There has been some debate over this issue and I thought that it deserves a thread of its' own. Strictly speaking, christians and Jews of the present day do not believe in reincarnation, but according to some, they once did.

No serious Christian wishes to be "carried about with diverse and strange doctrines, but rather to be established in "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Therefore our purpose in this brief study will be to determine if, in good conscience, a Christian may believe in reincarnation.

Reincarnation-also known as the transmigration of souls-is not some exotic idea of non-Christian mysticism. In ancient orthodox Jewish and Christian writings, as well as the Holy Scriptures, we can find reincarnation as a fully developed belief, although today it is commonly ignored.


A Jewish Belief

Reincarnation is commonly represented in the West as being an exclusively Hindu or Buddhist belief, but it is not. Reincarnation is a tenet of orthodox Judaism, wherein it is called gilgul or ha'atakah, and was so at the time of Christ, and automatically passed over into Christian theology.

Non-Belief in Reincarnation Rebuked By Jesus

When the Pharisee, Nicodemus, expressed his doubts as to a man being able to enter the womb and be born again, physically, saying: "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" the Lord Jesus reproved him, saying: "Art thou a master [teacher] of Israel, and knowest not these things?...If I have told you earthly things [about physical rebirth], and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things [about the spiritual rebirth]?"especially when every educated Jew was familiar with the already-cited words of Job: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." Moreover, every Jew had heard these words of Moses scores of times: "Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God. Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men....Thou carriest them away like a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up [again]....in the evening it is [again] cut down."

This same idea was also to be found in the prayer of Tobit: "Blessed be God that liveth for ever, and blessed be his kingdom. For he doth scourge, and hath mercy: he leadeth down to hell [hades], and bringeth up again: neither is there any that can avoid his hand."

Also familiar would have been the direct reference to reincarnation in Ecclesiasticus: "Woe be unto you, ungodly men, which have forsaken the law of the most high God! For when you are born, you shall be born to a curse: and when you die, a curse shall be your portion. All that are of the earth shall return to the earth again: so the ungodly shall go from a curse to destruction."

See: May a Christian Believe in Reincarnation?


Then there is the opposing side:

Reincarnation is the belief that when one dies, one's body decomposes, but one is reborn in another body. It is the belief that one has lived before and will live again in another body after death. The bodies one passes in and out need not be human. One may have been a Doberman in a past life, and one may be a mite or a carrot in a future life. Some tribes avoid eating certain animals because they believe that the souls of their ancestors dwell in those animals.

On the other hand, reincarnation is a way of rejecting the Christian teaching of the final judgment by a holy God, with the possible result of being condemned to suffer in eternal hell,, as accepted by some gnostics, atheists and materialists...

Reincarnation is not a thrill for a Hindu, nor even a good happening to expect, it is the worse imaginable "curse"!... the greatest fear for a Hindu is not to die, but to reincarnate... all the ascetic sacrifices, all the hard yoga and puja practices, is to avoid reincarnation... to live nude or without food of a Jainist is to avoid the next reincarnation... the great sacrifices of a Buddhist in a monastery for life, is to obtain enlightenment, thus avoiding reincarnation...

For some westerns, it may be an opportunity God gives to amend previous errors. But one life-time should be more than enough enough for it... among other things, because God is for us, The God of the Bible wants everybody to go to eternal Heaven: 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1Tim.2:3-4).

But even in this view, reincarnation does not make sense physically nor spiritually, because the soul incarnates in a different body, with a different brain; therefore, a different person is involved, and that person has not technically experienced reincarnation.
And if the soul reincarnates in a Doberman, she can became a great dog, but physically and spiritually totally incompatible with the human person before the reincarnation.

However, Reincarnation is totally opposed to the teachings of the Bible and of the Koran. You can not believe in Reincarnation and proclaim that you are a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim... Reincarnation is a grave heresy against these three religions, against the revelations of God in the Bible and Koran.

See: Reincarnation Today

This thread deals exclusively on how Christians and Jews see the belief of reincarnation as is supposedly evidenced in the bible.

I can't see why a Christian could not believe in reincarnation, if they all followed words to the letter, everyone would be like robots, I am sure that is not how it was meant to be.

To be honest, I have always believed in reincarnation (well since I was 4 anyway lol). As I got older I just came to the conclusion that reincarnation was just a means to learn and evolve - for instance, in one life someone may be a doctor, in their next they may be a scientist, in their next a cleaner, etc etc all these lives would carry different values and enable someone to live a humble life, a rich life, a knowledgeable life, a teaching life and so on and so forth.

I don't for one minute think we can learn enough in one short lifetime, even if someone were to live to be 110 years old, it is still a short time to take in so much and what about if someone were done a great favour by another but was unable to pay that person back, maybe they can do it in their next life.

Reincarnation for me is like one long "soul life" with holiday breaks throughout - those holidays are physical death until we can come back.

Evenutually, we probably retire from Earth life, no idea how long that takes though - probably a lifetime

It would depend on ones definition of reincarnation. If you are talking about jumping species i.e. ‘he was a dog in his past life or a spruce tree in another’ I would draw the line. As a Christian I believe there are circumstances (without scriptural evidence) in cases such accidental death of a child or victims of murder, results of evil intent and direction. As well and this one ‘a touchy subject’ suicide as a result of drug interactions on mentality or being tormented and coerced into such action by evil people.
Perhaps even in some cases of accidental death. God has allowed these things to happen and He would have a means to remedy such happening by allowing a second chance on occasion.
Irish

I'm a Christian and I believe in Reincarnation. I wouldn't say I'm a church-going Christian, nor do I belong to any denomination.

My difficulty in accepting this concept lies in that, it is not a widely held belief by christians and all scriptural refernces used by the site in question are out of context. If christians and Jews upheld this belief in the beginning, how could such a basic concept of the faith have been lost?

I'm a Christian and am open to the possibility of reincarnation. I don't know if I actually believe it to be fact, but it's very possible.
I'm a non-denominational Christian as well. I'd rather have a personal one on one relationship with Jesus than go through a (middle man) organized church.

But reading all the accounts of children in India who have realized who they were in a previous life, and have actually shown their parents the house they used to live in, in that prior life, naming people only the deceased (reincarnated) person would know, and being fully documented, I'd say it's a distinct possibility.

I believe that many of the texts that dealt with reincarnation were removed or excluded from the Bible, but here's one that makes you think:
"who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” If not for reincarnation, how would you explain a mans ability to sin before his birth?

Could be another explanation I suppose, but I haven't figured it out.

that was a trick question... made to entrap Christ... that's why He didn't answer the question the way they thought He would... a man wasn't to be punished for the sins of his parents... so he couldn't give that as an answer... and a man can't sin before he is born... (they were suggesting reincarnation)... so he couldn't give that as an asnwer... so he said, this man was made for this moment so i could make him whole... (i was paraphrasing that)... just like the stoning of the woman where Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." the jews believed that only God could be sinless, so if they threw a stone... they would be stoned themselves... not only that, the law said that they had to bring the man too... which they didn't...

other than that... personally i don't believe in reincarnation because of the whole concept...

let me know if i have this wrong... you are reborn to learn from the mistakes you made in a past life or to pay for evil you did in a past life... something to that effect... but if that's the case... why be born in the first place?

the Bible does address the subject of reincarnation... it sums it all up in one verse...

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Hebrews 9:27

by the way... the OP took a verse out of context as the atheists on here would say.. they misquoted the entire thing since they only took part of it... under the secion

Non Belief In Reincarnation Rebuked By Jesus

if the OP had bothered to post the rest of the discussion... it is extremely obvious to the reader that Jesus was talking about being born again spiritually... not physically...

Here is the actual conversation from John 3

" 1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. "

All of the examples the OP provided are parts that talk about the ressurection of mankind at the end to face judgement... in the book of Job... he says

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and tht he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin , worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Job 19:25-26

There have never been verses in the Bible that allow for a belief in reincarnation... not even for violent death or otherwise... what would be the point of living and dying over and over again?

i can't speak for what a Supreme Being would and wouldn't do... i'll just say that the God of the Bible wouldn't do it... based on what i've read...

Lotus Flower

what would be the point of being born over and over again to learn? it's not like we would remember our past life anyway... according to how reincarnation works... so you basically live... die... forget everything you learned... just to do it again? doesn't make one bit of sense to me...

but that's just my opinion...

I see you've finally looked into it Jor-el. As I said before early Christians and Jews believed in reincarnation, and well so do I.

i believe in the resurrection of the body...you will return to your glorified body....this has been the only way that i can find in the scriptures....this is my personal belief and i am not trying to make anyone else believe anything they do not want to believe....i have done research on this issue and have found nothing conclusive to the contrary...anyway, once i am done in this life i don't want to come back to this place again for another life on eatrh....once has been enough for me.......

randomhit10

John 1:19 makes it implicitly clear that Jews believed in reincarnation while Matthew 17:10 confirms that Early Christians including the man for whom Christianity was named, also believed. Otherwise, John could not have been mistaken for Elias or Elijah, nor would he have been referred to such.

As well, reincarnation is further attested to since it is argued in some Christian circles that Jesus was in the Garden of Eden, or was Moses or other prophets. Of course the only way around this last point is to resolve that by faith Jesus is god and so is capable of manifesting himself as any personality he wishes.

When I look into issues, I do it wholeheartedly. Yet I cannot personally accept the belief of reincarnation as it is seen by you, simply because it contradicts scripture.

Actually, that is an error. Elijah was physically taken to heaven, wasn't he?

He didn't physically die. There are two specific examples of people being taken up to heaven. Enoch and Elijah. That means he was still alive when he was taken, as far as the scriptures go he is alive and well in heaven still in his physical body.

If he was reborn as John the Baptist, then what happened to his 1st body?
Don't tell me, he's got 2 bodies now and one is a spare.



Never heard of this, please elaborate.

It would be an error according to the writer of the Gospel who portrayed John the Baptist as having been conceived and born of a woman, not mine. And that speaks to the often illogical and circular interpretations of the narratives contained within those texts. hence some believe in reincarnation and some don't each picking and choosing verses that only suit their purpose.

And as far as the scriptures and pseudographia go for those two, they share the same space beside god as does the supposed son---his right hand.

Now then, I must take it that you TOO presume the words attributed to Jesus about John was a lie.

Read above then you tell me.
Now you have.

Actually the scriptures don't go into detail over exactly where Elijah and Enoch are sitting or standing for that matter. For that you would have to rely on extra biblical sources.

Jesus was quite clear for those who read his words.

Matthew 11:7-14

7As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces. 9Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10This is the one about whom it is written:
" 'I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.'[c] 11I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear.

Intersting choice of words. If one is willing to accept it, this man is "THE" Elijah (as in type). If it was really Elijah reincranted or in the flesh it would have been more correct to drop the "THE".

A simple case of grammatical misuse of words and people start believing reincarnation is acceptable (biblically speaking).

Refer back to my post.

and Let us refer back to the words which billions of Christians over hundreds of years have died knowing, rather than playing fast and loose with late 20th century redactions. The KJV version which said:

Matthew----" And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come."

There is no " THE Elijah there." Never mind that John himself claimed otherwise:

John-----"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not."

Mark----"But I say unto you, that Elias has indeed come..."

Luke----"This is he, of whom it is written..."

But this is why so many incorrectly quote the Bible, because time and time again it has been written to conform to what the authors want it to say.

very well put... i was just about to answer that question... but you beat me to it... no matter how hard anyone looks, there is NOTHING in the Bible that indicates a belief in reincarnation...

only if you take the verse out of context and don't read the one's before or after it...

and i see that everyone that thinks so has avoided quoting my other post...

"It is appointed to men once to die..."

that pretty much clears everything up... there are very few philosophical or religious subjects that the Bible doesn't cover...

I believe you are mistaken. I don't remember the exact scripture, but seem to recall some Jews believing Jesus was "Elijah reborn". Early Christians believed the anti-christ of Revelation would be Nero Caesar reincanated in a differeent body.

Demons that were once "fallen angels" is a pagan superstitious nonsesnse, though ghosts/spirits are mentioned in the Bible and acknowledged. Since there are no fallen angels/demons in the real Bible, perhaps what was thought to b demons were only disembodied souls that have possessed th souls of others.

Souls were by no means immortal in early Christian theology. There are several mosaics and ivory bible covers that portray heavenly judgements, with God on his throne of living Seraphim-dragons, some of which can be seen swallowing up those human souls who did not pass judgement. And early Christian scritpures state the same thing, heavenly dragons who consume the souls of the wicked, a practice known in many other cultures as well, the best known being the crocodile headed monster Ammut, who swallows the souls of the wicked in Egyptian theology.

This was a widespread Christian belief until the success of Dante's Inferno, which gave us our modern idea of a hell ruled by a devil where the souls of the wicked are tormented forever.

Jewish Orthodoxy believes in a bodily resurrection at an appointed time in the future. Therefore, reincarnation is not a doctrine held by the Jewish faith. This is why burial versus cremation is part of the Mosaic Law. MODERN Christianity believes in the afterlife of heaven or hell. Therefore, reincarnation is not a doctrine that is held by either of these faiths. The first century Christians, however, did not appear to believe in an immediate trip to heaven or hell, but held to the belief that the dead do not live again until the resurrection.

Jorel surprise surprise i don't beleive in this either not for your reasons but i think it is a romaticised way to avoid death, to bring comfort around the death experince......My understanding that reincarnation was borrowed from buddhism and incorporated into Catholics under the guise of purgatory and that many relgions do beleive in a after life of some sort loosely based on this idea.....

Revelation 20:6

"Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."
Why would Hebrews talk of man only dying once and in Revelation speak of man dying twice. Is this a contradiction?

Hebrews 9:27 isn't discussing reincarnation at all. It is addressing the sacrafice of Christ, and whether or not Jesus would have to die more than once for the sins of mankind.
This was a legitimate concern, as Hebrew law required a blood sacrifice every year in the temple for the forgiveness of all of their sins. In reading all of Hebrews chapter 9 it becomes clear that it is centered on answering these concerns.

I did refer back to your post. It talks of extra biblical sources. What is concerned here is biblical sources.

If John himself said that he was not Elijah, who am I to argue. This proves that what was being talked about here has nothing to do with reincarnation.

As for Jesus himself, whether you accept what I said prviously, or not isn't important. The words were used figuratively to illustrate a point of contention that was circulating at that time.

If Jeus was the Messiah where was Elijah who was supposed to come prepare the way?

It was due to this continuing question that Jesus gave the answer he did. If the people were willing to accept it, John was Elijah in a figurative sense.

This exactly my interpretation of things as well.

It is only a very little minority that have a different view, mainly due to cabbalistic teachings and acceptance of the Midrash as if it were scripture itself.

Thanks Sheri for your participation. Yes there are many such beliefs in a minority of christian churches, unfortunately they tend to be rather loose in their interpretation of biblical texts.

Both Enoch's and Elijah's body 'fell away' on their trip to Heaven when they became angels. Metatron (Enoch) sits next to God's throne and is one of the highest angels in Heaven bar 8 whose rank exceeds his. Elijah became the angel Sandalphon 'twin brother' of Metatron.

Exactly, the second death being the death of the soul or rather its' eternal damnation.

I simply ask, "where is the biblical text that confirms your assertions?"

Please feel free to provide the biblical text.

You can use the apocrypha for further sources, but note that they don't count as biblical text.

3 Enoch and 2 Enoch

Well, why don't you provide the specific verses?

The burden of proof is on you, due to your assertions, after all.

Certainly.

3 Enoch 4:1
I said to Metatron, "Why are you called the name of your Creator with seventy names? (his name is Metatron YHVH) You are greater than all the princes (princes of angels), more exalted than all the angels, more beloved than all the ministers, more honored than allthe hosts, and elevated over all your potentates in sovereignty, greatness, and glory; why, then, do youthey call you 'Youth' in the heavenly heights?" He answered, "Because I am Enoch, the son of Jared........"

Thereis a passage in 2 Enoch someone about his body falling away but I can't find it at this second (I'm writing these out from my own books) but there is also this in 3 Enoch:

3 Enoch 15:1
When the Holy One, blessed be He, took me to serve the throne of glory the wheels of the chariot and allthe needs of the Shekinah (Holy Spirit/female side of God), at once my flesh turned to flame my sinews to blazing fire (ALL angels are made of fire), my bones to juniper coals, my eyelashes to lightning flashes, my eyeballs to firery torches(God himself has eyes of fire so do many angels), the hairs of my head to hot flames, all my limbs to wings of burning fire, and the substance of my body to blazing fire. On my right-those who cleave the flames of fire-on my left-burning brands-round about me swept wind, tempest, and storm; andthe roar of earthquake upon earthquake was before and behind me.

In later parts it also explains how he has 72 wings and is covered in eyes. The Angel of Death Azrael is also covered in eyes.

Thank you Ashley for the passages, I can now study up on this a little more.

That said, I must emphasise that this is not part of biblical canon, Jewish or Christian and as such does not have the wheight as accepted canon, but it is interesting none the less.

Yw. Well 3 Enoch is actually 'Hebrew Enoch' written by Rabbi Ishmael

no, you are mistaken... they thought John the Baptist was "Elijah reborn" and not all early Christians believed that Nero was the antichrist... some did, but not all... and Paul corrects christians and says the antichrist is to come at a date very far in the future... at the end of the age (translated time)....

as far as fallen angels... the Bible refers to them as B'nai ha Elohim (Sons of God) in Genesis 6 and in Job.... since you are probably referring to the Jewish Bible... i'm not sure what you mean by real Bible... the word spirit in hebrew actually means "breath or spirit" depending on the context... and the Bible never says you can contact them or that they roam... there is a passage where Saul raises Samuel and well... long story short... it wasn't Samuel if you read the entire passage...

paintings are not the summary of Christian theology... nor do they reflect the belief of everyone in that time... they were what 1 person visualized... there was no passing or not passing judgement... everyone will be judged... there is a Bema judgement... if you don't know what that is... research the Greek olympics... and there is the White Throne jugdement... two completely different events...

Dante's Inferno was not a book... the book was called the Devine Comedy... it was written as fiction and presented as fiction... nobody took it as an actual interpretation of scripture... and since you seem to be unfamiliar with the work... it also had a section called Heaven and one called Pergutory... and most Christians don't believe in the concept of pergutory...

maybe you should check your history because early Christians did indeed believe in fallen angels, demons, bodily resurrection, they rejected reincarnation... and i don't recall any Jew i've ever met.... believing in reincarnation...

it is very interesting... i have it and i've read it...

but if i recall it was written a few centuries after Christ... so thousands of years after Enoch... but it is enteraining...

there is nothing in the Bible that implies that people become angels... and i definitely hope that you don't accept the Books of Enoch as scripture...

they weren't even written anywhere near the time of Enoch... it is an entertaining and well written story... but nothing that is said has it's basis in scripture...

one part of the story had Enoch coming back to earth to say goodbye to his family after he saw the face of God... lol... that is the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches...

and as far as Enoch and Elijah... it is believed that they are the 2 prophets in Revelation... they aren't reincarnated... it is believed that they still have their bodys because they will be used sometime in the future...
therefore, God kept them from dying... i'm not stating this as fact... but it makes sense... why they didn't die...

question for you... have you bothered to research Metatron and Sandalphon? where in scripture is any of this found? i'm not saying that angels named that don't exist... i'm just saying that if they do, they were never human... because humans don't become angels... if you believe in the Bible... like it seems like you do... you should probably read more of it... and take those other books that are known to be fakes... with a grain of salt... anyone that makes the claim that a book was written by enoch and it was written thousands of years later is trying to deceive you from the jump... so why wouldn't the rest of the text be deceiving as well?

the second death is the death of the spirit... if you read the entire book of Revelation... it clearly says that... no interpretation needed...

Hebrews 9:27 says "men"... it doesn't say man or only Christ... men is a plural word that encompansses all... so yes, it is talking about Christ, but it is also referring to all mankind... that's why it's in the plural... not the singular... so, yes, it is addressing the issue of reincarnation by stating it is appointed unto "men" once to die... but after this, the judgement... Jesus was never faced God's judgement and never will... in fact, the Bible makes it clear that he will be the Judge...

Precisely! I had to study this subject in great detail years ago, also before my father passed away he wanted to know why burial was preferred over cremation in certain faiths, the study of that alone leads one to this very topic.

The canon of scripture was intact to prevent what was believed as false doctrine from contaminating mainstream doctrine. Not many know that the Pharisee's and Saducees's were continuously at each other's throats when it came to Judaic doctrine. The Pharisee's believed in the concept of life after death only at the future resurrection. The Saducees' only believed in the moral base taught in the law. The Essenes were the ones that may have the roots to modern forms of Jewish mysticism. Hebrews 9:27 bears the mark of canonical belief. Hebrews was written by Paul who was a Pharisee, prior to his christian conversion. Nevertheless the doctrine did not change. The Messiah did not change the law, but he fulfilled it! That is what people miss when they examine the christian doctrine. The Messiah himself is Old Testament being fulfilled and not changed in any way shape or form.

When the Church got ahold of the Dead Sea Scrolls, they made a decision to include some information in the Bible, and omit other information. John Lash has been called a Great Man because he has studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi text and has found that information has been kept out of the Bible.

In the past I had searched and searched the Bible looking for anything that could refer to a life before our current life, and I found none UNTIL I read an article by a Biblical scholar who had mentioned a passage in the Bible where Jesus and his disciples were walking and saw a blind man and they asked Jesus [and I'm paraphrasing] "Teacher, why is this man blind? Is it because of something he did in this life, or something he did before he was born?"

I'm so shocked the Church overlooked this when editing the Bible. John Lash also explains how there are passages both in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi that refer to the "Archons".......aka Reptilians. John says that scholars don't want to bring this to the forefront because "frankly, they are spooked by it." John further states that it's scary for a biblical scholar who has always studied about God and Jesus --and now to encounter something like this?

There is no doubt in my mind that Reincarnation exists. I have also had experiences in my life at a young age, that I can't explain.

read the page before this one... we already covered something like that... and by the way... they didn't say before he was born... i'm not sure which translation you used, but i've never read that...

read the page before this one... we already covered something like that... and by the way... they didn't say before he was born... i'm not sure which translation you used, but i've never read that...

I find, Isis, that it is always best to stick to known facts and not supposition to come to a realistic conclusion based on the ones findings.

See: Judaism and Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls





This has absolutely nothing to do with reincarnation but rather the belief that Jews had that the sins of the fathers were visited on the children.

John 9:1-5

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

I don't really see how someone can mistake the context for a belief in reincarnation, unless they have a very loose and I emphasise LOOSE interpretation of biblical text



I have found no evidence online to the assertion that John Lash had access to either the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library. There is also no evidence that Archons or the Annanuki were ever mentioned in these collections of texts.

He is intimately linked though to Sitchins theories of alien manipulation of humanity which casts doubt in my mind to the seriousness of his scholarly principles.

Access to these texts is highly restricted and information on their contents are available for any person to see. There are only 15 percent of texts that are not available in the contents list.



I respect any persons personal beliefs and experiences. I also respect those who believe in reinacrnation as a valid belief system. Budhists and Hindus have accepted this belief for ages and that is their privelage and right.

What is absolutely true though is that the Bible does not support this belief system in not one single verse. This belief system was not and continues not to be accepted by Jews and Christians in the main. There is always a small minority that holds to these and other beliefs even though they shouldn't according to biblcal standards.

Be Well,

Jor-el

Isis,
I would be very interested in learning what scriptures in the dead sea scrolls supposedly refer to "reptilians". It is well known that when Hebrew was translated to Greek, the Seraphim of the Bible become Drakons (Dragons). I do know these references to dragons ARE in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so wonder if this is what he is referring to. But this goes back to the Sumerian origins of Judaism, where the throne guardians, heavenly gate guardians, sacred tree guradians, and creatures the Gods ride on are winged Mushushus dragons, and this is carried on thorugh the early years of Christianity with books like the Apocolypse of Baruch mentioning soul-devouring dragons residing in Heaven similar to Ammut in ancient egypt.

These Sumerian "reptilians" do not look like advanced space aliens, as writers like David Ickes would have us believe, but more like large quadrapedal, winged medieval dragons, big enough for thrones to be fitted on their backs and to swallow sinners whole. This is the origin of the Cherubim God rides in II Samual and Psalms, and we see these "dragons" depicted on the Menorah lamp of the tabernacle, and undoubtedly the Ark of the Covenant as well, if there were any contmeporary illustrations.

I think this absolutely proves reincarnation, if you believe the Bible, because this man they encountered was blind from birth. How could a man have sinned to cause his blindness if he had been blind at birth? only if he had sinned in a previous lifetime. If the disciples didn't believe in reincarnation, they never would've asked that question to begin with.

I very much believe in Reincarnation.

Well I am Christian and believe absolutely in reicarnation. So yes a Christian may believe in reicarnation.

Well observed Thozzman, well done indeed. I too agree that this at least implies reicarnation if not directly points to it.

Well done mate

The verse about a man being old and "born again" I take that to be about baptism because the belief is once you're baptized you're "born again" as a new spirit united with Jesus. However a couple of years ago my aunt pointed out a Bible verse of a guy being reincarnated. I can't remember where it was though now but I believe it was in the new testament. I believe in reincarnation but only because ofmy personal experience with it and having memories I know aren't from this life time. (Oh and if you're wondering I am a Christian as well)

Most people don't even believe they came here to begin with, let alone the idea that they might be coming back.

My feeling's always been that the Human journey is about perfecting one's self, and helping this crazy rathole become a little easier to live in. Therefore, if a person doesn't want to come back, it probably means they have to. If a person actually wants to come back, then they probably have enough soul growth achieved that they no longer need to.

As for Christianity, well even the Christians are always talking about "the second coming". If that's not a veiled term for reincarnation, then what is?

But where does it say that he sinned Isis?

This was a question not a statement that the apostles made. They also asked if his parents were the cause of the blindness, how does this fit in to the scheme of your very liberal interpretation?

Was the blind mans previous life as one of his parents?

This kind of theatric misinterpretation doesn't have two legs to stand on!!!

The second coming of Jesus, Osirian, not of yourself!!!

Are you Jesus by any chance that the second coming should apply to you or any one of us?

What the hell makes Jesus so damn special that he can come back and not me? Sex alone is a good enough reason to want to come back. Hell, I'd come back just for the fun of it.