Do catholics believe previous lives exist

[RebeccaJ]

I think that pretty much answers my question. A Christ who corrects any of the Church teachings will be rejected by many Catholics and discarded as an imposter. Perhaps their allegiance is more to the Church and dogma rather than the Christ himself?

How do you think anyone knows of Jesus today, 2000 years after his life, death and resurrection?

 

[RebeccaJ]

And speaking of the resurrection of the dead. If one soul lives many lives, how does the resurrection work? Many, maybe thousands, of bodies resurrected for one soul? A zombie heaven? What?

 

[openmind77]

Sure of myself? Hardly. I depend on God.

I respect your views based on the religion you identify yourself with. why can’t you respect our views? You want to tell us that you know Jesus Christ better than us and that he will come and change everything Christians have believed for the past 2,000 years. If you are looking to somehow prove reincarnation, you are taking an odd approach by attacking God and our core beliefs.

You also seem to think that because you are not Christian, we think you are somehow condemned. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Do you really respect my views? You should go back and read your first post in this thread!

Actually I do respect your views - there is nothing wrong with them. I am just saying you should be ready to change your views if the Christ returns and says something different from your beliefs.

I am personally willing to change any of my views when the Christ Returns and tells me that I am wrong. The question is - are you? I think you have more allegiance to your dogmas than you have to the Son of God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is reality and there is fantasy.

Reality: Jesus said, I Am The Way.

Fantasy: Jesus is going to return and say nevermind, everyone has misunderstood, I’m not the way, you are.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am just saying you should be ready to accept anything that the Christ says (when he returns), even if it contradicts Church teachings. Maybe he will explain to you much better than I can, what reincarnation means.

Using the name of Jesus Christ is not a certainty, since that depends on faith thus your belief. The preternatural is infested with evil, of which I have no desire to dabble with. I pray to the Lord for protection, I know we are a fallen race due to original sin. It is baptism that marks us as God’s people and gives us the grace, the strength, the ability to attain salvation and fight the devil, very Catholic to say the least.

From a Catholic perspective, I do not discount other religions, God works through all faiths and all who earnestly seek Him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is quite true. I just hope that when the Christ returns, you don’t mistake the real one for one of the false prophets.

When Jesus returns, EVERYONE will know.

It is nice to be so sure of yourself

Yes, it is.

(actually Muslims believe exactly the same thing about the Koran, Bahai’s believe the same thing about their tablets, Mormons believe the same thing about their ‘Book’ - do you think they are all correct?).

Jesus died and rose again as He promised thus proving Himself to be God. Muhammed did not. Baha’u’llah did not. And Mormonism is just a variation of polytheism with millions of gods – which we know is false since God himself said,

Isaiah 45:5
5"I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There was a time when the Church believed the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat. Of course the Church can make errors.

Just because there are some errors in a book does not invalidated the Church or the whole book.

Errors in science and history, not theology. Your claim is that the Church has made errors in theology, if your claim is true then you can’t actually use theology developed by the Church in order to put forth your argument (i.e. Christ’s actions and His teachings). Here’s your argument- The Church is in error regarding the teachings of Christ because the teachings of Christ show it is; and we know the teachings of Christ being cited as proof that the Church is in error are true because they come from the Church.

The only way you can argue that the Church is somehow presenting something other than the teachings of Christ is if you use a source that wasn’t actually developed by the Church (like say the Gnostic holy texts).

 

[openmind77]

Errors in science and history, not theology. Your claim is that the Church has made errors in theology, if your claim is true then you can’t actually use theology developed by the Church in order to put forth your argument (i.e. Christ’s actions and His teachings). Here’s your argument- The Church is in error regarding the teachings of Christ because the teachings of Christ show it is; and we know the teachings of Christ being cited as proof that the Church is in error are true because they come from the Church.

The only way you can argue that the Church is somehow presenting something other than the teachings of Christ is if you use a source that wasn’t actually developed by the Church (like say the Gnostic holy texts).

No, I am not saying that the Christ’s teaching show the errors (although his future teachings when he returns may do that).

I am saying that Church has added a lot of beliefs to Christ’s original teachings and they may not all necessarily be true.

I don’t think we have very long to wait before we find out the truth. I believe the Christ will be here in at most two or three years time. In fact, the Day of Judgment may have already begun - in every country people are being divided into two groups - the goats and sheep as described in Matthew 25.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No, I am not saying that the Christ’s teaching show the errors (although his future teachings when he returns may do that).

I am saying that Church has added a lot of beliefs to Christ’s original teachings and they may not all necessarily be true.

I don’t think we have very long to wait before we find out the truth. I believe the Christ will be here in at most two or three years time. In fact, the Day of Judgment may have already begun - in every country people are being divided into two groups - the goats and sheep as described in Matthew 25.

You don’t seem to be getting it. What’s your source for the teachings of Christ?

 

[tomberg]

The mockery of Christ’s message of love and compassion would be assuming that His sacrifice applies only to Christians; and God would only be a monster if your above faulty understanding of what the Church actually teaches were true.

I agree with you but there are many Christians and many Catholics who still believe otherwise. I am gratified to read that you are not such a person.

 

[tomberg]

There is reality and there is fantasy.

Reality: Jesus said, I Am The Way.

Fantasy: Jesus is going to return and say nevermind, everyone has misunderstood, I’m not the way, you are.

Jesus did not actually say that: Jesus said something like that in Aramaic that was then translated into Greek, then translated into English. So we have an idea of what he said, but we have no idea what he said exactly.

 

[tomberg]

Jesus died and rose again as He promised thus proving Himself to be God. Muhammed did not. Baha’u’llah did not. And Mormonism is just a variation of polytheism with millions of gods – which we know is false since God himself said,

This is a statement of belief, not a statement of fact that can be used as some justification for the superiority of your system of belief. Muslims say Jesus was never crucified and Christians have it all wrong, so do Jews. There is no appeal to your Holy Book to justify the teachings of that Holy Book. That is the absolute worst of circular reasoning. Do I believe Jesus returned from the Dead, yes, I believe it. Can I prove it as a fact to demonstrate my beliefs are right and someone else’s beliefs are wrong, absolutely not. What you are doing in no different than what fundamentalist Muslims do. I am right because my book says I am right and everything in my book is true because my book says it is true, so everything in your book must be false.

I am perfectly willing to admit that possibly I am dead wrong and the maybe the Muslims are right, maybe the Mormons are right, possibly the Buddhist are right, but in my judgment, Christianity feels the most true to me and I think there is some supporting historical evidence to support my belief, but as I stated earlier. If this was a court case, none of the evidence would even be admissible, so to boldly assert that I am certain I am right and every other religion is dead wrong is simple arrogance. That is why it is called belief and faith, because it can not be proven by ordinary methods.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus did not actually say that: Jesus said something like that in Aramaic that was then translated into Greek, then translated into English. So we have an idea of what he said, but we have no idea what he said exactly.

The authors of the NT were inspired by the Holy Spirit to record the Word of God accurately in Greek. We can reasonably certain that the English translations we use are accurate, but you may always refer back to the Greek if you have doubts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is a statement of belief, not a statement of fact that can be used as some justification for the superiority of your system of belief.

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so overwhelming as to be beyond all reasonable doubt.

Muslims say Jesus was never crucified and Christians have it all wrong, so do Jews. There is no appeal to your Holy Book to justify the teachings of that Holy Book. That is the absolute worst of circular reasoning. Do I believe Jesus returned from the Dead, yes, I believe it. Can I prove it as a fact to demonstrate my beliefs are right and someone else’s beliefs are wrong, absolutely not. What you are doing in no different than what fundamentalist Muslims do. I am right because my book says I am right and everything in my book is true because my book says it is true, so everything in your book must be false.

I am perfectly willing to admit that possibly I am dead wrong and the maybe the Muslims are right, maybe the Mormons are right, possibly the Buddhist are right, but in my judgment, Christianity feels the most true to me and I think there is some supporting historical evidence to support my belief, but as I stated earlier. If this was a court case, none of the evidence would even be admissible, so to boldly assert that I am certain I am right and every other religion is dead wrong is simple arrogance. That is why it is called belief and faith, because it can not be proven by ordinary methods.

I think you would benefit from some additional study on this matter. Here is a good starting point:

The Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection
By William Lane Craig
youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ

Fact 1:
After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his personal tomb. This is significant because it would have been difficult for the disciples to make up the story of an empty tomb when everyone knew where the tomb was located.

1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians.
   “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” (1 Co 15:3-5)
   Paul “received” this account from Peter within the first five years of Jesus’ crucifixion making the possibility of legend or myth very unlikely.
2. The account of the burial is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The passion narrative, in particular, is thought to be from an even earlier account that was used by all of the gospel writers.
3. As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.
4. No competing burial story exists.

Fact 2:
On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his female followers.

1. The empty tomb story is part of the very old source material used by Mark.
2. The old tradition cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians implies the fact of the empty tomb.
3. Mark’s story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment.
4. The fact that women’s testimony was worthless in first century Palestine strengthens the case that women were the first to discover the empty tomb. Why would any account use the suspect testimony of women if it were not an accurate recounting of what really happened?
5. The earliest Jewish allegations that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body presupposes that the tomb was empty.

Fact 3:
On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances (which is quoted by Paul and vouchsafed by his personal acquaintance with many of the people involved), guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter, to the Apostles, to 500 people at one time, and to James.
2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation to these appearances.
3. Researchers have noticed signs of historical credibility in the specific appearances; for example, the unexpected activity of the disciples’ fishing prior to Jesus’ appearance by the Lake of Tiberius or the otherwise inexplicable conversion of James.

Fact 4:
The disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite having every reason not to believe it.

1. Their leader was dead, and Jews had no belief in a dying (and rising) Messiah.
2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him to be a heretic and a man literally under the curse of God.
3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the general resurrection at the end of the world.

The historical resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of these facts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jesus did not actually say that: Jesus said something like that in Aramaic that was then translated into Greek, then translated into English. So we have an idea of what he said, but we have no idea what he said exactly.

We have apostolic teachings of what Jesus taught, later written, but then Catholics are not sola scriptura and all ancient apostolic churches, east and west, call Jesus The Way. The earliest Christians actually calling themselves followers of The Way. Which is a Person, Jesus Christ. Acts 9:11, 11:26, 22:4.

So I’m thinking here to your statement…and?

These concepts are not lost on someone who is a practicing Hindu. Eastern religions understand better than westerners the concept and practice of discipleship and also understand better what it means to follow “a way”.

 

[Dorothy]

I think you really mean, we should put the infallibility of the Magisterium first and the Christ second.

He is first! We trust in what He gave us.

 

[openmind77]

He is first! We trust in what He gave us.

Then I hope you will trust him when he returns. That will happen soon. Do not doubt him merely because he may not agree with every word of the Magisterium.

 

[openmind77]

You don’t seem to be getting it. What’s your source for the teachings of Christ?

Sorry, maybe your reasoning is too deep for me.

The teachings of the Christ are his own actual words as quoted in the Bible. The teachings of Paul are the teachings of Paul. The teachings of the Church are the teachings of the Church.

The Christ did not say anything for or against reincarnation and that is the way it is.

When he returns, if he says something for or against reincarnation, I will accept it and so should you (whether it agrees with the Church’s teachings or not).

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Sorry, maybe your reasoning is too deep for me.

The teachings of the Christ are his own actual words as quoted in the Bible. The teachings of Paul are the teachings of Paul. The teachings of the Church are the teachings of the Church.

The Christ did not say anything for or against reincarnation and that is the way it is.

When he returns, if he says something for or against reincarnation, I will accept it and so should you (whether it agrees with the Church’s teachings or not).

You see, that’s your problem. You can’t actually use the Bible as a source since your own argument invalidates it. The Bible is a product of the Church, and if the Church can/has teach/taught error as you claim, it’s not a valid source for what Christ actually taught since it can/is full of errors introduced by the Church. You’re left with-
-finding a source for Christ’s teachings that can’t be linked to the Church
-arguing that God could somehow safeguard the Bible from error, but not the institution that created it (i.e. what some Protestant faiths try to do)
-arguing that the parts of the Bible that agree with your conclusions are free from error (i.e. what Islam tries to do)
-abandoning your position since you would have to accept that the Church is safeguarded from teaching error in order to validate the Bible as a source for what Christ taught

 

[tomberg]

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so overwhelming as to be beyond all reasonable doubt.

I think you would benefit from some additional study on this matter. Here is a good starting point:

The Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection
By William Lane Craig
youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ

Fact 1:
After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his personal tomb. This is significant because it would have been difficult for the disciples to make up the story of an empty tomb when everyone knew where the tomb was located.

1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians.
   “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” (1 Co 15:3-5)
   Paul “received” this account from Peter within the first five years of Jesus’ crucifixion making the possibility of legend or myth very unlikely.
2. The account of the burial is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The passion narrative, in particular, is thought to be from an even earlier account that was used by all of the gospel writers.
3. As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.
4. No competing burial story exists.

Fact 2:
On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his female followers.

1. The empty tomb story is part of the very old source material used by Mark.
2. The old tradition cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians implies the fact of the empty tomb.
3. Mark’s story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment.
4. The fact that women’s testimony was worthless in first century Palestine strengthens the case that women were the first to discover the empty tomb. Why would any account use the suspect testimony of women if it were not an accurate recounting of what really happened?
5. The earliest Jewish allegations that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body presupposes that the tomb was empty.

Fact 3:
On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances (which is quoted by Paul and vouchsafed by his personal acquaintance with many of the people involved), guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter, to the Apostles, to 500 people at one time, and to James.
2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation to these appearances.
3. Researchers have noticed signs of historical credibility in the specific appearances; for example, the unexpected activity of the disciples’ fishing prior to Jesus’ appearance by the Lake of Tiberius or the otherwise inexplicable conversion of James.

Fact 4:
The disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite having every reason not to believe it.

1. Their leader was dead, and Jews had no belief in a dying (and rising) Messiah.
2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him to be a heretic and a man literally under the curse of God.
3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the general resurrection at the end of the world.

The historical resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of these facts.

Again the problem is that you are using the events recorded in the Bible to prove what you are asserting is true. Please explain to me how you can prove that Joseph of Arimethia even existed without referring to the Bible. This is exactly my point. You are doing exactly what I stated earlier. My book is true because it says it is true and all your arguments are based upon the unprovable assertion that the gospel accounts are absolutely true. You can believe they are true but it is absolutely impossible to prove that all the events in the Gospels are true. . There is not a single contemporary account of Jesus existence outside of the gospel accounts. No reputable scholar believes that any of the gospel accounts were actually composed by eye witnesses. We do not possess a single original copy of Paul’s letters. They are all copies. I think the oldest fragment we have is about at least a century after Christ death. The same is true for the gospel accounts. We have copies of copies. This is not admissible evidence in a court. It is considered multiple levels of hearsay and therefore not considered trustworthy or reliable as evidence. So no, there is absolutely no proof beyond a reasonable doubt or else there would not even be grounds for other forms of belief. It would be quite simple. But you keep wanting to refer to the book of your belief to prove the proof of your belief. This is absolutely no different than what the mormoms and Muslims claims. How is you stating something from the Bible as fact any different than Muslims citing the Koran as proof for their book. What is the point of even having faith if it is completely provable. That is for the secular world. Not the realm of faith.