The bible is the bait and hook the "devil" uses to get you.

a reply to: Logarock

How did I change the subject? You're the one denying there is EXTRA-BIBLICAL, NON-agenda-driven journalism-style documentation of the beliefs of the common people during Jesus's time. Just because it didn't get "included" in the Bible does not mean it doesn't exist, for crying out loud!! All it means is just that: It was left out of the Bible. On purpose.

In this thread alone, windword DID provide you with a link to documentation. You're just refusing to look at it. And if you were really interested, you would do a simple ATS search for all the threads on reincarnation that have been posted just in the past two years. GOBS of them. Have a look at them and get with the program. If you don't read the required texts, you will fail the course.

Why should I start back at square one trying to devise a "lesson plan" for you, a grown adult, when the material is READILY available right here, in this thread, and in other threads, and all over the web? Entire shelves in your local library stacks that evidence it?

Your stance is one that reflects a lack of willingness to even try; and if you accidentally came across any I can picture you foaming at the mouth and screaming, "Burn it! Burn it! Ban this member! Blacklist this author! And this researcher!; this scientist!; this historian! these NAYSAYERS!"
Reminds me of the days when it was commonplace to see unraveled video-tape and cassette-tape in tangled wads on the median or in the gutters along the street.

shrug.

I just wonder what your problem with it is. Would it somehow injure you to do a little curious research? (Aside from learning that you actually WON'T get the sweet revenge you imagine when you pray for other souls to burn in hell.) Sheesh - just do a Google or Bing or Ask search and see how many hits you get...

Back to you, Jack.

Reincarnation and the bible .... I think it's pretty clearly in the New Testament. The whole John the Baptizer being reincarnated Elijah thing. Straight from Jesus own words. When we look at Jesus teachings, you can see a combo of Judaism and Buddhism.

originally posted by: imod02
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Simple, the OP you are talking about is not an attack on the koran, but an attack on people who do not believe in the same interpretation as the OP did. ATS is by no means as free as you think it is. For anything to be free it must be questioned all the time otherwise it finds a dark corners to hide. Ats has lots and lots of dark corners.

Come on man! Don't try to pretend like it is something different. THIS thread is a thread saying that the bible isn't what it seems, it's not an attack on people. The other thread is a thread saying that the qu'ran isn't what it seems. It's the same thing, two different religions. I don't know why you think that this thread is an attack on people when it isn't. It's questioning that the content isn't what most think it is. Which again is the same as the other thread.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

This is one of those things which I think could of been changed to fit the Roman agenda. Ancient Egyptians were Sun Worshippers and I would say the Roman Pagans could fall under the same banner. Maybe it was them that introduced the reincarnation thing to Christianity? But at the same time I'm not saying it's correct either.

The Romans are the ones who pushed the current dogma of Christianity. So it is more likely that reincarnation was the accepted part of Christianity first, then the Romans changed it to fit their needs.

There is no evidence that the early christians or the Romans had anything to do with reincarnation. Even sun worship is a resurrection idea, the resurrection from the nether world of the sun each day on its solar barge. This is how hard core sun worshipers saw themselves. That's why the Egyptians took care to mummify the dead because the body would be resurrected at some point. Christian ideas about resurrection do diverge from the sun worshipers to a very great extent theologically even if they appear to be convergent to the unlearned.

I didn't say that there was evidence of this, that's why I used the phrase "more likely". By the way, the god of the bible IS a sun god. You are proving my point by talking about sun gods being about reincarnation.

Looking at the pie chart brings up one question, what is the difference between non religious and atheist?

originally posted by: On7a7higher7plane
a reply to: Krazysh0t

External source being God, gods, entities outside of any human involved with the cult. Then it's no longer an empty cult, it's a religion.

And where is this proof of "god, gods, entities out of any human involved with the cult"?

Also mainstream "historians" have created a traditional school of thought that is partially incorrect. There is evidence and absurd "coincidences" to dispute their claims but they just ignore and attack people contradicting their established version of "ancient history", it's a cover-up perpetuated by people that are ignorant.

Yes all this non-evidence of "godly" things really exists, it's just being suppressed. *rolls eyes* The Catholic church has been the main ruling body of the western world for centuries before your evil historians got a hold of it. They had every reason to produce the evidence required but never did. Now it is time for reasonable thinking people to take the reigns and interpret history with the given evidence. If ya'll don't like it, produce the evidence to the contrary.

They got the Giza story all wrong, they also got their ice age story wrong. There was a massive cataclysm that their is evidence for, a flood. You would be silly to dispute it.

Ok, produce this massive evidence for a flood. If you say it exists and there is a massive amount of it, you should have no problem producing it. Thank god for the internet right?

Also just because historians MAY be wrong about things (I agree that the history of giza may be wrong as well as when we say civilization started), but that DOESN'T mean you can make up your own version of events without any evidence to substantiate it. You just say that you don't know. It is intellectually dishonest to say anything else.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why does God have to be proven? John says that "God has never been seen before" and in another part of the Bible it says "That men who were moved by the spirit of God wrote the Books". The Bible itself admits that men wrote the books, it's just they were influenced by teachings that came prior to their existence.

originally posted by: GafferUK1981
Looking at the pie chart brings up one question, what is the difference between non religious and atheist?

Non-religious people can be understood as ones who don't accept the dogmas of religions while still believing in a higher intelligence or power. Atheists believe nothing exists outside of what our perceptions allow us to see, thus their idea that "if I can't see God he must not exist".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: pleasethink
a reply to: Logarock

I am not using the Bible to prove that reincarnation is true. I'm using it to prove that reincarnation was a popular belief system, and, that even the apostles and the pharisees believed in.

Matthew 11
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

Now, we can debate what the definition of "IS" is, or why some translations switched the word "IS" to "THE". And we debate what the word "THE" means!

But, no matter, you have to do some pretty convoluted twisting and contorting to convince yourself that this scripture doesn't refer to reincarnation.

I don't know if you actually read what I already posted, but in order for reincarnation (a dead person being born into a different body) to be proven, doesn't the person have to die first? If you will use the Bible to prove a theory on your part, please understand that the Bible itself refutes your testimony, as Elijah did not die, according to the Bible. Therefore your entire Biblical based theory doesn't support your argument.

Just saying. Also, the jews never believed in reincarnation. In fact they didn't even believe in a place called heaven. This is an entirely Christian understanding that has bled into other Abrahamic religions over time. The resurrection of the dead unto judgment. Read Ecclisiastes. It is written by a jew from before the time of Christ. Read Job, probably predating Moses. Read Proverbs. You will begin to see a underlying theme. To live in the now as what is to come is unknowable. To seek G-d wholeheartedly, to procure wisdom and understanding, and to enjoy the bounty of life in a morally upright manor as not to defile ones self with foolishness and arrogance. To be a beacon of bright life in a world of darkness. This was before Yeshua. This was when sin condemned men to death, and the attitude shows it. To enjoy life, as death is final.

Yeshua changed this in a powerful way, as He spoke as someone with authority and knowledge of these things, in a personal way. What He spoke of was not about reincarnation, but resurrection from the dead to be born unto judgement. When He is referring to "being born again" it is the baptism of the Spirit which He referred to many times over and over. The death of the old sin caused death into a life eternal under G-d, as His children. It was His teaching that all would be brought before G-d in judgement on the Day of the Lord. And on that day those who died would rise up to be judged. This has been an underlying theme of other religions, it is true. But never in the way He taught it. He was the sacrifice. A selfless act procuring salvation for those who would accept it. Like I have said, it speaks directly to the human condition in a masterful way, and is the reason it has changed so many lives.

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why does God have to be proven? John says that "God has never been seen before" and in another part of the Bible it says "That men who were moved by the spirit of God wrote the Books". The Bible itself admits that men wrote the books, it's just they were influenced by teachings that came prior to their existence.

That's funny, because in the OT it says that not only was God seen, but he has walked and talked with man before (adam and eve, moses, noah, etc). So which is it?

God needs to be proven because without proof of God then the claim in a book (that YOU just admitted) that was written by man that it was divinely inspired needs substantiating. Any crazy person could write a book then say they were divinely inspired to do so. That doesn't make what he said true.

ETA: Still waiting for that massive evidence for a global flood that you say exists.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why does God have to be proven? John says that "God has never been seen before" and in another part of the Bible it says "That men who were moved by the spirit of God wrote the Books". The Bible itself admits that men wrote the books, it's just they were influenced by teachings that came prior to their existence.

That's funny, because in the OT it says that not only was God seen, but he has walked and talked with man before (adam and eve, moses, noah, etc). So which is it?

God needs to be proven because without proof of God then the claim in a book (that YOU just admitted) that was written by man that it was divinely inspired needs substantiating. Any crazy person could write a book then say they were divinely inspired to do so. That doesn't make what he said true.

ETA: Still waiting for that massive evidence for a global flood that you say exists.

With all do respect not a single person on this planet has any obligation to prove their beliefs to you or anyone else. You're an intelligent person from what I've seen so you more than most should be aware that an individuals beliefs are shaped by their experiences in life, some of which can not be explained away by physical evidence.

I'm sure every one of you is aware that this forum thread can not and will not answer any doubt's so to continue debating over seedless fruits is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

So OP you believe in god ?

What faith are you?

Why is it the majority of post on this forum examine the Christian faith, why not include them all?

a reply to: pleasethink

I don't know if you actually read what I already posted, but in order for reincarnation (a dead person being born into a different body) to be proven, doesn't the person have to die first? If you will use the Bible to prove a theory on your part, please understand that the Bible itself refutes your testimony, as Elijah did not die, according to the Bible. Therefore your entire Biblical based theory doesn't support your argument.

First of all, the Bible never says that Elijah did not die. Secondly, it doesn't matter if he died for not.

Do not be amazed that I said to you, You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

The "born again" soul is free to go wherever it wants to, to incarnate or not to incarnate.

The prophecy that must be shown to have been fulfilled is prophecy of the coming of Elijah to pave of the way for the Messiah. No Elijah, no Messiah.

MALACHI 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. 6 And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."

Just saying. Also, the jews never believed in reincarnation.

Your "just saying" doesn't make it true. I have already cited Josephus, where he explains the beliefs of the Pharisees and they did indeed believe in the reincarnation. So did the Essene, as is shown in their writings found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were expecting the return of their "Teacher of Righteousness."

About Elijah,, traditional Jewish eschatology held that Elijah had to appear before the coming of the Messiah.

a reply to: pleasethink

Elijah the Tishbite did not die, but rather was risen up on chariots of fire, if one was to believe the Bible.

Good point, ty,

"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven"

originally posted by: EviLCHiMP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why does God have to be proven? John says that "God has never been seen before" and in another part of the Bible it says "That men who were moved by the spirit of God wrote the Books". The Bible itself admits that men wrote the books, it's just they were influenced by teachings that came prior to their existence.

That's funny, because in the OT it says that not only was God seen, but he has walked and talked with man before (adam and eve, moses, noah, etc). So which is it?

God needs to be proven because without proof of God then the claim in a book (that YOU just admitted) that was written by man that it was divinely inspired needs substantiating. Any crazy person could write a book then say they were divinely inspired to do so. That doesn't make what he said true.

ETA: Still waiting for that massive evidence for a global flood that you say exists.

With all do respect not a single person on this planet has any obligation to prove their beliefs to you or anyone else. You're an intelligent person from what I've seen so you more than most should be aware that an individuals beliefs are shaped by their experiences in life, some of which can not be explained away by physical evidence.

When I told that poster that he needs to prove god, that wasn't a demand to rationalize his belief, that was a demand to help convince me and others that what he says is true. If he wants his religion and beliefs accepted by others of my mind, he needs to show that god is real. Otherwise, I resort to the Null Hypothesis.

If he doesn't want to prove god, that's fine with me, but he better not get all fussy if I point out the flaws in his beliefs that make it so that I don't believe in his god.

I'm sure every one of you is aware that this forum thread can not and will not answer any doubt's so to continue debating over seedless fruits is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

I never find it a valid reason to discount someone's input on an issue. While yes, most if not all of the points made may have already been made many times before, there is always a chance that someone will say something that hasn't been said before. Discouraging these conversations because of rehashed arguments may prevent us from ever gaining these insights. Not to mention, even if nothing new is discussed, these discussions can always be viewed as debate practice. I personally try to grow and adapt my debating process with each discussion I participate in. It has truly changed my world view since I first joined this forum 2 years ago.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Christians are not supposed to try to prove anything, that why we were told to wipe the dust off our feet.

You offer the messages and if it is not received, bye bye, lol

Its all about faith and hope and love and a hope of a better day, in a better place, that is the simple explanation.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Exactly, and that is one of the reasons membership in your religion is declining. That crap don't flush anymore. If ya'll want to honestly boost your believers without resorting to violent and coercive tactics (I know this is tough for religions, but hear me out), you're going to have to find better ways to bring people into the flock. Proof of God would be a pretty big one. So yes, you can remain adamant about not proving your deity, but don't be surprised if the number of non-believers grows year after year, generation after generation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In all my years I have never known anyone to use violent and coercive tactics, I don't even witness to people, I did when I was young occasionally.

I don't witness to people on the forum, certain atheist on the forum however seem to be on a mission and spend a lot of time witnessing against Christianity.


The message for me, and how I was taught was all about love, love your neighbor as yourself, feed the homeless, visit the sick, yada yada

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In all my years I have never known anyone to use violent and coercive tactics, I don't even witness to people, I did when I was young occasionally.

Indoctrinating the youth without letting them come to their own beliefs naturally is pretty coercive in my book.

I don't witness to people on the forum, certain atheist on the forum spend a lot of time witnessing against Christianity.

Certain Christians do the opposite to non-believers on this forum. Just because you may not do it, doesn't mean that others don't.

The message for me and how I was taught was all about love, love you neighbor as yourself, feed the homeless, visit the sick, yada yada

Awesome, and I'm glad for you, but it's still not good enough obviously.