Perhaps it would be better to talk about these things here rather than derail the other thread.

First, I'd like to repost my previous answers here, and then ask that you follow through with same by posting your rejoinders following them, and then we take it in that sequence - so we can keep track of the flow of discussion. I apologies upfront for the inconvenience of asking you to repeat yourself here from the other thread (we understand not many people like to be bothered in that manner either).

Thank you in anticipation.

viaro:

First, I'd like to repost my previous answers here,

. . so here goes:

---

@DeepSight,

Deep Sight:


[size=16pt]Thus it is abundantly clear that since the Jews knew Jesus and John were born and grew up, RESURRECTION COULD NOT BE ON THEIR MINDS WHEN THEY ASKED THAT QUESTION. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.[/size]

For the sake of comedy, it's no longer sufficient to force your conjectures into the Biblical texts you argue for reincarnation, but you must needs shout in blazing red uppercase fonts? Am I seeing things?

Deep Sight:

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." (Matt. 17:10-13)

- Which seals the point and kills off Viaro's surmise that resurrection was at issue. That is ENTIRELY WRONG.

Relax, let me clear up some of your misgivings on this subject and then bring you round to see that neither John nor Jesus nor the Jews querying them were assuming reincarnation - rather, they had resurrection in mind, and that was the principal subject on their minds in those texts. We shall see this in a moment, but let us begin with the definition or meaning of reincarnation, which you gave:

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

LET'S NOT VIOLATE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS!

No, we shall not violate simple definitions; but we call on you to stop violating the simple Biblical texts by forcing them to say what they clearly DO NOT say! This is what I shall try to untangle for you in subsequent posts, which regretably would be quite detailed.

The body of your repost at #108 has to be wrapped up before we can begin to consider anything else. Let me again quote you:

In very explicit language, Jesus identified John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah. Even the disciples of Jesus understood what Jesus was saying. This identification of John to be the reincarnation of Elijah is very important when it comes to Bible prophecy. By identifying the John with Elijah, Jesus identified himself as the Messiah. The Hebrew scriptures mentions specific signs that would precede the coming of the Messiah. One of them is that Elijah will return first.

There are many sources that have recycled that misplaced article from which you posted that excerpt, an example being the NDE website's "Reincarnation and the Bible". It is understandable that the article appeals to those who would like to force reincarnation into Matthew 17; but they tend to do this on a false premise, especially when the author has absolutely no clue about Biblical prophecies. It's quite a long piece, but the salient points set forth there are quite shoddy and newspeak.

Let's take just one: resurrection. It is in fact appalling to see what jabberwocky the author makes of resurrection in the Bible. An excerpt directly from that NDE source:

[list]

This doctrine is the orthodox Christian doctrine called "resurrection" and it is the result of a misunderstanding of the higher teachings of Jesus concerning the reincarnation of the spirit into a new body and the real resurrection which is a spiritual rebirth or "awakening" within a person already alive. The orthodox concept of resurrection as the "Night of the Living Dead" is also the result of a great schism which occurred in early Christian history concerning pre-existence and the nature of Jesus.

[/list]

You see already that the author first twists the meaning of Biblical resurrection by claiming it is a misunderstanding of Jesus' "higher teaching"; then goes on to twaddle about the concept of resurrection being the result of a 'great schism' in early Christian history ('great schism' and 'Christian history' which, expectedly, he does not identify - just the way anyone who tends to duplicity would write an online article).

DeepSight, if you had your thinking cap on and used it, you ought to have noticed that the author was shamelessly lying - and he bought you completely cheap. . with change left over!

Please allow me to show you why that article is teeming with living falsehood in the series of observations and discourses that follow.

1. Jewish Prophets taught about resurrection, not reincarnation

Let's go back to that quote from the NDE website where the author claims that:

The orthodox concept of resurrection as the "Night of the Living Dead" is also the result of a great schism which occurred in early Christian history concerning pre-existence and the nature of Jesus.

If you only did a bit of search for yourself, you will find that your author was spewing out what is patently and shamefully false. The fact is that reincarnation was not originally part of Jewish prophetic thinking. Rather than argue a long thesis on this, let me just quote you an excerpt from another source:

Reincarnation appeared in Jewish thought some time after the Talmud. [size=14pt]There is no reference to reincarnation in the Talmud or any prior writings[/size]. The idea of reincarnation, called gilgul, became popular in folk belief, and is found in much Yiddish literature among Ashkenazi Jews.

Gilgul refers to the concept of reincarnation, emanating from the Kabbalistic framework within Judaism. In Hebrew, the word gilgul means "cycle" and neshamot is the plural for "souls." Souls are seen to "cycle" through "lives" or "incarnations", being attached to different human bodies over time. Which body they associate with depends on their particular task in the physical world, spiritual levels of the bodies of predecessors and so on. The concept relates to the wider processes of history in Kabbalah, involving Cosmic Tikkun (Messianic rectification), and the historical dynamic of ascending Lights and descending Vessels from generation to generation. The esoteric explanations of gilgul were articulated in Jewish mysticism by Isaac Luria in the 16th century, as part of the metaphysical purpose of Creation.

Among a few kabbalists, it was posited that some human souls could end up being reincarnated into non-human bodies. These ideas were found in a number of Kabbalistic works from the 1200s, and also among many mystics in the late 1500s. Martin Buber's early collection of stories of the Baal Shem Tov's life includes several that refer to people reincarnating in successive lives.

Among well known (generally non-kabbalist or anti-kabbalist) Rabbis who rejected the idea of reincarnation are Saadia Gaon, David Kimhi, Hasdai Crescas, Yedayah Bedershi (early 14th century), Joseph Albo, Abraham ibn Daud, the Rosh and Leon de Modena.

Saadia Gaon, in Emunoth ve-Deoth, concludes Section vi with a refutation of the doctrine of metempsychosis (reincarnation). While refuting reincarnation, the Saadia Gaon further states that Jews who hold to reincarnation have adopted non-Jewish beliefs.

The belief is common in Orthodox Judaism. Indeed there is an entire volume of work called Sha'ar Ha'Gilgulim[36] (The Gate of Reincarnations), based on the work of Rabbi Isaac Luria (and compiled by his disciple, Rabbi Chaim Vital). It describes the deep, complex laws of reincarnation. One concept that arises from Sha'ar Ha'gilgulim is the idea that gilgul is paralleled physically by pregnancy.

Many Orthodox siddurim (prayerbooks) have a nightly prayer asking for forgiveness for sins that one may have committed in this gilgul or a previous one, which accompanies the nighttime recitation of the Shema before going to sleep.

The Kabala, the ancient mystical teachings of the Jewish faith is filled with references to reincarnation that are thousands of years old.

source: http://www.crystalinks.com/reincarnation.html

Please note: Rabbi Isaac Luria was a Jewish mystic who lived in the 16th century (1534 – July 25, 1572). His works are a late entry to Judaism and cannot serve as authority over the revelations of Jewish prophets such as Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel. Also interesting is that Rabbi Se`adiah ben Yosef Gaon who lived earlier in the 9th century (b. Egypt 882/892, d. Baghdad 942) notes that Jews who hold to reincarnation have adopted non-Jewish beliefs - and we shall see why that is so in just a moment. Rabbi Saadia Gaon is reputed to have penned the first systematic work on the philosphy of the Jewish religion, and besides being credited with having produced the first translation of the Bible for Arabic-speaking Jews, is considered one of the greatest writers of post-Biblical Judaism (see here).

2. Biblical resurrection predates Christianity

In my initial reply to your reincarnation argument (reposted in #103 this thread), it was made plain that the Jewish Scriptures already spoke of resurrection long before the emergence of the NT, and hence even before the emergence of Christianity and the Church! Therefore, for the author of your article to place it as late as an unidentified 'great schism' in Christian history is a bold and shameless whopper! Could I remind you of some of the Old Testament references to resurrection among Jewish prophets? See below:

* 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.
Daniel 12:2

* Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead
Isaiah 26:19

* Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to
come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
Ezekiel 37:12

The interesting thing here is that the OT prophets quoted above were solidly making a case for resurrection. Please, DeepSight, could you do me the fav of pointing out reincarnation from those Jewish prophecies? Does reincarnation (as you defined earlier) speak about the rising of people from the grave? Or were Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel members of the 'great schism' of your author's unidentified Christian history? Why do people have to resort to these fibs just to sell their misfooted NDE arguments for 'reincarnation'?

3. Was Jesus Christ a reincarnation of an OT prophet?

DeepSight, you remember arguing the scenario of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ on the question of reincarnation and resurrection, yes? Let me remind you of a recent quote of yours:

Thus it is abundantly clear that since the Jews knew Jesus and John were born and grew up, RESURRECTION COULD NOT BE ON THEIR MINDS WHEN THEY ASKED THAT QUESTION. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Now, leaving aside your argument of reincarnation for John, let's talk about Jesus Himself - who was He a "reincarnation" of?

You cannot trail off arguing linearly about others and yet miss the case of Jesus Christ. He had asked His own disciples who men thought that He was. Please read Matthew 16:14 and Mark 8:28 and see that the answers were varied - some said that He was either 'Jeremiah' or 'one of the prophets'. But did you notice that the answers also alleged that Jesus Christ was 'Elias' (that is 'Elijah'), and that the same Jesus Christ was John the Baptist?!?

This has several implications:

[list](a) In saying that Jesus Christ was Elijah, then John the Baptist could not be the same Elijah at the same time - because reincarnation does not teach that one person could appear as two different people at the same time;

(b) again, in saying that Jesus Christ was John the Baptist, it is obvious that such an opinion was misplaced - because the people knew and well understood that John the Baptist was NOT Jesus Christ and they had testified to that fact (see John 10:41). Herod had spread the misconception that Jesus Christ was John the Baptist, but even in that, he did not speak of reincarnation but rather of resurrection: "It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead" (Mark 6:16).[/list]

The import of this is simple: public opinions can be hugely misplaced! As far as this discourse is concerned, you DeepSight had excerpted the argument of an opinionated bavard who had no clue what he was arguing. Could you then do me the second fav of reconciling that bavard's controverted argument with this plain fact about resurrection in the Bible?

4. But what about John the Baptist's own answer in John 1:21?

It is quite remarkable indeed that John the Baptist was categorically asked the question of who he was. We read in John 1:21 - "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No." Please observe well: directly from John the baptist's own mouth, he categorically said that he was NOT Elijah. I wonder why those arguing 'reincarnation' upon John's head have never carefully considered this verse!

Clearly, if John the Baptist was Elijah by any stretch, why would he categorically reply to that same question that he was NOT Elijah?!? The answer is simple: because some people were making a literal case for Elijah's re-appearance in Jesus' day, whereas that was not the meaning intended by the OT Jewish prophets.

Another thing to particularly note is that when Jesus spoke to His initially about John the Baptist, He tersely said: "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come" (Matt. 11:14). The point here of placing a conditional (IF) in His statement is that He did not intend to draw a literal interpretation of Malachi 4:5 between Elijah and John. Let us observe that Malachi gave his prophecy in chapter 4 mostly in metaphoric language, so that we see that it is not only once, but at least twice that the same Malachi makes reference to John the Baptist - the second reference appears earlier in Mal. 3:1, which we shall consider in a moment.

But back up for just a minute as to Jesus' conditional 'IF' which was not intended as a literalism. Note that the metaphoric language in Malachi's prophecy concerning the Elijah-John connection is demystified in Luke 1 where the angel Gabriel appeared to John's father, Zachariah. In the prophecy of the birth of John, the angel refers to Malachi's prophecy in identical declarative, but notice that he did not refer to John the baptist as 'Elijah' - rather, he said that John would go 'in the spirit and power of Elias'. Why not simply rather identify John to be the reincarnation of Elijah?

The above brings us to the other reference in Malachi for John the Baptist - 'Behold, I will send ⁽¹⁾my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even ⁽²⁾the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts' [Mal. 3:1].

There are two messengers in that verse: ⁽¹⁾my messenger is not the same as ⁽²⁾the messenger of the covenant - the former refers to John, the latter refers to Christ (who incidentally is also called 'the Lord' who comes to His Temple).

The point in all this is that John clearly understood that he was NOT a reincarnation of Elijah, but rather that he would attend upon his ministry in 'the spirit and power of Elias' (Luke 1:17). That was why when he was asked directly if he were Elijah, his emphatic answer without contradiction was "I am not" (John 1:21). It was also in this distinction that Jesus did not force a literalism for John when He said "IF ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come" (Matt. 11:14).

We shall next see why Jesus was not making a literal interpretation of Malachi's prophecy for John the Baptist.

5. What Happened in the Transfiguration in Matthew 17?

Perhaps reincarnation gurus often forget a very important point in all this, so that certain verses are either ignored in Matthew 17 or otherwise twisted to force-fit them into their theories. When Jesus said in verse 12 that 'Elias is come already', the disciples understood that He was speaking about John the Baptist - but as we saw for point #4 above, He did not by that mean it in a literal sense.

Why?

The answer is simple: because in the transfiguration, two people appeared on the mount - Elijah and Moses (see verse 3). They were thus recognised as such, for which Peter proposed preposterously to build three tabernacles - one for Christ, another for Moses, and the third for . . who?? ELIJAH (verse 4).

Now, if John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah, would the same Peter not have used the name 'John' instead of 'Elijah' in verse 4?? Could it be the reason he did not think about 'reincarnation' was simply that it was a non-sequitor in the whole unfolding of events in the transfiguration?

More to the point was that in verse 9 when Jesus spoke to His disciples about that incident, He made no allusions to any semblance of reincarnation but rather an emphatic case for resurrection - "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."

Please DeepSight, since when is reincarnation defined as a 'rising from the DEAD'? Your own definition is contrary to this when you asserted:

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

. . . and you also noted loudly: 'LET'S NOT VIOLATE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS.' So, please tell me: when has "risen from the dead" or 'rising from the dead' become 'reincarnation' for those NDE folks who were too busy forcing their misfooted arguments into the Bible, huh? Do these words not clearly indicate RESURRECTION?!?

Why is it that your gurus often miss this simple point and twist verses completely out of their contexts and simplicity to argue their non-sequitors into the Bible? Oh, I almost forgot that the NDE article you excerpted was patently lying on the issue of resurrection (it was the 'result of a great schism', they said), so should that be any surprises?




Bro, I've got 'someone important' in my life standing here and giving me hard looks, so let me summarise for the evening.

Your arguments are most futile. I do not mind my answers being 'killed off', but a patently false and misfooted excerpt from the NDE website would hardly scratch viaro - trust me, I know.

Aside the fact that your gurus have no clues about Biblical prophecies, they would stop at nothing to twist the meaning of 'rising from the dead' to become 'reincarnation' - please tell me: when did the definition of reincarnation suddenly become a 'rising from the dead'? Huh?

Most intriguing is that if reincarnation was what we should read in those verses rather than resurrection, then a pertinent question I have often asked is this: "who was Jesus Christ a 'reincarnation of; and who is the 'reincarnation' of Jesus Christ?" No subtle patent lies would cut it for the NDE and their ilk; but does it not strike you that none of your sources has ever established who was being reincarnated as 'Jesus Christ'?

Okay, I gat to go - she calls. Cheers.

viaro:

. . . and then ask that you follow through with same by posting your rejoinders following them, and then we take it in that sequence - so we can keep track of the flow of discussion.

Perhaps I might just be able to do that for you and trouble you less:

---

From here:

Deep Sight:

Viaro -

Sometimes it perplexes me how you go off on a very wordy but absolutely directionless tangent that completely misses the very simple and essential points of a discourse.

I will have to set you straight, but this time i will not do it over and over again as often is the case with you.

I will do it only once -

Next post -

. .  [url=http://]from here[/url]:

Deep Sight:

[size=8pt:
viaro[/size] link=topic=381774.msg5358085#msg5358085 date=1264030431]
1. Jewish Prophets taught about resurrection, not reincarnation

Let's go back to that quote from the NDE website where the author claims that:
If you only did a bit of search for yourself, you will find that your author was spewing out what is patently and shamefully false. The fact is that reincarnation was not originally part of Jewish prophetic thinking.

No need to quibble on this - I agree that it was not a part of Jewish Prophetic transmissions. I did not at any point infer that - I stated rather that the Jews of Jesus' time who were questioning him had it as part of their worldview. We carry on.

. . . from here:

Deep Sight:

[size=8pt:
viaro[/size] link=topic=381774.msg5358094#msg5358094 date=1264030526]
2. Biblical resurrection predates Christianity

In my initial reply to your reincarnation argument (reposted in #103 this thread), it was made plain that the Jewish Scriptures already spoke of resurrection long before the emergence of the NT, and hence even before the emergence of Christianity and the Church! Therefore, for the author of your article to place it as late as an unidentified 'great schism' in Christian history is a bold and shameless whopper! Could I remind you of some of the Old Testament references to resurrection among Jewish prophets? See below:

              *  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.
                 Daniel 12:2

             *  Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
                 Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
                 and the earth shall cast out the dead
                 Isaiah 26:19

             *  Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
                 Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to
                 come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
                 Ezekiel 37:12

The interesting thing here is that the OT prophets quoted above were solidly making a case for resurrection. Please, DeepSight, could you do me the fav of pointing out reincarnation from those Jewish prophecies? Does reincarnation (as you defined earlier) speak about the rising of people from the grave? Or were Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel members of the 'great schism' of your author's unidentified Christian history? Why do people have to resort to these fibs just to sell their misfooted NDE arguments for 'reincarnation'?

I am struggling to see the relevance of this to anything. This is what i mean by meaningless but wordy posts that go off on a fabulously irrelevant tangent.

I am familiar with the biblical idea of resurrection. I agree with you that the idea predates Christianity. I never at any point stated that any of the Prophets discuss reincarnation. So i am at a stark loss as to how you pull the wool over the eyes of your adoring Christian audience by asking me to point out such. Thus you waste my time when you quote these passages on resurrection. No one can deny the doctrine of the resurection within the whole of the bible. Nor was i attempting to do so. I was talking about what the Jews at a particular time had in mind when asking a particular question. Thus i see no reason to respond further to your quotes above. That the prophets taught resurrection is very well agreed and not at issue for me.

. . . from here:

Deep Sight:

[size=8pt:
viaro[/size] link=topic=381774.msg5358103#msg5358103 date=1264030614]
3. Was Jesus Christ a reincarnation of an OT prophet?

You are already aware that I have not made this claim, but I understand you say this for the purpose of making an analogy. But the analogy is tediously misconceived.

You cannot trail off arguing linearly about others and yet miss the case of Jesus Christ. He had asked His own disciples who men thought that He was. Please read Matthew 16:14 and Mark 8:28 and see that the answers were varied - some said that He was either 'Jeremiah' or 'one of the prophets'. But did you notice that the answers also alleged that Jesus Christ was 'Elias' (that is 'Elijah'), and that the same Jesus Christ was John the Baptist?!?

The answers describing him as Jeremiah or Elias surely point to the fact that the persons giving these answers felt that such prophets could return to the world through birth as an infant – and they were aware that Jesus was born as an infant – as they knew his mother, brothers and family.

Being born as an infant is the definition of reincarnation.

Now let us note something with careful certainty -

The persons who said that he was John the Baptist must have been, as you suggested, deluded lunatics. I say this for two reasons –

1. He could not be John the Baptist by reincarnation, since he was alive and already a full blown adult during John’s lifetime AND –

2. He could not be John the Baptist by resurrection for the very same reason: he was alive and already a full blown adult during John’s lifetime

Thus the suggestion that he was John the Baptist thus cannot pass EITHER the reincarnation or resurrection tests!

However the suggestions that he might be Elias or Jeremiah CAN ONLY BE CONCEIVED UNDER ONE TEST – THE REINCARNATION TEST.

This is so simply because the very fact that the Jews were aware of Jesus birth: that he had a mother and family in Nazareth, and that he was the “Carpenter’s son” firmly shuts the door against the notion that they were considering resurrection when saying these things because resurrection does not happen through re-birth as an infant.

Can I scream it loudly enough – Rebirth as an infant is the exact definition of reincarnation! ! ! !

Thus it emerges by plain deductive reasoning that the claims that he was John the Baptist had no basis in either reincarnation or resurrection,[b] but the claims that he was Elias or Jeremiah COULD ONLY BE CONCEIVABLE AS CLAIMS OF REINCARNATION GIVEN THAT HE WAS BORN AN INFANT.

Now note carefully: none of the claims are proof of anything, I agree: they are only indicative of what the persons claiming thought in their minds: and haven shown that some of the claims were absolutely inconceivable under any circumstances (the claims of Jesus being John the Baptist) – we can see that some other claims are conceivable [b]only in terms of reincarnation given that the subject was born an infant.

This affirms my assertion that the Jews of the time CLEARLY factored reincarnation into their worldview – and positively debunks your claim that they did not.

[list](a) In saying that Jesus Christ was Elijah, then John the Baptist could not be the same Elijah at the same time - because reincarnation does not teach that one person could appear as two different people at the same time;[/list]

This is frankly meaningless: you missed the obvious fact that the claims were made by different people at different times, thus one person might think that Elijah has come as Jesus; another might think that it is not Jesus he came as, but John. Thus the issue of Elijah appearing as two people exists only in your mis-footed conjecture and is a non starter, as it is clearly not the same person that claims that both Jesus and John are Elias. The text in your won verse shows this –

Matt: 16:14 – “they replied some say John the Baptist, others say Elias, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets”

I hope you can now see how shockingly obtuse this statement of yours is.

What the claims do show though, is that incontrovertibly, the Jews thought that a man born as an infant could in fact be Elijah – and being born as an infant is defined as . . .reincarnation – not resurrection.

Herod had spread the misconception that Jesus Christ was John the Baptist, but even in that, he did not speak of reincarnation but rather of resurrection: "It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead" (Mark 6:16).

Meaningless again. The fact that resurrection is believed does nothing to discredit that obvious fact that another things – such as reincarnation – were also widespread beliefs at that time. Beliefs which Jesus had several opportunities to controvert, but never did.

The import of this is simple: public opinions can be hugely misplaced!

Of course: but this does nothing to help the case of your GOD, Jesus, who had several opportunities to correct such, but never did. Why didn’t he?

. . quoting you from here:

Deep Sight:

Viaro, i am off to the bank now - PLEASE DO NOT UTTER A WORD UNTILL I COME BACK AND FINISH RESPONDING TO THE REST OF YOUR POSTS.

I don't want confusion, let me finish, and you can have at it.

Having brought the discussion over here, I regret to say that you would have to slow down in your own confusion. Your tarradiddle is not going anywhere because you are being evasive and force-reading your catachresis into those texts to argue for your non-sequitor of reincarnation. So, before you come back, I shall have to address a few of your own misgivings once again and set you straight.

Deep Sight:

Viaro -

Sometimes it perplexes me how you go off on a very wordy but absolutely directionless tangent that completely misses the very simple and essential points of a discourse.

DeepSight, my initial response on this subject of your catachresis of 'reincarnation' was concise, and I thought such brevity would have served the purpose where I reposted it again in this thread (post #103). But seeing that you wanted to maintain the impossible and keep going on and on with non-sequitors, it seemed you left me no other option than to waste yours in just five short points. The whole point is that reincarnation does not appear in those texts where you had tried to force them there - and I was going to open a thread and show you exactly what reincarnation is, as well ask you very simple questions that would put paid to that whole subject. . . but I chose to just set you gently in this thread (my apologies to bee444 for the derailment - things happen on Nairaland).

I will have to set you straight, but this time i will not do it over and over again as often is the case with you.

I will do it only once -

My dear sir, arguing the same thing repeatedly or once where you missed the whole point makes absolutely no difference. I was hoping you would carefully consider the points raised and then draw yourself up to answer the questions in my summations. Did you? Nope - and I was not surprised at all. If you missed anything, don't miss this one:

[list]

viaro:

Please DeepSight, since when is reincarnation defined as a 'rising from the DEAD'? Your own definition is contrary to this when you asserted:. . . and you also noted loudly: 'LET'S NOT VIOLATE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS.' So, please tell me: when has "risen from the dead" or 'rising from the dead' become 'reincarnation' for those NDE folks who were too busy forcing their misfooted arguments into the Bible, huh? Do these words not clearly indicate RESURRECTION?!?

[/list]

Where in Jewish scholarship did you read any idea to translate a 'rising from the dead' into 'reincarnation'? You see, when you conveniently duck the REAL issue on such a topic, then something is really suspect about the way you argue your case.

Deep Sight:

No need to quibble on this - I agree that it was not a part of Jewish Prophetic transmissions. I did not at any point infer that - I stated rather that the Jews of Jesus' time who were questioning him had it as part of their worldview. We carry on.

False again - thrice holy and patently false! The folks at the NDE website (from where you probably had ferreted that article with misplaced arguments) actually had no clue about Biblical prophecies. Even so, they went as far as twaddling that the concept of Biblical resurrection was the 'result of a great schism' in Christian history - that is so, so shameful to read!! That was why I showed you the sequence in history and also quoted resources to show you that the reincarnation thingy appeared in Jewish thought much, much later! Let me ring it out again:

[list](a)

Reincarnation appeared in Jewish thought some time after the Talmud.

(b)

[size=14pt]There is no reference to reincarnation in the Talmud or any prior writings.[/size]

(c)

The idea of reincarnation, called gilgul, became popular in folk belief, and is found in much Yiddish literature among Ashkenazi Jews.

source: http://www.crystalinks.com/reincarnation.html [/list]

The point in all this is that if you took time to carefully check what you were excerpting, you would find a whole pot of mess on that NDE article. Please look carefully at the three points above and see why your source was giving beautiful fibs that go nowehere.

Deep Sight:

I am struggling to see the relevance of this to anything. This is what i mean by meaningless but wordy posts that go off on a fabulously irrelevant tangent.

Is the reason you can't see its relevance perhaps because you choose not to do so, for convenience sake that your 'reincarnation' non-sequitor can remain default with you regardless of facts to the contrary? Even so, the relevance is simply that, contrary to what that NDE article argues, the JEWISH prophets had resurrection in mind, not reincarnation. That is what you should deal with, rather than whine about the point being tangential.

I am familiar with the biblical idea of resurrection. I agree with you that the idea predates Christianity. I never at any point stated that any of the Prophets discuss reincarnation. So i am at a stark loss as to how you pull the wool over the eyes of your adoring Christian audience by asking me to point out such.

I was not pulling any wool over anyone's eyes. Rather, I went directly to your source and burst their illiterate bubble.

You cannot just pull out a few quotes from that article to make it look like they had a genuine argument to make, whereas not many people would have understood what your author had said about Biblical resurrection - which was another reason I went directly to your source to show that they had absolutely NO CLUE what is taught in the Bible. To this end, I would also like to ask that you wash your face, remove any cataracts or wools, and answer me one simple question: why was your author hiding the FACT that Jesus was speaking about "rising from the dead" - since when has 'rising from the dead' become 'reincarnation', DeepSight??

Thus you waste my time when you quote these passages on resurrection.

Quoting directly from any source and showing their coherence is not wasting time for intelligent readers. The reason you write it off that wasy is because you now see that your arguements are such a waste of everyone's time - including yours. I contained my answers within YOUR OWN definition of reincarnation and then asked you how that is the same thing as 'rising from the dead'? Even if I otherwise had quoted those texts and argued nothing, how does any intelligent reader make the convoluted argument that 'reincarnation' is a 'rising from the dead'?? Just how?

No one can deny the doctrine of the resurection within the whole of the bible. Nor was i attempting to do so.

Then stop bleating reincarnation into the Bible when it is so clear that is not what the Bible teaches!

I was talking about what the Jews at a particular time had in mind when asking a particular question. Thus i see no reason to respond further to your quotes above.

Even those Jews had RESURRECTION in mind, not reincarnation. Follow the Bible on what the Jews said on so many occasions in the NT - and you will still find them all referring to RESURRECTION. I guess you would not even bother to see the point if I were to quote some examples, but I shall nonetheless do so for readers to examine for themselves:

[list]Luke 9:7-9
⁷Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that [size=14pt]it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead[/size];
⁸And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.
⁹And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.[/list]

[list]Mark 6:14-16
¹⁴And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
¹⁵Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
¹⁶But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.
[/list]

These are just a few examples, but note particularly those highlighted words and what they point out:

(a) people were saying all sorts of things; but NONE of them ever said any thing alluding to reincarnation - NONE!

(b) where they made allusions to someone in the past that had come to them, they used exapressions that pointed to RESURRECTION - see the examples again:

[list][li]'it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead'[/li][/list]
[list][li]other people said: "that Elias had appeared"[/li][/list]
[list][li]and yet some other people said: "one of the old prophets was risen again"[/li][/list]

Please, DeepSight, without excusing these clear pointers and claiming wild statements of 'tangential' this and that, just point out where any of these phrases and clauses are the same as reincarnation:
   * "had appeared"
   * "risen from the dead"
When did reincarnation get to the point of being twisted to mean a rising from the dead or an appearing?

You see, when you meet with clear statements, don't waste your time making frantic efforts to force your non-starters into those texts. Deal directly with the meaning of "risen from the dead", and please don't be evasive on it or prevaricate, thank you.

That the prophets taught resurrection is very well agreed and not at issue for me.

^{(the large fonts are mine)} - if the prophets taught RESURRECTION, why have you been arguing reincarnation into the Bible? Aren't you a very, very funny fellow?

The next time you bring this wasted argument of yours to harangue anyone, I shall waste no time to take you to task - trust me.

Shall I start with this last one and say something until you arrive? Good.

Deep Sight:

You are already aware that I have not made this claim, but I understand you say this for the purpose of making an analogy. But the analogy is tediously misconceived.

Nope, it was not an analogy but a direct statement to the point. Let the best of your reincarnation gurus step forward and argue their scholarship on that case - I would be most glad to make them eat back their every word. Try me.

The answers describing him as Jeremiah or Elias surely point to the fact that the persons giving these answers felt that such prophets could return to the world through birth as an infant – and they were aware that Jesus was born as an infant – as they knew his mother, brothers and family.

Being born as an infant is the definition of reincarnation.

Nope, the concept of reincarnation among Jews does not predate the Talmud - please do your research carefully and stop making these unfounded illations. Careful readers know that reincarnation was only popularised among the Ashkenazi Jews (aka "German Jews" who lived in the Middle Ages (5th - 16th centuries). Now you please tell me why such a recent date (middle ages) would now serve as more authentic and authoritative source than Jewish prophetic teachings that came much, much earlier and had NO TRACE of reincarnation in their body of scriptures?

Besides, the popular concept about public opinion concerning the Person of Jesus was not about reincarnation, but rather about RESURRECTION. Why? Please read again Matthew 16:14 and Mark 8:28 - why did the people also think that Jesus was John the baptist? Was that reincarnation? Of course not! You know why? Because Herod had spread that misconception, but even in his mistaken ideas, he predicated resurrection - "It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead" (Mark 6:16). Why is it that you categorically fail to see that - and since when has 'rising from the dead' become reincarnation, DeepSight?

Even in the OT when prophets declared that a personage would reappear in the future, it was not on the basis of 'reincarnation', but rather on the basis of resurrection. An example is the prophecy that David the king would again rule Israel over - "And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them . . . and my servant David shall be their prince for ever" (Ezekiel 37:24 & 25).

Of course, several other prophets confirmed just about the same thing:
[list][li]Jeremiah in Jer. 30:9 - "But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them."[/li]
[li]Hosea in Hos. 3:5 - "Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days. "[/li][/list]

At the time Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Hopsea gave these prophecies, was David yet alive? If not, how was David to come back and be king over Israel after he had died? Certainly it was not by reincarnation but by resurrection. How? For two reasons:

(a) We have shown again and again that 'reincarnation' was not a teaching of Biblical prophets; and researchers argue that reincarnation among the Jews did not predate the Talmud - which is that such a concept among the Jews was not earlier than the 3rd century. Please DeepSight, if you feel otherwise, just produce a single document from Jewish SCRIPTURE that speaks about reincarnation and let's discuss it (arguing your misfortune of reincarnation into texts that do not teach such is not gonna help, sorry). To force-read 'reincarnation' into the prophecies of the Bible is to act dumb and dubious in utter display of having no clues about Biblical prophecies.

(b) As we have seen, the OT prophets have categorically again and again made declarations about resurrection, and NOT reincarnation. To this end I set forth an answer in post #4 this thread showing what exactly they said - please go back, take another look, and then show me how those texts there are pointing to reincarnation.

Now let us note something with careful certainty -

The persons who said that he was John the Baptist must have been, as you suggested, deluded lunatics. I say this for two reasons –

1. He could not be John the Baptist by reincarnation, since he was alive and already a full blown adult during John’s lifetime AND –

2. He could not be John the Baptist by resurrection for the very same reason: he was alive and already a full blown adult during John’s lifetime

Thus the suggestion that he was John the Baptist thus cannot pass EITHER the reincarnation or resurrection tests!

Which is the point I had tried to make - that "public opinions can be hugely misplaced!" I also said:
[list]"As far as this discourse is concerned, you DeepSight had excerpted the argument of an opinionated bavard who had no clue what he was arguing. Could you then do me the second fav of reconciling that bavard's controverted argument with this plain fact about resurrection in the Bible?"[/list]

How could anyone be claiming "reincarnation" where it is obvious that even the Jews who opined on these things were clearly alluding to RESURRECTION? Look again at Luke 9:7-8 --

[list]
Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed,

(a) because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;

(b) And of some, that Elias had appeared;

(c)and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.

[/list]
Note that the statements above were public opnions - and even at that, they ALL REFLECT RESURRECTION, not reincarnation. Otherwise, you DeepSight would have to show me how reincarnation has suddenly become a 'risen from the dead' - that is the one question I am most particular for you to show me.

However the suggestions that he might be Elias or Jeremiah CAN ONLY BE CONCEIVED UNDER ONE TEST – THE REINCARNATION TEST.

Rubbish! You conceive of it as such because viaro can't see the difference as he had smoked something worse than . . . what? Luke 9:7-8 is your answer, and I wait to see how you want to duck that one!

This is so simply because the very fact that the Jews were aware of Jesus birth: that he had a mother and family in Nazareth, and that he was the “Carpenter’s son” firmly shuts the door against the notion that they were considering resurrection when saying these things because resurrection does not happen through re-birth as an infant.

What then did they mean by "RISEN from the DEAD", mr DeepSight? Why are you sweating at nothing??

Can I scream it loudly enough – Rebirth as an infant is the exact definition of reincarnation! ! ! ![/b]

Please scream some more - and you'll only end up cracking your voice for less than nothing. The point is that none of those people were yapping at your 'infant rebirth' - that is not what they had in mind by "risen from the dead" (Luke 9:7-9 and Mark 6:14-16). You're just in a world of your own and you need to go find another book where your non-sequitor appears, not the Bible.

Thus it emerges by plain deductive reasoning that the claims that he was John the Baptist had no basis in either reincarnation or resurrection, but the claims that he was Elias or Jeremiah COULD ONLY BE CONCEIVABLE AS CLAIMS OF REINCARNATION GIVEN THAT HE WAS BORN AN INFANT.

Was that what they meant by 'risen from the dead'? Please deal with what they said, not what you want to put in their mouths.

Now note carefully: none of the claims are proof of anything, I agree: they are only indicative of what the persons claiming thought in their minds: and haven shown that some of the claims were absolutely inconceivable under any circumstances (the claims of Jesus being John the Baptist) – we can see that some other claims are conceivable only in terms of reincarnation given that the subject was born an infant.

That is simply because you are not reading the text but making up your own drama scripts - what sort of playwright are you by the way??

This affirms my assertion that the Jews of the time CLEARLY factored reincarnation into their worldview – and positively debunks your claim that they did not.

I repeat for the umpteenth time: how does anyone with an iota of living and functioning brain cells read "risen from the dead" as 'reincarnation'?? Please permute your magical deductions on that and let's see your abracadabra!

This is frankly meaningless: you missed the obvious fact that the claims were made by different people at different times, thus one person might think that Elijah has come as Jesus; another might think that it is not Jesus he came as, but John. Thus the issue of Elijah appearing as two people exists only in your mis-footed conjecture and is a non starter, as it is clearly not the same person that claims that both Jesus and John are Elias. The text in your won verse shows this –

Matt: 16:14 – “they replied some say John the Baptist, others say Elias, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets”

I hope you can now see how shockingly obtuse this statement of yours is.

I answer simply again with Luke 9:7-9 and Mark 6:14-16 --

[list][li]'it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead'[/li][/list]
[list][li]other people said: "that Elias had appeared"[/li][/list]
[list][li]and yet some other people said: "one of the old prophets was risen again"[/li][/list]

Now, how do those read as 'reincarnation' by your own definition of that word? I'm already bored to death (and the 'miracle' that I've survived up until now) with your hollow disquisitions that only twist simple statements and yet prevaricate when a direct answer would suffice.

What the claims do show though, is that incontrovertibly, the Jews thought that a man born as an infant could in fact be Elijah – and being born as an infant is defined as . . .reincarnation – not resurrection.

What do you make of their statement with the expression "risen from the dead" in Luke 9:8??

Meaningless again. The fact that resurrection is believed does nothing to discredit that obvious fact that another things – such as reincarnation – were also widespread beliefs at that time. Beliefs which Jesus had several opportunities to controvert, but never did.

Jesus made no allusions to 'reincarnation' but rather categorically taught RESURRECTION everywhere. Why teach resurrect at the same as teaching reincarantion? What do you make of the clear pointers to RISEN from the DEAD that even you cannot deny was Jesus' teaching? You're now sounding desperate - no wonder you wanted me to wait until you returned to spew more incoherence.

Of course: but this does nothing to help the case of your GOD, Jesus, who had several opportunities to correct such, but never did. Why didn’t he?

He absolutely did - you, on the other hand, have been yapping along dubious catachresis and prevarications in total disregard of what those texts say.

Deepsight and his Jewish reincarnation hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . .Where did you get that hypothesis from LOL. . . . My man give it up you have no legs to stand on on this one. . . . . .

hehehe. . landlord, what's gwan?

There is nothing like reincarnation. This one Scripture proves it - Heb9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

Viaro and DeepSight, please permit me to join your discourse on the Bible and Reincarnation:

1. If Reincarnation was true, then definitely Jesus Christ would be the reincarnation of someone or the other. There are two options: either the person lived in sin, or the person was also sinless. We can remove the second option because there was no such person. The first option is that the initial person re-incarnated as Jesus would have lived in sin. If this is so, then that means Jesus' life was a result of the karma associated with that person's sin, is that not so? Then that would mean that Jesus' death was to pay for his own sins in his past life: which the Gospel everywhere else in the Bible rejects entirely e.g. John 3:14-15 and Heb 4:15.

Joh 3:14  And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert [on a pole], so must [so it is necessary that] the Son of Man be lifted up [on the cross], [Num. 21:9.]
Joh 3:15  In order that everyone who believes in Him [who cleaves to Him, trusts Him, and relies on Him] may not perish, but have eternal life and [actually] live forever!

Heb 4:15  For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to understand and sympathize and have a shared feeling with our weaknesses and infirmities and liability to the assaults of temptation, but One Who has been tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning.

His death was not to pay for his own sins or past sins, not in any way.

===========================================================================

2. About Elijah and John the Baptist, I hope these verses help to clear the air:

Mal 4:5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. [Matt. 11:14; 17:10-13.]
Mal 4:6  And he shall turn and reconcile the hearts of the [estranged] fathers to the [ungodly] children, and the hearts of the [rebellious] children to [the piety of] their fathers [a reconciliation produced by repentance of the ungodly], lest I come and smite the land with a curse and a ban of utter destruction. [Luke 1:17.]

Isa 40:3  A voice of one who cries: Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord [clear away the obstacles]; make straight and smooth in the desert a highway for our God! [Mark 1:3.]

Luk 1:17  And he will [himself] go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn back the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient and incredulous and unpersuadable to the wisdom of the upright [which is the knowledge and holy love of the will of God]--in order to make ready for the Lord a people [perfectly] prepared [in spirit, adjusted and disposed and placed in the right moral state]. [Isa. 40:3; Mal. 4:5, 6.]

Mal 4:5,6 may best be interpreted in the light of Isa 40:3 and Luke 1:17, and it will be seen that John the Baptist was to have the manner, "voice" and undaunted fortitude of Elijah. Remember that the Jews had a clear distinction between the soul (nephesh: the vitality of life) and the spirit (pneuma: blast / breeze / mental disposition). Luke 1:17 mentions spirit and not soul. John was not in the soul of Elijah, but in the spirit of Elijah. That's like saying "team spirit" i.e. they were birds of a feather.

For the sake of clarity, the same word for Elijah's "spirit" used in Luke 1:17 is translated "wind" in John 3:8
Joh 3:8  You know well enough how the wind blows this way and that. You hear it rustling through the trees, but you have no idea where it comes from or where it's headed next. That's the way it is with everyone 'born from above' by the wind of God, the Spirit of God."

This is a clear indication of the wind's "attitude" and "perspective" and not it's origins (as in fact, the verse says you have no idea where it comes from or where it's headed next). Since it describes attitude and not origins, it is clear that John's attitude will be likened to  Elijah, and at least not his origin.

John had the same spiritual mission as the prophet Elijah, but not the same soul or self.

===============================================================================

3. More on Elijah and John the Baptist. According to the classic theory of reincarnation, a person has to die physically first in order that his self may be reincarnated in another body. In the case of Elijah this didn’t happen, as God ferried him away from the earth. How could he then have reincarnated? Think about it.

===============================================================================

4. Jesus' teaching to Nicodemus heavily debunks reincarnation, as well. Read closely:

Joh 3:3  Jesus said, "You're absolutely right. Take it from me: Unless a person is born from above, it's not possible to see what I'm pointing to--to God's kingdom."
Joh 3:4  "How can anyone," said Nicodemus, "be born who has already been born and grown up? You can't re-enter your mother's womb and be born again. What are you saying with this 'born-from-above' talk?"
Joh 3:5  Jesus said, "You're not listening. Let me say it again. Unless a person submits to this original creation--the 'wind hovering over the water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life--it's not possible to enter God's kingdom.
Joh 3:6  When you look at a baby, it's just that: a body you can look at and touch. But the person who takes shape within is formed by something you can't see and touch--the Spirit--and becomes a living spirit.
Joh 3:7  "So don't be so surprised when I tell you that you have to be 'born from above'--out of this world, so to speak.

Even Nicodemus said that one cannot surely be physically birthed again, having been born before. And Jesus replied that he wasn't listening, that the re-birth was something that happens on the insides, and never a physical one.

===============================================================================

5. Another common argument for reincarnation, popularized by adherents of the Grail Message, is in Rev 3:12

Rev 3:12  Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

And from the boldened lines, the Grail Message claim that it suggests that the norm, that is the usual expectation, is to go out repeatedly i.e. re-incarnate. This repeated going out stops only for those who have overcome, have conquered all sins, have passed the Last Judgment, have gained full spiritual maturity.   

But that is not what the scripture is talking about! The "going out" refers to "missing out" or "losing positional grip" in the temple of God!!

Jesus had already said about this church in Philadelphia in Rev 3:8, that they had "little strength" and yet they had the courage to keep His Word. To encourage them, He promised them an open door that no man could shut; that means things would line up to facilitate their tiny efforts. This would "distinguish" their faith and God's love for them as genuine (Rev 3:9), and when the hour of temptation comes (which would of necessity have the tendency to make some people "go out" or "fall away" or "lose grip", Jesus would also keep them as safe as they are keeping his Word in patience. He concludes by asking them to hold fast to what they have to avoid being deprived: and THAT is when he says WHOEVER overcomes will be made a permanent PILLAR and will not be able to go out anymore. I will quote from the AMPLIFIED and MESSAGE versions for clarification.

Rev 3:12  "I'll make each conqueror a pillar in the sanctuary of my God, a permanent position of honor. Then I'll write names on you, the pillars: the Name of my God, the Name of God's City--the new Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven--and my new Name.  (MSG)

Rev 3:12  He who overcomes (is victorious), I will make him a pillar in the sanctuary of My God; he shall never be put out of it or go out of it, and I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which descends from My God out of heaven, and My own new name. [Isa. 62:2; Ezek. 48:35.] (AMP)

Another common argument for reincarnation, popularized by adherents of the Grail Message, is in Rev 3:12

Rev 3:12  Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

And from the boldened lines, the Grail Message claim that it suggests that the norm, that is the usual expectation, is to go out repeatedly i.e. re-incarnate. This repeated going out stops only for those who have overcome, have conquered all sins, have passed the Last Judgment, have gained full spiritual maturity.     

Hi Mavenbox. What has the Grail Message got to do with the debate between Viaro and DeepSight? The debate is not on the truth or otherwise of reincarnation, rather it is whether or not reincarnation can be supported with biblical references. Yes the Grail Message teaches reincarnation but it did not infer it from the biblical reference you cited above. What the adherents of the Grail Message say is not the Grail Message. I would have joined this debate if it is on the truth or otherwise of reincarnation but it is not what the debate is all about. My personal view is that it is inappropriate to interpret biblical passages for those who believe the bible or interpret koran for moslems when the interpreter does not believe in whole or in part the contents of either the bible or the koran.  My personal insight into these things gives me the conviction that Elijah didnot reincarnate as John the Babtist, and Jesus, the son of God is not a reincarnation of any person, rather he is the son of God. Stay blessed.

some issues are above human knowledge, we can just guess how are we sure of it.

viaro:

hehehe. . landlord, what's gwan?

I dey scatter. . . .Hope you are good out there. . . . .

^^Doing my bit, bro.

Mavenb0x:

Viaro and DeepSight, please permit me to join your discourse on the Bible and Reincarnation:

Permit you? Rather, I must say you gave some more substance to the whole thing here. Well done.

nijaprince:

There is nothing like reincarnation. This one Scripture proves it - Heb9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

I don't know whether or not there is a reincarnation. What I could say is that there are many things happening in our world that we just have no clue about. Indeed, the Biblical worldview does not argue for reincarnation (as far as I can understand), but that does not mean therefore that everything begins and ends there. Why I say this is because i know from experience that certain things have happened where I have no bleep what to say - people have accurately said things out of the blue that point to events that they could not have had prior cognisance of: and when checked, it turned out they were actually true to 'T'.

In discourses like this, I think what jcross22 said rings with me:

jcross22:

some issues are above human knowledge, we can just guess how are we sure of it.

Hello Viaro -

Pardon my delay entering this thread. I have been, as usual, chasing money all over the place.

I have read very very carefully everything that you wrote and i have referred also to the quotes you set out within the bible.

It has struck me that there remains a very fundamental misunderstanding between us: and although i have pointed it out severally in the previous thread you absolutely refuse to see it.

I thus request permission to put a few simple questions to you, which i believe will untangle the mystery. I am sure short conscise answers will suffice.

1. How are people resurrected: is it a physical resurection or spiritual?

2. Can the resurrection of Jesus (and his resurrection of Lazarus) be taken as an accurate guide as to the nature of resurrection?

3. If it can, can we conclude that when people are resurrected, they "rise from the dead" appearing as they were prior to dying?

4. Can all of this safely guide us to the conclusion that no person is ever "resurrected" by being born again through a woman's womb as an infant?

5. Can we also assume that the Jews, given their grounding in the Scriptures, had a generally accurate perception of what resurrection was?

I will sincerely appreciate short concise answers to these questions as i believe this will help clarify the point i have been struggling to make.

Thanks.

Hi DeepSight,

Deep Sight:

I will sincerely appreciate short concise answers to these questions as i believe this will help clarify the point i have been struggling to make.

Unfortunately, concise answers would further obfuscate issues, IMO. Your questions are interesting, but one-liners would not be sufficient to explicate the issues involved. .  yet I shall try to refrain from too detailed elaborations.

I thus request permission to put a few simple questions to you, which i believe will untangle the mystery. I am sure short conscise answers will suffice.

1. How are people resurrected: is it a physical resurection or spiritual?

Biblical resurrection is both physical and spiritual. Examples:

[list]
(a) Physical resurrection:
[li]'And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go' (John 11:43-44)[/li]
[li]'The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record' (John 12:17)[/li]
[li]'And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many' (Matt. 27:52 & 53 - see also 2 Kings 13:21)[/li][/list]

[list](b) Spiritual resurrection:
[li]'But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?. . . There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. . So also is the resurrection of the dead. . . It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. . . And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly' (1 Cor. 15:35, 40, 42-44, 49 )[/li]
[li]'For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself' (Phil. 3:20-21)[/li][/list]

When we think of 'spiritual' resurrection, it does not mean esoteric language to imply something else that tends to 'reincarnation' (such as the NDE folks imply), but rather that people receive glorified bodies not subject to the weaknesses of the present bodies we have - this is yet future, and is distinct from the 'physical resurrection'.

2. Can the resurrection of Jesus (and his resurrection of Lazarus) be taken as an accurate guide as to the nature of resurrection?

Possibly, yes - as long as we keep them in their perspectives (as explicated above).

3. If it can, can we conclude that when people are resurrected, they "rise from the dead" appearing as they were prior to dying?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the case where 'physical resurrection' is in view; and no, in the case where 'spiritual resurrection' is implied. However, these by no means suggests that resurrected persons in their appearance completely lose any recognition or identity for who they actually were.

4. Can all of this safely guide us to the conclusion that no person is ever "resurrected" by being born again through a woman's womb as an infant?

Resurrection is not to be misconstrued for reincarnation - resurrection is a question of being raised from the dead (or a 'rising from the dead'); and reincarnation (as in your own definition of that term) assumes a scenario where "a previously dead person is born again as a baby".

5. Can we also assume that the Jews, given their grounding in the Scriptures, had a generally accurate perception of what resurrection was?

Perhaps not; yet in all things considered, Biblical Judaism did not tend to reincarnation, but rather to resurrection.

@M_nwankwo: I apologize if there has been any misrepresentation. I said "adherents of the Grail Message" (I have interacted with some of them that quote this verse, all the way from high school till date) and not "the Grail Message". I hope you understand me. If Viaro, Nuclearboy and Mavenbox are Christians with weird beliefs and I say "some Christians" have been seen to believe so so and so, I think I am not in the wrong in that wise. Cheers.

@Viaro: thanks bro. How you dey?

@DeepSight: Bros I can't apologize enough o (off-topic).

Biblical resurrection is both physical and spiritual.

Very well. It is however safe to say that our present discourse deals with physical resurrection since we are referring to people physically in this world - i.e: John the Baptist, Jesus. . . we carry on.

I asked:

Can, can we conclude that when people are resurrected, they "rise from the dead" appearing as they were prior to dying?

And you responded -

Yes and no.

Yes, in the case where 'physical resurrection' is in view; and no, in the case where 'spiritual resurrection' is implied.

Which is excellent. However since we are dealing with physical resurrection, then we concentrate on the fact that you have said yes to the question: you have accepted that when people resurrect physically, they rise appearing as they were prior to dying. Thank you.

You then went on to say:

reincarnation (as in your own definition of that term) assumes a scenario where "a previously dead person is born again as a baby".

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

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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

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!

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!

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

[b]But I still got more ammo –

1. You stated that when people are resurrected physically they appear as they were before death!
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.”
3. How old was Elijah when he left the world? An old man?
4. How old was John the Baptist?

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!

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!

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

And yet there is more.

Matt. 11:13-14 – “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”

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!

“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.

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.

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

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

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Christ incarnated as Melchisedeck

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

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.


What is Reincarnation and Ressurection?

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. 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. Ressurection is the process of separating the spirit from the body.  The separated spirit can temporary exist in the earth in another place or enter into the spirit world properly.

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.

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!

More later,  but Deepsight has the correct insight this time

Mavenb0x:

@Viaro: thanks bro. How you dey?

I'm doing well, and you? Thanks again for your input - I had to take another look and wondered if DeepSight ever read through before posting his recycled arguments. Anyhow, life is interesting!