3 year old recalls past life ,Identifies killer and location of body

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: windword

You're just making it worse for yourself. Ezekiel has nothing to do with reincarnation. It has to do with judgment and how each person is responsible for their own sins.

No. I never said it did. I'm refuting you assertion that Jews believed in inherited sin. Original sin isn't supported by the Old Testament.

Romans 5:12-21 will clear up any ideas you have about original sin. Jesus clearly taught it as did his apostles.

1 Cor also discusses it.

I don't give a flying fig about Paul's opinion of original sin. Jesus' teachings didn't support it and the Old Testament doesn't support it. It's a Catholic construct, like the Trinity.

There's no getting around it. Many Jews believed in reincarnation. It's well documented.

“The Pharisees believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them and that the virtuous shall have power to revive and live again: on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of people.”

Josephus himself, who served as a soldier, once rallied his men to fight by citing the doctrine of reincarnation. Josephus said to his men:
“Do ye not remember that all pure Spirits when they depart out of this life obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolutions of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies.”
www.iisis.net...

Reincarnation, whether you believe in it or not, has roots in every religion on the Planet, even Christianity.

And again you are completely wrong. Jews believed the soul was remembered and stored by god. They would be returned to new bodies at the resurrection AFTER the end of times. Josephus believed in whole body resurrection. Sure that is a form of reincarnation I guess you could say, but not even remotely related to what you believe. It is a one time resurrection where all who have died will be judged and resurrected.

Your belief has no standing whatsoever in either the old or new testemant. No biblical scholar would agree that it does either.

a reply to: windword

I sometimes can get empathic visions on subjects and since reading this thread i get that he was a killer in a past life. It was the same soul and he was at war with the one that burried him. I'm thinking somewhere around twelve notches on his belt. That is just the imppression i get that the story is true.

a reply to: raymundoko

Jews believed the soul was remembered and stored by god. They would be returned to new bodies at the resurrection AFTER the end of times.

Not according to Josephus and his account of the Pharisees. Read it again:

The Pharisees believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them and that the virtuous shall have power to revive and live again:

Nothing about a stored memory and new bodies at the end of time. The Pharisees believed that the virtuous soul had the power to revive and live again. That's very similar to what Jesus said:

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Josephus believed in whole body resurrection.

That's not what he taught or used to inspire his troops.

“Do ye not remember that all pure Spirits when they depart out of this life obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolutions of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies.”

Hmmm...."they are again sent in to pure bodies...."

and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

See, no original sin!

Your belief has no standing whatsoever in either the old or new testemant. No biblical scholar would agree that it does either.

Lies!

It was not until some five centuries after the origin of Christianity, when it had long been the state religion of Rome, that the belief in reincarnation was formally declared to be not according to orthodox dogma.8

Reincarnation was accepted by some of the church fathers and prevailed so widely in early Christendom that as late as the middle of the sixth century after Christ
www.ccel.us...

History records that the early Christian church believed in Reincarnation and of the souls journey back to oneness with God. This all changed by Imperial decree some 500 plus years after the death of Christ.
Emperor Justinian in 545 A.D. was able to apply the full power of Rome and his authority to stop the belief in reincarnation. He forced the ruling cardinals to draft a papal decree stating that anyone who believes that souls come from God and return to God will be punished by death. The actual decree stated:

“If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema. (The Anathemas against Origen), attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 14: 318).”
reluctant-messenger.com...

originally posted by: stirling
I guess you just have to experience such things to know they are true....the rest of us will always wonder, hope , and doubt....

What does that even mean? This case doesn't prove reincarnation, as others in the thread agree. All it proves is that this child had knowledge he shouldn't have been able to have. That isn't proof. It's interesting, and it shows something unusual occurred there, but there isn't enough information to say what that something was. Assuming it's reincarnation is assuming too much. There are other ways someone could know something like that. Spiritual messengers would be one such way, as I already suggested. Why assume one thing is the only solution? Why pretend that I said nothing unusual happened, when I didn't?

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: maddy21

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: maddy21

Well, this is interesting, but it's a long way from proof of reincarnation. All this proves is that the child had some way to know about the murder case, in detail. Assuming it's because of a "past life" is assuming too much.

I would lean more to a spiritual cause, as in, some spirit gave him the information.

He is just 3 year old ...

So? At three, you can accept reincarnation, but not some spiritual messenger? All this shows is knowledge. The source of that knowledge isn't proven at all.

That doesnt explain the birthmarks that often correspond to past deaths.

A lot of people have birthmarks; that doesn't mean they had some past life. I know of this case alone. What others are there? What proof that any such mark is related to some "death in a former life"? It's an interesting note, but it isn't proof. People get hit in the head sometimes when they are murdered; that doesn't mean anyone with a birthmark on their head was murdered in a past life.

Try this possibility. A child is born with a birthmark. A demon sees the child, knows about a murder where someone was hit in around that spot, and gives the child information, to convince people that the child was reincarnated.

I can't prove that, and you can't prove reincarnation, either, with the information we have. One is as possible as the other. That's my point. It IS an interesting case, to be certain, but it isn't proof.

Again, that is resurrection. Listen, it's obvious you don't really know any of the facts about the bible and you are linking crazy person blogs to back up your line of thought. You can't link theological scholars because they don't agree with you. Crazy+crazy=sane I guess to you. I can tell you've already made up your mind and don't really want to engage in any type of honest debate.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: windword

In fact, from the very article you linked, which I don't think you read:

Reincarnation and the Bible
Many people insist that the Bible teaches reincarnation, citing a number of obscure verses, always out of context and buttressed by explanatory comments which have highly dubious exegetical roots.

That is exactly what you are doing.

And then:

The disciples were wrestling with the eternal question of seemingly unjust circumstances: a man with a severe birth defect lay at their feet. In probing Jesus as to the reason for these sad circumstances, they ask him what seems to be a double-barreled question, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
The implications of the first half of the question seem obvious enough within the context of reincarnationist speculation. As has been noted, rebirth doctrines were circulating in New Testament times, and the disciples, who were caught up in the spiritual whirlwind of speculation that surrounded Jesus, may well have considered theories of reincarnation. While it cannot be said with certainty that the disciples were referring to rebirth, it seems a likely explanation. How else could this man have "sinned," since he had been born blind?
The second half of the question centered on the Jewish concept that guilt was passed down several generations, and the possibility that the blind man was paying for his parents' or grandparents' transgressions.
Jesus' answer was direct and without hesitation: "It was not that this man sinned or his parents, but that the works of
Page 40
God might be made manifest in him." Having said that, Jesus healed him and the man then glorified God and worshiped Jesus. If reincarnation was believed and taught by Jesus, this would have been the ideal opportunity to explain the doctrines of karma and reincarnation; yet with one sentence, Jesus apparently excluded reincarnation as a possible explanation.

That who article actually disproves what you believe. Even though some may have allowed pagan influence into the church it was not part of the teachings of the bible.

That's like saying child molestation is a biblical teaching because some priests have done it.

a reply to: BO XIAN

That's exactly what I was thinking! Demonic information isn't limited like ours is.

Makes me worry about the child, too.

originally posted by: jessejamesxx
If I was murdered and reincarnated, I wouldn't know where my body was buried let alone where the murder weapon was.

The author of this fiction left a few plot holes.

Yes, he certainly did! Much more likely that some demon gave the information to the kid, to mislead people.

How anyone reads this and assumes it proves reincarnation, I can't imagine. It's an interesting story, but it isn't even proven, and there isn't enough information in it to prove anything, even if the story was 100% true.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I sometimes can get empathic visions on subjects and since reading this thread i get that he was a killer in a past life. It was the same soul and he was at war with the one that burried him. I'm thinking somewhere around twelve notches on his belt. That is just the imppression i get that the story is true.

Ah... I had the same "feeling" when I read that!

Most people don't come back as quickly as this kid did unless they were really bad in their past life. It's like they almost immediately go through a revolving door and get shot back here for a redo.

But, then again, when a person's life is cut short unexpectedly, before they have finished their lessons, they will also come back as quickly as possible. But I don't feel that was the case here.

a reply to: natalia

That mark is quite common. It's known as an angels kiss or a stork mark/bite. My 7 week old son has the same thing. He also has one over his left eyelid. They are most common in the middle of the forehead, on the eyelids and the back of the neck. They tend to fade by the time the child is 2 apart from the ones on the back of the neck which may not.

originally posted by: raymundoko

The second half of the question centered on the Jewish concept that guilt was passed down several generations, and the possibility that the blind man was paying for his parents' or grandparents' transgressions.
Jesus' answer was direct and without hesitation: "It was not that this man sinned or his parents, but that the works of
Page 40
God might be made manifest in him." Having said that, Jesus healed him and the man then glorified God and worshiped Jesus. If reincarnation was believed and taught by Jesus, this would have been the ideal opportunity to explain the doctrines of karma and reincarnation; yet with one sentence, Jesus apparently excluded reincarnation as a possible explanation.

That article actually disproves what you believe. Even though some may have allowed pagan influence into the church it was not part of the teachings of the bible.

That's like saying child molestation is a biblical teaching because some priests have done it.

This article PROVES NOTHING! This " supposed conclusion" was made by a man telling us what HE thinks those scriptures mean.

The author saying, "Jesus apparently excluded reincarnation as a possible explanation" is a "guess" on his part, and has NO foundation to stand on, except in his own mind. How does he know that Jesus was disproving reincarnation just because he didn't mention it? Can he read Jesus' mind?
I don't come to that conclusion at all when I read that. Why do you say he is right, and I'm wrong? Is it just because he is going along with what the Church wants people to believe?

Some people HAVE to come up with something to make the scriptures look as if they support the teachings of the Church, whether it actually does, or not; otherwise the Church would lose it's grip on the sheeple.

People sitting in the church pews just accept everything that spews from the pastor's mouth as truth, and go on about their life without even thinking about it twice, just because some guy behind the pulpit said that's what it means.

Pfffttt! Give me a break!!!!

Most preachers just spout off the same things that were passed down through the years as they were growing up, and they think it's all true.
I doubt any of them ever thought to do a little research on some of the scriptures meaning. They just took it and ran with the same ol', same ol'.

I'm not saying ALL of the Bible is untrue, just the scriptures that refer to reincarnation. They have been mistranslated!!

Open your mind just a tiny crack and really give this a good look. You may be surprised at what you discover!

Great thread - love all the contributions from all sides.

Sled - I just ordered the book you recommended on Christianity and Reincarnation. I'm skeptical of reincarnation, but I have a lot to learn.

My kids have said things that have made me pause. I remember when my son (four or so at the time) just told me very matter-of-factly that before he was born he was with God, and when you die you get to be with God again and wait until you get to be born again. As a Christian family, we had never discussed this idea with him - he seemed to just come up with it on his own. I asked him where it heard that and he said "nowhere, I just know it."

My daughter is very precocious - to a degree that if we technically believed in such things we would say she was an "old soul"... she started reading independently before many kids are even speaking much. I won't get into the laundry list of things with her - she is a bright girl, and in our culture and understanding we would just simply say that she is highly intelligent... but if we believed in reincarnation we might take some of these precocious skills ask being signs of knowledge from a past life.

To switch gears a little bit --- for those that point to DNA/genetic memories as the source of alleged past lives, I have a question. I must not understand this theory very well. The point at which DNA would be passed on to the next generation would be at the point of reproduction. Why would the offspring retain memories embedded in their DNA from things that happened to their parents/ancestors AFTER the point of reproduction? In other words, how would a child have memories of how his great grandfather died when his great grandfather contributed his DNA to the family gene pool at age 20 but died at age 70? I have a feeling I must be misunderstanding this argument... can someone help me out?

a reply to: raymundoko

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, hoping that you were capable of having an intellectual conversation, but obviously, you can't. You have chosen the road of obfuscation, and intellectual dishonesty.

You said that the concept of reincarnation and pre-existance has no grounding in theology. I showed you that reincarnation and pre-existence was embraced by early church fathers, and later, actually had to be outlawed throughout Christendom, because of it's popularity, during the 6th century.

You said that no biblical scholars would agree that reincarnation can be inferred from the Bible. I linked you to an article. wherein the author argued against 2 theologian scholars that positively affirmed reincarnation in the Bible.

Instead of admitting that there are scholars with legitimate assertions that the Bible teaches reincarnation, you claim that the one man's argument prove that there isn't any scholarly debate. Very dishonest!

You can't deny history, and history tells us that the Catholic Church at one point allowed for the doctrine of reincarnation. Historic documents also tells us that many Jews, including the Pharisees and the Essene, as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls, also believed in reincarnation.

We also know, as historic documents tell us, that many early Christians embraced reincarnation and pre-existence, in the Nag Hammadi texts.

originally posted by: Fylgje Does immortality exist through reincarnation?

That's thinkin' with your dipstick, Jimmy!

Hah, so I point out your complete failure and you're calling me intellectually dishonest??? that's laughable. Again, you didn't read the article you posted.

Jesus never ever referred to reincarnation. He did refer to a resurrection to paradise after gods kingdom was put in place on the earth.

If he believed in reincarnation he would have said so.

So you think child molestation is a part of church teachings?

reply to: windword

That's a horrible argument...because Jesus didn't mention reincarnation ever he must have believed in it??

a reply to: sled735

a reply to: windword

a reply to: raymundoko

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, hoping that you were capable of having an intellectual conversation, but obviously, you can't. You have chosen the road of obfuscation, and intellectual dishonesty.

Just ignore him, Windword; I'm going to. He is obviously just trolling. We have shown proof in our posts. If people aren't ready to see it, then they aren't ready. Maybe in their next life time.

You have shown zero proof reincarnation is biblical.

a reply to: sled735

originally posted by: VegHead
Great thread - love all the contributions from all sides.

Sled - I just ordered the book you recommended on Christianity and Reincarnation. I'm skeptical of reincarnation, but I have a lot to learn.

My kids have said things that have made me pause. I remember when my son (four or so at the time) just told me very matter-of-factly that before he was born he was with God, and when you die you get to be with God again and wait until you get to be born again. As a Christian family, we had never discussed this idea with him - he seemed to just come up with it on his own. I asked him where it heard that and he said "nowhere, I just know it."

My daughter is very precocious - to a degree that if we technically believed in such things we would say she was an "old soul"... she started reading independently before many kids are even speaking much. I won't get into the laundry list of things with her - she is a bright girl, and in our culture and understanding we would just simply say that she is highly intelligent... but if we believed in reincarnation we might take some of these precocious skills ask being signs of knowledge from a past life.

To switch gears a little bit --- for those that point to DNA/genetic memories as the source of alleged past lives, I have a question. I must not understand this theory very well. The point at which DNA would be passed on to the next generation would be at the point of reproduction. Why would the offspring retain memories embedded in their DNA from things that happened to their parents/ancestors AFTER the point of reproduction? In other words, how would a child have memories of how his great grandfather died when his great grandfather contributed his DNA to the family gene pool at age 20 but died at age 70? I have a feeling I must be misunderstanding this argument... can someone help me out?

That's great! I'm sure you will find it most enlightening. If you have any questions about anything in the book after reading it, you can send me a U2U, and I'll do my best to answer it for you.

Your kids sound awesome! Glad the son said that to give validation, and thank you for sharing it with the members here. People come closer to believing a child because of their innocence.