Thank you, DeepSight.

Deep Sight:
And that’s how your cookie crumbles, Old friend.

I won't even attempt to piece up the cookie together for you - because my points are still very intact, although you have spent some considerable effort to argue away yet not even come closer to the Biblical worldview of resurrection. Let's see:

I am at odds that you describe this as “my own definition” – you know very well that that is THE definition of reincarnation.

Nope, that is not all there is about reincarnation - so there's no need to argue long and hard about your definition being 'THE' definition of that term. Buddhism, for instance, prefers "re-becoming" for just about the same concept; but Hinduism speaks of reincarnation in various ways and not just in the simplistic manner you defined that word. Besides Brahma and Saraswati, the rest of the Hindu gods are known to have reincarnated in various forms under different circumstances - and there is all the difference, so that it goes beyond your idea of 'a previously dead person is born again as a baby'. Sorry, but it is essential that I hold your own definition for the sake of this discourse.

Now I hope you can see the point already:

1. You have accepted that people who are resurrected appear as they were prior to death
2. Thus in being resurrected they are not born as babies through a woman’s womb
3. John the Baptist was born as a baby through a mother’s womb – thus nobody could be under the illusion that he was a “resurrected” person. You your self have acceded that resurrected persons appear as they were before they died, and that being born as a baby is what reincarnation speaks about.
4. Thus when the disciples talked about him “being Elias” - they could not have been talking about resurrection.

Don't you see the fallacy of your own conjectures already?
I did not make any inferences that John the Baptist was either a reincarnation or resurrection of anyone in the past - he was clearly NEITHER of such. John the Baptist was John the Baptist; but even where people expressed opinions of who he possibly might have been, it was a matter of resurrection, and not of reincarnation. This is what Herod meant when he said "It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead. " (Mark 6:16). No one inferred that because John the Baptist was born as a baby, he therefore might have been a 'reincarnated' being of someone in the past - Nope, absolutely not.

On this, the case is firmly closed against you: save that I will take the time to address a few of the things you raised. You pointed me to Luke, Matthew & Mark 16, where it is clearly written that people believed Jesus to be a resurrected John the Baptist.

Your points in this regard are in order Viaro, but they do not suffice to detract anything from my surmise because –

1. Those quotations show that people believed in resurrection. I have not denied this – nor can any body rationally deny it.
2. The quotations however do not show that people DID NOT ALSO believe in reincarnation – for the reality of either doctrine does not cancel out the existence of the other doctrine.

No, this is where you are lost out in the sea of thoughts and trying forever to force reincarnation into tjose texts. For all intents and purposes, they could not have been holding the idea of BOTH reincarnation and resurrection simultaneously - not even the Buddhists, Hindus, or Jainists hold both ideas simultaneously.

If the people in John's day were holding the idea of reincarnation at the same time as they did resurrection, then they would not have argued only for resurrection while leaving us scratching our heads for pointers to reincarnation in their opinions. Nobody in those texts gave the slightest pointer to reincarnation - so there's no need to try to force it into their mouths for them. Besides, their silence on the question of reincarnation does not suggest their tacit or indirect acknowledgement of it, while only arguing solidly for resurrection.

3. We must thus ask the question: If those verses do show that the Jews thought in terms of resurrection (which is not disputed because they did), are there any other verses which suggest that they ALSO thought in terms of reincarnation?
4. I positively assert that they are, and I will show them to you again presently.

I'm looking forward to such texts.

But before I do that, let me just recap for you, (because there is nobody on this forum whom it is harder to get a point across to, than you) – that my answer to those verses which you quoted is that I ADMIT AND ACCEPT THEM! I ACCEPT THAT THE VERSES SHOW THAT THE JEWS WERE THINKING RESURRECTION. BUT I ASSERT THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO PRESUME THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS FACT, THEY NEVER THOUGHT REINCARNATION AS WELL. THE TASK IS TO LOOK INTO SCRIPTURE AND SEE IS THEY ALSO THOUGHT OF REINCARNATION. HERE WE GO.

- I start with the Prophecy contained here:

“Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” (Mal. 4:5)

Let me say a few things about this quote above –

1. Your averment and the averment of other discussants that this prophecy was not meant literally is nothing but speculation. It is speculation because –
    a. You cannot prove that it was not meant literally AND
    b. Taken together with Jesus’ pronouncements in the NT, it is abundantly clear that Jesus himself took it literally.

I have dealt rather extensively with the FACT that Jesus did not take Malachi's prophecy of Elijah's reappearance as a literal case for John the Baptist - see post #6, this thread. There are solid reasons for that FACT of Jesus' non-literal statement in Matthew 11:14:

[list](a) His conditional 'IF' in that statement;
(b) The deixis of Biblical prophecies;
(c)  Malachi's double reference - Mal. 3:1 and 4:5 - for 'Elijah';
(d) John the Baptist's own solid answer in John 1:21 - "Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not";
(e) The angel Gabriel's pronouncements in Luke 1:17 - "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias";
(f)  Then in post #15 I went on to give an example of the deixis of Biblical prophecy as to a personage of the past who would reappear in the future, using David as a clear and oft-referenced example by many prophets, to the point of resurrection, and not reincarnation.[/list]

You just skipped these points, discussed nothing, and then make up your mind that these are all 'speculation'? Please go one step beyond that lazy quip and just show that these five points were flawed and then argue them for reincarnation. I wanted to leave you absolutely no room at all to quibble on these issues, and it is not enough to just excuse them brashly - or I may have no other alternative than conclude you're once again evading these solid points so that you can conveniently dribble in your reincarnation thesis.

2. You did accept within another thread that “Elijah was taken up into heaven.”
3. Thus if he returns to the Earth by fresh birth through a woman’s womb as an infant, he will be said to have reincarnated – NOT RESSURECTED.

Excuse me, are you so unaware that Elijah was not said anywhere to have DIED?
Read it again in 2 Kings 2:11 - Elijah was taken up into heaven by a whirlwind, and in Matthew 17:3 Elijah appears, not by 'reincarnation' or 'resurrection'. Since Elijah did not die, how could he have been born as an infant or returned by fresh birth through a woman's womb as an infant?? You yourself have defined your reincarnation as a scenario where "a previously dead person is born again as a baby" - but is that what was demonstrated for Elijah? Pal, you're drifting farther away from simple things, you know?

Now is there scripture suggesting that John the Baptist was Elijah? Or at the very least – that John the Baptist was thought to be the reincarnation of Elijah?

There is –

Matt. 17:10-13 – “And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"

But he answered them and said, "Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand."

Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist."

Let me say a few things about this quote also –

1. The disciples asked him - "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" – This was an excellent opportunity for him to teach them the truth by explaining that Elijah’s coming was not meant literally. Rather, what did he say? He affirmed that it was meant literally by replying with the words – “Elijah is INDEED to come. . .Elijah has come already – and they did not know him!” Note the use of the word “indeed” – in other words – “in fact”, or “in reality” – and not in symbolism!

You can't quibble on that small word 'indeed' as if the whole point of Elijah and John rested on it. The word 'indeed' does not suggest literalism of persons but of the prophecy. That is why His conditional statement with 'IF' in Matthew 11:14, as well the very FACT that John the bapstist did not say that he was Elijah ("Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not" - John 1:21).

If you want to quibble on the word 'indeed' on issues of prophecy, let me point out another example where Jesus did not mean a literalism of persons by that word in making a prophetic declaration: Mark 10:35-39. When James and John requested to be on the right and left hand of Jesus in the Kingdom, He asked them: 'Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?' The answered, "We can". Consequently, He answered: 'Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized' - does this suggest that Jesus meant a LITERAL event by that word "indeed"??

We know that He did not mean it so - but literalists would argue otherwise. The fact was that Jesus spoke of this type of His baptism as a pointer to His death (see Luke 12:50) - and we know that His death was an excruciating one on the Cross. If He meant that James and John were "indeed" to be 'baptized' with the same baptism as His death on the Cross in a literal sense, then both John and James would have been crucified. But we know from Acts 12:2 that James was put to death by the sword, not by crucifixion.

So, DeepSight, sweat it all up if you can - that word "indeed" does not mean that Elijah would be literally John the Baptist by any reincarnation, and that was why He made it plain for those who could grasp His meaning that such a sense was not intended ('IF') as well that John the Baptist himself clearly denied being John the Baptist in any literal sense (John 1:21).

2. Note further that he personalizes Elijah’s coming further. He makes it clear that Elijah was to come as a real human being, and not a symbol, by saying – “they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand!"

I did not argue for a symbol anywhere - please go back and check through my replies. The whole point was that a prophecy given about Elijah's coming BEFORE THE GREAT AND DREADFUL DAY OF THE LORD (Malachi 4:5) does not translate into reincarnation of Elijah.

3. This makes it abundantly clear that Jesus expected to be persecuted that same way that the returning Elijah would be!

What point are you making in that? Without the interjection of Elijah or John, Jesus would have been persecuted and put to death anyways - for that was what the prophecies declared. I don't see the connection between Jesus' persecution and your reincarnation for Elijah into John.

4. Finally how does this end? It is explicitly written - “Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist."

It is thus clear that the Prophecy was very literal and that the disciples understood it by Jesus’ words to refer to John the Baptist.

Nope, it is clear from all the points made afore that they understood He was referring to John the Baptist although NOT in a literal sense! If it was in a literal sense, then please explain why John DENIED being Elijah in John 1:21, as well the fact that Jesus was making a conditional statement in Matthew 11:14, as well the fact that Jesus taught RESURRECTION all through without ever teaching anything about reincarnation - not even where Nicodemmus in John 3:4 had thought of the impossibility of such a thing!!

NOW THE REAL CLINCHER IN THIS FOR ME IS THE FACT THAT THE DICIPLES LIKE JESUS WERE FULLY AWARE THAT JOHN WAS BORN AS AN INFANT THROUGH A WOMAN’S WOMB AND GREW UP. THEY EVEN WROTE ABOUT HIS BIRTH.

IT IS THUS DECISIVELY CERTAIN THAT WHEN IT IS WRITTEN -

“Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist."

The disciples absolutely were NOT contemplating resurrection.

UNLESS YOU WILL BE ABSURD AND SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE ARE REURRECTED BY BEING BORN AS INFANTS!

I shall hold my tongue and not blast you - - you tempt me to call those who argue that was 'classic twerps'!

I did not predicate John the Baptist's emergence either on reincarnation or resurrection - please go back and draw me a single line where I ever, ever, ever made such an obviously dense non-sequitor!! John's birth was NEITHER a resurrection nor a reincarnation. That is the point I would like for you to remember at all times in thinking through my discussions with you. But for you, the whole argument has been to make John the reincarnation of Elijah - a non-starter that up until now have been a wasted argument on your behalf.

You cannot even make such a claim as you already acceded in response to my queries that when people are resurrected physically they appear as they were before death!

I did not make such a claim, as it is clear that I did not predicate John's birth on either resurrection or reincarnation.

This again closes the case very firmly against you Viaro, and makes it abundantly clear.

But I still got more ammo –

1. You stated that when people are resurrected physically they appear as they were before death!

I said YES and NO - and distinguished either from the other. My answer was not just one side to the whole thing, so please don't ever forget that!

2. Thus when it is stated that the disciples had an understanding that the Baptist was Elijah – this could not be that they understood it to be a resurrection of the Prophet, because if it were, then, in your own words, he would appear as he was prior to his death, or Elijah’s case “ascension.”

Again, my answer:
"John's birth was NEITHER a resurrection nor a reincarnation."

3. How old was Elijah when he left the world? An old man?

An adult.

4. How old was John the Baptist?

An adult as well.

Aha! GBAM! GBAM! GBOGA! Since the Baptist was a young man born shortly before Jesus, the disciples could not have been thinking that he was the resurrected Elijah – because Elijah was considerably older at the time of his departure!

Look at this comedian! Did viaro ever try to make John the baptist the resurrected Elijah? Are you so confused?

As an asides, this 'GBAM! GBAM! GBOGA!' tendecy of yours reminds me of a recent Nigerian movie my girlfriend played the other night (so that I could get familiar with Nigerian slangs). . I don't know if you ever watched UKWA?? M-e-n. .  you are UKWA's mentor!!

In this you cannot escape; for I deliberately asked you if the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus could be a guide: and it is clear that neither man suddenly appeared as a vastly younger person when resurrected. They always appeared as they were just before death! Thus the Disciples COULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD ELIJAH TO HAVE RESURRECTED!

I don't think that ruffles my feathers anyways - since again: "John's birth was NEITHER a resurrection nor a reincarnation." I gave my answer of the guide thingy on the 'nature of resurrection' by noting "Possibly, yes - as long as we keep them in their perspectives (as explicated above)." That does not go so far as to suggest that I was arguing to make either Jesus, John or Lazarus the reincarnation or resurrection of ANYBODY!

This is hammered home finally when we add the fact that they were positively aware that John was born an infant.

Elijah wasnot said to have DIED - your reincarnation suggest that someone who reincarnates must needs have been dead before being born as an infant. Was Elijah DEAD according to 2 Kings 2:11??

No escape Viaro! The equation reads very simple –

1. The disciples had an understanding from Jesus’ words that John the Baptist was Elijah
2. They knew John the Baptist to have been born an infant

= The believed him to have been reincarnated.

Iron cast logic which you cannot controvert, Viaro.

Relax bro. The disciples were quite aware that it was not a reincarnation they were confronted with, because the knew that Elijah did not DIE, therefore your reincarnation thesis is marked with too many red zeros! Go back to the drawing board!

And yet there is more.

Matt. 11:13-14 – “For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And [size=14pt]if[/size] you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come”

What were those odd games you were playing with the word “if” in this verse earlier on? Please don’t turn this to a circus – the sentence is pretty clear: in much the same way as he could have said – “if you are willing to receive it, I am the Christ who was to come.” Tell me if this would have meant that the coming of the Christ was not literal, or that he would be thereby saying that he was not the Christ! Good grief! How people will play the ostrich and read what meanings they prefer into such a blatantly clear piece of scripture!

You have a point that the conditional "IF" would not deter anyone from reading 'reincarnation' into that verse - but all things considered, why did John clearly DENY being Elijah when categorically asked that same question in John 1:21? It's like you have some hard wax and can't see, no?

“If you are willing to receive” – is nothing but a reference to whether or not the listener is prepared to receive a truth that is being mediated to him. Gosh Viaro, take time o.

My answer, as above (and I like that one: 'take time o' - classic UKWA!)

Given all the foregoing I can conclude in summary as follows –

1. The fact that the Jews thought in terms of resurrection does not mean that they did not also make allusions to reincarnation. They did.
2. There was a prophecy that Elijah would return
3. Jesus himself affirmed the prophecy (twice!)and made it clear that it was a literal prophecy. At all events your abracadabra stating that it was not literal is nothing but speculation as you have no proof for that.
4. Jesus went further to identify John as the returning Elijah.
5. The Disciples wrote that they understood Jesus’ words to mean that the Baptist was Elijah
6. They could not have thought it was a resurrection because –
    a. They were aware that John was born an infant – they wrote about that
    b. John’s age vis-à-vis Elijah’s age at the time of his “departure”
7. They thus clearly understood it to be a reincarnation.

Thank you for the summary - you have tried, but again wasted your efforts to even make one sense for your reincarnation drama. So, let me again outline mine for you:

I have dealt rather extensively with the FACT that Jesus did not take Malachi's prophecy of Elijah's reappearance as a literal case for John the Baptist - see post #6, this thread. There are solid reasons for that FACT of Jesus' non-literal statement in Matthew 11:14:

[list](a) His conditional 'IF' in that statement;
(b) The deixis of Biblical prophecies;
(c)  Malachi's double reference - Mal. 3:1 and 4:5 - for 'Elijah';
(d) John the Baptist's own solid answer in John 1:21 - "Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not";
(e) The angel Gabriel's pronouncements in Luke 1:17 - "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias";
(f)  Then in post #15 I went on to give an example of the deixis of Biblical prophecy as to a personage of the past who would reappear in the future, using David as a clear and oft-referenced example by many prophets, to the point of resurrection, and not reincarnation.[/list]

You just skipped these points, discussed nothing, and then make up your mind that these are all 'speculation'? Please go one step beyond that lazy quip and just show that these five points were flawed and then argue them for reincarnation. I wanted to leave you absolutely no room at all to quibble on these issues, and it is not enough to just excuse them brashly - or I may have no other alternative than conclude you're once again evading these solid points so that you can conveniently dribble in your reincarnation thesis.

Cheers.

Hi Marlbron,

Marlbron:

Interesting thread, dealing with a hot topic. Deepsight is correct in this argument and I think people should listen.

Christ was a reincarnation of Adam

1Cor 15:45 - 49

Christ was not the reincarnation of Adam, for the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians is dealing with the question of RESURRECTION and not reincarnation. Sorry, pal. . . but verse 42 should have proved very helpful: "So also is the resurrection of the dead." I am sure that you already know that 'reincarnation' is never confused for "resurrection of the dead"??

Christ incarnated as Melchisedeck

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. JOHN 8:56

John 8:56 is not talking about Melchizedek - not even remotely. The name Melchizedek does not mean 'I AM', and Abraham's encounter with Melchizedek was not about seeing the Day of Christ.

Transfiguration experience

Mathew 17: 9-13

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
Clearly this was a vision, that was why they recognized Elijah and Moses beccause they were in spirit. We can see that with their new spiritual understanding they sought clarification from the Lord about the Elijah that must came and Christ replied them very clearly. Now Christ is God and knows every man. John the bAptist was man and could not have known himself the way Christ would, so saying that John did not claim Elijah is nothing short of casual understanding of the scriptures. Whose testimony will you believe? Johnthe Baptist or Jesus the Christ? I know the one I will believe.  After the experience, the disciples understood that John was indeed Elijah.

At the time of the Transfiguration in Matthew 17, John had already attended his ministry - in flesh! Excusing that Elijah appeared in "spirit" alongside Moses on that mount simply destroys any hint of reincarnation - because reincarnation is not about spirits appearing, but about people of past lives being born as infants (ala DeepSight's definition), no?

What is Reincarnation and Ressurection?

Now, this is the question, really. And. .

Reincarnation is the process of a soul journeying back to a plane that it had sojourned in before. It could have left that plane as a result of death or other forms of translation. When Christ comes back, he will come back through a woman by the same process of incarnation or re-incarnate.

Where did you read that Christ is coming back through reincarnation of being born through a woman? Are you under pressure to make up your drama as if that is what is written in the Bible? Christ will return in the same way as He was taken up - Acts 1:11.

If you understand that man is made of water spirit and blood, then this debate is really a no brainer. The spirit has few restrictions unlike the body. When death occurs, the spirit is liberated from the body. If God wants the spirit back to earth for a new asignment, it comes in during conception with a new body. Reincarnation is a final process, that includes ressurection and starts with death.

That, my pal, is a no-brainer - for reincarnation does not include resurrection. That is a bold leap of a lie, so give it up already!

Ressurection is the process of separating the spirit from the body.

Nope, for you have only described death, not resurrection. See it for yourself - "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). Resurrection, on the other hand, is a rising from the dead ('he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead,' - John 12:17). Pal, please stand steady and don't be confusing your readers, yes?

Let us look at the scripture. 1 Corinth 15:42

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

In ressurection, you see a spiritual body, not a physical body. Thus we can appreciate the fact that the disciples did not recognize Christ after ressurection, because he was essentially a spirit being, not the same guy they knew. He could walk into closed doors and he no longer slept and moved with them. If you say ressurection, you describe part of the the process of reincarnation. After death, you have ressurection, then birth which is an incarnation or (reincarnation). When Christ died, remmber, that some dead peole were ressurrected. What manifested was the spirit of those people and they went about testifying about Christ, before they promptly disappeared.

Bobs, you don't have a clue what you're saying. Resurrection is NOT part of the process of reincarnation - NADA, ZILCH. And those who were raised from the graves did not "promptly disappear" - they lived and DIED ('After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep' - 1 Cor. 15:6).

Some people can ressurrect and live on earth without being born. We hear stories of people who are dead and now seen and living in other parts, even marrying. Once you ask them to take them to their village, they become reluctant and when you insist, they even disappear completely, leaving wife etc behind!

Intriguing. Examples, please?

More later,  but Deepsight has the correct insight this time

Don't bother - we heard quite enough to close shop for you guys. Enjoy.

Sometimes i wonder why i have this addiction to entertaining your dancing round in circles, Viaro.

I will be back to set you straight again, but for now i will make just two quick points, which show that you do not take the time to read.

When someone makes a VERY long post (like you, me and mavenbox often do), i always think to myself - this person must have put some hard work into this: let me make sure i read it all up very carefully - if for nothing, as a mark of respect for the effort that person has put into writing out his thoughts - without being paid for such. The reward rather lies in that we learn from each other.

Anyhow, the two points i want to make are these -

1. You dwelt extensively on your perception that i suggested that YOU said John was ressurected as Elijah. I never said you said that! I was talking about the perception of the disciples as contained in the words - "Then the Disciples understood that he spoke to them of Elijah."

2. You keep referring to John's denial of being Elijah. Did you not see the answer by Malbron -

Now Christ is God and knows every man. John the bAptist was man and could not have known himself the way Christ would, so saying that John did not claim Elijah is nothing short of casual understanding of the scriptures. Whose testimony will you believe? Johnthe Baptist or Jesus the Christ? I know the one I will believe. After the experience, the disciples understood that John was indeed Elijah.

YOU ALSO BELIEVE that Christ is God - so why do you reject his word's in favour of the limited knowledge of a mere man - John the Baptist.

I do not believe Christ to be God, but i am certain that he stood spiritually higher than John and i would thus be more inclined to take his word over John's words - he doubtless knew more about the bigger picture as John himself affirmed that he was not worthy to wash Christ's feet!

I will be back later to address the rest of your ojoro.

TAKE TIME O!

marlbron said:

Some people can ressurrect and live on earth without being born. We hear stories of people who are dead and now seen and living in other parts, even marrying. Once you ask them to take them to their village, they become reluctant and when you insist, they even disappear completely, leaving wife etc behind!

Viaro! replied:

Intriguing. Examples, please?

LMAO!!! I no fit laugh abeg!!!  

Deep Sight:

Sometimes i wonder why i have this addiction to entertaining your dancing round in circles, Viaro.

Don't worry, sometimes I enjoy your tommyrot.

I will be back to set you straight again, but for now i will make just two quick points, which show that you do not take the time to read.

When someone makes a VERY long post (like you, me and mavenbox often do), i always think to myself - this person must have put some hard work into this: let me make sure i read it all up very carefully - if for nothing, as a mark of respect for the effort that person has put into writing out his thoughts - without being paid for such. The reward rather lies in that we learn from each other.

Okay, captain. . no worries.

Anyhow, the two points i want to make are these -

1. You dwelt extensively on your perception that i suggested that YOU said John was ressurected as Elijah. I never said you said that! I was talking about the perception of the disciples as contained in the words - "Then the Disciples understood that he spoke to them of Elijah."

That's okay - the point that I wanted to make clear was that there is not a single line where I predicated John the baptist's emergence on either of those two premises: reincarnation and/or resurrection.

2. You keep referring to John's denial of being Elijah.

Is that not what John clearly did in John 1:21 - did he not categorically deny being Elijah?

Did you not see the answer by Malbron -

Now Christ is God and knows every man. John the bAptist was man and could not have known himself the way Christ would, so saying that John did not claim Elijah is nothing short of casual understanding of the scriptures. Whose testimony will you believe? Johnthe Baptist or Jesus the Christ? I know the one I will believe. After the experience, the disciples understood that John was indeed Elijah.

I saw Malbron's answer, but even so what does that 'prove' for reincarnation? Or did you not see what I replied thereto concerning his misconception?Here again was my reply:

At the time of the Transfiguration in Matthew 17, John had already attended his ministry - in flesh! Excusing that Elijah appeared in "spirit" alongside Moses on that mount simply destroys any hint of reincarnation - because reincarnation is not about spirits appearing, but about people of past lives being born as infants (ala DeepSight's definition), no?

YOU ALSO BELIEVE that Christ is God - so why do you reject his word's in favour of the limited knowledge of a mere man - John the Baptist.

I did not reject Christ's word: rather, I categorically rejected and continue to reject the words of those who try to force reincarnation into His mouth!

I do not believe Christ to be God, but i am certain that he stood spiritually higher than John and i would thus be more inclined to take his word over John's words - he doubtless knew more about the bigger picture as John himself affirmed that he was not worthy to wash Christ's feet!

I would any day defend the fact that Christ taught all through about RESURRECTION than about reincarnation. That is the point here - not of Malbron forcing reincarnation into Christ's mouth on absolutely unfounded twisters.

I will be back later to address the rest of your ojoro.

TAKE TIME O!

This UKWA man, what's gwan with you today?

Marlbron:


Some people can ressurrect and live on earth without being born. We hear stories of people who are dead and now seen and living in other parts, even marrying. Once you ask them to take them to their village, they become reluctant and when you insist, they even disappear completely, leaving wife etc behind!

Yep, people say such things. However, even if the stories were true (which would be quite something to see), for this theory to support your argument for re-incarnation, such people would have to be born "again" as children. But they are not, are they? What is bandied about is that they disappear in one place and show up elsewhere EXACTLY the same age they were when they "died" and continue from there till confronted at which time they disappear. Does your definition of re-incarnation include "continuance" in another "form"?

BTW, you people keep referring to Elijah. Elijah didn't die so how come he is re-incarnating in your NL posts?

Mavenb0x:

marlbron said:

Some people can ressurrect and live on earth without being born. We hear stories of people who are dead and now seen and living in other parts, even marrying. Once you ask them to take them to their village, they become reluctant and when you insist, they even disappear completely, leaving wife etc behind!

Viaro! replied:

Intriguing. Examples, please?

LMAO!!! I no fit laugh abeg!!!  

Hehehe. . . that Malbron is a wonder. Perhaps Tupac was one of the intriguing examples of what he was trying to express! Afterall, someone noted about 18 intriguing excuses for 'reluctance' and 'disappearing completely' in Tupac's case, no??

nuclearboy:

What is bandied about is that they disappear in one place and show up elsewhere EXACTLY the same age they were when they "died" and continue from there till confronted at which time they disappear. Does your definition of re-incarnation include "continuance" in another "form"?

Malbron must have watched Twilight - that is where such phenomena was captured
[img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:cSpfgsvlkQ51QM:http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/twilight-onesheet-hires.jpg[/img] [img]http://nerdgirltalking.files./2008/11/twilight_movie_image_group_shot_l.jpg?w=585&h=422[/img]

My thoughts:

The problem with Christianity is that we have not been taught by God. We have gained our insights from mere men. Take the issue of reincarnation. Christ talked about it almost everytime, yet we so called christ followers would relish twisting his statements to suit us, rather than believe his words. If after reading the transfiguration account you still doubt reincarnation, then I have one question for you. If Christ comes back, would that not be another incarnation? Would that not be a reincarnation? Anybody that does not believe reincarnation does not believe Christ and I seriously question his or her christianity. If we fail to grasp a simple concept like this, how can we go on to other more complex teachings?

Viaro and Mavenbox, please explain[b] regeneration
[/b] as used by Christ below.

Mathew 19:28
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

If he appears in a regeneration, that means he comes in another incarnation or a reincarnation. Note that your understanding of Israel should not be limited to the little area under dispute. Israel here is the world who have come under one umbrella with his shedding of his precious blood.


The bible states that the first man was Adam and the second man is Christ. I did not state this, its in your scriptures! The spirit that was used to create Adam, later manifested as Jesus in a later incarnation. Note that God was Adam's Father and mother, not man.

I understand that separation of body and spirit  means the person is dead, but that separation of spirit allows the spirit to return back to its initial or resure state, hence resurrection. We need to understand the natural process fully. At conception, the spirit enters the womb of a woman and becomes fully imprisoned in the body at birth. It lives inside the body till death.  Thus we have a cycle of birth- death- resurrection- birth. The bible tells us that every human will resurrect - some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. The spirits are immortal , even the ones in hell do not die.

What defines anything  is the spirit. The spirit determines who we are, if you like think about it as our spiritual DNA. The body is just a covering which can be shed. After death, the spirit is free to come to earth to take up another assignment. Some spirits come from different planets, but the earth is the centre of the multiverse. Do you think that the planets were created for fun?

I need to comment on a related topic - eternal life.

We think of it as living for ever in the world. I wonder how this can be. Will we work for ever? Will we have Children? Will our Children live forever too? Remember that birth and death go hand in hand. If there is no death, will there be birth? Has it not occurred to you that in the garden of Eden, God was the one that instigated Satan to tempt them so that they could multiply according to his pronouncement (Multiply and fill the earth)?  The thought of living for ever may be thrilling, but I think the concept is not totally correct. Let us reason from the scripture: John 11: 24 - Lazarus episode

24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Clearly, everlasting life means the opportunity to reincarnate into the world ad infinitum. Note Christ's word: though he were dead, yet he lives, The old testament prophet Isaiah, captured it very well by saying that people will live to an old age, with little stress.

The main confusion for Christians is the statment from Paul which is not well understood: "It is appointed unto man to once to die and after that judgement, ". That statement has been given very wrong interpretation. Let me explain it by looking at Elijah and John the baptist.

Elijah killed about 33 prophets of Baal in the name of fighting for God before he translated. There was no evidence that he suffered any judgement while in the world as Elijah, but he had run foul of a natural law. When he entered the spirit realm, he was judged and he came down to earth to fulfill this judgement. That was why he was miserably murdered by Herod for nothing. When reading that portion did you not wonder why this tragedy should befall such a righteous man? Where was God? This guy was very righteous! The answer is that Herod was unwittingly carrying out God's judgement on Elijah who was now on earth as John the baptist. That was why when he waited in vain for Christ to save him, he doubted Christ and had to send his men to inquire if truly he was the Christ. He had to suffer his fate and pay for that exuberance as Elijah.  So Elijah after committing a crime came back to face the music of his crime.

What then is the end game? My two cents:

At the end, the angel of death who prevented John from realising who he was would be defeated and the curtain over our minds will be opened. Thus we can look at our fellow man and perhaps understand who he was in a previous incarnation something we cannot do now. That I think is the essence of the vision of the transfiguration, which signified that in the kingdom of god all the old prophets will be present, though they may not answer their names but we will know them!

Finally,

Those spirits that resurrected when the earth shook at Chrit's death. Am not aware that they lived and died normally. Could you quote the scripture for me again. If they did, then does that not puncture your argument that it is appointed unto man once to die and after that judgement? Help me here, sir!

To understnd that Christ will come in another incarnation and be born into the world, read

Isaiah 9

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Read also rev 12: 5

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

We see God respecting his natural process of incarnation or reincarnation through the womb of a woman, to rule in glory. The Rev 12:5 validates the Isaiah prophecy of 9:6

Moses, Elijah and Jesus stood at the transfiguration! No one knows what became of Moses. Elijah did NOT die! Jesus was Alive! How does the transfiguration support re-incarnation which is dead people coming back AS BABIES?

Jesus RESURRECTED and is Alive! When He comes back, He's coming the way He went up. If He came back as a baby, THAT would support re-incarnation. But He's NOT coming back as a dead person returning as a baby!

The word is RENEWAL not regeneration. At that time, they will stand as continuances - from when they died, not come back as babies.

Marlbron:

The bible states that the first man was Adam and the second man is Christ. I did not state this, its in your scriptures! The spirit that was used to create Adam, later manifested as Jesus in a later incarnation. Note that God was Adam's Father and mother, not man.

I understand that separation of body and spirit  means the person is dead, but that separation of spirit allows the spirit to return back to its initial or resure state, hence resurrection. We need to understand the natural process fully. At conception, the spirit enters the womb of a woman and becomes fully imprisoned in the body at birth. It lives inside the body till death.  Thus we have a cycle of birth- death- resurrection- birth. The bible tells us that every human will resurrect - some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. The spirits are immortal , even the ones in hell do not die.

What defines anything  is the spirit. The spirit determines who we are, if you like think about it as our spiritual DNA. The body is just a covering which can be shed. After death, the spirit is free to come to earth to take up another assignment. Some spirits come from different planets, but the earth is the centre of the multiverse. Do you think that the planets were created for fun?

[color=#990000]I need to comment on a related topic - eternal life.

We think of it as living for ever in the world. I wonder how this can be. Will we work for ever? Will we have Children? Will our Children live forever too? Remember that birth and death go hand in hand. If there is no death, will there be birth? Has it not occurred to you that in the garden of Eden, God was the one that instigated Satan to tempt them so that they could multiply according to his pronouncement (Multiply and fill the earth)?  The thought of living for ever may be thrilling, but I think the concept is not totally correct. Let us reason from the scripture: John 11: 24 - Lazarus episode

24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Clearly, everlasting life means the opportunity to reincarnate into the world ad infinitum. Note Christ's word: though he were dead, yet he lives, The old testament prophet Isaiah, captured it very well by saying that people will live to an old age, with little stress.

The main confusion for Christians is the statment from Paul which is not well understood: "It is appointed unto man to once to die and after that judgement, ". That statement has been given very wrong interpretation. Let me explain it by looking at Elijah and John the baptist.

Elijah killed about 33 prophets of Baal in the name of fighting for God before he translated. There was no evidence that he suffered any judgement while in the world as Elijah, but he had run foul of a natural law. When he entered the spirit realm, he was judged and he came down to earth to fulfill this judgement. That was why he was miserably murdered by Herod for nothing. When reading that portion did you not wonder why this tragedy should befall such a righteous man? Where was God? This guy was very righteous! The answer is that Herod was unwittingly carrying out God's judgement on Elijah who was now on earth as John the baptist. That was why when he waited in vain for Christ to save him, he doubted Christ and had to send his men to inquire if truly he was the Christ. He had to suffer his fate and pay for that exuberance as Elijah.  So Elijah after committing a crime came back to face the music of his crime.[/color]What then is the end game? My two cents:

At the end, the angel of death who prevented John from realising who he was would be defeated and the curtain over our minds will be opened. Thus we can look at our fellow man and perhaps understand who he was in a previous incarnation something we cannot do now. That I think is the essence of the vision of the transfiguration, which signified that in the kingdom of god all the old prophets will be present, though they may not answer their names but we will know them!

Finally,

Those spirits that resurrected when the earth shook at Chrit's death. Am not aware that they lived and died normally. Could you quote the scripture for me again. If they did, then does that not puncture your argument that it is appointed unto man once to die and after that judgement? Help me here, sir!

So if I say you are the first born and your brother is the second born, what I actually mean is that your brother is your re-incarnation?

How does "cycle of birth- death- resurrection- birth" support re-incarnation? BTW, can you name 4 people who have resurrected?

Your words that I have "bolded" above! What is their purpose here? What do they add to this discourse?

Much of the other words here ! Are you planning to open a church and need to practise "preaching"? What are these words here for?

Lets assume the larger sized letters even were true - which means Elijah literally came down to suffer for killing people. That would mean a living person came down, jumped into Elizabeths womb (   ) and came out an old man who then was killed for killing people hundreds of years before. We cannot explain it any other way since he never died! How then would this support re-incarnation?

Finally, in answer to your "finally", they RESURRECTED! Just like Lazarus! That was a miracle not the regular course of nature which is that you die ONCE and after that, judgment!

Bro, what is your drug of choice?

I no get plenty time right now, gotta sleep before church tomorrow so i didnt read your post at length, Marlbron, but I must clarify the regeneration issue: See the various translations to get a better picture!

Mat 19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mat 19:28  Jesus replied, "Yes, you have followed me. In the re-creation of the world, when the Son of Man will rule gloriously, you who have followed me will also rule, starting with the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mat 19:28  Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, in the new age [the Messianic rebirth of the world], when the Son of Man shall sit down on the throne of His glory, you who have [become My disciples, sided with My party and] followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

And do you still hold on to what you said initially? The KJV word translated as regeneration is paliggenesia

paliggenesia: (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration.

and it also occurs in Titus 3:5

Titus 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Titus 3:5  He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Hope it's clearer to you now, sir?  'Cos you have misquoted that verse entirely, professor.

Be back to comment on the rest, maybe tomorrow. I mean, today (its past 12 now)

Edit: Beware when you quote Titus as Ti't e.g. Ti't 3:5 becomes Bosom 3:5 

@nuclearboy: LOL By the time Viaro and DeepSight return to this thread . . . hehehe

Nuclear,

perhaps you didn't see my earlier definition of reincarnation. Death is one condition but not the only condition. Translation from a plane is enough. Elijah did not have to die like most mortals, but he ceased existing on the earth plane.

The bible expressly states that in the lst days Christ will be born. If you think otherwise please show me the contrary verse, because the bible dies not contradict itself only our understanding may be contradictory. So if he comes back and is born as a baby, it means he has come in another incarnation or he is reincarnated!!

Regeneration= Renewal = Continue from where they stopped??

Doesn't sound and look right.

The bible expressly tells you that the first man came as Adam an earthly soul, and the second man became a quickening spirit. Sounds simple enough. If that does not endorse incarnation then what doesit endorse - resurrection?? Whats the beef? Has nothing to do with brother analogy you just mentioned.

Mavenbox,

Still disagree. Regeneration, is regeneration no matter the versions you bring. They all point to a restarting or a renewal which is achieved in a rebirth or reincarnation. Christ himself alluded to this. Going by your reasoning, his followers will suddenly rise from their graves even when such graves do not exist anymore and then rule with Christ? Hmmm. The understanding is really wonderful, but it is in error!!

Perhaps we need to really understand several other things like how he would arrive in his 2nd coming? But I guess it may derail the thread, so perhaps if you have time, open a new thread on his 2nd coming, I'll gladly throw my hat in the ring.

Mavenb0x:

@nuclearboy: LOL By the time Viaro and DeepSight return to this thread . . . hehehe

I was sipping cola and waiting for DeepSight. . hehehe. . and enjoying Malbron while I played away. This thread will live long.

Marlbron:

Mavenbox,

Still disagree. Regeneration, is regeneration no matter the versions you bring. They all point to a restarting or a renewal which is achieved in a rebirth or reincarnation. Christ himself alluded to this.

It is alright to disagree - but we shall see when I reply consequently. Just relax.

@marlbron: Not to worry, I wont discuss Christ's second coming with you. You appear to have an informed opinion already, why should I dis-illusion you? Cheerio

Okay, here we go.

Marlbron:

The problem with Christianity is that we have not been taught by God.

That is not the problem with Christianity - rather, that is your problem! Even where God's Word is clear, you just simply refuse to see it for what it says, and where they don't fit into your catachresis, you turn round to blame the whole of Christianity for your own problem.

We have gained our insights from mere men. Take the issue of reincarnation. Christ talked about it almost everytime, yet we so called christ followers would relish twisting his statements to suit us, rather than believe his words.

Where did you find Christ talking about reincarnation almost everytime? Examples would be greatly appreciated!

If after reading the transfiguration account you still doubt reincarnation, then I have one question for you. If Christ comes back, would that not be another incarnation? Would that not be a reincarnation?

Do you know what INCARNATION is? Do you know the meaning of REINCARNATION? How do those words fit into the fact that His coming back is neither an incarnation or reincarnation, huh? Examples of Christ's second coming:

[list][li]Acts 1:11 - ". . . this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."[/li]
[li]Mark 13:26 - 'And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory'[/li]
[li]Luke 21:27 - 'And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.'[/li][/list]

Do the highlighted describe reincarnation to you? or how do those fit into either INCARNATION or REINCARNATION?

Anybody that does not believe reincarnation does not believe Christ and I seriously question his or her christianity.

Anybody pretending to believe in Christ and yet twisting His words to fit them into reincarnation is an idiot and and pretender. I do not need to question their 'Christianity' because they have NONE to begin with.

If we fail to grasp a simple concept like this, how can we go on to other more complex teachings?

I am usually wary of folks who come claiming some 'higher teaching' of Christ that the Bible does not teach at all, especially where they take from His Word directly to twist them to mean something completely different from what He directly taught! "Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil. " (Psa. 56:5)

Viaro and Mavenbox, please explain regeneration as used by Christ below.

Mathew 19:28
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

First off, 'regeneration' in that verse does not speak about 'reincarnation' - nada, zilch, nix. The regeneration in that verse points to the same thing that Peter   spoke about in Acts 3:21 - "the times of restitution of all things". In the regeneration, Jesus sits on the throne of His glory - and He Himself defined when that is going to be: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Matthew 25:31). In other words, this is a future event and points to the time when all nations shall be gathered before Him for divine judgement. Happy now?

If he appears in a regeneration, that means he comes in another incarnation or a reincarnation.

Nope, He was not talking about coming as a 'regenerated being' - the 'regenration' is not a process but an epoch in God's economy. I already pointed out that Acts 1:11, Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 all point to the manner in which Jesus shall return in the clouds, and NONE of them speaks of reincarnation.

Note that your understanding of Israel should not be limited to the little area under dispute. Israel here is the world who have come under one umbrella with his shedding of his precious blood.

Nope, Israel here is NOT the Church - and there is no confusing 'Israel' of the patriarchial covenants with the Church of God in the present dispensation. Revelation 7 is your answer: after the 144,000 were sealed of the 12 Tribes of Israel, verse 9 says that there was "a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues," - these had 'washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb' (v. 14). These two groups are not confused, even where they all participate in one efficacy of the Blood of Christ.

The bible states that the first man was Adam and the second man is Christ. I did not state this, its in your scriptures! The spirit that was used to create Adam, later manifested as Jesus in a later incarnation. Note that God was Adam's Father and mother, not man.

Man, this is confused, but hilarious.

(a) first, the Bible nowhere states that God was 'Father and mother' for Adam - that would be like siring children; but rather that God is 'Creator' of Adam (Deut. 4:32 and Isaiah 45:12).

(b) second, nowhere does the Bible teach that the spirit of Adam was the same that reincarnated into Christ; rather, Adam was an 'earthy being' while Christ was a heavenly Being - 'The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven' (1 Cor. 15:47).

(c) The case of the 'first man' and the 'second man' is what I have often referred to as deixis - it does not mean a literal 'first and second'. Are you not the same fellow who said that Christ was incarnated as Melchizedek? That surely knocks out your own theory here, because if you're migrate through the line (Adam --> Melchizedek --> Christ), then in fact you have Melchizedek as the 'second man' and Christ in third place! You're a funny character, you know!

I understand that separation of body and spirit  means the person is dead, but that separation of spirit allows the spirit to return back to its initial or resure state, hence resurrection. We need to understand the natural process fully. At conception, the spirit enters the womb of a woman and becomes fully imprisoned in the body at birth. It lives inside the body till death.  Thus we have a cycle of birth- death- resurrection- birth.

The Bible nowhere teaches your theory, and enough of all this jabberwocky!

There is rather BIRTH --> DEATH --> RESURRECTION --> JUDGEMENT. You cannot miss this, which is why seeral times people have quoted Hebrews 9:27 to this effect: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".

Hebrews 6:2 already says: "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment" - the sequence always follows that order: BIRTH, DEATH, RESURRECTION and JUDGEMENT - you will not find a break where a cycle intercepts this flow with "reincarnation" between death and resurrection or between resurrection and judgement.

The bible tells us that every human will resurrect - some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. The spirits are immortal , even the ones in hell do not die.

Thank you - and that is coming from Daniel 12:2 - "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt". .  does that sound like REINCARNATION at all? Did you not just admit that the Bible teaches that every human will RESURRECT? So what has reincarantion got to do with the fact of resurrect - or are you confusing them one for the other?

Again, you will notice that even Daniel 12:2 does not miss the sequence of BIRTH --> DEATH --> RESURRECT --> JUDGEMENT. If there was to be a cycle of reincarnations, why is it that the Biblical prophets NOWHERE teach such but rather went on straight to pronounce JUDGEMENT right after RESURRECTION?

What defines anything  is the spirit. The spirit determines who we are, if you like think about it as our spiritual DNA. The body is just a covering which can be shed. After death, the spirit is free to come to earth to take up another assignment. Some spirits come from different planets, but the earth is the centre of the multiverse. Do you think that the planets were created for fun?

Where is that emoticon for summersaulting dance??

Bro. .  please don't go where I will so traunce you that reincarnation will reject you after I'm done. But let me help you:

(a) the earth is NOT the center of the Universe, and is definitely NOT the center of any supposed multiverses!! If you want to argue further on this, open another thread and let's have a go at your quantum physics!

(b) where in the Bible did anyone tell you that some spirits come from another PLANET? I don't want to risk misquoting you on this one, so I shall refrain from suggesting anything in your favour - just let me know where you read that from in the Bible.

(c) the disembodied spirits of men are not said to come to earth for any 'assignments' - that is just rubbish talk. We have enough work of our own to do, and no outside help of assignees can add a jot to anything that we do here - for the very day that a man dies, his thoughts perish (Psalm 146:4). Even more to the point, Eccl. 9:5-6 tells us concerning the dead, that: "the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." That last line there is stright to the point: THE DEAD can't do any assignment to you - all their hate, love, and whatever can't do you a jot of good or bad. Period.

I need to comment on a related topic - eternal life.

We think of it as living for ever in the world. I wonder how this can be. Will we work for ever? Will we have Children? Will our Children live forever too? Remember that birth and death go hand in hand. If there is no death, will there be birth? Has it not occurred to you that in the garden of Eden, God was the one that instigated Satan to tempt them so that they could multiply according to his pronouncement (Multiply and fill the earth)?  The thought of living for ever may be thrilling, but I think the concept is not totally correct.

Oh, that might be a brilliant "gbam" that you chanced upon, innit - that God should instigate Satan to facilitate man's reproductive tendencies! Man, you're going into a zone away from this whole gist, and I just don't want to humour you, lest I lead you on to the entrappings of Satan himself. I could only ask that you withdraw your postulations thereto and stay on course within this topic. I can understand that when people run out of steam for their arguments, they frantically look for all sorts to embellish what they can't argue - and that is what I see happening in your case just now.

Let us reason from the scripture: John 11: 24 - Lazarus episode

24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Clearly, everlasting life means the opportunity to reincarnate into the world ad infinitum.

No, everlasting life does not even remotely mean reincarnation ad infinitum - go and find out the meaning of ad infinitum before you use it here to suggest what it does not entail. If reincarnation is an 'ad infinitum', then again your whole theory collapses, because you would be saying that there is just no possible end to reincarnations for any single person - and I'm sure that the Hindus and their nirvana would just trump you on that one! You would be saying that only samsara exists for those who walk the shores of 'reincarnation', and then what is their ultimate terminus (ie, the "moksha" of your ad infinitum reincarnation?

Note Christ's word: though he were dead, yet he lives,

Nope, rather He said: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11:25).

The old testament prophet Isaiah, captured it very well by saying that people will live to an old age, with little stress.

And by that Isaiah DID NOT mean reincarnation.

The main confusion for Christians is the statment from Paul which is not well understood: "It is appointed unto man to once to die and after that judgement, ". That statement has been given very wrong interpretation. Let me explain it by looking at Elijah and John the baptist.

Elijah killed about 33 prophets of Baal in the name of fighting for God before he translated. There was no evidence that he suffered any judgement while in the world as Elijah, but he had run foul of a natural law. When he entered the spirit realm, he was judged and he came down to earth to fulfill this judgement. That was why he was miserably murdered by Herod for nothing.

Where did you read this whopper, Malbron? We know that Elijah did not enter the spirit realm to be judged; else how come the same Elijah was allegedly "murdered" where he appeared with Moses on the mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17:4?? Who "murdered" the Elijah that appeared there?

When reading that portion did you not wonder why this tragedy should befall such a righteous man? Where was God? This guy was very righteous! The answer is that Herod was unwittingly carrying out God's judgement on Elijah who was now on earth as John the baptist.

The fact is that Elijah was not John the Baptist - try harder! Who was Jesus' avatar before He was CRUCIFIED on the Cross? Who did Jesus "murder" so that He could be CRUCIFIED on the Cross?

That was why when he waited in vain for Christ to save him, he doubted Christ and had to send his men to inquire if truly he was the Christ. He had to suffer his fate and pay for that exuberance as Elijah.  So Elijah after committing a crime came back to face the music of his crime.

Even at that, Elijah still appeared on the mount - not as a murdered person by any Herod, nor as an avatar of John the Baptist, nor even paying for any excesses. This theory you're seeking to dribble in here is not helping at all.

What then is the end game? My two cents:

At the end, the angel of death who prevented John from realising who he was would be defeated and the curtain over our minds will be opened. Thus we can look at our fellow man and perhaps understand who he was in a previous incarnation something we cannot do now. That I think is the essence of the vision of the transfiguration, which signified that in the kingdom of god all the old prophets will be present, though they may not answer their names but we will know them!

There was no such angel who "prevented John from realising who he was" - that is a made up script from those who are seeking to force their own theatricals into the Biblical texts. Please show me plainly WHERE any angels so acted upon John the Baptist - JUST SHOW ME!

Finally,

Those spirits that resurrected when the earth shook at Chrit's death. Am not aware that they lived and died normally. Could you quote the scripture for me again.

All you needed to do was remove the heavy towel from your eyes and read the text again - I already quoted it: 1 Corinthians 15:6 - "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

If they did, then does that not puncture your argument that it is appointed unto man once to die and after that judgement? Help me here, sir!

Nope, because physical resurrection does not negate the Judgement that precedes spiritual resurrection - scroll up and see the distinctions I set forth between them. The "JUDGEMENT" does not happen the moment one dies - and everywhere this is taught, there is not a hint that a person already suffers divine judgement upon death.

@viaro: LOL I loooove cola too! It really does it for me. I'm in Nigeria and it's 1:40am. If I dont leave NL now I will sleep in late, and its church in the morning! Goodnight, brother.

P.S. I will return maybe in 24 hours and see where the discussion has gone North, East or South (I am doubting the west-side, it has been shown that people don't re-incarnate there   otherwise we would have another Tupac spitting the rhymes like tomorrow has not yet been born)  

It looks like you are  confused about the Transfiguration event? Well it was a vision that was revealed unto them.

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Elijah did not physically meet with them. How could they have known Elijah? Were they born in his days or did they have his picture? It was a spiritual revelation.

The cycle you mentioned is in order. I hope you realise that judgement takes place mainly on earth as was the case with John the Baptist? How will the judgement happen if there is no reincarnation on earth? I guess  this is a bit too much for you to comprehend but I fully understand your opinions.

If the earth is not the centre of the multiverse, why the interest from God? Why did Christ not die in Mars or Jupiter? Do you not know that life exist in another dimension in these planets? Do you think God created them for fun?

Again you quote scripture with little understanding. Your quotes of Eccliastis does not and should not have been used to support your argument. It shows your level of understanding of  a simple scripture. The dead refferred to there is the physical body not the spirit. The physical body is forgotten but the spirit lives on forever.

Please what does everlasting life mean to you? Lets see your understanding. At least I offered mine, which supports re-incarnation.

When he entered the spirit realm, he was judged and he came down to earth to fulfill this judgement

. Hey how about your Birth=Death=Resurrection=Judgement  cycle? You seem to have forgotten it so soon or do I take it that you didn't quite understand yourself?

Christ's coming

    * Acts 1:11 - ". . . this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

Q1: What manner did he go into heaven?
Q2: Why did the two angels question their looking up to heaven? If it was necessary to look up to heaven will the question arise?

Another case of error! Wrong understanding of the scripture!!

    * Mark 13:26 - 'And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory'


A1: This is a spiritual expression depicting the glory of the Son of Man. Clouds in most scripture refer to the presence of God.  If he is suspended in the sky like you think, why is the end not come after that event? Why does the end come much later ?  If he is in the sky over London, will someone in the States see him? Read the rest of the scripture. How does it relate to the scripture in Isaiah 9; and Rev 12;5? who are the they that would see this vision? Have you read the Revelation given to John? I doubt it.

There was no such angel who "prevented John from realising who he was" - that is a made up script from those who are seeking to force their own theatricals into the Biblical texts. Please show me plainly WHERE any angels so acted upon John the Baptist - JUST SHOW ME! Grin


I was explaining to you why John and indeed other mortals might not realize who they really are in their existence on earth. There is an angel of death and hades, they are scriptural. 1Cor 15:26



"3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

I don't understand how this proves your story about the ressurrected beings and their subsequent death. Nothing like that was mentioned. That was why I asked for the scripture. Perhaps someone else can help? I think you just did an interpolation of error. I hope you know that some gospels not included in the bible dwelt extensively on these stories?



irst off, 'regeneration' in that verse does not speak about 'reincarnation' - nada, zilch, nix. The regeneration in that verse points to the same thing that Peter   spoke about in Acts 3:21 - "the times of restitution of all things". In the regeneration, Jesus sits on the throne of His glory - and He Himself defined when that is going to be: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Matthew 25:31). In other words, this is a future event and points to the time when all nations shall be gathered before Him for divine judgement. Happy now?



Is that correct? As soon as the son of man is seated in his throne all nations shall be gathered before his throne for judgement?  I know my bible tells me that even on his seat, he still has got work to do before it gets messy for sinners. Read 1 cor 15 :24

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death


Note the shaded, and note the last enemy to be destroyed. Go back to my John the Baptist explanation.

@Malbron:

Please let me know the Biblical verses that support Jesus coming back as a baby. Twould be nice to learn something I've missed all these years. BTW, is it "simply Malbron" or "synthetic Marlboro"?

And yes O, this your vision is too much for me to comprehend - I'm not on "mal, ". Especially not the synthetic type that has glue additives.

BTW, I agree that the Spirit lives on forever but my question for you, my brother, is when did Elijah DIE? I need Biblical support for your statement not dubious conjecture!

You ask me what everlasting life means to me - here goes! The body returns to Earth and the Spirit returns to God. That Spirit does not die but is not free to roam about. It is that Spirit that WILL BE RESURRECTED for judgment not re-incarnated. If it truly re-incarnates, which of the multitude of lives it goes through would you say is its life? All? so how does judgment work? God takes out a calculator and averages good and wrong to know what this Spirit deserves? What of its soul? does that follow the spirit around from man to dog to snake then back to man etc?

In the view of hundreds, Jesus ascended into heaven the way we see Spiderman taking off! That is what the Bible says (at least without synthetic "malboro" in the system). The Bible also says He will return LIKE this - AS HE WENT UP (IN CLOUDS OF GLORY). However, Mal, has given you a revelation that He will be born in Imesi-Ile, Osun state, Nigeria, grow up then jump up in a cloud of smoke and, yes, you guessed it, APPEAR to all mankind! When you say "suspended in the sky", are you considering the possibility that "Universal Pictures" or another major studio will use ropes to prop Him up for "action effects"?

Viaro very kindly corrected you before your knee followed your foot into your mouth when he said "birth-death-resurrection-judgment". I had been waiting for you to dance the la-la dance before showing you why even recitation majors can show more sense than some of us. Rather than discuss resurrection then try to sneak in re-incarnation in a multitude of words, show us ONE quote where re-incarnation is expressly supported in the Bible.

Finally, you say there are gospels NOT included in the Bible! Ok, I hear and one of them is that written by Nuclearboy and Chapter 1 verse 1 says, "Malboro mixed with Angel-dust and/or Glue washed down with firewater is bad for Malbron's interpretation of the Scriptures".

Enjoy your Sunday! BTW, why not take your interpretation to Mars or Jupiter and teach it to the life there?

@Chairman Viaro:

You and Maven should keep reminding me to agree with you everytime (until I have your babes' number ). Sadly, no one can have anything on a woman so I'm stuck in her case. Anyway 50% is better than 0% and you are more vitriolic

Lol! This thread is so much fun. Viaro presents sauced & skewered Marlbron-flavored mincemeat. Hehehe.

My own point is that anybody is free to believe in reincarnation or that Santa Claus has a red unicorn, just dont invade my worldview and tell me MY BIBLE says what it doznt!

Marlbron, I would advise you not to debate quantum physics & multiverses with viaro, unless you know your onions! But if u insist, pls take it to another thread!!

Nuclearboy! Abeg pls discuss against me if I misyarn or misrepresent our faith on NL o. Lol. I am not beyond correction, but the correction is by the Word & the Spirit. Happy Sunday, Egbon.

It is rather irritating to see Christians dancing around and making a circus of what their own bible states in very clear terms.

I have oft noted that there is a pattern you will often see in most Christian arguments –

If the Bible says –

X means “Stone” –

- And the Christian agrees with it, he will tell you that the text is clear and thus X really means stone.

But when the Bible says X means “Stone” –

- And the Christian does not agree with it, he will tell you that it is merely symbolic and that X does not really mean stone.

This is not to say that there are not symbols in the bible – it is however utterly laughable the way in which the Christian deploys such defences. Especially because the Christian is always readily willing to dismiss even the words of Jesus Christ, whom he calls God, in favour of that which he himself prefers.

This is the very reason why Christ would state that the father is greater than himself, ask people not to call him good, because the father alone is good, pray to the father, explain to people that he worships the father as his God, state that there are things he does not know which only the father knows – and Christians would heartily dismiss all his very own words in favour of the words of other men whom they chose to believe – and insist that Christ is God and equal to the father! A doctrine they would heartily laugh at if propounded by any other religion, in asserting its own founder to be God. It is particularly strange that they believe that Christ is GOD, because if that is the case then one would have thought that his words would be most important to the Christian. But that is not the case: Viaro lightly shoves his God’s word under the carpet.

Let’s have a look at a classic example: Jesus stated TWICE that John the Baptist was Elijah. He even took pains to make it clear that his statement was not symbolic or metaphorical.

I repeat for emphasis –

“For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come.” (Matt. 11:13-14)

AND –

And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"

- Which is a clear opportunity for him to explain the truth to them – instead he answers -

"Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand."

Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17:10-13)

[/quote]

I repeat for emphasis – There you have it – the explicit words of Christ himself, who the Christian calls God!

Do they accept his words? No – Check out Viaro’s laughable excuses for rejecting the words of his own God –

[quote]His conditional 'IF' in that statement;

Now I must be harsh on this. It is either Viaro is plain stupid or, regardless of his considerable vocabulary, he still has difficulties with plain English Grammar.

He abuses the word “if” with such puerile density that it becomes glaring that he has in fact seen the truth and is looking for farcical escape routes from it.

There is NO context in which the word “if” can be applied to suggest that the words of Christ in that sentence were not real or true save one – which leads to absurdity.

Here it is –

“IF you will receive it. . . he is Elijah who was to come. . .”

Thus –

If we read in terms of Viaro’s suggestion that it is “conditional” then – it simply means that the truth of the subsequent words are dependent on the conditionality of the word “if” –

Thus –

IF the apostles decided to receive what he was saying, then IN TRUTH, John was Elijah.

IF the apostles decided NOT to receive what he was saying, then IN TRUTH , John was not Elijah.

Thus Viaro is telling us that the truth or falsity of what Jesus was saying depended on whether or not the disciples chose to believe it!

Unless of course, as has become obvious, Viaro is too dense to know the proper application of the word “Conditional!”

I needn’t have gone to this length to set it out, save for the fact that unless one sets out an argument for Viaro as though one is talking to a Kindergarten child, Viaro would never see the simplest logic – so long as it contradicts his dogma. This is the same way Viaro argued with me in another thread asserting that the will of God could differ from the word of God – all in a bid to defend the indefensible Trinity dogma!

“If you will receive” – simply means the obvious – it is a query into the readiness of the listener to accept the truth being conveyed.

I laugh. More pathetic is the unthinking Christian audience who applaud this sort of childish empty-headed logic singularly because it accords with that which the Romans have fed their fore-fathers.

Let’s carry on – In his bid to dismiss the words of Jesus, (his God,) he also adds more excuses –

(b) The deixis of Biblical prophecies;

- Which is meaningless given Jesus’ affirmation of the reality of this prophecy when approached about it and its applicability to John. Or is Jesus not God again? Such an infantile joke!
-

(c) Malachi's double reference - Mal. 3:1 and 4:5 - for 'Elijah';

-
- - Which is out rightly deceitful, because if you will read the so called “double reference” neither VERSE even remotely contradicts the other. The first verse says that the Lord will send his messenger: the second verse says that the Lord will send Elijah. . . SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? ? ? Viaro, stop trying to entertain us with comical lies, Rowan Atkinson’s Black Adder is all the comedy I need and I have the full DVD here in my room, thanks.
-

(d) John the Baptist's own solid answer in John 1:21 - "Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not";

-
- Are you dense or what, Viaro? Who knows each man’s identity best – God, or the man concerned? Did God (Jesus!) not affirm TWICE that John was Elijah? If John says he is not, out of ignorance, will you accept John’s words over God’s (Jesus’!) direct affirmation? ? ? ? Your dogma is clownish, friend!
-

(e) The angel Gabriel's pronouncements in Luke 1:17 - "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias";

-
- Exactly. And what is the spirit of Elijah if not Elijah’s inner being? Joker.

(f) Then in post #15 I went on to give an example of the deixis of Biblical prophecy as to a personage of the past who would reappear in the future, using David as a clear and oft-referenced example by many prophets, to the point of resurrection, and not reincarnation.

This is bl.oody irrelevant given Jesus’ direct affirmation of the reality of the prophecy and the identity of the person it referred to.


Given the foregoing it is clear that Viaro has NO REASON WHATSOEVER to declare that Jesus’ words were merely symbolic.

The evidence rather shows that he meant what he said. What a poor teacher he would be, if when that question was asked by the apostles, he proceeded to confuse them by affirmatively asserting that John was “indeed” Elijah.

I am at a loss as to the great efficacy of religious brain-washing. Viaro would defend the dogma that my cat is almighty God if only it were written in the bible.

If he didn’t like it, he would declare it symbolic.

What a laugh. I don’t have the aptitude for this c.rap today.

Mavenb0x:


My own point is that anybody is free to believe in reincarnation or that Santa Claus has a red unicorn, just dont invade my worldview and tell me MY BIBLE says what it doznt!

Joining Viaro in the art of telling outright lies, Maven?

Jesus positively declared in two separate scriptures that John was the expected Elijah.

So please it is an OUTRIGHT LIE for the two of you to keep repeating ceaselessly that he did not say so. HE DID - Matt. 17:10 - 13/ Matt 11:13 - 14.

Why the heck are you guys able and willing to spew outright falsities and direct lies? ? ? It appears to be a Christian thing - just the way your mentor Viaro repeatedly asserted in another thread that Jesus never requested that the cup should pass over his head - until he was so ratted out it was starkly embarrassing.

The words of Jesus are clear in those verses.

Now if you want to claim that the words are only symbolic then the burden of proving that RESTS SQUARELY ON YOU.

And thus far it has been shown how comical your Mentor - Viaro's reasons for claiming so are.

Stop the lies. Stop saying Jesus did not say so - HE DID. If you are able, bring out the proof that he was being symbolic only.

anybody is free to believe in reincarnation or that Santa Claus has a red unicorn,

And who are you trying to make fun of here? You, who believe that a human being is God, have the nerve to insinuate that believing in reincarnation is as silly as believing in santa and red unicorns? ? ? You, who believe that paradise is in Hades - the land of the dead - regardless of what Ecclesiates 9:5 says of the land of the dead? You who invent stories about paradise being "moved" from the land of the dead to "heaven" ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Who should be talking about Santa Claus and Red Unicorns dear Maven?

Deep Sight:

And who are you trying to make fun of here? You, who believe that a human being is God, have the nerve to insinuate that believing in reincarnation is as silly as believing in santa and red unicorns? ? ? You, who believe that paradise is in Hades - the land of the dead - regardless of what Ecclesiates 9:5 says of the land of the dead? You who invent stories about paradise being "moved" from the land of the dead to "heaven" ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Who should be talking about Santa Claus and Red Unicorns dear Maven?

LMAO I laugh in the Queen's Gambit! At the root of any deistic worldview is irrationality, humanly speaking. That is why faith is required. Red Unicorns or Talking Dragons or Flying Monkeys, I don't give a damn! When I didn't know better, I was busy putting down other people's faith. But now? Nah I'm much wiser. I was just saying, DO NOT bring your fables into Christianity. All the things you mentioned above, are a part of my worldview, adequately supported by the Scriptures, broadly agreed to by men who have given their lives over to the diligent study of the scriptures. You don't have to believe it, Deep Sight, the same way I will never have to believe that, say, Amadioha is the way to go. So as long as it's in my worldview, I won't have anyone coming up and trying to force-fit fables and old wives' tales into it. Yes, you can say that my views on Eden are like fables, but it's all in my worldview, and clearly expressed there too (by the way, have you yet found any Christian who is confidently sure that I am wrong in all those postulations, and can back it up by Scriptures? If you haven't, do you claim then to know more about our faith than we do? That would be terrific). And lastly, whenever I make surmises based on personal revelation, I indicate that it is IMO (In my opinion), and in those cases THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DETERRENCE OF SALVATION FOR OTHERS! If they accept the views, it explains some things in better light. If they do not, it's fine! That's why its personal revelation. So, what's the problem, really? It's my faith, Deep Sight! Deal with it!!!

And now to the subject matter. You say I am lying, as well as my "mentor" Viaro (Mind you, I have no mentor on NL, at least not yet. I only have some people I have deep respect for). And right now I just won some really tough chess games so I am in a good mood. I am not lying, and I will summarily present how it is YOU that has distorted Christ's words, in the next post.

Mal 4:5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Elijah is to come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. What is this great and dreadful day? Did it happen in the time of John the Baptist? NO! Again I tell you, NO!!! 

So what is this great and dreadful day of the Lord? It's in the far (with respect to Malachi) future, and Revelations 11 speaks of it. THAT is where Elijah is returning: him and (maybe Enoch but most probably Moses, judging by their typified acts in Rev 11). 

Elijah the Tishbite jumped onto the scene out of nowhere in 1 Kings 17 to stand up for God in a stubbornly unyielding voice in the midst of darkness, preparing the hearts of the people for God. John the baptist was as much a forerunner for a new dispensation, and Elijah AGAIN would be a forerunner for the Judgment day. IN ALL THE CASES, NOBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T HEAR, OR THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS COMING! But Elijah was not re-incarnated as John the Baptist, he would simply return (he didn't die in the first place) as HIMSELF. See:

Mat 17:9  And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
Mat 17:10  And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
Mat 17:11  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
Mat 17:12  But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Mat 17:13  Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Deep Sight, you may want to read that boldened line like 5 times or so. It makes it VERY clear that Elijah TRULY SHALL FIRST COME, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS! Was John the Baptist born at this time, professor? Or he too was yet to come?

"But I say unto you", continued Christ, meaning "Furthermore, I'm telling you (BUT NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPHECY). . ."

". . . Elijah has come already! And they knew him not, but have done what they would. . ." and this verse can only be clarified by another set of scriptures where Christ spoke to the multitudes:

Mat 11:13  For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Mat 11:14  And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Mat 11:15  He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mat 11:16  But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
Mat 11:17  And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.
Mat 11:18  For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
Mat 11:19  The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Where Jesus clearly states, and I paraphrase, that the prophets prophesied until John, and now, they did not say he was Elijah, but IF YOU WILL RECEIVE IT, let us just say that it is him BECAUSE he has a similar role to THAT Elijah who is YET to come. BUT what exactly do you guys want? A type of Elijah came, and you said he has a demon. I came without such ascetic traits, you have further complaints!

Don't you get it? Meaning that John the Baptist wasn't the Elijah that was to come first!

Let's see what John says about the prophecy that declared his own coming, he never said he was the messenger of Mal 3:1 or Mal 4:5 BUT RATHER the messenger of Isa 40:3

Isa 40:3  The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

That was in the spirit of Elijah, as John the Baptist did. In the mannerism of Elijah, as he did in 1 Ki 18:21

1Ki 18:21  And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

Luke 1:16 "And he will turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God.

I already said that there was a clear distinction between the spirit (mannerism) and the soul (the essence of vitality) of a person, and that difference was well known as shown in the Bible. So, when it is said "in the spirit of Elijah", does that mean "in the soul of Elijah"?

2Ki 1:8  And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.

Mat 3:4  And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

It is not indicated that John was hairy, but he had to appear in a similitude of Elijah, so he wore camel's hair, to make the people VISUALLY REMEMBER the choice they had to face in the days of Elijah (as would have been recounted to them by their forefathers). To make people remember to stand up for God. He was a type of Elijah in person, but he was NOT Elijah!!!!

Elijah and John were alike in mannerism, and that is why Jesus said "If you want to see it that way, John is the Elijah that was promised! Although THAT Elijah is still yet to come!!"

Mat 11:14  And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

Mat 17:10  And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
Mat 17:11  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
Mat 17:12  But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Mat 17:13  Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

The fact that the disciples "understood that he spake to them of" John the Baptist simply shows that he was using an allegory of Elijah, and NOW they understood what he was talking about. But he CLEARLY said (v11) Elijah TRULY SHALL COME FIRST AND RESTORE ALL THINGS.

I ask you again, Deep Sight, did John the Baptist restore all things? Ehn?

No he didn't! He only prepared the way for Christ, the same way Elijah prepared the hearts of the people for the love of God to find a way back in their hearts. THAT is why he was in the spirit of Elijah.

Besides John denying being Elijah, Mark 6:14-16 and 8:28 show that both the people and Herod distinguished between John the Baptist and Elijah. Even those blind bats knew that he wasn't Elijah, he was a kind of wannabe!

And I will round off by quoting Bible verses that make reincarnation crumble:

2Co 5:8  We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
When you are absent from the body, you are present with the Lord; and not present in another body as another person, maybe a newborn movie star-to-be in Hollywood.

Luke 16:19-31 describes Dives (the rich man) and Lazarus, and it affirms that the guy was not going to re-incarnate. Dives begged Abraham to allow Lazarus (he was still thinking like a big man, sending the poor Lazarus on errands) to return with a message for his 5 brothers. Return could be resurrect, reincarnate or resuscitate, which are all different. Abraham simply replied that THEY STILL WILL NOT LISTEN, EVEN IF ONE ROSE FROM THE DEAD. resuscitation was out of the question cos Lazarus was physically dead. Reincarnation was obviously fallacious because Dives was in hell, and not in another body. The last option was resurrection, and Abraham said EVEN IF, meaning it was a possibility, but it won't even make a difference in this case. This makes resurrection an acceptable fact, but reincarnation? Come on! Why would Dives be roasting in hell if he had reincarnated?

Luk 23:43  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Jesus to the thief on the cross. Why not "today you will be inside a brown cow in Egypt?"

We must also remember that Jesus taught that people decide their eternal destiny in a single lifetime (Matthew 25:46). This is precisely why the apostle Paul emphasized that "now is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:2).

Okay, now some last minute quizzes, just two of them. DeepSight, please attend?

If the purpose of karma is to rid humanity of its selfish desires, then why has there not been a noticeable improvement in human nature after all the millennia of reincarnations on earth?

If reincarnation and the law of karma are so beneficial on a practical level, how do we explain the immense and ever-worsening social and economic problems - widespread poverty, starvation, disease, and horrible suffering - in India, where reincarnation has been systematically taught throughout its history?