the_seeker:

My post are not meant to offend anyone. If you want to see offensive posts go and see what jcross, toba et al are doing in the muslim section. My posts are more of queries thank attacks

Yeah right! That's why you can hardly resist posting your 'queries' until you've embellished and qualified them with calumny, no?

the_seeker:

toba, the origin of this comment is obvious. I have been kicking your a** all over NL and exposing your confusion and hyporisy all over the place. Your lack of intelligence has made you very easy meat for me. Al least viaro and the likes have taken a stand, even though they resort of lies and nonsensical analogies to defend it. You on the other hand are the most confused individual on NL.
You and i agree that Jesus is not God. But beacuse of your hyporisy to chose to insult me and side viaro who believes that he is God. So who is confused here?

It is quiite interesting that Toba believes Jesus is not God and not to be worshiped wheras viaro thinks Jesus is God. But somehow they both agree because they both subscribe to the same sickness called christianity

You know what, mate? I like my own 'sickness' far better than your Islam, so let me be. Your problem is that muhammad in your own Quran could not deny that Christians are learned people (Q. 5:82) while at the same time touts your arabic Muslim folks as 'the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy' (Q. 9:97) - so I can understand why you're so restless when discussing with us and assuming that Christianity is a 'sickness'. No worries. . . it just tells me that your type just hates to be educated.

Yes, Christians may disagree on the Deity of Christ and still get along - there's no denying that. I also know that many Muslims hold divergent views about 'allah' in Islam even though those same people are Muslims. If your own sickness sickens you, it still does not change the fact for me about what John 5:23 says.

Deep Sight:

^^^ I can't wait for the trashing you will dish out to me. O well, its just as well that i'm a masochist.

@Deep Sight: There is no assurance of what the game will be like, but your opening may give your strength away. LOL okay register here https://www.chess.com/register.html and let me know your username on chess.com so that we can play. I just registered and mine is mavenbox. When you register, invite me (email address mavenbox@gmail.com) to a game from here http://www.chess.com/home/invite_friends.html and let's battle!

@bee444: Sorry about this. I am kind of a chess freak.

@Mavenb0x

It's alright not to  take things too serious some times you know.
They say 'all work and no play, "

ooh, thanks for your simple answer to the topic.

God bless

@DeepSight:

I do NOT subscribe to the idea of re-incarnation! BTW, I want to see how you came about Jesus believing in or accepting re-incarnation.

@the_seeker:

You say we resort to lies and nonsensical anologies.

Well, we belong here where brains are used - know why? Our analogies and thinking come from a thought process built on that of Jesus who used real-world examples to pass His point across. His own online posts proverbs made sense because they were built on what others could understand. We try to emulate Him!

On the other hand, you do not belong here. Why? You follow a guy who carried weapons and raped babies! Before you grab the nearest 9 year old, please first go get a bomb from osama and blow it up whist still with him.

That way, we do what comes to us naturally and you do what comes to you naturally.

@MavenBox:

How long have you been playing Chess and to what level? Hobby, School, Club, Tournament abi MAS---?

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.

Basically, what you are saying is that if I ask if you are a lawyer and you evade the question and then MavenBox says no that she knows you only as a poster on NL and not as a lawyer, you are not one!

Is the above right?

Lets not jump to a non-conclusive conclusion, Bro!

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.

Deep Sight:

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.

DeepSight, we have been through this subject of reincarnation before, and it is clear that the points of reference in the Bible from which you argue reincarnation do not point to that at all. If it may help, let me repost my answers again from the other thread:

---

[list]

Deep Sight:

Surely, this shows that both John and Jesus reckoned with the idea of reincarnation?

Wwhat say you?

^^^Well, not necessarily.

It is true that neither Jesus nor John baptist categorically rejected the idea of reincarnation when approached. Yet, they did not explicitly endorse it either.

However, even there at that point we encounter a problem. The one question that crosses my mind repeatedly is this: were those who queried Jesus (Matthew 17) and John baptist (John 1:21) asking questions that suggest re-incarnation? In all probability, I deeply doubt that was the case, for the following reasons:

1.  I don't know much about Jewish ideology and way of thinking in context of the 1st century; but rather than the thought of reincarnation, it's my view that they had resurrection in mind.

2.  The fact that it was more a point of resurrection than of reincarnation is supported by some pointers in both the Bible and Jewish documents. A few examples:

             *  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

3.  Long before the era of the New Testament, we can see from those references that the Jews were at the very least aware of the concept of people rising from the dead. This, for me, does not point to the idea of reincarnation (which, in Hinduism, is the belief that after you die you can be born again as a different person, animal, or thing); rather, those references point to resurrection of some sorts, where the dead are to rise again, fully recognizable for who they were.

4.  To strengthen this view, it was not only in those occasions (Matthew 17 and John 1:21) that the question was broached: there are other times when many in the audience had mistaken Jesus for either Elijah, or Jeremiah, or for one of the prophets (Matt. 16:14). However, this pointing back again and again to people in the past was not understood as reincarnation, but rather as resurrection. Particularly so is what we can understand from Herod's presumptive assertion to his servants in Matthew 14:2 -

        * 'This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead;
            and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.'

Or, as Mark 6:16 has it -

        * 'But when Herod heard thereof, he said,
           It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.'

5.  From the foregoing, we can see that it was not reincarnation that we see in these examples, but rather a resurrection or a rising from the dead.


However, what about the important point you raised, viz -

Deep Sight:

Jesus simply answered "no", and John evaded the question entirely by saying " i am the voice of one crying in the desert. . ."

No, I think it's not precisely so. John did not evade the question, for his answer to that question was categorical in John 1:21 -

        'And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.'

As discussed above, you can see that neither Jesus nor John baptist reckoned with reincarnation, but rather a rising from the dead (strategically a different thing from the reincarnation idea).
[/list]

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?

^^^
@DeepSight:

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

Atimes you scare me with the sincere depth of your discourse. Othertimes, I feel let down and wonder if you are being sincere or just trying to shake the foundations of the beliefs of others at any cost. Aside what Viaro stated above which is better put than I could have delivered, let me bring an aside which also serves as an allegory -

When you read Shakespeare in "The merchant of Venice", you come across the words "A Daniel come to Judgment". Would you say Shylock believed the Prophet Daniel had come to aid him? If no, look at your postulation again!

@Viaro:

Again the Mighty Expounder rescues me from the big bad wolf call DeepSight . What do I owe you now? Obviously, we've gone past drinks. Sadly, Jesoul seems taken or it'd have been my life ambition to see that happen

Brilliant response, Chairman! I'm learning a lot at your feet.

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!

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.

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).

Why are u guys insulting our prophet, is it crime to ask if jesus was a god, many verses of the bible reveal jesus as son of man, and he is a servant of God

John d baptist isnt Elijah.John confirmed it in John1:21.D prophesy of malachi is yet to happen.Malachi=Revelations 11 from vs 6,When God will send 2witness just b4 d 2nd coming of christ.Elijah&moses appeared to Jesus in Luke9:30-36 to confirmation of Jesus as d son of God&pple shd obey him.We need to do more study ourselves to get facts&not believe in stories that were told

@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.

nuclearboy:

@Viaro:

Again the Mighty Expounder rescues me from the big bad wolf call DeepSight . What do I owe you now? Obviously, we've gone past drinks. Sadly, Jesoul seems taken or it'd have been my life ambition to see that happen

Brilliant response, Chairman! I'm learning a lot at your feet.

Your honour, commander of the e-jails. . . Yes, we've gone past 'carbonated drinks' as it is. I don't have any ideas just now (never mind that Jesoul is the apple of God's eye ), so I won't protest! Soon. . very soon we shall strike on a reasonable deal that the jury can't refuse.

Anyways, how are you keeping? I trust that life is treating you great? Bless up.

Yes, Jesus Christ is God. And Matthew 4:7 is an instance of His Divinity.

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

@Ndipe: Wow! Thanks, that was spot-on and straight to the point!!

Viaro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL This viaro guy has never ceased to impress me, even when we disagree on a topic (though I confess I am not usually glad to debate him when I'm on the wrong side of his convictions)! You take a topic and like a log of wood you tear it apart to shreds, giving no room for weevils to hide! I throway salute o!

@Viaro: To confess, when I saw Deepsight's article, I was like "here's another of those articles written by misinformed christian bible-discussants in a bid to spread confusion and pollute the gospel with oriental myths and religions" and I refrained from responding because I knew you would return to do a good job. I couldn't have done that better, I guess!

@Ndipe

Pls refrain from misinterpreting the scripture o! In Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12 Jesus quoted what you've quoted in reference to Deuteronomy 6:16. I beg read your Bible thoroughly. He wasn't referring to himself as God, but rather educating the devil of the word of his Father (GOD ALMIGHTY).

Pls note: The word 'tempt' is the same as 'test'. I refer you to Ex 17:7, Psalm 78:18-31, Isaiah 7:10-12.

However, I'm not judging you for saying YES to the topic, but your supporting evidence or back-up scripture doesn't entirely support your claim!

God bless

Sorry, sorry sorry. A poor web connection kept me away! I see Viaro brought his missiles online again

@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!

@Viaro:

I just knew you wouldn't protest over the Jesoul thing! I see and have proved you lean towards a Solomonic mindset?   I needed something over you in case I ever debate against you and I have it now - I'll disclose that mindset to the "someone important" who got you off this topic if you ever shred my arguments the way you like to do. Send her details  

@MavenBox:

I wonder what you think of bee444's post above - I think the same. Jesus is God but in the context of that conversation, I agree with bee444 that He referred to Himself not tempting the Spirit because of the Flesh!

See, i think i don dey get tired of this long story wey we just dey tell ourselves about Jesus o.

Just need some bold person to hit the nail on the head! Aba kai, wetin, mene ne, osi gini, kilo de, yaya dai?

I think I have a simple illustration here!

Imagine God as a MOBILE PHONE, Holy Spirit the SIM CARD and  Jesus the AIR TIME.
Now, without a PHONE, the SIM CARD is useless and without AIR TIME you cannot dial out,
Likewise without the Spirit of God(Simcard), God(phone) is limited and without Jesus(airtime) we cannot gain access to God!

But does that mean we cannot use our phone+simcard without the airtime? Although airtime is synonymous to phone+simcard, they can function independently or rather without each other. They are separate entities but somewhat inseparable.

In a nutshell, I believe there is Jesus, the Holy Spirit and GOD, butttttttttttt, the Holy Spirit is GOD and GOD is GOD. The Holy Spirit is that part of God that execute HIS purpose (Creation) Gen 1:2. We call HIM God because HE is a Spirit and the Spirit(Executor) in HIM is HOLY!  

Now concerning Jesus, Although he talked a lot about himself, who he was and who sent him, he was very careful to say he was GOD(Creator). He couldn't be in 2 places at a time while on earth, hence, the OMNIPRESENCE of GOD remains. He died,  GOD never sleeps nor slumber.

This is why i'm not a big fan of the sect called 'Christ Embassy', You mention Oyakhi, let alone 'lome' scatter scatter go bust, now we're talking about J.E.S.U.S, none of them seem to have any contribution to make!

God go judge sha!

I have a lot to say but I reserve my comments for now

God bless

@bee444:

I agreed with you, Sir. And I like your latest allegory of mobile phones. Why don't you start a thread or even continue here and rather than using phones to symbolise God, state point-blank how you understand God, Jesus and HS. I say this because your above post confuses me when you say

QUOTE
Although he talked a lot about himself, who he was and who sent him, he was very careful to say he was GOD(Creator). He couldn't be in 2 places at a time while on earth, hence, the OMNIPRESENCE of GOD remains. He died, GOD never sleeps nor slumber.
UNQUOTE

What do you mean here? Are you seperating Jesus and God yet also saying Jesus is God?

@nuclearboy: Yes sir, you are absolutely correct. LOL. I guess I was too hasty to agree with Ndipe because I thought I just saw something new in the scriptures (new as in from another light). The verses concerned are (AMPLIFIED Bible):

Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, On the other hand, it is written also, You shall not tempt, test thoroughly, or try exceedingly the Lord your God. [Deut. 6:16.]

Deu 6:16 You shall not tempt and try the Lord your God as you tempted and tried Him in Massah. [Exod. 17:7.]

Exo 17:7 He called the place Massah [proof] and Meribah [contention] because of the faultfinding of the Israelites and because they tempted and tried the patience of the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us or not?

Which indicates that the "as you tempted and tried him in Massah" is related to the "proving that he is God and will do as he promised" that the Israelites did at Massah. In this case, the "onus of the proof" is upon the Father, so he is the one who the "tempting the Lord your God" refers to. Besides, in the Hebrew Deut 6:16, the LORD there is capitalized (and not Lord). It's definitely the Father.

@bee444: Thanks for the clarification on the temptation experience of Christ!

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 -

@nuclearboy

Sorry for not clarifying that area the way I should have done!

No, I'm not saying Jesus is God, and i'm also not denying him as the begotten son of God.

Note that a son is different from a father in every aspect. Now lets look at the highlighted word 'begotten'. To beget means to father, create, to cause to exist, to produce, to bring forth, to generate, procreate etc. Now,we all call God our Creator, and if we truly sincere with ourselves, we can boldly say God has begotten us all, 1 John 3:1, Romans 8:14. Jesus while on earth was always led by the Spirit of God. God was so impressed with him that HE begat him instantly.

Anyone that does the will of God reproduces the mind of God. And as believers, we are now sons and daughters of God and join heir with Jesus,
Hallelujah!!!

God bless