Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Marcus Aurelius

Christianity and Reincarnation

48 posts in this topic

I'm sure this has been written about before on here; but in light of recent (and excellent) discussions on it, I thought I'd start a new about the subject.

This interesting article was linked in another thread by Jesus Loves Us:

http://cryskernan.tripod.com/christian_reincarnation.htm

I thought I would take some time to respond to parts of this article point by point. Now as a Methodist of the Anglican tradition; I must first state as before I personally reject the notion of reincarnation; I simply do not believe in it. I believe Hebrews 9:27 "And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment," Such a view is stated by not just Christianity; but also Judaism and Islam. Thus, I take my view from the Abrahamic branches of the tree. However, I don't condemn anyone who believes in it and even I do not rule out the POSSIBILITY of it. Simply put, I haven't died yet, so I can't slam the door on it; so what I am sharing today is simply my opinion and my conviction.

First, let me talk a bit about Origen who is referenced quite a bit in this article, naturally. First of all, he does have a lot of good theology. I don't dismiss his works entirely. However, he was in the habit of allegorizing scripture, and in particular Genesis. This idea of preexistence of souls at a glance does not seem like such a bad idea. However; it flies in the face of the message that the author of the creation accounts in Genesis is trying to highlight. In Origen's view, humanity; as a sort of cosmic Adam and Eve as pure souls, pure spirit become attached to matter. They are outside of creation; but they become entangled IN creation. This is what constitutes Origen's idea of the fall. Spirit becomes chained to matter. I say it flies in the face of Genesis because as we see in the creation stories; God looks at what He has created and He calls it GOOD; when He creates man, He calls it VERY GOOD. My point here is that MATTER WAS CREATED INHERENTLY GOOD. The OPPOSITE is true if we take Origen's view of creation. Man is not material; rather he DESCENDS into matter. Christianity, of all the major world religions and in the mythologies of the past is one of the few to actually affirm matter; that the spirit and the body are irrevocably linked. The Ancient Egyptians also had a solid view of this in their mythologies.

Origen, like many of the Gnostic writers was a Neoplatonist. In Platonic philosophy, there exists a sort of metaphysical dualism. There are two realms of being: the changing, temporal material world (imperfect) and the unchanging, nontemporal and nonmaterial world of Forms. Thus, human beings participate in two worlds; and the lower one is that of the senses. My point here is that we don't find the evidence of metaphysical dualism in the Bible. Christianity does not see matter as evil; but as inherently good as God said that it was...it has merely been subverted and tainted because of the Fall. When humanity fell, all of creation fell along with it. But, as numerous scriptures suggest; not only is humanity to be redeemed, all of matter will be along with it in what is called the New Creation. Again; I believe in a BODILY resurrection as 1 Cor 15: 53 suggests "For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies." (NLT for emphasis) As Christians, we should not view the body as some piece of junk to be discarded at death; rather we should glory in the hope of a physical resurrection similar to that of our Lord. So here is one key are where I see Origen as 'getting it wrong.' Now on to reincarnation specifically....

The article uses this passage as a reference for reincarnation: "And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)

To me, the emphasis in this passage is NOT on his condition; but rather that the "works of God were to be made manifest in Him." It calls to mind the story of Job. Job did nothing wrong; and yet he suffered. But through his suffering, God glorified Him and restored him. THAT is the emphasis. It is the idea that there is purpose in our perils; that life has meaning, and that God can use something like an affliction or pain to reveal His glory to that individual and to others. Jesus is taking the emphasis AWAY from who may have sinned or did not sin; and instead places the emphasis on His miraculous work of the Kingdom. Simply put, this is a misinterpretation of the text.

"For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:13-14)

"And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said, 'Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:10-13)

Here again is a clear statement of preexistence. Despite the edict of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the New Testament. Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding, contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology.

As for the John the Baptist-Elijah episode, there can be little question as to its purpose. By identifying the Baptist as Elijah, Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. Throughout the gospel narrative there are explicit references to the signs that will precede the Messiah.

"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi 4:5)"

Here is the supposed main evidence for reincarnation in the Bible, the story of John the Baptist as Elijah. First of all, to refute this interesting argument that has been quite persistent; I must first point to the Transfiguration. After John the Baptist had already been killed, Elijah is one of the ones who appears to the Disciples at the Transfiguration of Christ. What does this suggest? That Elijah was John the Baptist; but after his death he somehow 'morphed' back into Elijah? If the two were one and the same, would they not have recognized him AS John the Baptist? But the Scripture was clear. They saw Elijah.

Secondly, Jesus does not mean Elijah specifically, He means the SPIRIT of Elijah. John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah; that is, as a forerunner to prepare the way of the Lord. This is an example of bad exegesis; pulling a text out of context to make it say what one wants it to, while ignoring other texts; because here we see quite clearly that they are not the same person:

"Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14"And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb. 16"And he will turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. 17"And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord," (Luke 1:13-17).

John the Baptist came in the SPIRIT AND POWER of Elijah. But he was NOT Elijah. Rather, it is that their MINISTRIES were similar and of the same spirit; as forerunners. The same goes for the article's points about the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation: it is not Elijah and Moses who will return; but ministries in the same spirit of those two men.

I hope this post clarifies my position and I am all too happy to discuss it further.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi 4:5)"

I enjoyed your post. It is good to be curious and discuss and disagree with what the bible means. But when the apostleship of about 120 (the same as the number of priests at the opening ceremony of Solomon's Temple) when they all came together in one accord the anointing Spirit of God came down. It's not hard to get 120 people to agree with each other. You just have to agree with the possibility of every bodies idea. The true way is narrow and not lots of company along the walk. When they came together in agreement with God then God anointed them.

This is an opinion with no scripture to support it, so it cannot be an absolute truth; but I would think the virgin birth was a sticking point. When they prayed and found scriptural support the accepted it.

Hebrews 6:18 is surely one of the KEYS God gave Peter to open our understanding of the scriptures. And it explains why John the Baptist had to come as a type of Elijah. God does everything twice in the bible for our strong consolation.

God is so precise in His wording, which is being lost in the newer casual thinking translations. "All have sinned and come short of the glory go God...all must die." Anything short of the glory of God is sin. Flesh is corruptible. Flesh cannot live an eternity in heaven. Enoch and Elijah have not died. They have to die or else God has lied to us. Therefore since the two witness shall die, they surely must be Enoch and Elijah.

Everything twice is also why there are so many allegories and foreshadows in the OT, which are duplicated or fulfilled by Jesus in the NT. These foreshadows started with Adam. Romas 5: says Adam was a figure (foreshadow) of Jesus. How so? Well, Adam had no earthly father. Jesus had no earthly father. Adam was put into a deep sleep. Sleep in the bible is a symbol of death. While in sleep Adam received a wound in his side. And from the wound Adam received his bride. Justus died and then received a wound in His side. Out came blood and water, the elements of life. And He received His Bride, the church.

I am off the subject of reincarnation so I will try to make one more short comment. Every day of creation God said "Good". Good for His planned purposes. Not perfect, not sinless, but as he planned. Every day except Day Two. He had nothing good to say about the reservoir He placed over the firmament to be used for a curve correction with Noah's deluge.

How could sin have entered by the eating of the proverbial apple instead of what the bible says happened --- they gained the knowledge of good and evil. Adam had already sinned twice (there's KEY 2again) before they gained that knowledge. He didn't hide from God because he had disobeyed and eaten the fruit. He now knew to be ashamed of his nakedness and hid.

Only in the Catholic Apocropha does it say creation fell. It never fell. Adam transgressed---David transgressed. We all have. No scripture for Adam making God come up with another plan.

God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copen,

Thanks for the post. I agree with just about everything you had to say in your post. To my mind, it is more evidence against reincarnation somehow being in the Bible.

I interpret the Revelation passages about the Two Witnesses a bit differently as noted; but your literal interpretation certainly cannot be ruled out. More to our specific issue it hand, actually, I thank you for pointing that out: according to scripture Elijah didn't even die. So how could he have come back reincarnated? I actually laughed out loud when I read your post...because how did I miss something so obvious??? I KNEW that, I just didn't THINK of it. You're right, though, it could be the two of them coming back.

The ONLY thing I disagreed with in your post is this:

Only in the Catholic Apocropha does it say creation fell.

I'm sure you're aware that most theologians; from Augustine of Hippo on believe that creation DID fall when Adam and Eve fell. To be perfectly honest with you, I see it as the only thing that makes sense. Think about it. Adam names the animals in the garden, suggesting his dominion over them...and yet....after the fall...now those very same animals could kill and eat us. That's why I believe there are passages such as 'the lion lying down with the lamb' because it suggests a restoration of all of creation to its original image too. I feel that we have tornadoes and typhoons, the food chain etc. etc. because the entire natural world was subverted and distressed when the Fall occurred in the garden. All of creation, and what was intended to be our relationship to that creation all was torn asunder because of that one moment. So in Christ's redemption, all of creation is to be redeemed...indeed a new heaven and a new earth!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eternal life does not mean, just once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen lots of Biblical language which seemed to me to be indicating some measure of reincarnation/resurrection going on in both the Old & NT.

I'd post examples but I've been down that road before on sites devoted to Christian conversation and the response is always the same; "'MY interpretation of the scriptures is in error". PFFT, like they were experts on the subject. :td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about scholarship? People that ARE experts? I did try to address some of the purported Scriptures having to do with reincarnation here in the OP.

I do welcome all opinions, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to imply you didn't. I am sorry if that was the case.

So far as people schooled to be experts on the Bible is concerned, they've never really been able to adequately respond to my questions. Not to say they do not know what they are doing, I simply wasn't satisfied with the responses. It is probably some fault of my own but it seems they are reading a different book than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marcus began...

I thought I would take some time to respond to parts of this article point by point. Now as a Methodist of the Anglican tradition; I must first state as before I personally reject the notion of reincarnation; I simply do not believe in it. I believe Hebrews 9:27 "And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment," Such a view is stated by not just Christianity; but also Judaism and Islam. Thus, I take my view from the Abrahamic branches of the tree. However, I don't condemn anyone who believes in it and even I do not rule out the POSSIBILITY of it. Simply put, I haven't died yet, so I can't slam the door on it; so what I am sharing today is simply my opinion and my conviction.

I'm looking forward to this dialogue... :yes:

I find your outlook refreshing Marcus-- which gives me hope! --to think that someone training to be a pastor is not yet so hard-headed as to discount "possibilities" of things they might not yet understand... well let's call that progress.

Maybe we should start by defining terms. For myself, when I see a word like "reincarnation" it brings to mind a concept, but I recognize that others might have a different concept in mind that is quite different, so to go forward without definition is a disservice to the discussion. For instance, when you say that you personally reject the notion of reincarnation, I suspect that you think you do, yet from the little I know you, I doubt that you reject the idea that Jesus came back to life after he had died. I suspect that you accept the story of Lazurus, along with others like Tabitha (Dorcas) who had died and were somehow reanimated.

So it's likely the term "reincarnation" that you reject, not the idea of rising from the dead. To "incarnate" is to be alive, specifically to be in bodily, human form. As you say-- once we die, we don't really know what happens, apart of course from a few stories like those I've mentioned when certain folks have come back to life after they had died. They incarnate again, or re-incarnate.

Some religions (Hindus in particular) have their own definition of reincarnation where one might come back as a bug, or a plant, or a cow (if you are lucky) or a bird and there is a kind of progression of incarnations.... I don't know anything about that. I'm talking about a human dying and coming back to life as a human. A distinction might be made that of those mentioned that they all came back to life in the same bodies. True that. An exception is John (the baptizer) who Jesus specifically identified as the prophet Elijah --if you can accept it.... Most people (including those who call themselves Jesus the Christ followers) --cannot.

But let's walk through this together...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

Yours is a good post and there is many worthy points of discussion.

I doubt that you reject the idea that Jesus came back to life after he had died. I suspect that you accept the story of Lazurus, along with others like Tabitha (Dorcas) who had died and were somehow reanimated.[/color]

]

Exactly. I believe that they were raised from the dead in a physical and bodily resurrection; or as you say, reanimated. They were not reborn, as in their spirit did not leave their body and travel to inherit a new body. Dead flesh was raised; as the Bible says 'corruption' put on 'in-corruption' in the case of Jesus. Lazarus and Dorcas one would assumed lived natural lives and died natural deaths. Their spirits went to be with God and they await the resurrection of the dead at the end of time, when again, corruption shall put on in-corruption.

Some religions (Hindus in particular) have their own definition of reincarnation where one might come back as a bug, or a plant, or a cow (if you are lucky) or a bird and there is a kind of progression of incarnations.... I don't know anything about that. I'm talking about a human dying and coming back to life as a human. A distinction might be made that of those mentioned that they all came back to life in the same bodies. [/color]]

I've actually studied eastern religions at length. I've read the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Rig Veda and the Mahabharata. I've also studied Buddhism in great detail. I've read all the volumes of the Pali Canon as translated by Bikkhu Bodhi, the Dhammapada and numerous other things; but more specific to the topic at hand, I've read the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The Hindu concept you refer to could more appropriately be called 'transmigration.' The Bhagavad Gita says that the physical body is 'like a garment, to be worn for a time, then when the garment is warn out, it is removed and another garment is put on' (meaning another body.) The Upanishads provides a much more detailed account of this. The last state of being; or the final thoughts of the mind or spirit determines where the soul will exit the dead body. Where the soul exists actually determines its next incarnation. People come back as animals or insects, supposedly because it is a combination of their karma and these final thoughts; thus...if the soul was more focused on its baser instincts, it will lose the human station that it has attained. To the Hindu, it is a rare gift to be given a human life. That is why so many Hindu mystics are complete ascetics; they want to mortify the flesh and its 'baser instincts' so that they can break the eternal cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

Now the Buddhist view is similar but with key variants. First; they do not believe in transmigration. A human does not become an animal or vice versa. For them, reincarnation would solely be from one human form to another human form. Now most schools of Buddhism do not accept the idea of an individual soul at all; thus what reincarnates is not the individual "I", the Marcus Aurelius or Jack Skellington; but the KARMA that we have carried. The easiest way to explain that is only 'fragments' of us survive. This is why the goal of Buddhism is cessation; the individual ego is the thing to be snuffed out. This is also why some call Buddhism an 'atheistic' religion. But we don't know this for certain. The metaphysics are unclear. Some have said that Nirvana is a transcendent state of being; like there is some universal "I" without an ego while others again, say that it is all about cessation. The metaphysics of course, are unclear because this was the Buddha's aim...his aim was to 'show the path to the cessation of suffering' in the here and now. He rebuked his followers when they asked him about metaphysics and things like the state of the "I" after death.

Tibetan Buddhism is however a bit unique. According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead; the individual "I" at least survives his own death, so to speak. When a soul passes from the body; it enters into what is known as the Bardo state...now this Bardo, Jack, is very unique. I say this because if you research it or read about it in the Tibetan Book of the Dead; it sounds virtually IDENTICAL to the Catholic concept of purgatory. It is a sort of in-between state. And like Catholicism, there are very specific rituals that Tibetan monks are to perform for days and months after the individual passes to aid the soul on its journey to make it to the next life. This again SUGGESTS an individual reincarnating.

Now I did mention I left the door open for the POSSIBILITY of reincarnation, that is a dying in one body and the soul returning to another body at another point in time; and there is one specific reason I have for it. Omnaka came very close to hitting that nail on the head with his one sentence post. This is a quote from the Bhagavad Gita; one of my favorite religious works of all time: "You mourn for that which is not worthy of grief. The wise grieve neither for the living, nor the dead. There was never a time that neither you, nor I, nor all these kings did not exist; nor shall there ever be a time when we cease to be." -The Bhagavad Gita

What if there was no such thing as death....at all? What if what we perceive as physical death is merely a passing through from one door to another door? What if death is just a transition? That is really the Hindu belief. There IS no death; it's all continuous, eternal. I can't even rule this possibility out Biblically because Jesus conquered death.

Now this is getting into the realm of metaphysics; and as we both concede, we can't be certain. However, I do maintain that there is no BIBLICAL evidence to support reincarnation; and as to your mentioning of Elijah, double-check my OP. I talked about that at length and 'debunked' it from traditional Biblical scholarship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say I really enjoyed that most recent post, Marcus. One thing that did pop to mind as I read was a question about the Christian idea ox the New Heavens and New Earth. When the Saints are called to God after the final judgement they are said to shed their old body, flesh and corrupted by sin as it is, and put on a new body, a spirit body that is incorruptible.

I suppose this would be more like a transmutation rather than a reincarnation, but your post dipped into this topic a bit, and I thought I'd put it out there.

Best wishes,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA, I totally agree with that statement. This 'new' body I think will be similar to the one of Jesus after His resurrection. As you and I both know He was able to do things like materialize and yet Thomas touched him. He ate. I think He is in a sense the 'model' for what will happen with us in the end.

As an aside, PA, this was perhaps the main reason why I personally came to reject the idea of reincarnation after wrestling with the concept for many years. The Christian (also Jewish and Islamic) view is that there will be a physical resurrection, a perfected body...as opposed to the eastern idea (which I do respect) which essentially views the body as a piece of junk to be discarded, favoring instead a continuing on of the soul or spirit....in short, spirit over matter. As you would know this same idea also takes us right back to the Gnostics and neoplatonists. There's a distinct parallel. The idea of a bodily resurrection is unique to the Abrahamic faiths, with the rare exceptions of a few others, like the ancient Egyptians. It is my belief that it is matter AND spirit, not one over the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not very well read on the Neoplatonists, couldn't really say what beliefs they hold. But I get your meaning on the Gnostics. And naturally I'm with you on the general premise of the resurrection/reincarnation debate, though sometimes you hear stories about "past lives" and such. Most of the time you can cast the stories aside, but to use one example that you hear from time to time - a person who's never played music in their life gets a knock to the head and the next thing you know they sit down at a piano and start belting out Beethoven. As a musician myself (classically trained pianist, plus saxophone and bass guitar) I find these types of stories fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, me too. I've read a lot of interesting stories and cases on it too, books like Life After Life, Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls are some particularly good examples. Bridey Murphy (though the jury is still out on that). I certainly don't think it's harmful to be open to the possibility of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally reject the notion of reincarnation; I simply do not believe in it. I believe Hebrews 9:27 "And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment,"

Simply put, I haven't died yet, so I can't slam the door on it;

You haven't died yet. That's the point, isn't it? Lazarus's body was decaying when Jesus reinterpreted the Old Testament. Do you agree? Define in your own words what irrevocably linked means? Body turns to dust but dust is not physical body. Miracle can shape random dust into a living form. What did Jesus say about the number of times we should forgive? One lifetime wouldn't be enough? Are you one of those christians who believe in the death of the soul for the sinner who didn't believe in christ? I like what NBP said in How far will you go to be "INCLUSIVE" thread. "Perhaps we reincarnate to finally figure out that Jesus is the way out, a ticket to Heaven?" My ride is here gotta go. Thanks for taking the time follow up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if there was no such thing as death....at all? What if what we perceive as physical death is merely a passing through from one door to another door? What if death is just a transition? That is really the Hindu belief. There IS no death; it's all continuous, eternal. I can't even rule this possibility out Biblically because Jesus conquered death.

Now this is getting into the realm of metaphysics; and as we both concede, we can't be certain. However, I do maintain that there is no BIBLICAL evidence to support reincarnation; and as to your mentioning of Elijah, double-check my OP. I talked about that at length and 'debunked' it from traditional Biblical scholarship.

Best to take it one step at a time when walking together... I'd like to start with Elijah, but along with that you mentioned that you reject the idea that Origen proposed regarding the pre-existence of souls. Scripture frequently affirms pre-existence with statements like "Before Abraham, I am" and the mentioning of our having been chosen even before the foundation of the world. I'd like to revisit that specifically, but first I'd like to address a few other things you said in your opening post.

I apologize in advance for going slowly. I have limited time right now, but I promise to address all I can with you... Step by step and slowly shouldn't be too much of a problem for someone flying the banner of "Methodist" -- no? :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:13-14)

"And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said, 'Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:10-13)

Here again is a clear statement of preexistence. Despite the edict of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the New Testament. Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding, contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology.

As for the John the Baptist-Elijah episode, there can be little question as to its purpose. By identifying the Baptist as Elijah, Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. Throughout the gospel narrative there are explicit references to the signs that will precede the Messiah.

"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi 4:5)"

Here is the supposed main evidence for reincarnation in the Bible, the story of John the Baptist as Elijah. First of all, to refute this interesting argument that has been quite persistent; I must first point to the Transfiguration. After John the Baptist had already been killed, Elijah is one of the ones who appears to the Disciples at the Transfiguration of Christ. What does this suggest? That Elijah was John the Baptist; but after his death he somehow 'morphed' back into Elijah? If the two were one and the same, would they not have recognized him AS John the Baptist? But the Scripture was clear. They saw Elijah.

Secondly, Jesus does not mean Elijah specifically, He means the SPIRIT of Elijah. John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah; that is, as a forerunner to prepare the way of the Lord. This is an example of bad exegesis; pulling a text out of context to make it say what one wants it to, while ignoring other texts; because here we see quite clearly that they are not the same person:

"Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14"And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb. 16"And he will turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. 17"And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord," (Luke 1:13-17).

John the Baptist came in the SPIRIT AND POWER of Elijah. But he was NOT Elijah. Rather, it is that their MINISTRIES were similar and of the same spirit; as forerunners. The same goes for the article's points about the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation: it is not Elijah and Moses who will return; but ministries in the same spirit of those two men.

I hope this post clarifies my position and I am all too happy to discuss it further.

Okay-- let's start there, on the mountain. John the Baptist is already dead, separated from his head... but there is Jesus with his three closest buds on the mountain when Moses and Elijah appear while Jesus himself is "transfigured" before them. Ignoring for the moment that the disciples would have no idea what Moses and Elijah should look like (in the days before Google) they somehow determine that it is indeed Moses and Elijah standing before them that day.

Of Moses, the people were told (Deut 18) that God would raise for them a prophet like him-- and so they waited in anticipation of that happening, mostly because they feared death if God were to communicate with them directly, such was their experience at that time. Who was the prophet that would be "raised" that they were anticipating? We are told in John 1 that Jesus was the one Moses wrote about.

Of Elijah, the people similarly had been told (in Malachi) --"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes."

-So they expected a prophet like Moses-- One who communicates directly with God, but BEFORE that-- they were instructed to expect Elijah. ---Not one "like" Elijah. Elijah. Expect Elijah.

Now you might understand why the disciples there that day were confused. There they were standing on the mountain with Jesus---- transfigured, just like the stories of Moses whose face shone radiantly when he met with God. ---But if Jesus is the one like Moses we were told to expect-- how can it be so? --Since we were also told that Eljah must come first?

Jesus himself gives them the answer, which so few are able to accept....

Elijah (not one like him) did come first. He was born before Jesus and the disciples understood in that moment that Jesus was talking about John the Baptist.

--------

I always get nervous when a pastor suggest that we ignore what was "actually" said in order to properly consider what they think the speaker did or didn't "mean." Why not give weight to the words he spoke?

Secondly, Jesus does not mean Elijah specifically, He means the SPIRIT of Elijah. John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah; that is, as a forerunner to prepare the way of the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copen,

Thanks for the post. I agree with just about everything you had to say in your post. To my mind, it is more evidence against reincarnation somehow being in the Bible.

I interpret the Revelation passages about the Two Witnesses a bit differently as noted; but your literal interpretation certainly cannot be ruled out. More to our specific issue it hand, actually, I thank you for pointing that out: according to scripture Elijah didn't even die. So how could he have come back reincarnated? I actually laughed out loud when I read your post...because how did I miss something so obvious??? I KNEW that, I just didn't THINK of it. You're right, though, it could be the two of them coming back.

The ONLY thing I disagreed with in your post is this:

I'm sure you're aware that most theologians; from Augustine of Hippo on believe that creation DID fall when Adam and Eve fell. To be perfectly honest with you, I see it as the only thing that makes sense. Think about it. Adam names the animals in the garden, suggesting his dominion over them...and yet....after the fall...now those very same animals could kill and eat us. That's why I believe there are passages such as 'the lion lying down with the lamb' because it suggests a restoration of all of creation to its original image too. I feel that we have tornadoes and typhoons, the food chain etc. etc. because the entire natural world was subverted and distressed when the Fall occurred in the garden. All of creation, and what was intended to be our relationship to that creation all was torn asunder because of that one moment. So in Christ's redemption, all of creation is to be redeemed...indeed a new heaven and a new earth!!

I hope you remember I stated something I believe about the sticking point before the new priesthood of 120 at Pentecost all came together in one accord with God and received divine endorsement from the Holy Spirt. In it I said it was my opinion and could not be proved because there was no scripture to support it. Proof of course has to be twice in the bible.

You disagreed with my statement that there was never a fall of creation from Adam, and there was no scripture to support a "fall" . I believe you feel you have support because Augustine as far back as 3rd century believed in a fall. Augustine was a Catholic monk who had great insight in many things, especially the doctrine of election and predestination-----but Augustine believed at least two books of the Apocrypha was divine scripture.

That brings me back to point I made. That was Augustine's opinion based on his logic, supported by NO scripture while ignoring scripture that tells Adam sinned twice before anyone ate the apple. Twice being Gods key for proof.

Now consider this: man is draped in death from the moment of creation--from the top of his dead in hair which is dead cells, to the outer covering of skin which is dead cells flaking off constantly, to the bottom of the feet with dead cells called toenails. Man was not re-created after the fall with these attributes. He was created with them in the beginning. Showing death was intended all along.

Which brings another of the KEYS God gave Peter: Romans 1:20 From the recorded creation of the world (not from nature) the invisible (spiritual) things of God are made clear by the physical things that are made, including His Triune Godhead. (If you have one of the newer causal translations since the JKV it has left off "Godhead", it has completely lost the meaning of this entire verse.

This KEY shows us that by Adam being put to a deep sleep (sleep being a symbol in the bible for death) that death was intended all along before anybody ate the fruit---plus being draped in death in the dead cells on a body. (Twice for a strong consolation.)

Don't forget God said the the same day you eat the fruit you will die. Not begin to die. When a person dies it is one day not years. That is why the death record gives one date. If God meant physical death, then God lied. If He lied about that He has made other statements which are lies and we can count on none of them

When they gained the knowledge of good and evil they died that same day to sin and to self. They died to the fleshly world. Yep, everyone dies to self and sin and the world when they experience the born again.

Now, I realize I have gotten off the subject of reincarnation, so I will leave this section entirely.

God bless

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof of course has to be twice in the bible.

I have never heard that before: if a book says something twice it constitutes proof. Maybe consider that each religion has a "book" or Truth, which I see as a piece of a puzzle. You can't put the puzzle together from within, to see the big picture, while each piece is in conflict with other pieces; battling for the control which will ultimately be stolen from all of them if they don't get it together in time. There is evidence for reincarnation [science and the Afterlife Experience].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't died yet. That's the point, isn't it? Lazarus's body was decaying when Jesus reinterpreted the Old Testament. Do you agree? Define in your own words what irrevocably linked means? Body turns to dust but dust is not physical body. Miracle can shape random dust into a living form. What did Jesus say about the number of times we should forgive? One lifetime wouldn't be enough? Are you one of those christians who believe in the death of the soul for the sinner who didn't believe in christ? I like what NBP said in How far will you go to be "INCLUSIVE" thread. "Perhaps we reincarnate to finally figure out that Jesus is the way out, a ticket to Heaven?" My ride is here gotta go. Thanks for taking the time follow up!

Death of the soul? I don't know. From the Christian perspective I have to say yes; that in our free will, if we choose to be eternally separated from God; then we indeed will be. The classically middle ages notion of hell; howls of protest and agony as souls are thrown into burning pits needs to be thrown out. The C.S. Lewis vision of hell in the Great Divorce is much more realistic than Dante's Inferno. The way Lewis puts it is that a soul may desire to be separated from God, may desire this cessation. Thus, the soul gets its wish absolutely.

But as a Protestant who happens to lean very Catholic on many issues; I think the idea of Purgatory is highly possible. Even the Islamic faith has a kind of purgatory, as does Tibetan Buddhism as I mentioned in a previous post. The concept of an in-between state after death seems to pervade many religions and ancient mythologies; therefore I think it is highly credible. If something like that is true then perhaps the soul still has a chance at redemption, even after bodily death.

Best to take it one step at a time when walking together... I'd like to start with Elijah, but along with that you mentioned that you reject the idea that Origen proposed regarding the pre-existence of souls. Scripture frequently affirms pre-existence with statements like "Before Abraham, I am" and the mentioning of our having been chosen even before the foundation of the world. I'd like to revisit that specifically, but first I'd like to address a few other things you said in your opening post.

I apologize in advance for going slowly. I have limited time right now, but I promise to address all I can with you... Step by step and slowly shouldn't be too much of a problem for someone flying the banner of "Methodist" -- no? :tsu:

The aforementioned "I am" statement is one where Jesus is referring to Himself as God; the YHWH "I am that I am" God. He is declaring His eternal nature. Jesus was present from eternity; before what we know as space and time existed. So yes, in a sense, He 'pre-existed'; but I feel this is because He is part of the eternal and triune Godhead. It does not suggest the pre-existence of other souls.

However, as you say, there are OTHER passages that seem to suggest this. Jeremiah 1:5 is a good example. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Here again, though, I don't feel this is referring to his soul's pre-existence; rather it is the foreknowledge of God from eternity. In the Confessions, Saint Augustine describes God as existing in an 'eternal present moment'; meaning that there is no before, no after; only present....He sees all things as they are. The past, the present, the future (possible futures too perhaps?) as one.....thus, He did know Jeremiah from before He was in the womb. He knew you and I before we were born; indeed, everything is visible to God. Not that the soul came from an eternal state; but that God knew it from eternity before it even existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay-- let's start there, on the mountain. John the Baptist is already dead, separated from his head... but there is Jesus with his three closest buds on the mountain when Moses and Elijah appear while Jesus himself is "transfigured" before them. Ignoring for the moment that the disciples would have no idea what Moses and Elijah should look like (in the days before Google) they somehow determine that it is indeed Moses and Elijah standing before them that day.

Of Moses, the people were told (Deut 18) that God would raise for them a prophet like him-- and so they waited in anticipation of that happening, mostly because they feared death if God were to communicate with them directly, such was their experience at that time. Who was the prophet that would be "raised" that they were anticipating? We are told in John 1 that Jesus was the one Moses wrote about.

Of Elijah, the people similarly had been told (in Malachi) --"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes."

-So they expected a prophet like Moses-- One who communicates directly with God, but BEFORE that-- they were instructed to expect Elijah. ---Not one "like" Elijah. Elijah. Expect Elijah.

Now you might understand why the disciples there that day were confused. There they were standing on the mountain with Jesus---- transfigured, just like the stories of Moses whose face shone radiantly when he met with God. ---But if Jesus is the one like Moses we were told to expect-- how can it be so? --Since we were also told that Eljah must come first?

Jesus himself gives them the answer, which so few are able to accept....

Elijah (not one like him) did come first. He was born before Jesus and the disciples understood in that moment that Jesus was talking about John the Baptist.

--------

I always get nervous when a pastor suggest that we ignore what was "actually" said in order to properly consider what they think the speaker did or didn't "mean." Why not give weight to the words he spoke?

I'm not trying to ignore what was spoken, and hopefully I am still giving weight to it. I just see it in a different light, as do many Biblical scholars and theologians. Now I'm not trying to 'trump' another opinion because someone with a doctorate says so; but just to highlight that I'm not speaking this out of a vacuum. The general consensus in traditional scholarship is that Elijah's ministry and that of John the Baptist were essentially the same; as forerunners.

Also, as far as giving weight to certain words: what about John the Baptist himself?

"19 This is the testimony given by John when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, “I am not the Messiah.”[g] 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” He answered, “No.” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said,

“I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness,

‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’”

The religious leaders who came to investigate John the Baptist asked him directly if he was Elijah and John says "I am not."

Finally, for Elijah to have reincarnated as John the Baptist, it means Elijah would have had to actually die. Reincarnation supposes bodily death. But the Scriptures assert that Elijah didn't die at all:

"And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11 RSV).

Elijah was taken from the earth in a whirlwind to heaven. He never died.

Again, I won't close the door on reincarnation entirely. As another poster suggested, there does seem to be some 'evidence' for it. The possibility is there. I do not see scriptural support for it, however; and that is my sole point with regards to the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death of the soul? I don't know. From the Christian perspective I have to say yes; that in our free will, if we choose to be eternally separated from God; then we indeed will be. The classically middle ages notion of hell; howls of protest and agony as souls are thrown into burning pits needs to be thrown out. The C.S. Lewis vision of hell in the Great Divorce is much more realistic than Dante's Inferno. The way Lewis puts it is that a soul may desire to be separated from God, may desire this cessation. Thus, the soul gets its wish absolutely.

But as a Protestant who happens to lean very Catholic on many issues; I think the idea of Purgatory is highly possible. Even the Islamic faith has a kind of purgatory, as does Tibetan Buddhism as I mentioned in a previous post. The concept of an in-between state after death seems to pervade many religions and ancient mythologies; therefore I think it is highly credible. If something like that is true then perhaps the soul still has a chance at redemption, even after bodily death.

I don't believe in a Dante Inferno depiction of hell. What if earth is part of a purgatory like existence? Life on earth is like a dream more so the older you get. Dream, purgatory, hell end up as nothing more than concepts without tangible proof and yet you put more weight to purgatory just as alien as reincarnation. Death of the soul is biblical. Purgatory is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?' Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)

"The question as posed by the disciples explicitly presupposes prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing to dispel or correct the presupposition. Here is incontrovertible support for a doctrine of human preexistence." (www.mysticnet.org)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the idea of purgatory is any less likely than that of reincarnation. Neither concept is Biblical. What I said about purgatory is simply conjecture on my part. I'm not attempting to back it up Biblically.

You mentioned the man born blind from the Gospel of John. I talked about that in my OP.

Blessings and thanks for the continued discussion..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to ignore what was spoken, and hopefully I am still giving weight to it. I just see it in a different light, as do many Biblical scholars and theologians. Now I'm not trying to 'trump' another opinion because someone with a doctorate says so; but just to highlight that I'm not speaking this out of a vacuum. The general consensus in traditional scholarship is that Elijah's ministry and that of John the Baptist were essentially the same; as forerunners.

While you might not be trying to ignore what was spoken, that remains the case. The prophets said expect Elijah. Jesus said-- John the Baptist was in fact, Elijah. You might want to "look at it in a different light," but to do so you indeed have to ignore the actual words that were spoken (as we have them recorded in scripture). So you in effect, whether 'trying to' or not, you are ignoring scripture in favor of interpretations that also ignore the scripture they interpret.

Also, as far as giving weight to certain words: what about John the Baptist himself?

"19 This is the testimony given by John when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, “I am not the Messiah.”[g] 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” He answered, “No.” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said,

“I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness,

‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’”

The religious leaders who came to investigate John the Baptist asked him directly if he was Elijah and John says "I am not."

The fact that John had no awareness of "who" he was in a past incarnation has no bearing. Maybe you were a tailor or a king in some past existence... you having no knowledge or recollection of that past time would have no consequence on that past time. You would simply be unaware of it. As background, look at Revelation 2 which speaks of what the Spirit says to those who "overcome" death.

"I will give him some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him that receives it."

You would likely find it interesting to do a study on what this "white stone" represents, but beyond it being a token or ticket to ride, as it were-- what's most interesting is this idea that on the ticket the overcomer would receive a new name that only he would know. This is perfectly contained within John the Baptists response when asked-- "Are you Elijah?" John has no idea if he is or isn't. As his father said when he was born-- His name is John. In any case, Elijah would be viewed as one who was an overcomer-- and the new name he received was John.... not the other way around.

Finally, for Elijah to have reincarnated as John the Baptist, it means Elijah would have had to actually die. Reincarnation supposes bodily death. But the Scriptures assert that Elijah didn't die at all:

"And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11 RSV).

Elijah was taken from the earth in a whirlwind to heaven. He never died.

This too, is non-consequential. It isn't problematic whether Elijah died, or didn't. When he was taken up, 50 men insisted on searching for him for 3 days in case he had been picked up and set down somewhere else (Like Phillip was as recorded in the new testament). So that may have been the case with Elijah. We simply don't know. That Elisha said- don't bother looking for him might suggest that he knew Elijah was no where around, but it could just as easily suggest that Elisha knew that Elijah was dead and gone-- that the whirlwind he saw he taken by was unsurvivable. Again, we just don't know. --Also, when it was suggested that the disciple John might not die-- that he might remain-- Jesus said-- "What concern of it is yours?" If Jesus wasn't concerned regarding ideas like death (as with Lazurus) or immortality (as here with John)- then I find no need to consider your objections any sort of obstacle. Clearly whether one lives or dies is of no consequence. While the body falls, the spirit rises and what happens after that few have any idea.

Again, I won't close the door on reincarnation entirely. As another poster suggested, there does seem to be some 'evidence' for it. The possibility is there. I do not see scriptural support for it, however; and that is my sole point with regards to the issue.

But maybe there is additional evidence that suggests further evidence? Do you put weight on the words Jesus spoke in parable? -- or do you consider those merely allegorical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the idea of purgatory is any less likely than that of reincarnation. Neither concept is Biblical. What I said about purgatory is simply conjecture on my part. I'm not attempting to back it up Biblically.

You mentioned the man born blind from the Gospel of John. I talked about that in my OP.

Blessings and thanks for the continued discussion..

I think you may have inadvertently missed his point...

The suggestion (or assumption) is that for someone to be born blind, that would have been evidence of a curse upon them, just as they (also incorrectly) perceived that riches and blessings were evidence of God's favor. You correctly point to the story of Job as evidence against these ideas. But what you miss is the core of the question...

Who sinned? This man? --Or his parents?

If it was his parents who had sinned, the implication is obvious. Their baby was born blind as a consequence (punishment) for sin.

But the implication is much different if it was the man who had sinned, as he was BORN blind. This would point to the idea that he had sinned before his birth--- i.e. in a past life and that he was now being punished for that sin he himself had committed prior to this incarnation. It's interesting that Jesus doesn't take the opportunity to correct the idea that this man could not have lived before. Instead Jesus points out that the man's circumstances (blindness) have nothing to do with sin at all. In fact those circumstances were for a purpose within the will of God, but Jesus's response doesn't preclude the idea that the man had been a sinner even before his birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.