₦airaland Forum

^^^ Would you care to give me examples of such possible explanations?

And in the context of Beneli's post, please be careful to give me not just an explanation for matter and energy or even life - but an explanation for the existence of beings that pursue intangible things like love and happiness.

I would like to see you explain the existence of such beings outside the concept of God.

Thanks.

^^^ Please read again what he said: he did not say it PROVES - he said it suggests that such supernatural ideas (such as the idea of God) should not be so easily dismissed.

I think that people who hold the superficial belief that God does not exist, have not asked themselves that most profound of questions. I think anybody who is honest enough to ask themselves that question and is honest enough to begin the search for the answer will not be too quick to dismiss the fact that there is more to life than this that we see and feel around us.

Spot on a zillion times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^^^ 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.

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.

mazaje:
This whole argument for god brouhaha. . . . .Why is it that god existence is the only thing whose existence depends on the existence of other things? No body has ever shown that his/her god exist but people are constantly pointing to the existence of other things as evidence for the existence of their various gods? When will people point to their various gods and show that they exists and stop pointing to other things. . . .

^^^ The same can be said for many natural phenomena. Take gravity for example. You cannot see Gravity itself. But if you throw an object into a space where there is gravity, you will see the effects of gravity. it thus follows that proving the existence of gravity depends of the existence of other things!

In fact i may even stretch the analogy and state that if there was absolutely no other thing in existence other than yourself, you will never be able to prove that you exist even to yourself.

So why are you at odds that proving the existence of God may require showing how other things function?

Capisce?

^^^ Hi Chris. Long time. How bodi?

Please do bear in mind that the fact that God cannot be rationally explained in a language everybody would understand does not necessariliy invalidate God's existence.

Any more than the fact that scientific or natural phenomena cannot be understood by everyone will invalidate the existence of such phenomena?

^^^ I verily disbelieve you: i know that you are a messenger of the holy grail with seven guardians from the highest realm nestling at your feet.

I dare not mention the halo and the wings that attend thy everyword, o great sir, imperial highness, Lord Admiral of India, Viceroy of the Fleet of the Seven Seas, Global Potentate and Spiritual Excellency.

Imhotep i am beginning to fear that you are a great mystic whom it may be a sin to even address directly.

^^^ Which is a bizzare thing to wait for given that all three faiths emphatically define the very same God as being the originator of all things. What else is to be understood by the words "first cause" or "prime mover"? ? ?

Indeed in the words "I am that i am" - the whole definition of God being a necessary, self-existent and non-contingent factor is resoundingly stated.

The bit which doesn't sit well with me, as is notoriously known on this forum, is the triune idea. . .

Maven, although i regard some of your analogies as bizzare, or better put: incomplete or presumptuous, i think you have a very good brain between your ears. For this reason i find it strange that you type slowly. Not that there's any co-relation.

Regarding setting out your thoughts (especially on this topic) - let me say this: I find that humans are like leopards. Once adult, we scarcely change our perspectives: in this not even the most advanced logic is persuasive.

I have realized that rather than force one's perspective on targets that will never appreciate them (regardless of how well-thought out or refined such perspectives may be) it is more useful to sniff out the very rare and very few open minds who can actually change their "spots" if well convinced - and then commune with such.

In this let me make a subtle distinction: the rare cat who will change his spots based on quality insights is not to be confused with the gullible stray cat who will be convinced by anything at all.

Quoted below are the Five Philosophical proofs of the existence of God (Quinque viae) advanced by the Roman Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas.

It would appear to me that Maven is taking the fourth proof - the argument from degree.

I think its a good argument: as there is nothing that exists which cannot be shown to tend towards a greater or smaller, and the pinnacle of all must be. . .

The Five Ways
These proofs take the form of philosophical arguments:

[edit] 1. The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.


[edit] 2. The Argument of the First Cause
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.


[edit] 3. The Argument from Contingency
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.


[edit] 4. The Argument from Degree
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.

[edit] 5. The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God:

All natural bodies in the world act toward ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting toward an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies toward their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

^^^ Ah, the old sage at it again.

^^^ So be it then, mazaje: i will not be tempted back: for the scripture is clear enough if you cared to read it.

I have nothing more to add. Cheers.

Guys, i am leaving this one off: it is clear that it serves no useful purpose: it is also clear to me that the Christian discussants here have scant or no regard for the words of their God (Jesus).

I am certain that Viaro will twist and turn a zillion times over to avoid the words of his God (Jesus) - thus there is no point.

I firmly believe that all that needs to be said has been said already, and regarding his last posts, i will not revert further for i believe that the objective reader can see within my previous responses clear answers to his unfortunate comebacks.

@ Nuclearboy - Just one thing i will say: a death is a transition to another realm. An ascension is a transition to another realm: they mean the same thing in the context of this discussion. Please try to reflect carefully on that.

Cheers folks - see you when i see you.

Still there yapping on and profusley trying to deny the words of your God - Jesus the Carpenter?

What's your problem - can you not see the ridiculous extent you and maven have gone to weaving farcical analogies around Jesus' clear words - which even nursery school babies would understand?

The most farcical being your use of the word "if" and saying it was conditional.

I laugh.

Gudnite carpenter worshipper.

DeepSight is deeply committed to force reincarnation into the Bible where those verses clearly do not teach his assumptions.

Be silent, joker!

I have shown extensively that YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING AGAINST THE WORDS OF YOUR GOD, THE CARPENTER OF NAZARETH.

In this i stand on the side of his clear words - It is YOU that is trying to corrupt the clear words to suit your dogma.

I already showed how silly your excuses for stating that his words are symbolic are - did you not read it? I take it you are busy educating yourself on the meaning of the word "conditional" - that would be a wise venture because your use of it earlier was starkly embarassing.

Mavenb0x:
@Deep Sight: I assume you refer to SEVEN demons, and to this scripture, sir

And if you are (because there is no other such place I can think of right now), then it means that it doesn't quite apply in favor of your case, where you are likening it to the multiplication of evil due to evil actions.

The demon leaves the man, and then makes an attempt to return. when it gets back, it meets the place UNOCCUPIED. NOT a fertile soil for possession, but NOT INHABITED! Even if was a demon that was there, the other demon would not be able to displace it

Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So the point is not that the guy was involved in MORE evil, but rather the guy was non-commitally sitting on the fence [s]probably waiting for his next reincarnation when things would work out easier for him?[/s]

The problem Jesus was addressing there was the non-chalance of the Scribes and Pharisees, those ones that refused to listen to or accept the Gospel, but were still waiting for another miracle (a military miracle of sorts). Jesus Christ was going to die for their sins, but things would get worse for them because the CLEAN SLATE THEY HAD FROM CHRIST WAS GOING TO GET MORE PUTRIFIED BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT SPIRITUAL ESSENCE TO STORE IN THEIR SPIRITS.

Yes 7 dremons, pardon me.

Now do you not see that an empty place approximates to a weak magnet - or no magnet! Thus a fertile soil for posession - when nothing is there, the empty space can be posessed very easily. Stop fiddling with semantics Maven.

Let me add a little to that:

Remember another of the words of Jesus: He said - "To him who has, more will be given - but to him who does not have, even the little that he has will be taken away from him."

At first glance this looks very harsh indeed.

On closer inspection we see that Jesus is mediating the law of Karma again.

Each human spirit is a spiritual magnet. When a human spirit dwells within evil thoughts, he naturally attracts evil spiritual vibrations to himself. The more the evil he attracts to himself, the stronger his evil magnetism becomes. Ditto for a person who dwells within pure thoughts - he attracts spiritual purity to himself. Now the more purity he attracts, the stronger his magnet becomes for pure things. Thus the more he has, the more he continues to get.

However when your magnet is weak, you are not able to attract much to yourself. Thus stronger magnets around you will by the strength of their magnetism attract away from you the little mass that you have. Thus the less you have, even more will be taken from you!

It is nothing but a law of spiritual magnetism which simply could not be otherwise.

This i hope addittionally explains why humanity is not doing well spiritually.

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

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

The answer to these questions is very simple: under the law of Karma, you reap what you sow - thus the minute humanity sows evil, we reap evil - and this is a process that can continue ad infinitum.

Let me give you some insight: remember what Jesus said about casting out demons. He indicated that if the victim still bears within him fertile soil for demon posession, TEN MORE demons would return to posess the victim. This is actually a process of magnetism - evil attracts more evil - accordingly human evil excesses only lead to greater evil under the law of Karma and magnetism - thus the cycle of continuing evil, CAPISCE?

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

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

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

Mavenb0x:
My own point is that anybody is free to believe in reincarnation or that Santa Claus has a red unicorn, just dont invade my worldview and tell me MY BIBLE says what it doznt!

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

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

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

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

The words of Jesus are clear in those verses.

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

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

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

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

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

If the Bible says –

X means “Stone” –

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

But when the Bible says X means “Stone” –

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

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

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

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

I repeat for emphasis –

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

AND –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is –

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

Thus –

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

Thus –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) The deixis of Biblical prophecies;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

This is a great Idea. I want to see the face of that Italian Gangster, Viaro.

What a strange fellow, an Italian Mobster who speaks victorian English!

I have never hidden my own face. It's there on my profile (although only half of it!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAKE TIME O!

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.

Quote from Nuclearboy -

@DeepSight:

[1] Hebrews 9:27-28: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” In no uncertain terms, this explains that the "normal" course of man’s existence is that he dies only once, and then faces judgement based on that one life. To strengthen his assertion, the writer made it clear men die the same number of times that Christ was offered on the cross i.e. only once."normal" above excludes miraculous situations where a man came back to life as in the case of Lazarus.

[2] In the case of the Transfiguration (I, a dwarf stand on the shoulders of the Mighty Expounder Viaro), Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus. If they had re-incarnated, they had to have been omnipresent to also be with Him. Would you attribute omnipresence to these gentlemen ?

[3] Luke 23:43 - Jesus told one thief he'd be with Him THAT DAY in paradise. If the body would be dead and buried and the soul with Jesus in Paradise, what portion of him would remain and be re-incarnated?

[4] Luke 16 tells a story that supports this assertion too. The 3 men mentioned as having died (Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man) were obviously consciously in the realm of death. Considering the time span between his death and Jesus parable, Abraham ought not be in that realm (except he too were omnipresent) if re-incarnation is valid. In fact, the rich man begs that Abraham send Lazarus back to warn his family; a request that was refused (supporting one death, not re-runs of an action flick).

The case of John being Elijah is easily dismissed - Luke 1:17 - Jesus said John came in "the Spirit of Elijah" meaning he had similar attributes to Elijah. This particular quote informed my earlier seemingly "weak" argument about "A Daniel come to judgment". I try to consider the intellect of my audience to avoid accusations of being long-winded and have never refrained from saying I believe you truly blessed intellectually. I still sincerely believe you understood my meaning but like to play the intellect game. Ah well, they say you're a lawyer and that even demons feel insulted when compared to lawyers for lying and turning things on their head(s)! I find it amazing that you still came back after Viaro noted you'd discussed this on another thread and I pushed a tidbit I believe you understood.

Please note that each example above does not require a long stretch of imagination to "infer", "convince", "accept". Your postulations, on the other hand, distort, then force an inference that is to say the least, a ridicule of Biblical information - come on, Bro!

My respected friend, we have moved the discourse to another thread as indicated above by Viaro to avoid derailing this thread. Please i will revert to you on that thread, thanks.

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.

^^^^ Yes he is definitely a white man, and he has colonized and brainwashed us; that's why our people are so shameless that they are happy to declare that one Jewish Rabbi is ALMIGHTY GOD!

Thus you assert that anything that is intangible in the sense that it cannot be seen is nothing? ? ?

Even by scientific standards there are many forces that are intangible to the extent that they cannot be seen, and yet they exist.

Please reboot, Mazaje.

God cannot be seen.

God is intangible in all respects.

The girl is a truly great artist, and a fabulous prodigy, but i disbelieve her claim to that she "sees" God.

Talented people always have great imaginations, so i will be inclined to approach this from the perspective of imagination.

More importantly, the imaginations of vastly talented children always seem so real to them, that it amounts to an alternate reality.

Ok, Bro. . .lets do that, open the thread. But let me just say one thing - I only debate this subject out of my desire to deal with certain logical fallacies - I am not really interested in the biblical acceptance or rejection of reincarnation as i do not hold the bible as my creed and i personally have extended memories of previous lifetimes which of course i cannot prove to anybody, but which give me a living conviction about the reality of reincarnation. These memories are the basis of my Poetry collection which i titled Memories of Eternity.

Here is the Prolouge of the Collection -

I have memories of Eternity
Things my mind just cannot place
Sights of ethereal rarity
Vibes of things of ancient face

Now and then the Picture floats
Of loves and lives past far and gone
Now and then the mind devotes
To ills recurred and loves forgone

Be my be, would you be
On and on this song I sing
It hoards my soul and rules my me
This ever, ever, ever thing…

I hope you like it!

Open the the thread sha - maybe you should open it by quoting extensively the main arguments made here so that we don't need to repeat them there for readers who may not have read this thread.