Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pre-existence, Reincarnation & Christianity

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


And as always... Leave it to a Christian to find something that isn't there... No offence... but seriously

Baptism isn't even mentioned in that passage... Its mentioned in verse 22 but John isn't a time line of events... its not as if he spoke to Nicodemus then went right to john to be baptised...

Speaking of John... Jesus also said John was Elijah... reincarnated

Of course Christians will say... "john said he wasn't Elijah"... but Jesus said he was... So the question becomes, who was correct... A normal man named John, or the son of God?

They can't both be right...





posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


OmG... im so tired of going over this with Christians... :bnghd:

Hebrews 9:27 is not a refutation of reincarnation... The topic in that CHAPTER is whether or not Jesus had to die more then once to save... reincarnation is NOT the subject... I repeat... NOT the subject being discussed in that Chapter!

Context people!!

My head hurts...

edit on 27-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


Baptism, is an outward ritual that, in and of itself, isn't a magical rite that provides some kind of spiritual transformation.
The New Testament presents baptism as a public proclamation of devotion and acceptance of forgiveness. It a symbolic new beginning.

But baptism isn't strictly a Christian ritual. In fact baptism was a purification ritual used by the Greeks since Homeric time.Baptism is symbolic for plunging into, immersing oneself into a spiritual commitment that resembles birth. Baptism is a ritualized metaphor, a reenactment of being "reborn". But it isn't what does or does not bestow ever lasting life.




edit on 27-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
Christians can't accept reincarnation because the idea destroys the foundation of their belief system....

IF reincarnation exists... Theres no need for Hell... Which is the backbone of their religion... Fear of Hell...

Which means no more control... no more fear based conversions.... its all over if reincarnation is accepted

Born again means exactly what it says.... rebirth...

And it is by no means a goal... though perhaps a little better then a lake of fire...

At least its logical... while the idea of hell has no basis in logic

edit on 27-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


Ahem...the backbone of Christianity is not fear of hell...it's the love of Christ.
Born again means born into the body of Christ....not born into a body of flesh..
The idea of hell is logical when you understand it's purpose...hint:Hell was not intended for humans...

Unbelievers will be sent to hell....but hell is temporary, whereas the Lake of Fire is eternal.....if you insist on unbelief, just make sure when you get the chance, you avoid the Lake of Fire....

A2D



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 



And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:


Is that all you've got? There are two things wrong with that argument. The first being the reality of the resurrection and presumably second death of Lazareth. Paul claimed to have raised a young man from the dead, and there are a few other who were resurrected in the Bible. All of them dead, again.

Secondly, the assumption that after any person dies, they are subjected to God's judgement doesn't invalidate the idea of reincarnation.

As far as your quotes from early Christian scholars. Not one of them refers to a scriptural interpretation of the nature of the soul. Their comments are based on insults and mockery, but contain no substantial argument to support their position.

Compared to the writings of Origen, they sound like ignorant bafoons.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by windword
We need Jesus to save us from what?

...Reincarnation comes from Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age beliefs which are proven Illuminati mind control tools. When the evidence is examined, the findings show that reincarnation is more lies and religious propaganda.


Please show this "proof" you speak of. Within this "proof" you will have to prove 2 other things, the illuminati and mind control.

I look forward to your evidence.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


The introduction of the story of Lazareth's resurrection brings up an interesting question.

Lazarus wasn't resurrected, he was raised from the dead. Technical point, but an important one -- a resurrected person (as of now consisting of Christ and no one else,) cannot die, someone raised from the dead (like Lazarus) will (and did) die.


If Christians acknowledge the pre-existence of the soul

Christians do not acknowledge the pre-existence of the soul. Judaism, Mormonism and Islam all do, Christianity does not.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Oh, relax my friend. No need to get bent out of shape. Perhaps, you are reading a little too much into it, and finding something that is not there? According to you I must have taken it out of context, because it does not mesh well with your interpretation. Which is fine by me, and we can agree to disagree.

However, I cannot find any link between Christianty and Reincarnation. I found a scriptural passage, and even looked at some of the long held tradition on the topic. Perhaps, my humble research pales in comparison to yours? Please, do me the honor of contextualizing the biblical quote mentioned in my previous post. I am curious to see what your take is on it. Indulge me! Thanks for the comments!



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 



I don't disagree with you, but nothing you wrote has anything to do with reincarnation.


How can one be born of the spirit if said person already has that spirit?

Spirit and soul are not the same thing. See The Soul Versus the Spirit.



What, the bit about "naked came I"? He's saying that you've got nothing when you're born, and you've got nothing when you die. What does that have to do with reincarnation?


No hes not... Lets see it again...

And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I Return thither:

If you want to read it literally, as you apparently want to, you'd have to conclude that he's saying that we return to our birth mother's womb, which is ridiculous. Read the whole thing, in context -- he's talking about birth and death, and how we have nothing at either. It has nothing to do with reincarnation.


No... Im saying he lived his life.... Died... And God said.... back ya go... have fun!

What I said was that he'd obviously changed over the course of time between when he came to Jesus that night with that question, and when he appears at the burial of Jesus. He became a disciple of Christ, and there was no reincarnation involved in that change that you said could not happen.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


And as always... Leave it to a Christian to find something that isn't there... No offence... but seriously

Baptism isn't even mentioned in that passage... Its mentioned in verse 22 but John isn't a time line of events... its not as if he spoke to Nicodemus then went right to john to be baptised...

Speaking of John... Jesus also said John was Elijah... reincarnated

Of course Christians will say... "john said he wasn't Elijah"... but Jesus said he was... So the question becomes, who was correct... A normal man named John, or the son of God?

They can't both be right...



You do realize the author is telling a story. In regards to John that does appear to be a case of reincarnation. But I think most fail to see the Spiritual meaning behind it. But non believers will never see the spiritual side of it because that knowledge is not granted to them.

1 Corinthians 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Great minds think alike.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


The introduction of the story of Lazareth's resurrection brings up an interesting question.

Lazarus wasn't resurrected, he was raised from the dead. Technical point, but an important one -- a resurrected person (as of now consisting of Christ and no one else,) cannot die, someone raised from the dead (like Lazarus) will (and did) die.


I fail to see the difference. Jesus was the only person "resurrected", yet he still had his wounds, from his ordeal, and he was hungry and asked for meat to eat. If he hadn't conveniently floated off to Heaven, his body would have also died, just like Lazareth.




Christians do not acknowledge the pre-existence of the soul. Judaism, Mormonism and Islam all do, Christianity does not.


Then I guess that Christians believe that the soul is a biological manifestation.

I guess Christians ignore all the many times the Old Testament refers to the pre-existence of the soul.

And, I guess they reject the prophetic scripture of the return of Elijah.



Isaiah 62
2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

Malachi 4
4“Remember you the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb [Sinai] for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”



Matthew 17
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? 11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.


Clearly, God promises to send Elijah, and Jesus says that John is Elijah. To ignore this prophecy and it's fulfillment is a rejection of Jesus as the prophesied messiah.

edit on 27-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


The rich man and Lazarus is a parable, meaning it is not literal. It's a story of two men who are reincarnated onto the same planet which is like Earth. It is not meant to be taken literally as though there is actually hellfire after this life, it is meant to be taken allegorically.

It speaks of the rich man switching places with Lazarus, where Lazarus is now living comfortably while the rich man is struggling, and that switch is based on their previous lives actions. It is allegorical for karma, as in what goes around comes around.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


The introduction of the story of Lazareth's resurrection brings up an interesting question.

Lazarus wasn't resurrected, he was raised from the dead. Technical point, but an important one -- a resurrected person (as of now consisting of Christ and no one else,) cannot die, someone raised from the dead (like Lazarus) will (and did) die.


I fail to see the difference.

Resurrection is a new, incorruptible, body; Being raised from the dead just means that the same body was reanimated.



Christians do not acknowledge the pre-existence of the soul. Judaism, Mormonism and Islam all do, Christianity does not.


Then I guess that Christians believe that the soul is a biological manifestation.

I'm not sure where you're coming up with that, but, no.


And, I guess they reject the prophetic scripture of the return of Elijah.

Elijah didn't die, he can't be reincarnated



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


If Lazarus died and was then raised from the dead, wouldn't that refute Hebrews 9:27? Is Lazarus still alive today, or did he die twice? And what of Eutychus and Tabitha? Are they still alive as well? Or did they die twice too?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


The introduction of the story of Lazareth's resurrection brings up an interesting question.

Lazarus wasn't resurrected, he was raised from the dead. Technical point, but an important one -- a resurrected person (as of now consisting of Christ and no one else,) cannot die, someone raised from the dead (like Lazarus) will (and did) die.


I fail to see the difference.

Resurrection is a new, incorruptible, body; Being raised from the dead just means that the same body was reanimated.



Christians do not acknowledge the pre-existence of the soul. Judaism, Mormonism and Islam all do, Christianity does not.




Then I guess that Christians believe that the soul is a biological manifestation.

I'm not sure where you're coming up with that, but, no.


It's the question asked in the first paragraph of my OP.






Is a shiny, brand new, innocent soul created every time a woman's egg is fertilized? If so, doesn't that make the soul a biological manifestation? How then can one justify the belief that the soul doesn't die, but the body does?




And, I guess they reject the prophetic scripture of the return of Elijah.

Elijah didn't die, he can't be reincarnated


Please show me where it says in the Bible that Elijah never died.


13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven


Also, please explain how Elijah wrote a letter, years after his whirlwind event?


2 Chronicles 21
12 And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah,
edit on 27-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Nope, they died twice. Hebrews 9:27 doesn't really conflict with those instances, because being raised from the dead is a result of a miracle, it's not common behaviour, which is what Hebrews 9:27 describes.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Please show me where it says in the Bible that Elijah never died.


Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Kings 2:11 NIV)

That work for you? He's alive when he's taken up, and there's no death in heaven, so it's not rational to say that he ever died.


Also, please explain how Elijah wrote a letter, years after his whirlwind event?

He's with God, who's to say what he can and can't do there?

If you knew that he went up to God in a whirlwind, why'd you ask for the scripture that describes it?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Nope, they died twice. Hebrews 9:27 doesn't really conflict with those instances, because being raised from the dead is a result of a miracle, it's not common behaviour, which is what Hebrews 9:27 describes.




Reaching much? Talk about "EISEGESIS"!


EISEGESIS the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas
edit on 27-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


You know I have wondered about this on many occasions. It is my belief that if there was a Jesus that those missing years he was either in the east or learning eastern philosophy. Considering many of the teachings of Jesus were already old and could be attributed to Buddhism.

With that aside I support the philosophy of reincarnation in the same was as supporting the scientific principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed into other forms. E=MC2 ( sorry don’t know how to make a small 2) Either way it is all relative.

The big question is does the conscious survive in any form. hmmm





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join