Why reincarnation is the truth

[Petr]

and taught by all mystic schools of Christianity(gnosticism), Judaism(kabala), Hinduism, Buddhism, and even a little sect of Islam(Sufi) and more, it is the only way God can deliver justice to all who stumbled and keep stumbling.

 

[Proud Hindu]

Very true

To me, reincarnation is such a logical concept, it simply has to be true, it is a law even above religion. Everything in the universe moves in cycles. Can anyone name something that isn't? So it makes sense that our lives move in cycles as well.

 

[Petr]

Very true

To me, reincarnation is such a logical concept, it simply has to be true, it is a law even above religion. Everything in the universe moves in cycles. Can anyone name something that isn't? So it makes sense that our lives move in cycles as well.

That's how I see it as well. A law above every religion.

 

[billwald]

Then explain the expanding human population. Whence commeth the new souls?

 

[Petr]

Then explain the expanding human population. Whence commeth the new souls?

There are no new souls, all were created at the same time. The cause of expanding human population is that while the world is generally becoming a better place for one's development (more available knowledge... books, internet, schools, many options to choose from, just think of some), more souls that have fallen to the temptations of self even many cycles ago(on this planet), now come again from the pleroma(spiritual universe and the wholeness of therof) to finnish the work. Note that theres much and much more souls existing than the number of people on this planet.

 

[Petr]

The incorruptible man Adamas asked for them a son..., in order that he (the son) may become the father of the immovable, incorruptible race, so that through it...the dead aeon (Matter) may raise itself, so it that it may dissolve. And thus there came forth, from above, the power of the great light, the Manifestation. She gave birth to the four great lights..., and the great incorruptible Seth, the son of the incorruptible man Adamas.

The Egyptian Gospel

 

[gaijin178]

The population question is a common question to those who believe in reincarnation. Well, from a Buddhist perspective, we generally don't believe in reincarnation but rebirth. My answer to that as more karmic acts moving spirit into the human realm. I don't know if all Buddhists would agree or even any would agree...but just my thoughts.

 

[Onemonthman]

And the reason reincarnation is fale..............................................................

Because the Bible does not support it but speaks directly in contrary terms toward it.

 

[gaijin178]

And the reason reincarnation is fale..............................................................

Because the Bible does not support it but speaks directly in contrary terms toward it.

I assume that you meant false, but.....dude, that's a cop-out response....why respond at all? You gave nothing to back up your opinion.

 

[Petr]

The population question is a common question to those who believe in reincarnation.

Actually the ever increasing population is also best explained by reincarnation
It seems absurd to me to think of God as a soul production line.

 

[Rick of Wessex]

First of all, pardon my not so good English.

Reincarnation is false because:

1) it implies God cannot forgive us because

1.1 he is unfair and perpetualy angry - that's simply not true.

"For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16

"Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." Luke 23:39-43

"Bless the Lord, O my soul;
And all that is within me, bless His holy name!

Bless the Lord, O my soul,
And forget not all His benefits:

Who forgives all your iniquities,
Who heals all your diseases,

Who redeems your life from destruction,
Who crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies" - Psalm 103:1-4

1.2 He is bound by something greater than Him - in this case, the necessity of punishing evil people for every evil deed, even if they repent. Repentance is useless, because one will be punished anyway.

Besides, since in this case God is bound by necessity like the pagan "gods" of yore, there's something greater than God, which implies automatically that God is not omnipotent. Therefore, he is not really God.

2) Reincarnation is useless as a manner for delivering Divine justice, because if I can't remember why I'm being punished, then what's the point?

Picture this: you have a four-year-old kid. One day, he decides that the walls of your living room will look great with some extra color. He then grabs his crayons and watercolors and paints the walls.

When you see his "art" for the first time, you don't do anything. Two years later, you beat him because he painted the walls of your living room. Do you think this would be fair to you kid? If reincarnation were real, it would work on this same unfair principle.

Rick

 

[Rick of Wessex]

The Church Fathers spoke agains this:

Origen of Alexandria (+254)

7. Of the Birth of John, and of His Alleged Identity with Elijah. Of the Doctrine of Transcorporation.

"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? and he said, I am not." No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John, "If ye will receive it, this is Elijah which is to come." How, then, does John come to say to those who ask him, "Art thou Elijah? "-"I am not." And how can it be true at the same time that John is Elijah who is to come, according to the words of Malachi,"And behold I send unto you Elijah the Tishbite, before the great and notable day of the Lord come, who shall restore the heart of the father to the Sod, and the heart of a man to his neighbour, lest I come, and utterly smite the earth." The words of the angel of the Lord, too, who appeared to Zacharias, as he stood at the right hand of the altar of incense, are somewhat to the same effect as the prophecy of Malachi: "And thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John." And a little further on: "And he shall go before His face in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him."

As for the first point, one might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of transcorporation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. These thinkers will also point out that some of the Jews assented to this doctrine when they spoke about the Saviour as if He was one of the old prophets, and had risen not from the tomb but from His birth. His mother Mary was well known, and Joseph the carpenter was supposed to be His father, add it could readily be supposed that He was one of the old prophets risen from the dead. The same person will adduce the text in Genesis. "I will destroy the whole resurrection," and will thereby reduce those who give themselves to finding in Scripture solutions of false probabilities to a great difficulty in respect of this doctrine. Another, however, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of transcorporation as a false one, and does not admit that the soul of John ever was Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John's birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah. "He shall go before him," it is said, "in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children." Now it can be shown from thousands of texts that the spirit is a different thing from the soul, and that what is called the power is a different thing from both the soul and the spirit. [Commentaries on the Gospel of St. John, Book VI, chapter VII]

As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God, and are spoken of as being in a manner their property (slaves), as "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."41 and "The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha."42 Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, "in the spirit and power of Elijah," turned the hearts of the fathers to the children, and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called "Elijah who was to come." [apud opera]

If the doctrine in question really was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews, if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless. [apud opera]

Some one might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which wrought in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which He was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument. Just as because of the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, "This is Elijah which is to come," [Origen of Alexandria, Commentaries on the Gospel of St. Matthew, book X, chapter XX]


1. Relation of the Baptist to Elijah. The Theory of Transmigration Considered.
In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures;

But if, of necessity, the Greeks who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the Scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them, or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of the things concerning the consummation; which even if they wish they will not be able to do. [Origen of Alexandria, Commentaries on the Gospel of St. Matthew, book XIII, chapter I]

Quotes from Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume X

Rick

 

[Petr]

First of all, pardon my not so good English.
To asnwer you, reincarnation is false because:
1) it implies God cannot forgive us because
1.1 he is unfair and perpetualy angry - that's simply not true.
"For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16
"Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." Luke 23:39-43

Please educate yourself about reincarnation. Reincarnation doesn't imply that God is perpetually angry or that he cannot forgive us. Just because God forgives sins, doesn't mean that reincarnation stops. The purpose of reincarnation is to grown into God's image, and this growth doesn't come by just forgiving sins.

Matthew 9:
4 And seeing their thoughts, Jesus said, Why do you think evil in your hearts?
5 For what is easier, to say, Your sins are remitted, or to say, Rise up and walk?
6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to remit sins, then He said to the paralytic, Rising up, lift up your cot and go to your house.

God created Adam in his own image, he lived for 900+ years. He died because of sin, if forgiveness of sins implied that we automatically become the image of God, and not the image of the beast, we should be living like Adam did.

It wasn't after Jesus commanded the paralytic to rise up and walk that he really walked.

2) Reincarnation is useless as a manner for delivering Divine justice, because if I can't remember why I'm being punished, then what's the point?

Because if you knew your entire history then it would be way harder. I my seld don't want to know whom I used to hurt etc. God gives a "clean sheet", and equal opportunity for the body to find God.

 

[Onemonthman]

I assume that you meant false, but.....dude, that's a cop-out response....why respond at all? You gave nothing to back up your opinion.

Not a cop out at all. The Bible is my backup. The Bible is all we need to know. Jesus is the start and finish of all we are, will be, or could ever want. Why go elsewhere? Oh, and while yes, I did mean false, the way I spelled it would be pronounced like 'fail' so I would see it as appropriate also.

 

[Onemonthman]

Please educate yourself about reincarnation. Reincarnation doesn't imply that God is perpetually angry or that he cannot forgive us. Just because God forgives sins, doesn't mean that reincarnation stops. The purpose of reincarnation is to grown into God's image, and this growth doesn't come by just forgiving sins.

Matthew 9:
4 And seeing their thoughts, Jesus said, Why do you think evil in your hearts?
5 For what is easier, to say, Your sins are remitted, or to say, Rise up and walk?
6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to remit sins, then He said to the paralytic, Rising up, lift up your cot and go to your house.

God created Adam in his own image, he lived for 900+ years. He died because of sin, if forgiveness of sins implied that we automatically become the image of God, and not the image of the beast, we should be living like Adam did.

It wasn't after Jesus commanded the paralytic to rise up and walk that he really walked.

2) Reincarnation is useless as a manner for delivering Divine justice, because if I can't remember why I'm being punished, then what's the point?

Because if you knew your entire history then it would be way harder. I my seld don't want to know whom I used to hurt etc. God gives a "clean sheet", and equal opportunity for the body to find God.

I don't understand how you can equate non-Biblical, non-Christian ideas with being a Christian.

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Petr,

Read this article and you'll see how unfair and ilogical this concept is:

Against reincarnation
by Sue Widemark

We hear a lot of reincarnation these days. Basically this is the idea that a limited number of souls were created "sometime" (or always existed) and that these souls travel from body to body. That is, according to this belief, after we die, we will fly around the ether for a while and then find or choose another body to be born in. The expression "well, in my next life, I will …" is also very common.

Anecdotal evidence abounds for this belief which probably originated in a combination of man’s inborn desire for immortality and a human way of solving the problem of death. Reincarnation is taught by several Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism and very much embraced by American "New Agers" in what some theologians call, the "Post Christian era". Although hard proof of reincarnation has always been lacking, it is true that some of the anecdotal evidence is convincing.

For instance, most of us if we go through certain rituals like concentrating as expounded in some of Jess Stern’s or Ruth Mongomery’s books, will begin to experience memories of other places, other times and other people. Or at least what FEELS like memories. Some of the things which come to us are documentable and can not be explained by daydreams, past experience etc.

In the 1950’s, one of the most convincing cases of reincarnation burst upon the scene when a man named Morey Bernstein shocked the reading public with his best seller entitled THE SEARCH FOR BRIDEY MURPHY. Bernstein had hypnotized a housewife in Pueblo, Colorado and this person had come up with the life of a woman who lived in Ireland in the 18th century. Bernstein went to Ireland and researched a lot of what the hypnotized woman had told him – facts about an obscure Irish woman and her life which could not be obtained without visiting Ireland and digging in dusty old records. Bernstein was not one of the usual "occult" writers and he had also used himself as a guinea pig to undergo ECT and insulin shock to see if this would produce "past life memories" (it didn’t). So when the Colorado housewife spoke with an Irish brogue and claimed a lifetime in 18th century Ireland, it was convincing. This book was for me, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for reincarnation – Bernstein’s research appeared to be very complete and scientific. (I assumed that at the age of 12, I could discern which research was solid and which wasn’t!)

There have also been stories of 5 year old kids who speak foreign languages which their parents did NOT teach them. When a translator is brought in to listen to the child, usually a girl, she typically describes another individual who died shortly before she was born, living a different life in a different place. According to the stories, the child describes her parents and other life details of her former incarnation. Such a case was fictionalized in the book, AUDREY ROSE (later made into a movie). These facts which the 5 year old had no way of learning from her environment, can usually be documented as true or so the story goes. Stern, Edwards and Montgomery all include at least one such case in their books on reincarnation.

Additionally there is even one rather troubling passage in the Bible where Jesus tells His Disciples that some of them standing there, will see His Second Coming, a passage which appears to have no other rational explanation than that those souls will be reincarnated since the Second Coming or Parousia is thought to be occurring in the distant future.

This to say that to discard reincarnation as simply the inane ramblings of the New Age Movement may be overly simplistic.

When I converted to the Catholic church, because of the overwhelming evidence, and a lot of research on my part, I believed in reincarnation. I did not want to become a Catholic if this belief stood as a stumbling block. I asked the priest with whom we took private instruction and he said "well, the Bible says we live one life but who knows how many earthly lives this "one life" is, in the Eyes of God." A clever answer which did not go against Catholic teaching but DID enable me to join the church I so desired to embrace.

It’s hard to NOT believe in reincarnation and especially when one’s immediate family members believe in it. And so for years, I simply accepted that belief and never really questioned it (are we seeing a problem right here? We should question EVERYTHING!).

Then I had a personal experience which got me to wondering.

My personal experience with reincarnation
I generally accepted that my past life was as a US Navy submarine captain who had been stationed at Pearl Harbor. I saw details in my dreams never before shown ANYWHERE in the media … for example, the ocean at Pearl Harbor reddened with blood and strewn with body parts (1400 American soldiers died at Pearl Harbor, newly released government documents tell us and although FDR and cronies could track the Japanese ships coming to attack, they failed to evacuate the Naval base there because they wanted the attack to be a "surprise" to anger the American people so that they would have an excuse to enter the war … against Japan AND Germany which was one of Japan’s allies. Needless to say, TV accounts of the attack leave out the gross details because some folks might connect the dots and realize that those BODY PARTS floating in the bloody brink were those of the American soldiers killed – ref: see StinnettAY OF DECEIT).

In my dreams, I also saw the inside of a submarine accurately. I never doubted that these MUST be past memories as throughout my life I had had such an antipathy toward war that I had never watched any war movies, never read any war books.

Fast forward to 1972. I was playing the violin in a church show and another person performing was a young man they called "The Polish Elvis", an Elvis Presley impersonator from Poland. I went home that first night of rehearsals and dreamt about this young man. I was told in my dream that his father had been killed on a bridge that *I* had ordered blown up when I was in the Navy (in my past life).

Although all of my past memories had been negative, this one was horribly heavy for me to bear as a pro life person and I was terribly troubled the following day. Worse yet, the dream was so vivid that I was confused about WHOM I was at times. So that night, I decided to ask the Polish Elvis about this. I thought, surely, this was just a nightmare and that his father was probably living and happy and all my concern was for nothing.

I didn’t even know him so had to go introduce myself. After a few polite exchanges I asked about his family. He said his mother was here with him but his dad was dead. A cold chill began to form in me as I asked whether his father had died recently. He looked at me rather strangely and said "No, he died in WW II. He was on a bridge that the Americans blew up."

I don’t remember how I ended the conversation because I felt faint. Having fleeting memories of a past life was one thing. Having murdered someone in a past life is quite another.

I fretted about it the next day and then, I sat down to think about reincarnation.

I realized I had gotten it down to TWO possibilities:

I was really remembering a past life

a satanic angel was whispering things to me making me THINK I was remembering a past life

Number 1 fitted in with my lifelong beliefs and so I had never considered number 2.

Now that I was troubled to the core, I thought about number 2 for the first time and I did this because I felt that the type of distress I was suffering did NOT come from God. I came up with some interesting conclusions:

My past memories had NEVER been positive, always negative – full of death and depression and hopelessness.

In my past life I had rejected a belief in God which is unusual for me because I’ve had a close relationship with God from an early age

And now this – feeling guilty and horribly depressed about this young man’s father’s death

Looking at it, I realized that numbers 1, 2, and 3 had the earmarks of Satan – depression, hopelessness, ugliness, death, no belief in God and soul crushing guilt.

If I was really this Naval Captain, why wouldn’t I remember happy memories as well as depressing sad memories? Would God want me to feel guilty for something which happened in WW II?

Thus, for the first time in my life, I questioned reincarnation.

I found that it had numerous problems, Biblical AND logical AND practical.

The Logical problems with Reincarnation
According to the doctrine, when we sin, we store up "Karma" and then, in the next life, we pay for the Karma we racked up in the last life through suffering and pain. If that was so, it would be an endless circle because we are never sinless and thus as we pay for Karma, we are racking up more. In fact, the Tibetan Buddhists realized this logical dilemma and they solve it by teaching that in order to exit the endless circle of lifetimes on earth, an individual must become a monk and live in a monastery. Presumably the simple life would prevent them from racking up more Karma so at the end of THAT life, they could move on and break the endless cycle.

A nice idea however, for those who of us have LIVED in convents and monasteries, even the most cloistered life does NOT prevent us from sinning since the affinity to sin comes from within. So basically, the monastery idea does not work for ending current Karma.

And since still racking up Karma, we would never exit from an endless circle of lifetimes is not only illogical (the world WILL likely end someday) but also against Catholic teaching which says that we are to live and then die to be resurrected with Jesus.

Another problem with the "Karma" idea is that if we COULD pay for our sins, why would we need a Savior? So in an insidious manner, Karma reduces Jesus to a teacher rather than a Savior and thus questions the Divinity of Christ. But if Christ were NOT divine why then did the life and death of this obscure citizen of the dirt town of Nazareth, change the course of the world so completely that time is measured before and after his birth?

The doctrine of Reincarnation suggests that Jesus was probably a reincarnation. In fact, some religions teach this about Jesus i.e. that Buddha was a reincarnation of Jesus or vice versa. Since Buddha, though a holy man never claimed Divinity, this too would tend to erode the Christian belief that Jesus is the only Son of the one true God.

Finally, the doctrine of Karma suggests that our works are enough to earn us points or merit and there is really no evidence of this at all since our works are often riddled with self aggrandizement, lack of humility and simple imperfection (to put it mildly).

Why Reincarnation is not Practical
To believe in reincarnation, we have to make quite a leap of faith because when we die, there is NO PROOF whatsoever that we are in any type of control. No human would choose the agony of death even with Karma being a factor. And then, to believe that we fly around and search for parents to "come back to earth" is much more difficult to stomach than to believe that God handles all.

Also to embrace this belief, we also have to accept that some human beings are essentially the same with just different coverings. For example, it would be our same soul in each of these lifetimes.

But first of all, in my so called past memories, it was NOT my same soul because the Naval captain despaired of the existence of God, something I have NEVER IN MY LIFE, done, even AS a small child.

And second, we know that nothing IS alike in nature. Every snowflake is different. God’s creation in the world seems to be opposed to the belief in reincarnation that many human beings throughout time have actually been the same person. Why would His Creation of the most complex and wonderful being on earth be less astounding than the creation of a tiny snowflake. It is much more in line with logic to believe that EACH OF US is a totally different and unique creation which has NEVER existed before in any shape, form or manner.

Third, believing that it’s the same individual in different coverings over and over through several lifetimes defies our OWN experience in life. Has anyone EVER met one human being, just one, who is identical to another? Even identical twins who are genetically the same, are as different as night and day when you get to know them.


(continued below...)

 

[Rick of Wessex]

(continued from above...)


Reincarnation is NOT Biblical
We are told in the Bible that God knew us before He created us, He knew us before we were knit together in the womb. That doesn’t sound like we go from life to life. It sounds more like He planned for us from the beginning and we didn’t exist UNTIL we were knit together in our mother’s womb, soul and body.

Jesus says to the "good thief", "Today you will be with ME in paradise!" He DID NOT say "well, in the next life you will know better" or the like. In fact, if reincarnation was so important and being that it attempts to explain the very nature of our creation, I would think it IS rather important, why did Jesus NOT teach extensively about it? On the contrary, He talked as if when we die we will go on "the path God has prepared for us" and never even mentioned reincarnation but always talked as if we all just live ONE life.

Finally how did the incarnation of Jesus happen? The soul of Jesus came into existence (the Union of God and man in the Hypostatic Union) the moment the Blessed Mother said "YES" to the angel… AT CONCEPTION. Since Jesus was "a man like us in all things except sin" it is much more logical to look AT the incarnation of Jesus as how WE happen as well, the soul created at conception. (Those who advocate abortion like to think that the soul of the aborted baby just flies around and finds parents who want him or her and thus, abortion is good all around. But, IF we consider that this soul was a unique and NEW Creation of God at conception and that the abortion denies God’s very Plan for it to live on earth at all, that carries dreadful ramifications which might be very uncomfortable for a "pro choice" individual to think about).

Other Explanations for the Evidence of Reincarnation
I had one more thought process to go through. How would I explain the rather convincing body of evidence concerning reincarnation, things I had experienced in my life and also, had discovered in my research. Could these things and experiences be explained in another way?

I found there WERE other explanations which were just as viable or perhaps MORE viable than Reincarnation.

With reference to my own experiences - Satanic angels are like other angels, very intelligent and they can play games with us. In fact, saints like Francis of Assisi have described this in detail. One of the games satanic angels play is pretending to be someone. One of the friars came to St. Francis one morning and told him that Francis had visited him in the night warning him to leave the monastery and that the church was evil. Francis asked his friar "Do you think *I* would say such a thing? That was satan PRETENDING TO BE ME!"

So we come down to discernment – past memories have always been negative for me – negativity is of satan and not of God. Bernstein was careful when he regressed the Colorado housewife that she didn’t remember it when she "woke up". But later experiments such as those of Jess Stern did not take this step. The person who was regressed began to suffer mental problems because they were very confused and depressed. If past life memories were a thing of God, would they depress and confuse us? That again sounds like satan and not God.

Children speaking other languages and attributing this to past lives – this again could be explained by satan because in those individuals who were "possessed" they also sometimes spoke other languages. And that they came up with REAL people could be explained by satanic angels who KNEW about those real people and were impersonating them. These stories could also be explained in the same way we explain other things – urban legends. We have all heard about the baby sitter who cooked the baby in the oven (no proof it ever happened) and the organ stealers who steal kidneys and leave you in a bathtub of ice (originated in a movie). Face it, most of the strange stuff we hear IS legend rather than factual!

But additionally, has anyone really investigated these claims of past lives? Investigated them to see IF there are other explanations?

I had read many cases of reincarnation and past life memories but none so convincing as Morey Bernstein’s SEARCH FOR BRIDEY MURPHY so I took to the Internet to see if anyone HAD debunked it.

Bridey Murphy debunked!
I was shocked and surprised at what I found. The Colorado housewife whom Bernstein named Ruth Simmons was really named Virginia Tighe. When researchers tried to back up Morey Bernstein’s claims of a woman named Bridey Murphy in Ireland in the 18th century, they came up with no evidence one way or the other. However, they did find a woman named Bridey Murphy who lived in the 20th century in Wisconsin, right across the street from where Virginia Tighe had lived as a girl. Bridey, it turned out, told Virginia stories of Ireland where Bridey had been raised. What Virginia was remembering WAS a past life – HER OWN CHILDHOOD! The "Chicago American" which made this discovery called the case, "evidence of a vivid imagination, a confused memory, fraud, or a combination of the three." Virginia Tighe often stated she never believed she was Bridey Murphy but left it as a possibility. She died in the late 1990's.

Additionally I found this, filling in more of the details (and death nells of the truth of Bernstein’s claims):

A Life magazine investigation found that few of the checkable details in Mrs. Tighe's story could be verified. Worse, a fellow named Wally White, who said he was a childhood friend of Mrs. Tighe's, said that when she was very young she was in the habit of speaking in an Irish brogue. He also said she was known to have scratched the paint off her bed on one occasion. Next it was learned that metal beds hadn't been introduced into Ireland until the mid-nineteenth century, when Bridey would have been middle-aged. The final blow was the discovery that one of Mrs. Tighe's neighbors in her childhood days was named Bridey Murphy Corkell.

(REF: The Straight Dope: Is it possible to recall past lives through hypnosis? See online sources in references)

Although Bernstein intimated he was a therapist in the book (and in a way he was - he apparently did hypnotism as a hobby and avocation after becoming intrigued with it at a party in the 1940's), he was actually a rather successful businessman and probably lacked expertise in the field of psychology.

That left one proof and it was perhaps the most troubling – Jesus’ one statement in the Bible which seems to suggest reincarnation "Some of those standing here today will see Me when I come again".

The Bible and the Second Coming
That there WILL be a parousia or second coming has been disputed for centuries. It is mentioned in the Bible but Jesus was very evasive about it. So we have post trib rapture fans and pre trib (as in tribulation – the hard times proceeding the Second Coming) rapture fans.

Lately I have made the acquaintance of a deacon who feels that the prevalent ideas about the Second Coming are incorrect. He takes some of the strongest proofs of the Second Coming in Revelations and shows that it, at least, could mean other things. I personally have wondered whether the Second Coming is when Jesus comes to GET EACH OF US. That explanation would actually fit in better with other things Jesus taught and said. IT would also explain my troublesome passage in the Bible "some of those standing here will see Me when I return" as Jesus could have been talking about THEIR OWN deaths and NOT the parousia (Second Coming).

So there you have it. Reincarnation is unproven and unsupported by anything except a bunch of believers and anecdotal stories and vague memories which could be explained other ways.

In doing some research on the Internet, I find that theologians have written many more issues and logical problems with reincarnation as have the church fathers as early as the second century after Christ! (see Catholic Answers article below)

The Church teaches that each of us is a unique individual, created in totality at our conception and when we die, we will stand before Jesus (or perhaps He will come and get us) and then, God will prepare us to enter an eternity of happiness where there IS NO PAIN, or tears or suffering. Not only is this a more consoling thought than an endless stream of earthly lifetimes but it turns out to be a far more LOGICAL and PRACTICAL idea with a lot of Biblical evidence.

Sue Widemark – share this and give me a link:

http://net-abbey.org

References:

Bernstein, Morey: THE SEARCH FOR BRIDEY MURPHY, NY, 1956

Edwards, Frank: STRANGE PEOPLE, NY, 60’s

Holzer, Hans: BORN AGAIN, NY, 1970

Montgomery, Ruth: HERE AND HEREAFTER, NY, 1960

Stern, Jess: IN SEARCH FOR THE GIRL WITH BLUE EYES, NY, 1957

Michaels, Deacon Lawrence R.: Revelation in Its Original Meaning, CA, 2000

Stinett, Robert: DAY OF DECEIT, NY, 2001

Losang, Rato K.;My Life and Lives : The Story of a Tibetan Incarnation, NY, 1977

Francis of Assisi et al: LITTLE FLOWERS OF ST FRANCIS, various publishers (this is a classic work written in the time of St Francis)

Harden, John SJ: Catholic Catechism, NY, 1980

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Irenaeus of Lyon (+202)

"We may undermine [the Hellenists’] doctrine as to transmigration from body to body by this fact—that souls remember nothing whatever of the events which took place in their previous states of existence. For if they were sent forth with this object, that they should have experience of every kind of action, they must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things which have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they were still deficient, and not by always hovering, without intermission, through the same pursuits, spend their labor wretchedly in vain. . . . With reference to these objections, Plato . . . attempted no kind of proof, but simply replied dogmatically that when souls enter into this life they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches their entrance, before they effect an entrance into the bodies. It escaped him that he fell into another, greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion, after it has been drunk, can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, do you obtain the knowledge of this fact . . . ?" (Against Heresies 2:33:1–2 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian (+220)

"Come now, if some philosopher affirms, as Laberius holds, following an opinion of Pythagoras, that a man may have his origin from a mule, a serpent from a woman, and with skill of speech twists every argument to prove his view, will he not gain an acceptance for it [among the pagans], and work in some conviction that on account of this, they should abstain from eating animal food? May anyone have the persuasion that he should abstain, lest, by chance, in his beef he eats some ancestor of his? But if a Christian promises the return of a man from a man, and the very actual Gaius [resurrected] from Gaius . . . they will not . . . grant him a hearing. If there is any ground for the moving to and fro of human souls into different bodies, why may they not return to the very matter they have left . . . ?" (Apology 48 [A.D. 197]).

Lactantius (+330)

"What of Pythagoras, who was first called a philosopher, who judged that souls were indeed immortal, but that they passed into other bodies, either of cattle or of birds or of beasts? Would it not have been better that they should be destroyed, together with their bodies, than thus to be condemned to pass into the bodies of other animals? Would it not be better not to exist at all than, after having had the form of a man, to live as a swine or a dog? And the foolish man, to gain credit for his saying, said that he himself had been Euphorbus in the Trojan war, and that when he had been slain he passed into other figures of animals, and at last became Pythagoras. O happy man!—to whom alone so great a memory was given! Or rather unhappy, who when changed into a sheep was not permitted to be ignorant of what he was! And would to heaven that he [Pythagoras] alone had been thus senseless!" (Epitome of the Divine Institutes 36 [A.D. 317]).


Gregory of Nyssa (+394)

"f one should search carefully, he will find that their doctrine is of necessity brought down to this. They tell us that one of their sages said that he, being one and the same person, was born a man, and afterward assumed the form of a woman, and flew about with the birds, and grew as a bush, and obtained the life of an aquatic creature—and he who said these things of himself did not, so far as I can judge, go far from the truth, for such doctrines as this—of saying that one should pass through many changes—are really fitting for the chatter of frogs or jackdaws or the stupidity of fishes or the insensibility of trees" (The Making of Man 28:3 [A.D. 379]).


Ambrose of Milan (+397)

"It is a cause for wonder that though they [the heathen] . . . say that souls pass and migrate into other bodies. . . . But let those who have not been taught doubt [the resurrection]. For us who have read the law, the prophets, the apostles, and the gospel, it is not lawful to doubt" (Belief in the Resurrection 65–66 [A.D. 380]).

"But is their opinion preferable who say that our souls, when they have passed out of these bodies, migrate into the bodies of beasts or of various other living creatures? . . . For what is so like a marvel as to believe that men could have been changed into the forms of beasts? How much greater a marvel, however, would it be that the soul which rules man should take on itself the nature of a beast so opposed to that of man, and being capable of reason should be able to pass over to an irrational animal, than that the form of the body should have been changed?" (ibid., 127).


John Chrysostom (+407)

"As for doctrines on the soul, there is nothing excessively shameful that they [the disciples of Plato and Pythagoras] have left unsaid, asserting that the souls of men become flies and gnats and bushes and that God himself is a [similar] soul, with some other the like indecencies. . . . At one time he says that the soul is of the substance of God; at another, after having exalted it thus immoderately and impiously, he exceeds again in a different way, and treats it with insult, making it pass into swine and asses and other animals of yet less esteem than these" (Homilies on John 2:3, 6 [A.D. 391]).


Basil the Great (+369)

"[A]void the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog, who say that they have themselves formerly been women, shrubs, or fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know, but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish" (The Six Days’ Work 8:2 [A.D. 393]).

 

[Petr]

The Church Fathers spoke agains this:

Origen of Alexandria (+254)

7. Of the Birth of John, and of His Alleged Identity with Elijah. Of the Doctrine of Transcorporation.

"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? and he said, I am not." No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John, "If ye will receive it, this is Elijah which is to come." How, then, does John come to say to those who ask him, "Art thou Elijah? "-"I am not." And how can it be true at the same time that John is Elijah who is to come, according to the words of Malachi,"And behold I send unto you Elijah the Tishbite, before the great and notable day of the Lord come, who shall restore the heart of the father to the Sod, and the heart of a man to his neighbour, lest I come, and utterly smite the earth." The words of the angel of the Lord, too, who appeared to Zacharias, as he stood at the right hand of the altar of incense, are somewhat to the same effect as the prophecy of Malachi: "And thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John." And a little further on: "And he shall go before His face in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him."

As for the first point, one might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of transcorporation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. These thinkers will also point out that some of the Jews assented to this doctrine when they spoke about the Saviour as if He was one of the old prophets, and had risen not from the tomb but from His birth. His mother Mary was well known, and Joseph the carpenter was supposed to be His father, add it could readily be supposed that He was one of the old prophets risen from the dead. The same person will adduce the text in Genesis. "I will destroy the whole resurrection," and will thereby reduce those who give themselves to finding in Scripture solutions of false probabilities to a great difficulty in respect of this doctrine. Another, however, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of transcorporation as a false one, and does not admit that the soul of John ever was Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John's birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah. "He shall go before him," it is said, "in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children." Now it can be shown from thousands of texts that the spirit is a different thing from the soul, and that what is called the power is a different thing from both the soul and the spirit. [Commentaries on the Gospel of St. John, Book VI, chapter VII]

As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God, and are spoken of as being in a manner their property (slaves), as "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."41 and "The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha."42 Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, "in the spirit and power of Elijah," turned the hearts of the fathers to the children, and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called "Elijah who was to come." [apud opera]

If the doctrine in question really was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews, if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless. [apud opera]

Some one might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which wrought in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which He was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument. Just as because of the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, "This is Elijah which is to come," [Origen of Alexandria, Commentaries on the Gospel of St. Matthew, book X, chapter XX]


1. Relation of the Baptist to Elijah. The Theory of Transmigration Considered.
In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures;

But if, of necessity, the Greeks who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the Scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them, or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of the things concerning the consummation; which even if they wish they will not be able to do. [Origen of Alexandria, Commentaries on the Gospel of St. Matthew, book XIII, chapter I]

Quotes from Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume X

Rick

Having "spirit of" something, in fact says nothing about what soul is within that person who has a spirit of someone though. I heard this argument that because: John doesn't know his past, he only has "the spirit of Elijah".
Isaiah 42:1, often said to me Messianic, speaks of
Behold My Servant; I will uphold Him; My Elect in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit on Him; He shall bring forth justice to the nations.

Same with Isaiah 61

Yet Christians argue that Jesus is the Almighty God. If He is than you are fighting against yourselves, since you said that because John only had the spirit of Elijah, he can't be the soul of Elijah in another body.

Souls do NOT have names, names are given to them by another human beings. The thing is WE do not even know what John really said in entirity, the Gospels record only a little fraction of what was being done and said at the time.

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Having "spirit of" something, in fact says nothing about what soul is within that person who has a spirit of someone though. I heard this argument that because: John doesn't know his past, he only has "the spirit of Elijah".

Soul and spirit are different things. Read Origen's quotes above.

Yet Christians argue that Jesus is the Almighty God. If He is than you are fighting against yourselves, since you said that because John only had the spirit of Elijah, he can't be the soul of Elijah in another body.

Sorry, I'm not following you here.

Souls do NOT have names, names are given to them by another human beings. The thing is WE do not even know what John really said in entirity, the Gospels record only a little fraction of what was being done and said at the time.

A human being is made of body AND soul.

St. Irenaeus of Lyon - Adverses Heresiae
Chapter XXXIII - ABSURDITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS.

1. We may subvert their doctrine as to transmigration from body to body by this fact, that souls remember nothing whatever of the events which took place in their previous states of existence. For if they were sent forth with this object, that they should have experience of every kind of action, they must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things which have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they were still deficient, and not by always hovering, without intermission, round the same pursuits, spend their labour wretchedly in vain (for the mere union of a body [with a soul] could not altogether extinguish the memory and contemplation of those things which had formerly been experienced295 ), and especially as they came [into the world] for this very purpose. For as, when the body is asleep and at rest, whatever things the soul sees by herself, and does in a vision, recollecting many of these, she also communicates them to the body; and as it happens that, when one awakes, perhaps after a long time, he relates what he saw in a dream, so also would he undoubtedly remember those things which he did before he came into this particular body. For if that which is seen only for a very brief space of time, or has been conceived of simply in a phantasm, and by the soul alone, through means of a dream, is remembered after she has mingled again with the body, and been dispersed through all the members, much more would she remember those things in connection with which she stayed during so long a time, even throughout the whole period of a bypast life.

2. With reference to these objections, Plato, that ancient Athenian, who also was the first to introduce this opinion, when he could not set them aside, invented the [notion of] a cup of oblivion, imagining that in this way he would escape this son of difficulty. He attempted no kind of proof [of his supposition], but simply replied dogmatically [to the objection in question], that when souls enter into this life, they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches their entrance [into the world], before they effect an entrance into the bodies [assigned them]. It escaped him, that [by speaking thus] he fell into another greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion, after it has been drunk, can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, dost thou obtain the knowledge of this fact (since thy soul is now in the body), that, before it entered into the body, it was made to drink by the demon a drug which caused oblivion? For if thou hast a remembrance of the demon, and the cup, and the entrance [into life], thou oughtest also to be acquainted with other things; but if, on the other hand, thou art ignorant of them, then there is no truth in the story of the demon, nor in the cup of oblivion prepared with art.

3. In opposition, again, to those who affirm that the body itself is the drug of oblivion, this observation may be made: How, then, does it come to pass, that whatsoever the soul sees by her own instrumentality, both in dreams and by reflection or earnest mental exertion, while the body is passive, she remembers, and reports to her neighbours? But, again, if the body itself were [the cause of] oblivion, then the soul, as existing in the body, could not remember even those things which were perceived long ago either by means of the eyes or the ears; but, as soon as the eye was turned from the things looked at, the memory of them also would undoubtedly be destroyed. For the soul, as existing in the very [cause of] oblivion, could have no knowledge of anything else than that only which it saw at the present moment. How, too, could it become acquainted with divine things, and retain a remembrance of them while existing in the body, since, as they maintain, the body itself is [the cause of] oblivion? But the prophets also, when they were upon the earth, remembered likewise, on their returning to their ordinary state of mind, whatever things they spiritually saw or heard in visions of heavenly objects, and related them to others. The body, therefore, does not cause the soul to forget those things which have been spiritually witnessed; but the soul teaches the body, and shares with it the spiritual vision which it has enjoyed.

4. For the body is not possessed of greater power than the soul, since indeed the former is inspired, and vivified, and increased, and held together by the latter; but the soul possesses and rules over the body. It is doubtless retarded in its velocity, just in the exact proportion in which the body shares in its motion; but it never loses the knowledge which properly belongs to it. For the body may be compared to an instrument; but the soul is possessed of the reason of an artist. As, therefore, the artist finds the idea of a work to spring up rapidly in his mind, but can only carry it out slowly by means of an instrument, owing to the want of perfect pliability in the matter acted upon, and thus the rapidity of his mental operation, being blended with the slow action of the instrument, gives rise to a moderate kind of movement [towards the end contemplated]; so also the soul, by being mixed up with the body belonging to it, is in a certain measure impeded, its rapidity being blended with the body's slowness. Yet it does not lose altogether its own peculiar powers; but while, as it were, sharing life with the body, it does not itself cease to live. Thus, too, while communicating other things to the body, it neither loses the knowledge of them, nor the memory of those things which have been witnessed.

5. If, therefore, the soul remembers nothing of what took place in a former state of existence, but has a perception of those things which are here, it follows that she never existed in other bodies, nor did things of which she has no knowledge, nor [once] knew things which she cannot [now mentally] contemplate. But, as each one of us receives his body through the skilful working of God, so does he also possess his soul. For God is not so poor or destitute in resources, that He cannot confer its own proper soul on each individual body, even as He gives it also its special character. And therefore, when the number [fixed upon] is completed, [that number] which He had predetermined in His own counsel, all those who have been enrolled for life [eternal] shah rise again, having their own bodies, and having also their own souls, and their own spirits, in which they had pleased God. Those, on the other hand, who are worthy of punishment, shall go away into it, they too having their own souls and their own bodies, in which they stood apart from the grace of God. Both classes shall then cease from any longer begetting and being begotten, from marrying and being given in marriage; so that the number of mankind, corresponding to the fore-ordination of God, being completed, may fully realize the scheme formed by the Father.