{"id":303,"date":"2020-12-17T23:29:38","date_gmt":"2020-12-18T04:29:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=303"},"modified":"2021-04-11T11:47:33","modified_gmt":"2021-04-11T16:47:33","slug":"rebirth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2020\/12\/17\/rebirth\/","title":{"rendered":"Rebirth"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

1. Cuando Jesus<\/a> habla con nicodemo del tema, y le dice esto en el verso 10 Respondi\u00f3 Jes\u00fas y le dijo: \u00bfEres t\u00fa maestro de Israel, y no sabes esto?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Se daba a entender que ya estaba en lo que estaba escrito hasta ese momento, osea el TaNaK (la Ley. Los Profetas y los Escritos). Deuteronomio 30:6 Adem\u00e1s, el SE\u00d1OR tu Dios circuncidar\u00e1 tu coraz\u00f3n y el coraz\u00f3n de tus descendientes, para que ames al SE\u00d1OR tu Dios con todo tu coraz\u00f3n y con toda tu alma, a fin de que vivas.
Jerem\u00edas 4:4 Circuncidaos para el SE\u00d1OR, y quitad los prepucios de vuestros corazones, hombres de Jud\u00e1 y habitantes de Jerusal\u00e9n, no sea que mi furor salga como fuego y arda y no haya quien {lo} apague, a causa de la maldad de vuestras obras.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

En la literatura rabinica el concepto estaba tambien, sacado de el TaNaK
As demonstrated by this example from the Talmud: “Shim’on Ben-Lakish said, ‘\u2026a proselyte is like a newborn infant”‘(Yevamot 62a); likewise Rabbi Yosi (Yevamot 48b). The idea resembles that of the “new creation” (2C 5:17&N), which too is found in rabbinic literature (e.g., in Genesis Rabbah 39:11).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jerem\u00edas 31:33? Todo lo que tenga que ver con la promesa de cambiar el corazon, es volver a nacer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

En un comentario a Genesis donde mencionan el nuevo nacimiento infiriendolo de lo que dice el relato de genesis. Como es de la creacion posiblemente es cuando mencionan las 3 palabras diferentes para crear: Yetzer, Bara y Azah, algo asi, una es el dise\u00f1o o proposito trazado por Dios, el otro es la ejecucion progresiva para alcanzar el objetivo trazado y la ultima es la obra terminada. Ahi estan las evidencias, desde la misma escritura donde Jesus le recrimina a Nicodemo que debia saber eso por ser maestro de las escrituras y los versos que hablan de eso y luego los 2 comentarios<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In so called Hinduism and buddhism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The idea of reincarnation, sa\u1e43s\u0101ra<\/a>, did not exist in the early Vedic religions<\/a>.[32]<\/a><\/sup>[33]<\/a><\/sup> The idea of reincarnation has roots in the Upanishads<\/a> of the late Vedic period<\/a> (c.\u20091100 \u2013 c.\u2009500 BCE), predating the Buddha<\/a> and the Mahavira<\/a>.[34]<\/a><\/sup>[35]<\/a><\/sup> The concepts of the cycle of birth and death, samsara, and liberation partly derive from ascetic traditions that arose in India around the middle of the first millennium BCE.[36]<\/a><\/sup> Though no direct evidence of this has been found, the tribes of the Ganges<\/a> valley or the Dravidian<\/a> traditions of South India<\/a> have been proposed as another early source of reincarnation beliefs.[37]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The early Vedas do not mention the doctrine of Karma<\/a> and rebirth but mention the belief in an afterlife<\/a>.[38]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup>[39]<\/a><\/sup>[40]<\/a><\/sup> It is in the early Upanishads, which are pre-Buddha<\/a> and pre-Mahavira<\/a>, where these ideas are developed and described in a general way.[38]<\/a><\/sup>[41]<\/a><\/sup>[42]<\/a><\/sup> Detailed descriptions first appear around the mid 1st millennium BCE in diverse traditions, including Buddhism, Jainism and various schools of Hindu philosophy<\/a>, each of which gave unique expression to the general principle.[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The texts of ancient Jainism<\/a> that have survived into the modern era are post-Mahavira, likely from the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE, and extensively mention rebirth and karma doctrines.[43]<\/a><\/sup>[44]<\/a><\/sup> The Jaina philosophy assumes that the soul (Jiva<\/em> in Jainism, Atman<\/em> in Hinduism) exists and is eternal, passing through cycles of transmigration and rebirth.[45]<\/a><\/sup> After death, reincarnation into a new body is asserted to be instantaneous in early Jaina texts.[44]<\/a><\/sup> Depending upon the accumulated karma, rebirth occurs into a higher or lower bodily form, either in heaven or hell or earthly realm.[46]<\/a><\/sup>[47]<\/a><\/sup> No bodily form is permanent: everyone dies and reincarnates further. Liberation (kevalya<\/em>) from reincarnation is possible, however, through removing and ending karmic accumulations to one’s soul.[48]<\/a><\/sup> From the early stages of Jainism on, a human being was considered the highest mortal being, with the potential to achieve liberation, particularly through asceticism<\/a>.[49]<\/a><\/sup>[50]<\/a><\/sup>[51]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The early Buddhist texts<\/a> discuss rebirth as part of the doctrine of Sa\u1e43s\u0101ra<\/a><\/em>. This asserts that the nature of existence is a “suffering-laden cycle of life, death, and rebirth, without beginning or end”.[52]<\/a>[53]<\/a><\/sup> Also referred to as the wheel of existence (Bhavacakra<\/a><\/em>), it is often mentioned in Buddhist texts with the term punarbhava<\/em> (rebirth, re-becoming). Liberation from this cycle of existence, Nirvana<\/em>, is the foundation and the most important purpose of Buddhism.[52]<\/a>[54]<\/a>[55]<\/a><\/sup> Buddhist texts also assert that an enlightened person knows his previous births, a knowledge achieved through high levels of meditative concentration<\/a>.[56]<\/a><\/sup> Tibetan Buddhism discusses death, bardo<\/a> (an intermediate state), and rebirth in texts such as the Tibetan Book of the Dead<\/a><\/em>. While Nirvana is taught as the ultimate goal in the Theravadin Buddhism, and is essential to Mahayana Buddhism, the vast majority of contemporary lay Buddhists focus on accumulating good karma and acquiring merit to achieve a better reincarnation in the next life.[57]<\/a>[58]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cosmology of the fallen?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In early Buddhist traditions, Sa\u1e43s\u0101ra<\/em> cosmology consisted of five realms through which the wheel of existence cycled.[52]<\/a><\/sup> This included hells (niraya<\/a><\/em>), hungry ghosts<\/a> (pretas<\/a><\/em>), animals (tiryak<\/em>), humans (manushya<\/a><\/em>), and gods (devas<\/a><\/em>, heavenly).[52]<\/a><\/sup>[53]<\/a><\/sup>[59]<\/a><\/sup> In latter Buddhist traditions, this list grew to a list of six realms of rebirth, adding demi-gods (asuras<\/a><\/em>).[52]<\/a><\/sup>[60]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

About samsara<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concept of Samsara developed in the post-Vedic<\/a> times, and is traceable in the Samhita<\/a> layers such as in sections 1.164, 4.55, 6.70 and 10.14 of the Rigveda<\/a>.[9]<\/a><\/sup>[21]<\/a><\/sup>[22]<\/a><\/sup> While the idea is mentioned in the Samhita<\/a> layers of the Vedas, there is lack of clear exposition there, and the idea fully develops in the early Upanishads<\/a>.[23]<\/a><\/sup>[24]<\/a><\/sup> Damien Keown states that the notion of “cyclic birth and death” appears around 800 BC.[25]<\/a><\/sup> The word Sa\u1e43s\u0101ra<\/em> appears, along with Moksha<\/a>, in several Principal Upanishads<\/a> such as in verse 1.3.7 of the Katha Upanishad<\/a>,[26]<\/a><\/sup> verse 6.16 of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad<\/a>,[27]<\/a><\/sup> verses 1.4 and 6.34 of the Maitri Upanishad<\/a>.[28]<\/a><\/sup>[29]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The word\u00a0Samsara<\/em>\u00a0is related to\u00a0Sa\u1e43s\u1e5bti<\/em>, the latter referring to the “course of mundane existence, transmigration, flow, circuit or stream”.[19]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Church fathers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Members of what is commonly called the \u201cNew Age\u201d movement often claim that early Christians believed in reincarnation. Shirley MacLaine, an avid New Age disciple, recalls being taught: \u201cThe theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around A.D. 553, called the Council of Nicaea\u201d (Out on a Limb, 234\u201335).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historical facts provide no basis for this claim. In fact, there was no Council of Nicaea in A.D. 553. Further, of the two ecumenical councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325 and A.D. 787), neither dealt with reincarnation. What did take place in A.D. 553 was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. But records from this Council show that it, too, did not address the subject of reincarnation. None of the early councils did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The closest the Second Council of Constantinople<\/a> came to addressing reincarnation was, in one sentence, to condemn Origen, an early Church writer who believed souls exist in heaven before coming to earth to be born. New Agers confuse this belief in the preexistence of the soul with reincarnation and claim that Origen was a reincarnationist. Actually, he was one of the most prolific early writers against<\/em> reincarnation! Because he is so continually misrepresented by New Agers, we have included a number of his quotes below, along with passages from other sources, all of which date from before<\/em> A.D. 553, when the doctrine of reincarnation was supposedly \u201ctaken out of the Bible.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The origin of Shirley MacLaine\u2019s mistaken notion that Origen taught reincarnation is probably Reincarnation in Christianity<\/em>, by Geddes MacGregor\u2014a book published by the Theosophical Publishing House in 1978. The author speculates that Origen\u2019s texts written in support of the belief in reincarnation somehow disappeared or were suppressed. Admitting he has no evidence, MacGregor nonetheless asserts: \u201cI am convinced he taught reincarnation in some<\/em> form<\/em>\u201d (58). You may judge from the passages below whether this seems likely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of the Reincarnation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Irenaeus<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe may undermine [the Hellenists\u2019] doctrine as to transmigration from body to body by this fact\u2014that souls remember nothing whatever of the events which took place in their previous states of existence. For if they were sent forth with this object, that they should have experience of every kind of action, they must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things which have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they were still deficient, and not by always hovering, without intermission, through the same pursuits, spend their labor wretchedly in vain. . . . With reference to these objections, Plato . . . attempted no kind of proof, but simply replied dogmatically that when souls enter into this life they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches their entrance, before they effect an entrance into the bodies. It escaped him that he fell into another, greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion, after it has been drunk, can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, do you obtain the knowledge of this fact . . . ?\u201d (Against Heresies<\/em> 2:33:1\u20132 [A.D. 189]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tertullian<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCome now, if some philosopher affirms, as Laberius holds, following an opinion of Pythagoras, that a man may have his origin from a mule, a serpent from a woman, and with skill of speech twists every argument to prove his view, will he not gain an acceptance for it [among the pagans], and work in some conviction that on account of this, they should abstain from eating animal food? May anyone have the persuasion that he should abstain, lest, by chance, in his beef he eats some ancestor of his? But if a Christian promises the return of a man from a man, and the very actual Gaius [resurrected] from Gaius . . . they will not . . . grant him a hearing. If there is any ground for the moving to and fro of human souls into different bodies, why may they not return to the very matter they have left . . . ?\u201d (Apology<\/em> 48 [A.D. 197]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Origen<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[Scripture says] \u2018And they asked him, \u201cWhat then? Are you Elijah?\u201d and he said, \u201cI am not\u201d\u2019 [John 1:21]. No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: \u2018If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come\u2019 [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, \u2018Are you Elijah?\u2019\u2014\u2018I am not\u2019? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John\u2019s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah\u201d (Commentary on John<\/em> 6:7 [A.D. 229]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless\u201d (ibid.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSomeone might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, \u2018This is Elijah who is to come\u2019 [Matt. 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John\u2019s case worked in him works of baptism and teaching\u2014for John did not do one miracle [John 10:41]\u2014but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents\u201d (Commentary on Matthew<\/em> 10:20 [A.D. 248]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNow the Canaanite woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, \u2018Lord, help me,\u2019 but he answered and said, \u2018It is not possible to take the children\u2019s bread and cast it to the little dogs.\u2019 . . . [O]thers, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we . . . do not find this at all in the divine Scripture\u201d (ibid., 11:17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures\u201d (ibid., 13:1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lactantius<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat of Pythagoras, who was first called a philosopher, who judged that souls were indeed immortal, but that they passed into other bodies, either of cattle or of birds or of beasts? Would it not have been better that they should be destroyed, together with their bodies, than thus to be condemned to pass into the bodies of other animals? Would it not be better not to exist at all than, after having had the form of a man, to live as a swine or a dog? And the foolish man, to gain credit for his saying, said that he himself had been Euphorbus in the Trojan war, and that when he had been slain he passed into other figures of animals, and at last became Pythagoras. O happy man!\u2014to whom alone so great a memory was given! Or rather unhappy, who when changed into a sheep was not permitted to be ignorant of what he was! And [I] would to heaven that he [Pythagoras] alone had been thus senseless!\u201d (Epitome of the Divine Institutes<\/em> 36 [A.D. 317]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ambrose of Milan<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is a cause for wonder that though they [the heathen] . . . say that souls pass and migrate into other bodies. . . . But let those who have not been taught doubt [the resurrection]. For us who have read the law, the prophets, the apostles, and the gospel, it is not lawful to doubt\u201d (Belief in the Resurrection<\/em> 65\u201366 [A.D. 380]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut is their opinion preferable who say that our souls, when they have passed out of these bodies, migrate into the bodies of beasts or of various other living creatures? . . . For what is so like a marvel as to believe that men could have been changed into the forms of beasts? How much greater a marvel, however, would it be that the soul which rules man should take on itself the nature of a beast so opposed to that of man, and being capable of reason should be able to pass over to an irrational animal, than that the form of the body should have been changed?\u201d (ibid., 127).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John Chrysostom<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs for doctrines on the soul, there is nothing excessively shameful that they [the disciples of Plato and Pythagoras] have left unsaid, asserting that the souls of men become flies and gnats and bushes and that God himself is a [similar] soul, with some other the like indecencies. . . . At one time he says that the soul is of the substance of God; at another, after having exalted it thus immoderately and impiously, he exceeds again in a different way, and treats it with insult, making it pass into swine and asses and other animals of yet less esteem than these\u201d (Homilies on John<\/em> 2:3, 6 [A.D. 391]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Basil the Great<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[A]void the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog, who say that they have themselves formerly been women, shrubs, or fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know, but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish\u201d (The Six Days\u2019 Work<\/em> 8:2 [A.D. 393]).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. Cuando Jesus habla con nicodemo del tema, y le dice esto en el verso 10 Respondi\u00f3 Jes\u00fas y le dijo: \u00bfEres t\u00fa maestro de Israel, y no sabes esto? Se daba … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n