The issue of “pre-existence” of souls or “spirit-beings" was not concocted in the 19th century. Some of the “spiritualist” traditions arising in the wake of the Reformation flirted with it. In some form, the teaching pre-dates Christianity. Zoroastrianism taught metempsychosis — transmigration of the soul, “reincarnation”''possibly deriving it from ancient Hindu belief. It also shows up, of course, in Plato’s dialogues, but always in a myth, not meant to be taken literally. One well-known Church Father, Origen of Alexandria, writing before 300 AD, taught “pre-existence” of soul [his exact Greek phrase, I do not know], but the mainstream Church never accepted it. Origen probably derived his teaching from Gnostics, who were active and dominant in his culture in Egypt. Origen explicitly mentions the Gnostics, and highly criticized their thinking and practices, but may have been influenced by them in turn. That happens. In short, the most common source of “pre-existence” in the history of western culture is Gnosticism, and then hermeticism and neo-Platonic speculations during the Renaissance. From these sources it was taken up in some of the cults or small sectarian movements arising after Luther and Calvin. If anyone is interested, I can find some of the early modern documents teaching some kind of “pre-existence,” or the notion that human beings are “sparks of the divine,” as some Gnostics wrote. I have read a number of ancient Gnostic texts asserting “pre-existence” (souls are in God before being enfleshed). I know well the experiences from which the Gnostics drew their belief: that they were essentially one with God, and had “fallen” or were “thrown” into the physical world (often by “Yahweh,” the creator god, who is considered evil). Gnostics claimed to be essentially God, or a god; and as God is eternal, so they claimed to be eternal. They applied to themselves what orthodox Christianity applied to the Logos (divine Word, Mind) that became enfleshed in Christ.
There is a use of the “pre-existence" teaching that I have come across in Mormon thought: procreate prolifically, because these “souls” are without bodies, floating around somewhere. That conception was communicated in a video I saw at the LDS visitor’s center on Temple Square years ago. Human beings on earth have a duty to procreate to bring these “souls” [or whatever the term was] into physical existence. I think that the film was meant to be serious, not humorous, although it struck me as “bizarre,” and fanciful.
The Hindu teaching is part of a vast, profound, and mythical conception of reality, and serves to emphasize the essential unity of all beings in God (by various names). The Platonic teaching on “transmigration” is used explicitly to emphasize freedom, responsibility, and the burden to choose well in whatever one does—“God is blameless.” Platonic myths were not meant as speculation on what human beings cannot know—life before or after death, but that is how the ancient Gnostics took the Platonic myths. The mainstream Christian churches follow Jewish belief that every human being is a unique creation of God, “made in God’s image and likeness,” meaning intelligent and with a power to choose good and avoid evil (of course, the divine has no body, so “image” is not physical). Other than Origen, I know of no significant Jewish or Christian theologian or philosopher who taught “pre-existence,” or reincarnation. There is no notion of “pre-existence” in the Hebrew or Christian bibles (Old and New Testaments). Generally, Hebrew and Jewish thought eschewed religious speculation, although exceptions can be found in their scriptures.
I would dispute any set of religious beliefs if they are: (1) not grounded in concrete spiritual experience, accessible to others to study or to understand through imagination; (2) not open to reason, questioning, examination; and (3) not time-tested and in tune with both common sense and the vast teaching of a major spiritual tradition, such as Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity.
As you probably can guess, I am highly skeptical of any teaching drawn from a self-declared “prophet,” such as Mani, or …. Such claims are what is known as Gnosticism: a system of thought and practice founded on someone’s private “revelations” and direct knowledge of God, or, in the case of more modern thinkers, knowing “dialectics” or “the meaning of history,” and so on. Such speculations are not open to reason and to critical examination. If you wish to read one such “prophet,” try Mani as an example of ancient Gnostics, or Marx as an example of modern Gnostics. They claim special knowledge of which they “know” to be true. Gnostic thought is a closed system, not open to reasoning or investigation. A Gnostic refuses to question his or her basic assumptions about reality. Unfortunately, Gnostic influences have infected western culture since about the beginning of Christianity.
There is a use of the “pre-existence" teaching that I have come across in Mormon thought: procreate prolifically, because these “souls” are without bodies, floating around somewhere. That conception was communicated in a video I saw at the LDS visitor’s center on Temple Square years ago. Human beings on earth have a duty to procreate to bring these “souls” [or whatever the term was] into physical existence. I think that the film was meant to be serious, not humorous, although it struck me as “bizarre,” and fanciful.
The Hindu teaching is part of a vast, profound, and mythical conception of reality, and serves to emphasize the essential unity of all beings in God (by various names). The Platonic teaching on “transmigration” is used explicitly to emphasize freedom, responsibility, and the burden to choose well in whatever one does—“God is blameless.” Platonic myths were not meant as speculation on what human beings cannot know—life before or after death, but that is how the ancient Gnostics took the Platonic myths. The mainstream Christian churches follow Jewish belief that every human being is a unique creation of God, “made in God’s image and likeness,” meaning intelligent and with a power to choose good and avoid evil (of course, the divine has no body, so “image” is not physical). Other than Origen, I know of no significant Jewish or Christian theologian or philosopher who taught “pre-existence,” or reincarnation. There is no notion of “pre-existence” in the Hebrew or Christian bibles (Old and New Testaments). Generally, Hebrew and Jewish thought eschewed religious speculation, although exceptions can be found in their scriptures.
I would dispute any set of religious beliefs if they are: (1) not grounded in concrete spiritual experience, accessible to others to study or to understand through imagination; (2) not open to reason, questioning, examination; and (3) not time-tested and in tune with both common sense and the vast teaching of a major spiritual tradition, such as Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity.
As you probably can guess, I am highly skeptical of any teaching drawn from a self-declared “prophet,” such as Mani, or …. Such claims are what is known as Gnosticism: a system of thought and practice founded on someone’s private “revelations” and direct knowledge of God, or, in the case of more modern thinkers, knowing “dialectics” or “the meaning of history,” and so on. Such speculations are not open to reason and to critical examination. If you wish to read one such “prophet,” try Mani as an example of ancient Gnostics, or Marx as an example of modern Gnostics. They claim special knowledge of which they “know” to be true. Gnostic thought is a closed system, not open to reasoning or investigation. A Gnostic refuses to question his or her basic assumptions about reality. Unfortunately, Gnostic influences have infected western culture since about the beginning of Christianity.
