It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Logarock
If you can post in a calmer manner, you are welcome to try answer my previous post.
Yea ok man but Buzzy and me have history. I see you don't mind her tone and I have never talked to you like that personally.
If she has anything to say be sure she will say it. I am the same way.
He wasn't talking about Elijah the OT prophet.
Thats why He said "born of woman" to differentiate. Not that the first wasn't born of a woman but the first had never died and was seen on the Mt of Transfiguration. Its a matter of type with John the Baptist.
If you read the entire context
the three disciples that saw Elijah and Moses on the mount, and James and John were both followers of John the Baptist at one time, didn't recognize Elijah as John, thus the question. Peter didn't recognize the man as John the Baptist and he to knew what John looked like as well. In addition there is every reason to believe that they had to be told who these men were and again none of them recognized Elijah as John.
The real Elijah is going to come before the 2nd coming of Christ being as he was seen on the Mt in a state of transfiguration which is a temporary condition, suspension of death. John couldn't have been in this state because he had already died. Elijah is not dead but in transfiguration. Jesus transfigured momentarily as part of "fulfilling all thing" but then went on to His death and resurrection.
Another problem with John the Baptist being the original Elijah reborn is that He really doesn't come close to fitting the profile of Elijah. The Elijah that comes before the second coming of Christ does however fit the original profile.
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
To the posters in this thread who keep mentioning Elijah, you are aware that he was translated correct?
It seems that there has been no real evidence put forth to support the claims that early Christians believed in reincarnation outside of a few sects which died out or were converted to a more orthodox view
""When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will bear!" (Gospel of Thomas, saying 84)
"This soul needs to follow another soul in whom the Spirit of life dwells, because she is saved through the Spirit. Then she will never be thrust into flesh again." (Secret Book of John 14:20)
not cherry picked for being vague to prove a point.
Since I was a teen and first ventured off of the christian path and into Buddhism and atheism and back to be reborn
If you wish to discuss this rationally you need to come up with some sources either outside the bible or within take your pick, that Jesus himself believed and taught iabout some cycle of death and earthly rebirth that is not symbolic.
And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.
For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come. 15"He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
It can be shown that an incorporeal and reasonable being has life in itself independently of the body... then it is beyond a doubt bodies are only of secondary importance and arise from time to time to meet the varying conditions of reasonable creatures. Those who require bodies are clothed with them, and contrariwise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to better things their bodies are once more annihilated. They are ever vanishing and ever reappearing. —Origen
Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? Origen
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: zazzafrazz
Well of course Elijah was born of woman. Who in the bible was not born of a woman outside of the celestial realm? You have countered nothing and again have proven my point by cherry picking to support your position.
In Reincarnation in Christianity (1978), theosophist Geddes MacGregor asserts that Origen believed in reincarnation and taught about it, but that his texts written about the subject have been destroyed.
Origen wrote about the Greeks' transmigration of the soul, with which he may or may not have agreed. Many theologians share the notion that Origen's extant works from Latin translations (not from the original Greek) confirm he did not believe in reincarnation. He was cognizant of the concept of transmigration (metensomatosis transformation, and loses what it once was, the human soul will not be what it was) from Greek philosophy, but it is repeatedly stated that this concept is not a part of the Christian teaching or scripture. A translation of his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which stems from a 6th-century Latin translation, reads: "In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures" (ibid., 13:1:46–53). Conversely in Origen's Against Celsus, he argues that the teaching of the resurrection does not come from the doctrine of reincarnation, yet contradictorily claims to know that the soul transmigrates from body to body:
originally posted by: Klassified
originally posted by: superman2012
I do believe in reincarnation (at least the hope that we keep intermingling with our loved ones) and one of the best stories I have ever read about it is The Egg. It is such a simple/complicated story with a great message about the way we should be treating eachother. If that is what reincarnation is about, I'm in.
You mean this egg?
Love this video, even though I'm not by any means convinced of it.
The three disciples (Peter, John and James), having just come down from the mount of transfiguration, were more convinced than ever that Jesus is Son of the living God, and the promised Messiah. And the sight of Elijah on the mountain probably reminded them of the prophecy that said that the return of Elijah would precede the coming of the Messiah. So, “The disciples asked [Jesus], ‘Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?’” (vs. 10). The prophecy about Elijah comes from Malachi 4:6: “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” The teachers of the law foresaw only one coming of the Messiah. The prophecy in Malachi (we now realize) refers to the second coming of Jesus, for it says that Elijah will come “before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” The phrase “the great and dreadful day” refers to the end-times of tribulation and judgment which will occur when our Lord returns.
So, Jesus replied to the disciples: “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things” (vs. 11). Note, He says “will restore all things.” Jesus knew that He was to return in the future, and that Elijah would precede Him then. But then also, there was a man who preceded Jesus in His first coming, who came in the “spirit and the power of Elijah” (see Luke 1:17). Jesus told the disciples: “‘But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that He was talking to them about John the Baptist” (vs. 13). The children of Israel “did not recognize” John as fulfilling the prophecy about Elijah, nor (by and large) did they accept Jesus as their Messiah. Had Jesus been accepted by His people as the Messiah in His first coming, John the Baptist would have fulfilled the prophecy concerning Elijah, for John came in “the spirit and the power of Elijah”. But Jesus will come again, and another man will precede Him, and, as Jesus taught, “will restore all things.” “There seems no doubt that the prophecy in Malachi, like many other OT passages, has a two-fold interpretation; the secondary and symbolic meaning referred to John at Christ’s first appearing, and then literally before Christ’s second coming. This entire section, suggesting Scripture to be fulfilled in a wider sense than appears on surface, shows how often God’s Word is found to be much deeper and fuller in meaning than its mere words seem to imply; and it is therefore wise to follow disciples’ example and ask Divine guidance in its interpretation” [Griffith Thomas, 259].