₦airaland Forum

nuclearboy:
What is bandied about is that they disappear in one place and show up elsewhere EXACTLY the same age they were when they "died" and continue from there till confronted at which time they disappear. Does your definition of re-incarnation include "continuance" in another "form"?

Malbron must have watched Twilight - that is where such phenomena was captured
[img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:cSpfgsvlkQ51QM:http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/twilight-onesheet-hires.jpg[/img] [img]http://nerdgirltalking.files./2008/11/twilight_movie_image_group_shot_l.jpg?w=585&h=422[/img]

Mavenb0x:
marlbron said:

Some people can ressurrect and live on earth without being born. We hear stories of people who are dead and now seen and living in other parts, even marrying. Once you ask them to take them to their village, they become reluctant and when you insist, they even disappear completely, leaving wife etc behind!

Viaro! replied:

Intriguing. Examples, please?

LMAO!!! I no fit laugh abeg!!!  

Hehehe. . . that Malbron is a wonder. Perhaps Tupac was one of the intriguing examples of what he was trying to express! Afterall, someone noted about 18 intriguing excuses for 'reluctance' and 'disappearing completely' in Tupac's case, no??

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

Don't worry, sometimes I enjoy your tommyrot.

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

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

Okay, captain. . no worries.

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

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

That's okay - the point that I wanted to make clear was that there is not a single line where I predicated John the baptist's emergence on either of those two premises: reincarnation and/or resurrection.

2. You keep referring to John's denial of being Elijah.

Is that not what John clearly did in John 1:21 - did he not categorically deny being Elijah?

Did you not see the answer by Malbron -

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

I saw Malbron's answer, but even so what does that 'prove' for reincarnation? Or did you not see what I replied thereto concerning his misconception?Here again was my reply:

At the time of the Transfiguration in Matthew 17, John had already attended his ministry - in flesh! Excusing that Elijah appeared in "spirit" alongside Moses on that mount simply destroys any hint of reincarnation - because reincarnation is not about spirits appearing, but about people of past lives being born as infants (ala DeepSight's definition), no?

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

I did not reject Christ's word: rather, I categorically rejected and continue to reject the words of those who try to force reincarnation into His mouth!

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

I would any day defend the fact that Christ taught all through about RESURRECTION than about reincarnation. That is the point here - not of Malbron forcing reincarnation into Christ's mouth on absolutely unfounded twisters.

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

TAKE TIME O!

This UKWA man, what's gwan with you today?

He's more than a fanatic. His sick sermon here.

Hi Marlbron,

Marlbron:
Interesting thread, dealing with a hot topic. Deepsight is correct in this argument and I think people should listen.

Christ was a reincarnation of Adam

1Cor 15:45 - 49

Christ was not the reincarnation of Adam, for the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians is dealing with the question of RESURRECTION and not reincarnation. Sorry, pal. . . but verse 42 should have proved very helpful: "So also is the resurrection of the dead." I am sure that you already know that 'reincarnation' is never confused for "resurrection of the dead"??

Christ incarnated as Melchisedeck

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. JOHN 8:56

John 8:56 is not talking about Melchizedek - not even remotely. The name Melchizedek does not mean 'I AM', and Abraham's encounter with Melchizedek was not about seeing the Day of Christ.

Transfiguration experience

Mathew 17: 9-13

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.
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
Clearly this was a vision, that was why they recognized Elijah and Moses beccause they were in spirit. We can see that with their new spiritual understanding they sought clarification from the Lord about the Elijah that must came and Christ replied them very clearly. Now Christ is God and knows every man. John the bAptist was man and could not have known himself the way Christ would, so saying that John did not claim Elijah is nothing short of casual understanding of the scriptures. Whose testimony will you believe? Johnthe Baptist or Jesus the Christ? I know the one I will believe.  After the experience, the disciples understood that John was indeed Elijah.

At the time of the Transfiguration in Matthew 17, John had already attended his ministry - in flesh! Excusing that Elijah appeared in "spirit" alongside Moses on that mount simply destroys any hint of reincarnation - because reincarnation is not about spirits appearing, but about people of past lives being born as infants (ala DeepSight's definition), no?

What is Reincarnation and Ressurection?

Now, this is the question, really. And. .

Reincarnation is the process of a soul journeying back to a plane that it had sojourned in before. It could have left that plane as a result of death or other forms of translation. When Christ comes back, he will come back through a woman by the same process of incarnation or re-incarnate.

Where did you read that Christ is coming back through reincarnation of being born through a woman? Are you under pressure to make up your drama as if that is what is written in the Bible? Christ will return in the same way as He was taken up - Acts 1:11.

If you understand that man is made of water spirit and blood, then this debate is really a no brainer. The spirit has few restrictions unlike the body. When death occurs, the spirit is liberated from the body. If God wants the spirit back to earth for a new asignment, it comes in during conception with a new body. Reincarnation is a final process, that includes ressurection and starts with death.

That, my pal, is a no-brainer - for reincarnation does not include resurrection. That is a bold leap of a lie, so give it up already!

Ressurection is the process of separating the spirit from the body.

Nope, for you have only described death, not resurrection. See it for yourself - "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). Resurrection, on the other hand, is a rising from the dead ('he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead,' - John 12:17). Pal, please stand steady and don't be confusing your readers, yes?

Let us look at the scripture. 1 Corinth 15:42

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

In ressurection, you see a spiritual body, not a physical body. Thus we can appreciate the fact that the disciples did not recognize Christ after ressurection, because he was essentially a spirit being, not the same guy they knew. He could walk into closed doors and he no longer slept and moved with them. If you say ressurection, you describe part of the the process of reincarnation. After death, you have ressurection, then birth which is an incarnation or (reincarnation). When Christ died, remmber, that some dead peole were ressurrected. What manifested was the spirit of those people and they went about testifying about Christ, before they promptly disappeared.

Bobs, you don't have a clue what you're saying. Resurrection is NOT part of the process of reincarnation - NADA, ZILCH. And those who were raised from the graves did not "promptly disappear" - they lived and DIED ('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' - 1 Cor. 15:6).

Some people can ressurrect and live on earth without being born. We hear stories of people who are dead and now seen and living in other parts, even marrying. Once you ask them to take them to their village, they become reluctant and when you insist, they even disappear completely, leaving wife etc behind!

Intriguing. Examples, please?

More later,  but Deepsight has the correct insight this time

Don't bother - we heard quite enough to close shop for you guys. Enjoy.

And yet there is more.

Matt. 11:13-14 – “For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And [size=14pt]if[/size] you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come”

What were those odd games you were playing with the word “if” in this verse earlier on? Please don’t turn this to a circus – the sentence is pretty clear: in much the same way as he could have said – “if you are willing to receive it, I am the Christ who was to come.” Tell me if this would have meant that the coming of the Christ was not literal, or that he would be thereby saying that he was not the Christ! Good grief! How people will play the ostrich and read what meanings they prefer into such a blatantly clear piece of scripture!

You have a point that the conditional "IF" would not deter anyone from reading 'reincarnation' into that verse - but all things considered, why did John clearly DENY being Elijah when categorically asked that same question in John 1:21? It's like you have some hard wax and can't see, no?

“If you are willing to receive” – is nothing but a reference to whether or not the listener is prepared to receive a truth that is being mediated to him. Gosh Viaro, take time o.

My answer, as above (and I like that one: 'take time o' - classic UKWA!)

Given all the foregoing I can conclude in summary as follows –

1. The fact that the Jews thought in terms of resurrection does not mean that they did not also make allusions to reincarnation. They did.
2. There was a prophecy that Elijah would return
3. Jesus himself affirmed the prophecy (twice!)and made it clear that it was a literal prophecy. At all events your abracadabra stating that it was not literal is nothing but speculation as you have no proof for that.
4. Jesus went further to identify John as the returning Elijah.
5. The Disciples wrote that they understood Jesus’ words to mean that the Baptist was Elijah
6. They could not have thought it was a resurrection because –
    a. They were aware that John was born an infant – they wrote about that
    b. John’s age vis-à-vis Elijah’s age at the time of his “departure”
7. They thus clearly understood it to be a reincarnation.

Thank you for the summary - you have tried, but again wasted your efforts to even make one sense for your reincarnation drama. So, let me again outline mine for you:

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.

Cheers.

NOW THE REAL CLINCHER IN THIS FOR ME IS THE FACT THAT THE DICIPLES LIKE JESUS WERE FULLY AWARE THAT JOHN WAS BORN AS AN INFANT THROUGH A WOMAN’S WOMB AND GREW UP. THEY EVEN WROTE ABOUT HIS BIRTH.

IT IS THUS DECISIVELY CERTAIN THAT WHEN IT IS WRITTEN -

“Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist."

The disciples absolutely were NOT contemplating resurrection.

UNLESS YOU WILL BE ABSURD AND SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE ARE REURRECTED BY BEING BORN AS INFANTS!

I shall hold my tongue and not blast you - - you tempt me to call those who argue that was 'classic twerps'!

I did not predicate John the Baptist's emergence either on reincarnation or resurrection - please go back and draw me a single line where I ever, ever, ever made such an obviously dense non-sequitor!! John's birth was NEITHER a resurrection nor a reincarnation. That is the point I would like for you to remember at all times in thinking through my discussions with you. But for you, the whole argument has been to make John the reincarnation of Elijah - a non-starter that up until now have been a wasted argument on your behalf.

You cannot even make such a claim as you already acceded in response to my queries that when people are resurrected physically they appear as they were before death!

I did not make such a claim, as it is clear that I did not predicate John's birth on either resurrection or reincarnation.

This again closes the case very firmly against you Viaro, and makes it abundantly clear.

But I still got more ammo –

1. You stated that when people are resurrected physically they appear as they were before death!

I said YES and NO - and distinguished either from the other. My answer was not just one side to the whole thing, so please don't ever forget that!

2. Thus when it is stated that the disciples had an understanding that the Baptist was Elijah – this could not be that they understood it to be a resurrection of the Prophet, because if it were, then, in your own words, he would appear as he was prior to his death, or Elijah’s case “ascension.”

Again, my answer:
"John's birth was NEITHER a resurrection nor a reincarnation."

3. How old was Elijah when he left the world? An old man?

An adult.

4. How old was John the Baptist?

An adult as well.

Aha! GBAM! GBAM! GBOGA! Since the Baptist was a young man born shortly before Jesus, the disciples could not have been thinking that he was the resurrected Elijah – because Elijah was considerably older at the time of his departure!

Look at this comedian! Did viaro ever try to make John the baptist the resurrected Elijah? Are you so confused?

As an asides, this 'GBAM! GBAM! GBOGA!' tendecy of yours reminds me of a recent Nigerian movie my girlfriend played the other night (so that I could get familiar with Nigerian slangs). . I don't know if you ever watched UKWA?? M-e-n. .  you are UKWA's mentor!!

In this you cannot escape; for I deliberately asked you if the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus could be a guide: and it is clear that neither man suddenly appeared as a vastly younger person when resurrected. They always appeared as they were just before death! Thus the Disciples COULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD ELIJAH TO HAVE RESURRECTED!

I don't think that ruffles my feathers anyways - since again: "John's birth was NEITHER a resurrection nor a reincarnation." I gave my answer of the guide thingy on the 'nature of resurrection' by noting "Possibly, yes - as long as we keep them in their perspectives (as explicated above)." That does not go so far as to suggest that I was arguing to make either Jesus, John or Lazarus the reincarnation or resurrection of ANYBODY!

This is hammered home finally when we add the fact that they were positively aware that John was born an infant.

Elijah wasnot said to have DIED - your reincarnation suggest that someone who reincarnates must needs have been dead before being born as an infant. Was Elijah DEAD according to 2 Kings 2:11??

No escape Viaro! The equation reads very simple –

1. The disciples had an understanding from Jesus’ words that John the Baptist was Elijah
2. They knew John the Baptist to have been born an infant

= The believed him to have been reincarnated.

Iron cast logic which you cannot controvert, Viaro.

Relax bro. The disciples were quite aware that it was not a reincarnation they were confronted with, because the knew that Elijah did not DIE, therefore your reincarnation thesis is marked with too many red zeros! Go back to the drawing board!

But before I do that, let me just recap for you, (because there is nobody on this forum whom it is harder to get a point across to, than you) – that my answer to those verses which you quoted is that I ADMIT AND ACCEPT THEM! I ACCEPT THAT THE VERSES SHOW THAT THE JEWS WERE THINKING RESURRECTION. BUT I ASSERT THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO PRESUME THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS FACT, THEY NEVER THOUGHT REINCARNATION AS WELL. THE TASK IS TO LOOK INTO SCRIPTURE AND SEE IS THEY ALSO THOUGHT OF REINCARNATION. HERE WE GO.

- I start with the Prophecy contained here:

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

Let me say a few things about this quote above –

1. Your averment and the averment of other discussants that this prophecy was not meant literally is nothing but speculation. It is speculation because –
    a. You cannot prove that it was not meant literally AND
    b. Taken together with Jesus’ pronouncements in the NT, it is abundantly clear that Jesus himself took it literally.

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.

2. You did accept within another thread that “Elijah was taken up into heaven.”
3. Thus if he returns to the Earth by fresh birth through a woman’s womb as an infant, he will be said to have reincarnated – NOT RESSURECTED.

Excuse me, are you so unaware that Elijah was not said anywhere to have DIED?
Read it again in 2 Kings 2:11 - Elijah was taken up into heaven by a whirlwind, and in Matthew 17:3 Elijah appears, not by 'reincarnation' or 'resurrection'. Since Elijah did not die, how could he have been born as an infant or returned by fresh birth through a woman's womb as an infant?? You yourself have defined your reincarnation as a scenario where "a previously dead person is born again as a baby" - but is that what was demonstrated for Elijah? Pal, you're drifting farther away from simple things, you know?

Now is there scripture suggesting that John the Baptist was Elijah? Or at the very least – that John the Baptist was thought to be the reincarnation of Elijah?

There is –

Matt. 17:10-13 – “And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"

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

Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist."

Let me say a few things about this quote also –

1. The disciples asked him - "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" – This was an excellent opportunity for him to teach them the truth by explaining that Elijah’s coming was not meant literally. Rather, what did he say? He affirmed that it was meant literally by replying with the words – “Elijah is INDEED to come. . .Elijah has come already – and they did not know him!” Note the use of the word “indeed” – in other words – “in fact”, or “in reality” – and not in symbolism!

You can't quibble on that small word 'indeed' as if the whole point of Elijah and John rested on it. The word 'indeed' does not suggest literalism of persons but of the prophecy. That is why His conditional statement with 'IF' in Matthew 11:14, as well the very FACT that John the bapstist did not say that he was Elijah ("Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not" - John 1:21).

If you want to quibble on the word 'indeed' on issues of prophecy, let me point out another example where Jesus did not mean a literalism of persons by that word in making a prophetic declaration: Mark 10:35-39. When James and John requested to be on the right and left hand of Jesus in the Kingdom, He asked them: 'Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?' The answered, "We can". Consequently, He answered: 'Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized' - does this suggest that Jesus meant a LITERAL event by that word "indeed"??

We know that He did not mean it so - but literalists would argue otherwise. The fact was that Jesus spoke of this type of His baptism as a pointer to His death (see Luke 12:50) - and we know that His death was an excruciating one on the Cross. If He meant that James and John were "indeed" to be 'baptized' with the same baptism as His death on the Cross in a literal sense, then both John and James would have been crucified. But we know from Acts 12:2 that James was put to death by the sword, not by crucifixion.

So, DeepSight, sweat it all up if you can - that word "indeed" does not mean that Elijah would be literally John the Baptist by any reincarnation, and that was why He made it plain for those who could grasp His meaning that such a sense was not intended ('IF') as well that John the Baptist himself clearly denied being John the Baptist in any literal sense (John 1:21).

2. Note further that he personalizes Elijah’s coming further. He makes it clear that Elijah was to come as a real human being, and not a symbol, by saying – “they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand!"

I did not argue for a symbol anywhere - please go back and check through my replies. The whole point was that a prophecy given about Elijah's coming BEFORE THE GREAT AND DREADFUL DAY OF THE LORD (Malachi 4:5) does not translate into reincarnation of Elijah.

3. This makes it abundantly clear that Jesus expected to be persecuted that same way that the returning Elijah would be!

What point are you making in that? Without the interjection of Elijah or John, Jesus would have been persecuted and put to death anyways - for that was what the prophecies declared. I don't see the connection between Jesus' persecution and your reincarnation for Elijah into John.

4. Finally how does this end? It is explicitly written - “Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist."

It is thus clear that the Prophecy was very literal and that the disciples understood it by Jesus’ words to refer to John the Baptist.

Nope, it is clear from all the points made afore that they understood He was referring to John the Baptist although NOT in a literal sense! If it was in a literal sense, then please explain why John DENIED being Elijah in John 1:21, as well the fact that Jesus was making a conditional statement in Matthew 11:14, as well the fact that Jesus taught RESURRECTION all through without ever teaching anything about reincarnation - not even where Nicodemmus in John 3:4 had thought of the impossibility of such a thing!!

Thank you, DeepSight.

Deep Sight:
And that’s how your cookie crumbles, Old friend.

I won't even attempt to piece up the cookie together for you - because my points are still very intact, although you have spent some considerable effort to argue away yet not even come closer to the Biblical worldview of resurrection. Let's see:

I am at odds that you describe this as “my own definition” – you know very well that that is THE definition of reincarnation.

Nope, that is not all there is about reincarnation - so there's no need to argue long and hard about your definition being 'THE' definition of that term. Buddhism, for instance, prefers "re-becoming" for just about the same concept; but Hinduism speaks of reincarnation in various ways and not just in the simplistic manner you defined that word. Besides Brahma and Saraswati, the rest of the Hindu gods are known to have reincarnated in various forms under different circumstances - and there is all the difference, so that it goes beyond your idea of 'a previously dead person is born again as a baby'. Sorry, but it is essential that I hold your own definition for the sake of this discourse.

Now I hope you can see the point already:

1. You have accepted that people who are resurrected appear as they were prior to death
2. Thus in being resurrected they are not born as babies through a woman’s womb
3. John the Baptist was born as a baby through a mother’s womb – thus nobody could be under the illusion that he was a “resurrected” person. You your self have acceded that resurrected persons appear as they were before they died, and that being born as a baby is what reincarnation speaks about.
4. Thus when the disciples talked about him “being Elias” - they could not have been talking about resurrection.

Don't you see the fallacy of your own conjectures already?
I did not make any inferences that John the Baptist was either a reincarnation or resurrection of anyone in the past - he was clearly NEITHER of such. John the Baptist was John the Baptist; but even where people expressed opinions of who he possibly might have been, it was a matter of resurrection, and not of reincarnation. This is what Herod meant when he said "It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead. " (Mark 6:16). No one inferred that because John the Baptist was born as a baby, he therefore might have been a 'reincarnated' being of someone in the past - Nope, absolutely not.

On this, the case is firmly closed against you: save that I will take the time to address a few of the things you raised. You pointed me to Luke, Matthew & Mark 16, where it is clearly written that people believed Jesus to be a resurrected John the Baptist.

Your points in this regard are in order Viaro, but they do not suffice to detract anything from my surmise because –

1. Those quotations show that people believed in resurrection. I have not denied this – nor can any body rationally deny it.
2. The quotations however do not show that people DID NOT ALSO believe in reincarnation – for the reality of either doctrine does not cancel out the existence of the other doctrine.

No, this is where you are lost out in the sea of thoughts and trying forever to force reincarnation into tjose texts. For all intents and purposes, they could not have been holding the idea of BOTH reincarnation and resurrection simultaneously - not even the Buddhists, Hindus, or Jainists hold both ideas simultaneously.

If the people in John's day were holding the idea of reincarnation at the same time as they did resurrection, then they would not have argued only for resurrection while leaving us scratching our heads for pointers to reincarnation in their opinions. Nobody in those texts gave the slightest pointer to reincarnation - so there's no need to try to force it into their mouths for them. Besides, their silence on the question of reincarnation does not suggest their tacit or indirect acknowledgement of it, while only arguing solidly for resurrection.

3. We must thus ask the question: If those verses do show that the Jews thought in terms of resurrection (which is not disputed because they did), are there any other verses which suggest that they ALSO thought in terms of reincarnation?
4. I positively assert that they are, and I will show them to you again presently.

I'm looking forward to such texts.

Mavenb0x:
@Viaro: thanks bro. How you dey?

I'm doing well, and you? Thanks again for your input - I had to take another look and wondered if DeepSight ever read through before posting his recycled arguments. Anyhow, life is interesting!

Abu Zola:
What do you mean by gramophone ?

I was just kidding with you, Abuzola - can't you take a joke?

You see, viaro does not attach too much seriousness to things like this, so the gramophone thing was just kidding with you from this post #17 on the previous page where I first used that term. Nothing to it - that is why you see that I often posted with smilies all along. I sometimes kid with you (different names like Abuzo-lala, abuzo-zo, etc) - nothing serious. . just don't take these things too personal.

Okay, if you do, my apologies. I thought it might help to just let you know my mood when I kid with folks.

Abu Zola:
The thread is about unfulfil prophecy of the Bible. Stick to the thread. If you can't refute it then get lost let other xtrian see the fraudulent lies

I know what the thread is about - lawyer's confusion. In order to help cover how muslims put words in allah's mouth, he came up with allah's "inventions" in modern transport systems - that is a whopper, mr gramophone!

If lawyer wants a bit of his worries sorted about Biblical prophecies, perhaps this link might be helpful to him. But placing 'modern transport systems' in allah's mouth is poor theatricals for the quranic footsoldiers, sorry.

Abu Zola:
Poor viaro

Abu Zola:
Haba, how mr law be a liar, you misinterpreted the whole thing

HAHAHAHA!! Mr gramophone. .  
I am not the one misinterpreting the whole thing - I would very much like for lawyer to come and interprete for me how "dry stubble" or "dried up" suddenly became "floodwater"    You muslim translators said it was either 'stubble' or 'dried up' - and your lawyer said it is rather 'FLOODWATER' - what has that got to do with viaro?

Again, let lawyer come forward and tell us: Which one of the modern transport systems was allah's "invention" -
 (a)  London Bridge?
 (b) Third Mainland Bridge?
 (c) Edinburgh Forth Rail Bridge?
 (d) 7 Mile Bridge?
Which one did allah "create"?

And what has "the day when the enemies of Allah are gathered unto the Fire" got to do with immigration systems and border control at airports, huh??  Is that why you guys are too busy with mid-air explosions?

Your lawyer will send people to jail free of charge, if that is the way he tends to decipher the quran. What the quran does not say, your lawyer will force into allah's mouth.

Law prince:
FULFILLED PROPHECIES IN THE QUR'AN


. . .
Formation of petroleum/gasoline
"He brings out the pasture. Then turns it into a blackish floodwater. " (87:4-5)
Petroleum is primarily the outcome of a long process during which herbage like algae and fern in the interstices of rocks is exposed to the chemical effects of various bacteria. Today the origin of petroleum is believed to be organic material. Pastures created before man was created were destined to turn in time to petroleum within the framework of the ecological balance of the world. Oily organic residues decomposed beneath the floor of the seas for millions of years. The underlying oily substance eventually was transformed into petroleum.
Petroleum presents the properties of “floodwater.” Petroleum, more often than not, moves away from where it was originally formed. It does not have a settling property. Petroleum behaves like flood liquid, traveling long distances and collecting at spots where it comes across hard rocks without pores. Petroleum beds have been discovered in places where they were found as deposits, hindered from continuing their course.
In brief, petroleum, as described in the verses, is

1. made of organic matter,
2. blackish and
3. moves like floodwater.

Oh lawd!! Why is lawyer such a cheat here today?

Quran 87:4-5 does not speak about petroleum/gasoline - and no, verse 5 does not even mention "blackish floodwater". All major respected translations of the Quran (even those translations done by Muslims themselves) did not make any inference to any type of "water", let alone "flood".  

Let me quote you a few -

Quran 87:5
[list]

. . Then turneth it to russet stubble (Pickthall)

[/list]
[list]

. . And then doth make it (but) swarthy stubble (Yusuf Ali)

[/list]
[list]

. . And then makes it dark stubble (Hilali-Khan)

[/list]
[list]

. . Then makes it dried up, dust-colored (Shakir)

[/list]
[list]

. . Then turns it into black stubble.(Sher Ali)

[/list]
[list]

. . Then turns it into light hay. (Rashid Khalifa)

[/list]
[list]

. . and [afterwards] rendreth the same dry stubble of a dusky hue (Sale)

[/list]

Please tell me: since when have "dry stubble" or "light hay" or "russet stubble" or "dried up" suddenly become "floodwater"??  

You guys are such an entertaining crowd!

Abu Zola:
Hahaha, viaro is angry coz she can do nothing to hither the Quran. Yes o notin dey happen Proudly a muslim

Sorry, it's a 'he', not she. And no, viaro is not angry - did you not see the smilies I posted - boy, your lawyer is a comedian!! Let him come forward and identify any of the bridges that allah came down to "invent".

Law prince:
FULFILLED PROPHECIES IN THE QUR'AN

NEW TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
"And when the she-camels, ten months pregnant are abandoned." (81:5)
"And He has created horses and mules and asses that you may ride them, and as a source of beauty. And He will create what you do not yet know." (16:9)
As we know people, especially those living in deserts, have now abandoned camels and other animals for traveling. But this prophecy of invention and emergence of new transport systems is on-going as we witness new and faster modes of transportation emerging all the time.

Oh shut up already! You and I know that neither allah nor muhammad had any clues about modernity, let alone "invention and emergence of new transport systems".

Quran 16:9 has absolutely NOTHING to do with any modern transport system - even if we disregard context of that verse, it still shows it has nothing to do with "what you do not yet know". People all over the world know much more about modern transport systems than any arabic graduate will ever know of transport systems. If you look at that verse, it claims that allah was the one who created "what you do not yet know" - but is it allah that created the modern transport systems??

Read that verse again (it's actually verse 8, not verse 9): "And HE has created horses and mules and asses that you may ride them, and as a source of beauty. And HE will create what you do not yet know" (Quran 16:8, Sher Ali's trans.).

tell me now: did allah "create" modern transport systems? Which of these bridges did allah come down to create -

https://www.cynthiareeg.com/blog/uploaded_images/DSC01016-797721.JPG [img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:WE5ij6MPRy_f4M:http://www.tourismroi.com/Content_Attachments/25950/Image_633468822193833410.jpg[/img]

https://www.ultimatechase.com/chase_accounts/Images/031109_Helicopter_Shoot/_MG_0256.jpg

Which one of the modern transport systems was allah's "invention" -
(a) London Bridge?
(b) Third Mainland Bridge?
(c) Edinburgh Forth Rail Bridge?
(d) 7 Mile Bridge?
Which one did allah "create"?

Infact, none of the tafsirs attribute or interprete that verse as referring to any modern transport systems - go and find out what they said about camels!

Law prince:
FULFILLED PROPHECIES IN THE QUR'AN


FINGER PRINTS
"Their skins will bear witness against them as to what they have been doing"(41:21)
The finger prints system at borders, criminal investigation cells and immigration centres prove the fulfillment of this Quranic prophecy.

Would you stop lying so hilariously? How did allah get to know anything about criminal investigation cells, immigration and airport control systems in muhammad's day - or are you guys just looking for excuses to yank quranic verses anyhow to help allah fulfill his untranslatable arabic quran?

How many times have you muslims shouted 'context' whenever a verse of the quran is being exposed for its hollowness? Why have you ignored 'context' in that verse above?

That verse has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with immigration and airport border control systems. Nada, nothing, zilch! Go and read it in its context - it was pointing to the hellfire of muslims:

[list]Quran 41:19-22

¹⁹And (make mention of) the day when the enemies of Allah are gathered unto the Fire, they are driven on, ²⁰Till, when they reach it, their ears and their eyes and their skins testify against them as to what they used to do. ²¹And they say unto their skins: Why testify ye against us? They say: Allah hath given us speech Who giveth speech to all things, and Who created you at the first, and unto Whom ye are returned. ²²Ye did not hide yourselves lest your ears and your eyes and your skins should testify against you, but ye deemed that Allah knew not much of what ye did.[/list]

What has Quran 41:19-22 got to do with immigration and airport control systems - is that where Muslims see their "hell fire" and 'jannah'? No wonder you guys are always flying with bombs on airplanes an causing mid-air explosions!

Give it up, bro - your attempts to hide any text for allah is comedy central! Your allah was not talking zilch about any immigration or border control systems! The only thing he knows about skin and fingers "fire, fire, fire" - read that chapter of the quran and stop making us laugh!

Hi DeepSight,

Deep Sight:
I will sincerely appreciate short concise answers to these questions as i believe this will help clarify the point i have been struggling to make.

Unfortunately, concise answers would further obfuscate issues, IMO. Your questions are interesting, but one-liners would not be sufficient to explicate the issues involved. .  yet I shall try to refrain from too detailed elaborations.

I thus request permission to put a few simple questions to you, which i believe will untangle the mystery. I am sure short conscise answers will suffice.

1. How are people resurrected: is it a physical resurection or spiritual?

Biblical resurrection is both physical and spiritual. Examples:

[list]
(a) Physical resurrection:
[li]'And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go' (John 11:43-44)[/li]
[li]'The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record' (John 12:17)[/li]
[li]'And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many' (Matt. 27:52 & 53 - see also 2 Kings 13:21)[/li][/list]

[list](b) Spiritual resurrection:
[li]'But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?. . . There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. . So also is the resurrection of the dead. . . It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. . . And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly' (1 Cor. 15:35, 40, 42-44, 49 )[/li]
[li]'For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself' (Phil. 3:20-21)[/li][/list]

When we think of 'spiritual' resurrection, it does not mean esoteric language to imply something else that tends to 'reincarnation' (such as the NDE folks imply), but rather that people receive glorified bodies not subject to the weaknesses of the present bodies we have - this is yet future, and is distinct from the 'physical resurrection'.

2. Can the resurrection of Jesus (and his resurrection of Lazarus) be taken as an accurate guide as to the nature of resurrection?

Possibly, yes - as long as we keep them in their perspectives (as explicated above).

3. If it can, can we conclude that when people are resurrected, they "rise from the dead" appearing as they were prior to dying?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the case where 'physical resurrection' is in view; and no, in the case where 'spiritual resurrection' is implied. However, these by no means suggests that resurrected persons in their appearance completely lose any recognition or identity for who they actually were.

4. Can all of this safely guide us to the conclusion that no person is ever "resurrected" by being born again through a woman's womb as an infant?

Resurrection is not to be misconstrued for reincarnation - resurrection is a question of being raised from the dead (or a 'rising from the dead'); and reincarnation (as in your own definition of that term) assumes a scenario where "a previously dead person is born again as a baby".

5. Can we also assume that the Jews, given their grounding in the Scriptures, had a generally accurate perception of what resurrection was?

Perhaps not; yet in all things considered, Biblical Judaism did not tend to reincarnation, but rather to resurrection.

(a)

Abu Zola:
Ok if i post one prophecy will u be glad ?

(b)

davidylan:
Yes . . . just post one - the verse, the location in the quran or hadith and where and when it came to pass. Thank you.

(c)

Abu Zola:
Am discouraged i can't post again, . . . David is truely a poison

Oh goodness!!!!

davidylan:
I am not denying it . . . simply telling you that coverage by international news agencies does not validate the claims on the baby. Apparently you never heard of the balloon boy case . . . it was carried LIVE by CNN, ABC, FOX . . . all day. Turned out to be a total hoax!

He didn't remember that one. . . no. . . never. For them, as long as it seemed to have been covered by 'international newsagencies', nothing else is required - not even where the parents refused objective examination, and cancelled a meeting with high muslim clerics. Tell you what: allah hates to be examined, you know!

Abu Zola:
The similitude the baby writing to fake one is that of red paint and blood, how can it be co equal to blood.

How? It's Pallywood - that's how!

Mavenb0x:
Viaro and DeepSight, please permit me to join your discourse on the Bible and Reincarnation:

Permit you? Rather, I must say you gave some more substance to the whole thing here. Well done.

nijaprince:
There is nothing like reincarnation. This one Scripture proves it - Heb9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

I don't know whether or not there is a reincarnation. What I could say is that there are many things happening in our world that we just have no clue about. Indeed, the Biblical worldview does not argue for reincarnation (as far as I can understand), but that does not mean therefore that everything begins and ends there. Why I say this is because i know from experience that certain things have happened where I have no bleep what to say - people have accurately said things out of the blue that point to events that they could not have had prior cognisance of: and when checked, it turned out they were actually true to 'T'.

In discourses like this, I think what jcross22 said rings with me:

jcross22:
some issues are above human knowledge, we can just guess how are we sure of it.

^^Doing my bit, bro.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=385185.msg5369906#msg5369906 date=1264200565]are you denying that the story was not covered by international news angencies or that theses agencies did not take any photos or videos at all? Am waiting for you to tell me these news agencies used pin hole cameras[/quote]Which 'international newsagencies' covered the story in an objective manner? Why is it that when an objective examination was to be carried out, the parents refused? How come a meeting between high clerics and the parents was suddenly cancelled? Have you ever heard of Pallywood?

davidylan:
Just post ONE prophecy instead of this deceitful merry-go-round.

Abu Zola:
Mr david, can't u see am using fone ? My books and other material are faraway from me, the fone is portable thats why u see me flowing here,

HAHAHAHA!! What did you use to open those four threads - gramophone??

uplawal:
@viaro,nothing strikes me and nothing rings a bell,its up to u if u wanna believe,Allah knows at the end of the day who will believe and who will not believe, hence u believe is one,ure a muslim,

madam uplawal, viaro is not a muslim, and allah knows nothing other than what you guys like to put into his mouth. I was hoping you would be able to explain why the parents of the said boy refused any meticulous dermatologic examination - but you're evading that one and trying to turn viaro into a muslim? Huh??

Allah has even said it that even if he sends down angels to u you wont,so why the fuss?

Hang on, missus. . . allah sends down no angel, trust me - muhammad only tells you about angels, especially one of 'em whose eyes he slapped to blindness!   Apart from that, Luke 16 says that even if someone were raised from the dead to preach the Gospel to you guys, you still won't believe - and I don't require any muhammad slapping any angels blind to see the analogy.

but me i just pity u people on the day of judgement,u will gnash your teeth etc

Oh give it up already - who's gonna gnash teeth on allah's day other than muslims? BTW, have you thought about your place as a woman in allah's paradise? Which of the men would have you for his harem of seventy virgins, huh?

Abu Zola:
Viaro is blind, so you believe that writing were artificial. Too bad.

Big boss, what's gwan?

'Even if ALLAH had sent down to them _{(jews and xtrians and other disbelievers)} Angels and the dead had spoken to them and Allah had gathered together all things before their eyes,
they would not have believed unless Allah willed, but most of them behave ignorantly'
Quran 6:111

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" ~ Galatians 1:8.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=385185.msg5369523#msg5369523 date=1264195011]Viaro, urticaria dermatograhpia is an inflammtion disease. It usually results from leakage of fluid from blood vessels and in NEVER expressed without inflammation.
The only similarity between the second pix and that of the boy is reddish coloration. Look at the pix clearly and the inflammation (raised surface) becomes obvious.
However, of the hundreds of pix of the boy on the net, none of them show any sign whatsoever of inflammation.
Davidlyln tried to find a pix that show inflammation on the boy but found none. He resorted to the embarassing excuse that 'all the pix on the net are fuzzy'. Can you imagine? All the pix and videos taken by respectable internatioal news agencies are fuzzy just because davidyln did not find what he was looking for. That itself is a 'miracle'. lol[/quote]@the_seeker, although davidylan has answered well with simple points, let me just ask you this: do you understand the meaning of 'inflammation'? Even ordinary Englisj dictionaries will school you up and let you know that it is not only about swelling, but also about an area of your body getting red and painful because of an infection or injury (MacMillan dictionary). I noted earlier that there are various types of this phenomenon - some could be swollen, others just appear like a dark or reddish patch on the skin (and I also left a website for anyone interested thereto) - and all you came back with was mere complaining? Interesting.

However, I was just wondering why no muslim has been able to point out the chapter and verses of the quran that appears on the boy's body? What's gwan - does it mean that such verses in the pix of the boy's body are not found in the quran anymore? Where are the graduates of arabic studies?

Ndipe, i like your Hebrews 1:4-8 reference - it just sums up the whole thing neatly.

I second the NL "PM (personal messaging)" - it's much easier and saves posters the hassles of trying to empty their e-boxes of junk and spam mails on a daily basis.

hehehe. . landlord, what's gwan?

uplawal:
@viaro,but its not that ure blind to see real from notreal,or do u now think the boys own and the other is the same right?

No, I'm not blind to notice the difference - in fact, there are different types of this phenomenon: some are embossed/raised on the skin, a few are just inflamed, others may appear like someone used a dye to darken parts of the skin. Here is just one example where the skin does not appear embossed/raised -

https://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs207.snc1/7432_1252529718488_1386896240_30717279_6896609_n.jpg

You can get a good tip of this allegy from this website - (Wellness.com) on Urticaria (hives).

You may want to explain why the boy's parents refused to make any meticulous dermatologic examination - does that not ring a bell or strike something within you? Why the refusal, uplawal?

If you want viaro to show you so many others, please let me know - they are not far from reach!