₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
It appears that the Christian gang led by Viaro and Mavenbox are currently holding another Council of Nicea Nairaland and striking out Reincarnation from the body of beliefs again.

I held no council to strike out anything - the only thing viaro is interested in is striking out all pointers to conspiracy theories (from NDE to personal blogs to tripod.com), so that after the misinformation from all these warped sources are laid bare, we can then see if the reincarnationists in this thread or even in NL can show us scholarly research with well articulated quotes on the true history of the Council of Nicea. That is all we are waiting for them to show.

The above was necessary to outline so that you could understand why your conclusions about my initial comments are quite skewed, TrueSeeker:

TrueSeeker: And somewhere Viaro quoted 1 Pet 3: 18,19 : "Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit. In this [state] also he went his way and preached to the spirits in prison"
Viaro meant that state in which Christ preached to the spirits in the prison to be in his death.

That is correct, for Christ was put to death in the flesh, albeit His spirit survived the death of the body. The separation of spirit from body is what the Bible defines as "death" (James 2:26), but that is death as experienced in the body, not the death of the spirit that was separated from that body. It is in this regard that your next comments begin to wobble:

But a closer look show that the preaching was done when Christ was made alive in the spirit (after his resurrection).

Could you show viaro any verse that says Christ went to preach the Gospel to anyone after His resurrection? I think you're making very vacant conjectures here without support - and I would like to see support for what you claim (especially because Peter said that you cannot interpret any verse just by itself without comparing with other verses of Scripture - 2 Pet. 1:20). So, please show me where your claim could be supported.

The spirit in prison are they in hades or in hell? No, because they never died

I don't think I argued anywhere that spirits die in the same sense that people die in their bodies. So your question here is quite moot.

, it is only dead people that are in Bible hades or sheol,

Excuse me sir: what do you mean by "dead people"? Does that not include BOTH the righteous and the unrighteous? Now, if we have shown that HADES ir SHEOL is not to be confused for what people have taken to be the 'common grave', where is that place where both the righteous and unrighteous people go? That same place is where Jesus Christ is said to have gone - HADES (Acts 2:27 & 31). Mark please: in Acts 2:27, it is not the body that is in HADES - rather it is the SOUL! Read it for yourself -

     "²⁷Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (HADES),
      neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption"

     "³¹He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,
      that his soul was not left in hell (HADES),
      neither his flesh did see corruption"

Two things are presented here:
(a) His SOUL was in HADES but was not left there;
(b) His body did not decompose while still in the sepulchre.
The soul of the human body survives the death of the body - and while the body is put in the 'common grave' (grave, tomb, sepulchre), it is rather the SOUL that goes to HADES!

This is why I'm not one of those to recycle the idea that HADES means "the common grave" and nothing other than that, because the persons who are drawing that broad conclusion have not carefully asked themselves where either of the BODY and the SOUL of a man are to be found after DEATH.

though hades might had another meaning among the Greeks. The Christian Greek writers use Hades to be equivalent of Hebrew Sheol. Compare Act 2:31 : 'he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Ha′des nor did his flesh see corruption' with Psalm 16:10: 'For you will not leave my soul in She′ol.'

Just as explained above - the SOUL and the BODY of man are not to be confused (1 Thes. 5:23) - they are distinct. However, the SOUL in both Acts 2:31 and Psalm 16:10 are associated with HADES while the body is laid in the SEPULCHRE/TOMB/GRAVE.

@TrueSeeker,

Thank you for your comments. I'd wanted to simply be reserved for a while on this very interesting subject so as to learn from all sides. However, that you mentioned viaro in your comments to make some observations, I think a few things need to be pointed out to you.

TrueSeeker:
I think there is a mix-up somewhere. When mavenbox quote Luke 23: 43 to mean Jesus was in paradise that very day he promised the criminal that he will be with him in paradise. In NWT the verse read like this: 'And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today[b],[/b] You will be with me in Paradise.”'

First, the NWT is one of those spurious 'translations' out there upon which anyone could quibble on non-essentials - trust the Jehovah Witnesses to help in that. The fact is that the NWT was not translating punctuation marks - so even if one takes away the comma [,] where it appears between 'today' and 'You', it makes no atom of a difference that Jesus meant the event of His going to paradise was to occur that very day. The NWT could not be any more inaccurate in interpolating the comma there between those words - it was a denominational device in keeping with JW doctrines rather than a theologically sound eschatology.

The meaning is clear that Jesus was not in Paradise that same day he died but in Hades which means common grave not a place of activity but inactivity and consciouslessness.

I do not think there is only one meaning of the word 'Hades' in the New Testament. The problem with many people holding a traditional interpretation of that word wherever it appears in the NT is that, for some reason, they fail to see that the idea of a 'common grave' is expressed by other well understood words. Some of these words are:

        *   grave
        *   tombs
        *   sepulchre

. . and they also Greek equivalents, such as:

        *   τάφος (taphos)
        *   μνημεῖον  (mnēmeion)
        *   μνῆμα (mnēma)

Let's see a few examples where they appear in the NT:

[list]

[list]

'Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave (mnēmeion μνημεῖον). It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it' ~ John 11:38[/list]
[list]I especially like John 11:38, because it clearly shows what it meant by the grave by filling in the gaps for the reader: 'it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it'. Words could not be clearer.[/list]

[list]'The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave (mnēmeion μνημεῖον), and raised him from the dead, bare record' ~ John 12:17[/list]

[list]'And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb (mnēmeion μνημεῖον)' ~ Mark 6:29[/list]

[list]'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres (taphos τάφος) of the righteous' ~ Matthew 23:29[/list]

[/list]

But what is intriguing in all this is that the OT also has other words for what people take to be the 'common grave'; these include -

       * קבר / קברה  ~  (qeber  /  qibrâh)

       * קבוּרה / קברה  ~  (qebûrâh)

       * גּדישׁ  ~  (gâdıysh)

Shall we now take a look at some examples:

[list]

[list]'And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves (qeber/qibrâh), O my people, and brought you up out of your graves (qeber/qibrâh)' ~ Ezekiel 37:13[/list]

[list]'Yet shall he be brought to the grave (qeber/qibrâh), and shall remain in the tomb (gâdıysh)' ~ Job 21:32[/list]

[/list]

The point in all this is that many people have drawn far too much conclusions to narrow 'sheol' and 'hades' to only one meaning: the 'common grave' - whereas, the idea of the grave is variously expressed by other words in both the OT and NT. Yet, both 'sheol' and 'hades' have various meanings in Biblical context, and it is this point especially that persuades me of the fact that the 'HADES' of departed spirits has a consciousness that is quite different from the one we experience while still alive in our bodies here on earth.

justcool:
Since seeklove brought up a thread in which I heavily posted on, I wish to clarify some issues.
The theme of thread(Biblical accounts that suggest reincarnation) that seeklove brought is not exactly the same with the theme of this thread(Reincarnation - Deepsight, Let's Talk Here)

I already saw that thread before I raised this one; and this one came up for the very reason that is highlighted in yours - that the themes of either thread are not the same, and that much I applaud. Not many people saw that (as is clear in seeklove's calling to it).

This one came up because I wanted to be clear that I was not going to give room for the silly ideas about anyone "suggesting" this and that into the Bible. Historical antecedents do not bear any support for such a "suggestion", and the Bible does not argue for reincarnation. . not even remotely. Anyone can "suggest" anything into the Bible; but when the misinformation are all blown away and serious talk comes to the fore, there's just nothing to show the teaching of reincarnation in the Bible.

Perhaps those who argue reincarnation ought to go back and carefully think through the core elements of that idea before they try to match or mirror them up to any verse in the Bible. If reincarnationists are ignoring the true meaning of 'reincarnation' (or deliberately prevaricating on the very definition they gave to that word for their worldview), what substance then are we to find in their arguments? It would mean that they have no foundation for their arguments and grasping at anything (even if yet erratic) to just keep going at it.

The question then is: why bother?

Deep Sight:
Quote from Justcool -

The bible we have today does not teach reincarnation, although there are stories in it that suggest reincarnation. IE stories that suggest that the writers might have believed in reincarnation.

Thank you. And some people want to break my head simply because i pointed out such stories.

Of course we know that justcool had his issues confused. No credible source carries that conspiracy theory of early Christians believing in reincarnation - and that point has long been settled very early in this thread, where I referred to the NDE website that carried your excerpted article suggesting such.

For this reason, I very much appreciate Krayola's comments following justcool's claims - and we're waiting to see any credible source that carries a scholarly publication of the said justcool's claims that:
[list](a) reincarnation was one of the issues that was deliberated on in the council of Nicaea;
(b) and from then, it was removed from teachings of the church.[/list]
Aside the misinformation out there on the web, let's see justcool serve us a credible source establishing his claims - or let's just consign them where they belong: the bin.

I would have thought it would suffice to state that the words of Jesus were symbolic only and then prove that they were symbolic.

Is that so hard?

We've pointed out the meanings of the verses ebing argued for reincarnation - and YOU are the one still unable to make any sound point to progress from where you left off. The fact that you have patently abandoned your own definition of reincarnation and scuttling round in circles is very telling indeed.

Deep Sight:
Now your mentor Viaro comes along and states clearly that Elijah went to the spiritual heavens with his physical body, and you somersault and fall into line with this!

Please show viaro where the Bible shows in any place that Elijah experienced death as defined Biblically to be "the body without the spirit" (James 2:26). The Bible does not show any such thing, and yes Elijah was taken into heaven with his body according to 2 kings 2:11. You just stop making noise and show viaro that 2 Kings 2:11 does not mean what it says. Period.

hehehe. . where is nuclearboy?? He has banned me from 'carbonated drinks', otherwise I would have caught up with DeepSight in that bar!

Blueice4re:
what do you think of dis if a pastor in your church call's you and says he wants you to be his third eye, meaning that you should go out and pretend and hear wat people think of him in the church and return the information back to him.

Why don't you just volunteer to be his 'thirteen leg' and 'millipede hands'?!

You know, first thing I did was take a look at your profile, and it amazes me that you have these words up there: "NoKnow what is right and act rightly" - which shouldn't be difficult to apply in this case. You don't need to ask anyone for advice on what is right here - just apply your brains and do what you feel is 'right'.

(poster and readers shall be indemnified against any unforseen results of your 'third leg' adventures).

Later sir. Whenever we come back, I would like you to tell me what sphere is that "under ths sun".

I was just enjoying how you run round in circles and conveniently duck every point raised in our responses. But this one is where I again have to ask you directly:

Deep Sight:
The Ecclesiates quote is pretty clear - it states that -

1. The Dead are conscious of nothing at all

2. That all their passions (jealousies, hatred, love etc) are totally shut down.

Let me draw out the second one again from your quote:
     2.  That all their passions (jealousies, hatred, love etc) are totally shut down
Although it does not say "shut down", that would be referring to Ecclesiastes 9:6 - but what sphere did the said verse 6 indicate if not "under the sun"??

DeepSight, what sphere is meant by (or rather, do you understand by) "under the sun"?

^^DeepSight, were you smoking crystal meth in schnapp rolls when typing in all uppercase?

Deep Sight:
GOD BEING THE COMPOUND OF ALL SELF EXISTENT LAWS IS NOT WHIMSICAL.

But your representations of that compound of all self-existent laws has been most whimsical, if anything.

THIS IS WHY IT IS SAID THAT GOD IS IMMUTABLE - UNCHANGEABLE.

In His Person, yes - but not in what He does.

PERFECTION CANNOT CHANGE - AS IT IS ALREADY PERFECT.

Perfection does not mean God does things in only one way.

THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE IMMUTABILITY OF GOD; GOD IS ONE AND GOD IS PERFECT.

The immutability, oneness and perfection of God do not mean that you should VIOLATE your own definition of reincarnation and start drivelling on rubbish all along. Either you be consistent with your definition of the subject of reincarnation, or just come back and tell us you were not being sincere in what you argued based on that definition.

FOR THIS REASON GODS LAWS DO NOT CHANGE. YOUR BIBLE AFFIRMS THIS WHEN IT STATES THAT HEAVEN AND EARTH MAY PASS AWAY BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ABIDETH FOREVER.

In the Word of God, we find the following:

[list](a) the definition of death is this: 'the body without the spirit is dead' (James 2:26)
(b) Elijah was taken WHOLE into heaven without a seperation of his spirit from his body (2 Kings 2:11)
(c) someone else (Enoch) was also translated without seeing death (Heb. 11:5)
(d) someone could be caught up to heaven whether in the body or out of the body (2 Cor. 12:2)
(d) 'heaven' and the 'Kingdom of God' are not the same thing - they differ both in sphere and manifestations (Col. 1:13 and 1 Thes. 4:16).[/list]

These things have been recorded and still remain in the Bible - they haven't passed away, nor is anyone shouting apologetically that they were the same category as your "error" of reincarnation.

THIS IS WHY PHYSICAL LAWS APPLY ON PHYSICAL PLANES.

That still does not mean that spiritual antecedents cannot be manifested in the physical without being subject to physical laws.

VIARO'S ASSERTION THAT A PHYSICAL BODY MAY RISE TO A SPIRITUAL PLANE AND LIVE THERE BODILY IN ITS PHYSICAL FORM IS A FARCE. I ASKED A SIMPLE QUSTION: DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AS YOUR POSITION ALSO?

That is what the Bible teaches - and I have quoted the verses far too many times. You may look up those verses, call them farce, and go suck up your oneness of infinity that was quickly abandoned for the crap it has always been.

IF YOU DO I WILL HAVE TO ASK YOU WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND BY THE TERMS "SPIRITUALITY" OR A "SPIRITUAL PLANE".

What do YOU understand by them?

MY COMMENTS WERE SARCASTICALLY DESIGNED TO HELP YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THE CLAIM THAT EARTHLY BODIES LIVE BODILY IN SPIRITUAL REALMS IS.

Well done - both 'sarcastically' and 'ridiculous' are more than four letters, so the next time you read me redesigning you with verbal slaps every which way, don't complain!  

GOD HAS SET THE LAWS - AND BELIEVE ME EVEN GOD IS BOUND BY HIS PERFECT LAWS - FOR THE VERY REASON THAT GOD IS PERFECT.

This is why your oneness of infinity god is a dot - a very tiny dot indeed! Have you ever heard of the word 'transcendence' - what does it mean to you? No wonder you O.O.I. god is running between 3 infinities and still getting nowhere (I knew you would abandon that thread sooner than anyone had hoped for you to).

THUS HE CANNOT CHANGE THEM; HE IS IMMUTABLE.

He definitely can transcend them. A 'god' that is bound by physical laws wihout any sense of transcendence is itself a created entity - which is what you seem to present in uppercase for your own 'god'.

THAT WHICH APPLIES TO A PHYSICAL BODY MUST NEEDS APPLY TO IT.

That which comes from transcendence and is exposed to the workings of transcendence needs not be subject to the physical.

I DOUBT THAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH IN ANY TERMS AT ALL.

It's a no brainer, bro - so don't go celebrating like you just made an amazing discovery.

OTHERWISE YOU MIGHT WONDER WHAT DEATH ITSELF IS ALL ABOUT IF PHYSICAL BODIES SUCH AS OURS LIVE BODILY IN SPIRITUAL REALMS.

I have defined death in Biblical terms several times, and have not seen you a single time be man enough to calmly discuss. You're splitting hairs and tripping all over yourself - quite an entertainment.

I AM SURPRISED THAT THE ELEMENTARY FACT THAT PHYSICAL BODIES ARE FINITE ENTITIES OF MATTER HAS MISSED YOU. I WONDER HOW SUCH FINITE ENTITIES -WHICH ARE TIME-BOUND ARE SUPPOSED TO DWELL IN A TIMELESS REALM.

I again reply by one thing: transcendence. Did you miss that one too?

GO FIGURE AND DONT EVEN BE HAVING A CIRCUS.

Your physics and mathematics have long been scr[color=Black]ewed up[/color] - go figure.

Mavenb0x:
@Viaro: No mind this Shallow Sighted man o! He will not address the topic of the thread, but will raise other nonsense and when they are proven spurious he will come up with another irrelevant concept (or in recent times, redefine his stand and keep arguing blindly) in the face of evidence.

It amazes me to the point of being speechless!  

Deep Sight:
So why the heck do you waste so much time on me and my inanities?

Oh - It must be evangelism laced with four letter words!

Nope, rather you're tripping all over yourself while waving the victim's card on your own misadventures.

Deep Sight:
This is just fantastic. I'm having a party.

Maven asserts now that those in Hades (the unseen realms) cannot "see" or "perceive" anything.

And this same Maven asserted in another thread that the Parable of Lazarus & the rich man in Hades was a real event and not a parable only - thus that the rich man in Hades could "see" and "perceive" Lazarus in Abraham's bosom - FAR OFF!

Wow! Such delightful contradictions!

Tell now Maven, how do you escape this one? They cannot "see" or "perceive" according to your defintion attached above.

But the Rich man in Hades can see and perceive! And you say it was a real event!

Marvelous Maven! This Christian thing no go kill your logic o!

Are you not missing (by compulsion) the very fact of the sphere where the 'seeing' applies? DeepSight, what do you understand by "under the sun" that the preacher uses frequently and in those verses under review??

It does not mean at all that no consciousness could be spoken of in hades - and I have noted that we are looking at another type of consciousness, a point which was made with several examples.

Besides, apart from the fact that Maven posted you a snapshot of the Hebrew word 'yada', I could post it again right from my Strong's Concordance in case you missed it:

[list]H3045
ידע
yâda‛
yaw-dah'

A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively instruction, designation, punishment, etc.): - acknowledge, acquaintance (-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, [un-] awares, can [-not], certainly, for a certainty, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be [ig-] norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to, let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have [knowledge], (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have [understanding], X will be, wist, wit, wot.[/list]

What is wrong with the fact that Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 makes the point that the dead are not conscious of experience of things done 'under the sun'? DeepSight, please tell me what is wrong with that.

@Mavenb0x, what can I say? lol.


__________________________

@DeepSight,

Deep Sight:
Maven/ Viaro - Why do you both conveniently skip the sentence which says - "THE DEAD KNOW NOTHING."

I skipped nothing. In my reply I quoted that same verse (Ecclesiastes 9:5) and connected it with the very next verse 6 that shows you what is expressly meant: what do you understand as regards the point the preacher was setting forth all through with the clause 'under the sun' ?

besides, verse 6 is not disconnected from verse 5, because the flow is evident by the pronouns - '⁶Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun'.

Point as lucid as can be - no tiwsting. You, on the other hand, have to ignore these points (as you ever do) and just sit tight on disconnected phrases. This was why I gave you several other examples OUTSIDE of Ecclesiastes. What have you said about them?

I suppose -

1. That you will now tell me that it is symbolic only OR -

2. You do not wish to accept that this shows off a biblical contradiction when contrasted with the verses Viaro cited.

You've played these games far too long they have become your trademark. If a reply is amde which addresses your queries and then you have nothing of substance to return, you turn round to allege all sorts. DeepSight, please drop it - your style of discussing is becoming too much of a bore to waste time on.

Well Maven, I try to learn from others - and if that has been helpful, bless up.


PS. if I don't do that email tonight, it will be sitting in your box early tomorrow. I haven't forgotten, so you know.

Mavenbox, you anticipated me in post #17 - just about the same things I wanted to point out in post #18 on Eccl. 9:5 and 6. Cheers.

Folks, let me quickly chip in something:

Deep Sight:
Ecclesiastes 9:5 -

"For the living know that they shall die; but the dead are conscious of nothing at all - neither have they any further reward - even the memory of them is forgotten."

This clearly suggest that Hades is a place of no consciousness at all.

I'm not entirely sure that 'Hades is a place of no consciousness at all' - we could rather speak of another type of consciousness that tends to Hades.

The reason for this is simple: Eccl. 9:5 pertains to experiences 'under the sun' (ie., in this world), but the dead hav no protion in anything that is done under the sun (see verse 6).

It would be clear from Revelation 6:9-10 that souls of the 'dead' experience another kind of consciousness, otherwise they would not even be said to have expressed anything whatsoever - yet, these souls that were slain are said to have 'cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?'

Another example is given in 1 Peter 3:18-19 where Christ in His death was said to have gone and preached to the spirits in prison. Think about it: would any form of consciousness be indicated in the place where He descended to, especially that He was said to have preached to those spirits in prison? In any case, it shows us that even while the body was dead, the spirit lives beyond the death of the body - and as such, there is a consciousness different from that which we experience here in this world while still in the body.

Deep Sight:
Thank you Viaro.

For tonight i am not certain that i have the words to address a man who belives that physical bodies may live in spiritual realms.

Well, I have no problems thereto.

Tomorrow perhaps i will try to address both biblically and commonsensically why that is a really really bizzarre thing for an educated mind to suggest.

It may be bizzarre to you; but within the body of our discourses, why should it be so for the Christian? I do hope that we shall not have occasion to draw swords tomorrow with acrid tradeoffs - and here is where I offer that you simply discuss your points without the derisions. I can't promise you any pampering if you'd rather maintain this snobbery.

Gnite Viaro.

Enjoy the evening, amico mio.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=385353.msg5406292#msg5406292 date=1264713163]Hi again Viaro.
Your concern in my view is valid but I am of the view that they can be addressed at leat to some extent in such an investigation. Yes, there could be an alternative explanation but part of the investigation should include examination of alternative explanation. The investigation may end up confirming that what I told them is true but they cannot say whether such information that they have confirmned is evidence of reincarnation or not. To me, that is progress and a step in the right direction.[/quote]Hello m_nwankwo, and thanks again for your comments. I think the one thing that caught my attention in the above is the highlighted.

I have not said that science investigates spiritual things. What I said is that if a spiritual phenomenon have a physical manifestation, the   physical manifestation can be investigated scientifically. Scientist can verify the physical manifestation but refuse to link it to a spiritual cause. That is a problem for the scientist and not for the one whose claims have been verified. If one is medically diagnosed of prostrate cancer and he is prayed upon by one bestowed by the power of God and science confirms that their are no cancer cells in the prostrate afer such an intervention, and such healing happen not in one or two isolated cases but in large cohort, then the investigators have to explain what else is responsible for the miracle.

That's okay. The one thing I worry about is that when we speak about 'scientific investigations' in current paradigms, we should be looking at holistic approaches rather than the reductionist methods. I trust as a scientist, you understand where I'm coming from - but for the benefit of our readers, it would mean that science would look at both sides of the phenomenon for any objectivity to be established. It is not only the effect but also the causes that scientists would be seeking to explain.

So, the equation may be such that the 'physical manifestation' tends to the effect, while the spiritual antecedents would point to the cause. Thefefore, a holistic approach in scientific investigations would look at both sides; and while the 'physical' may not be such a problem for the scientist, the spiritual antecedent would most definitely pose insurmountable problems for the naturalist. And as long as such a scientist may not have developed hypothesis, theories or models for explicating the spiritual in spiritual diction, how does such a person even begin to apply a holistic approach to these phenomena? All the same, I get your point: yet, I'm just expressing these concerns in light of the paradigms in science today.

I am a scientist myself and do have considerable experience in biomedical research. Your concern is valid and may ruin the career of such a scientist. But if one is interested in finding out the truth, then career setbacks or excommunication by the mainstream science should not be a deterrent. There are many reputable scientist that have investigated these manifestations but the result of their study are not yet published in peer reviewed literature because mainstream science do not want to hear anything that is not entirely naturalistic.

That's true - I'm familiar with a few examples.

But I believe that things will change in future.

With hopes.

ogajim:
It's NOT about MONEY!

The better thing to say is that it is not only about money - which means, it extends beyond money to other types of giving of our material blessings to others.

You need to study the passages carefully before drawing uninformed conclusions, even if others disagree with you. That some may disagree does not mean therefore that they are wrong, so no need to put everyone in a box.

Deep Sight:
Ok, Viaro. Nice to receive more of your insults. I will not return the favour - and i am certain that you cannot accuse me of using such words as ("fh.u.c.k off" - "idiot" - "fool" etc) on you - despite your ceaseless use of such language on me. It is beyond me that without insulting you in such terms you are at ease to consistently use such language with me. Very well.

Dude, as long as you feel at ease to badmouth Christians just for what we believe, I won't go soft on you. Not at any time. At least, I'm glad you're taking notice to see that such lingo in discussions are out of place, which is why you ought to respect the views of others rather than bedevil them just because you can't steal something from their worldview to plug a hole in your deism.

At least you are out of the closet - nice to know the real Viaro. I suppose i can live with it now that it is clear.

I was never in any closet - go back to one of my early posts on Nairaland. One of 'em NLs that I had a brash with is Tudor; but even though that changes nothing about the same Tudor, it does not mean that viaro has persistently addressed her that way in other discourses. You, on the other hand, never let up on your acrid diction in deriding Christian discussants on just this one thing: that they do not keel over to lick your boots!

Back to business -

As long as you just keep it civil, there would be no need to be brash with you.

Abeg be clear for me: before i make another of my tragic presumptions -

1. You have stated previously, and affirmed again within your last post - that Elijah went into the spiritual heavens.

Yes.

2. You have stated that he went there with his physical body.

Yes.

Can you just affirm the foregoing to me as your position, so i do not misunderstand you before i go further.

Done.

Thanks.

Any day.

@m_nwankwo,

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=385353.msg5405478#msg5405478 date=1264704771]If I claim to recall pastlives, then these past lives were lived on earth and some physical traces of it are still there. Investigators who want to ascertain the likelihood of my claims being true can be given physical evidence like where I was buried, the cloth I wore for the burial, etc. If they can corroborate what I said and also rule out that I have no prior knowlege or exposure to the information I have given them, then they should seriously consider my claims.[/quote]That's fine - but that still does not verify any claims to having lived 'past lives' as far as 'scientific' investigations are concerned. There could be other explanations that could as well sufficiently address such claims without establishing any scientific veracity of your having lived in the past. That was why my concern on what exactly you might mean by 'science' in these phenomena.

If I claim that I have X-ray eyes and can diagnose ailments just by looking at them. What I said is just a claim or belief. It is possible that I am deluded or that I actually do see. Independent investigators who want to investigate my claims can match my diagnosis with that done with medical instruments. Again if their is a significant correlation between my diagnosis and that done independently by medical research, then I am not deluded or ignorant but in reality have X-ray eyes.

What correllation would that have on the specific example of reincarnation or having lived in the past? Of course, there are many people today who experience or manifest such types of 'see-throughs', but again that is a different matter from being able to diagnose ailments through such 'seeings'. I do not mean to stretch your analogy, but I'm just wondering about one thing in particular: how does anyone begin to make a case for the "science" of spiritual things? In other words, what type of 'science' investigates 'spiritual' phenomena, and how does such a 'science' report its findings in spiritual diction?

By material manifestation, I mean what can be observed and investigated by the instruments of science. If I claim that I can read the thoughts of others. Investigators can write down what they are thinking and seal it in an envelope. They can then ask me to detail what they are thinking. If what I say that they are thinking has significant corroboration with what is written in the sealed envelopes, then they must seriously consider that I do see thoughts. A better practical example is with the healing of illness. If a claim is made that the power of God bestowed on one have cured cancer. Biomedical research cannot investigate the power of God but it can clearly investigate whether or not a cancer patient have cancer cells following the intervention of one who claims that God has bestowed him with the power to cure cancer. Stay blessed.

The highlighted is what I was trying to get to. It is not that viaro is asking the door be closed against "scientific" investigations of spiritual things; but given the example in yours, one finds that after all is said and done, science 'cannot investigate the power of God'. All sorts of questions would be raised, such that even the most unbiased scientist doing his job as a scientist would be required to explicate the 'spiritual' in naturalistic terms. How does such a scientist even begin to approach that task?

Now let us note a few implications of this.

1. It is clear from both basic logic, commonsense and also scripture that physical bodies cannot enter a spiritual realm. The bible affirms this when it states that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God – 1 Cor 15:50

The Bible teaches that:

(a) the definition of death is this: 'the body without the spirit is dead' (James 2:26)
(b) Elijah was taken WHOLE into heaven without a seperation of his spirit from his body (2 Kings 2:11)
(c) someone else (Enoch) was also translated without seeing death (Heb. 11:5)
(d) someone could be caught up to heaven whether in the body or out of the body (2 Cor. 12:2)
(d) 'heaven' and the 'Kingdom of God' are not the same thing - they differ both in sphere and manifestations (Col. 1:13 and 1 Thes. 4:16).

Therefore, when the Bible says that flesh and blood shall not inherit the KINGDOM of God (1 Cor. 15:50), it does not mean that someone in his body could not be taken into HEAVEN (2 Cor. 12:2) - you are scr[color=Black]ewing up[/color] the meaning of either sphere and confusing yourself further.

2. Thus when you assert that Elijah entered heaven – you accept that he had left his physical body – unless you are willing to go the extra absurd mile and declare that physical bodies enter into the spiritual heavens

Nope, I do not accept that Elijah left his physical body, because there is just no verse that says so. You're at pains to twist Scripture and making further nonsense of your comprehension. You would have to do better than that and show me a clear verse where the Bible says that the spirit of Elijah left his body - and if you cannot, you'd be lying alone all by yourself. The Bible is unmistakable in noting where people have died; as well in noting particularly where someone does not experience death (Heb. 11:5).

– which absurdity I will not put beyond you and your Christian clan.

Then go and hang upside down from the Eiffel Tower! What arant nonsense and arrogance! If you cannot accept what is plainly laid before your eyes with ancillary pointers to the fact, what is anyone's worry whether you cannot put up with us? Whoever told you that your deistic oneness of infinity is even close to Christianity?

3. Given the acceptance that he had left his physical body – it becomes apparent that no rational person could have a quarrel based on the statement that he returns to this world by fresh birth – which is what reincarnation is.

Given the fact that no one has accepted that Elijah left his physical body, you're just a busybody out to destroy your IQ. No verse supports you notion, and all you can do now is twist and spin and turn and run in circles - the one who ends up dizzy is you.

4. Now tell me Viaro – You say he went to the spiritual heavens. If he were to return – as Jesus said he would – how would it be? BING! He pops out of the sky? Jesus, I cannot believe I am bothering with this.

~  I said Elijah went to heaven;
           ~  also that there is no verse that says that he died;
           ~  and also that there is no verse that indicates that his spirit was seperated
           from his body (which is the definition of death in the Bible - James 2:26)
           ~  as well that NO VERSE in the BIBLE shows that Elijah ever DIED (repetition ad infinitum)

No one has argued that Elijah 'pops out of the sky' except you - and that silly escapism is not doing you much good. Elijah "appeared" on the mouth of Transfiguration in Matthew 17 - without fresh brith or rebirth. .  thus NO REINCARNATION there either!

No need for the expletives son, just address the above if you can. And while you are at it you might also want to reflect on what sort of Christian is happty to bandy these vulgarities in response to simple arguments from a dumb-head like Deep Sight. I do recall you admonishing Davidylan and Tudor regarding this!

I always attend upon issues, haven't you noticed? You must have had your eyes glued with glaucomah if you missed that fact. And talking about expletives, here. .  let me help you further: you DeepSight are an obvious twerp and a dunce of no-compare! Hope that helped some more??

The thing is that you hardly notice the acrid language you use when discussing Christian issues. If we don't agree with you, our doctrine is 'farcical', 'horrid', or we are 'inane' or 'irrational'. Speak nice grammar and hide your hypocrisy while flashing the victim's card when served in like manner! Talk of a fellow with jaundiced logic, DeepSight you earn the crown without contest!

The one thing that keeps me back from washing you thoroughly is that 'commander' (nuclearboy) who now has such a grip on me so I don't exceed my limits!    But if you must know, my principle is first to sound a warning - and if you are deaf to it, then I simply go by Proverbs 26:5.

I will verily show up the extents of absurdity that you guys are prepared to entertain to defend your dogma.

Quote from Mavenbox -  -  -
In view of the foregoing, do you still think so?

Its obvious your reasoning is coloured by the burden of the need and reflex to defend your dogma. Let’s see. . .

Nope, I have no such burdens or need. But if that was an attempt to dream that viaro won't reply you stupidity, please try another trick!

@DeepSight,

Deep Sight:
Wow, I never had such a rain of vulgar insults as Viaro serves up to me. I thought Tudor was bad. . . but men . . .

Please stop playing the twerp by flashing the victim's card. I thought a nice discussion served up civilly would be to your liking, but when you bad-mouth Christian discussants and feel you're to be treated with kids glove afterwards, you have another thing coming. Others may be ever so nice to you, but I don't have the stomach for your idiocy and hypocrisy. Discuss if you may, and leave off the aspersions - but if that is not to your liking, then you in particular will repeatedly call for a no-nonsense response from viaro.

HERE WE GO -  - -

Okay, I'm going to delineate/outline my responses again afterwards just for easier following.

I am tired of trying to help you see that a departure from the world is what is key. Reincarnation connotes a return to the world and to return, of course one must first depart.

What is the standard means of departing the world?

Death.

Thus it is not a misnomer to describe death as preceding reincarnation.

Please, why is it a misnomer to describe death as preceding reincarnation? Don't just excuse it in such a lazy manner - I would very much like you to show me any reincarnation doctrine which teaches that DEATH DOES NOT PRECEDE REINCARNATION.

However where it is asserted that a person did not “die” in the conventional fashion but “ascended” into heaven, I really do not know what degree of education, intelligence or exposure it requires to see that such a person has still left this realm and it is therefore not incongruous to speak of a return in terms of the idea of reincarnation.

One does not need high scholarship like a Harvard degree to see that NO REINCARNATION DOCTRINE PREDICATES 'REINCARNATION' ON ANY OTHER TYPE OF DEPATURE THAN DEATH!

FRANKLY this is such toddler’s logic that I am at odds that persons of obvious education such as yourself and Mavenbox are not able to grasp it. It has made me apprehensive that the Viaro I was previously certain was a man of reason, may not present much future interest for me in terms of quality dialectics.

You have no quality in your discourses, I'm afraid. Your logic does not even come close, so just zip it.

Now your ceaselessly harping on this no-brainer is quite strange to me in light of this statement from you to me in another thread –

The one thing I may observe here (and agree with you on) is that there just is no sense in maintaining that Elijah could not have gone into 'heaven' and rather argue for 'SKY'. No, no and thrice holy NO! The word in 2 Kings 2:11 is simply 'HEAVEN' (shâmayim  /  shâmeh - שׁמה  /  שׁמים), and not 'SKY' (shachaq - שׁחק).

NOW THIS POSITIVELY KILLS YOU OFF VIARO – FOR YOU HAVE HERE ASSERTED THAT ELIJAH WENT TO HEAVEN – AND NOT TO THE SKY.

I'm surprised that after your 'positively killing off', viaro is still very much alive and doing fantastically well!

It seems you like making such a fine idiot of yourself, and that's your life - really. I made plain ('assert', if you like) that Elijah went to heaven - and that is nothing new (having quoted the same 2 Kings 2:11 a couple times in this thread, e.g., post #80 and post #123).

So, yes - 'Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven' is not the same thing as that 'Elijah DIED'. To note the difference, I recently quoted Heb. 11:5 to show someone else (Enoch) who was 'translated that he should not see death'.

Now, how has 'Elijah went up into heaven by a whirlwind' established for you that he DIED? Do you even have a clue what you are argue, or you're rehearsing for an upcoming new job in a circus?

WHAT ELSE COULD BE A DEPARTURE FROM THIS WORLD, IF NOT THE FACT OF A MAN HAVING GONE TO THE SPIRITUAL HEAVEN – WHICH YOU SPECIFICALLY STATED IS NOT THE SKY! ! !

And your point is. . ? Look here, let me outline them again for you:

(a) 'departure' means several things to many people
(b)  there are several types of 'departures' from this world
(c)  examples of such 'departures' include:
              ~ death
              ~ ascension
              ~ 'translation' without seeing death
(d)  of these examples and others, ONLY DEATH serves as a core element for reincarnation
(e)  any other type of 'departure'  cannot serve as the foundation of reincarnation
(f)   no reincarnationist ever defines 'reincarnation' on any other type of 'departure' than DEATH
(g)  anyone talking about reincarnation based on any other type of 'departure' apart from DEATH is a cheat and a dunce!

So, all these yada stuff about 'sky' as distinct from 'heaven' JUST DON'T CUT IT FOR YOU, DeepSight! Try again!

Anybody can see clearly that you are the one running around in meaningless circles here – you declare that Elijah went to the spiritual heaven! And yet you insist that that is not a sufficient departure from this world on which to base the concept of a return – which is what reincarnation is!

Elijah went to heaven and that is NOT BY DEATH, because the Bible makes clear that someone else was 'translated that he should not see death' (Heb. 11:5). You, on the other hand, are furtively deceiving yourself by trying to interpret that as DEATH - the ONE NECESSARY THING for reincarnation!

This again shows me that you are very inconsistent and tend to be dubious when you meet an end to your arguments! You have VIOLATED your own definition SEVERAL TIMES and have seemingly altogether abandoned it so you can keep trying to maintain your outright lie!

Gosh, I am laughing so hard. Am I even having this discussion? Incredible.

I have no idea that liars like you can laugh at your lies - but well done.

Krayola:
That is not what we are debating here. This was never a debate about Elijah's whereabouts or the plausibility of what is believed. You trying to make this about Christian dogma makes you look desperate. Everyone know this is about whether or not reincarnation can be supported by the Bible.

Krayola:
Soul departs body at death. . . . . not at flight, ascension, vacation, but when the person DIES!! I'm not goin this route with you. You're, IMHO, being so juvenile that it's actually irritating now. Make arguments that will make us think and we can counter and have a debate. You do that on lots of threads and it's fukn great. But on this one you have just totally fallen apart. You're all of a sudden just yarnin dust.

I'm just wondering whether or not to humour DeepSight further after reading the above.

Hi trukoments, thanks for your contributions. Do allow me to deal in two parts as to what I make of it:

(a)

trukoments:
this is a personal experience, i used to work with a man who is about 50 years of age, i cant give his name cos of client privacy issue but all i can say is that he is autistic and has a mild challenging behavior.if anyone tells this man his/her date of birth,in less than half a second he would tell you precisely what day of the week you were born!!!

Now, this is not so much of a wonder - and it does not make a strong case for either reincarnation, resurrection, transmigration, NDE or other forms of 'transitions' (such as ascension or metempsychosis). I'm not writing them completely off; but please observe that your comment above just does not make for a strong case to establish any of these phenomena.

There are other ways that such recollections without prior cognisance are expressed. Some have remarked that it may be the manifestation of some 'familiar spirit(s)', which is not impossible. However, there's another example that fits the above description in your comments, viz: the id[color=Black]iot[/color] savant.

The 'id[color=Black]iot[/color] savant' does not mean that the person is an "id[color=Black]io[/color]t", but the term is defined as -

[list][li] 'a person who exhibits an extraordinary ability in one subject (often mathematics) whilst being mentally retarded in all other fields' (Wikitionary)[/li][/list]
[list][li] 'a mentally challenged person who is very gifted in one area of activity, e.g. the piano. This condition is associated with autism' (Wikitionary)[/li][/list]
[list][li] 'person who is mentally retarded in general but who displays remarkable aptitude in some limited field (usually involving memory)'[/li][/list]

The thing about the id[color=Black]iot sa[/color]vant is that some of them do not even know "how" they get the answers to many of the questions put across to them, although things happen that even honest scientists will tell you they have no clue (and this is one example among many that some of us should just shush rather than say this or that about what we don't know). There are different types of savants with various 'gifts' in either mathematics, art, music, memory of past dates, people, places, events, etc - yet, over and above all these is the fact that stands out: they might act like retards, but what they come up with is so accurate or very nearly so, such that 'normal healthy people' are unable to articulate or replicate.

Take a look at the vids below to see examples of some of these savants:

        [flash=344,265]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfDEAIszuQI&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]
        Fancy someone reading 8 pages of any book in 53 secs;
        and he is able to recall almost everything he had read.
        Also said to remember so many other things, especially
        'all the historic dates in the world'. Just watch.

        [flash=344,265]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vs6R5YZQ3c&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]
        Daniel - savant autism with incredible brain: how is
        he able to accurately juggle mathematic sums and
        numbers strangely? You just watch.

        [flash=344,265]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuhTFsiEcMU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]


But with regards your second part:
(b)

if you now try to outsmart him by telling him he didnt get it right,he woulld get upset and start recounting events which supposedly happened to common folks with dates and locations included 30,40,50,60,70,80,90 and even one hundred years ago!!!!!as if thats not enough, he would tell you what happend to their children,grandchildren!!!etcetera, though no one had tried to verify his accounts, the world is vast!!!

Well, what could one say. It is interesting, though, that no one has tried to verify the accounts about events he recounts in this manner; but that is not to say that it is entirely impossible that he might yet be describing very accurate things. I do not necessarily classify such as savantism, nor would I be able to say anything yet (as there's not enough info to make any meaningful comments). I'd just agree with you that there is a vast world out there that some of us may do better to zip our mouths where we have no clue what is going on in such things.

Mavenb0x:
Deep Sight seems to be running round in non-concentric circles, but viaro seems to know the equations of the circles, so outlining the circles is no big deal

Lol, I have hinted (and expected) that he would go and soak himself in some reading on reincarnation - it does not seem he's even close to doing that simple thing.

Deep Sight, your questions to viaro have been answered by mavenbox. Your questions to mavenbox have been answered by Krayola. Your questions to nuclearboy have been answered by viaro. Besides, each one of us has answered your questions by ourselves. Repeating the same question that someone else has answered on the thread will not afford the thread any progress!

He's only desperate. . . and that is permissible. I do not mind him (or anyone else) discussing reincarnation; but to try to make out that Christians are dolts for not swallowing his poison ivy is just something he won't get away with.

And you have not yet produced that Bible verse where Elijah died.

THAT - is the one most singularly annoying thing about the way DeepSight argues issues. Run round and round and round in circles, prevaricate on his own definition, question this and that. . . and yet NEVER ONCE address that simple question.

How is 'reincarnation' the same thing as 'reincarnation' as defined by reincarnationists if anyone talking about that subject just ignores DEATH as the core element of reincarnation? That is the one thing I would wait forever for DeepSight to dribble across.


Anyhow, how are you? I saw your email - very interesting, and I'll reply later this p.m.

Deep Sight:
Evading a difficult question?

No, I was not evading anything - I just don't want you to play this smart idiocy of derailing this thread with unnecessary illations. How many times have you DeepSight played the prevarication and evasion games by repeatedly ducking simple questions on this topic, huh?

It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCOURSE.

If it does, no worries - I just don't see how it does, and that was the point. Else, we would have to ask you once again to show the reincarnation of Adam through history right out of the Bible and stop pu[color=Black]ssyfo[/color]oting on this subject.

You ran a circus yesterday, making a farcical display of a supposed distinction between "death" and "transition" in terms of reincarnation.

How did I do so? Was my distinction too challenging to you that you forever ducked my simple request for you to address tow simple questions that reincarnationists all over the world deal with? Here again are those questions:

(1) Please show us where reincarnationists predicate "reincarnation" on any other type of 'transition' than DEATH

(2) Please show us where reincarnationists predicate reincarnation on ASCENSION and not on DEATH!

These are not too challenging, are they? And why have you been VIOLATING your own definition of reincarnation by force-reading very laughable non-starters on the continuing discourse?

You based your claims of the ground that Elijah never died.

Yes, I did - and several of us do so. If Elijah is reported to have died anywhere in those verses cited throughout this thread, please just show it plainly or forever shut the fu[color=Black]ck up[/color], okay?

Don't you think that foundation deserves to be questioned?

Of course, I do - and that is why we have questioned so many things based on how reincarnationists all over the world define 'reincarnation'. That is the one thing that cannot be denied for reincarnation to even be possible - or whatever else you would be describing is no longer reincarnation but a clear display of a whopping illiteracy on the subject!

How can you assert that Elijah never died and yet maintain that ALL mankingd are doomed to die on account of Adamic sin?

I make such assertions for Elijah precisely as the texts state - that is all. If you, on the other hand, actually find a verse where Elijah DIED, please show it - it is that simple. Have you found such a verse?

How could Elijah be exempted from this?

Elijah is not said to have been exempted from the common sinful experiences of man - that much is clear in James 2:17 - "Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are". Yet, that is not to quote by rote therefore that Elijah died, else you would be calling for a rewriting of 2 kings 2:11! It is either you want to argue away from the text and end up an idiot who has accused us Christians not to do that same thing; or else, you just an idiot all the same here trying to waste our time!

Or he is not part of Mankind anymore? Oh, i forgot - he is a rat, not a man. So Adamic sin does not apply to him. Thus he lives forever without Death.

I did not claim that Elijah was a rat - again, that is what you do when your arguments fall flat. Well done, bro.

O, and one more thing - If he did not die - then clearly the assertion that Christ's sacrifice is necessary to redeem mankind from death IS FALSE.

Redemption is not negated by your confusion, DeepSight. Please try something else, thank you. What I am asking you to do is quote me the plain text that indicates that Elijah experienced death - any one verse would do nicely. If that cannot be established at first, then nothing else would do nicely for your case, not even if you have to cheat once again by fathoming another "error" in your definition for reincarnation.

Wow, what dogma.

Farcical.

The one playing the carcical dogma here is you, no one else. It is either 'reincarnation' means 'reincarnation' according to your own definition, or that you can lie against your own definition to cut corners in this discourse. Which is it?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=385353.msg5402705#msg5402705 date=1264683535]It is wiser to say that one does not believe in reincarnation than to say that it is false. To declare that something, particularly spiritual experiences as false or even true pressuposes that such a person have investigated such a phenomenon and have clear cut, irrefutable evidence. An evidence that is both independent and reproducible if such a claim is subjected to objective, independent investigation. By evidence, I do not mean debates or essays but a reproduction of such evidence in real time and in life. If I say that I believe in reincarnation, then that is my perception and I am entitled to it. The same goes for one who says he does not believe in reincarnation. But if I say that reincarnation is true, then that presupposes that I have personal and independently verifiable evidence of reincarnation and if called upon I can recall evidence of past lives which scholars can check out to see if it matches. The same goes for those who say that reincarnation is false.[/quote]Hi m_nwankwo, I think the first line of your remarks is in order; but what I'm not so sure about are the ideas you espouse as to verification of these phenomena. How do you "reproduce" such things in "real time"  and "real life"? It seems we often take things for granted and just make unguarded statements that cannot be sustained when closely examined.

But there's more:

Reincarnation, miracles, demons and other similar phenomenon must pass independent but objective investigation if it is to be transported from belief or personal perception to the status of Truth or Falsehood.

Seriously dude - how do you begin to do so before 'transporting' such things to the status of 'Truth or Falsehood'? What I mean is this line in your next statement:

A spiritual experience that has a material manifestation must be subjected to scientific investigation or else a wide door to errors is opened where evertything is possible and impossible. Best wishes.

Excuse me, what type of "science" are you talking about here? There are many spiritual phenomena that have material manifestations (depending on what you mean by 'material manifestation') - but how do you begin to make a case for the "science" of spiritual things? It is not that we're asking to close the door against any 'scientific investigation', but I do hope in all honesty that those making such statements are not in the habit of throwing words around where they do not even have a clue what they might mean?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Interesting, but you will agree with me that i am entitled to view this as bizzarre spin and nothing more.

Why have you resorted to this beggarly and cowardly game as firstaid to plug the hole of your lost arguments on reincarnation? You have tried to employ every bizarre spin for reincarnation and still got nowhere close to your own definition of that word, nor have you been able to address the simple questions proffered that should help you come back to your senses. You end up making absolute nonsense of your IQ if this is the best you can resort to, after having failed in your spins to address the subject of this thread.

Deep Sight:
Haba na?

My apologies again - I got carried away (should pay more heed to a discussion and eschew the personal thingy - sorry again).

Intangible Divine being.

I didn't ask for a description - rather, that you 'produce' your god in the same way that you asked for us to produce Elijah.

I cant stop giggling at this one. This dude really thinks the tranfiguration was a physical appearance. So Elijah had been living somwhere on Earth for centuries hiding out in a cave and just popped out to say hi to Jeezy Christ at the transfiguration. Wow! Comic relief dont get any better than this!

If you notice, I'm not the one hanging out with the 'Elijah-hiding-in-a-cave' theory - that belongs to your domain; and I've rather maintained one consistency throughout in my discussions on the subject of reincarnation. As long as you ignore the foundations and core elements upon which reincarnation is predicated, your arguments will ever be cyclical (not to mentain that you are still very far from making a good case).

The legal prsumption of death is a secular legal presumption that kicks in when a person has not been seen for seven years. I dont know what you're weaving boy, but this is sounding rather unhinged right now.

DeepSight, I'm very aware of the so-called 'secular legal presumption', and in various circumstances in many different countries it varies - sometimes less than 2 years, other times less than 4 years, a few are 7 years, and others are arbitrary. I am so very aware bro, so you can play less on the 'legal' thingy and loosen up a bit.

What you just don't get is that Elijah's going to heaven is not a case for your secular legal presumption - at least, he had nothing to answer to (such as in the case of inheritance and property rights, or marital connections). How many people in your reincarnation theory would you be willing to subject to the same secular presumption that you hold out against Elijah? How many reincarnationists lower themselves and theur scholarship to this beggarly presumption that you're making out here - as if that is going to help make a score on your desperate attempt on an non-sequitor reincarnation that you can't even hold in a consistent manner? It makes me wonder that you're jumping ever so desperately on every idea just to keep up your arguments - just keep trying harder: and you'll still find your arguments wasted.

Many people simply have not thought through their belief systems. Otherwise i don't know how a Christian who believes that by adamic sin ALL of mankind bought into death and lost eternal life - will also believe that one man somewhere escaped the said adamic sin and was exempted from death - EVEN BEFORE CHRIST SUPPOSEDLY PAID THE RANSOM!

Bro, this is about reincarnation and nothing else. That was why I took it from the other thread and brought it here so that the tendency to derail a topic would be contained and minimised. I don't see how you have made a good and sustainable argument for reincarnation before trying to drag in unrelated illations into this one. That is not an intelligent approach to discussions, and I wonder if you've lost your grip on every single argument for your reincarnation so that now you're only acting out this diversionary tactics.

Ya gotta luuuuuuuuv these Christians!

I do - it has emerged that Christians here in this thread have made far more sense than your abandoned 'oneness of infinity' thread that is taking you forever to make sense to even you yourself.