₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
Sir - my legal background gives me to know that he who asserts that a person is alive should simply produce that person.

Your legal background is not yet mature - that's what we call half-baked 'charge-and-bail' diploma! DeepSight, is your God alive? Yes? Please produce it/he.

As an aside, the legal presumption of death kicks in once a person is not seen for seven years.

Nope, Elijah was seen centuries LATER at the TRANSFIGURATION in Matthew 17. Where you get the 'seven years' from is below you and beyond me - by what legal or philosophical science did you come to that conclusion?

Sinvce you assert that Elijah did not die, then please produce him. Haba, it cannot be too hard na?

Nope, it cannot be hard. You tell us where it is that his spirit left his body, and we shall gather all his constituents for you.

Deep Sight:
Jesus. You didn't even get that that statement was made just to show you that there's no difference between the "error" and "transition." -

Cant help this nursery class then.

Please sir, would you kindly stop pu[color=Black]ssyf[/color]ooting over this issue and rather maintain course, huh? The latest is to come back to draw the illation that there is no difference between the error and transition - and therefore what? We should now assume that your 'error' must 'transit' ever so gullibly so you can sell us to a free market?

Look, just stop this yoyo and address the simple point: your reincarnation is predicated on death, and since Elijah did NOT die, how do you 'transit' that conundrum?

Deep Sight:
I cant say more. I feel like i'm spoonfeeding a nursery class.

Your nursery class is not going to swallow your bait. You have made clear that -

That remains a correct definition, because as far as we know, humans only depart the world via death.

. . and what that means is that you admit to no other "departure" from the world than DEATH!

This is why I noted 3 simple points for you, among which was that -

(3) reincarnationists can hardly justify 'reincarnation' on any other type of transition other than DEATH!

. . and to that I threw 2 simple questions your way:

(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!

Point in all this is simple: no matter how hard you tried, your reincarnation thesis/program had collapsed before you started to argue - which is why you can't cheat or cut corners with any other type of 'transition' than DEATH. .  the very fact that you have now reiterated and the same thing that reincarnationists attest to.

Nothing will ever work this catachresis for you, DeepSight - unless, of course, you want to cry "error" yet again and produce another redaction. You're free to do so, and once again I shall have the pleasure of wasting it for you. Trust me.

Cheers.

I wondered about these ones:

          OPEN SPACE
          ^{(please don't ask me what he/she is opening! )
          because if you do, you end up as a -}
          CrazyMan

          ThiefOfHearts
          ^{(bless her, at least we know! )}

          The Sly

          cute-ass

          RedHotChic

          pumping777

          ^{right folks, keep a clean mind - the above were just usernames, okay?
          if you can't maintain, you might end up as -}
         spoilt_{(yes, that's actually a username on NL)}

Deep Sight:
Now onto pigs and men: if the point being made concerned excreta for example - the common ground stands. Just as surely as the common ground between death and ascension stands when reincarnation is at issue - to wit: they are both a departure from this realm.

Just two quick 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!

I am getting tired.

Perhaps the one reason why you get tired after all this is because you are trying far to muich to gull yourself further.

Deep Sight:
I am going to hope feverishly that this last attempt will sail through to you all; and enable you to recognise just how pedantic you are all being with this point.

Good - I wish you all the luck you can gather!

What is a reincarnation? It is the act of coming back into the world as a new born baby.

Okay - should we again hold you on that definition. .  or you hope to come back later and cry out "error" yet again??

It need hardly be said that in order to return, one must first depart.

Okay, ride on.

Thus the departure (or transition) is what is key.

Steady on here: WHAT TYPE OF DEPARTURE (or TRANSITION) would that be? Note again:[list]

We CANNOT just peg these different terms on one word of 'transition' - WHY? For at least two reasons:
(a) because there are different types of 'transition/translation' which mean very, very different things with different results and implications to very different people/worldviews;
(b) among reincarnationists, the notion of reincarnation does not just happen by any type of 'transition' - reincarnation for reincarnationists is predicated on DEATH and not on the other types of 'transitions'! Death is the one necessary thing that must constantly be kept in view in your argument, without which there is no possibility of you ever making sense of the term 'reincarnation'.

[/list]

Deep Sight:
Now the standard means of departing this world is death; it is therefore not wrong when we define reincarnation in terms of “a previously dead person.” That remains a correct definition, because as far as we know, humans only depart the world via death.

Good - now please show us where Elijah first DIED!! Please, please, and please. .  stop wasting viaro's time and do that one thing!

But where it is claimed that a person did not die, but “ascended” to another realm – this causes no problems because it is clear that what is critical is the departure – without which we cannot speak of a return.

This is where you are all muddled up!

There are various kinds of "return" in the Bible - two for now:

(a) Jesus spoke parabolically of His second coming as a "return" - 'He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return'; yet, this 'return' is spoken of in various ways in other references:
[list][li]'this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven' (Acts 1:11)[/li]
[li]'So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation' (Heb. 9:28)[/li][/list]

(b) the 'saints' will also come with the Lord: 'And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints' (Jude 14)

Please let me know: are the above speaking about reincarnation? Are you fast losing your grip on the meaning of that word for you?

So I am exhausted that persons can make an issue between a “death” and a “departure.” (transition/ ascension. Etc) As I have said a zillion times already, in the context of the reincarnation discourse they are the same thing because to return, one must first depart. By death. By Luftansa. By voodoo. Whatever.

Oh my goodness!!   DeepSight, I apologise for the 'stu[color=Black]pidi[/color]ty', but allow me say that you're a clown per excellence! To even think I have been wasting knowledge on you is. . .?!?

Dear sir,
(1) DEATH is NOT the same thing even in context as ASCENSION
(2) what is TRANSITION for you may not be that same thing for many reincarnationists
(3) reincarnationists can hardly justify 'reincarnation' on any other type of transition other than DEATH!

So, if we're done with your clowning, please release us so we can go pursue what commander nuclearboy had warned me against!

Deep Sight:
Viaro -

Alright, let's see who is making a mockery of logic.

Answer me these two questions only and the matter must rest -

 1. Is death a transition?

 2. Is ascension a transition?

Simple.

I answered those questions by DISCUSSING the implications of what you are sweating out here: see post #123.

Excerpts:

(1)

Now-now-now, DeepSight, the Bible makes a strong case of such a 'translation' where someone (Enoch) is said have not experienced death - is that the same thing as in the case of reincarnation where DEATH IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT? If death is necessary in reincarnation, would you be able to discuss the same reincarnation without death as in Enoch's case? How do you then maintain that they are the same, or that "there is no difference"??

(2)

Dear sir, if it was the human spirit out of this world, what you would be arguing here is DEATH!! That is how death is defined in the Bible - "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:11) - but in both cases of Elijah and Enoch, it was not 'the body without the spirit', for they were both taken whole: body + soul + spirit! Was that too hard, sir??

(3)

5. Those who teach reincarnation (which I dubbed reincarnationists) do not play with words when it comes to the core elements of that word - these core elements are two, at least: (a) DEATH; and (b) a 'PAST LIFE' - and without these two elements, you CANNOT BE TALKING ABOUT 'reincarnation'.

We CANNOT just peg these different terms on one word of 'transition' - WHY? For at least two reasons:
(a) because there are different types of 'transition/translation' which mean very, very different things with different results and implications to very different people/worldviews;
(b) among reincarnationists, the notion of reincarnation does not just happen by any type of 'transition' - reincarnation for reincarnationists is predicated on DEATH and not on the other types of 'transitions'! Death is the one necessary thing that must constantly be kept in view in your argument, without which there is no possibility of you ever making sense of the term 'reincarnation'.

nuclearboy:
@Viaro;

Welcome. All my dictionaries have finished downloading so I'm ready now whatever language you choose to use

Shooks man! I'm in deeper trouble now!!

Krayola:
The Hebrews expected Elijah to return because he never died. Reincarnation was not something that was part of their belief system. . . Even resurrection was only believed by some Hebrews and that was much later, long long long after Elijah. The identification of JTB with Elijah was most likely symbolic and in reference to his function, and not his personal identity. Even, sef, Elisha had the "spirit" of Elijah even though they lived at the same time for crying out loud, which I think supports your opponents arguments. In 2 Kings 2:1-12 Elisha asks Elijah for a double portion of his "spirit", and he "inherits" it and serves a certain prophetic function. Was that also reincarnation? YOur opponents, IMHO, are not twisting anything. Rather than isolating certain texts, they are interpreting them in light of how the Hebrews understood their religion.

Hebrews were more concerned with functionality. Worrying about the "nature of being" etc were Greek tendencies. If, at all, JTB was identified, by Jesus, with Elijah, it was most likely because of his function. . . he was in the "spirit" of Elijah. For example All those genealogies (Matthew and Luke) that say Jesus is the son of David are interested in his function as "King", "Messiah/liberator", and not whether or not he was an actual descendant of David. A lot of the Bible is symbolic, and a lot of it must be read thru Hebrew eyes to put things in context. I think you are injecting foreign ideas into the mix. Just my opinion though.

There's a paper on this stuff here. . . kinda long, but it's pretty interesting. http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/forstudents/pdf/termapersample.pdf

Krayo, thank you for putting it in very simple terms.

yikes. . first part of my response went zap!
Let me try again:

Deep Sight:
Viaro - I have not finished reading your last comeback, but i thought, haven seen where you are headed i could save us all some trouble.

Please read it through. . carefully!

Let us say that i abandon the previous definition of reincarnation and state that i made a mistake - no man being above error.

I like that - no man is infallaible, and I am willing to let your errors slide as 'errors' than anything else!

And then redefine it as the scenario where a man who had previously transitted from this plane returns by birth as an infant.

Would that butter you up? Would that change any of the principal issues and arguments already made? ? ? ?

NO IT WOULD NOT!! KNow why? Because that again is cheating on the core elements of reincarnation.

I hope you recognize that in reality i have not abandoned my earlier definition: given that death is a transition!

That is why I hold you to account on that!

I hope you recognise how much you are playing around with words!

Nope, I am not playing around with words - because ASCENSION and DEATH are NOT the same things!

. .  so, DeepSight, it now begs the question that after you defined REINCARNATION, you want to gull your readers by VIOLATING that very same definition by making appeal to what is clearly NOT reincarnation.

Again, your definition:

Deep Sight:
Reincarnation is the scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby.

. .  and then you said:

This is entirely different from a resurection!

. . then slammed us with:

LET'S NOT VIOLATE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS!

Now, if we are to NOT VIOLATE simple definitions, why are YOU violating your own definition of reincarnation by an appeal to the type of 'transitions' which are not elements of the definition of that same 'reincarnation' as held by reincarnationists?? Huh?

Please go through the various schools of thought on reincarnation and show me where they suppose 'reincarnation' is still 'reincarnation' without DEATH!?!

If then Elijah is not said to have experienced DEATH, where is the 'reincarnation' you have been arguing upon his head? How come you are the one quickly violating your own "simple definition" so you can keep making these dense arguments all along?

Pastor AIO:
Viaro, where have you been? You've missed o! I'm curious as to what you think of the brouhaha going on with our dear Pastor Joe Agbaje.

Hehehe. . that brouhaha will miss the 'haha' if I venture there!

Anyhow, how are you doing sir?

Deep Sight:
Both take a human spirit out of this world to another plane. Is it hard to see that transition to another plane be it by death, ascension, descension, progression, regression or viarosion is still transition to another plane - and thus clears this plane of that entity that is said to later return.

But sir, how come you are talking like this? You know very well that Elijah did not leave his body behind in that 'translation' where he was taken up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11) - NO??

Also, what about Enoch in Hebrews 11:5 - did he leave his body behind? 

Dear sir, if it was the human spirit out of this world, what you would be arguing here is DEATH!! That is how death is defined in the Bible - "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:11) - but in both cases of Elijah and Enoch, it was not 'the body without the spirit', for they were both taken whole: body + soul + spirit! Was that too hard, sir??

Deep Sight:
And yet he calls me st.upid.

Master, I apologise about the bromide on 'stu[color=Black]pidi[/color]ty' - viaro has no excuses to make on that note, and I can only beg your calmness and sanity (although I would've. . . !!)

Deep Sight:
Round and round and round we go. . .Viaro on the round about again. You know what? I give up.

So no need for you to comeback to me on this son.

For the general reader i surmise as follows -

  1. Death is a transition

  2. Ascension is a transition.

Viaro accepts both of these statements to be true. And yet he tells me he cannot see how the effect of both is the same as i have always said in the context of the reincarnation discourse.

Okay then, DeepSight, let me address why your 'transition' game does not sit with viaro:

Deep Sight:
I further explained this by saying –

(Plase note the bolded portion in red)

Now if he has ascended to another realm – tell me – how is that different from a man who dies and proceeds to another realm in spirit? And if he were to return to this world, how would he do so? Through birth as an infant. . . or . . .BING! He pops out of the sky. Examine yourself in all honesty and see which makes more sense to you.

So Viaro, I hope it is clear that this is not a basis for anything that you said.

Here is how you have failed to make any sense and have been dribbling here on 'transition':

1.  We are discussing this topic from the Bible - that is the foundation of our discussions, not so?

2. YOU DeepSight are the very person who defined reincarnation thus:

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

. .  and then slammed us with:

Deep Sight:
LET'S NOT VIOLATE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS!

3. Good - we would not violate simple definitions - but viaro asks that you yourself DO NOT PREVARICATE on your own definition of that word 'reincarnation'. .  was that too hard a request? We have maintained and followed your own definition, and even you yourself had to admit that 'reincarnation' is entirely different from a resurection.

4. Not only so, many times I have tried to show you what resurrection has been defined to be within the context of the Biblical narratives: "a rising from the dead" - and that is not what reincarnation is at all (that much we agree on).

5. Those who teach reincarnation (which I dubbed reincarnationists) do not play with words when it comes to the core elements of that word - these core elements are two, at least: (a) DEATH; and (b) a 'PAST LIFE' - and without these two elements, you CANNOT BE TALKING ABOUT 'reincarnation'.

6.  To IGNORE or prevaricate on those core elements and then try to maintain 'reincarnation' is to be patently DUBIOUS! Do you think that readers here would just swallow your redactions and nod approvingly of what you state without checking up on what you are arguing?

7. Now the difference between ascension, reincarnation, transmigration is just one thing - where you, DeepSight, place death in all of this! You quipped that "there is no difference" so you can cheat on the world 'transition', no? But I've got news for you: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between them all, and I shall remind you of just one verse:

[list]By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. - Hebrews 11:5[/list]

Now-now-now, DeepSight, the Bible makes a strong case of such a 'translation' where someone (Enoch) is said have not experienced death - is that the same thing as in the case of reincarnation where DEATH IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT? If death is necessary in reincarnation, would you be able to discuss the same reincarnation without death as in Enoch's case? How do you then maintain that they are the same, or that "there is no difference"??

Look, my guy, you're making the most illiterate noise in this thread. Please find something of substance to argue, or just shut the bleep up, okay?

Deep Sight:
^^^ And the above just underlines how tiresome you are, Viaro: you know Death is a transition. So how come you are making an issue of the use of the word "transition?"

This is the densest part of all your argument! If DEATH is a transition - and as well the very core of REINCARNATION (without which you CANNOT talk about reincarnation) - then please for heavens sake, DeppSight, show us plainly where Elijah first died to then reincarnate as John the Baptist!

Is that TOOOOOOOOOO HARD for you??  Why are you wasting everyone's time?

Deep Sight:
You tend to have the petty habit of quibbling on words Viaro. Death is a transition. You cannot deny that.

I have not denied DEATH - I am asking YOU to show it in Elijah's case! Period.

So it is extremely bizzare to see you all over the place stating that bringing the word "transition" into the mix is an after-thought.

That is because you are trying to gull your audience here and pretend that what you are stating is to now receive a cosmetic apologetics! That is not going anywhere until you stop this stupidity to gain a free ticket to ride on our backs!

Its all the difference between six and half a dozen. No difference at all.

Just shut up, okay? What do you mean by "no difference at all"? So ascension and death are the same thing? _{where is nuclearboy? You see how DeepSight is trying to gull you so cheaply?}

DeepSight, are you still in your bedroom? Good - if you haven't changed your pyjamas yet, just grab your dictionary and look up both words!

I am interested in a discourse with truth as the goal;

[size=16pt]NO YOU ARE NOT![/size]
You are trying too hard to gull both yourself and the public!

and frankly in discussions on matters deep and spiritual it is no news that terms will be confused.

Look, bro. . there is a world of difference between DEATH and ASCENSION - go figure!

Thus to have some one harp on verbal exactitude can never be of any use to a spiritual discussion - especially considering the vast limitations of words.

If this was all about limitation of expressions, why did you even attempt to define reincarnation in the first place? What then does resurrection mean to you . .  or has that lost its meaning to you as well??

But all this aside  - the simple fact is that you cannot deny that death is a transition. Or will you?

My point is simple: DEATH is the core element or reincarnation - show where Elijah died! Period.

Deep Sight:
On John's denial, Malbron already set you straight on that?

Are you confused or what? Where did he set me straight on that? And what was my reply? Please go and read the posts again.

Who should know the identity of each man best - Jesus (as almighty God) or mere men themselves?

They both knew what they were talking about - unless you want to make John the Baptist a liar for denying that he was Elijah and clearly stating that he was NOT Elijah!! The context is clear: if he was Elijah, he would have been pointing to a "past life" - his own 'past life' - in the person of Elijah the Tishbite! But was that what he said - or you are at pains to ignore John 1:21 again?

You see what i meant by going around in circles? All the arguments have been tabled already: go read the previous posts for answers to your questions!

NONE of the points raised have been addressed by your circular catachresis - that is the reason why I returned to lay them out again!! I am sitting still to see where you want to dribble in the latest duplicity of your 'transition' - that, my friend, is a no brainer already!

Deep Sight:
Quote from Viaro -

I believe i answered these concerns already.

I stated (and Nuclearboy did agree) that –

1. A death is a transition to another realm/ plane
2. An ascension is a transition to another realm/ plane

Thus in the context of the reincarnation discourse, they have the same effect.

I further explained this by saying –

Please read my recent edit:

[list]

viaro:
Please don't play games with us here - what do you think you're messing up with?

You DeepSight gave your own definition of 'reincarnation' as

"a scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby"

. . so what is this nonsense about 'transition'? Are you now trying to backtrack on the core element of that definition ('previously DEAD') so you can play games with this quibbling on transition?

[/list]

So Viaro, I hope it is clear that this is not a basis for anything that you said.

I was looking at, and holding you accountable to, your very own definition of that nebulous term: 'reincarnation'. Since you're in the habit of thinking that Christians are evasive when they enter into dialogue with you, please don't come up and play games with us here in utter pretence of being smart! As far as I'm aware, where do reincarnationists talk about "transitions" without DEATH for reincarnation to occur as REINCARNATION, huh?

Deep Sight:
I did not get them to leave. I stated that I would not respond to their last posts as I saw no further point. They can only interpret this as victory in the debate, and thus must have gone off to celebrate.

I didn't interpret this thread that way at all, and there's nothing to celebrate in your circular catachresis.

For me I would love to dedicate the rest of this thread to discussing reincarnation itself as a concept and what happens at death.

You're quite welcome to do so - and muster all your best shots for that, the only thing being that you can't dribble it into the Bible. . . or you would be playing games with your own definition of what you want to argue!

__________________________

edit:

Deep Sight:

Finally, ascension is a transition. Death also is a transition.

I am happy you accept this. Thus we needn’t quibble on words – would you be happier if I stated that a transition from this world precedes a transition into it – to qualify as reincarnation?

Please don't play games with us here - what do you think you're messing up with?

You DeepSight gave your own definition of 'reincarnation' as

"a scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby"

. . so what is this nonsense about 'transition'? Are you now trying to backtrack on the core element of that definition ('previously DEAD') so you can play games with this quibbling on transition?

Hallo all, and DeepSight in particular.

I should have very much liked to leave off this discussion seeing that there is nothing you had improved upon in your arguments on reincarnation versus resurrection in the Bible. It is alright if you want to hang your worldview on reincarnation, but please find another book to dribble in that idea when the best of your arguments have patently failed to dribble it into the Bible.

Having thus colossally failed to find grounds for your reincarnation idea in the Bible, how you turn round to allege that Christians are either 'avoiding' or else disobeying the Word of our God (JESUS) is below you - and very shamefully so!

The points are quite simple:

[list](a) What is your own definition of reincarnation? ~ which, by the time you had defined what reincarnation was to you, it turned out that such an idea is not to be found in the Bible;[/list]

[list](b) whereupon, we made clear that rather than 'reincarnation', Christ taught resurrection all through His ministry - that much you did not argue against, but must needs maintain what you cannot sustain in this discourse;[/list]

[list](c) then again, another point about reincarnation is that a reincarnated being ought to have lived a 'past life', suffered/experienced death, before being born as a baby - OF WHICH THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST HINT as regards John the Baptist! Instead of turning and twisting round in circles, why don't you just show us where John made any categorical statements as regards his 'past life' as Elijah whereas he categorically DENIED such a thing in John 1:21??[/list]

[list](d) It turns out that YOU DeepSight are very much at war with your own musings and are fast losing your originality of thought! It seems you will stop at nothing - even if you have to prevaricate on your own definition of reincarnation - just to keep arguing this st[color=Black]upi[/color]d no brainer perpetually!! [/list]

[list](e) UNLESS your type of reincarnationists are dolts, you either have to find answers to these points before pointing accusing fingers at Christians on this topic! You can't keep evading, prevaricating on, and mendaciously ignoring your own definition (as a consequence of the same definition of reincarnation by reincarnatisnists) while yet alleging anything here against Christian discussants! To make things simpler for you, a few questions which beg answers directly from you without your trademark prevarications are:[/list]

[list][li]since when has reincarnation excluded DEATH as a necessary element in its definition by reincarnationists?[/li]
[li]since Elijah did NOT experience DEATH, where does 'reincarnation' still remain 'reincarnation' in his case?[/li]
[li]since another core element of reincarnation as defined by reincarnationists is a 'past life', where in Scripture do we find: (a) the 'past life' of Elijah in Scripture? (b) the 'past life' of John the Baptist in Scripture?[/li]
[li]if you could find the 'past life' of Elijah, then indeed it would mean that Elijah lived as someone else before he became 'Elijah' - and you would have to identify such a person/persons - otherwise your 'endless circle' is as meaningless as meaninglessness itself![/li][/list]

[list][li]how is it that John the baptist categorically DENIED being Elijah in John 1:21 if at all we are talking about the very same person through reincarnation??[/li][/list]

You see, DeepSight, you would just have to keep in mind the core elements that define reincarnation (such as death and 'past life') when you discuss this topic here - or else your 'reincarnation' is simply not 'reincarnation' when you ignore those core elements! Do you want to keep playing such a cheat while the thread lasts?

Why all the evolutionary years being wasted here? . . . as mazaje has reiterated, will you guys hurry up and quote the chapter and verse in the quran where those marks on the baby's body can be found? What is all this dancing on ice about?

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

I very much doubt that you have the slightest clue of the meaning of logic, and it would be such a bore to waste it on you, DeepSight. And this is not a discussion about the Trinity, so why drag that into this thread - feeling already desperate, are you? But here is where I'd like to wrap it up for you - and you can apply whatever logic at your very best disposal to escape this.

. . continuing from (#5) above:

(6)  But more to the point is that Jesus did not intend a 'reincarnation' between Elijah and John the Baptist - that is clear both from the 'identifiers' and the deixis of the references taken collectively and the categorical denial of John the Baptist in his own answer in John 1:21 ('And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not').

(7) From (6) above, there are a series of contrasts within the deixis of the prophecies that show that Jesus was NOT speaking about a 'reincarnated' Elijah. Let's see some of these:

[list][li]Definitions: while resurrection speaks of "a person rising from the dead", reincarnation speaks of "a previously dead person being born again as a baby" (ala DeepSight). This is a turning point in this discourse, for we have to ask which of these applies in Malachi's prophecy for Elijah in order for 'reincarnation' to occur:[/li][/list]

[list](a)   for reincarnation to occur, DEATH must of necessity have occured - this is clearly an irrefutable point that reincarnation teachers attest to, and even DeepSight had defined 'reincarnation' as a scenario where "a previously dead person is born again as a baby". However, Elijah did not see death, but was rather taken up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11).[/list]

[size=14pt]Now, if Elijah did NOT die at anytime, where is the 'reincarnation' in Jesus' statement in the NT? How could John the Baptist be the 'reincarnation' of someone who did not see death in the first place? Where is DeepSight's logic on this one?[/size]

[list]The only excuse here that 'reincarnationists' may make is that reincarnation does not mean what they already defined it to be, so that they can shift the goal post and prevaricate on their own definition once again![/list]


[list](b)  for reincarnation to occur, the person must have lived a 'past life' before death. But what 'past life' did John the Baptist live, seeing that he categorically DENIED being Elijah in John 1:21? There is no place where he ever hinted about any past life/lives or being the avatar of someone else - and his denial of being Elijah is very telling indeed, as it removes all grounds for any tosspot to argue reincarnation between him and Elijah! Further, Jesus Himself would most definite have inferred these two points of reincarnation (* Elijah's DEATH and *John the Baptist's past life) - if at all He meant to talk about reincarnation![/list]

[size=14pt]How does someone who talks about reincarnation completely IGNORE the very core elements that are necessary for reincarnation to even happen in the first place?[/size]

[list]How could reincarnation still be 'reincarnation' if DEATH did not occur in Elijah's case, nor was there a hint of any 'past life' of John the Baptist??[/list]

You see, DeepSight, you have tried to argue most blindly like a tosspot all along while completely ignoring the foundation of your own reincarnation! Unless you're an ultra-shanky buffoon, you will find that YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF 'REINCARNATION' hardly fits into the Elijah-John case! Elijah did not see death; nor did John the Baptist give any hint of a past life - and you will just have to come up with another i[color=Black]dio[/color]tic definition of reincarnation to enter into dialogue on this subject!


The one thing that amazes me in people who argue like you do is that they hardly know what exactly they are talking about! Your own definition, DeepSight, is what I had hoped to see in the case of all those concerned in the passages you guys use for your non-sequitor of reincarnation. How do you plead now?

However, let me move on to wrap this up for you, because your reactionary response hardly said anything new.

Here it is –

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

The context in which that conditional 'IF' applies is set out in my reply in post #33, where your quibbling on the word 'indeed' was an absurdity to begin with. I went so far as to remind you of John's own answer in John 1:21 where he categorically denied being the 'reincarnation' of Elijah ('I am NOT'), as well as gave other examples of the deixis of the conditional 'IF' and 'indeed' as used in Biblical prophecies (Mark 10:35-39). Just what substance have you given in consideration to them - or are we just to infer tacitly that you werre far too challenged to consider them at all that you just excused them rather with an amusing grumble?

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

Thus –

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

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

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

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

I must send you back to school - you have rather confirmed that you wear shirt on your back without the slightest education in simple comprehension. So school up, viaro will now educate you - and after I'm done, please come back and grumble as usual like one of 'em touts with a borrowed diploma.

(1) I have often mentioned 'deixis' in this discussion - and all you needed to do was first get the meaning of that word and then see the context in which it appears in my posts. What does it mean?
Deixis from Wikipedia:

In linguistics, deixis refers to the phenomenon wherein understanding the meaning of certain words and phrases in an utterance requires contextual information. Words which have a fixed semantic meaning, but have a denotational meaning that constantly changes depending on time and/or place, are deictic. A word or phrase whose meaning requires this contextual information — for example, English pronouns — is said to be deictic. [. . . ] The term’s origin is Ancient Greek δεïξις "display, demonstration, or reference", the meaning "point of reference" in contemporary linguistics having been taken over from Chrysippus.

(2)  Why deixis? It is not just for 'context', but rather to see the big picture as to why the Bible does not infer reincarnation - and certainly that Jesus' statement in both Matthew 11 and 17 were not applying a literalism between Elijah and John the Baptist. This is clear when we keep in view that the same John the Baptist categorically denied being Elijah when the question was put to him in John 1:21. Thus, if we ignore the conditional 'IF' in Jesus' statement in Matt. 11:14, we cannot excuse John's categorical denial of being Elijah in John 1:21. To ignore the latter while emphasis the former is dubious indeed.

(3)  In examining the deixis of Biblical prophecies therefore, there are certain things which should not be ignored - these I would call 'identifiers' for now: these identifiers help us find the context and meaning of what Jesus meant as regards Malachi's prophecy of Elijah. Let's remind ourselves of these reminders:

[list][li]Elijah was to come before 'the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD' (Mal. 4:5)[/li]
[li]among other things Elijah's mission was to 'restore all things' (Matt. 17:11)[/li][/list]

(4)  From the 'identifiers' above, it is obvious that the apostles quite well understood that John the Baptists DID NOT 'restore all things' - Peter in Acts 3:20-21 makes clear that the restitution of all things is yet future: 'And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.' If John the baptist had been the 'reincarnation' of Elijah, he probably would have 'restored all things' - but why then would Peter put that very same event as yet future even after Jesus Christ was risen from the dead and ascended??

(5)  The 'restitution of all things' is spoken of in various ways: Jesus called it the 'regeneration' in Matt. 19:28 and 25:31 and pointed out that it was yet a FUTURE event. I explained this lucidly to Malbron in post #53. However, in Matt. 17:11 when Jesus spoke about Elijah's coming to 'restore all things', He never said that 'Elijah' had restored all things - please anyone with multilied heads should contest this and show me where Jesus said that 'Elijah' had already restored 'all things'!!

DeepSight, now onto yours. Of course, you only turned round to repeat yourself on what I have already addressed; but it seems you just like me to repeat myself on the same points, and I shall oblige you warmly.

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

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

If the Bible says –

X means “Stone” –

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

But when the Bible says X means “Stone” –

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

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

The above is a classic complaint of cultists - although I wished very much not to address you as such. The whole thing is very simple: if Christ taught reincarnation, we most definitely would have found such a teaching in the Bible. Rather, we find everywhere that He taught RESURRECTION - and the verses pointing to that fact are multiplied throughout both the OT and NT! How come you guys are never able to point to just ONE verse in the entire Bible mentioning reincarnation?? How come not one of you reincarnation gurus are able to find a verse explicitly teaching such a non-sequitor??

The thing I find very comical in all this is that, when all your ammunitions for your reincarnation thesis collapses, you desperately seek muddled logic to infer what you can't sustain, and then end up complaining about Christians on topics that are unrelated to the present! If you want to save face, just say so and nobody would arrest you on that; but to keep making excuses and tripping all over yourself is rather hilarious.

Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17:10-13)
Now I must be harsh on this. It is either Viaro is plain silly or, regardless of his considerable vocabulary, he still has difficulties with plain English Grammar.

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

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

Harsh? Look, you're yapping emptily by recycling the same absolute bunk on Matthew 17. I have dealt extensively on this same rubbish of yours and if you want me to just repeat the post, I gladly would oblige! What I would have hoped you would do is be brave enough to take every single point I set out on that same issue and deal accordingly - for that is what I often do: take your every objection and waste them in such a way that there would be no room for you to squeal! But no, I don't see you even attempting to discuss those points, so let's just repeat my answers to you on those same points:

[list]I have dealt rather extensively with the FACT that Jesus did not take Malachi's prophecy of Elijah's reappearance as a literal case for John the Baptist - see post #6, this thread. There are solid reasons for that FACT of Jesus' non-literal statement in Matthew 11:14:

[list](a) His conditional 'IF' in that statement;
(b) The deixis of Biblical prophecies;
(c)  Malachi's double reference - Mal. 3:1 and 4:5 - for 'Elijah';
(d) John the Baptist's own solid answer in John 1:21 - "Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not";
(e) The angel Gabriel's pronouncements in Luke 1:17 - "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias";
(f)  Then in post #15 I went on to give an example of the deixis of Biblical prophecy as to a personage of the past who would reappear in the future, using David as a clear and oft-referenced example by many prophets, to the point of resurrection, and not reincarnation.[/list]

You just skipped these points, discussed nothing, and then make up your mind that these are all 'speculation'? Please go one step beyond that lazy quip and just show that these five points were flawed and then argue them for reincarnation. I wanted to leave you absolutely no room at all to quibble on these issues, and it is not enough to just excuse them brashly - or I may have no other alternative than conclude you're once again evading these solid points so that you can conveniently dribble in your reincarnation thesis.[/list]

There - I expected you to deal on those points with substance, not the one-liner excuses you made later on in other to recycle reincarnation program. Serious thinkers examine the objections and points of other discussants, but not you - you rather tried to pamper yourself by excusing them with 'meaningless'. .  'outright deceitful'. . .'dense', etc - nothing said other than your usual prevarications.

Let me take just one of your classic prevarications:

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

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

Now, what is 'outright deceitful' in noting that Malachi referred to John the Baptist's ministry in BOTH 3:1 and 4:5 - just what is 'outright deceitful' in that, and yet you are the same schmuck who agreed indeed that I was correct? Are you so desperate to 'prove' your misfooted theory of reincarnation that you only end up proving your IQ is badly in need of a repair?

nuclearboy:
None of these requires any extensive scholarship as I wrote earlier. Enough of all this evasiveness into long winded theses! This must be the 4th I'm asking you to Biblically refute the above. I await your pleasure

Forget DeepSight - he's become more of deep entertainment than anything pointing to 'scholarship'.

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

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

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

My rejoinders are not directed at Maven - it is rather YOU DeepSight that viaro is whipping - so what is the matter with all these sobbing from you??

I laugh.

Gudnite carpenter worshipper.

[size=14pt]Huh??[/size]

Now I can see you can't wait to receive further whips - you have your backs peeled that much you are begging already and taking off!!

You, DeepSight, are a comic relief - you only confirm repeatedly that you are a very, very LAZY thinker! But go and sleep - whenever you wake up (and be sure to take your meds), then we shall discuss further (or shall I say, I shall whip you mercilessly when you return).

@Malbron, let me continue before I was slightly amused by DeepSight's restlessness.

Marlbron:
The cycle you mentioned is in order. I hope you realise that judgement takes place mainly on earth as was the case with John the Baptist?

Nope, the 'judgement' of which we speak - the Great White Throne - does not take place on earth (see Rev. 20:11-12). There are several divine judgements that would be poured out upon the earth (Rev. 8:5-11); but that is quite different from what you are describing, known as karma. . . and in this case, neither Elijah nor John the Baptist was undergoing any karma of any type for which you were arguing.

How will the judgement happen if there is no reincarnation on earth?

Because the prophets declared a resurrection rather than a reincarnation - the fact you acknowledged earlier in post #43, to which I replied affirmatively by quoting Daniel 12:2 - "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." There are other verses where this sequence holds, that judgement follows resurrection.

I guess  this is a bit too much for you to comprehend but I fully understand your opinions.

Nope, this is not too much for me to comprehend - which is why I often leave you clear verses to buttress what I state, rather than follow your own frantic exercises of making drama scripts floating in the air that you won't find anywhere in the Bible.


Now, on to your foozling about the 'multiverse' -

If the earth is not the centre of the multiverse, why the interest from God? Why did Christ not die in Mars or Jupiter? Do you not know that life exist in another dimension in these planets? Do you think God created them for fun?

(1) First, you don't know what a multiverse is, so just zip it, okay? Aside the fact that it is hypothetical as yet, the Earth is not the center of the Universe, let alone the center of the multiverse. Even if you meant 'multiverse' in the sense of religious cosmology, it still would not make the earth the center of the Universe.

(2) God's interests on humanity and the Earth does not suggest that we are the most significant topic in His economy concerning the Universe. First off, there are things not revealed to man (Deut. 29:29); and second, man recognizes that he is just a puny speck in all of God's creation (Psa. 8:3-5; Job 7:17; Psa. 144:3-4). Yes, we are a 'small' but not 'trivial' aspect of His Universe; but for all of that God's interest in us is quite evident.

(3)  Who is on Mars or Jupiter that your own 'christ' would go and die there - who is your 'christ' trying to redeem there? Be very careful when you yap wryly because you might not like what you would read as replies.

(4)  Please tell us the type of 'life' that you have established as existing in 'another dimension in these planets' - don't just yap it, show us with substance. I know God did not create the Universe and the planets for fun, but it seems you're running desperate to 'prove' your reincarnation thesis that you can't even stand steady to focus on the topic anymore. My sympathies.

Again you quote scripture with little understanding. Your quotes of Eccliastis does not and should not have been used to support your argument. It shows your level of understanding of  a simple scripture. The dead refferred to there is the physical body not the spirit. The physical body is forgotten but the spirit lives on forever.

I am very aware that the soul and spirit of man survives the death of the body; but perhaps you did not read the references I cited carefully - they do not support your thesis of reincarnation - NOT ONE BIT. Those references just simply waste your argument about any 'spirit' roaming the earth to do any assignment! I would have been more than delighted to see one verse where your argument would be established rather than complaining against mine and yet showing absolute zilch for yours!

Please what does everlasting life mean to you? Lets see your understanding. At least I offered mine, which supports re-incarnation.

My understanding of everlasting life does not mean reincarnation - I made that point clear, that if your own understanding means a cycle of rebirths and deaths 'ad infinitum', then you have quite simply destroyed your reincarnation without my help.

Deep Sight:
Be silent, joker!

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

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

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

Is something the matter, or you failed to take your medications?

Why don't you wait patiently and let me post my replies before reacting? Whether or not I am the one arguing against the Word of God will be manifest when I show what I have shown and ask YOU to stand up to defend your own reincarnation program. Whether you die and reincarnate into a lizard tonight after that, we shall see.

@Malbron, hope you had a good Sunday so far? Thanks for your replies - good points you raised, but I already addressed your recent objections in the body of my previous posts in this thread. So excuse my dealing with just the few points that may need reiteration.

Marlbron:
It looks like you are  confused about the Transfiguration event? Well it was a vision that was revealed unto them.

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Elijah did not physically meet with them. How could they have known Elijah? Were they born in his days or did they have his picture? It was a spiritual revelation.

1. Viaro is not confused about the meaning of Biblical visions, nor is the vision in Matthew 17 the only type of visions in the entire Bible. God uses various distinct types of this experience (such as prophecies, visions and similitudes - Hos. 12:10) to reveal certain things to whomsoever He chooses. That the vision in the Transfiguration was a 'revelation' unto the three apostles on that mount does not mean that it was akin to a 'dream' so that everyone there was as confused as you're implying. It was a vivid reality they experienced.

2. That the vision was a real event to those who witnessed it is obvious for two reasons:

[list](a) Peter recounts that same event as a real-life occurence in 2 Peter 1:16-18 in saying that they were "eyewitnesses of His majesty". You hardly use the word 'eyewitness' for something that is merely surreal or a dream - please go through the NT and see the fact for yourself. In his epistle, Peter recounts the events as a vivid experience where they heard the voice from heaven as well other things that occured on that mount. If you are making out that it was only a 'vision' and therefore could not be taken for its reality, my dear friend, it would mean that the voice from heaven as well was a 'dream' and not real! Peter, however, does not play down its reality in his epistle.[/list]

[list](b) The reality of the vision does not in any way negate the fact of their recognizing and identifying the specific personages that appeared to them - Moses and Elijah. Your objection of 'how could they have known Elijah?' is a non-starter, in so far as they recognized and named the very persons that they saw in that event. In other vivid visions where people have appeared to others, the identities of the personages were not misconstrued either - even before the actual meeting between the parties involved (e.g., Acts 9:10-12 & 17-18).[/list]

You can't use these objections to argue your reincarnation into the Bible, bro. You perhaps might have done better by providing verses that point directly to 'reincarnation' in the Bible. At least, we have shown numerous verses again and again specifically pointing to resurrection, but you seem to ever be circling around nowhere furtively seeking every excuse under the sun to dribble in your reincarnation. It does not help much, does it?

nuclearboy:
@Chairman Viaro:

You and Maven should keep reminding me to agree with you everytime (until I have your babes' number ). Sadly, no one can have anything on a woman so I'm stuck in her case. Anyway 50% is better than 0% and you are more vitriolic

Hehehe, commander. . I should have been smarter than that and not divulged that much. Now you have the noose around my neck and don't seem to ease up. Ouch! I should look for another way to escape your stranglehold so we can debate with more bromide!

@Mavenb0x,

You have tried - and again added even some more interesting points. I can understand why DeepSight is deeply committed to force reincarnation into the Bible where those verses clearly do not teach his assumptions. It's quite a laugh watching him at his best efforts and yet going nowhere.

Mavenb0x:
@viaro: LOL I loooove cola too! It really does it for me. I'm in Nigeria and it's 1:40am. If I dont leave NL now I will sleep in late, and its church in the morning! Goodnight, brother.

P.S. I will return maybe in 24 hours and see where the discussion has gone North, East or South (I am doubting the west-side, it has been shown that people don't re-incarnate there otherwise we would have another Tupac spitting the rhymes like tomorrow has not yet been born)

I like that. I logged out as soon as I was done with Malbron in the wee hours of this morning, and glad to see he stayed up to sweat it through the night. The discussion didn't go east though. . . lol, because more than not, them boys from that zone don't care two scoobies about who's reincarnating into who!

Mavenb0x:
Marlbron, I would advise you not to debate quantum physics & multiverses with viaro, unless you know your onions! But if u insist, pls take it to another thread!!

Honestly, I was disappointed he didn't even try, apart from just grumbling. I was just waiting for him to do so - it would've been absolute fun!

I understand that separation of body and spirit  means the person is dead, but that separation of spirit allows the spirit to return back to its initial or resure state, hence resurrection. We need to understand the natural process fully. At conception, the spirit enters the womb of a woman and becomes fully imprisoned in the body at birth. It lives inside the body till death.  Thus we have a cycle of birth- death- resurrection- birth.

The Bible nowhere teaches your theory, and enough of all this jabberwocky!

There is rather BIRTH --> DEATH --> RESURRECTION --> JUDGEMENT. You cannot miss this, which is why seeral times people have quoted Hebrews 9:27 to this effect: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".

Hebrews 6:2 already says: "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment" - the sequence always follows that order: BIRTH, DEATH, RESURRECTION and JUDGEMENT - you will not find a break where a cycle intercepts this flow with "reincarnation" between death and resurrection or between resurrection and judgement.

The bible tells us that every human will resurrect - some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. The spirits are immortal , even the ones in hell do not die.

Thank you - and that is coming from Daniel 12:2 - "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". .  does that sound like REINCARNATION at all? Did you not just admit that the Bible teaches that every human will RESURRECT? So what has reincarantion got to do with the fact of resurrect - or are you confusing them one for the other?

Again, you will notice that even Daniel 12:2 does not miss the sequence of BIRTH --> DEATH --> RESURRECT --> JUDGEMENT. If there was to be a cycle of reincarnations, why is it that the Biblical prophets NOWHERE teach such but rather went on straight to pronounce JUDGEMENT right after RESURRECTION?

What defines anything  is the spirit. The spirit determines who we are, if you like think about it as our spiritual DNA. The body is just a covering which can be shed. After death, the spirit is free to come to earth to take up another assignment. Some spirits come from different planets, but the earth is the centre of the multiverse. Do you think that the planets were created for fun?

Where is that emoticon for summersaulting dance??

Bro. .  please don't go where I will so traunce you that reincarnation will reject you after I'm done. But let me help you:

(a) the earth is NOT the center of the Universe, and is definitely NOT the center of any supposed multiverses!! If you want to argue further on this, open another thread and let's have a go at your quantum physics!

(b) where in the Bible did anyone tell you that some spirits come from another PLANET? I don't want to risk misquoting you on this one, so I shall refrain from suggesting anything in your favour - just let me know where you read that from in the Bible.

(c) the disembodied spirits of men are not said to come to earth for any 'assignments' - that is just rubbish talk. We have enough work of our own to do, and no outside help of assignees can add a jot to anything that we do here - for the very day that a man dies, his thoughts perish (Psalm 146:4). Even more to the point, Eccl. 9:5-6 tells us concerning the dead, that: "the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also 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." That last line there is stright to the point: THE DEAD can't do any assignment to you - all their hate, love, and whatever can't do you a jot of good or bad. Period.

I need to comment on a related topic - eternal life.

We think of it as living for ever in the world. I wonder how this can be. Will we work for ever? Will we have Children? Will our Children live forever too? Remember that birth and death go hand in hand. If there is no death, will there be birth? Has it not occurred to you that in the garden of Eden, God was the one that instigated Satan to tempt them so that they could multiply according to his pronouncement (Multiply and fill the earth)?  The thought of living for ever may be thrilling, but I think the concept is not totally correct.

Oh, that might be a brilliant "gbam" that you chanced upon, innit - that God should instigate Satan to facilitate man's reproductive tendencies! Man, you're going into a zone away from this whole gist, and I just don't want to humour you, lest I lead you on to the entrappings of Satan himself. I could only ask that you withdraw your postulations thereto and stay on course within this topic. I can understand that when people run out of steam for their arguments, they frantically look for all sorts to embellish what they can't argue - and that is what I see happening in your case just now.

Let us reason from the scripture: John 11: 24 - Lazarus episode

24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Clearly, everlasting life means the opportunity to reincarnate into the world ad infinitum.

No, everlasting life does not even remotely mean reincarnation ad infinitum - go and find out the meaning of ad infinitum before you use it here to suggest what it does not entail. If reincarnation is an 'ad infinitum', then again your whole theory collapses, because you would be saying that there is just no possible end to reincarnations for any single person - and I'm sure that the Hindus and their nirvana would just trump you on that one! You would be saying that only samsara exists for those who walk the shores of 'reincarnation', and then what is their ultimate terminus (ie, the "moksha" of your ad infinitum reincarnation?

Note Christ's word: though he were dead, yet he lives,

Nope, rather He said: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11:25).

The old testament prophet Isaiah, captured it very well by saying that people will live to an old age, with little stress.

And by that Isaiah DID NOT mean reincarnation.

The main confusion for Christians is the statment from Paul which is not well understood: "It is appointed unto man to once to die and after that judgement, ". That statement has been given very wrong interpretation. Let me explain it by looking at Elijah and John the baptist.

Elijah killed about 33 prophets of Baal in the name of fighting for God before he translated. There was no evidence that he suffered any judgement while in the world as Elijah, but he had run foul of a natural law. When he entered the spirit realm, he was judged and he came down to earth to fulfill this judgement. That was why he was miserably murdered by Herod for nothing.

Where did you read this whopper, Malbron? We know that Elijah did not enter the spirit realm to be judged; else how come the same Elijah was allegedly "murdered" where he appeared with Moses on the mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17:4?? Who "murdered" the Elijah that appeared there?

When reading that portion did you not wonder why this tragedy should befall such a righteous man? Where was God? This guy was very righteous! The answer is that Herod was unwittingly carrying out God's judgement on Elijah who was now on earth as John the baptist.

The fact is that Elijah was not John the Baptist - try harder! Who was Jesus' avatar before He was CRUCIFIED on the Cross? Who did Jesus "murder" so that He could be CRUCIFIED on the Cross?

That was why when he waited in vain for Christ to save him, he doubted Christ and had to send his men to inquire if truly he was the Christ. He had to suffer his fate and pay for that exuberance as Elijah.  So Elijah after committing a crime came back to face the music of his crime.

Even at that, Elijah still appeared on the mount - not as a murdered person by any Herod, nor as an avatar of John the Baptist, nor even paying for any excesses. This theory you're seeking to dribble in here is not helping at all.

What then is the end game? My two cents:

At the end, the angel of death who prevented John from realising who he was would be defeated and the curtain over our minds will be opened. Thus we can look at our fellow man and perhaps understand who he was in a previous incarnation something we cannot do now. That I think is the essence of the vision of the transfiguration, which signified that in the kingdom of god all the old prophets will be present, though they may not answer their names but we will know them!

There was no such angel who "prevented John from realising who he was" - that is a made up script from those who are seeking to force their own theatricals into the Biblical texts. Please show me plainly WHERE any angels so acted upon John the Baptist - JUST SHOW ME!

Finally,

Those spirits that resurrected when the earth shook at Chrit's death. Am not aware that they lived and died normally. Could you quote the scripture for me again.

All you needed to do was remove the heavy towel from your eyes and read the text again - I already quoted it: 1 Corinthians 15:6 - "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

If they did, then does that not puncture your argument that it is appointed unto man once to die and after that judgement? Help me here, sir!

Nope, because physical resurrection does not negate the Judgement that precedes spiritual resurrection - scroll up and see the distinctions I set forth between them. The "JUDGEMENT" does not happen the moment one dies - and everywhere this is taught, there is not a hint that a person already suffers divine judgement upon death.

Okay, here we go.

Marlbron:
The problem with Christianity is that we have not been taught by God.

That is not the problem with Christianity - rather, that is your problem! Even where God's Word is clear, you just simply refuse to see it for what it says, and where they don't fit into your catachresis, you turn round to blame the whole of Christianity for your own problem.

We have gained our insights from mere men. Take the issue of reincarnation. Christ talked about it almost everytime, yet we so called christ followers would relish twisting his statements to suit us, rather than believe his words.

Where did you find Christ talking about reincarnation almost everytime? Examples would be greatly appreciated!

If after reading the transfiguration account you still doubt reincarnation, then I have one question for you. If Christ comes back, would that not be another incarnation? Would that not be a reincarnation?

Do you know what INCARNATION is? Do you know the meaning of REINCARNATION? How do those words fit into the fact that His coming back is neither an incarnation or reincarnation, huh? Examples of Christ's second coming:

[list][li]Acts 1:11 - ". . . this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."[/li]
[li]Mark 13:26 - 'And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory'[/li]
[li]Luke 21:27 - 'And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.'[/li][/list]

Do the highlighted describe reincarnation to you? or how do those fit into either INCARNATION or REINCARNATION?

Anybody that does not believe reincarnation does not believe Christ and I seriously question his or her christianity.

Anybody pretending to believe in Christ and yet twisting His words to fit them into reincarnation is an i[color=Black]di[/color]ot and and pretender. I do not need to question their 'Christianity' because they have NONE to begin with.

If we fail to grasp a simple concept like this, how can we go on to other more complex teachings?

I am usually wary of folks who come claiming some 'higher teaching' of Christ that the Bible does not teach at all, especially where they take from His Word directly to twist them to mean something completely different from what He directly taught! "Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil. " (Psa. 56:5)

Viaro and Mavenbox, please explain regeneration as used by Christ below.

Mathew 19:28
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

First off, 'regeneration' in that verse does not speak about 'reincarnation' - nada, zilch, nix. The regeneration in that verse points to the same thing that Peter   spoke about in Acts 3:21 - "the times of restitution of all things". In the regeneration, Jesus sits on the throne of His glory - and He Himself defined when that is going to be: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Matthew 25:31). In other words, this is a future event and points to the time when all nations shall be gathered before Him for divine judgement. Happy now?

If he appears in a regeneration, that means he comes in another incarnation or a reincarnation.

Nope, He was not talking about coming as a 'regenerated being' - the 'regenration' is not a process but an epoch in God's economy. I already pointed out that Acts 1:11, Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 all point to the manner in which Jesus shall return in the clouds, and NONE of them speaks of reincarnation.

Note that your understanding of Israel should not be limited to the little area under dispute. Israel here is the world who have come under one umbrella with his shedding of his precious blood.

Nope, Israel here is NOT the Church - and there is no confusing 'Israel' of the patriarchial covenants with the Church of God in the present dispensation. Revelation 7 is your answer: after the 144,000 were sealed of the 12 Tribes of Israel, verse 9 says that there was "a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues," - these had 'washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb' (v. 14). These two groups are not confused, even where they all participate in one efficacy of the Blood of Christ.

The bible states that the first man was Adam and the second man is Christ. I did not state this, its in your scriptures! The spirit that was used to create Adam, later manifested as Jesus in a later incarnation. Note that God was Adam's Father and mother, not man.

Man, this is confused, but hilarious.

(a) first, the Bible nowhere states that God was 'Father and mother' for Adam - that would be like siring children; but rather that God is 'Creator' of Adam (Deut. 4:32 and Isaiah 45:12).

(b) second, nowhere does the Bible teach that the spirit of Adam was the same that reincarnated into Christ; rather, Adam was an 'earthy being' while Christ was a heavenly Being - 'The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven' (1 Cor. 15:47).

(c) The case of the 'first man' and the 'second man' is what I have often referred to as deixis - it does not mean a literal 'first and second'. Are you not the same fellow who said that Christ was incarnated as Melchizedek? That surely knocks out your own theory here, because if you're migrate through the line (Adam --> Melchizedek --> Christ), then in fact you have Melchizedek as the 'second man' and Christ in third place! You're a funny character, you know!

Marlbron:
Mavenbox,

Still disagree. Regeneration, is regeneration no matter the versions you bring. They all point to a restarting or a renewal which is achieved in a rebirth or reincarnation. Christ himself alluded to this.

It is alright to disagree - but we shall see when I reply consequently. Just relax.

Mavenb0x:
@nuclearboy: LOL By the time Viaro and DeepSight return to this thread . . . hehehe

I was sipping cola and waiting for DeepSight. . hehehe. . and enjoying Malbron while I played away. This thread will live long.