Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Even John and Paul disagree with the God of the OT

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Jesus never taught reincarnation, what Bible are you reading?


Yes he did.... you can lie to yourself all you want. We both KNOW he did and if you do not know that fact then you do not know other facts he indeed taught.

Check your Bible again. Im sure its the same I read.


When Jesus resurrected, did He reincarnate in another time, place and different body? No, the Bible is very clear that His body came back to life, not into a different body. Lazarus' body was raised, he did not become a different body altogether.

The glorified body does not imply reincarnation, it means that His body that was corrupt before now is no longer corrupt. Death was defeated. Reincarnation is a continuous cycle of life and death, life and death, life and death, and death is never defeated at all. The Bible says Jesus will come back the same as when He left. That means the same body He left in. So how can that be reincarnation?


KJV 1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.


Reincarnation

Reincarnation comes from the Hindu-buddhist philosophy of soul transmigration. This is the "religious" concept of the eternal birth-death-birth cycle, where a soul moves from body to body. The status of each successive body, whether human or animal, is the direct result of the quality of the life the soul led in the previous body.


Jesus did not reincarnate into another body, as maybe an animal, or a fish, or a bug....It was His body that was raised up, now to incorruption.

Hebrews 9:27 It is appointed unto man once to die, then after this the judgment.

Oh grave, where is thy victory? If the person goes from soul migration from body to body, each body dies again and again and again. Each body is corrupt and will die. But the resurrection from the dead means once this body dies, at the last trump, the call of Christ, this body will then raise up and put off death. Jesus has defeated death, once for all. This body with this soul, will be changed, not to another body, but this body will change to no longer be corrupt. The Bible does not teach reincarnation. Jesus is alive now, as He was when He ascended and will come back as He left.




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Reincarnation is a continuous cycle of life and death, life and death, life and death, and death is never defeated at all.


Once certian knowledge is attained and practiced it breaks said cycle according to that belief... Its not an eternal struggle.... Though some have a harder time with it

By the way... You win the slap.


Read hebrews 9:27 with the rest of the chapter... It has nothing to do with reincarnation




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
Read hebrews 9:27 with the rest of the chapter... It has nothing to do with reincarnation


No, it isn't a direct refutation to it, which isn't surprising, given that Jews would be unfamiliar with reincarnation, but it is a clear statement of beliefs that are in opposition to reincarnation.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
Read hebrews 9:27 with the rest of the chapter... It has nothing to do with reincarnation


No, it isn't a direct refutation to it, which isn't surprising, given that Jews would be unfamiliar with reincarnation, but it is a clear statement of beliefs that are in opposition to reincarnation.


Perhaps you know more about judaism then this particular "Rabbi" then?


There are many Jewish sources dealing with what is popularly
called "reincarnation." In Hebrew, it is called "gilgul
ha'ne'shamot," literally the recycling or transmigration of
souls.
This concept can be compared to a flame of one candle lighting
another candle. While the essence of the second flame comes from
the first one, the second flame is an independent entity.
Still, the new flame contains imperfections inherited from the
initial flame, and it is these imperfections that are to be
corrected.
Most of the written material is very esoteric, often written in
Aramaic. Some of the prominent works dealing with this subject
are the "Zohar" (1st century) and the Arizal's "Shaar HaGilgulim"
(16th century). In the Bible itself, the idea is intimated in
Deut. 25:5-10, Deut. 33:6 and Isaiah 22:14, 65:6.
Many sources say that a soul has a maximum of three chances in
this world. One example given is that the great Talmudic sage
Hillel was a reincarnation of the Biblical figure Aaron.
The soul only comes into this world in the first place in order
to make a spiritual repair. If that is not fulfilled by the end
of one's lifetime, then the soul will be sent down once again.
The return trip may only be needed for a short time or in a
limited way. This in part explains why people are born with
handicaps or may live a brief life.
It is not necessary that there be a conscious awareness in order
for the correction to take place. Conscious awareness is only one
level of understanding.


judaism.about.com...

I would think there were jews that were familar with the concept...




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
Read hebrews 9:27 with the rest of the chapter... It has nothing to do with reincarnation


No, it isn't a direct refutation to it, which isn't surprising, given that Jews would be unfamiliar with reincarnation, but it is a clear statement of beliefs that are in opposition to reincarnation.


Perhaps you know more about judaism then this particular "Rabbi" then?


I believe that I already pointed out that Kabbalah is not mainstream Judaism.


The fact that reincarnation is part of Jewish tradition comes as a surprise to many people. Nevertheless, it's mentioned in numerous places throughout the classical texts of Jewish mysticism, starting with the preeminent sourcebook of Kabbalah, the Zohar. (Source)


Neither Jesus, nor orthodox Judaism in his time, showed any signs of following Kabbalah, so I think it is safe to ignore claims brought in through mysticism.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
Read hebrews 9:27 with the rest of the chapter... It has nothing to do with reincarnation


No, it isn't a direct refutation to it, which isn't surprising, given that Jews would be unfamiliar with reincarnation, but it is a clear statement of beliefs that are in opposition to reincarnation.


Perhaps you know more about judaism then this particular "Rabbi" then?


I believe that I already pointed out that Kabbalah is not mainstream Judaism.


The fact that reincarnation is part of Jewish tradition comes as a surprise to many people. Nevertheless, it's mentioned in numerous places throughout the classical texts of Jewish mysticism, starting with the preeminent sourcebook of Kabbalah, the Zohar. (Source)


Neither Jesus, nor orthodox Judaism in his time, showed any signs of following Kabbalah, so I think it is safe to ignore claims brought in through mysticism.


You stated that reincarnation is not something that Jews would be familiar with around that time... Yet it is mentioned in the talmud.....


In the Talmud, "gilgul neshamot" (i.e., reincarnation) is constantly mentioned. The term literally means "the judgment of the revolutions of the souls." In this view, people who had committed extraordinary sins were given an opportunity to return to life in order to set things right. More particularly, they were reincarnated in circumstances similar to those of their previous incarnation. Thus, Moses and Jethro, for example, were supposed to be the gilgulim of Cain and Abel.


And the Pharisees also understood the concept of reincarnation according to Josephus... Not to mention the other sources mentioned by Mamaj

Whether or not they believed in it is beside the point... Most would have likely known of it since the concept was around long before Christ came.

I believe the Talmud is the second most important book within Orthodox Judaism... Are you saying Orthodox Jews would have dismissed this particular aspect of it?

Somehow i doubt that... Though what do i know... we need a Jew!






Edit: from your reply on the last page...



The four Gospels and some of the Epistles that are now in the New Testament spoke clearly of a physical resurrection of Christ, the Hebrew Bible speaks of physical resurrection, and these texts were in widespread use in the Christian community


And you see nothing in those texts about a spiritual resurrection?


At least the Gospels were also in use within the Gnostic Christian community


I would say, more then most people realize... Most Gnostic text rely on the NT in one way or the other...(IMHO)


The dualistic Gnostics had to explain why Jesus, their Bringer of Gnosis, would have been returned to his material form


Unless they read the Gospels, where they would find that he needed to return to convince everyone he was telling the truth about returning and of course who he was.... I would assume they probably read them... wouldn't you?


Their majority response was to adopt Docetism, to claim that Jesus had never been material, and that "resurrection" referred to something else entirely.


Like i said to NuT, Gnosticism is hardly a unified religion, like christianity there are various beliefs not held by everyone of said religion... At that time i don't even think Gnosticism was an actual religion either way... It was likely a Group of Christians that held different beliefs then the mainstream church...yet feared persecution of said church... Irenaeus was the first to use the word in aprox 185AD... and these beliefs were around long before him as well..


edit on 28-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
You stated that reincarnation is not something that Jews would be familiar with around that time... Yet it is mentioned in the talmud.....


I would question the statement in your cite that "reincarnation is constantly mentioned" in the Talmud. I hate citing Wikipedia, but I did some superficial digging and couldn't come up with any references that weren't Kabbalist, and I have a bunch of stuff to do this morning, so I'll just note this:


The notion of reincarnation, while held as a mystical belief by some, is not an essential tenet of traditional Judaism. It is not mentioned in traditional classical sources such as the Tanakh ("Hebrew Bible"), the classical rabbinic works (Mishnah and Talmud), or Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.(Source)



Somehow i doubt that... Though what do i know... we need a Jew!


Agreed.


And you see nothing in those texts about a spiritual resurrection?


The issue isn't about that, since "spiritual resurrection" could be fitted into either Christianity or Gnosticism, but about physical resurrection, which is very clearly stated in the text.


Unless they read the Gospels, where they would find that he needed to return to convince everyone he was telling the truth about returning and of course who he was.... I would assume they probably read them... wouldn't you?


Well, as I said, we know that they were used, but we don't know what form they were in. Were they redacted, as Marcion had done with his Gospel of Luke? I suspect so, at least in some measure, and they most likely rejected the Gospel of John, which has anti-dualistic tones to it.


Like i said to NuT, Gnosticism is hardly a unified religion, like christianity there are various beliefs not held by everyone of said religion...


Actually, Gnosticism pre-dates Christianity by several hundred years, and the majority had nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity at all. We're just most familiar with the Gnostic Christians because of their conflict with the orthodox church. After being voted down for Bishop of Rome, Valentinus apparently got the bright idea to blend Christianity with pre-existing Gnostic beliefs, making Christ the Bringer of Gnosis, and him (Valentinus) the head of the church.

I suspect that his ideas caught on as well as they did due to a fairly widespread acceptance of dualism, as well as the notoriety of Gnosticism within the Empire (Greek areas, particularly -- Gnosticism is basically a religious extension of Platonism,) and so when new Christians struggled with the anti-Gnostic nature of orthodox theology, something that seemed to reconcile the two (even though it didn't,) was probably pretty attractive.

Just a personal theory, though.
edit on 28-9-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Reincarnation is a continuous cycle of life and death, life and death, life and death, and death is never defeated at all.


Once certian knowledge is attained and practiced it breaks said cycle according to that belief... Its not an eternal struggle.... Though some have a harder time with it

By the way... You win the slap.


Read hebrews 9:27 with the rest of the chapter... It has nothing to do with reincarnation



Thank you for the slap. That was very generous of you. Of course it has nothing to do with reincarnation, it is about resurrection.

If you are so adamant about reincarnation being a Biblical concept and that Christ, who apparently attained that knowledge, spoke about reincarnation, show us where Jesus said the word reincarnation. I want to see the word itself, not some reading back into the text.

I would like for you to then show me directly any verse where Jesus attribute the Buddha any such statements, and I would like for you to show me directly anywhere in the Torah that mentions it. When the Bible says "in the Spirit of Elijah" that does not mean reincarnation. And for that matter, it was attributed to John the Baptist. Show me where John the Baptist claims to have reached that ultimate knowledge and practice. As you should understand, Elijah was carried away to heaven alive. He did not die and neither did Enoch. So if Enoch never died, show me something from Enoch that supports reincarnation.

BTW, I do know Jewish rabbis. I do know Jewish scholars and every one of them will tell you the Talmud is not scripture but the opinions of rabbis.

So if you can, since you want to claim reincarnation is an older concept and that Jesus practiced Hinduism or Buddhism or Taoism, show me the where Jesus refers to it. Jesus refers back to the Torah, every time.

So if Jesus is quoting the Torah, and those Torah verses are actually older than Buddha, then it should not be difficult to find one verse anywhere that Jesus said about reincarnation.

What you will do is this....
1:Jesus went to Egypt and learned magic.
2.Jesus traveled to India and learned Hinduism.
3.Jesus is an ascended Master.
4.Jesus never really lived.
5.The church created by Paul was a 300 year conspiracy plan in action.
Those are generally the arguments, right?

1. Show us where Jesus went to in Egypt and who He learned from, that should be easy enough.
2. When all else fails, say Jesus went to India in those missing years. Show us the proof.
3. If Jesus is an ascended Master, is He on the Council of Nine?
4. Too many historical sources prove He did live.
5. So Paul set forth a conspiracy to rule in a time he would not be alive to do so?

Why does Jesus never make one single reference to Hinduism? Why did Jesus never say "The Buddha"? That seems highly suspect if He was promoting someone who taught Him. And why then did not the Indians themselves say to Thomas that he was telling them something they already knew, when Thomas was preaching Christianity? You would think they would recognize something in his teaching that was familiar with them. But they did not.

So show us a verse where Jesus says "this is reincarnation".



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Adjensen,
I wonder when they will realize that Prince Guatama really only made a new religion out of his own opinion. He did the same thing as Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

Christianity is a descendent from Judaism. People might think Islam is, but allah and Yaweh are not the same. So even though Islam makes the same claim of being an Abrahamic faith, one should wonder, was the faith based before or after the covenant with Yaweh? I see too many parallels of the Persian religion before Abraham that is in the Quran.

One finds these parallels even in the Rig Veda. History has proven this, that the Aryans took with them into India what became Hinduism. They mixed ideas. But where were the Aryans from? Aren't they from the ancient Assyrians? So if the Assyrian religion is much older than Hinduism, therefore older than Buddhism, then the claims of reincarnation are more recent than the Bible is.

Abraham is the first great teacher and founder of the Jews. The word Israel has been found on steles and inscriptions in Egypt and not only that....

Abraham first appears as Abram, until he is renamed by God in Genesis 17:5. Both names are West Semitic, and similar and even identical names have been found in texts dating from the 14th century BCE to the 7th



The time of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain: most early-20th-century historians dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[17] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.[18] [19]


So they really have to ask themselves, which came earlier? Even Moses came earlier than Buddha, and it was Moses who first codified the religion already established by Abraham. And since neither Moses nor Abraham mentions reincarnation, it would seem that it was not a concept within the religion.

If we want to go back in the Bible as far as we can, the establishment of religion is found among the children of Seth,

KJV Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.


Therefore the first preacher of monotheism was....Enos. And Jesus was a descendent from Enos. The descendents of Cain practiced polytheism. And it was from that polytheism that Hinduism with all its reincarnation developed from.

The Bible has the history that is proven every day.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Who's to say that "Abraham" isn't a corruption of "Brahma", or "Christos" a corruption of "Krisna"?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BadBeast
Who's to say that "Abraham" isn't a corruption of "Brahma", or "Christos" a corruption of "Krisna"?


You ever seen a 3 headed person or a blue guy with a flute in real life? No, that's because you won't. Furthermore his name was Ibrim, later change to Ibrihim. The word "Christos" derives from the roman Christus which the hebrew word is Mashiach (Messiah) which means "Anointed One". Brahma, Devaki and Krishna derive from Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. All those ancient pagan religions had trinities of Father, Mother and Son worship.
edit on 28-9-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by BadBeast
Who's to say that "Abraham" isn't a corruption of "Brahma", or "Christos" a corruption of "Krisna"?


You ever seen a 3 headed person or a blue guy with a flute in real life? No, that's because you won't. Furthermore his name was Ibrim, later change to Ibrihim. The word "Christos" derives from the roman Christus which the hebrew word is Mashiach (Messiah) which means "Anointed One". Brahma, Devaki and Krishna derive from Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. All those ancient pagan religions had trinities of Father, Mother and Son worship.


Good response, but you forgot to point out that the Bible wasn't written in English, as well



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by BadBeast
Who's to say that "Abraham" isn't a corruption of "Brahma", or "Christos" a corruption of "Krisna"?


You ever seen a 3 headed person or a blue guy with a flute in real life? No, that's because you won't. Furthermore his name was Ibrim, later change to Ibrihim. The word "Christos" derives from the roman Christus which the hebrew word is Mashiach (Messiah) which means "Anointed One". Brahma, Devaki and Krishna derive from Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. All those ancient pagan religions had trinities of Father, Mother and Son worship.


Good response, but you forgot to point out that the Bible wasn't written in English, as well

I realise that, but names and titles aren't necessarily anglicised.

@lonewolf"Christos" actually derives from the ancient Greek the New Testament was written in, predating the Roman usage of "christus" in origin. And "Brahmin" denotes one of Priestly class, deriving from Brahma, (or one of his avatars} which would tie in with Ibrahim / Abraham being the first, or primary "Priest". And believe it or not, I once saw Krisna, blue skin and all, ride across the sky in a golden chariot.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BadBeast
 





@lonewolf"Christos" actually derives from the ancient Greek the New Testament was written in, predating the Roman usage of "christus" in origin. And "Brahmin" denotes one of Priestly class, deriving from Brahma, (or one of his avatars} which would tie in with Ibrahim / Abraham being the first, or primary "Priest". And believe it or not, I once saw Krisna, blue skin and all, ride across the sky in a golden chariot.


One problem. Abraham wasn't from India, he came from out of Babylon, Ur of the Chaldees which is in modern Iraq, India is a loooong way from Sumeria. Ur was originally a sumerian city after the sumerian civilization fell it ended up in chaldean hands. As for you seeing Krishna, pics or it didn't happen
. I'd quit drinking the water where you are.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BadBeast

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by BadBeast


@lonewolf"Christos" actually derives from the ancient Greek the New Testament was written in, predating the Roman usage of "christus" in origin. And "Brahmin" denotes one of Priestly class, deriving from Brahma, (or one of his avatars} which would tie in with Ibrahim / Abraham being the first, or primary "Priest". And believe it or not, I once saw Krisna, blue skin and all, ride across the sky in a golden chariot.


@Badbeast....uh, no. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek

Koine Greek was the common language in Rome, it was concurrent because of Alexander the Great's Hellenization of the Empire.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join