₦airaland Forum

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.

viaro:
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;

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).[/list]

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?

viaro:
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.

viaro:
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.

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 -

More from the same source -

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.


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


This is one of the major Messianic promises from God that is found in the Bible. And these John is Elijah references clearly demonstrate the reality of reincarnation. So there are two important conclusions we can draw from this:


(1) The Hebrew scriptures prophesied that Elijah himself - not someone like him or someone in the same ministry as him but Elijah himself - would return before the advent of the Messiah.



(2) Jesus declared John to be Elijah when he stated that Elijah has come.


Based on these conclusions alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:

(A) John was Elijah himself which means that Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist. And if this is true then reincarnation must belong once again in Christian theology. It also means that the concept of corpses crawling out of graves on Judgment Day can be discarded. OR,



(B) John was not Elijah reincarnated which means that Elijah himself did not return. And if this is true then either (1) or (2) listed below is true:



(1) Malachi's prophecy concerning Elijah's return to life before the coming of the Messiah failed to happen. This would mean that God does not keep his promise and that the Bible is fallible. OR,



(2) Jesus was not the Messiah.


Based on all the logic presented thus far, only one of the following conclusions is true:



I. Reincarnation is a reality OR,


II. Jesus was not the Messiah OR,


III. Bible prophecies are not reliable.


There is no way around this logic. Only one of the above options can be true. And because Jesus' declaration that John is Elijah is overt and direct, then the only option that can be logically true is (A).

And what do you make of this -

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.

^^^ It was a parable for crying out loud! It didn't happen!

One would assume it unlikely they would ask them at birth or would you have asked Jesus in infancy if he was Elijah?

I cannot accept this.

It is entirely contrary to the very essential concept of resurection.

ARE PEOPLE RESURRECTED BY BEING BORN AGAIN IN A WOMAN'S WOMB?

[size=16pt]Because that, my friend, is the very definition of reincarnation - AND NOT THE DEFINITION OF RESURECTION.[/size]

You saw Lazarus resurrected - did he come back by being born as a new child? ? ?


[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]

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!

davidylan:
So we can conclude that this is purely your own opinion and is not supported by the bible. You cant keep pigeon-holing the bible to what you can imagine. You still havent told us how the rich man in hell could see Lazarus if he was millions of miles away in the sky . . . surely he cant have eyesight that good.

And how did John the beloved see all the way from the earth all the happenings in heaven in Revelation. . .?

Yes - its called a vision.

The parable describes a vision - and let's not forget that its a parable only.

Quote from Mavenbox -

It's simple: the garden of Eden is where the tree of life is, it is the "paradise", which is the "garden / park" . . . This garden is the place of paradise where Adam and Eve were before the fall,

I hope we can all finally see the disastrous effects of contriving explanations for insupportable dogma.

Maven I hope you can see yourself the shocking inference in what you have written – namely that before the fall of man, ADAM AND EVE WERE IN THE LAND OF THE DEAD – HADES.

Happy now?

You have stated very clearly that they were with the Tree of Life in Paradise. You have also stated that that paradise was located in the land of the Dead – Hades!

Thus Adam and Eve – supposedly blessed by God with eternal life – were actually in the land of the dead. Unspeakable contradictions everywhere.

Let’s say you attempt another somersault as doubtless you will – and state that as at that time there was no death, so Hades did not exist. This will only give you the greater headache of telling us at what point Paradise moved into and took up residence within Hades – after it might have come into existence! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ?

Give it up Maven. It’s looking downright comical.

The "paradise" place was relocated to heaven, it was no longer a place in "hell"

Good grief. Did you actually write this? Maven aside from selling insupportable dogma, you have now moved into the business of rich imagination! “Paradise” was moved from Hades to Heaven? ? ?

What sort of spin is this ? ? ?

The tree of life will definitely be relocated along with the entire paradise project.

I am sorry, but this is sickening. You are writing a Tom and Jerry Script you have made up all by yourself.

Where in scripture is anything about any “relocation” of the Tree of Life ever said. . .? ? ? ? ?

No - It talks about the Tree of Life being in the Paradise of God.

If we are aware of what the Tree of Life stands for, it seems very bizarre to imagine that it is located in the land of death. - which is what Hades is.

Si i may understand you as believeing that the eternal paradise of God referred to in Rev 2:7 is in Hades?

David is it not suggestive that he "lifted UP his eyes" and sees Abraham "AFAR OFF" -

DOES this not suggest that he is looking "up" into another realm by means of a vision?

The fact that they are different planes is surely confirmed by the words of Abraham -

"26: And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." -

Which surely show that these are different planes entirely!

Secondly if at all there is a place of comfort in hades: is that place necessarily the paradise that the bible refers to? ? ?

Because it is clear from both Genesis and Revelation that Paradise is the abode of the Tree of Life, which surely can never be said to be resident in Hades? ? ?

David, i would like your views on Mavenbox's postulations that paradise is in hades here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-382353.32.html

^^^ The Atheist box is a non starter, atheism being an inherently contradictory and manifestly insupportable dogma.

I hope he was not frustrated by the moderator. . . there was a time he was banned about 15 times within 2 days, forcing Noetic2 TO CHANGE UP TO nOETIC15!

Noetic where art thou? There are burning issues raised by your christian brethren which i would love to have your erudite perspective on.

Could they really have had resurection in mind given that they observed both men born and grow into adulthood?

Only reincarnation would fit with that?

Remember that saying that there are comfy parts of hades is altogether different from saying that paradise is in hades.

Remember the Tree of Life is said to be in paradise, and its nothing if not bizarre to suggest that the tree of life resides in the land of death.

Nwankwo, i wish you God's greatest blessings this year and always for you and yours.

Mavenb0x:
No problem, Deep Sight. Please mull over this pending my free time (enough to make an extensive exegesis, I assume within the hour)

Please try not to be stubborn in your response. See if indeed there is something you should revise. We needn't always defend our every word to death because we are not perfect and can acknowledge that we might need a rethink.

^^^ Chris happy new year!

You are back with your cryptic disavowals.

I am sorry Maven, i was only pulling your legs.

I do look forward to your response.

Cheers.

No: Why did the Jews keep asking such a question?

Clearly reincarnation was in their worldview!

Why would both Jesus and John the Baptist not seize the oppurtunity to correct their delusion if reincarnation was not true. Why would a teacher and truthbringer not correct them if it was wrong?

Even the answer "No, i am not he" presupposes the possibility of reincarnation, and states that in this instance, he is not the reincarnated Elijah.

Lol Nuclear! I have really flexible working hours these days, i am able to log into my office from my study in the bedroom and give all the legal advise my company needs by emails and teleconferences. In the office now though!

Where is Maven? Have you taken to your heels now that your FALSE representation of hebrew and Greek words to suit your dogma has been ratted out?

Come back here and tell us again that paradise is in Hades and that the Tree of Life is in the land of the dead - Hades.

You must retract this TODAY and UNCONDITIONALLY.

D basis is that seeing is believing. Show me god and i wil tell u wat u are.

Do you expect to see spiritual things with your physical eyes?

Nuclear -

The Jews constantly posed questions to spiritual leaders that made it clear that they believed in re-incarnation.

They asled both Jesus and John the Baptist whether they were Elijah!

Note; neither Jesus nor John responded saying - "How is that possible - people do not reincarnate!"

John gave an evasive answer and Jesus simply denied being Elijah - which suggests clearly that the idea of Reincarnation was within their worldview.

Viaro - does this not prove what i have been screaming since:

That - there is nothing like "nothingness" anywhere in existence. It does NOT exist.

Is the word "nothingness" not even a direct contradiction of the word "existence?"

How is it a mystery Krayola?

Glancing at the palm of your hand alone shows how fearfully and wonderfully made you are.

The brain, that pinnacle of matter which the materialists praise so much - surely its faculties are evidence that man was made to contemplate higher things?

IT IS STARING US IN THE FACE EVERYWHERE AND EVERYDAY - THE WONDER AND GLORY OF GOD.

Viaro - Your commanding grammar can elicit more than 25% na?

Let us place the premium at 99%. Who will dare suggest that is too much to give to the lawd?