2 questions

AthAnRi

1. Is there anywhere in the bible that speaks of reincarnation

2. Is there certain music that is forbidden by the catholic church? If so are Nirvana one of the banned bands?

JimiTime

AthAnRi wrote: »

1. Is there anywhere in the bible that speaks of reincarnation

Yes, but not in the eastern religion type way. I.E. Dying and coming back as a donkey, then dying again and coming back as a fly etc etc.

One of the core doctrines of Christianity, is that we are reincarnated with new bodies after Judgement Day. This happens only once though. The word 'reincarnation' is usually avoided in Christianity, due to its association with Hindu doctrines etc, and so can lead to confusion.

2. Is there certain music that is forbidden by the catholic church? If so are Nirvana one of the banned bands?

I'm not catholic, so I don't know if their is a policy of 'banning' music in the RCC.

padma

I'm not one for quoting verses and chapters maybe someone else here can help.

Yet there is a passage in the bible where Jesus turns to John the Baptist and says something in the way of "The same spirit of Moses is inside you" or the likeness of Moses is inside you.

Again with no proof, but have heard that up until the 12th century or there abouts the Catholic Church believed in reincarnation. Yet deemed it dangerous as it gave people an out clause in that they could live whatever life they wanted and could return again to start anew.

padma

oooops sorry, just a quick look at googling bible and reincarnation, it is Elijah, not Moses. Below is an interesting article about the bible and reincarnation.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen03.html

SonOfAdam

It would contradict Hebrews 9:27 (.. it is appointed for man to die once and then face judgement..). Describing 'coming back' from a near-death experience as re-incarnation is a bit of a stretch to say the least

padma

SonOfAdam wrote: »

It would contradict Hebrews 9:27 (.. it is appointed for man to die once and then face judgement..). Describing 'coming back' from a near-death experience as re-incarnation is a bit of a stretch to say the least

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. (Matt. 11:13-14)


In the above passage, Jesus clearly identifies John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah the prophet. Later in Matthew's gospel Jesus reiterates it.

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." (Matt. 17:10-13)

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


This is one of the major Messianic promises from God that is found in the Bible. And these John is Elijah references clearly demonstrate the reality of reincarnation. So there are two important conclusions we can draw from this:

(1) The Hebrew scriptures prophesied that Elijah himself - not someone like him or someone in the same ministry as him but Elijah himself - would return before the advent of the Messiah.

(2) Jesus declared John to be Elijah when he stated that Elijah has come.

Based on these conclusions alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:

(A) John was Elijah himself which means that Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist. And if this is true then reincarnation must belong once again in Christian theology. It also means that the concept of corpses crawling out of graves on Judgment Day can be discarded. OR...

(B) John was not Elijah reincarnated which means that Elijah himself did not return. And if this is true then either (1) or (2) listed below is true:

(1) Malachi's prophecy concerning Elijah's return to life before the coming of the Messiah failed to happen. This would mean that God does not keep his promise and that the Bible is fallible. OR...

(2)Jesus was not the Messiah.

Based on all the logic presented thus far, only one of the following conclusions is true:

I.Reincarnation is a reality OR...

II.Jesus was not the Messiah OR...

III.Bible prophecies are not reliable.

There is no way around this logic. Only one of the above options can be true. And because Jesus' declaration that John is Elijah is overt and direct, then the only option that can be logically true is (A).

o1s1n

AthAnRi wrote: »

1. Is there anywhere in the bible that speaks of reincarnation

2. Is there certain music that is forbidden by the catholic church? If so are Nirvana one of the banned bands?

Are you trying to find biblical proof that Kurt Cobain will be reincarnated?

SonOfAdam

padma wrote:

<Malachi's prophecy concerning Elijah's return to life before the coming of the Messiah failed to happen. This would mean that God does not keep his promise and that the Bible is fallible>

The great and dreadful day of the Lord does not refer to Jesus coming to earth 2000 years ago - It will come when He returns.

TravelJunkie

padma wrote: »

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. (Matt. 11:13-14)


In the above passage, Jesus clearly identifies John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah the prophet. Later in Matthew's gospel Jesus reiterates it.

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." (Matt. 17:10-13)

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


This is one of the major Messianic promises from God that is found in the Bible. And these John is Elijah references clearly demonstrate the reality of reincarnation. So there are two important conclusions we can draw from this:

(1) The Hebrew scriptures prophesied that Elijah himself - not someone like him or someone in the same ministry as him but Elijah himself - would return before the advent of the Messiah.

(2) Jesus declared John to be Elijah when he stated that Elijah has come.

Based on these conclusions alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:

(A) John was Elijah himself which means that Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist. And if this is true then reincarnation must belong once again in Christian theology. It also means that the concept of corpses crawling out of graves on Judgment Day can be discarded. OR...

(B) John was not Elijah reincarnated which means that Elijah himself did not return. And if this is true then either (1) or (2) listed below is true:

(1) Malachi's prophecy concerning Elijah's return to life before the coming of the Messiah failed to happen. This would mean that God does not keep his promise and that the Bible is fallible. OR...

(2)Jesus was not the Messiah.

Based on all the logic presented thus far, only one of the following conclusions is true:

I.Reincarnation is a reality OR...

II.Jesus was not the Messiah OR...

III.Bible prophecies are not reliable.

There is no way around this logic. Only one of the above options can be true. And because Jesus' declaration that John is Elijah is overt and direct, then the only option that can be logically true is (A).

Maybe Elijah was a once-off. So reincarnation is possible, but the rest of us die once. And, for the same reasons above, that God stands by his word, we believe that.

JimiTime

padma wrote: »

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. (Matt. 11:13-14)


In the above passage, Jesus clearly identifies John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah the prophet. Later in Matthew's gospel Jesus reiterates it.

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." (Matt. 17:10-13)

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


This is one of the major Messianic promises from God that is found in the Bible. And these John is Elijah references clearly demonstrate the reality of reincarnation. So there are two important conclusions we can draw from this:

(1) The Hebrew scriptures prophesied that Elijah himself - not someone like him or someone in the same ministry as him but Elijah himself - would return before the advent of the Messiah.

(2) Jesus declared John to be Elijah when he stated that Elijah has come.

Based on these conclusions alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:

(A) John was Elijah himself which means that Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist. And if this is true then reincarnation must belong once again in Christian theology. It also means that the concept of corpses crawling out of graves on Judgment Day can be discarded. OR...

(B) John was not Elijah reincarnated which means that Elijah himself did not return. And if this is true then either (1) or (2) listed below is true:

(1) Malachi's prophecy concerning Elijah's return to life before the coming of the Messiah failed to happen. This would mean that God does not keep his promise and that the Bible is fallible. OR...

(2)Jesus was not the Messiah.

Based on all the logic presented thus far, only one of the following conclusions is true:

I.Reincarnation is a reality OR...

II.Jesus was not the Messiah OR...

III.Bible prophecies are not reliable.

There is no way around this logic. Only one of the above options can be true. And because Jesus' declaration that John is Elijah is overt and direct, then the only option that can be logically true is (A).

Did Elijah ever die?

antiskeptic

padma wrote: »

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.

There is no way around this logic. Only one of the above options can be true. And because Jesus' declaration that John is Elijah is overt and direct, then the only option that can be logically true is (A).

The way around this logic is language - which is not as easy to pin down as you seem to be suggesting. "Overt and direct"? How can you tell that this is Jesus intent and not that he is referring to a figurative/figurehead that can be occupied by an unreincarnated John?

The basis of good biblical interpretation is to examine what scripture says in an overall sense: scripture supports/interprets scripture. In which case you won't arrive at the conclusion of reincarnation. Plucking a verse out here and there - then building a doctrine on it is poor-to-woeful biblical interpretation.

Somewhere out there is a denomination who stick their hands into jars of poisonous snakes (carefully I'd warrant) just because the Bible contains a verse which "overtly and directly" says Christians can do so unharmed.

padma

antiskeptic wrote: »

[/COLOR][/SIZE]




The way around this logic is language - which is not as easy to pin down as you seem to be suggesting. "Overt and direct"? How can you tell that this is Jesus intent and not that he is referring to a figurative/figurehead that can be occupied by an unreincarnated John?

The basis of good biblical interpretation is to examine what scripture says in an overall sense: scripture supports/interprets scripture. In which case you won't arrive at the conclusion of reincarnation. Plucking a verse out here and there - then building a doctrine on it is poor-to-woeful biblical interpretation.

Somewhere out there is a denomination who stick their hands into jars of poisonous snakes (carefully I'd warrant) just because the Bible contains a verse which "overtly and directly" says Christians can do so unharmed.

That is your judgement anti-skeptic, but to imply that verses in the bible have no meaning is not very constructive, the above passages were some of the accounts of incarnation in the bible, there are others. The catholic church banned the idea of reincarnation from the bible in the 6th centure, yet before that it was a belief of the early christians, and most if nearly all other religions, including paganism, buddhism and hinduism.

The pre-existence of the soul was a secret teaching held by early Christians until it was condemned by the Roman Church in 553 A.D., perhaps because it implied reincarnation spirit. The following Bible verses describes the pre-existence of souls.

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love. (Eph. 1:4)

The above Bible verse states how God knew his chosen people before the world was created. This implies that these chosen people existed before before the world began. Someone may object to this interpretation by stating that these chosen people existed only as a thought in the Mind of God. But even if these chosen people existed only as a thought in the Mind of God it does not negate pre-existence. After all, there may be no difference between being a thought in the Mind of God and pre-existing as a soul. They are probably the same thing.
Another Bible passage that supports pre-existence can be found in the Book of Jeremiah. The author of this book uses the metaphor of a potter (God) and clay (flesh) to describe how God creates, destroys and recreates (reincarnation) better pots (people). This perfection process that humans undergo is an excellent description pre-existence and reincarnation. The purpose for reincarnation is instruction and perfection. The following is the passage in Jeremiah:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord:Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message.So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
Then the word of the Lord came to me:"O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the Lord." (Jer. 18:1-6)

For those skeptics who doubt this interpretation refers to reincarnation, Paul uses this same metaphor to describe how God is like a potter who can prefer one pot of clay over another - even before they were created:

Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the Earth."
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?'"
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory. (Rom. 9:13-24)

By comparing the sovereignty of God over humans with the sovereignty that a potter has with clay, Paul is affirming the pre-existence of Jacob and Esau. The central point Paul is making is that God created Esau as an object of wrath because of his so-called hatred for him before he was even born. This is also a good analogy when it is applied to the divine justice of God. God hated Esau because of a past incarnation that displeased God which would explain why God had him reincarnated as an object of wrath. The reverse of this is the case of Jacob. Because he led a previous life that pleased God he was reincarnated as an object of his mercy. Therefore this metaphor is rich with hidden knowledge concerning divine justice, the sovereignty of God, pre-existence, reincarnation, predestination and election. The following is another Bible verse supporting pre-existence.

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58)

The above Bible verse shows Jesus telling his critics that he existed before Abraham was even born. This would be an impossibility unless Jesus pre-existed before he was born. And because Jesus had a human nature along with a divine nature, it does not take a leap of faith to believe that all humans pre-existed. The fact that Jesus taught reincarnation is reason enough to assume that all humans pre-existed.
But if a person assumes that pre-existence and reincarnation are false doctrines then they must explain why there is such an incredible amount of inequities and injustices in life. We can see all over the world how some people are born into rich families with excellent health, provided the best education, live in palatial estates, and many other favorable conditions. On the other hand, some people are born in extreme poverty, with severe handicaps, uneducated, destitute, and many other unfavorable conditions. Without pre-existence and reincarnation this apparent inequity and injustice between people might make a person conclude that God is extremely unjust. Without pre-existence and reincarnation how are we to explain this? This very question was asked of Jesus by his disciples in the Bible passage below:

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 9:1-3)

The disciples asked Jesus if the man committed a sin that caused him to be born blind. Given the fact that the man was blind since birth, this is an unusual question to ask unless pre-existence and reincarnation were a fact. How can a man sin before he is even born? The only conceivable answer to this question is a sin that was committed in a past life. And although Jesus stated that the reason the man was born blind was to manifest the works of God and not because of sin, this does not logically imply that everyone who is born in unfavorable circumstances are not born that way because of sin from a past life; unless you believe that all people who are born blind are born that way for the purpose of manifesting the work of God. Just the fact that this blind man and his circumstances are described in the Bible may be what Jesus was referring to concerning his manifesting the works of God.
When this same blind man was brought before the Pharisees, they rejected the blind man's testimony because they believed he sinned before he was even born:

You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us? (John 9:34 NAS)

This shows that even the Pharisees believed is possible to sin before you are born and this implies pre-existence and reincarnation.
It should also be pointed that Jesus did nothing to dispel or correct the idea that the disciples (and the Pharisees) believed in the possibility of sinning before being born. And because Jesus did not correct the implication of pre-existent sin, we can assume that pre-existence is certainly a possibility.
The following Bible verse also supports pre-existence.

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)

Unless pre-existence and reincarnation are true, the above Bible verse is completely absurd.

SonOfAdam

You have convinced yourself or have been convinced that re-incarnation is an absolute truth as it 'clearly' says so in the bible - you have twisted words to mean something they do not mean and have re-interpreted the english language to your own ends - you could argue anything on that basis - well done

JimiTime

I've set up a new thread here, to discuss the Elijah - John The Baptist scenarion.

padma

SonOfAdam wrote: »

You have convinced yourself or have been convinced that re-incarnation is an absolute truth as it 'clearly' says so in the bible - you have twisted words to mean something they do not mean and have re-interpreted the english language to your own ends - you could argue anything on that basis - well done

thank you for your swift judgement, obviously you have found it difficult to argue with the words of Jesus

SonOfAdam

I tend not to argue with the words of Jesus. I also tend not to argue with those who have their own meaning for the words they use as it leaves me at a distinct disadvantage

padma

SonOfAdam wrote: »

I tend not to argue with the words of Jesus. I also tend not to argue with those who have their own meaning for the words they use as it leaves me at a distinct disadvantage

well don't then

But Jesus was not ignorant about John. Jesus knew better and said so in the plainest words possible:

This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist ... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear. (Matt. 11:11-15)

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, but not in the eastern religion type way. I.E. Dying and coming back as a donkey, then dying again and coming back as a fly etc etc.

One of the core doctrines of Christianity, is that we are reincarnated with new bodies after Judgement Day. This happens only once though. The word 'reincarnation' is usually avoided in Christianity, due to its association with Hindu doctrines etc, and so can lead to confusion.

Unless we are redefining reincarnation to mean something else then it is clear cut that orthodox Christianity - that is to say that all the mainstream denominations - utterly rejects the doctrine. Christianity, Judaism and Islam already have a word to describe post-mortem existence: resurrection. To say that reincarnation is the same as resurrection is to confuse apples with oranges.

AthAnRi wrote: »

2. Is there certain music that is forbidden by the catholic church? If so are Nirvana one of the banned bands?

I can't imagine why the RCC would ban Nirvana.

Baggio1

Elijah didnt die and he and enoch will return as God's 2 witnesses at the time of Anti Christ, so no theres no re-incarnation,

Nirvana?..naa not banned but I hated them ahahah dreadful stuff....mind you theres a good bit of nasty satanic metal out there that would deffo NOT be approved by any christian minded person...

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Unless we are redefining reincarnation to mean something else then it is clear cut that orthodox Christianity - that is to say that all the mainstream denominations - utterly rejects the doctrine. Christianity, Judaism and Islam already have a word to describe post-mortem existence: resurrection. To say that reincarnation is the same as resurrection is to confuse apples with oranges.

Au contraire Rodney, Au Contraire

noun
1. the belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2. rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.

Its quite accurate in an English language way. I can understand, and I also explained, why Christianity distances itself from the word. It certainly is descriptive of Christian resurrection though from an English language perspective.

padma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Unless we are redefining reincarnation to mean something else then it is clear cut that orthodox Christianity - that is to say that all the mainstream denominations - utterly rejects the doctrine. Christianity, Judaism and Islam already have a word to describe post-mortem existence: resurrection. To say that reincarnation is the same as resurrection is to confuse apples with oranges.



I can't imagine why the RCC would ban Nirvana.

In the Book of Revelation there is a verse that only makes sense if reincarnation is a fact:

Look he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him. (Rev. 1:7)

The above Bible verse reveals an astonishing fact about the second coming of Jesus. The people who killed Jesus will be alive and living on Earth when Jesus returns. Given the fact that the people who killed Jesus have been dead for thousands of years, the only possible way that this prophecy can be fulfilled is through the killers reincarnating before Jesus returns.
Jesus gave another prophecy about the second coming that can be fulfilled only if reincarnation is a fact. The prophecy concerns those people who were present when Jesus gave this prophecy and refers to the signs heralding the return of Jesus.

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matt. 24:34)

Jesus told the followers around him that they would be alive on Earth when all the signs of the times have been fulfilled. Without reincarnation this prophecy would be a false prophecy. In fact, this prophecy was responsible for some followers of Jesus to believe that the second coming would occur in their lifetime or that it had already happened. The historical evidence shows how disappointing it was for some of people when the apostles died off and the hopes for an imminent return of Christ was dashed. Paul addresses this concern that some people had for their deceased loved ones in his epistle to Thessalonians:

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words. (1 Thess. 4:13-5:11)

Despite Paul's reassuring words in this matter, these words concern bodily resurrection which is highly problematic. As mentioned earlier, the concept of bodily resurrection was not an orthodox Jewish doctrine. It was a doctrine that Hellenized (Greek influenced) Jews held. Paul was a Hellenized Pharisee converted to Christianity and rejected the Judaism which Jesus and the Jerusalem Church belonged to. The Pharisees and Jesus were both believers and teachers of reincarnation. So Paul renounced his Judaism, the law, and reincarnation and began teaching the Gentiles the alien doctrine of bodily resurrection perhaps out of a misunderstanding of Christ's resurrection. It is evident from scripture that Paul refused to come under the authority of the Church in Jerusalem. And this brought him into conflict with them. Pauline Christianity became Christianity minus the Judaism of Jesus and plus the Hellenization that ultimately led to the great historical schism within Christianity between Pauline Christianity established in Rome and Jerusalem Christianity established by Jesus and the twelve. The foreign influences which Paul introduced into the teachings of Jesus is so massive that it is said by scholars that Paul hijacked Christianity from the apostles of Jesus. However, to give Paul the credit due him, I have doubts he ever intended his letters become "God's Word" and the Christian religion to be based on him.
Paul's Hellenistic bias and influence was certainly the result of being born and raised in Tarsus - one of the major centers of Hellenistic philosophy in Asia minor. It is more than likely that Paul was taught bodily resurrection there. Paul wrote in Greek and quoted the Septuagint (the Greek form of the Scriptures) rather than communicating in Hebrew - the language of Jews in Jerusalem. Hellenistic philosophy was more fitting to Roman culture than to Jerusalem Judaism. As Rome began to exert more and more power, Paul's pagan version of Christianity fostered in Rome and became victorious over the Christianity established by Peter. The schism between Paul's paganized version of Christianity and Peter's Jewish Christianity meant that only one version could be victorious. As Rome completely destroyed Jewish culture in Israel in 70 AD, it was clear which version of Christianity was left standing. Jewish Christians in Jerusalem clearly resented the victory of Roman influence over Judaism. They believed that Rome's victory was achieved at the expense of assimilating the teachings of Jesus with the Hellenistic philosophy and culture of Rome.

The Bible describes the disputes between Paul and the Jerusalem church. Peter and James did not want Paul to separate Judaism from the teachings of Jesus. They did not believe that Jesus rejected Judaism and the law of Moses as Paul did. It is a wonder of wonders why Paul chose not to invest his time to learn from those who knew Jesus, lived with Jesus, and were taught by Jesus. Instead, Paul believed that his vision of Jesus was superior to theirs, proclaimed himself an apostle, created his own version of Christianity, and chose to dispute with the church established by Jesus.

Even worse than Paul's rejection of Christian Judaism is the tremendous influence of his anti-Semitism expressed in his epistles had on western civilization. Atrocities such as the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust, and the history of anti-Semitism in the west can all be lain at the feet of Paul. Paul's anti-Semitism clearly must offend the King of the Jews.

Paul's epistles also bears witness to his severe hostility toward Christian Gnosticism. Despite this fact, there is historical evidence that particular teachings of Christian Gnosticism, such as reincarnation, was a part of the secret teachings that Jesus taught only to his closest disciples. Also the historical fact that Origen had Christian Gnostic ties and was a believer in pre-existence and reincarnation demonstrates that reincarnation was a part of the early church's teachings in Jerusalem. Origen was the most influential Christian theologian since Paul. The historical evidence shows that the early Jerusalem church did not view bodily resurrection as part of the scheme of redemption. Again, bodily resurrection was a foreign doctrine to traditional Judaism and Christian Judaism. Reincarnation was the doctrine held by the Pharisees. Reincarnation was the doctrine taught by Jesus and the early church in Jerusalem. Reincarnation is a doctrine of orthodox Judaism even to this day. Reincarnation should be the doctrine of every Christian. Perhaps there is a divine reason for the recent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of the early Jerusalem Christians discovered in upper Egypt - both of which proclaim reincarnation, not bodily resurrection, to be the real faith of Israel.

Overature

padma wrote: »

Yet there is a passage in the bible where Jesus turns to John the Baptist and says something in the way of "The same spirit of Moses is inside you" or the likeness of Moses is inside you.

I think this is more that Moses and John were two people who started similar things, Moses was the one that God created the Jewish race and religion and John was the one who was the first to spear head modern day Christianity by telling people of the coming of Jesus.

Overature

I would say that the reincarnation in the bible would be around the time of Jesus and his preachings where by following him would mean the ending of one way of life and the beginning of a new.

AthAnRi

o1s1n wrote: »

Are you trying to find biblical proof that Kurt Cobain will be reincarnated?

Ha ha, No I'm not. 2 totally unrelated questions that I always meant to find out about.

padma

He may have already incarnated, who knows

strobe

o1s1n wrote: »

Are you trying to find biblical proof that Kurt Cobain will be reincarnated?

If there was anything that could convert me.....

kelly1

If reincarnation is true, then Jesus died on the cross in vain. We cannot save ourselves. "It is appointed for a man to die once and then comes judgment...".

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Au contraire Rodney, Au Contraire

noun
1. the belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2. rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.

Its quite accurate in an English language way. I can understand, and I also explained, why Christianity distances itself from the word. It certainly is descriptive of Christian resurrection though from an English language perspective.

Sorry Jimi, I don't agree. I think you are needlessly getting bogged down in a semantic argument and therefore confusing people along the way. Yes, we do use he word incarnation (meaning "to become flesh") when we describe Jesus, the second person in the Godhead. However, the question was about reincarnation which has a very specific meaning in Indian religions such as Hinduism and Sikhism.

You rejected this karma based birth-death cycle in your opening post when you said, "The word 'reincarnation' is usually avoided in Christianity due to its association with Hindu doctrines". Why insist upon using it? As I said already, we have a perfectly good word to describe the post-mortem state which is tied into Christian eschatology: resurrection.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry Jimi, I don't agree. I think you are needlessly getting bogged down in a semantic argument and therefore confusing people along the way. Yes, we do use he word incarnation (meaning "to become flesh") when we describe Jesus, the second person in the Godhead. However, the question was about reincarnation which has a very specific meaning in Indian religions such as Hinduism and Sikhism.

You rejected this karma based birth-death cycle in your opening post when you said, "The word 'reincarnation' is usually avoided in Christianity due to its association with Hindu doctrines". Why insist upon using it?

I did not 'insist' on using it, in fact I never use it. However, rather than give a 'No, its not supported in Christianity' answer, I was more informative. I explained, that the common understanding of the word (eastern religions) was not validated in Christianity, but that technically, 'reincarnation' is central to our message. I also explained why the word is not used etc, so why my post is confusing I don't know?

As I said already, we have a perfectly good word to describe the post-mortem state which is tied into Christian eschatology: resurrection.

And you may have a point if I gave no backround to usage or why Christianity distances itself from the term. I thought I was quite forthcoming.

Fanny Cradock

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm quite dogmatic in my assertion that the term reincarnation (with or without qualifiers) has no place in Christianity.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm quite dogmatic in my assertion that the term reincarnation (with or without qualifiers) has no place in Christianity.

Seems to have hit a nerve alright:) The way i see it is this. You cannot have too much information. I say, 'Reincarnation is no part of Christian Theology'. Someone then asserts, 'But you teach that you die, and come back to life in a new body'. I then say, 'well yes, that is technically reincarnation, but I was talking about the common use of the term in relation to eastern religions'.

So rather than that, I gave the whole picture. Yes, we believe technically in Reincarnation, but due to its usage in a modern sense, we avoid the term so as not to cause confusion. I really don't see the issue, but we can agree to disagree if you wish.:)