Here is where I disagree. Reincarnation is false by what is written in the bible. It is appointed for man once to die and then the judgement. No reincarnation there.
That answer your question The Blue Meanie? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it answers my question. Well, I've said this before and I'll say it again:-what evidence do you have for your belief that the Bible is such an infallible guide? How do you know it hasn't been edited, censored, and generally mucked about with? You might quibble over the textual analyses I quoted in the 'life after death' thread, but you can't argue with the existance of the Apocrypha.
The Blue Meanie's perspective on this would be that the Bible originally did advocate reincarnation, but most references were edited out for socio-political reasons...
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Show me the last time I have told you that you were going to hell. You are alone in the smiting department sir.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fight! Fight!
Actually, I'm glad to hear that, NoahJ. I hate the callous arrogance of the 'you're going to hell' stance taken by so many 'true believers'.
Exercise In Frivolity - maybe we should cut NoahJ a little slack. He may be blinkered (sorry, Noah), in-your-face, and very, very persistant, but he is at least polite, so maybe he deserves the same courtesy in return.
Yes, it answers my question. Well, I've said this before and I'll say it again:-what evidence do you have for your belief that the Bible is such an infallible guide? How do you know it hasn't been edited, censored, and generally mucked about with?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I have stated before, if you don't like the way that the bible has been translated or feel something has been left out, we have documents that date back over 2000 years that you can cross refrence them with. I am sure that the translations we have are based on the translators view of how the word in the greek or hebrew should be translated. That is why there are such things as Concordances and the like. So you can dig in, find out what the origional word was and decide for yourself if you agree what the translation came down to. Most will not do this out of expediency, but many have, and so far I have not seen any that stood out as, "Boy is this translation a load of crap." Most have been, "Well, that could be seen that way, but a more accurate translation would have been..." And it did not necessarily change the meaning, just the way it was presented making it easier to understand.
[quote]<strong>You might quibble over the textual analyses I quoted in the 'life after death' thread, but you can't argue with the existance of the Apocrypha.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I believe I did quibble a bit. No, I do not argue about the existance of the apocrypha. I have not actually read it (cannot seem to get a copy to read, must not be trying hard enough), so I cannot speak much to what is in it. Sorry.
[quote]<strong>The Blue Meanie's perspective on this would be that the Bible originally did advocatereincarnation, but most references were edited out for socio-political reasons...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What evidence do you have that this is the case? Any texts that show this, or is it just that you would like it to be the case and it fits your argument? Any old dcouments, or maybe in the dead sea scrolls? I have seen nothing that backs this up anywhere in the scriptures or associated docuemnts. Not trying to be a pain, if you have proof or evidence, please share it.
Actually, I'm glad to hear that, NoahJ. I hate the callous arrogance of the 'you're going to hell' stance taken by so many 'true believers'.
Exercise In Frivolity - maybe we should cut NoahJ a little slack. He may be blinkered (sorry, Noah), in-your-face, and very, very persistant, but he is at least polite, so maybe he deserves the same courtesy in return.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He couldn't do that. He's hellbound in his determination that I shut up and go away.
(This was a joke for those with no sense of humor, y'know sarcasm and all.)
Actually, I'm glad to hear that, NoahJ. I hate the callous arrogance of the 'you're going to hell' stance taken by so many 'true believers'.
Exercise In Frivolity - maybe we should cut NoahJ a little slack. He may be blinkered (sorry, Noah), in-your-face, and very, very persistant, but he is at least polite, so maybe he deserves the same courtesy in return.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He doesn't have to say that I'm going to hell. All he has to say is that he believes the bible to be the truth. The bible explicitly states that all non-believers go to hell. a = b; b = c --> a = c. Saying he believes in the bible is tantamount to saying I'm going to hell.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
He doesn't have to say that I'm going to hell. All he has to say is that he believes the bible to be the truth. The bible explicitly states that all non-believers go to hell. a = b; b = c --> a = c. Saying he believes in the bible is tantamount to saying I'm going to hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exercise why are you still talking to NoahJ???
I stopped a while ago... Since NoahJ needs only faith to support his beliefs... he doesnt need to apply his beliefs to any external reasoning... you cant win a conversation against a person whos only basis for reasoning is so maliable and self determined ... You and NoahJ will be caught in an infinite loop... Exercise, You began to repeat yourself along time ago in this thread... why are you still making the same mistake over and over again? As I noted earlier in either this thread or another of NoahJs threads, their is no need for me to get angry or invest my emotions into this converstaion... I realized this after I began to loop over and over myself...
I know its hard not to have the last word Exercise but you'll be better for it...
Dont get caught in the infinite loop...
I harbor no ill-will or like-feelings towards NoahJ, I disagree with him and simply have found that...
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
He doesn't have to say that I'm going to hell. All he has to say is that he believes the bible to be the truth. The bible explicitly states that all non-believers go to hell. a = b; b = c --> a = c. Saying he believes in the bible is tantamount to saying I'm going to hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I believe in the bible and that it is truth. I believe that what the bible has to say about salvation is true. I do not believe that anything that I say or do will make you more or less likely to go to hell or heaven. That is based on your choices, solely. God will make all final determinations. I just pass on information as asked or challenged. Any judgments I make about you or anyone else is my own solely and has no bearing on what reality may or may not be.
What I cannot understand is why you have such a problem with someone believing they have found truth. How exactly does that harm YOU? Note the word harm and the word you. If it upsets you, you are not harmed. If it causes you pain physically or causes you to lose your job or your life, you are. So how does it harm you? really?
What evidence do you have that this is the case? Any texts that show this, or is it just that you would like it to be the case and it fits your argument? Any old dcouments, or maybe in the dead sea scrolls? I have seen nothing that backs this up anywhere in the scriptures or associated docuemnts. Not trying to be a pain, if you have proof or evidence, please share it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Censorship is not the same as translation. Censorship means leaving things out
So, no, there isn't much in the way of hard evidence of my assertion that the Bible originally taught reincarnation. But then, if you think about it, there wouldn't be, would there? (But then again, Jesus' statement that people need to be "born again" in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven comes pretty close, doesn't it?)
But there is plenty of historical evidence for the Bible texts having being edited and interfered with. Let me quote that passage I from "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" again:-
[quote] The more one studies the Gospels, the more the contradictions between them become apparent. Indeed they do not even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. According to John?s Gospel, the Crucifixion occurred on the day before the Passover. According to the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew, it occurred on the day after. Nor are the Gospels in accord on the personality and character of Jesus. Each depicts a Jesus who is patently at odds with the figure depicted in the others - a meek, lamblike saviour in Luke, for example, a powerful and majestic sovereign in Matthew who comes ?not to bring peace but a sword?. And there is further disagreement about Jesus? last words on the cross. In Matthew and Mark these words are, ?My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?? In Luke they are, ?Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit?. And in John, they are simply, ?It is finished?.
Given these discrepancies, the Gospels can only be accepted a highly questionable authority, and certainly not as definitive. They do not represent the perfect word of any God; or, if they do, God?s words have been very liberally censored, edited, revised, glossed and rewritten by human hands. The Bible, it must be remembered ? and this applies to both the Old and New Testaments - is only a selection of works, and in many respects, a somewhat arbitrary one. In fact, it could well include far more books and writings than it actually does. Nor is there any question of the missing books having been ?lost?. On the contrary, they were deliberately excluded. In AD 367 Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria compiled a list of works to be included in the New Testament. This list was ratified by the Church Council of Hippo in 393 adn again by the Council of Carthage four years later. At these councils a selection was agreed upon. Certain works were assembled to form the New Testament as we know it today, and others were cavalierly ignored. How can such a process of selection possibly be regarded as definitive? How could a conclave of clerics infallibly decide that certain books ?belonged? in the Bible while others did not? Especially when some of these excluded books have a perfectly valid claim to historical veracity?
As it exists today, moreover, the Bible is not only a product of a more or less arbitrary selection process, it has also been subjected to some fairly drastic editing, censorship and revision. In 1958, for example, Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered, in monastery near Jerusalem, a letter containing missing fragment of the Gospel of Mark. The missing fragment had not been lost. On the contrary, it had apparently been deliberately suppressed - at the institutioon, if not the express behest, of Bishop Clement of of Alexandria, one of the most venerated of the early Church fathers.
(There follows an account of Clement?s dispute with an heretical Gnostic sect called the Carpocratians, and several long quotes from a letter sent by Clement to someone called Theodore who had been persecuting the sect and had written to the bishop about this. At one point in the letter, Clement quotes the following passage from the Gospel of Mark:
?And they came into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And, coming, she prostrated himself before Jesus and says to him, ?Son of David, have mercy upon me?. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.?
The authors continue:
This episode appears in no existing versions of the Gospel of Mark. In its general outlines, however, it is familiar enough. It is, of course, the raising of Lazarus, described i the Fourth Gospe, ascribed to John. In the version quoted, however, there are some significant variations........it is....likely that the whole episode refers to a typical mystery school initiation - a ritualised and symbolic death and rebirth of the sort so prevalent in the Middle East at the time.
In any case the point is that the episode, and the passage quoted above, do not appear in any modern or accepted version of Mark. Indeed the only references to Lazarus or a Lazarus figure in the New Testament are in the Gospel ascribed to John.......Quite simply the entire Lazarus incident was completely excised from the Gospel of Mark.<hr></blockquote>
(ps. 333-337)
And anyway, NoahJ, why is reincarnation so verboten in your little world view? Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense of an unjust world than some vague and mystical blood sacrifice?
<strong>Censorship is not the same as translation. Censorship means leaving things out
So, no, there isn't much in the way of hard evidence of my assertion that the Bible originally taught reincarnation. But then, if you think about it, there wouldn't be, would there? (But then again, Jesus' statement that people need to be "born again" in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven comes pretty close, doesn't it?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is enough in the bible that is completely contrary to reincarnation that it cannot support both views.
Let us look at the context of Jesus statement about being born again shall we.
John 3 1-15
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
The appropriate portion has been italicised. HE is not speaking of a literal physical rebirth. It is a spiritual rebirth that happens on the spot, not in the next life.
Also we have already covered the passage you posted. I had refuted all the points and those that you do not cosider refuted we have already basically agreed to disagree upon. In other words, I give it no more weight in this argument than I did in the other.
[quote]<strong>And anyway, NoahJ, why is reincarnation so verboten in your little world view? Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense of an unjust world than some vague and mystical blood sacrifice?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not verboten in and of itself. Reincarnation is not accepted by Christianity for the reason that it removes the need for the existance of God and grace. If we are given as many lifetimes as are needed to correct all our mistakes and make ourselves enlightened why is there a need for God at all? Why would we need to correct anything really? Where do new people come from as well? If all you have is other people simply recycling from past lives why is the population growing? IF you say it is because new souls are born, where do they come from? If they come from God then why do we need reincarnation if God has given us a way to come to him all at once rather than over a period of thousands of lifetimes?
Obviously I am not getting reincarntion absolutely correct and I am sure you can correct me on the finer points I am missing. But overall since it is not in the scritpures you cannot just put it there, so it is not accepted. The bible is the basis on which the Christian faith is built. If reincarntion is not there, it is not right.
Most ancient religions refer to reincarnation, including early Judaism and the mystical traditions of the Qabbalah. Evidence exists that Jesus traveled widely between the ages of 12 and 30, visiting places (Nepal, Tibet, India etc) where reincarnation was/is an essential part of the doctrine i.e. Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, and he would have been surrounded by that teaching. In fact there wasn't a faith in the regions in which Jesus grew up, explored and ultimately ministered that *didn't* involve reincarnation in the doctrines.
There are plenty of references that refer to John the Baptist being the reincarnated soul of Elijah:
Here's some from a 2 minute search in "alltheweb.com", and some other random quotes many of which appear to refer to the reincarnated spirit.
"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1)
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets".
Matthew 16:13-14
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5)
But the angel said to him "do not be afraid, Zechariah; your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John?And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power
of Elijah?to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
(Luke 1:13,17)
And his disciples asked him saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them; Elias truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
(Matthew 17:10-13)
"This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist........ he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear."
(Matthew 11:11-15)
Three more quotes of Jesus to his disciples:
"But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."
(Mark 9:13)
"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come."
(Matt 11:13-14)
"But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him?" Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. (Matt 17:12-13)
This little passage looks highly suspect!!!
As he went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2)
St. John likely referred to reincarnation in
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."
Revelation 3:12:
Paul in Corinthians:
But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."
(1 Corinthians 15:35-38)
"And they asked him, What then? Are thou Elias?
And he saith, I am not. Are thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who are thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 1:21,23
In the following passage in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus explains the reason why the spirit does not "re-use" a body. Using the metaphor of vestures and vessels of clay represented by cloth and bottles.
"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up
taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved Matthew 9: 16,17
In the book of Job:
And of Job it was said that he was the same person once known as Thara, the father of Abraham; by which they explained the verse of Job (9:21), "Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my own soul," to mean that he would not recognize himself as Thara.
Also
"If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
(Job 14:14-15)
Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?
Psalm 85:6
And they answered him, He was an hairy man and girt with a girdle of leather around his loins- And he said, it is Elijah the Tishbite
II Kings 1:8
Though they dig into "hell" (seol), thence mine hand take them; though they climpb up to heaven,
thence will I bring them down
Amos 9:2
The Zohar is a work of great weight and authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that "all souls are subject to revolutions."
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Most ancient religions refer to reincarnation, including early Judaism and the mystical traditions of the Qabbalah. Evidence exists that Jesus traveled widely between the ages of 12 and 30, visiting places (Nepal, Tibet, India etc) where reincarnation was/is an essential part of the doctrine i.e. Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, and he would have been surrounded by that teaching. In fact there wasn't a faith in the regions in which Jesus grew up, explored and ultimately ministered that *didn't* involve reincarnation in the doctrines.
There are plenty of references that refer to John the Baptist being the reincarnated soul of Elijah:
Here's some from a 2 minute search in "alltheweb.com", and some other random quotes many of which appear to refer to the reincarnated spirit.
"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1)
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets".
Matthew 16:13-14
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5)
But the angel said to him "do not be afraid, Zechariah; your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John?And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power
of Elijah?to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
(Luke 1:13,17)
And his disciples asked him saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them; Elias truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
(Matthew 17:10-13)
"This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist........ he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear."
(Matthew 11:11-15)
Three more quotes of Jesus to his disciples:
"But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."
(Mark 9:13)
"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come."
(Matt 11:13-14)
"But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him?" Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. (Matt 17:12-13)
This little passage looks highly suspect!!!
As he went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2)
St. John likely referred to reincarnation in
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."
Revelation 3:12:
Paul in Corinthians:
But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."
(1 Corinthians 15:35-38)
"And they asked him, What then? Are thou Elias?
And he saith, I am not. Are thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who are thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 1:21,23
In the following passage in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus explains the reason why the spirit does not "re-use" a body. Using the metaphor of vestures and vessels of clay represented by cloth and bottles.
"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up
taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved Matthew 9: 16,17
In the book of Job:
And of Job it was said that he was the same person once known as Thara, the father of Abraham; by which they explained the verse of Job (9:21), "Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my own soul," to mean that he would not recognize himself as Thara.
Also
"If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
(Job 14:14-15)
Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?
Psalm 85:6
And they answered him, He was an hairy man and girt with a girdle of leather around his loins- And he said, it is Elijah the Tishbite
II Kings 1:8
Though they dig into "hell" (seol), thence mine hand take them; though they climpb up to heaven,
thence will I bring them down
Amos 9:2
The Zohar is a work of great weight and authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that "all souls are subject to revolutions."
Well done, SJO ? (without wishing to sound like a creep) another excellent post :cool: I read up on this subject years ago but I couldn't remember the fine details. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, NoahJ!
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
It is not verboten in and of itself. Reincarnation is not accepted by Christianity for the reason that it removes the need for the existance of God and grace. If we are given as many lifetimes as are needed to correct all our mistakes and make ourselves enlightened why is there a need for God at all? Why would we need to correct anything really? Where do new people come from as well? If all you have is other people simply recycling from past lives why is the population growing? IF you say it is because new souls are born, where do they come from? If they come from God then why do we need reincarnation if God has given us a way to come to him all at once rather than over a period of thousands of lifetimes?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We'll obviously disagree on the need for this nebulous concept called 'Grace', but God is a different matter. I don't see how the concept of reincarnation contradicts the idea of God? Surely reincarnation inherently implies a spiritual dimension to existance? I'm a little puzzled - you're talking about God as if His/ Her/ Its existance somehow depends on our need for God. Assuming that there is a God (as you know, I believe like you that there is), doesn't God just exist, regardless of our perspectives and needs?
[quote] Why would we need to correct anything really? <hr></blockquote>
That's a very good question. Exactly my point. Your starting point for every argument seems to be your little box of Christian dogma. When you are presented with any other ideas, you reject them because they don't correlate with your original set of beliefs, without ever questioning these beliefs to start with. It's a circular argument.
From my limited understanding of the subject, I see reincarnation as about experience, about growing, spiritually evolving and becoming a wiser person. Part of this responsibility is learning to stand on our own two feet. That can't happen if we surrunder all responsibility for our actions to some omipotent father deity.
[quote] If all you have is other people simply recycling from past lives why is the population growing? <hr></blockquote>
We don't know how many dimensions there are to the universe, we don't know how many places in the universe people can undergo incarnations, we don't know (to be blunty simplistic) how many "souls" there are. If the concept of spirit means anything, it means something unending and infinite. It can't be reduced to statistics.
[quote] If they come from God then why do we need reincarnation if God has given us a way to come to him all at once rather than over a period of thousands of lifetimes?<hr></blockquote>
In other words, why do we need reincarnation when all we have to do is accept Jesus as "saviour"? This is the same kind of circular argument. How do we know that God has given us this way to come to him all at once, when the Bible seems to be a censored and self-contradictory compendium of much later interpretations of what Jesus said and did?
[quote] Also we have already covered the passage you posted. I had refuted all the points
<hr></blockquote>
With all due respect, Noah my Bible-thumping chum, you didn't. You disputed the author's interpretations of a few gospel passages but I seem to remember our esteemed mod Belle then taking you to task with some inconvenient facts. Your answer to the rest of the points raised in the quoted passage (most of which are points of historical fact, not opinions) was that the authors must be making it all up. Hardly an adequate answer...
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Most ancient religions refer to reincarnation, including early Judaism and the mystical traditions of the Qabbalah. Evidence exists that Jesus traveled widely between the ages of 12 and 30, visiting places (Nepal, Tibet, India etc) where reincarnation was/is an essential part of the doctrine i.e. Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, and he would have been surrounded by that teaching. In fact there wasn't a faith in the regions in which Jesus grew up, explored and ultimately ministered that *didn't* involve reincarnation in the doctrines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the passages you are about to quote do not necessarily back your argument. Taken out of context you could argue all day about what they mean and both could be seen as right. Take them in context and it becomes harder to argue that they are for reincarnation as a general fact of life for all people.
[quote]<strong>There are plenty of references that refer to John the Baptist being the reincarnated soul of Elijah:
Here's some from a 2 minute search in "alltheweb.com", and some other random quotes many of which appear to refer to the reincarnated spirit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, let me give you this point. And TBM you too. There are passages which speak of the people in that time believing in reincarnation. However, there is no evidence in itself that reincarnation actually happened. Just because the people of the times believed in it, does not make it a fact. I also believe that Jesus dispelled the myth of reincarnation in his teachings.
[quote]<strong>"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1) </strong><hr></blockquote>
This points to reincarnation how?
[quote]<strong>"When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets".
Matthew 16:13-14</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, Just because people believed it does not mean that it was fact. The Blue Meanie believes that reincarnation is a fact, but it lends no more credence to his belief just because he believes it.
[quote]<strong>"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5)
But the angel said to him "do not be afraid, Zechariah; your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John?And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah?to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
(Luke 1:13,17) </strong><hr></blockquote>
In the spirit and power of Elijah. I am assuming that this is the part of the passage that you are pointing to. This was likely said to her in reference to the other passage. Your sources choose to see it as an argument for reincarnation, I see it as evidence that prophecy is real, and that the Angel was specifically quoting that prophecy to let the woman know what her child was to be, and also that the prophecy was fulfilled in that child.
[you posted more passages in the same vein]
[quote]<strong>This little passage looks highly suspect!!!
As he went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2) </strong>[/quote
Once more, just because they believed it does not make it so. Just to keep the passage in context:
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
[quote]<strong>St. John likely referred to reincarnation in
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."
Revelation 3:12:</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once more, in context:
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. 11I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. 13He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
This was in the letter to the church of Philadelphia. The only church in all the letters that had nothing against them before God. God was telling them that he saw this and would make them a "pillar of his temple" in heaven. How does this refer to reincarnation exactly?
[quote]<strong>Paul in Corinthians:
But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."
He is most obviously speaking of a spiritual rebirth, not a physical one.
[quote]<strong>"And they asked him, What then? Are thou Elias?
And he saith, I am not. Are thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who are thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 1:21,23 </strong><hr></blockquote>
Once more, never said he wsa elijah, only that he was the one that was prophesied that would come before Jesus did.
[quote]<strong>In the following passage in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus explains the reason why the spirit does not "re-use" a body. Using the metaphor of vestures and vessels of clay represented by cloth and bottles.
"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved Matthew 9: 16,17 </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is also speaking spiritually. The "old man" or sin nature must die before the "new man" can effectively be put into place. It has to be a complete spiritual rebirth, you cannot just patch over or try to keep your sinful nature and be a new creation all at once. Sounds a bit like reincarnation, but without the whole physical death and coming back again. It happens in one lifetime and then you are done. If you get it wrong, game over.
[quote]<strong>[many more passages that say many of the same things]
The Zohar is a work of great weight and authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that "all souls are subject to revolutions."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is the entire quote in context?
My engine is subject to revolutions, as was France as well... (just a little joke to lighten things up.)
<strong>We'll obviously disagree on the need for this nebulous concept called 'Grace', but God is a different matter. I don't see how the concept of reincarnation contradicts the idea of God? Surely reincarnation inherently implies a spiritual dimension to existance? I'm a little puzzled - you're talking about God as if His/ Her/ Its existance somehow depends on our need for God. Assuming that there is a God (as you know, I believe like you that there is), doesn't God just exist, regardless of our perspectives and needs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, God exists whether we believe it or not, and whether we think we need him or not. But since God and His Son Jesus went out of their way to bring about grace and redemption I cannot and will not disregard it. Like God grace "just exist[s], regardless of our perspectives and needs". Because he made it so.
[quote]<strong>That's a very good question. Exactly my point. Your starting point for every argument seems to be your little box of Christian dogma. When you are presented with any other ideas, you reject them because they don't correlate with your original set of beliefs, without ever questioning these beliefs to start with. It's a circular argument.
From my limited understanding of the subject, I see reincarnation as about experience, about growing, spiritually evolving and becoming a wiser person. Part of this responsibility is learning to stand on our own two feet. That can't happen if we surrunder all responsibility for our actions to some omipotent father deity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I love how my points are invalid because they are my "dogma" and your points are valid because they are yours. Let me point you to a couple of scriptures that I believe sums up my perspective on this part of your argument.
(John 15:5 NKJV) "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Philippians 4
13 I can do everything through him who gives me strength. or translated differently I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
NOt standing on our own two feet here. A whole lot of relying on Christ. And there are more verses to back that up.
[quote]<strong>We don't know how many dimensions there are to the universe, we don't know how many places in the universe people can undergo incarnations, we don't know (to be blunty simplistic) how many "souls" there are. If the concept of spirit means anything, it means something unending and infinite. It can't be reduced to statistics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, I will give you that view. It answers the question as asked.
[quote]<strong>In other words, why do we need reincarnation when all we have to do is accept Jesus as "saviour"? This is the same kind of circular argument. How do we know that God has given us this way to come to him all at once, when the Bible seems to be a censored and self-contradictory compendium of much later interpretations of what Jesus said and did?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Always back to the self-contradictory statement. You'll get nowhere with me on that one. It has no traction here. Sorry.
[quote]<strong>With all due respect, Noah my Bible-thumping chum, you didn't. You disputed the author's interpretations of a few gospel passages but I seem to remember our esteemed mod Belle then taking you to task with some inconvenient facts. Your answer to the rest of the points raised in the quoted passage (most of which are points of historical fact, not opinions) was that the authors must be making it all up. Hardly an adequate answer...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets put my original phrase back up so that there are not any misunderstandings or mis-interpretations.
Also we have already covered the passage you posted. I had refuted all the points and those that you do not cosider refuted we have already basically agreed to disagree upon. In other words, I give it no more weight in this argument than I did in the other.
I italicised the part that really says it all.
Let me finish off by asking you this one question. Why is it so important to you that I believe you that reincarnation is real. If it is, I will reincarnate and have another go in my next life right? Maybe then I will get it? So why argue with me about it, my life is not hanging in the balance, nor its yours by your viewpoint.
Comments
<strong>
Here is where I disagree. Reincarnation is false by what is written in the bible. It is appointed for man once to die and then the judgement. No reincarnation there.
That answer your question The Blue Meanie?
Yes, it answers my question. Well, I've said this before and I'll say it again:-what evidence do you have for your belief that the Bible is such an infallible guide? How do you know it hasn't been edited, censored, and generally mucked about with? You might quibble over the textual analyses I quoted in the 'life after death' thread, but you can't argue with the existance of the Apocrypha.
The Blue Meanie's perspective on this would be that the Bible originally did advocate reincarnation, but most references were edited out for socio-political reasons...
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
"since you do it, it's ok that I do it." Yeah.
Show me the last time I have told you that you were going to hell. You are alone in the smiting department sir.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fight! Fight!
Actually, I'm glad to hear that, NoahJ. I hate the callous arrogance of the 'you're going to hell' stance taken by so many 'true believers'.
Exercise In Frivolity - maybe we should cut NoahJ a little slack. He may be blinkered (sorry, Noah), in-your-face, and very, very persistant, but he is at least polite, so maybe he deserves the same courtesy in return.
<strong>
<strong>
Yes, it answers my question. Well, I've said this before and I'll say it again:-what evidence do you have for your belief that the Bible is such an infallible guide? How do you know it hasn't been edited, censored, and generally mucked about with?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I have stated before, if you don't like the way that the bible has been translated or feel something has been left out, we have documents that date back over 2000 years that you can cross refrence them with. I am sure that the translations we have are based on the translators view of how the word in the greek or hebrew should be translated. That is why there are such things as Concordances and the like. So you can dig in, find out what the origional word was and decide for yourself if you agree what the translation came down to. Most will not do this out of expediency, but many have, and so far I have not seen any that stood out as, "Boy is this translation a load of crap." Most have been, "Well, that could be seen that way, but a more accurate translation would have been..." And it did not necessarily change the meaning, just the way it was presented making it easier to understand.
[quote]<strong>You might quibble over the textual analyses I quoted in the 'life after death' thread, but you can't argue with the existance of the Apocrypha.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I believe I did quibble a bit.
[quote]<strong>The Blue Meanie's perspective on this would be that the Bible originally did advocatereincarnation, but most references were edited out for socio-political reasons...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What evidence do you have that this is the case? Any texts that show this, or is it just that you would like it to be the case and it fits your argument? Any old dcouments, or maybe in the dead sea scrolls? I have seen nothing that backs this up anywhere in the scriptures or associated docuemnts. Not trying to be a pain, if you have proof or evidence, please share it.
<strong>
Fight! Fight!
Actually, I'm glad to hear that, NoahJ. I hate the callous arrogance of the 'you're going to hell' stance taken by so many 'true believers'.
Exercise In Frivolity - maybe we should cut NoahJ a little slack. He may be blinkered (sorry, Noah), in-your-face, and very, very persistant, but he is at least polite, so maybe he deserves the same courtesy in return.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He couldn't do that. He's hellbound in his determination that I shut up and go away.
(This was a joke for those with no sense of humor, y'know sarcasm and all.)
<strong>
Fight! Fight!
Actually, I'm glad to hear that, NoahJ. I hate the callous arrogance of the 'you're going to hell' stance taken by so many 'true believers'.
Exercise In Frivolity - maybe we should cut NoahJ a little slack. He may be blinkered (sorry, Noah), in-your-face, and very, very persistant, but he is at least polite, so maybe he deserves the same courtesy in return.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He doesn't have to say that I'm going to hell. All he has to say is that he believes the bible to be the truth. The bible explicitly states that all non-believers go to hell. a = b; b = c --> a = c. Saying he believes in the bible is tantamount to saying I'm going to hell.
<strong>
He doesn't have to say that I'm going to hell. All he has to say is that he believes the bible to be the truth. The bible explicitly states that all non-believers go to hell. a = b; b = c --> a = c. Saying he believes in the bible is tantamount to saying I'm going to hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exercise why are you still talking to NoahJ???
I stopped a while ago... Since NoahJ needs only faith to support his beliefs... he doesnt need to apply his beliefs to any external reasoning... you cant win a conversation against a person whos only basis for reasoning is so maliable and self determined ... You and NoahJ will be caught in an infinite loop... Exercise, You began to repeat yourself along time ago in this thread... why are you still making the same mistake over and over again? As I noted earlier in either this thread or another of NoahJs threads, their is no need for me to get angry or invest my emotions into this converstaion... I realized this after I began to loop over and over myself...
I know its hard not to have the last word Exercise but you'll be better for it...
Dont get caught in the infinite loop...
I harbor no ill-will or like-feelings towards NoahJ, I disagree with him and simply have found that...
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/goodbye.wav"; target="_blank">HAL9000...</a>
will suffice...
------------------------------------
© FERRO 2001-2002
[edited for poor message construction]
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
<strong>
He doesn't have to say that I'm going to hell. All he has to say is that he believes the bible to be the truth. The bible explicitly states that all non-believers go to hell. a = b; b = c --> a = c. Saying he believes in the bible is tantamount to saying I'm going to hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I believe in the bible and that it is truth. I believe that what the bible has to say about salvation is true. I do not believe that anything that I say or do will make you more or less likely to go to hell or heaven. That is based on your choices, solely. God will make all final determinations. I just pass on information as asked or challenged. Any judgments I make about you or anyone else is my own solely and has no bearing on what reality may or may not be.
What I cannot understand is why you have such a problem with someone believing they have found truth. How exactly does that harm YOU? Note the word harm and the word you. If it upsets you, you are not harmed. If it causes you pain physically or causes you to lose your job or your life, you are. So how does it harm you? really?
<strong>
What evidence do you have that this is the case? Any texts that show this, or is it just that you would like it to be the case and it fits your argument? Any old dcouments, or maybe in the dead sea scrolls? I have seen nothing that backs this up anywhere in the scriptures or associated docuemnts. Not trying to be a pain, if you have proof or evidence, please share it.
Censorship is not the same as translation. Censorship means leaving things out
So, no, there isn't much in the way of hard evidence of my assertion that the Bible originally taught reincarnation. But then, if you think about it, there wouldn't be, would there? (But then again, Jesus' statement that people need to be "born again" in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven comes pretty close, doesn't it?)
But there is plenty of historical evidence for the Bible texts having being edited and interfered with. Let me quote that passage I from "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" again:-
[quote] The more one studies the Gospels, the more the contradictions between them become apparent. Indeed they do not even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. According to John?s Gospel, the Crucifixion occurred on the day before the Passover. According to the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew, it occurred on the day after. Nor are the Gospels in accord on the personality and character of Jesus. Each depicts a Jesus who is patently at odds with the figure depicted in the others - a meek, lamblike saviour in Luke, for example, a powerful and majestic sovereign in Matthew who comes ?not to bring peace but a sword?. And there is further disagreement about Jesus? last words on the cross. In Matthew and Mark these words are, ?My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?? In Luke they are, ?Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit?. And in John, they are simply, ?It is finished?.
Given these discrepancies, the Gospels can only be accepted a highly questionable authority, and certainly not as definitive. They do not represent the perfect word of any God; or, if they do, God?s words have been very liberally censored, edited, revised, glossed and rewritten by human hands. The Bible, it must be remembered ? and this applies to both the Old and New Testaments - is only a selection of works, and in many respects, a somewhat arbitrary one. In fact, it could well include far more books and writings than it actually does. Nor is there any question of the missing books having been ?lost?. On the contrary, they were deliberately excluded. In AD 367 Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria compiled a list of works to be included in the New Testament. This list was ratified by the Church Council of Hippo in 393 adn again by the Council of Carthage four years later. At these councils a selection was agreed upon. Certain works were assembled to form the New Testament as we know it today, and others were cavalierly ignored. How can such a process of selection possibly be regarded as definitive? How could a conclave of clerics infallibly decide that certain books ?belonged? in the Bible while others did not? Especially when some of these excluded books have a perfectly valid claim to historical veracity?
As it exists today, moreover, the Bible is not only a product of a more or less arbitrary selection process, it has also been subjected to some fairly drastic editing, censorship and revision. In 1958, for example, Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered, in monastery near Jerusalem, a letter containing missing fragment of the Gospel of Mark. The missing fragment had not been lost. On the contrary, it had apparently been deliberately suppressed - at the institutioon, if not the express behest, of Bishop Clement of of Alexandria, one of the most venerated of the early Church fathers.
(There follows an account of Clement?s dispute with an heretical Gnostic sect called the Carpocratians, and several long quotes from a letter sent by Clement to someone called Theodore who had been persecuting the sect and had written to the bishop about this. At one point in the letter, Clement quotes the following passage from the Gospel of Mark:
?And they came into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And, coming, she prostrated himself before Jesus and says to him, ?Son of David, have mercy upon me?. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.?
The authors continue:
This episode appears in no existing versions of the Gospel of Mark. In its general outlines, however, it is familiar enough. It is, of course, the raising of Lazarus, described i the Fourth Gospe, ascribed to John. In the version quoted, however, there are some significant variations........it is....likely that the whole episode refers to a typical mystery school initiation - a ritualised and symbolic death and rebirth of the sort so prevalent in the Middle East at the time.
In any case the point is that the episode, and the passage quoted above, do not appear in any modern or accepted version of Mark. Indeed the only references to Lazarus or a Lazarus figure in the New Testament are in the Gospel ascribed to John.......Quite simply the entire Lazarus incident was completely excised from the Gospel of Mark.<hr></blockquote>
(ps. 333-337)
And anyway, NoahJ, why is reincarnation so verboten in your little world view? Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense of an unjust world than some vague and mystical blood sacrifice?
<strong>Censorship is not the same as translation. Censorship means leaving things out
So, no, there isn't much in the way of hard evidence of my assertion that the Bible originally taught reincarnation. But then, if you think about it, there wouldn't be, would there? (But then again, Jesus' statement that people need to be "born again" in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven comes pretty close, doesn't it?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is enough in the bible that is completely contrary to reincarnation that it cannot support both views.
Let us look at the context of Jesus statement about being born again shall we.
John 3 1-15
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
The appropriate portion has been italicised. HE is not speaking of a literal physical rebirth. It is a spiritual rebirth that happens on the spot, not in the next life.
Also we have already covered the passage you posted. I had refuted all the points and those that you do not cosider refuted we have already basically agreed to disagree upon. In other words, I give it no more weight in this argument than I did in the other.
[quote]<strong>And anyway, NoahJ, why is reincarnation so verboten in your little world view? Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense of an unjust world than some vague and mystical blood sacrifice?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not verboten in and of itself. Reincarnation is not accepted by Christianity for the reason that it removes the need for the existance of God and grace. If we are given as many lifetimes as are needed to correct all our mistakes and make ourselves enlightened why is there a need for God at all? Why would we need to correct anything really? Where do new people come from as well? If all you have is other people simply recycling from past lives why is the population growing? IF you say it is because new souls are born, where do they come from? If they come from God then why do we need reincarnation if God has given us a way to come to him all at once rather than over a period of thousands of lifetimes?
Obviously I am not getting reincarntion absolutely correct and I am sure you can correct me on the finer points I am missing. But overall since it is not in the scritpures you cannot just put it there, so it is not accepted. The bible is the basis on which the Christian faith is built. If reincarntion is not there, it is not right.
There are plenty of references that refer to John the Baptist being the reincarnated soul of Elijah:
Here's some from a 2 minute search in "alltheweb.com", and some other random quotes many of which appear to refer to the reincarnated spirit.
"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1)
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets".
Matthew 16:13-14
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5)
But the angel said to him "do not be afraid, Zechariah; your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John?And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power
of Elijah?to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
(Luke 1:13,17)
And his disciples asked him saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them; Elias truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
(Matthew 17:10-13)
"This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist........ he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear."
(Matthew 11:11-15)
Three more quotes of Jesus to his disciples:
"But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."
(Mark 9:13)
"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come."
(Matt 11:13-14)
"But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him?" Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. (Matt 17:12-13)
This little passage looks highly suspect!!!
As he went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2)
St. John likely referred to reincarnation in
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."
Revelation 3:12:
Paul in Corinthians:
But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."
(1 Corinthians 15:35-38)
"And they asked him, What then? Are thou Elias?
And he saith, I am not. Are thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who are thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 1:21,23
In the following passage in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus explains the reason why the spirit does not "re-use" a body. Using the metaphor of vestures and vessels of clay represented by cloth and bottles.
"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up
taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved Matthew 9: 16,17
In the book of Job:
And of Job it was said that he was the same person once known as Thara, the father of Abraham; by which they explained the verse of Job (9:21), "Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my own soul," to mean that he would not recognize himself as Thara.
Also
"If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
(Job 14:14-15)
Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?
Psalm 85:6
And they answered him, He was an hairy man and girt with a girdle of leather around his loins- And he said, it is Elijah the Tishbite
II Kings 1:8
Though they dig into "hell" (seol), thence mine hand take them; though they climpb up to heaven,
thence will I bring them down
Amos 9:2
The Zohar is a work of great weight and authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that "all souls are subject to revolutions."
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>Most ancient religions refer to reincarnation, including early Judaism and the mystical traditions of the Qabbalah. Evidence exists that Jesus traveled widely between the ages of 12 and 30, visiting places (Nepal, Tibet, India etc) where reincarnation was/is an essential part of the doctrine i.e. Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, and he would have been surrounded by that teaching. In fact there wasn't a faith in the regions in which Jesus grew up, explored and ultimately ministered that *didn't* involve reincarnation in the doctrines.
There are plenty of references that refer to John the Baptist being the reincarnated soul of Elijah:
Here's some from a 2 minute search in "alltheweb.com", and some other random quotes many of which appear to refer to the reincarnated spirit.
"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1)
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets".
Matthew 16:13-14
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5)
But the angel said to him "do not be afraid, Zechariah; your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John?And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power
of Elijah?to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
(Luke 1:13,17)
And his disciples asked him saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them; Elias truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
(Matthew 17:10-13)
"This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist........ he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear."
(Matthew 11:11-15)
Three more quotes of Jesus to his disciples:
"But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."
(Mark 9:13)
"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come."
(Matt 11:13-14)
"But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him?" Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. (Matt 17:12-13)
This little passage looks highly suspect!!!
As he went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2)
St. John likely referred to reincarnation in
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."
Revelation 3:12:
Paul in Corinthians:
But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."
(1 Corinthians 15:35-38)
"And they asked him, What then? Are thou Elias?
And he saith, I am not. Are thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who are thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 1:21,23
In the following passage in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus explains the reason why the spirit does not "re-use" a body. Using the metaphor of vestures and vessels of clay represented by cloth and bottles.
"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up
taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved Matthew 9: 16,17
In the book of Job:
And of Job it was said that he was the same person once known as Thara, the father of Abraham; by which they explained the verse of Job (9:21), "Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my own soul," to mean that he would not recognize himself as Thara.
Also
"If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
(Job 14:14-15)
Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?
Psalm 85:6
And they answered him, He was an hairy man and girt with a girdle of leather around his loins- And he said, it is Elijah the Tishbite
II Kings 1:8
Though they dig into "hell" (seol), thence mine hand take them; though they climpb up to heaven,
thence will I bring them down
Amos 9:2
The Zohar is a work of great weight and authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that "all souls are subject to revolutions."
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well done, SJO ? (without wishing to sound like a creep) another excellent post :cool: I read up on this subject years ago but I couldn't remember the fine details. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, NoahJ!
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
It is not verboten in and of itself. Reincarnation is not accepted by Christianity for the reason that it removes the need for the existance of God and grace. If we are given as many lifetimes as are needed to correct all our mistakes and make ourselves enlightened why is there a need for God at all? Why would we need to correct anything really? Where do new people come from as well? If all you have is other people simply recycling from past lives why is the population growing? IF you say it is because new souls are born, where do they come from? If they come from God then why do we need reincarnation if God has given us a way to come to him all at once rather than over a period of thousands of lifetimes?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We'll obviously disagree on the need for this nebulous concept called 'Grace', but God is a different matter. I don't see how the concept of reincarnation contradicts the idea of God? Surely reincarnation inherently implies a spiritual dimension to existance? I'm a little puzzled - you're talking about God as if His/ Her/ Its existance somehow depends on our need for God. Assuming that there is a God (as you know, I believe like you that there is), doesn't God just exist, regardless of our perspectives and needs?
[quote] Why would we need to correct anything really? <hr></blockquote>
That's a very good question. Exactly my point. Your starting point for every argument seems to be your little box of Christian dogma. When you are presented with any other ideas, you reject them because they don't correlate with your original set of beliefs, without ever questioning these beliefs to start with. It's a circular argument.
From my limited understanding of the subject, I see reincarnation as about experience, about growing, spiritually evolving and becoming a wiser person. Part of this responsibility is learning to stand on our own two feet. That can't happen if we surrunder all responsibility for our actions to some omipotent father deity.
[quote] If all you have is other people simply recycling from past lives why is the population growing? <hr></blockquote>
We don't know how many dimensions there are to the universe, we don't know how many places in the universe people can undergo incarnations, we don't know (to be blunty simplistic) how many "souls" there are. If the concept of spirit means anything, it means something unending and infinite. It can't be reduced to statistics.
[quote] If they come from God then why do we need reincarnation if God has given us a way to come to him all at once rather than over a period of thousands of lifetimes?<hr></blockquote>
In other words, why do we need reincarnation when all we have to do is accept Jesus as "saviour"? This is the same kind of circular argument. How do we know that God has given us this way to come to him all at once, when the Bible seems to be a censored and self-contradictory compendium of much later interpretations of what Jesus said and did?
[quote] Also we have already covered the passage you posted. I had refuted all the points
<hr></blockquote>
With all due respect, Noah my Bible-thumping chum, you didn't. You disputed the author's interpretations of a few gospel passages but I seem to remember our esteemed mod Belle then taking you to task with some inconvenient facts. Your answer to the rest of the points raised in the quoted passage (most of which are points of historical fact, not opinions) was that the authors must be making it all up. Hardly an adequate answer...
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>Most ancient religions refer to reincarnation, including early Judaism and the mystical traditions of the Qabbalah. Evidence exists that Jesus traveled widely between the ages of 12 and 30, visiting places (Nepal, Tibet, India etc) where reincarnation was/is an essential part of the doctrine i.e. Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, and he would have been surrounded by that teaching. In fact there wasn't a faith in the regions in which Jesus grew up, explored and ultimately ministered that *didn't* involve reincarnation in the doctrines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the passages you are about to quote do not necessarily back your argument. Taken out of context you could argue all day about what they mean and both could be seen as right. Take them in context and it becomes harder to argue that they are for reincarnation as a general fact of life for all people.
[quote]<strong>There are plenty of references that refer to John the Baptist being the reincarnated soul of Elijah:
Here's some from a 2 minute search in "alltheweb.com", and some other random quotes many of which appear to refer to the reincarnated spirit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, let me give you this point. And TBM you too. There are passages which speak of the people in that time believing in reincarnation. However, there is no evidence in itself that reincarnation actually happened. Just because the people of the times believed in it, does not make it a fact. I also believe that Jesus dispelled the myth of reincarnation in his teachings.
[quote]<strong>"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1) </strong><hr></blockquote>
This points to reincarnation how?
[quote]<strong>"When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets".
Matthew 16:13-14</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, Just because people believed it does not mean that it was fact. The Blue Meanie believes that reincarnation is a fact, but it lends no more credence to his belief just because he believes it.
[quote]<strong>"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5)
But the angel said to him "do not be afraid, Zechariah; your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John?And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah?to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
(Luke 1:13,17) </strong><hr></blockquote>
In the spirit and power of Elijah. I am assuming that this is the part of the passage that you are pointing to. This was likely said to her in reference to the other passage. Your sources choose to see it as an argument for reincarnation, I see it as evidence that prophecy is real, and that the Angel was specifically quoting that prophecy to let the woman know what her child was to be, and also that the prophecy was fulfilled in that child.
[you posted more passages in the same vein]
[quote]<strong>This little passage looks highly suspect!!!
As he went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2) </strong>[/quote
Once more, just because they believed it does not make it so. Just to keep the passage in context:
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
[quote]<strong>St. John likely referred to reincarnation in
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."
Revelation 3:12:</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once more, in context:
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. 11I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. 13He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
This was in the letter to the church of Philadelphia. The only church in all the letters that had nothing against them before God. God was telling them that he saw this and would make them a "pillar of his temple" in heaven. How does this refer to reincarnation exactly?
[quote]<strong>Paul in Corinthians:
But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."
(1 Corinthians 15:35-38) </strong><hr></blockquote>
He is most obviously speaking of a spiritual rebirth, not a physical one.
[quote]<strong>"And they asked him, What then? Are thou Elias?
And he saith, I am not. Are thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who are thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 1:21,23 </strong><hr></blockquote>
Once more, never said he wsa elijah, only that he was the one that was prophesied that would come before Jesus did.
[quote]<strong>In the following passage in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus explains the reason why the spirit does not "re-use" a body. Using the metaphor of vestures and vessels of clay represented by cloth and bottles.
"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved Matthew 9: 16,17 </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is also speaking spiritually. The "old man" or sin nature must die before the "new man" can effectively be put into place. It has to be a complete spiritual rebirth, you cannot just patch over or try to keep your sinful nature and be a new creation all at once. Sounds a bit like reincarnation, but without the whole physical death and coming back again. It happens in one lifetime and then you are done. If you get it wrong, game over.
[quote]<strong>[many more passages that say many of the same things]
The Zohar is a work of great weight and authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that "all souls are subject to revolutions."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is the entire quote in context?
My engine is subject to revolutions, as was France as well...
<strong>We'll obviously disagree on the need for this nebulous concept called 'Grace', but God is a different matter. I don't see how the concept of reincarnation contradicts the idea of God? Surely reincarnation inherently implies a spiritual dimension to existance? I'm a little puzzled - you're talking about God as if His/ Her/ Its existance somehow depends on our need for God. Assuming that there is a God (as you know, I believe like you that there is), doesn't God just exist, regardless of our perspectives and needs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, God exists whether we believe it or not, and whether we think we need him or not. But since God and His Son Jesus went out of their way to bring about grace and redemption I cannot and will not disregard it. Like God grace "just exist[s], regardless of our perspectives and needs". Because he made it so.
[quote]<strong>That's a very good question. Exactly my point. Your starting point for every argument seems to be your little box of Christian dogma. When you are presented with any other ideas, you reject them because they don't correlate with your original set of beliefs, without ever questioning these beliefs to start with. It's a circular argument.
From my limited understanding of the subject, I see reincarnation as about experience, about growing, spiritually evolving and becoming a wiser person. Part of this responsibility is learning to stand on our own two feet. That can't happen if we surrunder all responsibility for our actions to some omipotent father deity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I love how my points are invalid because they are my "dogma" and your points are valid because they are yours. Let me point you to a couple of scriptures that I believe sums up my perspective on this part of your argument.
(John 15:5 NKJV) "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Philippians 4
13 I can do everything through him who gives me strength. or translated differently I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
NOt standing on our own two feet here. A whole lot of relying on Christ. And there are more verses to back that up.
[quote]<strong>We don't know how many dimensions there are to the universe, we don't know how many places in the universe people can undergo incarnations, we don't know (to be blunty simplistic) how many "souls" there are. If the concept of spirit means anything, it means something unending and infinite. It can't be reduced to statistics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, I will give you that view. It answers the question as asked.
[quote]<strong>In other words, why do we need reincarnation when all we have to do is accept Jesus as "saviour"? This is the same kind of circular argument. How do we know that God has given us this way to come to him all at once, when the Bible seems to be a censored and self-contradictory compendium of much later interpretations of what Jesus said and did?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Always back to the self-contradictory statement. You'll get nowhere with me on that one. It has no traction here. Sorry.
[quote]<strong>With all due respect, Noah my Bible-thumping chum, you didn't. You disputed the author's interpretations of a few gospel passages but I seem to remember our esteemed mod Belle then taking you to task with some inconvenient facts. Your answer to the rest of the points raised in the quoted passage (most of which are points of historical fact, not opinions) was that the authors must be making it all up. Hardly an adequate answer...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets put my original phrase back up so that there are not any misunderstandings or mis-interpretations.
Also we have already covered the passage you posted. I had refuted all the points and those that you do not cosider refuted we have already basically agreed to disagree upon. In other words, I give it no more weight in this argument than I did in the other.
I italicised the part that really says it all.
Let me finish off by asking you this one question. Why is it so important to you that I believe you that reincarnation is real. If it is, I will reincarnate and have another go in my next life right? Maybe then I will get it? So why argue with me about it, my life is not hanging in the balance, nor its yours by your viewpoint.