Can anyone name a religion that DOESNT believe in reincarnation?

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa
Christianity believes in resurrection, not reincarnation.

"Incarnation" means receiving a physical body (from the Latin for "flesh"), and so "Re-incarnation" means receiving a second physical body.
There is no second physical body in Christian teaching.

Also "reincarnation"" theories normally involve an endless succession of physical bodies, and that certainly isn't in Christian teaching either.
One death, followed by "judgement".

While I don't disagree with you about resurrection, I do disagree with you about reincarnation being absent from all of Christendom, because it's made quite clear by Jesus Himself that John the Baptist was the reincarnated Elijah. Obviously this is but one example (I'm not certain if there are others from the Bible, but I don't believe so), so it doesn't fall into the same belief in reincarnation as say Buddhism, obviously, none-the-less...it does fit the bill. Peace...

What greater miracle is there than Jesus defeating death and His physical body raising from the dead?

If the disciples so strongly believed in it as some people are suggesting, then why didn't the disciples think Jesus would resurrect or reincarnate at first?

500 witnesses watched His physical body ascending to heaven, it wasn't a reincarnation. The Jews all over the world are waiting for Elijah to come. They have a seat for Elijah, they invite Elijah to come. And it is that Elijah, because THAT Elijah didn't die.

Because they know Elijah didn't die, then what Jesus was referring to was not a reincarnated Elijah, but a man who had the same spirit of Elijah, that power, that prophetic message, that miracle worker who called the fire down from heaven. That kind of Elijah.

Remember, Peter and John both saw Moses and Elijah on Mount Transfiguration, so it was never about reincarnation from one body to another, they knew Moses and Elijah by those characteristics.

To say that one is equating the reincarnation belief of Hinduism and then applying it to what Jesus said about John the Baptist, not the same thing. Elijah never died.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Those people were "branded as heretics" because they were recognised as introducing novel speculations which departed from the original beliefs of the church. They were the equivalent of the ATS Hoax Bin.

The people you refer to wrote their testaments/gospels well before the Mother Church introduced their sanitised versions
In other words they were censored ... not the same as a hoax or novel ideas as you put it.

Hardly the same as the ATS hoax thread section ... you are twisting words to suit your self ...You are a New Testament scholar ... why don't you study the whole of Christian history including it's roots to get a fuller picture ...

So those who were branded Heretic in your estimation were hoaxers ... faced with a fiery or other terrible death many maintained their faith in the older writings ... hardly hoaxers

Of course the top dog gets to write the history and rules ... and it seems that is all you interested in learning about.

Suppression and hoaxing are two different things ... you have applied your own narrow minded logic to win a perceived argument when this is not a argument but a discussion ...

I merely presented information ...

""These writings affirmed the existence of the doctrine of reincarnation being taught among the early Jews and Christians."

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Christianity has a habit of missing the mark...

True there is no reincarnation in Christianity... but the people who lived at the time of Jesus knew of it, and believed it happened

As I've said previously a few pages back, the doctrine of reincarnation was removed from the religion because it gives power to the individual instead of the church... the church holds the power to save your soul, and reincarnation gives that power back to the people...

heaven forbid

OK, then save yourself.

Maybe you are Vishnu reincarnated a thousand times, maybe you are going to be another Hitler in the next life. You just never know.

Maybe you aren't even here and what you see is a dream, of you saving yourself. Let me know how that works out in the next life, make sure you contact me and tell me Akra saved himself and overcame fate, destiny, kismet, karma...tell you what, I will ask God to make sure you show me how you saved yourself.
If you could save yourself then why do you even believe in God? Why do you even believe in Jesus? See, at least windword doesn't believe in it, but you claim you do. Why?

The idea is to be good in your life, then theres no reason to be saved from anything... unlike what Christianity preaches, there is no threat aside from what you create yourself... which is actually what Jesus taught

IF one believes in Jesus, they do what he asked of us... Thus freeing themselves from said Karmic cycle...

Paul says you can't to anything to save yourself from Hell... You're already screwed because of the sins of a man that likely never existed in the first place, so all you need is faith... which is a lie

Everything we do has an effect on the world around us... IF one chooses to be selfish, and take from the world and the living beings in it... that will have a negative effect on this progression. IF one is giving, and kind... compassionate and merciful there is a positive progression. Both of which effect your next incarnation IF said life is necessary.

Jesus taught the world how to break free of that Karmic cycle... where as Paul just put a dent in everyone's progression if they choose to listen to him.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Remember, Peter and John both saw Moses and Elijah on Mount Transfiguration, so it was never about reincarnation from one body to another, they knew Moses and Elijah by those characteristics.

To say that one is equating the reincarnation belief of Hinduism and then applying it to what Jesus said about John the Baptist, not the same thing. Elijah never died.

Of course he died... That is nothing more then one of the many Myths supported by the church... He died like everyone else in history including Jesus...

And Just because it says they saw Moses and Elijah on the mount does not mean that was who they actually saw... its not like they had pictures of the two men who lived a thousand or so years before the event....

The two men could have been anyone... and im sure they weren't wearing name tags

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

Remember, Peter and John both saw Moses and Elijah on Mount Transfiguration, so it was never about reincarnation from one body to another, they knew Moses and Elijah by those characteristics.

To say that one is equating the reincarnation belief of Hinduism and then applying it to what Jesus said about John the Baptist, not the same thing. Elijah never died.

Of course he died... That is nothing more then one of the many Myths supported by the church... He died like everyone else in history including Jesus...

And Just because it says they saw Moses and Elijah on the mount does not mean that was who they actually saw... its not like they had pictures of the two men who lived a thousand or so years before the event....

The two men could have been anyone... and im sure they weren't wearing name tags

Then blame that on the Jews, it is Tanakh. Every year the Jews sit at that Passover Seder and open the door for Elijah and invite him to come.

So you are now going to say that one of the most venerated part of their religion that they have been doing since long before Jesus, they are wrong?

I think you just offended Jews.

Elijah not dying is very Jewish. They literally open the door for a physical Elijah to walk in. And their baby sons, when they are circumcised, they put him in the seat of Elijah. You seem to underestimate the importance of that moment on Mount Transfiguration, because Moses and Elijah represent the law and the prophets.

You might think it incapable of God to take Elijah up, maybe you think it incapable of God to take Enoch up as well, but you think it possible for God to allow reincarnation to suit your views.

OK, so don't be Jewish, but they've been around much longer. And if you believe a different God than them, then what is the name of your god that suddenly only existed after the fourth century? You say that it is a different god, that the early church could not have been worshiping the same god, that the early church really didn't exist until the fourth century, because it is impossible that they could have been worshiping the right god. So they make up a new god, calling it the old god and then remake that new god in scripture, that you disagree with.

If you have a different god than the writers of Torah and Tanakh, then of the apostles and disciples and Jesus Christ, then why do you quote scripture so much? You have a god that didn't exist until the time frame you deem appropriate.

So what is the name of your god?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Jews aren't required to take the scriptures literally, but even if they did, Elijah, when he arrived wherever that chariot took him, would have been wearing "filthy clothes", which would have been remedied, just like it was for the High Priest of Zecharia 3.

And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
What greater miracle is there than Jesus defeating death and His physical body raising from the dead?

That would be quite a miracle if it actually happened! And regarding his physical ascension, how long did his physical body ascend for and where did it end up? People back then believed some dome covered the earth and that was heaven - so a physical ascension made some kind of sense to them. But in actuality, where did his physical body go?

If you say his body disappeared behind a cloud, did some kind of shuttle pick it up, or what? I mean you say his body never died physically, so what happened after this disappearance?

The physical resurrection and physical ascension are myths propagated by Paul - as part of the elimination of the real esoteric teachings of Jesus via Paul substituting those with a faith-based revision to quickly grow the church.

The resurrection and ascension are true spiritually - Jesus' spiritual being survived death and he ascended to the Light Above (the Kingdom of God) from where he originated. The spiritually sensitive ones he initiated into the Light Above (those born again) understood that this was Jesus' spiritual ascension.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
If the disciples so strongly believed in it as some people are suggesting, then why didn't the disciples think Jesus would resurrect or reincarnate at first?

Can you provide passages showing the disciples believed Jesus physically resurrected and physically ascended? This is what they would of had trouble believing.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
500 witnesses watched His physical body ascending to heaven, it wasn't a reincarnation.

Please point me to the passages with this proof.

Thank you.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: WarminIndy
What greater miracle is there than Jesus defeating death and His physical body raising from the dead?

That would be quite a miracle if it actually happened! And regarding his physical ascension, how long did his physical body ascend for and where did it end up? People back then believed some dome covered the earth and that was heaven - so a physical ascension made some kind of sense to them. But in actuality, where did his physical body go?

If you say his body disappeared behind a cloud, did a shuttle pick it up, or what? I mean you say his body never died physically, so what happened after this disappearance?

The physical resurrection and physical ascension are myths propagated by Paul - as part of the elimination of the real esoteric teachings of Jesus via Paul substituting those with a faith-based revision to quickly grow the church.

The resurrection and ascension are true spiritually - Jesus' spiritual being survived death and he ascended to the Light Above (the Kingdom of God) from where he originated. The spiritually sensitive ones he initiated into the Light Above (those born again) understood that this was Jesus' spiritual ascension.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
If the disciples so strongly believed in it as some people are suggesting, then why didn't the disciples think Jesus would resurrect or reincarnate at first?

Can you provide passages showing the disciples believed Jesus physically ascended? This is what they would of had trouble believing.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
500 witnesses watched His physical body ascending to heaven, it wasn't a reincarnation.

Please point me to the passages with this proof.

Thank you.

Acts 1 was not written by Paul, but Luke.

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Theophilus was a high priest according to Josephus. That was his name and he was appointed by Herod.

Dan Barag and David Flusser, in their article concerning an ossuary bearing the names “Yehohanah” and “Theophilus”, write, “After playing an important role in public life during the time of Cumanus (50-52 C.E.), he [Jonathan, Theophilus’ brother] was murdered at the instigation of the prefect Felix” (D. Barag and D. Flusser, “The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus”, Israel Exploration Journal, 36 [1986], 43n.19; they reference Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. ed. [Vermes and Millar], 230).

Luke was asked to present his case before the Sanhedrin, this was before Paul. Remember, at that time Paul was still Saul and mentioned by Josephus as Saulus.

Acts:1 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. 12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

These are the disciples before Paul, notice that neither Barnabas nor Paul are mentioned in this passage.

The next later reference to the 500 were from Paul, but since Paul was Saul at the time of ascension and certainly not a good guy at the time, gives the number

1 Cor 15.4-6 He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.

By the twelve, that is what he was calling the original disciples. So Paul didn't make this up, while he was running around killing people for being believers, the statement about the ascension was well-known to the Sanhedrin from the earlier treatise made by Luke.

What is interesting here, Josephus mentions the same people Paul and Luke does in the Book of Acts. Ananias was indeed a very rich man that was high priest.

But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

And who was Costobarus? He was the husband of Salome, the daughter of Herodius, the same girl that danced for Herod because he had offered her whatever she wanted, and she asked, at the bequest of her mother, for the head of John the Baptist. But he was also the brother of Saul.

Why do you suppose that Paul mentions that he was a citizen of Rome? A citizen of Rome received privileges, because they were usually wealthy.

But Luke first mentions Theophilus, a high priest, because he was ordered to give an account at a trial. Saul, who later becomes Paul, is a citizen of Rome because he is wealthy, which the Pharisees were and the high priests were appointed by Herod. Jospehus says Costbarus and Saulus were trouble makers, because they were both Pharisees, which Paul says he was. Costobarus and Saul were brothers, meaning that Salome was the sister-in-law of Saul.

Paul was very aware of Jesus Christ living and resurrecting, that's why he persecuted believers the way he did. So Paul WAS a contemporary of Jesus Christ.

I could go through the Bible and Antiquities to mention all the people named, but here are some mentioned: Felix, Drusilla, Ananias, Beatrice, Philip the Tetarch, and Theophilus.

Josephus was born only three years after the crucifixion, his father was in the sanhedrin that tried Jesus. His mother was Hasmonean, meaning that she was in the same royal family as all the Herods. But not only does Luke and Paul mention Felix, so does Tacitus and Seutonius.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

I was thinking about it and I can't think of a single religion that doesn't believe in reincarnation... Sikhism - we have 8,4 million lives Buddhism - infinite rebirths until enlightenment Christianity - believe in the reincarnation of Jesus Islam - believe in the reincarnation of Muhammed Judaism - believe in the reincarnation of Moses

I am not privy to other religions but consider myself well versed in basic Christianity. My understanding is that Jesus was not reincarnated nor did He teach reincarnation. The man Jesus was conceived by God first in the celestial realm and then conceived by God in the terrestrial realm. Jesus' celestial spirit was not reincarnated but was the same spirit that was in His terrestrial flesh. As His flesh perished He was then restored to His first estate in the celestial realm where He exists today.

As a person dies the spirit of that person is judged as being justified or unworthy. If justified it then is allowed to enter the celestial kingdom of heaven which is New Jerusalem. Here it is given a new body of celestial substance or covering called a celestial garment. If unworthy it remains a naked spirit confined in the earth till the last day. The justified spirit is also given a new name written in a white stone with understanding of the celestial language of God. It is also given the celestial tree of life and water of life to eat and drink in order to have eternal life.

In order to have reincarnation of the justified spirit, that spirit would have to shed the celestial body and have rebirth into a terrestrial body and once again face the same terrestrial existence only to die once again. That is not taught by Jesus. Jesus teaches that it is appointed once to die and then judgment and that judgment is eternal.

a reply to: Seede

Jesus teaches that it is appointed once to die and then judgment and that judgment is eternal.

Can you please show me in scripture where Jesus says this? Because I can show show you where it is written that he said that his followers will NOT die, and will NOT be subject judgment and that they will NOT taste death, but will have everlasting life.

First, thank you for your putting together your post. I know these take time - much appreciated.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Acts 1 was not written by Paul, but Luke.

Acts 1:1 "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

Of course the disciples spoke of the ascension - that was not my point. It was revised later by Paul to become a physical ascension for a number of reasons.

For one, it fit into how the human was generally viewed back then:
The human being was not considered to be a soul or spirit inside the body, but as an irreducible "unit" that is given life by being "lived in" or "breathed into" by God.

For this reason (and others), Christianity became associated more with the promise of future bodily salvation through a resurrection by God - not a spiritual salvation via ascent to God as a soul or spiritual being returning to God. The latter (esotericism) is what Jesus actually taught, the former (exotericism) is what Paul revised Christianity into.

And also, partly for this reason, the idea of reincarnation had to be eliminated because the idea of the soul moving to another physical vessel did not fit at all with Paul's revision.

Regarding the passage you quoted, "To whom also he shewed himself alive", in Jesus teachings, the word "alive" does not mean being physically alive. To be alive, one had to be spiritually re-born.

So that quote certainly points to Jesus being alive, and communicating with his followers, but not through the physical body.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Luke was asked to present his case before the Sanhedrin, this was before Paul. Remember, at that time Paul was still Saul and mentioned by Josephus as Saulus.

Acts:1 9 "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. 12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James."

These are the disciples before Paul, notice that neither Barnabas nor Paul are mentioned in this passage.

Again, I understand the ascension was spoken of by followers before Paul's conversion - but it was about Jesus' true identity, his spiritual being, returning to his abode in the Light of God Above.

And again, that passage directly above points to a spiritual ascension.

Even the final part of your quoted passage speaks of this - "they went up into an upper room, where abode" ... the disciples were gathered. Clearly this is an esoteric reference to the Light Above that Jesus spoke of as the place of spiritual birth, the place that he initiated his most devoted followers into, to be "Born to here from Above" - in order to be truly alive even while on earth.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
The next later reference to the 500 were from Paul, but since Paul was Saul at the time of ascension and certainly not a good guy at the time, gives the number

1 Cor 15.4-6 He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.

By the twelve, that is what he was calling the original disciples. So Paul didn't make this up, while he was running around killing people for being believers, the statement about the ascension was well-known to the Sanhedrin from the earlier treatise made by Luke.

Paul was very aware of Jesus Christ living and resurrecting, that's why he persecuted believers the way he did. So Paul WAS a contemporary of Jesus Christ.

I assume you understand by now that I am not debating whether the disciples understood that Jesus ascended to God.

Yes, the actual physical count makes sense to have been spoken of by Paul to lend credence to his killing even more Christians, and later was used to substantiate his exoteric revision away from what the disciples actually recognized the ascension to be.

Also, Paul clearly had multiple agendas based on some kind of cathartic experience he had after a period of killing Christians - an experience not initiated by Jesus in the flesh. So you are going to trust Paul given his history and agendas? Sorry, I cannot make that leap of faith in him.

But because Paul came up with a brilliant sales pitch relative to just believing in Jesus and eventual bodily resurrection and salvation was guaranteed - the official version of Christianity grew far more quickly than the real esoteric version ever would, as the latter required real devotion and surrender to the Divine through Jesus each moment of every day.

Again, thank you for your thoughts and research.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I would have to say the only thing I've offended is a myth anyways...

But its rather offensive to think that a man never died... that offends reality, and im not saying God isn't capable either

its just more likely that it didn't actually happen as it was written a few thousand years ago... there is probably a rational explanation IF it actually occurred in the first place... Perhaps an abduction by aliens? Who knows...

And we've already covered the "name of God" in our past discussions... Kind of interesting Jesus didn't ever use the name YHWH don't you think? Sure everyone assumes that was his God, except this so called god is nothing like Jesus... Yet they are supposed to be one?

Jesus used the scriptures he was raised on to relate to his audience... That doesn't mean the Father was the Jewish tribal god of war... Even the name YHWH came from an old country in Southern Jordan which was renamed long ago I believe... It was called "Ywh"...

Understanding the Indescribable

Read that

We don't know Gods name, that's why I call him God, Or Father... Just as Jesus did

a reply to: bb23108

I chose to reply because quoting might take up too much space. I hope you don't mind that.

The physical resurrection has always been understood and taught. As I said in a previous post, Jesus asked Mary and Martha if their brother would live again. They said "Yes, in the resurrection of the dead in the last days". Jesus then commanded Lazarus to come back to life, and he did.

My Jewish Learning

There are only two biblical references to the resurrection of the dead, in passages generally held by biblical scholars to be of late date, so that it has been conjectured that the doctrine owes something to Persian influence. The first is: “Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise, awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades” (Isaiah 26:19); and the second: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence” (Daniel 12:2).

OK, as it says in Isaiah, the dead shall live. Those in the dust (dead, because from the dust you came and to the dust you shall return), will one day be resurrected. This is in Isaiah, and we know the Book of Isaiah is word for word what is in the Bible today. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can know that the idea of resurrection has always been written in the Bible.

Then the rabbi of the article also point to Daniel, which also says there will be a resurrection of dead bodies. This is not in any metaphysical sense, and this is the same Isaiah and Daniel that both Paul and Jesus read and taught from.

We know that Jesus read from Isaiah, it is recorded that He went into the synagogue during a minyan (a gathering of 10 men to read Torah and Tanahk), and they gave Him the scroll of Isaiah to read and He pointed to the Isaiah scripture of Himself being anointed. So we can know that if He knew where that verse was, He would have already known Isaiah.

In Resurrection in Judaism (Ask.com)

By the first century B.C.E. the belief in postmortem resurrection was an important part of Rabbinic Judaism. The ancient rabbis believed that at the end-of-days the dead would be brought back to life, a view that some Jews still hold today. Though resurrection has played an important role in Jewish eschatology, as with Olam Ha Ba, Gehenna and Gan Eden, Judaism does not have a definitive answer to the question of what happens after we die.

There was indeed the belief in the resurrection by the first century, meaning that it was already discussed before. Considering that Paul was of the yeshiva of Hillel, he would have carried over certain things, however, it is important to note that there was more than one yeshiva, so naturally there would be disagreements.

For someone to imply that it was later tradition by the Christians inserting the idea of resurrection, simply diminishes the already discussed and widely held belief in Judaism. This cannot be from third century Christians, because by that time, the split had already occurred. You would think if the early Christians were teaching something separate and apart from Judaism, they would have never mentioned the resurrection.

In traditional Jewish thought, resurrection is when God brings the dead back to life. Resurrection occurs three times in the Torah:

Rabbinic Proofs for Resurrection There are numerous texts that record rabbinic discussions about resurrection. For instance, in the Talmud a rabbi will be asked where the doctrine of resurrection comes from and will answer the question by citing supporting texts from the Torah. Sanhedrin 90b and 91b provide an example of this formula. When Rabbi Gamliel was asked how he knew God would resurrect the dead he replied: "From the Torah: for it is written: 'And the Lord said to Moses, Behold you shall sleep with your fathers; and this people will rise up' [Deuteronomy 31:16]. From the Prophets: as it is written: 'Your dead men shall live, together with my dead bodies shall they arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in the dust; for your dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out its dead.' [Isaiah 26:19]; from the Writings: as it is written, 'And the roof of your mouth, like the best wine of my beloved, like the best wine, that goes down sweetly, causing the lips of those who are asleep to speak' [Song of Songs 7:9]." (Sanhedrin 90b)

As we know, Gamaliel was the teacher of Paul, and the son of Hillel. I do not see any Christians inserting resurrection doctrine into the already established Sanhedrin writings. That would be something if the Christians wrote the Sanhedrin writings for the Jews.

In addition to discussing proofs for the doctrine of resurrection, the rabbis also debated the question of who would be resurrected at the end of days. Some rabbis maintained that only the righteous would be resurrected. "Resurrection is for the righteous and not the wicked," says Taanit 7a. Others taught that everyone – Jews and non-Jews, righteous and wicked – would live again.

Some of them did believe that observant and righteous Jews could only resurrect in Israel. They wanted to address this for Jews who were in the diaspora, so they chose an idea that God cycles their souls, to get them back to Israel so in the Messianic Age, they would once again live.

Chabad.org Resurrection of the dead

The body returns to the earth, dust to dust, but the soul returns to God who gave it. This doctrine of the immortality of the soul is affirmed not only by Judaism and other religions, but by many secular philosophers as well. Judaism, however, also believes in the eventual resurrection of the body, which will be reunited with the soul at a later time on a "great and awesome day of the Lord." The human form of the righteous men of all ages, buried and long since decomposed, will be resurrected at God's will. The most dramatic portrayal of this bodily resurrection is to be found in the "Valley of Dry Bones" prophecy in Ezekiel 37, read as the Haftorah on the Intermediate Sabbath of Passover. It recalls past deliverances and envisions the future redemption of Israel and the eventual quickening of the dead:

It was understood to be physical.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

I would have to say the only thing I've offended is a myth anyways...

But its rather offensive to think that a man never died... that offends reality, and im not saying God isn't capable either

its just more likely that it didn't actually happen as it was written a few thousand years ago... there is probably a rational explanation IF it actually occurred in the first place... Perhaps an abduction by aliens? Who knows...

And we've already covered the "name of God" in our past discussions... Kind of interesting Jesus didn't ever use the name YHWH don't you think? Sure everyone assumes that was his God, except this so called god is nothing like Jesus... Yet they are supposed to be one?

Jesus used the scriptures he was raised on to relate to his audience... That doesn't mean the Father was the Jewish tribal god of war... Even the name YHWH came from an old country in Southern Jordan which was renamed long ago I believe... It was called "Ywh"...

Understanding the Indescribable

Read that

We don't know Gods name, that's why I call him God, Or Father... Just as Jesus did

Did you know why the Bible says Adonai and the Lord? Because to the Jews, the name is too sacred to say or write. That is why when you read it and see The LORD, it means the four letters of the name (haShem). The name is Yaweh. The name has always been known, but it was too sacred for them to write.



The only reason it is written as The Lord came from Pharisaical tradition, they always knew the name. And the reason in the Christian Bible it says Jehovah is because when the German translators saw Yah, they wrote it as Jeh, and the English you speak came from Germanic/Latin.

And if you go by the Greek, Jesus is Iousis, because Iou was pronounced Yeh. I think you should learn etymology of your own language. English is a relatively new language, even the Old English is written and pronounced differently.

To get an idea of just how English was in the 14th Century, Wycliffe writes Exodus 6 as such...

1 And the Lord seide to Moises, Now thou schalt se, what thingis Y schal do to Farao; for bi strong hond he schal delyuere hem, and in myyti hond he schal caste hem out of his lond. 2 And the Lord spak to Moises, 3 and seide, Y am the Lord, that apperide to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob in Almyyti God; and Y schewide not to hem my greet name Adonai; 4 and Y made couenaunt with hem, that Y schulde yyue to hem the lond of Canaan, the lond of her pilgrymage, in which thei weren comelyngis. 5 Y herde the weilyng of the sones of Israel, in which the Egipcians oppresseden hem, and Y hadde mynde of my couenaunt. 6 Therfor seie thou to the sones of Israel, Y am the Lord, that schal lede out you of the prisoun of Egipcians; and Y schal delyuere fro seruage; and Y schal ayen bie in `an hiy arm, and in grete domes; 7 and Y schal take you to me in to a puple, and Y schal be youre God; and ye schulen wite, for Y am youre Lord God, `which haue led you out of the prisoun of Egipcians, 8 and haue led you in to the lond, on which Y reiside myn hond, that Y schulde yyue it to Abraham, and to Ysaac, and to Jacob; and Y schal yyue to you that lond to be weldid; I the Lord. 9 Therfor Moises telde alle thingis to the sones of Irael, whiche assentide not to hym for the angwisch of spirit, and for the hardest werk. 10 And the Lord spak to Moises,

Just because you are relying on the 1611 to be proper English, it was only later English, because the early English was still Germanic.

Wycliffe also uses the old word "cleped" which is called. Just one example of the way English changed. Perhaps you are like Moses?

30 And Moises seide bifore the Lord, Lo! Y am vncircumcidid in lippis; hou schal Farao here me?

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Odinism.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Considering that Paul was of the yeshiva of Hillel, he would have carried over certain things, however, it is important to note that there was more than one yeshiva, so naturally there would be disagreements.

This is certainly in dispute.

Evidence for this more accommodating opinion is found in the book of Acts. Gamaliel is reported to have offered somewhat lenient advice concerning the early preaching of the apostles in Acts 5:34-39. Basically, he said that if the movement is from God then it cannot be stopped, if it is not then it will not succeed. Gamaliel is reflecting the Hillel tradition of non-violence and allowing God to deal with parties that against the Jews (Polhill, Paul and His Letters, 31).

This is certainly not the opinion of his young disciple Saul when we meet him in Acts 9 and according to Paul’s own self-description. He was a ruthless persecutor who sought to stop what he saw as an aberration within Judaism. The people who Paul persecuted were diaspora Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah and claimed that he was raised from the dead. How can we account for this violent reaction in a man trained by Gamaliel?
readingacts.com...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Considering that Paul was of the yeshiva of Hillel, he would have carried over certain things, however, it is important to note that there was more than one yeshiva, so naturally there would be disagreements.

This is certainly in dispute.

Evidence for this more accommodating opinion is found in the book of Acts. Gamaliel is reported to have offered somewhat lenient advice concerning the early preaching of the apostles in Acts 5:34-39. Basically, he said that if the movement is from God then it cannot be stopped, if it is not then it will not succeed. Gamaliel is reflecting the Hillel tradition of non-violence and allowing God to deal with parties that against the Jews (Polhill, Paul and His Letters, 31).

This is certainly not the opinion of his young disciple Saul when we meet him in Acts 9 and according to Paul’s own self-description. He was a ruthless persecutor who sought to stop what he saw as an aberration within Judaism. The people who Paul persecuted were diaspora Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah and claimed that he was raised from the dead. How can we account for this violent reaction in a man trained by Gamaliel?
readingacts.com...

Yes, but Paul also admits persecution, because it was politically motivated. Not because of religion.

The Seven Rules of Hillel

Rabbis Hillel and Shamai were competitive leading figures in Judaism during the days of Yeshua's youth. Hillel was known for teaching the Spirit of the Law and Shamai was known for teaching the letter of the Law. Yeshua's teaching largely followed that of the School of Hillel rather than that of the School of Shamai (an exception being Yeshua agreeing with Shamai regarding divorce in Matthew 19:9).

I said there was more than one yeshiva.

Hillel and Shammai

Hillel was the more popular of the two scholars, and he was chosen by the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court, to serve as its president. While Hillel and Shammai themselves did not differ on a great many basic issues of Jewish law, their disciples were often in conflict. The Talmud records over 300 differences of opinion between Beit Hillel (the House of Hillel) and Beit Shammai (the House of Shammai).

Who then was Saul in conflict with? My previous posts about Josephus and Luke recording the same people and events, that Josephus gives the background to the politics involved, remember, Paul said that he was on his way to deliver letters, while going to Damascus, Syria, when he had the conversion.

And this is why Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah

In our present world, we follow the rulings of the House of Hillel, but in the era of Messiah, the majority opinion will shift in favor of the House of Shammai, and their rulings will then be implemented.

There is an intrinsic conflict, the school of Hillel did not recognize Jesus as Messiah, the school of Hillel was the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus, James and Stephen, then there is no doubt that Saul was working under the auspices of the school of Hillel in carrying out the death sentences.

In the era of Messiah, the situation will be reversed: a perfected world will embrace the more exacting application of Torah law expressed by the House of Shammai, while the Hillelian school of interpretation will endure only conceptually.

The students of Shammai believed Jesus to be Messiah, Paul was converted from one school to the other, because he was suddenly teaching contrary to Hillel.

To him, the Messianic Age had begun, therefore he was now teaching the reality of Shammai.

a reply to: WarminIndy

There is an intrinsic conflict, the school of Hillel did not recognize Jesus as Messiah, the school of Hillel was the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus, James and Stephen, then there is no doubt that Saul was working under the auspices of the school of Hillel in carrying out the death sentences.

All of this is mythology, not history.

The School of Hillel taught tolerance, not persecution. It doesn't follow that Saul of Tarsus would have persecuted anyone under the engagement of the School of Hillel.

The students of Shammai believed Jesus to be Messiah

That's doubtful! There was no sect of Judaism that believed Jesus Christ to be the Messiah.

It is possible that Paul was not of the Hillel form of Pharasism, but rather the more radical Shammaite party. N. T. Wright describes the Shammaite Pharisee as a militant “hard-liner” that was not willing to work with Rome as long as they could study the Torah, as Hillel had said (What Saint Paul Really Said, 26). Paul was a Diaspora Jew who claimed to have been raised in a family which kept the Jewish traditions without fault. He was an ultra-conservative reacting to what he perceived as a dangerous liberal view (Jesus was the Messiah and the High Priest killed him!)

On topic, reincarnation was well accepted among Hellenized Jews, which is what Hillel was.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Odinism.

I had to go check it out!

Modern Odinist beliefs about the afterlife also vary. The Asatru Folk Assembly website states:


We believe that there is an afterlife, and that those who have lived virtuous lives will go on to experience greater fulfillment, pleasure, and challenge. Those who have led lives characterized more by vice than by virtue will be separated from kin, doomed to an existence of dullness and gloom. The precise nature of the afterlife - what it will look like and feel like - is beyond our understanding and is dealt with symbolically in the myths.

There is also a tradition in Asatru of rebirth within the family line. Perhaps the individual is able to choose whether or not he or she is re-manifested in this world, or there may be natural laws which govern this. In a sense, of course, we all live on in our descendants quite apart from an afterlife as such. To be honest, we of Asatru do not overly concern ourselves with the next world. We live here and now, in this existence. If we do this and do it well, the next life will take care of itself.
thevikingworld.pbworks.com...

Plenty of room for reincarnation in Odinism!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

There is an intrinsic conflict, the school of Hillel did not recognize Jesus as Messiah, the school of Hillel was the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus, James and Stephen, then there is no doubt that Saul was working under the auspices of the school of Hillel in carrying out the death sentences.

All of this is mythology, not history.

The School of Hillel taught tolerance, not persecution. It doesn't follow that Saul of Tarsus would have persecuted anyone under the engagement of the School of Hillel.

The students of Shammai believed Jesus to be Messiah

That's doubtful! There was no sect of Judaism that believed Jesus Christ to be the Messiah.

It is possible that Paul was not of the Hillel form of Pharasism, but rather the more radical Shammaite party. N. T. Wright describes the Shammaite Pharisee as a militant “hard-liner” that was not willing to work with Rome as long as they could study the Torah, as Hillel had said (What Saint Paul Really Said, 26). Paul was a Diaspora Jew who claimed to have been raised in a family which kept the Jewish traditions without fault. He was an ultra-conservative reacting to what he perceived as a dangerous liberal view (Jesus was the Messiah and the High Priest killed him!)

On topic, reincarnation was well accepted among Hellenized Jews, which is what Hillel was.

umm, no. The Sanhedrin recorded it and the rabbis kept this literature.

Regardless of whether or not you consider Christianity or Judaism as mythological, the truth is, the rabbinical literature is kept. In the quote I posted, it said the source documents.

The source documents are from every sanhedrin and rabbinical councils from the time they were in Babylon. Those are original source documents.

They still have their documents and have published them many times throughout history, without change. They have the Talmud, Mishnah and Midrash, along with the Zohar. These have been kept by them since before the first century.

As tradition describes it, from the time of the very giving of the written Torah, Moses already had received a companion Torah she'b'al peh (oral Torah), which he proceeded to teach to the people of Israel during their travels in the desert. It is clear that from the very beginning, Jews needed additional authoritative law, or halakhah ("going," or "path"), to govern regular life. These halakhot (plural) were passed on through the generations, and during the period of the Second Temple (fifth century BCE-first century C.E.), halakhot, both those developed through custom and those derived from interpretation of the Torah, were collected and transmitted. Following the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., the earliest rabbis gathered and transmitted the laws learned from earlier sages.

This is historical, not mythological. They have their source documents of their history. Let me explain, when rabbis are coming together to form and idea of what is halakah, they always refer back to the earliest rabbis. They read the documents and then discuss them.

They didn't sit around and discuss some guy's spoken opinion. How else would the sit and discuss what the earlier rabbis and sages said unless it was written? They preserved their documents.

While you may look at it as mythology to suit your world view, the Jews have kept their written records from before the first century, that is how they determined their laws for daily living. They wrote about Jesus, they wrote about the fall of Jerusalem, they kept those and transmitted them again and again, because ALL of Jewish life and community is governed by the rulings of rabbis, that was written.

One thing is certain, the Jews wrote their history, from Babylon to 2015.