Jews believe in reincarnation?

[GEddie]

The fact that you had two major factions in Judaism disagreeing about the existence of a human afterlife (with the Pharisees affirming a full-body resurrection and the Sadduccees denying it altogether) shows how nebulous the idea was at the time of our LORD.

As a crossroads for 3 continents, Israel certainly heard about reincarnation, which properly understood is a midpoint between the two Jewish teachings. (Pharisees: you resume being alive after death; Sadduccees: you simply stop being; reincarnation: “you” continue being but as somebody else.)

However, it is clearly absent from Scripture, and our LORD’s teaching leaves nO room for it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Julia_Mae]

Wait, are you saying that the NT supports reincarnation?

The question is do the Jews believe in reincarnation. There is evidence in Scripture that they did. At least, those around Jerusalem in the 1st century who, we must remember, were repatriated from Babylon, for the most part.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia, I think your category of “Eastern mystical religion” is questionable. Hellenistic religion was very “Eastern” and “mystical” by our standards.

I’m not talking about our standards, I’m talking about theirs, although there was nothing at all mystical about Greek/Roman religions. Their gods and goddesses were essentially people like themselves but eternal in nature who lived in a place on Earth. Their afterlife was also on Earth, or in it, and you had to pay a fee to get there. It was divided into three parts, one we’d characterize as heavenly, one we’d characterize as hellish and the third where people continued the lives they had, all overseen by gods. It wasn’t very mystical at all.

Hellenized Jews would be the most likely ones to believe in reincarnation–after all, Plato believed in it.

Well, Plato’s teachings didn’t comprise the religion of the people. Part of the problem with the Diaspora was their penchant for having statues of pagan gods in their homes.

The Diaspora existed before the last Babylonian exile and the Jews who returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the Temple were, as far as I know, from Babylon. Jews in exile were exposed to influences that would lead John to write about Jesus as Light. Jesus visits the dead after His execution before His Resurrection, so He went in some form not physical. Jesus disappears into the sky, He isn’t thought to be living on a mountain somewhere on Earth.

I think going back in the OT we find much of the eastern mysticism in the concept of ruah, in the spirit that animates life. Plato, et all, were latecomers to this kind of thinking and thought of it more as science than religion. I guess. That’s not a very good way to put it, but really, they were more about the way things work and less about supernatural beings.

 

[Tonga]

LOL

I can assure everyone here that reincarnation is not part of Judaism.

.

I disagree. As Meltzerboy mentioned above, it is a prominent belief among the Chassidim.
They believe that every person has a set “mission” in life they need to complete. If for some reason they die before this mission is complete, they return to fulfill their task.

I’ve met younger non-Chassidic Jews who also believe in reincarnation. However, it’s not
a topic that is generally discussed much.

 

[Tonga]

.

In general, we don’t really ponder esoteric issues like this much, but rather occupy our thoughts and learning with tangibles, like how to properly fulfill G-d’s will; specific commandments from the Torah. In other words, this type of thing isn’t really on the religious Jewish radar.

Exactly. Our emphasis is on the here and now. We work on fulfilling G-d’s will via his mitzvot and let the future take care of itself.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not talking about our standards, I’m talking about theirs, although there was nothing at all mystical about Greek/Roman religions. Their gods and goddesses were essentially people like themselves but eternal in nature who lived in a place on Earth. Their afterlife was also on Earth, or in it, and you had to pay a fee to get there. It was divided into three parts, one we’d characterize as heavenly, one we’d characterize as hellish and the third where people continued the lives they had, all overseen by gods. It wasn’t very mystical at all.

Much “popular” religion certainly was very practical and this-worldly. But in the Hellenistic period there were a lot of other aspects–the mystery religions (which certainly, as you say, involved fees and such, but also promised immortality and were surrounded with awe and mystery) and the various philosophical schools, which I think had more popular impact than you’re recognizing. You have valid points, but I think you’re reducing Hellenistic paganism to its most “crass” elements, and there was a lot more going on.

Anyway, I was thinking of Hellenized Jewish intellectuals like Philo.

Well, Plato’s teachings didn’t comprise the religion of the people.

Right. But that doesn’t mean that ideas like reincarnation weren’t floating around.

The Gnostics, whatever you say about them, were "mystical’ by most definitions of the word. (The word was yours, not mine. Perhaps I should have asked you what you meant by it.)

Jews in exile were exposed to influences that would lead John to write about Jesus as Light. Jesus visits the dead after His execution before His Resurrection, so He went in some form not physical. Jesus disappears into the sky, He isn’t thought to be living on a mountain somewhere on Earth.

Yes, and a lot of that language is found in Gnosticism, which is definitely a Hellenistic religion.

I still don’t see where you get the idea of “eastern mysticism” in the ancient Middle East at all unless you’re talking about the kind of thing you see in the mystery religions, Plato, etc.

I think going back in the OT we find much of the eastern mysticism in the concept of ruah, in the spirit that animates life.

“Ruach” originally doesn’t seem to have been a very mystical concept–it was breath. Hebrew religion was very concrete and physical. (As was popular paganism, as you point out.) Again, we may just be interpreting “mystical” differently.

Plato, et all, were latecomers to this kind of thinking

If you mean to the idea of non-material reality, I don’t see this. Jews didn’t think in terms of wholly immaterial reality until very late–maybe not really until Maimonides in the 13th century A.D.

and thought of it more as science than religion. I guess. That’s not a very good way to put it, but really, they were more about the way things work and less about supernatural beings.

But the way things work, according to Plato, is that earthly things are just shadows of the “ideas” that exist in an eternal realm beyond time and space. That’s not the OT picture, which is why many modern Christians, mostly Protestants, want to get rid of Platonic influence and go back to the more “earthy” OT way of looking at things. (I’m suspicious of this because I don’t think we can go back, and I think such calls are usually in service of some particular modern agenda, which may be valid or may not be but isn’t simply about recapturing the lost world of the ancient Hebrews.)

Edwin

 

[TheAtheist]

That’s not the OT picture, which is why many modern Christians, mostly Protestants, want to get rid of Platonic influence and go back to the more “earthy” OT way of looking at things. (I’m suspicious of this because I don’t think we can go back, and I think such calls are usually in service of some particular modern agenda, which may be valid or may not be but isn’t simply about recapturing the lost world of the ancient Hebrews.)

Edwin

Could you suggest a good monograph on the topic Edwin? I’ve heard much-ado about the “Hebriac turn” as one person put it, but i’ve never been given a rather complete picture of what the idea or set of ideas entail aside of pushing out Plato and Aristotle.

I don’t think we can go back

Do tell? I’m rather curious - its often been emphasized to me that the Greek philosophical opinion is a foreign appendage within Christian thought (well except by those who believe Plato and Aristotle really came along to herald in a logical means of speaking about your faith).

 

[Contarini]

Could you suggest a good monograph on the topic Edwin? I’ve heard much-ado about the “Hebriac turn” as one person put it, but i’ve never been given a rather complete picture of what the idea or set of ideas entail aside of pushing out Plato and Aristotle.

I don’t know secondary literature on this, though I know that Oscar Cullmann is often named as the mainstream Protestant theologian who raised a lot of these issues. N. T. Wright is a contemporary figure who I think makes good points but sometimes caricatures Christian Platonism.

Do tell? I’m rather curious - its often been emphasized to me that the Greek philosophical opinion is a foreign appendage within Christian thought

Well, that’s not how religious/intellectual traditions operate. They assimilate. You can’t just cut out the Greek philosophy and keep the “Hebraic” stuff. Or, to use an old philosophical cliche, you can’t step in the same river twice! No one today thinks like the ancient Hebrews (or, for that matter, like Aristotle). It just isn’t possible.

That doesn’t mean that there’s no value in questioning some parts of the classical philosophical/theological legacy, or in recovering insights from the Old Testament. Just as long as we don’t start talking in purist terms about it, and as long as we recognize how selective we’re being.

Edwin

 

[1AugustSon7]

It helps if we remember that the OT is pedagogical. Fallen humanity is inclined to a materialistic world-view; his mind, reflected in language(s), often betrays the fact there is no concept of the purely mystical or spiritual or even a concept of an after-life. Consequently he has to be moved to understand, and this slowly and progressively.

As Christians, we actually believe in not one, but two ressurections:

The first ressurection is purely spiritual and touches upon the soul (as opposed to the body). It is applicable only for “the many”: i.e., those who are and will be baptized. Further, of these, not all will necessarily receive the reward proper to it (i.e., the Beatific Vision). The first ressurection is baptism, and we cannot be re-baptised; hence Saint Paul teaches:

[4] For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, [5] Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, [6] And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery. [7] For the earth that drinketh in the rain which cometh often upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is tilled, receiveth blessing from God. [8] But that which bringeth forth thorns and briers, is reprobate, and very near unto a curse, whose end is to be burnt.

The second ressurection regards the body, and it is applicable to all human beings without exception, just as the consequences of Adam’s sin (the death of the body) applies to all; hence the logic again spoken of by Saint Paul that:

[21] For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. [22] And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

Clearly when people are trying to grasp all of these various concepts and the things related to them (heaven, hell, eternal life for some and eternal death for others (e.g., ‘how is one supposed to be alive and dead at the same time?’)) there is cause for confusion and misunderstanding.

Add to all of this the distinction between men who lived before Christ and men who lived after Him who, presumably (either by water or desire/spirit or by blood) will be baptised: some were never baptised with water and were dead, but notwithstanding after the Harrowing of Hell by Christ will partake of the eternal reward (e.g., the patriarchs); others, after Christ’s death and ressurection, will not have to wait after their bodily death before they receive the reward (the Beatific Vision); still others will have to pass through Purgatory first.

So we should not be surprised if there are some who understand these doctrines as they are being intimated in the OT as perhaps necessarily in some cases requiring something like a reincarnation or at least the possibility of it. Still, it is an erroneous doctrine especially for Christians. It can also be dangerous from the perspective that it might cause people to think they will have infinite second chances to change their lives and finally live a worthy one, and so be accepted into heaven or otherwise released from the/a cycle of reincarnation.

 

[RCconvert7]

Reincarnation makes no sense to those who think it through. I think people adopt it simply because they like the idea that they used to be someone else, or they’ll come back as another person.

Logically, it makes no sense. When did your first “you” begin? When will you stop being reincarnated? For what purpose are people/animals/etc. being reincarnated? What happens when the reincarnation ends?

I have never heard of any Jews believing in reincarnation. This must be something new.

These questions can be answered, and Reincarnation DOES make sense, actually. While Catholics have the doctrine of Purgatory, the commonly held Protestant belief which rejects the idea of Purgatory in favor of a “1 life, 1 chance” policy is far LESS logical than Reincarnation if one actually worships what one believes to be a just God. The story I like to tell is thus:

Two children. #1 is raised by devout Catholic Parents who send their child to Catholic school The child has an aunt on one side who is a Carmelite, and his parents take him to visit her once or twice a year, where she lets him know she is praying for him to become holy. He also has an uncle who is a parish priest, and is given the chance to spend time with him, serve as an altar boy, and is shown how rewarding a celibate life of service can be. After graduating, he decides to become a Cistercian, spends his days in prayer and service, and becomes a Saint in Heaven when he dies.

#2 is born of unwed parents. His father abandons him in infancy. He is raised in a community where there are few positive male role models, as many are either in prison or well on their way to earning a ticket there in the future. This boy joins a gang, murders a few people, gets hooked on methamphetamines, and dies in a gun battle with the police, where his shoots a 6 year old kid who is caught in the crossfire. This boy never had the chance to hear God’s word in a heartfelt way, was raised in an environment where gang behaivor, drug use, and murder were par for the course.

My question is, if there is truly a just God, how can he judge these two men on the same scale, after their death? If there is Purgatory, there is the possibility of repentance and reparation for one’s sins after death. If not, Reincarnation is the only way there could be a just God.

Also, Reincarnation explains WHY these two kids are born into such different circumstances. They are so because the circumstances are consequences of choices made in past incarnations, which find their fruits in the current life.

As for the question of “when” one’s first life began, the answer is really “never”. Those who believe in Reincarnation believe that humans are the apex of consciousness, waiting to rejoin itself with God in eternity. That consciousness would lie sleeping in rocks,then begin to wake in plants, become slowly more and more awake in higher and higher animals, and finally pass the barrier into human incarnation. After ones last incarnation, ones individuality is dissolved into the unity of the divine.

As for the “reason” behind reincarnation, this requires a fundamentally different idea of what “the world” is which is completely different than the one held by mainstream Christianity. In many forms of Indian Spirituality, (there really is no such thing as “Hinduism”), The world is seen as a manifesation of God Himself. That in the beginning, God was alone, and wished for there to be smeone to have relationship with, so God created the world from his own essence, then allowed each “thing” in the world to forget that he was really himself, hiding from himself in a kind of cosmic hide and seek game. When one gets to the end, realizes that one’s sense of personal separateness is false, and rejoins the unity of God, then there is no longer reincarnation, because the individualized “self” ceases to exist.

I’m not arguing that this is true, nor do I believe it to be so. All I’m saying is that one shouldn’t start to make fun of someone else’s beliefs or call them “illogical” when one doesn’t understand them in context.