@MyJoe:

I have one question for you which I ask only because your last post was concise and not noisy - What is the population of the world today? What was the population of the world 5, 000 years ago? no idea? Guess! What happened Sir? Where did all the extra people come from or do you suppose they were plants or animals in a previous existence? Then why isn't the plant/animal kingdom diminished etc etc etc?

Re-incarnation would suggest re-cycling the same "peoples" over and over, wouldn't it? Where are the new ones coming from?

As Imhotep wisely said (I hope I got the message), "Thought can be a problem and separate us from reality"

^^^ I fail to comprehend why this question is asked of me. Maybe you should read my "concise" post again. Thanks.

nuclearboy:

@MyJoe:

I have one question for you which I ask only because your last post was concise and not noisy - What is the population of the world today? What was the population of the world 5, 000 years ago? no idea? Guess! What happened Sir? Where did all the extra people come from or do you suppose they were plants or animals in a previous existence? Then why isn't the plant/animal kingdom diminished etc etc etc?

Re-incarnation would suggest re-cycling the same "peoples" over and over, wouldn't it? Where are the new ones coming from?

As Imhotep wisely said (I hope I got the message), "Thought can be a problem and separate us from reality"

If there are many millions of worlds in existence within the universe alone - the size of which is incomprehensible to us -  then souls can incarnate and reincarnate on many different worlds dependng on their inner state - to a spiritually higher world or a spiritually lower world. This experience is what humans have intuitively sensed over the centuries and labelled as going to "heaven" or going to "hell."

Given this, once any planet becomes fit for human habitation, souls could incarnate there and the population can only go upwards as more and more souls are attracted from other worlds.

Your problem, i think, is that you were limiting your thinking to the earth alone. You should not do that given the infinity of the glorious multiverse within which we live.

@deepsight. How did you come to know enough about what lives exist outside of the earth to be sure of this theory of yours. I wanna know so that I can "unlimit" myself to the earth and get up close and personal with these extra-terrestrials that come to "hang-out" with us.

^^^ They are not extra-terrestials. They are you and me.

The very fact that you are born (enter the world) and that you die (exit the world) is enough for the contemplative man to recognise that he is coimng from somewhere and going somewhere.

This presupposes a pre and post existence and illuminates earthlife as transitory only.

Deep Sight:

^^^ They are not extra-terrestials. They are you and me.

The very fact that you are born (enter the world) and that you die (exit the world) is enough for the contemplative man to recognise that he is coimng from somewhere and going somewhere.

This presupposes a pre and post existence and illuminates earthlife as transitory only.

If "birth and death" = "rebirth and redeath" in your world, I gotta say that's pretty neat. What is 2+3 in your world? 

Krayola:


If "birth and death" = "rebirth and redeath" in your world, I gotta say that's pretty neat. What is 2+3 in your world?

Abi

Deep Sight:

^^^ They are not extra-terrestials. They are you and me.

The very fact that you are born (enter the world) and that you die (exit the world) is enough for the contemplative man to recognise that he is coimng from somewhere and going somewhere.

This presupposes a pre and post existence and illuminates earthlife as transitory only.

Where does it (plane of existence) start and where does it end? Please be specific since you are proposing this as answer to my query.

BTW, the human race has been consistently growing in size. Are you then also positing that we all have been doing "anko" and developing at the same time into this world? note that this would mean ultimately that at least one world (your start plane/position/transitory initiator) would ultimately end up empty! Then what? Infinity collapses?

DeepSight, do you have to go to this extent to self-justify! Next we'll hear the angelic host is the next step along the way to " "! You'll have to help fill in the blank space as I wonder what the final step in this your journey through "transitions" would be.

Thanks Nuclear. I will try to be as clear and concise as I can. I hope its helpful.

nuclearboy:

Abi

Where does it (plane of existence) start and where does it end?

It begins with God and continues through perhaps endless cycles. Only God can determine if or when it may end.

BTW, the human race has been consistently growing in size. Are you then also positing that we all have been doing "anko" and developing at the same time into this world? note that this would mean ultimately that at least one world (your start plane/position/transitory initiator) would ultimately end up empty! Then what? Infinity collapses?

God being self-expressive by nature does not cease to create. The continuous outward radiation of God is what forms as creation and souls. For this reason even as we speak, every second zillions of new souls are emerging from God and seeping into zillions of worlds and planes. It is continuous. Thus there is nothing like “emptiness” anywhere. Please try to absorb this and expand your view.

DeepSight, do you have to go to this extent to self-justify! Next we'll hear the angelic host is the next step along the way to " "! You'll have to help fill in the blank space as I wonder what the final step in this your journey through "transitions" would be.

I hope the foregoing was useful. I do not try to self-justify. I communicate my perceptions of reality and Truth as I apprehend them: and apprehending reality (Truth) has occupied the better part of my musings for a decade now. I do pray it’s not time wasted.

Deep Sight:

I do pray it’s not time wasted.

I couldn't help smiling when i read the above.

At the risk of digressing from the topic, can i just say that that, which you state as your prayer, should be the prayer of us all who engage in these discussions of what constitutes 'truth' and/or 'reality'! But the way i see it; if my worldview, concerning God and the path of salvation which He has revealed to man, is a lie in the eternal scheme of things, then i lose nothing. If, however, it is a shadow of the 'truth' then i gain everything!

But on the topic of reincarnation: though the concept makes some sense-evidenced by the fact that a lot of 'reasonable' people believe in it-i am not very convinced that it was part of the message that the Christ was trying to reveal to man about the eternal truths. None of the scriptures quoted can really stand up to very serious and laboured scrutiny. But then, that's just my laymans opinion.

None of the scriptures quoted can really stand up to very serious and laboured scrutiny.

Well my fear is that "very serious and laboured scrutiny" is actually a euphenism for some persons to deliberately seek to evade the very plain text and the very direct words of Christ himself -

Whereas the gospel adjures man to receive with the simplicity of a child.

I fear that you're taking this too far, DeepSight and that especially when everything you base your words on may be interpreted in any number of ways. This repeated "very plain words of Jesus" has become quite tiresome and is beneath you (at least in the sight of such as me who have shown respect for your reasoning). It is not based on anything more than a decision to interpret issues to suit yourself.

That was why I thought it better to state the obvious contradictions in the re-incarnation theory according to the Bible rather than leaving it open to "twisting". And you come back by postulating that "ascension and death mean the same thing". What an interpretation? What of Abraham and the thief? What criteria "exempted" these? You sincerely think anyone is convinced of these things that you make up as we go along?

Try to stay within this world, universe and galaxy this time please. I haven't understood enough of math and here you are going on about "zillions of worlds and planes". Your words of adjuration to receive like a child na "wonderment" - Is this coming from OOI and zillions of planes and retrofitting planets for habitation by increasing spirituality of re-incarnated "radiations" of God

I fear that you're taking this too far, DeepSight and that especially when everything you base your words on may be interpreted in any number of ways. This repeated "very plain words of Jesus" has become quite tiresome and is beneath you (at least in the sight of such as me who have shown respect for your reasoning). It is not based on anything more than a decision to interpret issues to suit yourself.

The same may be said for you and your colleagues: especially in light of the fact that the plain words stand on my side of the debate – only advanced intellectuals like yourself, Viaro and Mavenbox are able to conjure it to mean something else.

I repeat: Christ DID say those words. None of you can deny that he did – your only argument rests in stating that the words were symbolic only – which you have to PROVE.

It is thus strange to me that you are telling me that MY interpretation is “not based on anything more than a decision to interpret issues to suit yourself.”

Do you not think the same apples more aptly to those of you who are reading symbols into the text, whereas, idiot that I am, I have chosen to accept the plain words only? Now who is interpreting issues to suit themselves? In fact, I am not even interpreting anything – given that I am resting on the plain words – you lot are the ones doing a lot of interpretation!

That was why I thought it better to state the obvious contradictions in the re-incarnation theory according to the Bible rather than leaving it open to "twisting". And you come back by postulating that "ascension and death mean the same thing"

I was hoping further explanation of this would not be necessary. Note that I said they mean the same thing IN THE CONTEXT of this debate. Why?

What do you suppose ascension means?

Do you suppose that Elijah did not ascend to another realm?

If he didn’t then he must have been hanging around in the mountains somewhere in the Middle East for the last 4, 500 years or so. Does that make sense to you?

Does it not make more sense to deduce that the scripture says he was taken up into the heavens – thus that he ascended? And if he ascended it can only be to another realm or plane – not this world – unless you believe that a 5, 000 year old Elijah is still hiding in the caves somewhere in the Middle-East today, no?

Now if he has ascended to another realm – tell me – how is that different from a man who dies and proceeds to another realm in spirit? And if he were to return to this world, how would he do so? Through birth as an infant. . . or . . .BING! He pops out of the sky. Examine yourself in all honesty and see which makes more sense to you.

I hope I am communicating.

But again you miss my point and again I sincerely believe it is deliberate i.e. you are "actually" not missing any part of it. What I say is that whist you make sense, you do so in a purely legalistic manner - conjecture! You are using your "lawyerly" skills to argue an obvious fallacy and advance it as "truth". if that were not so, why do you need to interpret the word?

Why not accept the simple direct "resurrection" message the Bible passes or just say you do not believe the Bible? Why say "yes, there's resurrection there but I also see re-incarnation behind it and to show this, I have to "interpret"". This "re-incarnation" issue started when you asked ME in the other thread if I believed in it and then added that Jesus obviously advanced it. Now I wonder if it wasn't just a ploy to lure us and allow you practice "litigation".

Somewhere inside me, a voice says you find this that you do funny and interesting, - an "intellectual" game of chess, coming from behind (with only the minimal standing) to win. I have had the misfortune to have lawyers practice their act against me or before me (luckily not in court) and oftentimes wonder if it isn't some form of advanced 'sadomasochism" or attrition or "whatever" that law school passes on.

Well, you did get Viaro to leave (never saw that before) and MavenBox too has gone silent. Maybe its time for me to join them. but not because your imagination has me stymied. This is all because I don't know how to continue saying white simply means white. But in my Bible, I see resurrection and not re-incarnation.

Finally, ascension is a transition. Death also is a transition. BUT YOUR OWN DEFINITION (bandied between you and Viaro) of Re-incarnation is birth-[b]death-rebirth NOT transition-transition-transition[/b]. If death is a transition, then birth also is a transition and re-birth also is a transition! I hope you can see where your imagination will lead to if left unchecked or without boundaries

Hallo all, and DeepSight in particular.

I should have very much liked to leave off this discussion seeing that there is nothing you had improved upon in your arguments on reincarnation versus resurrection in the Bible. It is alright if you want to hang your worldview on reincarnation, but please find another book to dribble in that idea when the best of your arguments have patently failed to dribble it into the Bible.

Having thus colossally failed to find grounds for your reincarnation idea in the Bible, how you turn round to allege that Christians are either 'avoiding' or else disobeying the Word of our God (JESUS) is below you - and very shamefully so!

The points are quite simple:

[list](a) What is your own definition of reincarnation? ~ which, by the time you had defined what reincarnation was to you, it turned out that such an idea is not to be found in the Bible;[/list]

[list](b) whereupon, we made clear that rather than 'reincarnation', Christ taught resurrection all through His ministry - that much you did not argue against, but must needs maintain what you cannot sustain in this discourse;[/list]

[list](c) then again, another point about reincarnation is that a reincarnated being ought to have lived a 'past life', suffered/experienced death, before being born as a baby - OF WHICH THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST HINT as regards John the Baptist! Instead of turning and twisting round in circles, why don't you just show us where John made any categorical statements as regards his 'past life' as Elijah whereas he categorically DENIED such a thing in John 1:21??[/list]

[list](d) It turns out that YOU DeepSight are very much at war with your own musings and are fast losing your originality of thought! It seems you will stop at nothing - even if you have to prevaricate on your own definition of reincarnation - just to keep arguing this stupid no brainer perpetually!! [/list]

[list](e) UNLESS your type of reincarnationists are dolts, you either have to find answers to these points before pointing accusing fingers at Christians on this topic! You can't keep evading, prevaricating on, and mendaciously ignoring your own definition (as a consequence of the same definition of reincarnation by reincarnatisnists) while yet alleging anything here against Christian discussants! To make things simpler for you, a few questions which beg answers directly from you without your trademark prevarications are:[/list]

[list][li]since when has reincarnation excluded DEATH as a necessary element in its definition by reincarnationists?[/li]
[li]since Elijah did NOT experience DEATH, where does 'reincarnation' still remain 'reincarnation' in his case?[/li]
[li]since another core element of reincarnation as defined by reincarnationists is a 'past life', where in Scripture do we find: (a) the 'past life' of Elijah in Scripture? (b) the 'past life' of John the Baptist in Scripture?[/li]
[li]if you could find the 'past life' of Elijah, then indeed it would mean that Elijah lived as someone else before he became 'Elijah' - and you would have to identify such a person/persons - otherwise your 'endless circle' is as meaningless as meaninglessness itself![/li][/list]

[list][li]how is it that John the baptist categorically DENIED being Elijah in John 1:21 if at all we are talking about the very same person through reincarnation??[/li][/list]

You see, DeepSight, you would just have to keep in mind the core elements that define reincarnation (such as death and 'past life') when you discuss this topic here - or else your 'reincarnation' is simply not 'reincarnation' when you ignore those core elements! Do you want to keep playing such a cheat while the thread lasts?

nuclearboy:

But again you miss my point and again I sincerely believe it is deliberate i.e. you are "actually" not missing any part of it. What I say is that whist you make sense, you do so in a purely legalistic manner - conjecture! You are using your "lawyerly" skills to argue an obvious fallacy and advance it as "truth". if that were not so, why do you need to interpret the word?

Can I say it enough that I did not interpret anything?

I took the simple words at their face value.

All the interpretation has been done by you guys! You do not accept the words at their face value and thus you are arguing that they are symbolic! So you are the ones interpreting things - not a dumb clot like me!

Why not accept the simple direct "resurrection" message the Bible passes or just say you do not believe the Bible? Why say "yes, there's resurrection there but I also see re-incarnation behind it and to show this, I have to "interpret"

As stated above, I have interpreted nothing!

As an aside – what do YOU believe happens at death?

Somewhere inside me, a voice says you find this that you do funny and interesting, - an "intellectual" game of chess, coming from behind (with only the minimal standing) to win.

Trust me this is not the case. I seek only truth. I play no games. Don’t expect games from a person who spent his entire childhood using his pocket money to buy newspapers, bibles and bible literature.

Well, you did get Viaro to leave (never saw that before) and MavenBox too has gone silent.

I did not get them to leave. I stated that I would not respond to their last posts as I saw no further point. They can only interpret this as victory in the debate, and thus must have gone off to celebrate. Mazaje the (Mauric Iwu) umpire also affirmed their victory. So what then? For me I would love to dedicate the rest of this thread to discussing reincarnation itself as a concept and what happens at death.

Finally, ascension is a transition. Death also is a transition.

I am happy you accept this. Thus we needn’t quibble on words – would you be happier if I stated that a transition from this world precedes a transition into it – to qualify as reincarnation?

Deep Sight:

I did not get them to leave. I stated that I would not respond to their last posts as I saw no further point. They can only interpret this as victory in the debate, and thus must have gone off to celebrate.

I didn't interpret this thread that way at all, and there's nothing to celebrate in your circular catachresis.

For me I would love to dedicate the rest of this thread to discussing reincarnation itself as a concept and what happens at death.

You're quite welcome to do so - and muster all your best shots for that, the only thing being that you can't dribble it into the Bible. . . or you would be playing games with your own definition of what you want to argue!

__________________________

edit:

Deep Sight:

Finally, ascension is a transition. Death also is a transition.

I am happy you accept this. Thus we needn’t quibble on words – would you be happier if I stated that a transition from this world precedes a transition into it – to qualify as reincarnation?

Please don't play games with us here - what do you think you're messing up with?

You DeepSight gave your own definition of 'reincarnation' as

"a scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby"

. . so what is this nonsense about 'transition'? Are you now trying to backtrack on the core element of that definition ('previously DEAD') so you can play games with this quibbling on transition?

Quote from Viaro -

•since when has reincarnation excluded DEATH as a necessary element in its definition by reincarnationists?
•since Elijah did NOT experience DEATH, where does 'reincarnation' still remain 'reincarnation' in his case?
•since another core element of reincarnation as defined by reincarnationists is a 'past life', where in Scripture do we find: (a) the 'past life' of Elijah in Scripture? (b) the 'past life' of John the Baptist in Scripture?
•if you could find the 'past life' of Elijah, then indeed it would mean that Elijah lived as someone else before he became 'Elijah' - and you would have to identify such a person/persons - otherwise your 'endless circle' is as meaningless as meaninglessness itself!


•how is it that John the baptist categorically DENIED being Elijah in John 1:21 if at all we are talking about the very same person through reincarnation??

You see, DeepSight, you would just have to keep in mind the core elements that define reincarnation (such as death and 'past life') when you discuss this topic here - or else your 'reincarnation' is simply not 'reincarnation' when you ignore those core elements! Do you want to keep playing such a cheat while the thread lasts?

I believe i answered these concerns already.

I stated (and Nuclearboy did agree) that –

1. A death is a transition to another realm/ plane
2. An ascension is a transition to another realm/ plane

Thus in the context of the reincarnation discourse, they have the same effect.

I further explained this by saying –

(Plase note the bolded portion in red)

What do you suppose ascension means?

Do you suppose that Elijah did not ascend to another realm?

If he didn’t then he must have been hanging around in the mountains somewhere in the Middle East for the last 4, 500 years or so. Does that make sense to you?

Does it not make more sense to deduce that the scripture says he was taken up into the heavens – thus that he ascended? And if he ascended it can only be to another realm or plane – not this world – unless you believe that a 5, 000 year old Elijah is still hiding in the caves somewhere in the Middle-East today, no?

Now if he has ascended to another realm – tell me – how is that different from a man who dies and proceeds to another realm in spirit? And if he were to return to this world, how would he do so? Through birth as an infant. . . or . . .BING! He pops out of the sky. Examine yourself in all honesty and see which makes more sense to you.

I hope I am communicating.

So Viaro, I hope it is clear that this is not a basis for anything that you said.

On John's denial, Malbron already set you straight on that? Who should know the identity of each man best - Jesus (as almighty God) or mere men themselves?

You see what i meant by going around in circles? All the arguments have been tabled already: go read the previous posts for answers to your questions!

Deep Sight:

Quote from Viaro -

I believe i answered these concerns already.

I stated (and Nuclearboy did agree) that –

1. A death is a transition to another realm/ plane
2. An ascension is a transition to another realm/ plane

Thus in the context of the reincarnation discourse, they have the same effect.

I further explained this by saying –

Please read my recent edit:

[list]

viaro:

Please don't play games with us here - what do you think you're messing up with?

You DeepSight gave your own definition of 'reincarnation' as

"a scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby"

. . so what is this nonsense about 'transition'? Are you now trying to backtrack on the core element of that definition ('previously DEAD') so you can play games with this quibbling on transition?

[/list]

So Viaro, I hope it is clear that this is not a basis for anything that you said.

I was looking at, and holding you accountable to, your very own definition of that nebulous term: 'reincarnation'. Since you're in the habit of thinking that Christians are evasive when they enter into dialogue with you, please don't come up and play games with us here in utter pretence of being smart! As far as I'm aware, where do reincarnationists talk about "transitions" without DEATH for reincarnation to occur as REINCARNATION, huh?

Deep Sight:

On John's denial, Malbron already set you straight on that?

Are you confused or what? Where did he set me straight on that? And what was my reply? Please go and read the posts again.

Who should know the identity of each man best - Jesus (as almighty God) or mere men themselves?

They both knew what they were talking about - unless you want to make John the Baptist a liar for denying that he was Elijah and clearly stating that he was NOT Elijah!! The context is clear: if he was Elijah, he would have been pointing to a "past life" - his own 'past life' - in the person of Elijah the Tishbite! But was that what he said - or you are at pains to ignore John 1:21 again?

You see what i meant by going around in circles? All the arguments have been tabled already: go read the previous posts for answers to your questions!

NONE of the points raised have been addressed by your circular catachresis - that is the reason why I returned to lay them out again!! I am sitting still to see where you want to dribble in the latest duplicity of your 'transition' - that, my friend, is a no brainer already!

Quote from Viaro -

Please don't play games with us here - what do you think you're messing up with?

You DeepSight gave your own definition of 'reincarnation' as
Quote
"a scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby"
. . so what is this nonsense about 'transition'? Are you now trying to backtrack on the core element of that definition ('previously DEAD') so you can play games with this quibbling on transition?

You tend to have the petty habit of quibbling on words Viaro. Death is a transition. You cannot deny that. So it is extremely bizzare to see you all over the place stating that bringing the word "transition" into the mix is an after-thought.

Its all the difference between six and half a dozen. No difference at all.

I am interested in a discourse with truth as the goal; and frankly in discussions on matters deep and spiritual it is no news that terms will be confused. Thus to have some one harp on verbal exactitude can never be of any use to a spiritual discussion - especially considering the vast limitations of words.

But all this aside  - the simple fact is that you cannot deny that death is a transition. Or will you?

^^^ And the above just underlines how tiresome you are, Viaro: you know Death is a transition. So how come you are making an issue of the use of the word "transition?"

E tire me o.

@ deepsight. Does it matter that Elijah never "died"? And if John the baptist was Elijah, why did, after he was dead, Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration? Why wasn't it Moses and John the Baptist?

^^^ Death is only a transition. That addresses the first part of your question.

The second part is beyond me to say: I can only suggest that the cardinal role of Elijah in Bible chronology and holistic theory needed to be emphasized

Deep Sight:

^^^ And the above just underlines how tiresome you are, Viaro: you know Death is a transition. So how come you are making an issue of the use of the word "transition?"

This is the densest part of all your argument! If DEATH is a transition - and as well the very core of REINCARNATION (without which you CANNOT talk about reincarnation) - then please for heavens sake, DeppSight, show us plainly where Elijah first died to then reincarnate as John the Baptist!

Is that TOOOOOOOOOO HARD for you??  Why are you wasting everyone's time?

Deep Sight:

You tend to have the petty habit of quibbling on words Viaro. Death is a transition. You cannot deny that.

I have not denied DEATH - I am asking YOU to show it in Elijah's case! Period.

So it is extremely bizzare to see you all over the place stating that bringing the word "transition" into the mix is an after-thought.

That is because you are trying to gull your audience here and pretend that what you are stating is to now receive a cosmetic apologetics! That is not going anywhere until you stop this stupidity to gain a free ticket to ride on our backs!

Its all the difference between six and half a dozen. No difference at all.

Just shut up, okay? What do you mean by "no difference at all"? So ascension and death are the same thing? _{where is nuclearboy? You see how DeepSight is trying to gull you so cheaply?}

DeepSight, are you still in your bedroom? Good - if you haven't changed your pyjamas yet, just grab your dictionary and look up both words!

I am interested in a discourse with truth as the goal;

[size=16pt]NO YOU ARE NOT![/size]
You are trying too hard to gull both yourself and the public!

and frankly in discussions on matters deep and spiritual it is no news that terms will be confused.

Look, bro. . there is a world of difference between DEATH and ASCENSION - go figure!

Thus to have some one harp on verbal exactitude can never be of any use to a spiritual discussion - especially considering the vast limitations of words.

If this was all about limitation of expressions, why did you even attempt to define reincarnation in the first place? What then does resurrection mean to you . .  or has that lost its meaning to you as well??

But all this aside  - the simple fact is that you cannot deny that death is a transition. Or will you?

My point is simple: DEATH is the core element or reincarnation - show where Elijah died! Period.

viaro:

This is the densest part of all your argument! If DEATH is a transition - and as well the very core of REINCARNATION (without which you CANNOT talk about reincarnation) - then please for heavens sake, DeppSight, show us plainly where Elijah first died to then reincarnate as John the Baptist!

Is that TOOOOOOOOOO HARD for you??  Why are you wasting everyone's time?


I have not denied DEATH - I am asking YOU to show it in Elijah's case! Period.
That is because you are trying to gull your audience here and pretend that what you are stating is to now receive a cosmetic apologetics! That is not going anywhere until you stop this stupidity to gain a free ticket to ride on our backs!
Just shut up, okay? What do you mean by "no difference at all"? So ascension and death are the same thing? _{where is nuclearboy? You see how DeepSight is trying to gull you so cheaply?}

DeepSight, are you still in your bedroom? Good - if you haven't changed your pyjamas yet, just grab your dictionary and look up both words!
[size=16pt]NO YOU ARE NOT![/size]
You are trying too hard to gull both yourself and the public!
Look, bro. . there is a world of difference between DEATH and ASCENSION - go figure!
If this was all about limitation of expressions, why did you even attempt to define reincarnation in the first place? What then does resurrection mean to you . .  or has that lost its meaning to you as well??
My point is simple: DEATH is the core element or reincarnation - show where Elijah died! Period.

Viaro, where have you been? You've missed o! I'm curious as to what you think of the brouhaha going on with our dear Pastor Joe Agbaje.

Round and round and round we go. . .Viaro on the round about again. You know what? I give up.

So no need for you to comeback to me on this son.

For the general reader i surmise as follows -

 1. Death is a transition

 2. Ascension is a transition.

Viaro accepts both of these statements to be true. And yet he tells me he cannot see how the effect of both is the same as i have always said in the context of the reincarnation discourse.

Both take a human spirit out of this world to another plane. Is it hard to see that transition to another plane be it by death, ascension, descension, progression, regression or viarosion is still transition to another plane - and thus clears this plane of that entity that is said to later return.

And yet he calls me st.upid.

Well!!!

Deep Sight:
Both take a human spirit out of this world to another plane. Is it hard to see that transition to another plane be it by death, ascension, descension, progression, regression or viarosion is still transition to another plane - and thus clears this plane of that entity that is said to later return.

But sir, how come you are talking like this? You know very well that Elijah did not leave his body behind in that 'translation' where he was taken up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11) - NO??

Also, what about Enoch in Hebrews 11:5 - did he leave his body behind? 

Dear sir, if it was the human spirit out of this world, what you would be arguing here is DEATH!! That is how death is defined in the Bible - "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:11) - but in both cases of Elijah and Enoch, it was not 'the body without the spirit', for they were both taken whole: body + soul + spirit! Was that too hard, sir??

Deep Sight:
And yet he calls me st.upid.

Master, I apologise about the bromide on 'stupidity' - viaro has no excuses to make on that note, and I can only beg your calmness and sanity (although I would've. . . !!)

Deep Sight:

Round and round and round we go. . .Viaro on the round about again. You know what? I give up.

So no need for you to comeback to me on this son.

For the general reader i surmise as follows -

  1. Death is a transition

  2. Ascension is a transition.

Viaro accepts both of these statements to be true. And yet he tells me he cannot see how the effect of both is the same as i have always said in the context of the reincarnation discourse.

Okay then, DeepSight, let me address why your 'transition' game does not sit with viaro:

Deep Sight:

I further explained this by saying –

(Plase note the bolded portion in red)

Now if he has ascended to another realm – tell me – how is that different from a man who dies and proceeds to another realm in spirit? And if he were to return to this world, how would he do so? Through birth as an infant. . . or . . .BING! He pops out of the sky. Examine yourself in all honesty and see which makes more sense to you.

So Viaro, I hope it is clear that this is not a basis for anything that you said.

Here is how you have failed to make any sense and have been dribbling here on 'transition':

1.  We are discussing this topic from the Bible - that is the foundation of our discussions, not so?

2. YOU DeepSight are the very person who defined reincarnation thus:

Deep Sight:
Reincarnation is the scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby. This is entirely different from a resurection!

. .  and then slammed us with:

Deep Sight:
LET'S NOT VIOLATE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS!

3. Good - we would not violate simple definitions - but viaro asks that you yourself DO NOT PREVARICATE on your own definition of that word 'reincarnation'. .  was that too hard a request? We have maintained and followed your own definition, and even you yourself had to admit that 'reincarnation' is entirely different from a resurection.

4. Not only so, many times I have tried to show you what resurrection has been defined to be within the context of the Biblical narratives: "a rising from the dead" - and that is not what reincarnation is at all (that much we agree on).

5. Those who teach reincarnation (which I dubbed reincarnationists) do not play with words when it comes to the core elements of that word - these core elements are two, at least: (a) DEATH; and (b) a 'PAST LIFE' - and without these two elements, you CANNOT BE TALKING ABOUT 'reincarnation'.

6.  To IGNORE or prevaricate on those core elements and then try to maintain 'reincarnation' is to be patently DUBIOUS! Do you think that readers here would just swallow your redactions and nod approvingly of what you state without checking up on what you are arguing?

7. Now the difference between ascension, reincarnation, transmigration is just one thing - where you, DeepSight, place death in all of this! You quipped that "there is no difference" so you can cheat on the world 'transition', no? But I've got news for you: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between them all, and I shall remind you of just one verse:

[list]By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. - Hebrews 11:5[/list]

Now-now-now, DeepSight, the Bible makes a strong case of such a 'translation' where someone (Enoch) is said have not experienced death - is that the same thing as in the case of reincarnation where DEATH IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT? If death is necessary in reincarnation, would you be able to discuss the same reincarnation without death as in Enoch's case? How do you then maintain that they are the same, or that "there is no difference"??

Look, my guy, you're making the most illiterate noise in this thread. Please find something of substance to argue, or just shut the bleep up, okay?

Pastor AIO:

Viaro, where have you been? You've missed o! I'm curious as to what you think of the brouhaha going on with our dear Pastor Joe Agbaje.

Hehehe. . that brouhaha will miss the 'haha' if I venture there!

Anyhow, how are you doing sir?

Deep Sight:

^^^ Death is only a transition. That addresses the first part of your question.

The Hebrews expected Elijah to return because he never died. Reincarnation was not something that was part of their belief system. . . Even resurrection was only believed by some Hebrews and that was much later, long long long after Elijah. The identification of JTB with Elijah was most likely symbolic and in reference to his function, and not his personal identity. Even, sef, Elisha had the "spirit" of Elijah even though they lived at the same time for crying out loud, which I think supports your opponents arguments. In 2 Kings 2:1-12 Elisha asks Elijah for a double portion of his "spirit", and he "inherits" it and serves a certain prophetic function. Was that also reincarnation? YOur opponents, IMHO, are not twisting anything. Rather than isolating certain texts, they are interpreting them in light of how the Hebrews understood their religion.  

Hebrews were more concerned with functionality. Worrying about the "nature of being" etc were Greek tendencies. If, at all, JTB was identified, by Jesus, with Elijah, it was most likely because of his function. . . he was in the "spirit" of Elijah. For example All those genealogies (Matthew and Luke) that say Jesus is the son of David are interested in his function as "King", "Messiah/liberator", and not whether or not he was an actual descendant of David. A lot of the Bible is symbolic, and a lot of it must be read thru Hebrew eyes to put things in context. I think you are injecting foreign ideas into the mix. Just my opinion though.

There's a paper on this stuff here. . . kinda long, but it's pretty interesting. http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/forstudents/pdf/termapersample.pdf

Viaro - I have not finished reading your last comeback, but i thought, haven seen where you are headed i could save us all some trouble.

Let us say that i abandon the previous definition of reincarnation and state that i made a mistake  - no man being above error.

And then redefine it as the scenario where a man who had previously transitted from this plane returns by birth as an infant.

Would that butter you up? Would that change any of the principal issues and arguments already made? ? ? ?

I hope you recognize that in reality i have not abandoned my earlier definition: given that death is a transition!

I hope you recognise how much you are playing around with words!

yikes. . first part of my response went zap!
Let me try again:

Deep Sight:

Viaro - I have not finished reading your last comeback, but i thought, haven seen where you are headed i could save us all some trouble.

Please read it through. . carefully!

Let us say that i abandon the previous definition of reincarnation and state that i made a mistake - no man being above error.

I like that - no man is infallaible, and I am willing to let your errors slide as 'errors' than anything else!

And then redefine it as the scenario where a man who had previously transitted from this plane returns by birth as an infant.

Would that butter you up? Would that change any of the principal issues and arguments already made? ? ? ?

NO IT WOULD NOT!! KNow why? Because that again is cheating on the core elements of reincarnation.

I hope you recognize that in reality i have not abandoned my earlier definition: given that death is a transition!

That is why I hold you to account on that!

I hope you recognise how much you are playing around with words!

Nope, I am not playing around with words - because ASCENSION and DEATH are NOT the same things!

. .  so, DeepSight, it now begs the question that after you defined REINCARNATION, you want to gull your readers by VIOLATING that very same definition by making appeal to what is clearly NOT reincarnation.

Again, your definition:

Deep Sight:
Reincarnation is the scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby.

. .  and then you said:

This is entirely different from a resurection!

. . then slammed us with:

LET'S NOT VIOLATE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS!

Now, if we are to NOT VIOLATE simple definitions, why are YOU violating your own definition of reincarnation by an appeal to the type of 'transitions' which are not elements of the definition of that same 'reincarnation' as held by reincarnationists?? Huh?

Please go through the various schools of thought on reincarnation and show me where they suppose 'reincarnation' is still 'reincarnation' without DEATH!?!

If then Elijah is not said to have experienced DEATH, where is the 'reincarnation' you have been arguing upon his head? How come you are the one quickly violating your own "simple definition" so you can keep making these dense arguments all along?