REINCARNATION / NOVEL

Curiosity — 9

The Origen Controversy

To read this novel from the beginning, click here.

This was one of the papers Sam came across in his renewed and rekindled search for certainty.

Origen’s name had come up more than once as an early church father who had treated reincarnation as more than just an Eastern folly, and here it comes up again. To Origen’s way of thinking, the soul must have pre-existed the body, which leads to the corollary: it must survive the body as well.

The paper, written by an obscure Christian Theologian, was entitled: “Reincarnation in Early Church History.” It addressed the Origen controversy in some depth.

He read it again.

Thus:

It really shouldn’t matter much whether or not a Christian believes in reincarnation. Doctrines and beliefs matter very little compared to a mystical experience with the light of God. A multitude of near-death accounts affirm that God is not concerned about the theology that people profess; rather, it is the inward spirituality that matters.

Whether reincarnation is true or not, near-death accounts reveal that it is the life we are currently living that is important. This may be one of the reasons that reincarnation was suppressed by the Church.

Another important revelation from several near-death accounts is that people are required to forget their prior existence in order not to dwell on the “mission” they are to accomplish in life, which also explains, according to some researchers, why NDE experiencers are made to forget details of their prior lives when they return to this life.

While debating whether or not reincarnation was once a doctrine of the early Church is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, reincarnation is certainly a concept that ties many other Christian doctrines together and solves many of the mysteries found in the Bible.

Jesus affirmed that the way to overcome death and rebirth and attain eternal life is simply through the practice of love (Luke 10:25–28). Faith allows the possibility of doubt, while knowledge implies certainty, and knowledge of God is attained through love according to John (1 John 4:7).

When it comes to living a life of love, having faith in reincarnation does not give anyone an advantage before God. Reincarnation is a theory that, at most, explains the apparent inequities and apparent injustices between people and the dispensing of divine justice. But the spiritual life of love does not depend upon the particular creed one professes. With this in mind, the following information is an excerpt from Dr. Quincy Howe, Jr.’s excellent book entitled Reincarnation for the Christian.

The Origen Controversy

From about 250 CE and culminating with the 5th Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553, a controversy (at least intermittently) raged around the name and writings of Origen (183–253 CE), a controversy that lies at the heart of and constitutes the principal battle that orthodox Christianity fought (and won) against reincarnation.

Origen of Alexandria, by most accounts Christianity’s greatest systematic theologian, was a believer in reincarnation. He was a man devoted to scriptural authority, a scourge to the enemies of the church, and a martyr for the faith. He was the spiritual teacher of a large and grateful posterity, and yet: his teachings were declared heretical in 553.

The debates and controversies around Origen’s teachings are, in fact, the record of reincarnation in Christianity.

The case against Origen grew by fits and starts from about 300 CE (fifty years after his death) until 553. There were writers of great eminence among his critics as well as some rather obscure ecclesiastics. The critics included Methodius of Olympus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Theophilus, Bishop of Jerusalem, Jerome, and the Emperor Justinian.

The first of these, Methodius of Olympus, was a bishop in Greece and died a martyr’s death in the year 311. He and Peter of Alexandria, whose works are almost entirely lost, represent the first wave of anti-Origenism and were chiefly concerned with the pre-existence of souls and Origen’s notions about the resurrection of the dead.

Another, more powerful current against Origenism arose about a century later. This time, the attacks involved Ephiphanius of Salamis, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome.

As a result, from about 395 to 403, Origen became the subject of heated debate throughout Christendom. These three ecclesiastics applied much energy and thought in search of questionable doctrine in Origen’s writings and teachings.

The controversy then flared up again around 535, and in the wake of this, the Emperor Justinian composed a tract against Origen in 543, proposing nine anathemas against “On First Principles”, Origen’s chief theological work.

Origen was finally officially condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553, when fifteen anathemas were brought against him. At this point, Origen’s critics attacked him on individual points and thus did not create a systematic theology to oppose him. Nonetheless, one can glean from their writings five major points that Christianity raised against reincarnation:

· It seems to minimize Christian salvation.

· It is in conflict with the resurrection of the body.

· It creates an unnatural separation between body and soul.

· It is built on a much too speculative use of Christian scriptures.

· There is no recollection of previous lives.

A discussion of these five points will benefit from a preliminary look at Origen’s system, and although a few pages cannot do justice to a thinker as subtle and profound as Origen, some of the distinctive aspects of his thought can be summarized.

The Theological System of Origen

Origen’s view of creation — from inception to conclusion — could be stated as follows: Originally, all beings existed as pure mind on an ideational or thought level. Humans, angels, and heavenly bodies lacked incarnate existence and had their being only as ideas.

This view is to be expected from anyone who, like Origen, was trained in both Christian and Platonic thought, and since there is no account in the scriptures of what preceded creation, Origen would quite naturally turn to Plato for his answers.

God, for the Platonist, is nothing but pure intelligence and all things were reconciled with God and within God before creation — an assumption which scripture does not contradict. Then, as the process of fall began, individual beings became weary of their union with God and chose to defect or grow cold in their divine ardor.

As the mind now grew cool toward God, it made the first step down in its fall and became soul. The soul, now already once removed from its original state, continued with its defection to the point of taking on a body. This, as we know from Platonism, is indeed a degradation, for the highest type of manifestation is on the mental level and the lowest is on the physical.

Such an account of man’s fall does not mean that Origen rejected Genesis. It only means that he was willing to allow for allegorical interpretation; thus, Eden — in Origen’s view — is not necessarily spatially located, but is a cosmic and metaphysical event wherein pure disincarnate idea became fettered to physical matter.

What was essential for Christianity, as Origen perceived and deduced things, is that the fall be voluntary and result in a lesser or greater degree of estrangement from God.

However, where there is a fall, there must follow the quest for and drama of reconciliation. Love is one of God’s qualities, as Origen himself acknowledged, and from this it follows that God will take an interest in the redemption of his fallen creatures. For Origen, this ultimately meant that after the drama of incarnation, the soul assumes once again its identity as pure mind and recovers its ardor for God.

It was to hasten this evolution and reconciliation that in the fullness of time God sent His Son, Jesus Christ.

The Christ of Origen was the Incarnate Word (he was also the only being that did not grow cold toward God), and he came both as a mediator and as an incarnate image of God’s goodness. By allowing the wisdom and light of God to shine in one’s life through the inspiration of Jesus Christ, the individual soul could swiftly regain its ardor for God, leave behind the burden of the body, and regain complete reconciliation with God.

In fact, said Origen, much to the outrage of his critics, the extent and power of God’s love is so great that eventually all things will be restored to him, even Satan and his legions.

Since the soul’s tenancy of any given body is but one of many episodes in its journey away from God to body and then back again, the doctrine of reincarnation is implicit.

As for the resurrection of the body, Origen created a tempest of controversy by insisting that the physical body wastes away and returns to dust, while the resurrection takes on a spiritual or transformed body. This is, of course, handy for the reincarnationist, for it means that the resurrected body either can be the summation and climax of all the physical bodies that came before it or indeed may bear no resemblance at all to these many physical bodies.

Origen held that there will come a time when the great defection from God that initiated physical creation will come to an end. At that time, all things, both heavenly bodies and human souls, will be so pure and ardent in their love for God that physical existence will no longer be necessary, with the unavoidable result that the entire cohesion of creation will come apart, for matter will be superfluous.

Then, to cite one of Origen’s favorite passages, all things will be made subject to God, and God will be “all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:28)

The restoration of all things to their original state as mind in God, as proposed by Origen (which would end all creation), gave grave offense in later centuries — possibly (and primarily) with greedy bishops who did not want to see their well-stocked larders and treasuries up and vanish.

As for Origen, it seemed quite sensible to him that anything that defects from God must eventually seek its way back to Him. For as affirmed at the end of his “On First Principles”, men are indeed the “blood brothers” of God Himself and cannot stay away forever.

Objections and Rebuttals to Origen’s Theology

Objection #1: It seems to minimize Christian salvation.

This objection was expressed very clearly by Theophilus (385–412 CE), patriarch of Alexandria:

“What is the point of preaching that souls are repeatedly confined in bodies, only to be released again, and that we experience many deaths? Does Origen not know that Christ came, not in order to free souls from bodies after their resurrection or to clothe souls freed from bodies once again in bodies that they might come down from heavenly regions to be invested once again with flesh and blood? Rather, he came so that he might present our revived bodies with incorruptibility and eternal life.” (Jerome, Letters 98.11.)

Rebuttal #1: The essential difference between Theophilus and Origen is this: For Origen, man, the creature of free choice, stands responsible before God for his initial defection. God uses all his love and persuasion to hasten man along his way, but man must go the whole journey.

For Theophilus, however, part of the responsibility for man’s defection from God is lifted from his shoulders by the Son. Thus, man is a completely free and sovereign agent only when he falls; when he rises, however, much of the travail is being borne by another. Man does what he can in a single life, and Christ will make good the rest.

Reincarnation should be understood, however, not as a statement on Christ, but as a statement on man. Theophilus is in effect charging that man is so feeble that he must depend on Christ to take him most of the way. Origen, however, is convinced of man’s divinity and hence of his innate ability to return to God’s favor under his own steam.

Objection #2: It is in conflict with the resurrection of the body.

Here are the words of Epiphanius of Salamis (310–403 CE):

“First of all, if, as the Origenists say, another body succeeds this one, then the judgment of God is not just, for he will either be condemning the new body for the sins of the former one, or he will be ushering it into its glorious and heavenly inheritance in recognition of the fastings, vigils, and persecution suffered for the name of God by an earlier body.” (Epiphanius, Ancoratus 87.)

Rebuttal #2: For the Platonic philosopher, as for Origen, the entire goal of life is to disentangle the soul from the pernicious influence of the body. This stands in strong contrast to the statement of Epiphanius that the body is itself a living principle (is in fact the person who inhabits it) and whatever it has endured, it will carry before God for judgment.

For Origen, it is unthinkable that the body of flesh and blood should be the person or resurrected into immortality. This body, after all, belongs to the transient world of matter (of Earth, Water, Fire, and Air) and passes away as all matter must.

Origen, the Christian and the Platonist, found it much more likely that a new spiritual body that would enjoy the resurrected life would have nothing in common with the material elements of the physical body.

Objection #3: It creates an unnatural separation between body and soul.

Probably the best statement of this is to be found in a letter of the Emperor Justinian to Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople. This letter from the year 543 was the prelude to Origen’s condemnation in 553 CE:

“Therefore, it is clear that souls are not cast into bodies for the punishment of sins as Origen foolishly claims, but rather that God fashioned body and soul simultaneously, creating man in his perfected, unified entirety [i.e., body and soul as one].” (Letter to Mennas, PG 86.1, p. 951)

Rebuttal #3: This again raises the question of how one views the human creature. Is he basically a spiritual being, or does he exist only as a composite creature with body and soul? With pre-existence goes the assumption that he is essentially spirit. Indeed, Origen found Scriptural support for personal disincarnate pre-existence, taking Ephesians 1:4 as proof for his case:

“He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love.” (Ephesians 1:4)

Jerome, who is just as uncomfortable as Justinian about pre-existence, interprets the passage to mean that we preexisted, not in distinct disincarnate form, but simply as thought in the mind of God (Against Rufinus 1.22), and from this throng of thoughts God chose the elect before the creation of the world.

Jerome’s distinction, however, is indeed a fine one (and may simply be part of his campaign to distance himself from Origen, whom he initially revered, once Origen fell out of political favor), for he is asking us to distinguish between that which, in God’s mind, exists as soul and that which exists as thought. Jerome does not land on his feet.

What is illuminating, though, is that this passage from Ephesians offers very explicit Scriptural testimony for individual pre-existence.

Objection #4: It is built on a much too speculative use of Christian scriptures.

Rebuttal #4: This resistance to speculative thought is implicit in much of what is said against Origen:

· Epiphanius, for example, cannot conceive of a spiritual body coming into man’s heavenly inheritance.

· Justinian cannot conceive of a soul that preexists the body.

· Methodius (311 CE) cannot conceive of man as a disincarnate creature.

All these objections show an unwillingness of the early church to deal in speculative ideas that do not find immediate confirmation in the Scriptures. Origen constructed a theology and cosmology that accounts for the rise and fall of creation and the state of man both prior to the beginning and after the end. This was a very natural thing for him to do, for Greek philosophy had always been engaged in inquiry of this sort.

Objection #5: There is no recollection of previous lives.

If reincarnation is indeed true, why do we have no recollection of earlier lives? Justinian raises this question in connection with Luke 16:19–31 (Letter to Mennas, PG 86.1, p. 959). The evangelist tells of how Lazarus, the impoverished and sore-ridden beggar, sits at the bosom of Abraham after his passing, while the rich man, whose very crumbs from the table had been a boon to Lazarus, is buried in hell. The rich man calls out to Abraham in distress, only to be reminded of the profligate manner of his life. Justinian takes this as an indication that while man is in the disincarnate interval after life, he recalls what has transpired during his incarnate life — after all, the rich man does recall the manner of his life.

If this is so, then surely incarnate man, upon his return to a new body, should recall the incidents of earlier incarnations.

Origen does not address himself to this specific problem, but he may very well have been satisfied with the myth that Plato used to account for the lapse of recollection between lives:

According to the account of Er at the end of Plato’s Republic (621 BCE), the souls of men drink from the waters of forgetfulness as they proceed from one life to another.

It should also be noted here that the phenomenon of forgetting memories remembered in the afterlife upon return to this life is a recurring theme for those who have experienced near-death.

Conclusion on Origen’s Condemnation

With the Church’s condemnation of Origen, so much that is implied in reincarnation was officially stigmatized as heresy that the possibility of any further discussion of this belief was effectively removed from Christianity.

Of course, in dismissing Origen from its midst, the church only indirectly addressed itself to the issue of reincarnation. This battle with Origen did, however, draw decisive lines not only in the matter of pre-existence, but also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and the relationship between body and soul.

With the Council of 553, one can just about close the book on this entire controversy within the church. There are merely two footnotes to be added to the story, emerging from church councils in 1274 and 1439.

In the Council of Lyons in 1274, it was stated that after death the soul goes promptly either to heaven or to hell. On the Day of Judgment, all will stand before the tribunal of Christ with (in) their (original) bodies to render account of what they have done.

The Council of Florence of 1439 uses almost the same wording to describe the swift passage of the soul either to heaven or to hell. Implicit in both of these councils is the assumption that the soul does not again venture into physical bodies but will return for judgment in their original body, which is now resurrected and whole (even if by now decomposed and scattered as dust among the galaxies).

More on Origen’s Theology on Human Pre-Existence

Origen championed the doctrine of pre-existence.

So, even if we don’t have direct quotes by the great man on the subject of reincarnation, his firm and demonstrated belief in pre-existence shows that he held reincarnation as truth.

In fact, none of his stated beliefs would hold true (and would in fact be impossible) without a foundation of reincarnation. His belief in the fall of souls, in pre-existence, in the divinity of the soul, and in universal salvation are all Neo-Platonic doctrines that, without the tie of reincarnation to bind them together, would not only be impossible, but irrational and illogical. Thus, we don’t need Origen quotes concerning reincarnation; for everything he has written does, in context, demonstrate his clear and unequivocal stance on this subject.

Now, the Church did not fight so hard to rid itself of pre-existence for nothing. Rome and Constantinople were acutely aware that Oregon’s theory and teaching of pre-existence implied reincarnation since they are grounded in the same concept, and reincarnation — along with Origen’s theory of the soul making its way back to God, a long journey spanning many, many lives — would indeed have been very bad business for a Church whose main source of income and new recruits consisted in the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell — mainly Hell, of course, which is where you’d wind up for eternity unless you towed the line and donated generously to the well-being of the Church and its many servants (priests, bishops, popes, et al.).

That is why the Church had to burn not only all Origenists it could track down but also every scrap of Origen’s writings that could be ferreted down and unearthed — and there was an awful lot thus burned, some say Origen left behind at least one thousand titles, and many copies of each. Who knows that absolute jewels of not only theology but philosophy went up in smoke to please Justinian and his political ambitions.

Origen taught that the references to the pre-existence of souls can be found in both the Old and New Testaments; as in the story of Esau and Jacob and how God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even born (Malachi 1:2–3 and Romans 9:11–24).

Following here are quotes and references from Origen’s writings and supporting texts that evidence his belief in reincarnation (in no particular order).

(a) Origen stated that the doctrine of resurrection was misunderstood by the spiritually unaware. He wrote:

“Resurrection was preached in the Churches for the simple-minded and for the ears of the common crowd who are led on to live better lives by their belief.” (Origen, Against Celsus 5.19)

(b) When Clement states that the Mysteries of God are never written, but rather, only spoken between teacher and disciple, the ultimate meaning of these great mysteries is only comprehended when one arrives at the level where one realizes that the true oral teaching is that which is whispered in the ear of a consecrated disciple able to come into the presence of the True Prophet (i.e., the indwelling Son of God).

Among the mysteries that were concealed from the masses was the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul. In “The True Word,” Celsus accused the early Church of teaching the masses the doctrine of Heaven and Hell while teaching the initiated elect the doctrine of reincarnation. Origen does not refute Celsus, but rather explains that:

“On these subjects, much of a mystical kind might be said and in the spirit of which is the following: It is good to keep close the secret of a King in order that the doctrine of the entrance of souls into bodies, though not that of the transmigration from one body into another, should not be thrown before the common understanding, nor what is holy given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such would be impious, being equivalent to a betrayal of the mysterious declaration of God’s Wisdom.”

The key verse is: “It is good to keep secret the entrance of souls into bodies, though not that of transmigration from one body into another.”

Here, Origen openly affirms that the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, as well as the doctrine of transmigration (reincarnation) should be openly revealed to Christians who have been purified and matured sufficiently to comprehend the mysteries of God, while the knowledge of why the soul came into this world in the first place should be kept secret, and not openly revealed to carnal minds.

In explanation, Origen quotes scripture and writes, “It is good to keep close the secret of a King,” and affirms that certain mysteries only belong to the spiritually mature in the world (the Kings), and that one should not permit what is holy given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine.

© Perhaps the most well-known quote by Origen concerning his belief in reincarnation is the following:

“The soul has neither beginning nor end. They come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives.” (Origen, On First Principles)

Origen also wrote in On First Principles, Chap V, that he believed that the wicked will be resurrected with “dark and black bodies” according to their previous state of spiritual darkness and spiritual ignorance. Those who have lived a holy life will receive bright and glorious bodies.

He goes on to explain this further in a passage that was removed from his work, but preserved by Jerome:

Origen writes: “Perhaps, however, the ‘gloom and darkness’ should be taken to mean this coarse and earthly body, through which, at the end of the world, each man that must pass into another world will receive the beginnings of a fresh birth.”

Jerome commented on the above quote from Origen:

“In so speaking, he clearly supports the doctrine of transmigration taught by Pythagoras and Plato.” (Letter CXXIV, to Avitus)

The passage of Origen’s view on resurrection, along with Jerome’s comment of it, shows that he is referring to holy people reincarnating to another world at the end of the age (which is an astrological reference, not the end of the world); and that the “dark” person (spiritually ignorant) had a past life in the body before the end of the age.

After the end of the age, if there is more spiritual ignorance within the individual, he is incarnated again to a different world. Origen is talking about more than one incarnation, and that is reincarnation.

Jerome certainly knew what he meant.

(d) Gregory of Nyssa preserved the following writing from Origen:

“By some inclination toward evil, certain souls … come into bodies, first of men; then, through their association with the irrational passions, after the allotted span of human life, they are changed into beasts, from which they sink to the level of plants. From this condition, they rise again through the same stages and are restored to their heavenly place.”

The above writing by Origen clearly describes not only pre-existence, but multiple incarnations as well.

(e) Origen also quoted from the Apocryphal Gospel of Hebrews, where Jacob states:

“I am an angel of God; one of the first order of spirits. Men call me Jacob, but my true name, which God has given me, is Israel.” Many of the Jewish doctors have believed that the souls of Adam, Abraham, and Phineas have successively animated the great men of their nation. Philo says that the air is full of spirits, and that some, through their natural propensity, join themselves to bodies; and that others have an aversion from such a union.” (Commentary on John, Book II)

Origen describes four types of bodies: (1) ethereal, (2) aerial, (3) gross, and (4) fleshly. This doctrine of the descent of the soul into four lower bodies is preeminently Platonic and has much in common with the doctrines of the various schools of Christian Gnostics.

Origen teaches that God created matter to accommodate the fallen souls so that they could be restored to their spiritual state.

The divisive result of Origen’s doctrine on the reincarnation of men, angels, and demons cannot be overestimated. The idea of fallen angels walking the Earth as humans paying their “karmic debts” for past life sins is the key to Origen’s doctrine of universal salvation — even the salvation of the devil.

Other Church Fathers on Reincarnation

Other early and prominent figures of the Church affirmed that reincarnation was a part of early Christian doctrine. Rufinus, for one, assured Anastasius in a letter that belief in repeated lives was a matter of common knowledge among the church fathers and had always been imparted to the initiated as an ancient tradition.

According to Jerome (340–420 CE):

“The transmigrations (reincarnation) of souls was taught for a long time among the early Christians as an esoteric and traditional doctrine which was to be divulged to only a small number of the elect.” (Jerome, Letter to Demetrias)

According to Origen’s predecessor, Clement of Alexandra (150–211 CE):

“The Gnosis itself is that which has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles.”

St. Gregory (257–337 CE) wrote:

“It is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and that if it does not take place during its life on Earth, it must be accomplished in future lives.”

Justin Martyr (100–165 CE) wrote the following to Trypho the Jew:

“And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle? said he. They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.” (Dialogue with Trypho)

According to Origen, Basilides (117–138 CE) held a doctrine of reincarnation that was identical to the Pythagorean belief that human souls may take on the bodies of animals in future lives (i.e., transmigration).

In a passage surviving only with Eusebius, he quotes Clement in “Institutions, Book 6”:

“James the Righteous, John, and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge (gnosis). They imparted it to the other apostles, to the seventy.”

Clement stated that he possessed teachings…

“… preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul.”

Clement on the divine mysteries of Jesus:

“The Lord allowed us to communicate of those divine Mysteries and of that holy light to those who are able to receive them. The Mysteries are delivered mystically, that what is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in his voice, but in his understanding.”

Biblical Support for Pre-Existence

The Church of Rome, in declaring Origen and his teachings heresy, declared:

“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” (5th Ecumenical Council)

They further declared:

“If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and (if anyone does not equally anathematize) all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.”

The whole idea of reincarnation is connected inextricably with the principle of pre-existence, and of the restoration of the soul to its former condition after the death of the body.

As this Bible verse supports:

“He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love.” (Ephesians 1:4)

The above verse reveals God choosing people before the world existed and before they could have physically been born. This suggests that the people the verse is referring to must have existed somewhere, even if only in the Mind of God. Such an existence does, of course, support the pre-existence of these individuals, these souls.

After all, there is likely no difference between a soul and a thought in the Mind of God.

Another Bible verse states:

“Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad — in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls — she was told, The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” (Romans 9:11–13)

This verse shows that God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even born. Again, even if it was merely in the Mind of God, it would still be pre-existence.

And here, to sum up, is an excellent verse in the Old Testament supporting pre-existence:

“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the Earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the Earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.” (Proverbs 8:22–31)

Here, Solomon states that when the Earth was made, he was present, and that, long before he could have been born as Solomon, his delights were in the habitable parts of Earth with the sons of men.

Sam put the paper aside, convinced — or re-convinced rather — that Origen had been right and his (stronger) prevailing opposition wrong, for what Sam thought very obvious commercial reasons; for who would do whatever it took to avoid hell, including gifts and specific legacies (often large) in wills, if there were no hell to avoid.

And what better proof of this than the enormous riches of the Catholic Church? Someone once told him that they own half of London. He doubted that, of course, but still, point made.

Justinian would have none of it.

Neither would Mennas.

Neither would Jerome.

© Wolfstuff

To read the next chapter, click here.

[embed]Ulf Wolf Here are the song poems that I am happy enough with to share with what little sliver of the world might find its way to…www.youtube.com