

I would have thought it would suffice to state that the words of Jesus were symbolic only and then prove that they were symbolic.

Is that so hard?

We've pointed out the meanings of the verses ebing argued for reincarnation - and YOU are the one still unable to make any sound point to progress from where you left off. The fact that you have patently abandoned your own definition of reincarnation and scuttling round in circles is very telling indeed.

Deep Sight:

Now your mentor Viaro comes along and states clearly that Elijah went to the spiritual heavens with his physical body, and you somersault and fall into line with this!

Please show viaro where the Bible shows in any place that Elijah experienced death as defined Biblically to be "the body without the spirit" (James 2:26). The Bible does not show any such thing, and yes Elijah was taken into heaven with his body according to 2 kings 2:11. You just stop making noise and show viaro that 2 Kings 2:11 does not mean what it says. Period.

justcool:

Since seeklove brought up a thread in which I heavily posted on, I wish to clarify some issues.
The theme of thread(Biblical accounts that suggest reincarnation) that seeklove brought is not exactly the same with the theme of this thread(Reincarnation - Deepsight, Let's Talk Here)

I already saw that thread before I raised this one; and this one came up for the very reason that is highlighted in yours - that the themes of either thread are not the same, and that much I applaud. Not many people saw that (as is clear in seeklove's calling to it).

This one came up because I wanted to be clear that I was not going to give room for the silly ideas about anyone "suggesting" this and that into the Bible. Historical antecedents do not bear any support for such a "suggestion", and the Bible does not argue for reincarnation. . not even remotely. Anyone can "suggest" anything into the Bible; but when the misinformation are all blown away and serious talk comes to the fore, there's just nothing to show the teaching of reincarnation in the Bible.

Perhaps those who argue reincarnation ought to go back and carefully think through the core elements of that idea before they try to match or mirror them up to any verse in the Bible. If reincarnationists are ignoring the true meaning of 'reincarnation' (or deliberately prevaricating on the very definition they gave to that word for their worldview), what substance then are we to find in their arguments? It would mean that they have no foundation for their arguments and grasping at anything (even if yet erratic) to just keep going at it.

The question then is: why bother?

Deep Sight:

Slap from me? Come on now. I have told you several times that I like being spanked by women, and not the other way round.

Amazing the somersaults of these Christians. In another thread you insisted that Elijah never went to heaven. Do not bother to deny it or I will go fetch the quote. You were at pains to make a distinction between the Hebrew words for “sky” and “heaven”. You insisted that Elijah only went to the “sky” (to do what I wonder amongst the clouds? ? ?)

Now your mentor Viaro comes along and states clearly that Elijah went to the [b]spiritual heavens with his physical body, and you somersault and fall into line with this![/b]

Amazing, these guys!

My lunch is getting cold.

What is Deep Sight saying now? Did I not accept correction on that thread that although it is not stated that Elijah did enter into God's very presence, he was not in the sky, but he was in heaven? And did I not assert that although I said SKY, it was not the atmospheric sky where clouds hang out but the outward-and-beyond skies?

How many heavens are there, would you care to enlighten us, Deep Sight. Of course you do not know. You don't even know how many planets there are, so how can you tell?

I told you countless times: heaven is not a physical, geographic place. What is heaven? Twiddle your thumbs more, mister!

Krayola:

@ Justcool. . . I'm trying to find some info about reincarnation being an issue that was discussed and voted on at the council of Nicea and can't find anything from any credible source. I also took a Christian history course where we dealt with this stuff and that never came up. I think that is just conspiracy theory stuff, but I could be wrong. I can find websites that echo what you say, but like I said they are just claims, not even arguments. . . I can't find any academic sources that agree with it. NONE!! And if there was truth to it I'm pretty confident scholars would be all over it. I may be looking in the wrong places though so maybe you can direct me to a source. thanks.

@Keryola
Thanks for your questions.
I guess you didn't read the thread that seeklove gave a link to, in which I gave a link to a document on the council of Nicea.

Here is the:http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/reincarnation/council.htm



And I quote from it:

"Nicea, nevertheless, marked the beginning of the end of the concepts of both preexistence, reincarnation, and salvation through union with God in Christian doctrine. It took another two hundred years for the ideas to be expunged."

http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/reincarnation/council.htm

@Keryola, Viaro, and mavenbox.

Please research about an early christian group called the Gnostic. Check out their view on reincarnation.

Thanks and remain blessed.

justcool:

@Keryola
Thanks for your questions.
I guess you didn't read the thread that seeklove gave a link to, in which I gave a link to a document on the council of Nicea.

Here is the:http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/reincarnation/council.htm



And I quote from it:http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/reincarnation/council.htm

@Keryola, Viaro, and mavenbox.

Please research about an early christian group called the Gnostic. Check out their view on reincarnation.

Thanks and remain blessed.

Justcool why doyou waste your time providing link for them. Any truly educated person knows that reincarnation was one of the issues discussed in the council of nicea.

Even a chatholic prist has told me that in the past. Preexsistance and reincarnation were one of the major things discused in the council of nicea.

Here are more links:

The "real truth" John explains is reincarnation. When MacLaine asks, "Why aren't these teachings recorded in the Bible?" He answers, "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during the Ecumenical Council in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicea" (pp. 234-235).

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html


http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen6.html

Even if they tried, they failed miserably as there are some pretty clear spots in the N.T. that shows that reincarnation was the belief of the time, 

, not to mention that most of the rabbis throughout the ages have believed in and taught reincarnation. Talk to your local chasidic rebbe or sephardic orthodox rabbi, they'll tell you

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread124147/pg2

seeklove:

Justcool why doyou waste your time providing link for them. Any truly educated person knows that reincarnation was one of the issues discussed in the council of nicea.

Even a chatholic prist has told me that in the past. Preexsistance and reincarnation were one of the major things discused in the council of nicea.

Yes reincarnation was one of the issues discussed at the council of Nicea but it was not the major issue. It was quickly voted out. The majore issues were Trinity, and the nature of Christ.

Go to a historian and find out.

It appears that the Christian gang led by Viaro and Mavenbox are currently holding another Council of Nicea Nairaland and striking out Reincarnation from the body of beliefs again.

Deep Sight:

It appears that the Christian gang led by Viaro and Mavenbox are currently holding another Council of Nicea Nairaland and striking out Reincarnation from the body of beliefs again.

I held no council to strike out anything - the only thing viaro is interested in is striking out all pointers to conspiracy theories (from NDE to personal blogs to tripod.com), so that after the misinformation from all these warped sources are laid bare, we can then see if the reincarnationists in this thread or even in NL can show us scholarly research with well articulated quotes on the true history of the Council of Nicea. That is all we are waiting for them to show.

cocoman4u:

Yes reincarnation was one of the issues discussed at the council of Nicea but it was not the major issue. It was quickly voted out. The majore issues were Trinity, and the nature of Christ.

Go to a historian and find out.

Please kindly provide any scholarly document showing the subjects of that Council. It would not do to just claim it here and ask people to go to 'a historian' to find out anything - you quote us what your own historian has said, and we shall examine the whole thing. Thank you.

_______________________

seeklove:

Justcool why doyou waste your time providing link for them. Any truly educated person knows that reincarnation was one of the issues discussed in the council of nicea.

Any truly educated person knows the difference between just claiming something and providing scholarly publications that do not smark of conspiracy theories for what they claim. Do you care to show us this? If not, just leave justcool to provide us with anything scholarly.

Even a chatholic prist has told me that in the past.

Yes, anyone can tell you anything - we want authentic sources.

Preexsistance and reincarnation were one of the major things discused in the council of nicea.

Please show us - go beyond claiming and repeating yourself - just show us. Period.

@seeklove,

Just so people don't suppose that viaro ignored or snubbed your attempts to provide links for justcool's claims, let me address just one as an example of why your desperations should not be such a bother here.

seeklove:

Here are more links:

The "real truth" John explains is reincarnation. When MacLaine asks, "Why aren't these teachings recorded in the Bible?" He answers, "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during the Ecumenical Council in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicea" (pp. 234-235).

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html

Nice try, bro. .  nice try! Let me guess: your scholarship begins and ends with Shirley MacLlaine, no??

While we asked for scholarly articles showing the true historical antecedents of any semblance of reincarnation at the Nicean Council, you desperately ran to Shirley MacLaine's medium and channelling that are not even historical? What is wrong with you felas?

Let me quote that article so we see that Shirley MacLaine was NOT articulating any Christian history of any Nicean Council:
(a)

Christianity Redefined

But one undisputable factor is the intentional and dishonest attempts to "redefine" historic Christianity and to blur the distinctions between the New Age and Christian beliefs.

Leaders and promoters of the New Age Movement, like most cults, must deal in some way with the basis of Christian authority and doctrine, the Bible. Typically, antagonists to Christianity will either attack the validity of the Bible or else twist the Scripture to make it accommodate the cults' beliefs. Those in the New Age attempt to do both, depending on which position would best promote their agenda.

(b)

Reincarnation Confusion

An example of this canard would be the way New Age teachers deal with the hinge doctrine of reincarnation in relation to Christianity. In Shirley MacLaine's book, Out on a Limb, her medium/teacher Kevin Ryerson supposedly channels an entity named "John." [For more on the book See The Lost Years of Jesus]

[list]Shirley asks John, "Isn't the Bible supposed to be the Word of God?" He answers, "Yes, in the main it is. Although much of what exists in your Bible today has been reinterpreted."

"Reinterpreted by whom?"

"By various persons through time and through various languages. Ultimately by the church. It was to the advantage of the church to protect the people from the 'real truth'" (p. 204).

The "real truth" John explains is reincarnation. When MacLaine asks, "Why aren't these teachings recorded in the Bible?" He answers, "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during the Ecumenical Council in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicea" (pp. 234-235).[/list]

Several observations should be made here concerning these pronouncements.

First, "John" claims that the Bible cannot be trusted because of "reinterpretations." He seems to confuse interpretation with translation. In fact, there are many manuscripts and quotes from church fathers and other church publications dating well before 553 A.D. The actual corpus of the Old and New Testament Scripture was settled and circulated also well before this time.

The above excerpts are from the very same link YOU provided:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html .

It shows your "education" at the end of the day - you desperately run to a spiritist medium who relied on the confusions of her channelling/medium teacher: they whipped up some smoke screen, made dubious non-historical claims - and you want us to swallow that garboil?

Thank you, but no - true education does not mean we should keel over to such gullible fancies. Just try again . .  even try harder.

@Viaro

You said nothing about the link that I gave to Kreyola.
You don't find it authentic? Please what sources do you consider authentic. I don't know your regards on the authenticity of wikipedia but let me quote it for you:

The overwhelming majority of mainstream Christian denominations have rejected the notion of reincarnation and consider the idea to be incompatible with the teaching of Christ contained in the Bible. Certain[weasel words] churches indirectly address the subject through teachings about death (see Particular judgment). A few consider the matter open to individual interpretation due to the few biblical references which survived the purging of texts considered to be heretical in the founding years of Christianity as a church. Some Christians contend that reincarnation was taught by the early Christian church, but due to bias and mistranslations, these teachings were lost or obscured. Many of the philosophies associated with the theory of reincarnation focus on "working" or "learning" through various lifetimes to achieve some sort of higher understanding or state of "goodness" before salvation is granted or acquired. Basic to Traditional Christianity is the doctrine that humans can never achieve the perfection God requires and the only salvation is total and complete forgiveness accomplished through the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross wherein he took the sins of mankind. There seems to be evidence however that some of the earliest Christian sects such as the Sethians and followers of the Gnostic Church of Valentinus believed in reincarnation, and they were persecuted by the Romans for this.[27]

A number of Evangelical and (in the USA) Fundamentalist Christian maintain that any phenomena suggestive of it are deceptions of the devil. Although the Bible never mentions the word reincarnation, there are several passages through New Testament that reject reincarnation or the possibility of any return or contact with this world for the souls in Heaven or Hell (see Hebrews 9:27 and Luke 16:20-31)

The Bible contains passages in the New Testament that could be taken to allude to reincarnation. In Matthew 11:10-14and 17:10-13, John 1:21, the Jews ask John the Baptist if he is Elijah and John replies clearly that he is not, implying that Jesus' reference was meant in a figurative sense (which is what most Christians accept). It should be noted that Elijah never actually "died," but was "raptured" in a chariot of fire. Furthermore, the prophetic texts stated that God would send Elijah back to Earth, as a harbinger of Jesus Christ. As cousins they were born respectively to barren Elizabeth[28] and Zacharias;[29] Jesus, firstborn of Mary and Joseph,[30] was the first to rise from the dead visibly demonstrating his power over death.[31] It can also be taken to mean an apparition, not a reincarnation.

There are various contemporary attempts to entwine Christianity and reincarnation. Geddes Macgregor, wrote a book called Reincarnation in Christianity: A New Vision of Rebirth in Christian Thought, Rudolf Steiner wrote Christianity as Mystical Fact and Tommaso Palamidessi wrote Memory of Past Lives and Its Technique which contains several methods which are supposed to help in obtaining memories from previous lives.[32]

Several groups which consider themselves to be Christian and support reincarnation include the Christian Community, the Liberal Catholic Church, Unity Church, The Christian Spiritualist Movement, the Rosicrucian Fellowship and Lectorium Rosicrucianum. The Medieval sect known variously as the Cathars or Albigensians who flourished in the Languedoc believed in Reincarnation, seeing each soul as a fallen angel born again and again into the world of Matter created by Lucibel (Lucifer).

The American psychic Edgar Cayce, who considered himself to be Christian both in and out of trance, supported the idea of reincarnation. While in trance he would give "life readings" in which he would discuss the previous reincarnations of his subjects.[33]


There is historical evidence that some early Christian groups believed in reincarnation. This idea of reincarnation did not survive the council of Nicea. Actually some modern chatolic priests, who are very versed in theology do not deny this fact. It's funny that somebody here mentioned that he was told by a catholic priest.

If you are close to any(a well educated catholic priest), you might want request a dialog. If you were in California, I would have intited you to dialog with a catholic priest friend of mine. You d be supprised how knowledgeable these priests are.

But you have the right to disagree with me. I still respect you and your views.

viaro:

@seeklove,

Just so people don't suppose that viaro ignored or snubbed your attempts to provide links for justcool's claims, let me address just one as an example of why your desperations should not be such a bother here.
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html


Nice try, bro. .  nice try! Let me guess: your scholarship begins and ends with Shirley MacLlaine, no??

While we asked for scholarly articles showing the true historical antecedents of any semblance of reincarnation at the Nicean Council, you desperately ran to Shirley MacLaine's medium and channelling that are not even historical? What is wrong with you felas?

Let me quote that article so we see that Shirley MacLaine was NOT articulating any Christian history of any Nicean Council:
(a)(b)
The above excerpts are from the very same link YOU provided:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html .

It shows your "education" at the end of the day - you desperately run to a spiritist medium who relied on the confusions of her channelling/medium teacher: they whipped up some smoke screen, made dubious non-historical claims - and you want us to swallow that garboil?

Thank you, but no - true education does not mean we should keel over to such gullible fancies. Just try again . .  even try harder.

@Viaro
Sorry, I dont want to fight with you. The links that I provided are for you to weigh the pros and cons, not for you to believe everything. I read those articles well before posting them. I considered them well balanced, and not one sidded.

There is no need to insult. I had a conversation with justcool about my engagaments with mavenbox yesterday on another thread, where I lost control. I dont want to make another mistake by getting into a fight.

Thank you

Deepsight, i can not strike away what was never there.

Justcool, anybody can blog on any site and say anything they want. We need reputable, scholarly references from respectable academicians about the rulings. Talking about what a medium said is not acceptable cos it is non-evidence based. As my friend mazaje loves to ask, where is the evidence? I dont demand physical evidence for spiritual matters but when it is  historical, you better show me the evidence cos God does not talk with both sides of His mouth.

Viaro, i recall some exotic food I ate some days back when I was invited to visit an Indian family. No disrespect meant, but that night I couldnt sleep. I think I saw a number of alimentary spirits that night rising from the depths of gastric indigestion! So I dont think the John guy was a big deal. Lol.

justcool:

@Keryola
Thanks for your questions.
I guess you didn't read the thread that seeklove gave a link to, in which I gave a link to a document on the council of Nicea.

Here is the:http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/reincarnation/council.htm



And I quote from it:http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/reincarnation/council.htm

@Keryola, Viaro, and mavenbox.

Please research about an early christian group called the Gnostic. Check out their view on reincarnation.

Thanks and remain blessed.

I know of the gnostics and their beliefs. They are not based entirely on the bible, and have all sorts of non-hebrew influences. It was like a cocktail of various religious worldviews (kinda like the Grail Message). I think they even claimed the God of the Old Testament was evil. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the gnostics. It was mainly about the Arian controversy which suggested that since the father begat the son, the son was finite and not the same as the father (or sumn like that). Arius had issues with the doctrine of the trinity. They also tried to change when Easter should be observed, decided on how clergy should be formed and on "granting  patriarchal authority to the bishop of Alexandria".  Like I said I've been thru quite a bit of stuff on the council of Nicea since reading your last post, and I can't find any that mentions reincarnation even once, except on non academic sites that argue for reincarnation. You could be right, I just want to see sources that have backing of credible institutions. If you can show me say a reputable university that teaches such, I will consider it. But just any website can't do it. I know how easy it is to set up a website and make it say stuff.

Here are a few. . . this is from Columbia university

The Council of Nicea

When Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD he ended the persecutions against the Christian church. Shortly afterwards Christians faced a trouble from within: the Arian controversy began and threatened to divide the church. The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation. The Council of Nicea, a gathering similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius."

How Controversial was the Arian Controversy?

There were some three hundred bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea from all around the world. Eusebius lists many of them and their country of origin in his writings. It should be remembered that many of those present had, because of the recent persecutions, suffered and had faced threat of death for their faith. These were not wishy-washy men. It might also be remarked, that they were extremely sensitive to details of doctrine. As evidence of this, the second major concern of the Council of Nicea was to address the hotly debated question of what the proper day was to celebrate the resurrection.

The bishops of the Council stopped their ears on hearing the words of Arius and immediately rejected his teaching as distant and alien from the belief of the Church. They tore to pieces a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia containing Arius' teaching, as well as an Arian confession of faith (see the appendix on the Council of Nicea in Baker Book House's, "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History".

Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it. Many objected to the use of the word "homoousias" in an official document because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the meaning it conveyed.

The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times, " (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, ",  how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)

It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct .

The Word Homoousious

The Nicene Creed introduced the word "homoousious" or "consubstantial" meaning "of one substance." This word was not invented at the Council. Eusebius writes that some of the "most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops had made use of consubstantial in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son" (See document E in the Appendix, Baker). We do not have the sources that Eusebius must have had regarding the use of this word. Today, the only source is Origen who used the word in what seems the orthodox way (Johannes Quastren, "Patrology," Volume 2, p78). However, this phrase of Eusebius stands as a witness to the existence of wider use.

The bishops assembled at Nicea were careful to explain how they used the word, and what it meant. This is because it had been misused by Paul of Samosta. Regarding this unorthodox usage, St. Hilary and St. Basil say that it was said to be "unfit to describe the relation between the Father and the Son" at a council that met in Antioch (Ibid, p14). Apparently Paul of Samosta applied the word in a manner that implied division of nature, as several coins are from the same metal (Baker, p21).

The Role of Constantine

The controversy greatly agitated Emperor Constantine, and he sent a letter to Arius and Alexander in an attempt to persuade them to lay aside their differences. He wrote, "This contention has not arisen respecting any important command of the law, nor has any new opinion been introduced with regard to the worship of God; but you both entertain the same sentiments, so that you may join in one communion. It is thought to be not only indecorous, but altogether unlawful, that so numerous a people of God should be governed and directed at your pleasure, while you are thus emulously contending with each other, and quarrelling about small and very trifling matters."

It has been suggested that because Constantine referred to the issue as "trifling" that he did not really understand it. Strangely, it is recorded in a letter by Eusebius of Caesarea that the Emperor suggested the key word "homoousious" that appears in the Nicene Creed. He says the Emperor explained the term as well, showing its difference from the heretical usage by Paul of Samosta. It has been speculated that the Emperor made his suggestion at the prompting of Hosius of Cordova, the Emperor's advisor and a man who was persecuted under Maximian.

Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that he played an key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome.

It may be that the eloquence and glory of the Emperor had sway with some, however it should be remembered that he did eventually (years after the Council) support the Arian party. A few years after the Council of Nicea, Arius discovered a new way to interpret the word "homoousius" that agreed with his doctrines. He then asked to be readmitted to communion, but the Church refused. Arius then appealed to the Emperor. Emperor Constantine's favorite sister, Constantia, on her deathbed, implored Constantine to support Arius and he did so. A date was set for the forcing of the Church to readmit Arius, but while he was waiting for Constantine to arrive Arius stopped to relive himself and his bowels burst and he died. (See Arians of the 4th Century, Chapter III, Section II by John Henry Newman)

It is hard to imagine how a man who had supposedly argued with eloquence for the Nicene Creed and who supposedly formulated the key phrase and explained it would simply abandon it for a mere submission to the words and not the meaning of the Creed. It is also hard to imagine how the account of Eusebius can be reconciled to the Emperor's apparent failure to grasp the issue apparent in his letter. It is also hard to imagine how a man who had been such a humble servant of the Church at Nicea would attempt to force the Church to accept his decisions at this later date. It seems reasonable on these grounds to suppose that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a less than accurate account designed to give credit and flattery to the emperor.

Nor was Constantine the last emperor to side with the Arians. Athanasius writes concerning this in "The Monks' History of Arian Impiety' (AD 358) saying, "When did a decision of the Church receive its authority from the emperor?" and "never did the fathers seek the consent of the emperor for them [councilar decrees of the Church], nor did the emperor busy himself in the Church." He goes on to say that the heretics banded with the emperor. (See Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, by William Jurgens).

The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were willing to die for it.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

This is a long long long document on/from the council of Nicea, and it does not mention reincarnation once. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

This summarizes pretty much all what the council was about, and deliberated on http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/f98/milan/council.htm

Now I'm not making a judgment on gnostic teachings, I'm just saying that I don't believe they were discussed in the council of Nicea.

Mavenb0x:


P.S> Hey! What happened to the religious non-bull$hit stuff you were meant to send me? I am still mulling over it all but you decided to hold back the rest!   Oya make it sharp sharp, my guy Please. Thanks.

haha. I stopped using my hotmail account cause it was stealing my emails. I'll send you some more stuff when I get home. Nice to know you are interested.  

@deepsight. I apologize for my rude comments yesterday. I was gettin a hard time from my family and was just generally irritated and I took it out on you. I had no reason or right to speak to you like that and to be honest I felt kinda shitty later in the day when I had gotten over my mood swing. Abeg make u no vex. I owe you four big stout and a bucket of pepper soup.  

seeklove:

@Viaro
Sorry, I dont want to fight with you. The links that I provided are for you to weigh the pros and cons, not for you to believe everything. I read those articles well before posting them. I considered them well balanced, and not one sidded.

I'm not fightimng with anyone on this thread - and I have shown the emptiness of that article. There's no historical antecedent there that could be called 'scholarly' as long as you and I know that Shirley MacLaine was trying to hoodwink us with the tales of her channelling.

There is no need to insult. I had a conversation with justcool about my engagaments with mavenbox yesterday on another thread, where I lost control. I dont want to make another mistake by getting into a fight.

Good - I shall hold my cool, as long as posters behave on this thread. There was no need to come up here and treat us like we are uneducated dolts - by this quote of yours:

seeklove:

Any truly educated person knows that reincarnation was one of the issues discussed in the council of nicea.

Krayola:

I know of the gnostics and their beliefs. They are not based entirely on the bible, and have all sorts of non-hebrew influences. It was like a cocktail of various religious worldviews (kinda like the Grail Message). I think they even claimed the God of the Old Testament was evil. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the gnostics. It was mainly about the Arian controversy which suggested that since the father begat the son, the son was finite and not the same as the father (or sumn like that).

Krayo my man. .  you have done it again. That was where I was going in my response to justcool, but you have mastered it so well that my response would have looked like an uneducated article.

@Krayola, mavenbox and viaro

Thanks for your posts. I am sorry that I could not provide links that you consider authentic. The issue remains on the individual. Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion.

But I guess that I have shown that some historians believe that the early Christian sects believed in reincarnation, and that reincarnation was one of the issues dealt with in the council of Nicea.

It's up to you whether to consider these facts as authentic or not. My lecturer once told me that: History was written by the survivors.

About the Gnostic not being biblical. Please at the times the Gnostic existed, was there a book called the bible the way that we have it today? This is something to consider and research on.

Also I need to clarify that the teachings of the gnostic is not the same with the teachings of the Grail Message. I am well familiar with the Grail Message and I have read a little about the Gnostic; I am certain that the teachings are not the same.

There is no need going round and round on the issue of reincarnation. I think i have expressed all my perception on this issue. One is left to agree with me or not.

But thanks for a wonderful exchange of views. Remain blessed.

justcool:

About the Gnostic not being biblical. Please at the times the Gnostic existed, was there a book called the bible the way that we have it today? This is something to consider and research on.

I said they were not entirely biblical. They believed  for example that the God of the old testament was evil, even though we know that is the God that Jesus was believed to have been sent by. After all, Jesus quotes, and is believed to have been the fulfillment of certain old testament claims. Gnosticism is one of the earliest expressions of Christianity, and like I said I'm not making a judgment on the validity of their beliefs. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any credible evidence that it was discussed at the council of Nicea, which is all I was seeking to clarify.

justcool:

Also I need to clarify that the teachings of the gnostic is not the same with the teachings of the Grail Message. I am well familiar with the Grail Message and I have read a little about the Gnostic; I am certain that the teachings are not the same.

I didn't say their teachings were the same. I was just saying they are both kinda cocktails of various worldviews. Again, I did not say they taught the same things.

It's up to you whether to consider these facts as authentic or not. My lecturer once told me that: History was written by the survivors.

I think scholars and historians at reputable educational institutions are aware of that. The difference is that they try to find out what was actually there, without imposing anything on it. . .and if they do their colleagues will object fiercely and there will be no consensus around such a view. I can't find even ONE that says anything about reincarnation in the council of Nicea. Not one, although I found many that agree that reincarnation was a gnostic teaching. Most scholars agree that Christianity as handed down through church tradition is not identical to the beliefs of Jesus and his early followers. But that does not mean they go out of their way to say things that the evidence does not suggest, like the council of Nicea striking it out of Christian doctrine.

Thanks for your response. 

@justcool, thanks for your reply.

justcool:

You said nothing about the link that I gave to Kreyola.

I was trying to come to that (my slow replies are because I'm trying to multitask here - posting and attending to other things online).

You don't find it authentic?

No, I don't.

Please what sources do you consider authentic.

Sources that are not the personal interpretations of misinformed chaps on the web - these misinformed chaps have made and continue to make all sorts of claims that have no scholarly undergirdings to them. It will not be sufficient for anyone to try to argue assertively on articles which are making "suggestions" and "probable" statements with no substanec to them.

I don't know your regards on the authenticity of wikipedia but let me quote it for you:

I quote Wikipedia with caution - which means that not everything you find on Wikipedia is scholarly or factual. But thanks for quoting that article anyways - I'd seen it while researching the subject of reincarnation, but over and against all this is that several of you from the Grail Message group have plainly said that reincarnation is NOT taught in the Bible. Yet, I shall oblige you and show some pointers on the historical antecedence of reincarnation both in Judaism and Christianity.

But as regards the highlighted parts of your interest in that Wikipedia excerpt about the so-called 'evidence' for 'earliest Christian sects' to have believed in reincarnation, let me make some points clear to you: that is all hogwash - and this is how:

There seems to be evidence however that some of the earliest Christian sects such as the Sethians and followers of the Gnostic Church of Valentinus believed in reincarnation, and they were persecuted by the Romans for this.[27]

The footnote [27] reads: 'Much of this is documented in R.E. Slater's book Paradise Reconsidered. But was Slater actually documenting historic Christianity? Did you try to carefully check what you were quoting? For the benefit of doubt, please search out Slater's book and read through. A small sketch of what it was about is given at Brill's publisher's website:

[list][img]http://www.brill.nl/images/product/31152.jpg[/img][/list][list]This book offers a new understanding of Sethianism and the origins of Gnosticism by examining the mythology in and social reality behind a group of texts to which certain leaders of the early church occasionally attached the label ‘Ophite.’ In the unique Ophite mythology, which rewrites the Genesis paradise story and is attested, for example, in Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses 1.30, The Apocryphon of John and On the Origin of the World, the snake’s advice to eat of the tree of knowledge is considered positive, the creator and his angels are turned into demonic beasts and the true Godhead is presented as an androgynous heavenly projection of Adam and Eve. It is argued that Hans-Martin Schenke’s influential model of the ‘Sethian system’ only reveals part of a larger whole to which the Ophite material belongs as an important and organic component. [/list]

Of course, one would doubt whether Slater was articulating historical Christianity - for as we see above, he was more concerned about Gnostic sects of pre-Christian era - the Sethians or Sethianism. These are said to be "a group of ancient Gnostics who date their existence to before Christianity" (Wikipedia).

Of what Sethianism is about, you could see the online work of John D. Turner (Professor of Religious Studies and Professor of Classics and History at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln). Laying out carefully the chronological antecedents of the Sethians (from before 100CE to 300CE), you will not even find strong refernece or evidence to the idea that Sethianism was 'Christianity' - and again, you won't find strong reference to "reincarnation" there either.

Secondly, as regards the question of the Ophite, could I point you to this glossary entry on the web:

[list]

Ophites
One of the earliest Gnostic sects, flourishing in Egypt in the 2nd century and using as their sacred symbol the serpent (ophis) as symbolizing the Christos immanent in man.

[list]"While holding some of the principles of Valentinus [it] had its own occult rites and symbology. A living serpent, representing the Christos-principle (i.e, the divine reincarnating Monad, not Jesus the man), was displayed in their mysteries and reverenced as a symbol of wisdom, Sophia, the type of the all-good and all-wise. [size=14pt]The Gnostics were not a Christian sect[/size], in the common acceptation of this term, as the Christos of pre-Christian thought and the Gnosis was not the 'god-man' Christ, but the divine Ego, made one with Buddhi. Their Christos was the 'Eternal Initiate,' the Pilgrim, typified by hundreds of Ophidian symbols for several thousands of years before the 'Christian' era, so-called" (TG 241).[/list]

[/list]

The point in all this is that there is no scholarly work that you can use to argue the claim that early Christians believed in and taught 'reincarnation'. The source you quoted just doesn't square for this - and I could also show the hollowness of the remaining part of your excerpt, other than that Krayola has soundly done that.

If you are close to any(a well educated catholic priest), you might want request a dialog. If you were in California, I would have intited you to dialog with a catholic priest friend of mine. You d be supprised how knowledgeable these priests are.

Catholic scholarship is one that I highly respect - but that does not mean that any Catholic priest could twist history to suit his personal persuasion about reincarnation.

But you have the right to disagree with me. I still respect you and your views.

No worries - there are reasons why I would disagree with you, because more than anything else, the claims you made are not factual - and that is what we have shown.

I just wanna point out that I'm not judging gnostic teachings. I actually agree with some of the stuff they teach. I'm just saying they were not discussed at the council of Nicea.

There is no one true expression of christianity. All the early movements were most likely sincere truth seekers. The truth is somewhere in there and one just has to learn about all what was really going on in the early years of Christianity to form an educated opinion. The Nazarenes most likely have some views that are consistent with Jesus's and some that are not. Same with Paul, and same with the Gnostics (they existed before the Christian era). .  even the Arians. Tradition has decided what is "right" and "wrong" so most are biased in their assessments and won't give others a fair hearing. But I think one should investigate all the views and see what they agree with and what they don't, instead of just "blindly" accepting what tradition has handed down. So, Justcool, deepsight and others, I do not think the gnostics are "heretics" or anything like that. I'm just saying I don't believe they were discussed at Nicea.

Krayola:

@deepsight. I apologize for my rude comments yesterday. I was gettin a hard time from my family and was just generally irritated and I took it out on you. I had no reason or right to speak to you like that and to be honest I felt kinda shitty later in the day when I had gotten over my mood swing. Abeg make u no vex. I owe you four big stout and a bucket of pepper soup.

Men you are a gentleman 99.99999% of the time so like i always say you have the right to vex and explode every now and then! You be my guy, you know say you get immunity for my side.

If the four stout na small stout, e no go do o; na big stout i dey hammer

Viaro:
There are other ways that such recollections without prior cognisance are expressed. Some have remarked that it may be the manifestation of some 'familiar spirit(s)', which is not impossible. However, there's another example that fits the above description in your comments, viz: the idiot savant.

Just seen this. The term "idiot savant" is now considered derogatory. Experts now use  the term "autistic savant". Just thought I should let your readers know this.

And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment -- Heb.9:27

MyJoe:

Just seen this. The term "idiot savant" is now considered derogatory. Experts now use the term "autistic savant". Just thought I should let your readers know this.

I take the correction, and deeply apologise. You did very well to bring that up, and thank you so much.

Just saw this from Mad Max on another thread. . .

Mad_Max:


In the Gospels, the Jews clearly knew people reincarnated and sent priests to ask John the Baptist if he was Moses or Elijah. Now Moses and Elijah were dead. John told them he wasn't Elijah. And yet Christ said 'That's Elijah'. Of course John the Baptist would have no memories of his life as Elijah. If he's Elijah that probably meant Elijah did something that compelled his return. Perhaps some work was unfinished. Perhaps a debt was unpaid. But from what I'd read Elijah sounded like someone outstanding. I read through his story again and guess what I found? He threw a challenge to the prophets of Baal. They lost. For reasons best known to himself, maybe as a sort of dramatic flourish to the events of the day, he took the FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY prophets of Baal and EXECUTED them. He killed four hundred and fifty people. If you're executing in those times, you behead. Sometimes these heads are hung at city gates. Did Elijah pay for this thing he had done? No.

But John the Baptist, whom Christ said was Elijah, had something interesting happen to him. Herod's niece danced and pleased him and he decided to grant her a boon. She asked for the head of John the baptist at her mother's behest. And John the Baptist was EXECUTED. He was BEHEADED. The whole thing was so casually done. Someone danced and off goes his head.Maybe his debt is paid. Maybe he has to come back and be executed four hundred and forty-nine more times. But there are inflexible laws in the universe. You reap what you sow.

If na me talk am, dem fit break my head.

NICE ONE, MAD MAX.

[eXITS WHISTLING. . .]