VEDIC TEACHINGS IN CHRISTIANITY AND BIBLE

agrasen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[prohindu] Christianity and the Vedic Teachings Within It, by Stephen Knapp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
srinandan@aol.com Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Reply-To: prohindu-owner@yahoogroups.com
To: prohindu@yahoogroups.com

Namaste,
Since it is time for Christmas, and as I'm getting tired of Christian preachers spreading misinformation about the Vedic culture, such as the crazy idea that Vedic philosophy merely came from the Christian teachings, I feel it is time to let out some thoughtful information about Christianity, and how much of it has been formed based on the main teachings of the Vedic tradition. If we look closely, we will see that the teachings in Christianity are but a shallow, incomplete and narrow rendition of what is elaborated on in the huge fountain of spiritual knowledge derived from the Vedic culture.
Let us remember this so that we be more ready to accept the deeper levels of spiritual truth that has been provided for humanity by the process of Sanatana-Dharma, and give thanks for what we have in this deep and dynamic tradition over these holidays.
Feel free to send this article out to your friends, or use it in any way. I will be sending additional articles out over the course of the next several days to explain more about this information.
Hari Om and Hari bol,
Stephen Knapp


Christianity and the

Vedic Teachings Within It

By Stephen Knapp





THE VEDIC INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY



When we consider the story of how baby Jesus appeared in the heart of his mother Mary by immaculate conception, as well as the bright star appearing in the night sky, we can discern a direct parallel to Lord Krishna=s birth three thousand years earlier in Vrindavana, India, as recorded in the Vedic literature. It is described in the ancient Vedic texts how Krishna appeared in the mind of Vasudeva, Krishna=s father, and was then transferred into the heart of His mother, Devaki. During Krishna=s birth, the bright star Rohini was high in the sky, and the king at the time, Kamsa, actually ordered the killing of all the infants in an attempt to kill Krishna, similar to the way Herod was supposed to have done as described in the gospel of Matthew. And just as a multitude appeared among the shepherds in the hills praising God at the time of Jesus= birth, there were also many demigods who came and danced and sang about the glories of Krishna when He was ready to appear in this world. Krishna was born in a cave-like dungeon, while Jesus was also born in a cave, although some say a manger in a barn. Rays of light illuminated the area after they had taken birth. While newly born, they both spoke of why they had come to this world. And as wise men were supposed to have presented Jesus with frankincense and myrrh, baby Krishna was also presented with gifts that included sandalwood and perfumes.

At the time when Krishna left this planet, His foot was pierced with an arrow, and similarly Jesus= side was pierced with a spear. There was a darkness that descended when Jesus is said to have been crucified, just as there was a darkness and many calamities taking place when Krishna left this world. And as there is a description of many ominous signs that are to signify the second coming of Christ, there are even more symptoms of the terrible age of Kali that we are going through that indicates the time before the coming of Krishna=s next incarnation as Kalki. There are many other parallels between Krishna and Jesus that we could refer to that are disclosed in the Vedic literature, which were written many hundreds of years before the Bible.

Jesus preached in a way that can also be compared to the sayings of Krishna. For example, in Bhagavad-gita (7.6-7) Krishna said, AI am the cause of the whole universe, through Me it is created and dissolved, all things are dependant on Me as pearls are strung on a thread.@ Jesus said, AOf Him and through Him, and unto Him, are all things. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.@ (John 1.3) Krishna had said (Bg.4.7), AFor the establishment of righteousness I am born from time to time.@ This compares to Jesus in John 18:37, wherein he says, AThou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.@ These and many other comparisons can be made. Nonetheless, the fact is that the history of Krishna is thousands of years older than that of Jesus.



In this way, practically speaking, what we find in the Bible regarding Jesus= birth is a description of the appearance of Lord Krishna, but only the names have been changed. Of course, there are different theories about how this happened. One theory is that when the Christians went to India, they found out that this story was there in the Bhagavata‑Purana; so, they immediately had to change the date of when the Bhagavata‑Purana was supposed to have been written. So now the historians generally say that it was written about 1400 years ago. Otherwise, how could they explain the story of Krishna=s birth being so similar to the story of Christ=s birth? They thought that the Vedic pundits must have heard about the story of Jesus and adapted the story to their own incarnation, as if the Vedic scholars would demean themselves by putting a story into their scripture that was heard from people who were considered low‑born foreigners. Actually, what happened was just the opposite.

Since both the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad-Bhagavatam (Bhagavata Purana) contain many similar sentiments and descriptions to Christianity, numerous Christian scholars have tried to prove that the stories therein had been borrowed from the Bible. However, this has been proved to be quite the reverse. This has been accepted by Reverend J. B. S. Carwithen, known as one of the ABrampton Lecturers,@ who says, as quoted in Reverend J. P. Lundy=s Monumental Christianity (pp. 151-2), ABoth the name Crishna and the general outline of his story are long anterior to the birth of our Savior [Jesus Christ]; and this we know, not on the presumed antiquity of the Hindoo records alone. Both Arrian and Strabo assert that the God Crishna was anciently worshiped at Mathura, on the river Jumna, where he is worshiped at this day. But the emblems and attributes essential to this deity are also transplanted into the mythology of the West.@

Monier Williams, one of the accepted early Western authorities on Hinduism, Professor at Oxford in London and a devout Christian, also focused on this issue when writing for the ASociety for Promoting Christian Knowledge@ in his book, Indian Wisdom. Therein he states: ATo any one who has followed me in tracing the outline of this remarkable philosophical dialogue, and has noted the numerous parallels it offers to passages in our Sacred Scriptures, it may seem strange that I hesitate to concur to any theory which explains these coincidences by supposing the author [of such Vedic books as the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad-Bhagavatam] had access to the New Testament, or that he derived some of his ideas from the first propagators of Christianity. Surely it will be conceded that the probability of contact and interaction between Gentile systems and the Christian religion of the first two centuries of our era must have been greater in Italy than in India. Yet, if we take the writings and sayings of those great Roman philosophers, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, we shall find them full of resemblances to passages in our Scriptures, while there appears to be no ground whatever for supposing that these eminent Pagan writers and thinkers derived any of their ideas from either Jewish or Christian sources. In fact, the Reverend F. W. Farrar, in his interesting and valuable work, Seekers After God, has clearly shown that >to say that Pagan morality kindled its faded taper at the Gospel light, whether furtively or unconsciously, that it dissembled the obligation and made a boast of the splendor, as if it were originally her own, is to make an assertion wholly untenable.= He points out that the attempts of the Christian Fathers to make out Pythagoras a debtor to Hebraic wisdom, Plato an >Atticizing Moses,= Aristotle a picker-up of ethics from a Jew, Seneca a correspondent of St. Paul, were due in some cases to ignorance, in some to a want of perfect honesty in controversial dealing. . . It must indeed be admitted that the flames of true light which emerge from the mists of pantheism in the writings of the Indian philosophers, must spring from the same source of light as the Gospel itself; but it may reasonably be questioned whether there could have been any actual contact of the Hindoo systems with Christianity without a more satisfying result in the modification of pantheistic and anti-Christian ideas.@



Again, Monier points out the antiquity of the Vedic culture, practically over and beyond all others, when he explains on page iv of his book: AIt should not be forgotten that although the nations of Europe have changed their religions during the past eighteen centuries, the Hindu has not done so, except very partially. Islam converted a certain number by force of arms in the eighth and following centuries, and Christian truth is at last slowly creeping onwards and winning its way by its own inherent energy in the nineteenth; but the religious creeds, rites, customs, and habits of thought of the Hindus generally have altered little since the days of Manu. . .@

In light of all this research by myself and others, we can conclude with the words of T. W. Doane in his book, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions. Therein he goes so far as to say at the beginning of Chapter Twenty-Eight, A. . . the mythological portion of the history of Jesus of Nazareth, contained in the books forming the Canon of the New Testament, is nothing more or less than a copy of the mythological histories of the Hindoo Savior Crishna, and the Buddhist Savior Buddha, with a mixture of mythology borrowed from the Persians and other nations. . .@

One archeological find that proved that knowledge of Krishna antedated Christianity by at least 200 years was the Heliodorus column, built in 113 B.C. in central India by the Greek ambassador to India, Heliodorus. On it is an inscription commenting on the ambassador=s devotion to Lord Vishnu (Krishna) and mentioning when the column had been erected. The column still stands near the town of Vidisha.

We must remember that when the Christians first came to India to preach, they were not very well received by the local people. There was very little penetration because the Christian priests and missionaries were seen for what they were: mlecchas and yavanas, more or less unclean cow‑killers in local terminology. So it is doubtful that the Vedic pandits spent much time even listening to them, what to speak of writing scripture or changing the story of Krishna=s birth on account of hearing these missionaries. Of course, now as Indian society has deteriorated and become more attracted to Western values (partly due to being indoctrinated by the British rule years ago), Christianity is more easily accepted.

So, the conclusion we must arrive at is that the story of Lord Krishna=s birth, along with numerous other parts of the Vedic philosophy, must have come to the mid-eastern part of the world because of the many trade caravans going back and forth at that time from India to the region of Palestine. Since there were no real witnesses of Christ=s birth and hardly any history in the gospels of the life of Christ up to the age of thirty, it is likely they applied the story of Krishna to the life of Jesus. Otherwise, there is little historical evidence to the life of Jesus, outside the Bible, that any of it is factual.

There is evidence, however, as more facts are being uncovered, that contends that Jesus may have been nailed to the cross but did not die on it. After having been taken from the cross, he later recovered from the ordeal rather than rose from the dead. The Shroud of Turin, if it is authentic (which has been a great debate by itself), seems to provide some evidence that Christ was not dead when taken from the cross since his body was still bleeding while wrapped in the cloth. Even if Christ did appear to die on the cross, being a yogic master, he could have put himself into trance to be revived later. This goes on even today with yogis in India or fakirs in Egypt who can appear to die, be buried for hours, days, months, or sometimes years, and then be uncovered and resurrected from their apparent death. Even the Koran (4.157) claims that Jesus did not die on the cross.



There is also evidence that after the crucifixion Jesus traveled through Turkey, Persia, and then India. The Russian scholar Nicolas Notovitch discovered in 1887 Buddhist documents at the Hemis monastery in Ladakh that describe the life of Issa. Issa is the Tibetan spelling while Isa is the Arabic spelling of the name Jesus, and the name commonly used in Islam. The manuscript was originally from Lhasa, translated into Tibetan from the Pali language. Jesus= ascension into heaven may have referred to his entrance into Kashmir, an area considered by many to have been like heaven or the promised land.

Furthermore, the Bhavishya Purana, dating back to 3000 B.C. and compiled, for the most part at least, by Srila Vyasadeva, is also said to describe the future coming of Jesus and his activities. Dr. Vedavyas, a research scholar who holds a doctorate in Sanskrit, said that the Purana tells of how Jesus would visit the Himalayas and do penance to acquire spiritual maturity under the guidance of the sages and siddha‑yogis of India. Dr. Vedavyas says that besides describing the future events of Kali‑yuga, the Purana predicted that Jesus would be born of an unmarried woman, Kumari (Mari or Mary) Garbha Sambhava, and would first go to India when he was 13 years old and visit many Hindu and Buddhist holy places. This was his spiritual training in a time of his life of which the gospels are totally ignorant. Furthermore, the actual burial place of Jesus is believed to be in Anzimar or Khanyar, Srinagar=s old town in Kashmir, where thousands of pious pay homage to the tomb of Issa each year. There is where he settled and died sometime after the crucifixion.

In any case, the Christian Church actually began with what the Apostle Paul said about the resurrection of Jesus. Whether the resurrection actually happened or not cannot be proved. Nonetheless, a new faith was born. But through the years there has been much controversy about the nature of Jesus and whether he was actually God as some Christians seem to believe. None of his direct disciples believed that he was, and, indeed, there are many Bible verses which state directly that he was the son of God, such as Luke 1.35, Matthew 17.5, John 4.15, 8.28, 14.28, and others. Only Paul put forward the idea that Jesus was God. But historically it is said that Paul never met Jesus personally, and was converted to Christianity several years after Jesus= disappearance. Before that, he had been a great persecutor of the Christians. Otherwise, most of Jesus= followers thought that perhaps he was the Jewish Messiah. But the Jewish Messiah, according to their prophecies, was not God but rather a Jew who was empowered by God. This actually fits into the Vedic view because there are many empowered living beings who appear from time to time who are sent by God to represent and disseminate His law. Furthermore, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, one of the great Vaishnava spiritual masters in the Madhava‑Gaudiya line of disciplic succession, has stated that Jesus was a shaktyavesha avatar, or an empowered living entity meant to preach the glories of God.

People may say that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, so he must have been God. But even today in India there are yogis who can do such amazing things, like walking over hot coals. This is not like the Hollywood fad of fire walking, but the yogis let the coals burn for days and get so hot that you cannot even get near them without burning your clothes. Then, after spending one month in penance, praying to Durga, they walk across the fire and do not even burn their feet. But some people will say this is the work of the devil. However, is this not peculiar logic to say that walking across fire is of the devil, but if one walks across water he is God? This kind of thinking that is usually found amongst fundamentalists simply shows a great ignorance of yogic powers, which is all walking across fire or water is. Therefore, the miracles of Jesus are a sign of his knowledge of the mystical powers that come from practicing yoga. But it is not a proof that someone is God. In fact, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the study of their contents prove more or less conclusively that the whole concept of Jesus Christ=s divinity is a later addition.



One important part of Eastern knowledge that was present in early Christianity was the understanding of karma and reincarnation. It is known that the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. threw out all references to reincarnation and stated that the idea of it was a myth, and anyone who believed in it would be excommunicated. Of course, this action would not be unexpected in light of the other things the Church has done throughout history in order to place itself as the only way to reach heaven and attain the mercy of God. By eliminating the possibility of reincarnation and the soul=s existence prior to this life, there could be no chance for the soul to reach the state of spiritual perfection over a period of several lifetimes. There would only be this one lifetime in which the soul came into existence, and one chance for a person to reach either heaven or eternal hell, which would be determined by the intervention of the Church. In other words, the Church felt threatened by the fact that the soul has an eternal and personal relationship with God that must be rekindled either in one, two, or however many lifetimes it takes, and this relationship does not necessarily depend on one=s good standing in any religious organization. Thus, people could try to re‑establish their relationship with God by other means than the dictates of the Church, which is what the Church could not tolerate.

Unfortunately, by taking out the knowledge of reincarnation and karma, the Church has created huge gaps in its philosophy which leave questions it cannot answer. For example, the Christians cannot explain why one person may be born blind, poor, deformed, or sickly, while another may be born healthy and rich. They do not understand why reversals in life may happen to some, and others seem to have a life of ease. They cannot explain why these differences take place and, in fact, I have seen where they sometimes blame God for such things, which only shows their ignorance of spiritual knowledge. Furthermore, they do not understand the science of the soul and our spiritual identity, or the nature of the spiritual realm, the characteristics of the personality of God, nor the pastimes and incarnations of God, and so on. Thus, the spiritual knowledge that the Christians utilize in their philosophy is very elementary and incomplete. And as we have already established in our previous writings, reaching complete spiritual perfection is not possible in such an incomplete spiritual process. At best, it promotes good moral values, detachment toward worldly life, attachment and devotion to God, and the possibility of reaching the heavenly planets. However, the heavenly planets are still within the material cosmic manifestation and not in the spiritual realm. A real religionist or transcendentalist is interested only in reaching the level of spiritual realization that enables him to directly perceive his spiritual identity and enter the spiritual strata far beyond this material creation.

Actually, Christians still must accept the understanding of karma and reincarnation to some extent in order to explain logically how one can have a life after death in heaven or hell. According to the Christian doctrine, qualifying for heaven or hell depends on one=s actions in this life. That is called karma in Vedic literature. And as one enters heaven or hell in his next life, he takes on or incarnates in a different form. This is reincarnation. So Christians must, at least to this degree, accept karma and reincarnation whether they fully understand it or not. But to understand it more completely, as explained in the philosophy of the Vedic literature, allows us to realize that our good or unpleasant situations in this life depends on our activities from past lives. And by our activities in this life we can cause our future existence to be good or bad, or we can reach the heavenly or hellish planetary systems to work out our karma. This understanding is accepted by many cultures throughout the world. In fact, the scholar Max Muller remarked that the greatest minds humanity has produced have accepted reincarnation.

More connections between Christianity and the Vedic culture can be recognized as follows:

The ancient Vedic custom of applying ash or sandalwood paste to the body is still retained by Christianity in the observance of Ash Wednesday. The so‑called AAll Soul=s Day@ is an exact translation of the Vedic observance of Sarva Pitri Amavasya, the day fixed by tradition for the worship of all deceased ancestors.



Another Christian tradition derived from Vedic origins is that of having and ringing bells in the churches, especially before or during worship. In Vedic temples it is often seen where bells are rung during worship and when pilgrims enter the temple, announcing their entrance. Christian churches also ring bells to announce the beginning of worship. The word Abell@ comes from the Sanskrit bal which means strength. This is in reference to the idea that ringing a bell adds force to the voice of prayer in invoking divinity.

When the Christians say AAmen@ at the end of their hymns or to emphasize something, what they are saying is a corrupted form of AAum@ or AOm,@ which is a standard form of Vedic meditation and name of the Supreme Being.

While we are on the topic of words used in Christianity that are derived from Sanskrit, the Catholic term AMadonna,@ another name for Mother Mary, comes from the Sanskrit Mata Nah, meaning AOur Mother.@ This is also derived from the great Vedic Mother Goddess. Thus, Mother Mary was a reference not only to the mother of Jesus alone, but a reference to the Goddess, mother of all humanity. Furthermore, the European term of AMadam@ is a soft pronunciation of the Hindu term mata or mataji, which also means AMother.@

The term Avestry@ in referring to the room in churches in which holy clothes are kept comes from the Sanskrit word vestra, meaning clothes. Even the word Apsalm@ with a silent AP@ comes from the Sanskrit word sam or sama which means holy and serious sacred songs, hymns or chants, as found in the Sama‑veda.

Other Christian links with Sanskrit words can be found in the name Bethlehem, which is the English mispronunciation of the Sanskrit Vatsaldham, which means Athe home (town) of the darling child.@ The Sanskrit term Nandarath is linguistically connected with Nazareth. Nandarath means Nanda=s chariot, and King Nanda was the guardian at whose village he nurtured Lord Krishna (sometimes pronounced as Chrisn, and later Christ in some regions).

The Christian term ASatan@ and the Islamic term AShaitan@ both are derived from the Sanskrit term Sat‑na, which means non‑truth, falsehood, or fraudulence. The Christians who explain the term ADevil@ as a fallen angel should realize that the word is derived from the Sanskrit terminology which signifies a fallen Deva.

At the beginning of the book of John in the New Testament, it states, AIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.@ This is actually a verbatim translation of the Vedic Sanskrit mantra: APrajapatirvai idamagraasit, tasya vag dvitiyaa asit, vag vai paramam Brahma.@

The Holy Spirit in Christianity is called Paramatma in Sanskrit, or Parakalate. In Greek the word is Paraclete. This is the God of that spiritual knowledge which is revealed or descended, or the Veda, which is spoken through the prophets (Sanskrit purohitas) . Veda is Yeda in Hebrew, the word God uses for His Self-revelation in Exodus of the Old Testament. Veda in Greek is Oida, and Aidos, from which the English word idea is derived. The term oida is used for God=s/Christ=s Self-revelation in the New Testament. Thus, the Vedas, the Old and New Testament, and the related scriptures are but part of one continuous revelation of God.



Dr. Venu Gopalacharya also points out in his book, World-Wide Hindu Culture (pp. 158-9), that in the book of Genesis, Chapter 22, God told Abraham that he and his wife, Sarah, would be blessed and God would, Amake your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. . . and through thy seed, shall all nations be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice.@ Dr. Venu Gopalacharya explains, AAbraham and Sarah [Sarai] refer to [or was derived from] the Indian version of Brahma and Sarasvati. This indicates that this is an abridgement of some of the versions in the Indian Puranas referring to >Brahma and his consort as the first aspects of the Supreme Lord or His agents of creation and offering sacrifices [or performing austerities].= In the commencement of the book of Genesis, the sentence, >In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters.= This is similar to the Vedic Puranas stating that MahaVishnu or Narayana was lying on Adisesha in the ocean, [who is] the original source from which Brahma comes into being. The killing of Abel by his brother for the sacrifice of animals refers to the slaying of Asuras by the Devas, their own brothers, due to the difference of opinion about the mode of offering sacrifices or worshiping God.

AJust as Indian Puranas were compiled to glorify a particular aspect of the Supreme Lord as Vishnu, or of Shiva, Durga, Ganesha, etc., the Old Testament deals with >Yahwe,= an aspect of the angry god Rudra. As the word >Rudra= means a weeping god, the Jews for worship use weeping before the wailing wall of the >Dome of the Rock= within the temple of Harmahesh Sri (called by Judaic religionists as Haram Esh Sheriff) in the old city of Jerusalem, i.e., Yadusailam. The Jews spell the name of the city as >Yerushalayim,= of which the Sanskrit synonym is Yadu Ishalayam, which means the temple of the Lord of the Yadus [the descendants of Lord Krishna=s clan].

ADr. S. Radhakrishnan has informed in his book, Pracya Mattu Paschatya Sanskriti, that the Greeks asserted that the Jews were Indians whom the Syrians called Judea, the Sanskrit synonym of which is Yadava or Yaudheya, and the Indians called them Kalanis, meaning orthodox followers of the scripture.@

Furthermore, this information certainly provides serious insights into the relationship between the early Jews, Christians, the Bible, and the Vedic culture.







REINCARNATION IN CHRISTIANITY



As we have seen, reincarnation is practically something that can be found in any part of the world. Only in contemporary Christianity is it taught that, in essence, the soul has a beginning with this present life and then, after death, lives eternally hereafter, either in heaven or hell, but never existed in a previous life. Also, after death, the body and soul live again with the resurrection of the dead. In this way, Christianity teaches that there is but one chance in one life, in this one and only universe. Nonetheless, more Christian writers today are accepting the idea that reincarnation at least does not conflict with the teachings of Jesus. Such writers include the Methodist Leslie Whitehead, Theology Professor John J. Hearney, Minister William L. de Arteaga, Geddes MacGregor, the noted Anglican priest and Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at University of Southern California, and others, including the famous Edgar Cayce. Edgar Cayce was a devout Christian, yet gave many mystical readings in which reincarnation played a part, and was often explained in regard to the person whose reading was being done. Cayce also explained that Jesus himself taught reincarnation.

The philosophy of the early Gnostic Christians was similar to the Oriental teachings regarding rebirth and karma, and, thus, they accepted the transmigration of the soul. Some of the early Christian Fathers who accepted reincarnation included Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-220), Origen (AD 185-254), St. Gregory of Nyssa (AD 257-332), and St. Jerome (AD 340-420). St. Augustine also contemplated the idea of having been born before. So reincarnation was very much a part of early Christianity.

Unfortunately, Emperor Constantine (280s-337) used Christianity as a means to make people follow the rules of the faith to unite his kingdom. The early Christians were not exactly the most united group of people. In the early fourth century the Roman Empire was losing its influence and starting to crumble while certain strong Christian groups were competing for power. So Constantine brought together the leaders of the disputing Christian sects at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. In an attempt to influence them to work out their disagreements to develop a single doctrine, and for the strength of the empire, he promised to give them his allegiance. It was these decisions that formed the basis for the Roman Catholic Church. Therein, the doctrine was set, the books that would be included in the Bible were decided, and anything that did no=t fit with the new creed were thrown out, including the topic of reincarnation or any groups that accepted it.

Henceforth, Constantine began working to remove all competing religions and make his control over the empire stronger, much to the approval of the Christian leaders. The autocratic nature of the Church was born and persisted for many centuries thereafter.

Emperor Justinian (483-565) used the same tactic. He did this by propagating the idea that people had but one life to reach perfection, or be subjected to an eternal hell. This would make most everyone inclined to be AGood Christians,@ and loyal to the empire. However, there were a number of groups who accepted reincarnation, such as the Gnostics and Origenists, in which case they thought that they had more than one life to reach such a state of perfection, and, thus, might not need to so strongly adhere to the rules of the Church. This, of course, would make Justinian’s plan less affective. In this way, the doctrine of the soul’s transmigration was taken out of the Christian philosophy and denounced by Justinian, which later became a Papal Edict.



Nonetheless, the belief in reincarnation continued in parts, and it was Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople on May 5, 553 A.D. who decreed that, AWhosoever shall support the mythical doctrine of the pre‑existence of the soul and the consequent wonderful opinion of its return, let him be anathema.@ However, Pope Vigilius was said to have been in disagreement with the edict. But when he arrived at Constantinople he reversed himself and issued the document that supported the condemnation of the anathematized writings. It was heavily criticized by bishops in Gaul, North Africa, and elsewhere, and by 550 Vigilius even revoked it. Yet, Justinian had overseen the proceedings at the Council and made the arrangements to his liking to have 159 bishops voting against only about six who were from the Western contingent, and adherents of the reincarnation doctrine of Origen. In this way, the opponents of the Origen teachings succeeded, and Justinian got his way. From this time, Christianity has been forced to live and teach the non-truth that we have but one life to reach heaven, or be condemned to eternal hell.

This, of course, was to increase the power of the church and promote the idea that no one had any ability to commune with God or be saved from hell except through the church. Reincarnation and karma allowed for the idea that everyone was responsible for their own lives and what happened in their next life. Excluding this from Christianity meant that it was up to the church and one’s connection with it that was all that could improve one’s life and guarantee protection from whatever was perceived as evil or bad, or of going to hell. Therefore, from that time all such teachings regarding reincarnation stopped and all inner, esoteric doctrines of the Bible were thrown out or lost.

In spite of all these attempts by the Church, the concept of reincarnation continued among the lay people. But it took another thousand years of persecution and bloodshed in the fight to stamp it out. In Italy and southern France in the early thirteenth century there was the simple and devotional group called the Cathars, who kept to themselves in many ways, and still accepted the philosophy of reincarnation. A massive crusade was launched by the pope who was determined to stop the heresy that persisted, and only after 500,000 people were killed, including whole villages, did the Cathars cease to exist. The Inquisition that followed some time later applied the same brutal reign of terror against all those who took the freedom to believe anything outside the dogma of the Church.

Nonetheless, in spite of these changes and the censoring of any knowledge in the Bible relating to reincarnation, there are, however, still some powerful references which hold the idea of reincarnation intact. For example, in Matthew (16:13‑14) it says: AWhen Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that I am? And they replied, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the other prophets.@

This shows that the idea of reincarnation was certainly not a strange or foreign idea to Jesus or his disciples. On the contrary, they accepted it and actually expected the prophets to return again to continue teaching the people. This is exactly in line with the traditional Vedic and Buddhist teachings that propound the idea that the masters may decide to return in another incarnation to continue their teachings for the welfare of the masses.

Further proof of this is found in Matthew (17:9‑13): AAnd as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen again from the dead. And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias has come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall the Son of Man suffer from them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.@



This means that the scribes predicted that the prophet Elias would return by taking another birth and that John the Baptist was Elias. However, he was never recognized as such, for Herod had already beheaded him.

AJesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John. . . this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. . . and if ye will receive it: this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.@ (Matthew 11:7,10‑11,14‑15)

A similar reference is in Luke (4:7‑9): “Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by Jesus, and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead; and of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again. And Herod said, John have I beheaded; but who is this of whom I hear such things?” In Mark (6:14‑16), the same incident is described.

In the book of St. John (9:1-2) it states: “And Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” This especially signifies that Jesus and his disciples new of the law of karma and they questioned what prior activities may have caused the man’s present difficulties. This means that before the numerous changes in the Bible, there was once a much broader understanding of spiritual science than is supplied now in biblical tradition.

There are more references which we could point out in the Bible which relate to the idea of reincarnation. However, this should be enough to show that regardless of whatever changes were made in the Bible after the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., there are still enough references to show that reincarnation was not a foreign or unacceptable approach to increase one’s spiritual knowledge and understanding.



By recognizing this, it can be said that it is not wrong for a Christian to accept and believe in reincarnation, which had been taken out of the Christian theology due to politics more than anything else. It is also not wrong for people of non-Christian cultures to continue believing in their own ways of reincarnation, even if that is often taught in the churches or by missionaries today. After all, how could an all-loving and merciful God give His sons and daughters only one life to reach Him, or be condemned to an eternal hell? Especially when knowing full well how difficult life can be, and how the character of humans is full of weaknesses. The fact is that comprehending reincarnation is one of the basic principles of understanding spiritual knowledge. Without that, so many basic questions regarding life will go unanswered. Furthermore, the censoring of essential knowledge for political purposes, as the Churches have done for many years, could lead to numerous abbreviations to be made, up to and including the elimination of knowledge about the soul and what is actually our spiritual identity. Therefore, it is not wrong for people to remain connected to and practice their own original or indigenous culture and spiritual tradition, which may indeed have deeper levels of spiritual knowledge than we find today in western religions.



http://www.stephen-knapp.com.