Reincarnation - Scripture or imagination?

[Xchristian]

That's possession, not reincarnation. I am staying within the limits of what the text offers. I could just as easily say that you're the one who's twisting around the words of the Gospel writers.

there we go, according to WikipediaL

Spirit possession is a paranormal or supernatural event in which it is said that animas, demons, extraterrestrials, gods, spirits, or other disincarnateentities take control of a human body, resulting in noticeable changes in health and behavior. The term can also describe a similar action of taking residence in an inanimate object, possibly giving it animation.
The concept of spiritual possession exists in many religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Haitian Vodou, Wicca, and Southeast Asian and African traditions.[1] Depending on the cultural context in which it is found, possession may be considered voluntary or involuntary and may be considered to have beneficial or detrimental effects.
Spirit possession is cross-culturally more common among women than men. [2][3]

EndQuote

Paranormal ... for jesus it was THE norm.

Also, I mean, please, come on, can you see anything where it says that a person became another person? that's what gospel writers say!

The gospel writers chose that jesus IS Elijah, IS the Baptist, IS an old prophet .. etc.
Not that he was possessed by the spirit of x, y or z.

you see the difference?
you have introduce a definition, which in all fairness does the job for me, call it what you like, that's one person becoming another person, it's still in the text.

Now you can go on and understand what's meant by 'this generation' which jesus talked about in Matthew, it wasn't the same persons he was talking to, it was them in a future life.
Also the resurrection, this is now very clear, the soul goes to possess another body, not a different person, just a different body.
Also, you will now learn what they mean by Gnosticism, Docetism, etc.

cheers

 

[Shiranui117]

there we go, according to WikipediaL

Spirit possession is a paranormal or supernatural event in which it is said that animas, demons, extraterrestrials, gods, spirits, or other disincarnateentities take control of a human body, resulting in noticeable changes in health and behavior. The term can also describe a similar action of taking residence in an inanimate object, possibly giving it animation.
The concept of spiritual possession exists in many religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Haitian Vodou, Wicca, and Southeast Asian and African traditions.[1] Depending on the cultural context in which it is found, possession may be considered voluntary or involuntary and may be considered to have beneficial or detrimental effects.
Spirit possession is cross-culturally more common among women than men. [2][3]

EndQuote

Paranormal ... for jesus it was THE norm.

Also, I mean, please, come on, can you see anything where it says that a person became another person? that's what gospel writers say!

The gospel writers chose that jesus IS Elijah, IS the Baptist, IS an old prophet .. etc.
Not that he was possessed by the spirit of x, y or z.

you see the difference?
you have introduce a definition, which in all fairness does the job for me, call it what you like, that's one person becoming another person, it's still in the text.

So John the Baptist "became" a man who'd already been alive, out and about for 30 years? :areyoucra

Now you can go on and understand what's meant by 'this generation' which jesus talked about in Matthew, it wasn't the same persons he was talking to, it was them in a future life.
Also the resurrection, this is now very clear, the soul goes to possess another body, not a different person, just a different body.

And what about the soul already in Jesus' body? Did John the Baptist and Jesus share a body?

Also, I still think you don't actually know what "resurrection" even means. It doesn't mean a soul going off to possess another body. It means the soul returns to its old, dead body, and they are brought back to life in THAT ORIGINAL BODY that the person was born with.

Also, you will now learn what they mean by Gnosticism, Docetism, etc.

Why do I get the feeling that you understand neither Gnosticism nor Docetism?

From the Simple English Wikipedia:

Docetism is an early Christian teaching that says that Jesus only appeared to have a human body. The term comes from δοκεῖν dokein: to seem.
Early Gnostics, whose teachings began to threaten Christian doctrine and theology, believed all matter was unclean. For this reason, Christ could not have a physical body, as he was seen as the eternal Logos.


Gnosticism comes from the Greek: gnosis which means knowledge.
Gnosticism says that humans are divine souls trapped in the ordinary physical (or material) world. They say that the world was made by an imperfect spirit called the demiurge.
The demiurge is thought to be the same as the God of Abraham. The demiurge may be seen as evil, or sometimes just not perfect but doing the best it can.
The real God who is good, is distant and not easy to know. In order to get free from the material world, a person has to get gnosis. That is the special secret knowledge given only to a few special people.
Some Gnostic groups saw Jesus as sent by the supreme being, to bring gnosis to the Earth.

 

[Xchristian]

So John the Baptist "became" a man who'd already been alive, out and about for 30 years? :areyoucra

How about this; jesus is the reincarnation of the baptist? ... that's more like it

And what about the soul already in Jesus' body? Did John the Baptist and Jesus share a body?

we are dealing with a book that has seen more than its fair share of tampering, changing, modification .. etc, so yes.

Also, I still think you don't actually know what "resurrection" even means. It doesn't mean a soul going off to possess another body. It means the soul returns to its old, dead body, and they are brought back to life in THAT ORIGINAL BODY that the person was born with.

can I see anyone else with this definition that you gave?
Because that is something I have never heard of.

I can give you plenty of world class scholars who said that jesus believed in reincarnation, ... support your opinion with a quotation please.



thanks ..

 

[Shiranui117]

How about this; jesus is the reincarnation of the baptist? ... that's more like it

That's not logically possible if Jesus was born 30 years before John the Baptist died. Even if John the Baptist entered Jesus' body, John the Baptist wouldn't be Jesus. He'd just be possessing and indwelling Jesus.

we are dealing with a book that has seen more than its fair share of tampering, changing, modification .. etc, so yes.

What does editing of the Bible have to do with whether or not John the Baptist possessed Jesus?

can I see anyone else with this definition that you gave?
Because that is something I have never heard of.

Dictionary.com:

1.the act of rising from the dead.
2.( initial capital letter ) the rising of Christ after His death and burial.
3.( initial capital letter ) the rising of the dead on Judgment Day.
4.the state of those risen from the dead.
5.a rising again, as from decay, disuse, etc.; revival.

From Merriam-Webster:

1. The act of rising from the dead or returning to life.
2. The state of one who has returned to life.
3. The act of bringing back to practice, notice, or use; revival.
4. Resurrection Christianity a. The rising again of Jesus on the third day after the Crucifixion.
b. The rising again of the dead at the Last Judgment.



1. a supposed act or instance of a dead person coming back to life 2. belief in the possibility of this as part of a religious or mystical system 3. the condition of those who have risen from the dead: we shall all live in the resurrection 4. the revival of something: a resurrection of an old story

Now, notice how "revive" is used as a synonym for "resurrect"? As in, doctors revive a dead person using CPR or a defibrillator? As in, they bring a person back to life in the same body?

I can give you plenty of world class scholars who said that jesus believed in reincarnation, ... support your opinion with a quotation please.

1 Corinthians 15:
35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh[c] of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”[d] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord[e] from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear[f] the image of the heavenly Man.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

John 5:
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

And Matthew 27:
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Luke 24:
Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them,[a] came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3 Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it happened, as they were greatly[b] perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. 5 Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, 7 saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’”

Romans 6:5
For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

John 20:
Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” 3 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. 4 So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. 5 And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went away again to their own homes. . . .
20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. . .

24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”
So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Clear enough for you? When the saints and Christ were risen, they weren't resurrected into new bodies. They got their old bodies back. But their old bodies were changed to reflect the state of their souls: Christ, God incarnate, received a glorious body. Likewise, we who conform ourselves to Christ will obtain a good resurrection and a glorified body. But, as it is made ABUNDANTLY clear, these will not be new bodies. Transformed bodies? Yes. Bodies that reflect the state of our souls? Yes. The same bodies we had, that were "sown" (i.e. buried) in the earth, and are later risen up? You can bet your keester they're the same bodies as the ones we have right now, except complete with an upgrade/downgrade.

 

[Xchristian]

hello

thanks for taking the time to reply ..

w.r.t. the first part, I wanted a definition of possession and that this applies to the verse in question, rather than the definition of resurrection.

the rest of the post, please read here:

The reincarnation of Jesus

this is the kind of quotation I wanted, a scholar (origen) saying that or so.
something which goes like this:

Who do people say I am?" This was the question that Jesus asked his disciples. Their reply was that people were saying he was one of the Old Testament prophets "raised from the dead." Considering that the Last Judgment and the Resurrection of the Dead had not occurred, this begs the question, "What did they mean by "raised from the dead?" They were not talking about resurrection because the orthodox Christian doctrine of resurrection originated with the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism and this doctrine holds that corpses do not crawl out of their graves until the Last Judgment and the End of Days. And considering the fact that reincarnation was an orthodox teaching in Jesus' day (see Flavius Josephus) then the answer becomes crystal clear. They were talking about reincarnation. Even the Bible is filled with teachings of reincarnation including those taught by Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

Xchristian,

'the gospel writers' definition of reincarnation, ... a dead person's soul inhabits the body of a live person, be it a contemporary or a far later person.

I approve of this message.

For one to call that "possession" is nonsense. Possession is when a demon inhabits a body of someone who already is occupied with a soul.

 

[Shiranui117]

w.r.t. the first part, I wanted a definition of possession and that this applies to the verse in question, rather than the definition of resurrection.

Then call it indwelling, call it two souls in one body, call it whatever you want. The fact is, John the Baptist's soul did not move into Jesus' body. Nowhere in the entire Bible do you have two souls sharing one body, as you claim.

the rest of the post, please read here:

The reincarnation of Jesus

None of which say that Jesus was John the Baptist. What part of that do you want me to address? Or are you just putting out there?

Also, I see you're not going to even bother looking at all the Scripture I posted.

Who do people say I am?" This was the question that Jesus asked his disciples. Their reply was that people were saying he was one of the Old Testament prophets "raised from the dead." Considering that the Last Judgment and the Resurrection of the Dead had not occurred, this begs the question, "What did they mean by "raised from the dead?"

No one said that Jesus was one of the prophets "raised from the dead". Where are you getting that from?

They were not talking about resurrection because the orthodox Christian doctrine of resurrection originated with the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism and this doctrine holds that corpses do not crawl out of their graves until the Last Judgment and the End of Days. And considering the fact that reincarnation was an orthodox teaching in Jesus' day (see Flavius Josephus) then the answer becomes crystal clear. They were talking about reincarnation. Even the Bible is filled with teachings of reincarnation including those taught by Jesus.

We also get the Judeo-Christian belief in the Messiah, as well as the belief in the Last Day, and even the belief in pure monotheism from Zoroastrianism. Are those false beliefs we should throw out, too?

 

[Shiranui117]

So your argument is that two verses doesn't prove anything just because it's only two verses and that I have to prove the concept existed in Jewish tradition in order to show that the verse means what it means? Do you have any idea how many doctrines are formed out of just one or two verses?

The context does NOT make it so that returning to the Womb is death. You're just showing how you can read anything you want into it apart from what it clearly says when read plainly. You have to twist it to get it so returning to the womb means death. After all, it can't POSSIBLY mean that the Lord taking away one's life means being born into another. No, that can't possibly be what it means at all...right.

Which is EXACTLY why I said you could make an interesting case with that verse.

Are you prepared to have to defend various orthodox doctrines on the idea that you can't prove them from just one or two verses?

This is for another time.

And then there's Wisdom of Solomon as well "Being good, I was given an undefiled body".

Alright, I can't argue with that one ATM.

And then there's the fact that Jeremiah was known before he was in the womb, and was ordained a prophet before then. Why? Is God arbitrary? Was he really well behaved in the Spirit world?

An omniscient God Who knows His creation before He creates it, and sets out a plan for it before He creates it, is perfectly in line with the Bible. God wasn't rewarding Jeremiah for anything, God just had a plan for Jeremiah to fulfill. Sort of like how we create certain objects for certain uses. We're not rewarding the object, we're just designing it.

 

[Xchristian]

Then call it indwelling, call it two souls in one body, call it whatever you want.

ok, I call it incarnation!

The fact is, John the Baptist's soul did not move into Jesus' body. Nowhere in the entire Bible do you have two souls sharing one body, as you claim.

That's reincarnation, and that's what they said.

None of which say that Jesus was John the Baptist. What part of that do you want me to address? Or are you just putting out there?

jesus said: who do people say I am? .. answer: (you are) john the baptist.

I hope that makes it clear!

Also, I see you're not going to even bother looking at all the Scripture I posted.

I didn't, because I asked for something, you offered a totally different thing,
I gave you scholars saying jesus believed in reincarnation, you gave me irrelevant scriptures!

No one said that Jesus was one of the prophets "raised from the dead". Where are you getting that from?

Mark 6:14

[Mk 6:16][ But when Herod heard of it, he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."]

This is John, jesus is john .. I hope that makes it clear.

 

[Shiranui117]

ok, I call it incarnation!
That's reincarnation, and that's what they said.

Your definition of reincarnation is an original one.

jesus said: who do people say I am? .. answer: (you are) john the baptist.

"But who do YOU say I am?"
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I hope THAT makes it clear. Those who said that Jesus=John the Baptist were wrong, or else Jesus would have said that He was John the Baptist. But no, He rejects those answers.

I didn't, because I asked for something, you offered a totally different thing,
I gave you scholars saying jesus believed in reincarnation, you gave me irrelevant scriptures!

"Irrelevant Scriptures" that clearly support resurrection, and not reincarnation.

Those "scholars" can twist and shout all they like. But try telling me how you can possibly reconcile reincarnation and bodily resurrection within the same system and still have all your ducks in a row.

Mark 6:14

[Mk 6:16][ But when Herod heard of it, he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."]

This is John, jesus is john .. I hope that makes it clear.

So you think Herod can't possibly be wrong here?

 

[Xchristian]

"But who do YOU say I am?"
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I hope THAT makes it clear. Those who said that Jesus=John the Baptist were wrong, or else Jesus would have said that He was John the Baptist. But no, He rejects those answers.

This is again, irrelevant, because we are not here to check what jesus was, but what jesus believed which is a totally different issue.
I am not here to check if he was the true christ, or even any kind of figure.

I care more about what he believed, let me put it this way.

If you ask me, who do you say I am.
AND I tell you that you are another person.
This person is dead and buried years ago.

then either you will laugh at me, or tell me how can I be that dead person?

jesus believed it, so he didn't wonder, he just went to ask them and who do you think I am? .. to which the answer is now irrelevant.

He believed in reincarnation, he said so, when he told them that john the baptist is Elijah, it's the same person, just a different body.

I hope that makes it clear.

"Irrelevant Scriptures" that clearly support resurrection, and not reincarnation.

why do you call it resurrection [full stop]? .. why not call it, that's how the gospel writers understood resurrection as? ... just reincarnation!

actually, the scriptures you quoted go that way, Corinthians 15 and the two_bodies_one_person theory paul believed in, that's reincarnation.

the only difference is that the final reincarnation is a glorified body.

Those "scholars" can twist and shout all they like. But try telling me how you can possibly reconcile reincarnation and bodily resurrection within the same system and still have all your ducks in a row.

the body is a body .. remember Gnostic? just a 'body' nothing more, it changes even as you scratch it, loads of cells fall, and are replaced every second.
The soul changes those bodies, body rots and soul stays on .. just a different body.

So you think Herod can't possibly be wrong here?

I am not really bothered if he was right or wrong!!

It's what he believed in that matters, because that was the common belief in 0-33 CE!

He's wrong alright, but people at the time of jesus believed in it, it's wrong, but they believe in it.

My point is to prove to you that there was those who believed in reincarnation, Herod is wrong, but that's his belief, and that was the belief of jesus, and the people around him, they were wrong, no problem, but that's their belief.

It's like saying "Kamikaze soldiers were not ready to die for the emperor"
and then saying, it's wrong to kill one's self.

I know it's very bad and very wrong, but you can't deny that they believed so!

 

[JayJayDee]

By all means, tell me how you twist and turn the explicit references to souls and the afterlife in Revelation before I deal with that wall of text.

Tell me what a "soul" is Shermana. What is the meaning of the Hebrew word "nephesh" ? That is a good place to start.

Then you might like to tell me what "ru′ach" means according to your belief.


In Genesis 2: 7 it says, "And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul."

You will notice that Adam "came to be" a soul with the "breath" (or spirit) of life that God 'breathed' into him. Adam wasn't "given" a soul but "became' one. The breathing process began Adam's life as a soul.

Psalm 146:4 says, "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish." No thought processes exist in death, when the "spirit" or breath departs. Once breathing stops the soul ceases to exist. As Ezekiel 18:4 says..."The soul that is sinning—it itself will die."

Souls are mortal and inherently sinful.... they (we) all end up in death. (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10)

The "spirit" or life force can only be returned to the dead by resurrection. This is what the early Jews believed. Immortality of the human soul is a Greek idea...it is not Jewish. Do you dispute this?

Concerning his friend Lazarus, Jesus' conversation with his sister Martha is interesting...."Martha therefore said to Jesus: “Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died. And yet at present I know that as many things as you ask God for, God will give you.” Jesus said to her: “Your brother will rise.” Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.”
(John 11:21-24)
Where did Martha think her brother was? What was the hope she expressed as to his future? How does that tie in with John 5:28, 29 and Acts 24:15?

On second thought, I Don't think there's much to deal with on that text since you're basically just repeating yourself and saying nuh uh and ultimately dodging the questions and counterpoints with non-answers that don't address what I said. So anyways, carry on with Revelation.

Tell me what portions of Revelation you wish to discuss and I will be happy to "carry on" with it.

So where do you derive this view considering that you write off all Jewish midrash on the subject as "Influenced by Hellenism"?

When was the midrash written? Please share what it has to say. I am interested to hear what you base your beliefs on.

I have to go now but will be back tomorrow (Aussie time) Till then.....

 

[Krishna Chaitanya]

As a Christian the Bible fors my beliefs on reincarnation.

I believe the Bible supports the concept. Mat 17:12 but I say into you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.
13 Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Hi,

Just to add my two cents to the discussion based on Hindu scriptures, some logic and science:

1. Scriptural: The Bhagavad Gita (a central Hindu scripture) also mentions about reincarnation. Some of the verses are:

- As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change. (BG 2.13)
- Know that which pervades the entire body is indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul. (BG 2.17)
- As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. (BG 2.22)

and many more verses which go on to explain where the soul comes from, where does it go after death, what is the purpose of life and the laws that govern reincarnation (in other words, what kind of a next life would you want?).

2. Logical: Any cell in the body dies in some time and new cells are formed. It happens with every cell in the body and hence, after every 'x' years, there are not a single cell that is the same as 'x' years ago. These are well documented by medical science. An observer (call as 'soul') in the body witnessness these changes in body every 'x' years. This phenomenon can be termed as 'internal reincarnation' where the body undergoes a continuous reincarnation process. This process occurs at the time of death as well, but it is from the 'then current' body to a new body. This process is called the transmigration of the soul (or) simply reincarnation for that matter. If all of these sounds like fantasy, well, I beg to differ based on 1, 3 and a simple test below.

Analogy: When someone asks you pointing at your leg: 'What is it'? You would respond saying, it is 'my leg'. When someone asks the same pointing at your head, you say This is 'my head'. Similarly, there is 'my brain', 'my body' etc. So, you can observe that 'my' refers to the possessor who possess the machine of the body - i.e. 'oneself' (or) the soul/atman (Ätman (Hinduism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Hence, the body is just the vehicle/machine for the soul to control for a lifetime. Your body keeps on changing from life-to-life just like you buy a new car, yet you are the same old driver of your car/body.

3. Scientific: There's a voluminous amount of un-ignorable data that is pushed aside as an anomaly by mainstream science. For example, the legacy works of Dr. Ian Stevenson (one of which is Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). More could be found at Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Further, the case of Pam Reynolds (Pam Reynolds case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Even if someone dismisses in NDEs and OBEs as hallunications (clearly not true, as evident in case of Pam Reynolds), still one cannot account for the birth marks and past life memory data without any other scientific theory other than reincarnation.

If someone wonders why it doesn't get reflected in mainstream science mainly is because: 'It is not demonstrated as repeatable'. Further, it poses a potential threat to the existing theories which are in business (for example: 'Evolution') though there is lot of evidence that goes against even from archaeological standpoint (Example: http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/). Of course, I do believe in adaption, but not in evolution as existing in the current form.

IMHO, it is beyond the scope of science (defined in the current form as observation, inference, theory, verification etc. whose data are associated with the limitations of our senses though the logic may be perfect in itself based on limitations in data), because of the fundamental limitations of the hypothesis of science - Example, we only see 400 um to 700 um with naked eye and similarly our other senses have limitations and hence are imperfect, so whatever instruments we manufacture have limited scope (and based on these and other inferential data we define the spectrum to be all in all). However, the soul exists outside the material realm, it is spiritual in nature (and hence called spirit soul). So, if at all one day scientists are able to find out a link through a material inference that links consecutive lives, it would still be difficult to verify experimentally (consider the permutations and combinations amongst existing beings and dead ones and different species too - The probability of finding such a match would crudely be 1/(pl*P) where, pl and P would be the past dead beings and the currently living ones respectively and hence the probability of determination from current methods would be ~0). Hence, in some sense, it needs to be classified as trans-scientific based on the current advancement of science.

I am totally convinced about reincarnation even if science accepts it at this point or not .

Hope this helps in some way.

Thanks,
Chaitanya

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi,

Just to add my two cents to the discussion based on Hindu scriptures, some logic and science:

1. Scriptural: The Bhagavad Gita (a central Hindu scripture) also mentions about reincarnation. Some of the verses are:

- As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change. (BG 2.13)
- Know that which pervades the entire body is indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul. (BG 2.17)
- As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. (BG 2.22)

and many more verses which go on to explain where the soul comes from, where does it go after death, what is the purpose of life and the laws that govern reincarnation (in other words, what kind of a next life would you want?).

2. Logical: Any cell in the body dies in some time and new cells are formed. It happens with every cell in the body and hence, after every 'x' years, there are not a single cell that is the same as 'x' years ago. These are well documented by medical science. An observer (call as 'soul') in the body witnessness these changes in body every 'x' years. This phenomenon can be termed as 'internal reincarnation' where the body undergoes a continuous reincarnation process. This process occurs at the time of death as well, but it is from the 'then current' body to a new body. This process is called the transmigration of the soul (or) simply reincarnation for that matter. If all of these sounds like fantasy, well, I beg to differ based on 1, 3 and a simple test below.

Analogy: When someone asks you pointing at your leg: 'What is it'? You would respond saying, it is 'my leg'. When someone asks the same pointing at your head, you say This is 'my head'. Similarly, there is 'my brain', 'my body' etc. So, you can observe that 'my' refers to the possessor who possess the machine of the body - i.e. 'oneself' (or) the soul/atman (Ätman (Hinduism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Hence, the body is just the vehicle/machine for the soul to control for a lifetime. Your body keeps on changing from life-to-life just like you buy a new car, yet you are the same old driver of your car/body.

3. Scientific: There's a voluminous amount of un-ignorable data that is pushed aside as an anomaly by mainstream science. For example, the legacy works of Dr. Ian Stevenson (one of which is Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). More could be found at Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Further, the case of Pam Reynolds (Pam Reynolds case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Even if someone dismisses in NDEs and OBEs as hallunications (clearly not true, as evident in case of Pam Reynolds), still one cannot account for the birth marks and past life memory data without any other scientific theory other than reincarnation.

If someone wonders why it doesn't get reflected in mainstream science mainly is because: 'It is not demonstrated as repeatable'. Further, it poses a potential threat to the existing theories which are in business (for example: 'Evolution') though there is lot of evidence that goes against even from archaeological standpoint (Example: Michael Cremo and Forbidden Archeology). Of course, I do believe in adaption, but not in evolution as existing in the current form.

IMHO, it is beyond the scope of science (defined in the current form as observation, inference, theory, verification etc. whose data are associated with the limitations of our senses though the logic may be perfect in itself based on limitations in data), because of the fundamental limitations of the hypothesis of science - Example, we only see 400 um to 700 um with naked eye and similarly our other senses have limitations and hence are imperfect, so whatever instruments we manufacture have limited scope (and based on these and other inferential data we define the spectrum to be all in all). However, the soul exists outside the material realm, it is spiritual in nature (and hence called spirit soul). So, if at all one day scientists are able to find out a link through a material inference that links consecutive lives, it would still be difficult to verify experimentally (consider the permutations and combinations amongst existing beings and dead ones and different species too - The probability of finding such a match would crudely be 1/(pl*P) where, pl and P would be the past dead beings and the currently living ones respectively and hence the probability of determination from current methods would be ~0). Hence, in some sense, it needs to be classified as trans-scientific based on the current advancement of science.

I am totally convinced about reincarnation even if science accepts it at this point or not .

Hope this helps in some way.

Thanks,
Chaitanya

Thank you for your input! How often do you think "past-life memories," for lack of a better term/phrase, occur?

 

[Ken Brown]

Tell me what a "soul" is Shermana. What is the meaning of the Hebrew word "nephesh" ? That is a good place to start.

Then you might like to tell me what "ru′ach" means according to your belief.


In Genesis 2: 7 it says, "And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul."

You will notice that Adam "came to be" a soul with the "breath" (or spirit) of life that God 'breathed' into him. Adam wasn't "given" a soul but "became' one. The breathing process began Adam's life as a soul.

Psalm 146:4 says, "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish." No thought processes exist in death, when the "spirit" or breath departs. Once breathing stops the soul ceases to exist. As Ezekiel 18:4 says..."The soul that is sinning—it itself will die."

Souls are mortal and inherently sinful.... they (we) all end up in death. (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10)

The "spirit" or life force can only be returned to the dead by resurrection. This is what the early Jews believed. Immortality of the human soul is a Greek idea...it is not Jewish. Do you dispute this?

Concerning his friend Lazarus, Jesus' conversation with his sister Martha is interesting...."Martha therefore said to Jesus: “Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died. And yet at present I know that as many things as you ask God for, God will give you.” Jesus said to her: “Your brother will rise.” Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.”
(John 11:21-24)
Where did Martha think her brother was? What was the hope she expressed as to his future? How does that tie in with John 5:28, 29 and Acts 24:15?

Tell me what portions of Revelation you wish to discuss and I will be happy to "carry on" with it.

When was the midrash written? Please share what it has to say. I am interested to hear what you base your beliefs on.

I have to go now but will be back tomorrow (Aussie time) Till then.....

Good post JayJayDee! Also consider Eze 18:20. And for those who are so disposed as to accept the NT, try Matt 10:28. KB

 

[nazz]

As a Christian the Bible fors my beliefs on reincarnation.

I believe the Bible supports the concept. Mat 17:12 but I say into you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.
13 Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

the story of the man born blind also supports it

 

[Shiranui117]

If you ask me, who do you say I am.
AND I tell you that you are another person.
This person is dead and buried years ago.

then either you will laugh at me, or tell me how can I be that dead person?

In the same way that angels are addressed as God in the OT, even though they aren't actually God. Angels carry out God's mission, yet are not themselves God. In the same way, John the Baptist carries out Elijah's mission, and since he is fulfilling the role/playing the part/continuing the ministry of Elijah, we can speak of him as being Elijah. The same way that Sean Connery isn't ACTUALLY James Bond, but simply plays his part.

jesus believed it, so he didn't wonder, he just went to ask them and who do you think I am? .. to which the answer is now irrelevant.

So all the wrong answers were relevant, and the correct answer is irrelevant? In what sort of classroom or academic setting would that fly?

He believed in reincarnation, he said so, when he told them that john the baptist is Elijah, it's the same person, just a different body.

Then why didn't the Apostles believe in, or teach, reincarnation? Why didn't their personal students teach it?

why do you call it resurrection [full stop]? .. why not call it, that's how the gospel writers understood resurrection as? ... just reincarnation!

I call it resurrection full stop, because that's what they taught, that's what they were taught by Christ, and that's what they believed. You have a long row to hoe in trying to prove that the Gospels, Acts and Epistles mean "reincarnation" when they say "resurrection". An infinitely long row, in fact.

actually, the scriptures you quoted go that way, Corinthians 15 and the two_bodies_one_person theory paul believed in, that's reincarnation.

No they don't. If you'd read them, in every case where resurrection is mentioned, it is always understood as being raised up in the same body in which you died. Jesus was risen in the same body (but glorified,) Paul says we have the hope to attain to the same resurrection as Jesus (in our same bodies,) Paul says our old bodies are sown in corruption and then raised in incorruption, etc, etc... All teach that we are resurrected in the same body.

If the Gospel writers had meant reincarnation rather than resurrection, they would have used the words for "reincarnation." It wasn't a concept for which they had no name.

the only difference is that the final reincarnation is a glorified body.

There is no "final reincarnation" in the Bible.

the body is a body .. remember Gnostic? just a 'body' nothing more, it changes even as you scratch it, loads of cells fall, and are replaced every second.
The soul changes those bodies, body rots and soul stays on .. just a different body.

So you're talking more about a "step in a river once, turn around and step in the river again, and it won't be the same river, and you won't be the same you" kinda deal?

I am not really bothered if he was right or wrong!!

It's what he believed in that matters, because that was the common belief in 0-33 CE!

Tell that to the Pharisees.

Plus, Herod didn't say it was John reincarnated, but merely John risen from the dead--that is, resurrected.

He's wrong alright, but people at the time of jesus believed in it, it's wrong, but they believe in it.

It's like saying "Kamikaze soldiers were not ready to die for the emperor"
and then saying, it's wrong to kill one's self.

I know it's very bad and very wrong, but you can't deny that they believed so!

Alright, so you're not saying that reincarnation is true, but just saying that it was believed? Forgive me then, I think I misunderstood you. My apologies for any unpleasantness on my part! :sorry1:

My point is to prove to you that there was those who believed in reincarnation, Herod is wrong, but that's his belief, and that was the belief of jesus, and the people around him, they were wrong, no problem, but that's their belief.

I can't speak for Herod, but I do know enough about Jesus and the Pharisees to say for sure that they didn't believe in/teach Reincarnation.

 

[Shiranui117]

the story of the man born blind also supports it

It doesn't, actually:

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.


You can say that the Apostles may have held the idea of the preexistence of souls, but Jesus corrects their understanding. If anything, this passage can be better used as a refutation of reincarnation.

 

[Ken Brown]

the story of the man born blind also supports it

Hi nazz, wouldn't it mean that if sins committed in a past life would cause blindness at birth, then wouldn't ALL be born blind?

Ecc 7:20
(20) For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Something to think about. KB

 

[nazz]

Hi nazz, wouldn't it mean that if sins committed in a past life would cause blindness at birth, then wouldn't ALL be born blind?

Ecc 7:20
(20) For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Something to think about. KB

Not necessarily. But the point being the disciples are recognizing that karma can follow one into another life and Jesus does nothing in the way of correcting them on that belief.