Let's talk about REINCARNATION again....by special request.

Originally posted by wildtimes
I mean, it's painfully obvious (or buoyantly obvious?) that the Bible can be interpreted both ways:

There is AMPLE scholarly work on both ends: That Jesus DID teach it (and the Jews at his time believed it as well); or that it is misinterpreted when he says 'This is Elijah', and the part about 'them' not recognizing him (as John the B) ....

But.....
I really want to know - is there any tiny fragment in your deepest mind that - NOTWITHSTANDING Biblical interpretation - has a PERSONAL OPINION?

If that opinion is "NOT POSSIBLE NO WAY" - can you offer anything other than your chosen interpretation of the Bible as evidence?

Okay, all of that is kind of confusing, and I don't know if it's directed at one person, or anyone, but...

(Upon rereading before posting, I see that I'm using "you" in a manner that is inappropriate, since it isn't addressed at WildTimes, but at the "generic you" who might be reading this thread.)

I believe that any view of the Bible, whether a Biblical Fundamentalist or anyone else, is invalid if it does not treat the text holistically. People who cite a bit of scripture here and a small passage there to support something, that the whole of the text does not reflect, are reading the text with eisegesis, and their conclusions are invalid.

Period.

With that in mind, a holistic reading of the Bible will find absolutely nothing in support of reincarnation -- nothing. The handful of passages that people use to lend support to their "Jesus taught reincarnation" belief are a stretch, at best, and make perfect sense in a Bible that has nothing to do with reincarnation and therefore, in my opinion, they have nothing to do with reincarnation.

The problem is that we are all westerners (well, most of us are) and so we have Jesus and the Christian worldview in our bloodstream and core philosophies, whether we like it or not, whether we believe in it or not. And so, when we attempt to adopt eastern concepts and philosophies, like reincarnation, instead of the sensible approach of rejecting our western heritage, we try to shoehorn the non-western stuff into our western beliefs, and that just doesn't work.

Jesus was an orthodox Jew. That may be prosaic and dull to many people, but that's what he was -- the only known evidence of Christ's life, written by the people who lived in the same time, testifies to this mundane background. But as a result of this, everything that Jesus was needs to be viewed in the context of his background -- not what you want him to be, not what he needs to be to meet your expectations, and not espousing views that would be alien to an orthodox Jew.

If that Jesus doesn't meet your expectations, then just accept the fact that your answers are not going to be found in the Bible.

we have actual people - young people - who say they remember past lives, ... nay, INSIST they had past lives. Those children are attended by a scientist, who carefully and painstakingly double-checks for any sign of a hoax or collaboration between the 'remembered' family and the 'current' family. Turned out they were legitimate.

Do you suppose that Ritual Satanic Abuse, testified to by children who would later realize that they had been manipulated into believing things that never happened were real, might have something in common with this?

Logically, the evidence that so many people "remember" that they were famous princes/princesses/religious figures, etc, when the actual ratio of those to regular people is probably 10,000 to 1, is an indication to me that these memories are not real. All it takes is more than one person to believe that they were Joan of Arc or Jesus to demonstrate that just because someone remembers something doesn't make it so. I know that there are arguments in favour of why so many people think that they were the King of England or Napoleon or whoever, but as a skeptic, their arguments just come off as rationalizations to me.

reply to post by wildtimes

we have actual people - young people - who say they remember past lives, ... nay, INSIST they had past lives. Those children are attended by a scientist, who carefully and painstakingly double-checks for any sign of a hoax or collaboration between the 'remembered' family and the 'current' family. Turned out they were legitimate.

Personally, I think demons are more than capable of passing this information to children in order to convince adults of anything they want them to. In my research, past occult practices of parents and/or grandparents can open doors leading to their children being visited by demons. No, I don't think this means that the children are possessed, just used as tools.

reply to post by windword

What a waste of God's creative energy, to create a planet of such beauty and awe, only to be enjoyed by his most favored creation for a few measly years, before an individual is crushed by the wheel of time, never to enjoy it again. Then, that individual is thrown into hell or passes into eternal bliss, while the whole thing starts over again, with a brand new soul, with no previous existence, thrown into a creation to either be embraced or discarded by it's creator.

Well, this creation (earth) is nothing compared to the one waiting for us (New Jerusalem) where there is no more death or a need to start over again. Eventually, the old will be replaced with a new and the old will cease to exist entirely.

reply to post by wildtimes


My theory is that the virgin birth and Jesus' baptism by John are talking about the same event: the birth of Jesus, a.k.a. John, the apostle whom Jesus (Mary) loved. What lead me to this idea is that 1. the virgin birth is ridiculous logically, 2. the birth and baptism of Jesus are mentioned one after the other in Luke and Matthew, and 3. Da Vinci's paintings.

Baptism is allegory for birth, John baptizing Jesus was actually Mary giving birth to Jesus. Da Vinci's painting of John the Baptist shows John with very feminine qualities and he also points to his chest and sky as if saying "I am god". Cross reference that painting with the Mona Lisa and you'll notice they both have the same expression on their faces of "I know something no one else does".

The Mona Lisa is most likely a self-portrait of Da Vinci himslf except as a woman. This gender swap on the Mona Lisa, the same expressions on their faces, and John's feminine qualities point me toward Jesus being a woman.

The facial expressions and gender swap along with John only being present during Jesus' baptism leads me to believe that John the Baptist, Mary, and Jesus are all the same person.

Da Vinci's the last supper shows a "V" pattern between Jesus and John, V is a symbol for femininity, another clue to the gender swap (in my opinion).

Also, I believe Paul did exist except his name wasn't Paul, it was Peter, a.k.a. Cephas, a.k.a. Caiaphas, the main man behind Jesus' capture and crucifixion. He is also Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus.

One reason I believe this is because of Luke. Luke's life has many parallels with that of a scholar named Plutarch from around the same time. I'll let you look it up, they're uncanny similarities. Plutarch was known for a work of his called "Parallel Lives" which compared the lives of separate people then melded them together.

The fact that Luke is called Lucius in Romans 16:21 and Plutarch's Roman name was Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus leads me to believe that they are the same person and the fact that Luke (Plutarch) wrote Acts and Parallel Lives leads me to believe that Luke split Peter into several different people in order to cover up his betrayal of Jesus and Rome's infiltration into the story.

My opinion of course. Sorry for the slight derail, I just have an active mind when it comes to stuff like this.





ETA: Both John the Baptist and Mary had very similar births. They were both born to a very old woman and both were deemed miraculous. These similarities lead me to the idea of both being the same person.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Akragon

 

By the way, Zechariah was one of those people that came before him... obviously

You can take stuff out of context in the bible and make it say anything you want. Here's what Jesus was talking about when he said "all those who came before me were thieves and robbers", false Messiah's which according to Gamaliel, a well known rabbi when Christ was walking the earth, made a comment that was recorded in the book of Acts about there being uprisings from other false Messiah's before Jesus, whose rebellions were put down after they were executed.

Acts 5:34-39

34 Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while. 35 And he said to them: “Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. 38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

So you see, there were no shortage of men in those days claiming to be Christ. None of the major or minor prophets were false prophets, least of all Zechariah as Zechariah's prophecies match the book of Revelation.

edit on 4-1-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

So let me get this straight....

You're using a book that was written damn close 100 years after Jesus lived to show what he actually meant?

Why not just read what he said?

And unfortunately we're still faced with the issue that he said ALL that came before me...

It seems to me the Christians here feel the need to correct who they claim is God in the flesh...

Ironic don't you think?

:shk:

reply to post by Deetermined

There are some who think that "all who came before me" (John 10:8) might have been the Pharisees based on scripture in Ezekiel 34, but when Jesus said "all who came", I think they were the messengers (angels) who were sent from above to help lead the nations, but led them astray instead.

Here's an example:

Exodus 23:13

13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

Yes we know your God is Jealous.... That's because he knows there are others like him...

Isaiah 26:13-14

13 O Lord our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name.

14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.

Please refer to the above statement...

We already know that Jesus didn't consider all human Israeli leaders and prophets as being thieves and robbers, otherwise he wouldn't have held such high regard for King David or the prophets in which he quoted from scripture.

Actually Jesus rarely quotes the OT... and as a matter of fact... He used to cherry pick from OT scripture... usually only using a few select words to get his point across.... Likely because he knew it was useless

More over I would claim boldly that he corrected from the OT... And only "taught" from it because that was the only scripture around at the time... Having been brought up in the jewish belief system it was what he was used to...

Perhaps you might look over that link you provided... theres barely anything in it... 6 pages of minor references

reply to post by Deetermined

Here's what we know. Jesus said that God was the God of the living and he made it clear that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were among the living. Here's how we know that Abraham was among the living...

This is the issue... YOU said they were resurrected...

And there is nothing in the bible that says any of the three you mentioned were resurrected... So you're basing what you said on an assumption.... nothing more

And you actually missed the point of this entire topic....

The spirit is eternal.... it does not die... so of course they are living where ever that next place is....

Your bible says specifically there is a God of this world.... And that God is not the true God...

He/she/it is the God of the material world... which is the same as the "angel of the lord" which moses met atop that mountain in my humble opinion

This is the world of the dead... because the body is dead without the spirit... as James said

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also

And the true God... the father of Jesus.... is NOT the God of the dead...

Originally posted by Akragon
So let me get this straight....

You're using a book that was written damn close 100 years after Jesus lived to show what he actually meant?

Actually, given the point at which the story lets off, it is highly unlikely that Acts was written after the death of Paul or the destruction of the Temple, both of which would have been significant events that the author would not have omitted (given how batty they were to be martyred, the Paul omission is particularly telling.)

reply to post by adjensen

I believe that any view of the Bible, whether a Biblical Fundamentalist or anyone else, is invalid if it does not treat the text holistically. People who cite a bit of scripture here and a small passage there to support something, that the whole of the text does not reflect, are reading the text with eisegesis, and their conclusions are invalid.

Do you mean, when you say one's opinion "is invalid if it does not treat the text holistically", one should consider Genesis through Revelations before commenting on a parable or lecture by Jesus or Paul? Or, do you mean one should be well versed in Matthew - Revelations to comment on the New Testament?

This just seems like a snobby way to dismiss people who you believe don't know what they're talking about, or who you believe are muddying your clear waters of understanding with "interpretation" that they somehow haven't earned?

Some of us don't pretend that the Bible is the unerrable word of God, and think that it should be scrutinized at close inspection. But, it seems to me that you're asking people to take the Bible at face value as the ultimate truth, even if it doesn't make sense, because, in your mind, those who reject certain tenets, or those who question or arrive at different interpretations than you are just ignorant to the bigger picture it presents. If you're only dedicated and knowledgeable enough, it will make sense through faith an prayer, right?

The fact of the matter is that the bible was written by numerous individuals of numerous eras, with their own views and opinions on the subject of the text and their own agendas, that they wove throughout the texts for their own social and political purposes.

Jesus was an orthodox Jew.

Jesus was an Essene.

At the time the Pharisees and Sadducees were in conflict with one another as to the correct interpretation of the Law, a body of Jewish devotees were endeavouring to realize its precepts in their daily life. This body became known as the Essenes. In contrast to the Pharisees and Sadducees the Essenes were not a party, but a religious order, founded upon communistic principles, and subject to ascetic rules of life.

Finding it impossible to reduce their distinctive ideas to practice in the heart of the community, the Essenes withdrew themselves from the civil and political life of Palestine, and in the time of Christ they were to be found, to the number of about four thousand, living for the most part in monasteries, under a monastic code of discipline.
www.heritage-history.com...

The Essenes could hardly be considered orthodox, at the time. Jesus argued the interpetation of the "The Law" with the Pharisees, and since the Pharisees and Sadducees of the time couldn't even agree on a interpretaion of "The Law", why do you think that the people of today should or could agree on interpretations of "The Law" and the teachings of the Bible?

Logically, the evidence that so many people "remember" that they were famous princes/princesses/religious figures, etc, when the actual ratio of those to regular people is probably 10,000 to 1, is an indication to me that these memories are not real. All it takes is more than one person to believe that they were Joan of Arc or Jesus to demonstrate that just because someone remembers something doesn't make it so. I know that there are arguments in favour of why so many people think that they were the King of England or Napoleon or whoever, but as a skeptic, their arguments just come off as rationalizations to me.

Really? That's a ridiculous dismissal and you're deliberately mocking and insulting the personal experience of anyone believing to have memories of previous lives, passing them off as mentally ill. The same is easily done with those claiming religious experiences as well.

How many people do you know personally, who believe they have memories of past lives? How many of those people claim to have been Cleopatra or Napoleon?

I have had interactions with a vast number of people who have relayed their memories to me, and not one them has been fantastic, in anyway. Most of their memories are of mundane and simple lives, that are remarkably similarity to their present day life goals and distractions.

There are plenty of threads, right here on ATS, filled with posts of people who are sharing their past lives' memories. You'll be hard pressed to find one person who has posted their memory of being Cleopatra or Napoleon or any other fantastic person of history or mythology.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
So let me get this straight....

You're using a book that was written damn close 100 years after Jesus lived to show what he actually meant?

Actually, given the point at which the story lets off, it is highly unlikely that Acts was written after the death of Paul or the destruction of the Temple, both of which would have been significant events that the author would not have omitted (given how batty they were to be martyred, the Paul omission is particularly telling.)

Fair enough...

I still see no rational reason to use another book to attempt to explain something Jesus said... Its as clear as day...

ALL that came before me are thieves and robbers...

Here's another instance....

John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Now did he mean God the father is greater then a few?

Or perhaps he meant most........ or almost all?

Originally posted by Akragon

Your bible says specifically there is a God of this world.... And that God is not the true God...

He/she/it is the God of the material world... which is the same as the "angel of the lord" which moses met atop that mountain in my humble opinion

This is the world of the dead... because the body is dead without the spirit... as James said

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also

And the true God... the father of Jesus.... is NOT the God of the dead...

Question: "How is Satan god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)?"

Answer: The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age”) indicates that Satan is the major influence on the ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people. His influence also encompasses the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his lies and deceptions.

Satan is also called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31. These titles and many more signify Satan’s capabilities. To say, for example, that Satan is the "prince of the power of the air" is to signify that in some way he rules over the world and the people in it.

www.gotquestions.org...

So, no, the god of this world isn't the "angel of the Lord".

reply to post by Deetermined


Im sorry but that was one of the saddest explanations I've seen in a long time....

Answer: The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age”) indicates that Satan is the major influence on the ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people. His influence also encompasses the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his lies and deceptions.

Considering we know almost nothing about this Satan... This is nothing but ridiculous speculation...

Read Jhills thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Blaming the devil for everything that's wrong with this world is truly pathetic...

blame the people in this world for its problems, not some dude with a pitchfork...

So, no, the god of this world isn't the "angel of the Lord".

Well... I disagree.

And by the way im not calling you pathetic just so we're clear... Only your arguement

Originally posted by windword
Do you mean, when you say one's opinion "is invalid if it does not treat the text holistically", one should consider Genesis through Revelations before commenting on a parable or lecture by Jesus or Paul? Or, do you mean one should be well versed in Matthew - Revelations to comment on the New Testament?

In a general sense, yes. The Catholic church didn't "tack on" the Hebrew Bible for no apparent reason, they did so because it is a fundamental part of the Jesus story, and to dimiss it would be somewhat akin to keeping The Return of the King and tossing out The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers as being irrelevant to the final story.

Some of us don't pretend that the Bible is the unerrable word of God, and think that it should be scrutinized at close inspection. But, it seems to me that you're asking people to take the Bible at face value as the ultimate truth, even if it doesn't make sense, because, in your mind, those who reject certain tenets, or those who question or arrive at different interpretations than you are just ignorant to the bigger picture it presents.

Excuse me? Kindly show where I've ever said that the Bible is the unerring word of God.

Go get any 1,000+ page book that you don't know, pick five sentences at random and try explaining what the book is about and how those five sentences apply. That's what a practicer of eisegesis does, and it's an invalid way of reading and interpreting a text, I don't care if you think that's "snobby" or not.

Jesus was an orthodox Jew.

Jesus was an Essene.

We've had this discussion before -- there is absolutely no evidence of that, and the description of Christ in the Bible (again, the only text written by contemporaries) shows that he did not live the life of an ascetic. John the Baptist, maybe, though probably not. Jesus? Absolutely not.

Logically, the evidence that so many people "remember" that they were famous princes/princesses/religious figures, etc, when the actual ratio of those to regular people is probably 10,000 to 1, is an indication to me that these memories are not real. All it takes is more than one person to believe that they were Joan of Arc or Jesus to demonstrate that just because someone remembers something doesn't make it so. I know that there are arguments in favour of why so many people think that they were the King of England or Napoleon or whoever, but as a skeptic, their arguments just come off as rationalizations to me.

Really? That's a ridiculous dismissal and you're deliberately mocking and insulting the personal experience of anyone believing to have memories of previous lives, passing them off as mentally ill. The same is easily done with those claiming religious experiences as well.

Excuse me? Where did I say that they were mentally ill? As I said earlier, I believe that people believe this, but I don't believe them, just as you don't believe me as regards Christ and the Bible.

Here's a list of notable people who thought that they were Jesus. I don't know about you, but I don't believe a single one.

reply to post by adjensen

/]Okay, all of that is kind of confusing, and I don't know if it's directed at one person, or anyone, but...

(Upon rereading before posting, I see that I'm using "you" in a manner that is inappropriate, since it isn't addressed at WildTimes, but at the "generic you" who might be reading this thread.)

I believe that any view of the Bible, whether a Biblical Fundamentalist or anyone else, is invalid if it does not treat the text holistically. People who cite a bit of scripture here and a small passage there to support something, that the whole of the text does not reflect, are reading the text with eisegesis, and their conclusions are invalid.

Period.

That's certainly a better method than cherry-picking. Agreed.

With that in mind, a holistic reading of the Bible will find absolutely nothing in support of reincarnation -- nothing. The handful of passages that people use to lend support to their "Jesus taught reincarnation" belief are a stretch, at best, and make perfect sense in a Bible that has nothing to do with reincarnation and therefore, in my opinion, they have nothing to do with reincarnation.

Wait, so.... you see that it makes perfect sense in "a Bible that has nothing to do with reincarnation" -- is that a different Bible than the one you use? What??

The problem is that we are all westerners (well, most of us are) and so we have Jesus and the Christian worldview in our bloodstream and core philosophies, whether we like it or not, whether we believe in it or not. And so, when we attempt to adopt eastern concepts and philosophies, like reincarnation, instead of the sensible approach of rejecting our western heritage, we try to shoehorn the non-western stuff into our western beliefs, and that just doesn't work.

Well, if you go at it long enough.....it can....
*shoving stuff into a small place*

Jesus was an orthodox Jew. That may be prosaic and dull to many people, but that's what he was -- the only known evidence of Christ's life, written by the people who lived in the same time, testifies to this mundane background. But as a result of this, everything that Jesus was needs to be viewed in the context of his background -- not what you want him to be, not what he needs to be to meet your expectations, and not espousing views that would be alien to an orthodox Jew.

Wait....so..
this statement is not true?:

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus stated that the Pharisees, the Jewish sect that founded rabbinic Judaism to which Paul once belonged, believed in reincarnation. He writes that the Pharisees believed the souls of evil men are punished after death. The souls of good men are "removed into other bodies" and they will "have power to revive and live again."

www.near-death.com...

If that Jesus doesn't meet your expectations, then just accept the fact that your answers are not going to be found in the Bible.

Do you suppose that Ritual Satanic Abuse, testified to by children who would later realize that they had been manipulated into believing things that never happened were real, might have something in common with this?

What? No. No, not from any source through which I've learned of Dr Stevenson's research.

Logically, the evidence that so many people "remember" that they were famous princes/princesses/religious figures, etc, when the actual ratio of those to regular people is probably 10,000 to 1, is an indication to me that these memories are not real.

Erm, adj? I'm referring to small children from rural villages who were born in India and reported remembering they had been a "family man" in a nearby rural village. These are not kids claiming they were princes or soldiers or King Arthur....these were preschoolers who said they wanted to go see their 'family' in the small town an hour or so away.

All it takes is more than one person to believe that they were Joan of Arc or Jesus to demonstrate that just because someone remembers something doesn't make it so. I know that there are arguments in favour of why so many people think that they were the King of England or Napoleon or whoever, but as a skeptic, their arguments just come off as rationalizations to me.

Wow. I am confident no one in this thread has suggested that people who claim 'reincarnation' were famous figures from literature. That is an entirely different shade of grey.

I'm referring to scientific, peer-reviewed works regarding small children OF NO PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE who have spontaneous memories of having lived in the next town over; knowing the names of their former spouse/siblings/parents/, knowing what their job was (or their father's job)......

Anyway, it's late twilight here. Time for me to log off.

Originally posted by wildtimes

With that in mind, a holistic reading of the Bible will find absolutely nothing in support of reincarnation -- nothing. The handful of passages that people use to lend support to their "Jesus taught reincarnation" belief are a stretch, at best, and make perfect sense in a Bible that has nothing to do with reincarnation and therefore, in my opinion, they have nothing to do with reincarnation.

Wait, so.... you see that it makes perfect sense in "a Bible that has nothing to do with reincarnation" -- is that a different Bible than the one you use? What??

I mean that they make perfect sense without them needing to be about reincarnation. Find any text that someone claims supports it -- read it in context, assuming that it's not about reincarnation and you'll see that it still makes sense.

Wait....so..
this statement is not true?

Correct. It is not true.

Moore offers five conclusions suggesting that reincarnation was an early Christian belief [183-4]:

Both the Pharisees and the Essenes at the time of Jesus believed in reincarnation as documented by Josephus.

This is patently false and relies upon an insufficiently nuanced reading of Josephus, who reports Jewish beliefs in Greek terms for the benefit of his Gentile readers. Josephus says that the Pharisees believe that "the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment." (War 2.164) Not only is this contrary to reincarnation principles (as it undermines the idea of karma: bad men do not get another body of a lower form), it misunderstands "other bodies" -- which is a reference to the resurrection body. (Source)

I'm referring to scientific, peer-reviewed works regarding small children OF NO PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE who have spontaneous memories of having lived in the next town over; knowing the names of their former spouse/siblings/parents/, knowing what their job was (or their father's job)......

Well, if you want to cite these scientific, peer-reviewed works, I'll have a look at them. The National Science Foundation, though, treats such investigations as being pseudo-science, so we'll see.

reply to post by adjensen

Josephus says that the Pharisees believe that "the souls of good men only arse removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment." (War 2.164) Not only is this contrary to reincarnation principles (as it undermines the idea of karma: bad men do not get another body of a lower form)

I would be interested to know exactly how this person came to the conclusion that this goes against reincarnation principles considering this obviously came from a Christian perspective which assumes that the principals of reincarnation are "alien" to said people.... Those are your words... correct?

This idea also doesn't undermine the idea of Karma either...

As far as I've read from the link you provided... This person who wrote said article has no idea what hes talking about...

Originally posted by Akragon
As far as I've read from the link you provided... This person who wrote said article has no idea what hes talking about...

How so? I'm pretty familiar with the guy that runs that web site, and I'd say that his research is pretty spot on and consistent with what other New Testament scholars agree on.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Hey, Dee.....
Hi again.

I'm enjoying the discussion between you and the cat; but...
what do you think about REINCARNATION?

Beyond the eternal debate about how the Bible DOES or DOESN'T teach it?

Getting away from the Bible debates going on here...
Have you ever just met someone, and automatically felt so comfortable with them it was like you've known them all your life? Or, maybe you knew that you didn't like this person before they even opened their mouth?
These are people we've known in past lives, and when we meet them in this life we get these "feelings" about them based on how we got along with them in a past life.

Or, have you ever felt you've visited (or lived in) a certain place before, but know that you haven't?
Many people have told of going somewhere they have never been, but felt drawn to this particular place. When they go there they know the area as if they have lived there all their life (in this one). How can that be, if not for reincarnation?

If you would like to research this topic further, you can read the book, Life Without Guilt, by Hazel M. Denning, Ph.D. It is an excellent book on the topic of reincarnation, if you are ready to expand your knowledge on the subject. I have read hundreds of books on this topic, and this is a good one for "starters".

reply to post by adjensen

Jesus was an Essene.

We've had this discussion before -- there is absolutely no evidence of that, and the description of Christ in the Bible (again, the only text written by contemporaries) shows that he did not live the life of an ascetic.

Yes, we have had this discussion before, and you continually ignore the many evidential references throughout the New Testament that point to the Essene's influences all around Jesus, and in his teachings, and after his supposed resurrection.

We don't know what kind of life, ascetic or otherwise, Jesus lived before his ministry. But, everything about Jesus and his teaching place him as operating within the Essene community. The first act of his ministry was to be baptised by John the Baptist, an Essene! Then he went to live an ascetic 40 days in the desert.

Why didn't Jesus get baptized by the Pharisees in the temple? Because the Pharisee didn't perform baptisms in the temple. Baptisms were a mystical Essene thing, not practiced by mainstream Jews.

Jesus continually condemned and criticized the Pharisees, and they hated him. He had nothing to do with Sadducees. What's left but his being a representative of the community of the Essenes, a mystical Jewish religious order?

Here's a list, that a quick Google search turns up, of Christian Essenes Churches, just in my area alone, San Diego.

Essene Church of Christ
Essene Nazarean Church of Mount Carmel
The First Essene Church
The Essene Ministry Church
Essene Catholic Church
Calvary Church

These people found enough compelling evidence of Jesus being an Essene, and that he taught the "Essene Way", that they established churches based on their findings.

I'm curious as to why you are so threatened by the thought of Jesus have been an Essene.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
As far as I've read from the link you provided... This person who wrote said article has no idea what hes talking about...

How so? I'm pretty familiar with the guy that runs that web site, and I'd say that his research is pretty spot on and consistent with what other New Testament scholars agree on.

Well lets take a look shall we?

Not only is this contrary to reincarnation principles (as it undermines the idea of karma: bad men do not get another body of a lower form

Which text says this? This doesn't follow the gnostic idea or the hindu version of reincarnation so where did he get this idea from?

it misunderstands "other bodies" -- which is a reference to the resurrection body.

This is also from the Christian perspective which excludes reincarnation...

Then does our justice system operate on karma when it says that "the punishment will fit the crime"? All the essential elements of karma which make it distinctive are distinctly missing from the Bible, notably the idea that the reaping is administrated by some cosmic wheel of justice; the key verse, Gal. 6:7, identifies the personal Jewish God as the agent of retribution.

Missing? Hardly! Both the OT and Jesus confirm the existence of Karma...

And according to Christianity... It isn't a personal jewish God who is the agent of "retribution"... its Jesus himself... who the jews deny is God... this guy is just confused

The author of this article gives nothing that dismisses this Moore guy's interpretations of reincarnation in the bible aside from his own bias opinion...

He's basically making up his own rules about reincarnation... just so he can dismiss them, which he does a horrible job of doing...