Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
107 online now:
Phat, vimesey (2 members, 105 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,058 Year: 5,170/6,534 Month: 13/577 Week: 1/80 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus teach reincarnation?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12808
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 31 of 230 (776962)
01-23-2016 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 4:17 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
LamarkNewAge writes:

(question for Director. Does my quote of jaywill count as my words or a "cut n paste"?)

In general you can't go wrong describing *your own* ideas and arguments. Use quotes sparingly.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 4:17 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1216 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 32 of 230 (776963)
01-23-2016 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 4:17 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
That is a dazzling array of all kinds of information, some of which I am aware.
However, you originally asked about something teaching about resurrection before the Persian Empire.

Now, I reviewed some dates about the Medo-Persian Empire and it led to quite a lot of information about Empire dates. I decided simply to forego this study for the moment and just look for teaching on resurrection before the Babylonian captivity.

Having provided you with the indications in the life of Abraham you have this, that, and the other pre-prepared ( I suppose) objection about the canonicity of the book of Hebrews and other matters which I frankly viewed as red herring distractions.

I don't think there is a need to reply in detail about all your points.

The subject is whether Jesus taught reincarnation or not.
This immediately poses the problem of how we agree on what Jesus taught.

Out of the plethora of sacred writings and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal literature I am sure you can point to something you think arguably suggests Jesus taught reincarnation or just about anything else many would claim was what Jesus taught.

But going back to the original question you posed, even without an argument about issues of when books were recognized as canonical, Genesis shows that Abraham believed that Isaac would live even though he be sacrificed.

He may not have known how. But he expected God would raise him.

A poster says that Abraham may have expected to wiggle out of the sacrifice.
It is hard to see he thought there was ANY wiggle room in raising up the knife to plunge it into his son. But previously he told the servants -

"On the third day ..." .

Interesting that it was on the THIRD day - a day so meaningful in the Bible as the day of Christ's resurrection.

"On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar.

And Abraham said to his young men, Stay here with the donkey; and I and the boy will go over there, and we will worship and then return to you."

Abraham had already endured long the trial of awaiting the BIRTH of a son from he and his wife way past the age of conceiving children. He had seen God be faithful to perform this miracle of the son's BIRTH. I believe that upon this experience he FURTHER believed that impossible could be performed by God - Isaac brought back to life after being slain.

All the promises were wrapped up in Isaac. It was to God's benefit that Isaac not be terminated. So even without getting into a debate about who liked and who disliked the book of Hebrews, I think Abraham's hope (if not systematic teaching) about resurrection is seen in Genesis.

As you can see I tend to be verbose also. But your shotgun blast of many scattered points has me beat on sheer volume of things to read.

So that example alone is enough to answer in the affirmative a teaching of resurrection very early. Insisting that it HAS to be before the Persian Empire I think is kind of an arbitrary standard.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 4:17 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 5:24 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 01-24-2016 1:25 PM jaywill has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 33 of 230 (776964)
01-23-2016 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jaywill
01-23-2016 5:00 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
quote:

Jaywill
Having provided you with the indications in the life of Abraham you have this, that, and the other pre-prepared ( I suppose) objection about the canonicity of the book of Hebrews and other matters which I frankly viewed as red herring distractions.

I don't think there is a need to reply in detail about all your points.
....

But going back to the original question you posed, even without an argument about issues of when books were recognized as canonical, Genesis shows that Abraham believed that Isaac would live even though he be sacrificed.

He may not have known how. But he expected God would raise him.


Here is the initial afterlife development as it relates to Abraham

quote:

The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions
John Bowker (ed.)
Oxford University Press (1997)
p.265
The development of beliefs that there might be life beyond death came about historically in different ways ...In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the belief developed in the 3rd or 2nd cent. BCE that the 'friendship with God' (as *Abraham's relationship with God was described) might perhaps be continued by God through death.

There clearly was a belief in disembodied souls, roaming the earth, earlier. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew (ðÀôÄéìÄéí )Nephilim as "shades" in Job.

The Witch of Endor story (1st Samuel) shows that the dead spirit of Samuel was called into communicable existence post-humous.

You said that graves being purchased proved an afterlife. I don't know if that is the decisive issue, but there were afterlife issues.

quote:

The subject is whether Jesus taught reincarnation or not.
This immediately poses the problem of how we agree on what Jesus taught.

Out of the plethora of sacred writings and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal literature I am sure you can point to something you think arguably suggests Jesus taught reincarnation or just about anything else many would claim was what Jesus taught.


I rest my case on the Gospels.

They show that Jesus said John was conceived in a contemporary female as a reincarnation of Elijah.

As for extrabiblical literature, I have shown that Jewish Christians (dating from the exact time that the Gospel of John was written) believed that Jesus was an Avatar and that reincarnation was part of his teachings.

They were far closer to Jesus and (especially) James than the Roman Catholic "Apostolic Fathers".

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 01-23-2016 5:00 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 01-23-2016 10:33 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 34 of 230 (776965)
01-23-2016 7:16 PM


Elijah was thought not to have died btw.
Fundamentalist Christian J Vernon McGhee (using hints most wouldn't understand, while teaching Kings on popular his Through The Bible radio program)talked about how mysterious this Elijah character is. He just appears in the Kings story out of nowhere, McGhee notices.

McGhee was (sneakily, without telling his uninitiated audience)referring to the view that Elijah was the same person as Phinehas (a great nephew of Moses), who apparently had an occultation around the 15th century BCE. Elijah represented the bodily return of Phinehas in the mid-9th century BCE.

Then the flesh body of Phinehas (named Elijah) had another occultation when God took him in the whirlwind in the 800s BCE.

McGhee didn't mention any of this, so far as I can remember.

Malachi 4 talks about Elijah returning.

Jesus said he did return but it was through reincarnation. Then he did die a the 1st century, as Jesus recognized.

The tradition has gotten lots of life via the faithful Manicheans. The faith in Jesus and his exact words was thoughtfully brought into the world by Mani and his followers. Just like the Bible of Jesus (with the book of Enoch as its most important book) was the Bible of Mani and then the Manicheans.

This is the basis for so many Shi'ite (Sevener and Druze) views.

The tradition of Jesus was brought into the world and it lived on in Christian communities for a long time, until the Manicheans finally went extinct (persecution by Catholics then Muslims, though Islam was more tolerant for a while) at the hands of the Mongolians and Ghengis Khan.

The issue will only be cryptically mentioned in churches today. The larger reason is to deflect any discussion and focus away from Jesus clearly saying John the Baptist was a bodily reincarnation of Elijah though perhaps fundamentalist preachers feel that too much light on important topics (like this) might bleach away all the b.s. they have built up on so many issues related to history, genuine "apostolic tradition", eschatology, and current relations among religions of the world. Among other things for sure.


  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 35 of 230 (776968)
01-23-2016 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jaywill
01-23-2016 12:04 PM


Jaywill used Hebrews 11.
quote:

Having provided you with the indications in the life of Abraham you have this, that, and the other pre-prepared ( I suppose) objection about the canonicity of the book of Hebrews and other matters which I frankly viewed as red herring distractions.

Earlier, you said

quote:

Would you be skeptical of a indication of belief in resurrection in the life of Abraham in Genesis 22:5. On his way to sacrifice his only son Isaac he told his accompanying servants that he and the lad would be returning to them. Since he knew he was to kill Isaac, the strong implication is that he expected that God would raise him from the dead.

The writer of Hebrews in the New Testament tells us that Abraham believed he would receive Isaac back in resurrection (Hebrews 11:17-19). We Christians count that as authoritative.


I need to ask if you agree with 2 Maccabees and all the theology that goes along with it?

quote:

Michuta argues that Hebrews 11:35 is indeed a reference to the Maccabean martyrs, and is so with “a high degree of certainty.” First, there are no other examples presented in the Greek Old Testament of persons undergoing torture and not accepting deliverance for the hope of a better resurrection.”[Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Port Huron: Grotto Press, 2007), p. 37]. Second, 2 Maccabees twice explicitly refers to a “hope for a better resurrection” as does Hebrews 11:35. Third, Michuta finds linguistic similarities between the words rendered “tormented”(or “tortured”) in Hebrews with Eleazar’s martyrdom in Maccabees. Hebrew 11:36 mentions “mockings and scourgings” as does 2 Maccabees 7:7, “So when the first was dead after this number, they brought the second to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every member of thy body?” Michuta summarizes these points by stating, “Apart from dogmatic prejudice, this reference to 2 Maccabees is unquestionable, and both Catholic and Protestant scholars rightly acknowledge this point of contact between Hebrews and the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees.”[Ibid., p. 37].
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/sil358017.shtml

Hebrews and Maccabees talk about "a more perfect resurrection".

Jude (the brother of Jesus is the portrayal) quotes the book of Enoch.

The Biblical books of Peter cant be understood without understanding Enoch.

Augustine accepted the book of Enoch (as did Jesus and his family-according to the New Testament books), while a Manichean. Then he rejected the book once he became a Roman Catholic.

I really think that one must be consistent.

How do you explain that 2 Peter 2:4 has Tartarus translated, "hell", in English when the only "Biblical" book that has the Tartarus detail is the book of Enoch the Prophet. (Jubilees might have it too, but that was rejected by "the Church")

Now we know that the specific word "hell" is a north European word, and the specific word Tartarus is a Greek word, but the concept of Tartarus in 2 Peter 2 4 matches Revelation 20 and "the bottomless pit" that Satan is thrown into.

The Book of Enoch is the precise reference in 2 Peter.

The Book of Enoch talks about the "Son of Man", frequently described, as Jesus in the New Testament, and the seven angels of Revelation 1:4

There is selectivity among hyper-fundamentalists. Accept Jude, 2 Peter and Hebrews then accept Maccabees and Enoch.

Don't pick and choose if you call yourself a fundamentalist.

If you admit that scripture is full of allegory and references to pagan concepts (like the Logos reference in the Gospel of John), then fine.

Mani was the fundamentalist when it came to the cherished Book of Enoch. He kept it and didn't burn it.

Mani had the ancient book that had the 7 angels of Revelation, Tartarus, fallen angel details, and the Son of Man.

Mani held firm to the reincarnation and Avatar teachings of Jesus.

Mani was a strict pacifist as were all of his followers. Like the New Testament.

Mani accepted the mandatory minimums of the Acts 15 Apostolic Council. Manicheans accepted the Apostolic Decree. All the moral commandments were strictly followed.

I think this Hebrews issue is a big one. Call it "progressive revelation" but be consistent. Hebrews doesn't just refer to Genesis and Abraham. It refers to apocryphal books and presents them as accurate in portraying afterlife and judgment issues. If the issue of an afterlife is a "progressive revelation", then what about "reincarnation"?

The Roman Catholic self-proclaimed line of "apostolic tradition" might deny reincarnation, but why not just use Sola Scriptura?

What about the words of Jesus?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jaywill, posted 01-23-2016 12:04 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 01-23-2016 11:05 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action
 Message 38 by jaywill, posted 01-23-2016 11:37 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1216 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 230 (776970)
01-23-2016 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 5:24 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
quote:

There clearly was a belief in disembodied souls, roaming the earth, earlier. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew (ðÀôÄéìÄéí )Nephilim as "shades" in Job.

The disembodied spirits were demons (unclean spirit[s]). Those were beings of a pre-Adam age which were judge by God and lost their bodies (See Luke 11:24; Matt. 12:43).

They travel the earth looking to possess bodies of living human sinners roaming in "waterless places" ... because God ordained that the sea should be their domain.

quote:

The Witch of Endor story (1st Samuel) shows that the dead spirit of Samuel was called into communicable existence post-humous.

The disembodied spirit of the deceased prophet Samuel was accompanied by angels to come up from Hades. There the disembodied soul and spirit of Samuel were resting.

The witch saw plural "gods" coming up which probably means the angels brought Samuel's immaterial essence up from the realm of the dead. This was an exception made by God contrary to His command that the Israelites not practice the abomination of necromancy, which was forbidden in Leviticus.

In an irony of justice God allowed backslidden king Saul's request to be answered and managed by God's angels and Samuel's soul and spirit came up to give Saul an unpleasant answer about God's upcoming discipline of Saul.

My point here is that Samuel's soul was not roaming the earth. Rather it was brought up from the realm of the departed human beings, where because of Samuel's godliness, his soul and spirit were at rest.

quote:

You said that graves being purchased proved an afterlife. I don't know if that is the decisive issue, but there were afterlife issues.

I didn't use the word "prove" I don't think. But it is ironic that one entire chapter is dedicated to the details of Abraham securing a resting place for his dear wife.

I believe that it is evidence that he expected God would have to raise her from the dead to witness the promise of a good land possession which they as of yet, did not fully realize.

quote:

I rest my case on the Gospels.

What case do you rest ?
The words of Jesus surely concern resurrection.

When Jesus says that God is the God of the living and not the dead in Mark 12:27; Matt. 22:32; Luke 20:38 the strong indication was that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be resurrected.

This makes sense because Jesus was arguing with the ancient modernists, the Sadducees, for whom the Gospels say resurrection would not occur.

I am not sure exactly what case you rest. Jesus telling the Sadducees that they understood neither the Scriptures or the power of God amounted Him teaching them that both the Hebrew Bible and God's unlimited power secured the reality of resurrection.

Since Genesis tells us all three men DIED, the use of the title "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" as "the God of the LIVING" in that argument strongly points to Jesus affirming resurrection from the dead.

quote:

They show that Jesus said John was conceived in a contemporary female as a reincarnation of Elijah.

You'll have to elaborate on that. I don't want to second guess what you may mean.

quote:

As for extrabiblical literature, I have shown that Jewish Christians (dating from the exact time that the Gospel of John was written) believed that Jesus was an Avatar and that reincarnation was part of his teachings.

Maybe I'll speak to this in another post. But at first glance it seems yet another case of someone wanting to enlist Jesus Christ as sympathetic to one's own belief.

If you believe in reincarnation, do you NEED Jesus to agree with you?
Does it give a belief in reincarnation MORE credence if you hold that Jesus taught it?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 5:24 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 11:45 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1216 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 37 of 230 (776972)
01-23-2016 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 8:55 PM


Re: Jaywill used Hebrews 11.
quote:
Hebrews and Maccabees talk about "a more perfect resurrection".

Hebrew and also Philippians speak of a better resurrection.
Do you think that this has something to do with reincarnation ?

quote:

Jude (the brother of Jesus is the portrayal) quotes the book of Enoch.

Sometime canonical books quoted non-canonical books.
Paul quotes even pagan poets.

Does this to you indicate Jesus taught reincarnation?

quote:

The Biblical books of Peter cant be understood without understanding Enoch.

I have a very good grasp of Peter's epistles and I have never read the non-canonical book of Enoch. I have seen some parts of it.

I would not agree that Peter's epistles could not be understood without knowing the book of Enoch.

Jude as a faithful servant of the church repeated what Peter taught basically.

quote:

Augustine accepted the book of Enoch (as did Jesus and his family-according to the New Testament books), while a Manichean. Then he rejected the book once he became a Roman Catholic.

My Christian faith is based upon the 66 books of the Bible.
The writings afterward of historically interesting at times.
Augustine does not carry the same authority for me as the books of the Bible.

But historically and even devotionally, there is some profit to studying Augustine or one of the other theologians of old.

Is this also some kind of evidence for you that Jesus taught reincarnation?

quote:

I really think that one must be consistent.

How do you explain that 2 Peter 2:4 has Tartarus translated, "hell", in English when the only "Biblical" book that has the Tartarus detail is the book of Enoch the Prophet. (Jubilees might have it too, but that was rejected by "the Church")


I would have to review that issue. I think that Peter was referring to MORE severe confinement of some particularly bad angels. In other words the standard Sheol of Hades had some kind of DEEPER realm where some particularly dangerous angelic enemies of God were confined.

But this is quite off the cuff without me revisiting the particulars. But that faulty translations in some English version exist, I do not dispute.

I don't think knowing the non-canonical book of Enoch is the only way to appreciate Peter's essential revelation in his letters.

For length's sake I think I will stop here.

But that the vanacular "hell" departs from biblical usage of Sheol and Hades is understood by me.

You refer to many particular issues. But I think your overall concern is with demonstrating somehow that your belief in reincarnation finds support out of the mouth of Jesus, the Son of God.

I don't think this is a case that one can make.
And again, why should you be concerned that JESUS must agree with your belief?

Your other comments I may get to latter.
I didn't call myself a "fundamentalist". You seem to have an urgent cause to put such a label on me.

I am a lover of Jesus, a Christian, a follower of Jesus.
I didn't come here saying " I am a fundamentalist". And issues you have with J. Vernon McGee I may or may not want to defend.

I don't think the labeling is necessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 8:55 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1216 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 38 of 230 (776973)
01-23-2016 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 8:55 PM


Re: Jaywill used Hebrews 11.
quote:

The Book of Enoch is the precise reference in 2 Peter.

I hardly have time to dive into all the riches of the Bible's books.
I never needed the books of Enoch. It is enough to know that one writer of the New Testament tells us that he is referring to a book called Enoch.

We really do not need to know more, IMO.

quote:

The Book of Enoch talks about the "Son of Man", frequently described, as Jesus in the New Testament, and the seven angels of Revelation 1:4

I have no comment because I never read through this book of Enoch.
Jude, I think, says Enoch said something. That is good enough for the revelation Jude presents.

What else do we need than that to grasp what Jude is saying about prophecy ?
The Old Testament refers to books like "The Wars of Jehovah". They are non-canonical. Now they were probably very interesting. But they were not discovered as inspired. So the Bible does not contain them.

Macabees is the same way.
- Interesting, but not of divine inspiration or apostolic authority.

quote:

There is selectivity among hyper-fundamentalists. Accept Jude, 2 Peter and Hebrews then accept Maccabees and Enoch.

I don't have to say Allen Watt's book "The Way of Zen" is part of the New Testament though he may say some interesting things which seem to touch spiritual matters.

And I do have to add to my Bible every ancient sacred writing. This process of discovering canonicity was done before I was born.

Super fundamental is a label you seem to need to apply to people.
Is it that if you don't agree that Jesus taught reincarnation that then makes you a super fundamentalist ?

quote:
Don't pick and choose if you call yourself a fundamentalist.

If you believe in reincarnation just say that is your faith.

Let me ask you this. Of what advantage have you over your previous life?
Can you give me about five definite known advantages you have now over your previous life?

Or if you are worse off, in what way are you worse off than who you were before your present self was born.

My guess is that you have absolutely no clue.
You have a FAITH that it is so. And you want Jesus to have the same concepts.

quote:

If you admit that scripture is full of allegory and references to pagan concepts (like the Logos reference in the Gospel of John), then fine.

The Bible is full of allegories. And we can discuss HOW we should interpret some of them.

quote:

Mani was the fundamentalist when it came to the cherished Book of Enoch. He kept it and didn't burn it.

I don't know anything about Mani. Apparently, you feel Mani adds credence to a belief in reincarnation.

quote:

Mani had the ancient book that had the 7 angels of Revelation, Tartarus, fallen angel details, and the Son of Man.

And the apocryphal Gospel of Peter had a wooden cross stomping out of the tomb saying something about the Gospel being preached to the dead.

So what?

So that means if someone is a Christian fundamentalist he must believe that a giant cross came out of the tomb where Jesus was buried ?

Its late. I must stop here for tonight.
Goodnight all.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 8:55 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 39 of 230 (776974)
01-23-2016 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jaywill
01-23-2016 10:33 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
quote:

LNA
"I rest my case on the Gospels."

Jaywill
What case do you rest ?
The words of Jesus surely concern resurrection.


He said that John was a reincarnation of Elijah. Nobody would read his words to say anything else if not for having a head full of preconceived notions.

See my opening post on page one. The very first set of quotes.

quote:

LamarkNewAge
"They show that Jesus said John was conceived in a contemporary female as a reincarnation of Elijah."

Jaywill
You'll have to elaborate on that. I don't want to second guess what you may mean.


Jesus said John was born of a female. There was a conception. And he is Elijah.

Again, see my opening post. I used Matthew and Mark quotes.

quote:

LamarkNewAge
"As for extrabiblical literature, I have shown that Jewish Christians (dating from the exact time that the Gospel of John was written) believed that Jesus was an Avatar and that reincarnation was part of his teachings."

Jaywill
Maybe I'll speak to this in another post. But at first glance it seems yet another case of someone wanting to enlist Jesus Christ as sympathetic to one's own belief.

If you believe in reincarnation, do you NEED Jesus to agree with you?
Does it give a belief in reincarnation MORE credence if you hold that Jesus taught it?


I want historical records available, regardless of what they say.

Mark was written as early as 65 AD, and no later than 80 AD.

Matthew seems to have been known to Clement of Rome (the majority of historians say his 96/97 AD epistle shows knowledge of Matthew), so I doubt Matthew dates more than a few years (in either direction) from 90 AD.

These are the earliest Gospels.

What does Jesus say about Elijah?

quote:

Oxford Dictionary of Worlds Religions
John Bowker
p.309
Elijah
....
the *gospels record speculation that John the Baptist, who wore the same clothes..., was a reincarnation of the prophet.

Its there in plain English.

Anybody can read it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 01-23-2016 10:33 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 01-24-2016 8:41 AM LamarkNewAge has taken no action
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 01-24-2016 9:37 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 40 of 230 (776976)
01-24-2016 12:14 AM


Hebrews 11:35 quote.
A chapter The Extent of the Old Testament Canon by Norman L. Geisler was in a book called Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation by Gerald Hawthorne.

quote:

p.36
The following is a brief summary of the evidence offered in support of Christian acceptance of these books.

(1) The NT makes direct quotes from some deuteron-canonical books (e.g. Jude 14 quotes from Enoch 1:9) and makes many allusions to others (e.g. Heb 11:35 alludes to 2 Mac 6:18-19).


Then this was the response.

quote:

....
p.46
Second, there is no NT quotation of any of the Apoc as Scripture [46]
....
[note 46] Both Catholics and Protestants agree that Jude's citation of Enoch does not support Enoch's canonicity since (1) Enoch is not quoted as "Scripture," (2) no Christian list, canon or council ever considered it canonical (including Trent), and the citation of Enoch makes it no more canonical than Paul's quote from Aratus' work (Acts 17:28) makes it inspired.

2 Macc. 12:46 is about praying for the dead (a Catholic doctrine) and the quoted verse is used to support purgatory. Protestants dance around to avoid this book. Geisler ignored 2 Macc , but used the common canard to exclude Enoch. The above quote on page 46 was the extent of his response to the NT quotations of those books. He had a ton of other detailed justifications for what is and isn't inspired. He seems to appeal to man as the decider, not the Bible itself. The New Testament speaking for itself apparently isn't good enough to determine what is inspired and what isn't.

Jude quoted Enoch as inspired prophecy of the "seventh from Adam". Jude quoted that book as representing the words of a great great great great grandson of Adam.

It is simply amazing that people keep using Paul's quote of a pagan poet, against philosophers in Athens, as somehow a parallel to Jude's quote of Enoch.

There isn't a scintilla of similarity to the Acts 17:28 quote by Paul , and Jude's use of Enoch. (I won't quote it because it will count against me, and my post might get blocked).

And most scholars say 2 Peter used Jude (you said Jude copied 2 Peter).

I see that you have the exact number of inspired books cataloged away. 66? Gee, where have I heard that before.

Nice to see that you think for yourself.


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jaywill, posted 01-24-2016 10:16 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 41 of 230 (776979)
01-24-2016 12:55 AM


Since I am accused of wanting to see things.
Let me be clear. I am trying to show that pre-gnostic Jewish Christians, connected to James, held certain views. These certain views happen to be consistent with the teachings of Jesus, James, and the Apostles. The Elkesaites used to be thought of as a small group confined to the Palestine and Jordan area. Once the Cologne Codex was discovered, it was found out that "Elchasaism was more important and widespread than hitherto known", as the authoritative and Herculean academic work the Encyclopedia Iranica reports. It also showed than Mani had a theology that came from a 1st century Jewish- Christian background.

Additionally, scholars have discovered that Gnosticism didn't come about until nearly the middle of the 2nd century. The references in Corinthians and the Pastoral Epistles to "knowledge" is vague and general and has little to do with the later Gnosticism.

So much of the commentary on the Gospel of John is really outdated.

Anyway, Bart Ehrman said that James was killed in Jerusalem in 62 AD. Scholars universally recognize the possible connections of the Ebionites to James. They existed in the 1st century (before 100 AD!) and in Palestine and Jordan. There are reports from the church fathers (and combined with supplemental material on non-Christian Jews from Josephus) that show us the knowledge that many of the communities of Jewish-Christians east of Jordan came from Jerusalem in the 60s AD.

Here are interesting quotes, from a book,The New testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (3rd edition), by Bart Ehrman

quote:

p.197
The Gospel of the Ebionites. This Gospel appears to have been a combination of the Synoptic Gospels, a kind of "Gospel harmony" in which the three accounts were merged to form one longer and fuller version of Jesus' life. It was evidently written in Greek and was possibly used among Jewish Christians living in Transjordan. One of its striking features is that it recorded words of Jesus to the effect that Jews no longer needed to participate in animal sacrifices in the Temple. Connected with this abolition of sacrifice was an insistence that Jesus's followers be vegetarian. This insistence led to some interesting alterations of stories found in the Synoptics. Simply by changing one letter, for example, the author modified the diet of John the Baptist; rather than eating "locusts" (Mark 1:6; the Greek word is akrides) he is said to have eaten "pancakes" (egrides).

Notice that it is the familiar synoptic Gospels as the material. Not even John. That tells us that they are very close to the central documents of the founders of Christianity. They also were associated with James himself, probably.

Ehrman didn't say the date, but a related community had another Gospel and it is dated thus:

quote:

p.197
The Gospel of the Nazareans. ....written in Aramaic... It may have been produced in Palestine near the end of the first century, that is, about the time of the gospel of John. The church fathers who refer to it sometimes claim that it was an Aramaic translation of the Gospel according to Matthew, minus the first two chapters

Again, these guys predate the gnostics and simply are Jewish Christians using first century documents and traditions that come straight from 60s AD Jerusalem.

Lets start to focus on them.

And btw, they (the first group) were believers in reincarnation and considered it a fact that Jesus was an incarnation of the Holy Spirit that incarnated previous Avatars in previous times.


  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1216 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 42 of 230 (776987)
01-24-2016 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 11:45 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
quote:
He said that John was a reincarnation of Elijah. Nobody would read his words to say anything else if not for having a head full of preconceived notions.

I never took Christ words there to mean exactly what I have heard about reincarnation. And all preconceived notions are not illegitimate. I think some preconceived notions are both unavoidable and right and helpful.

I think a better interpretation of the words is that the function the Elijah will fulfill in eschatological terms was virtually fulfilled by the ministry of John the Baptist. For all intents and purposes the ministry of John the Baptist TESTED the Scribes and Pharisees to expose how they would react even if Elijah were to come back to the earth.

But that John the Baptist was a Hinduism like reincarnation of Elijah ? Well, its a stretch I think. It seems like referring to Jesus saying He had other sheep which were not of this fold, to justify UFOs.

I mean you can do it. But it is rather forced.

quote:

See my opening post on page one. The very first set of quotes.

quote:
LamarkNewAge
"They show that Jesus said John was conceived in a contemporary female as a reincarnation of Elijah."


Let me just speak to this much.

"Truly I say to you, Among those who have been born of women there has not arisen one greater than John the Baptist, yet he who is least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he." (Matt. 11:11)

What makes a person great is being close to the Great One - Jesus the Son of God.
The closer a man or woman is to Christ, the greater they are.

Of all the prophets John the Baptist was the one closest to Jesus being the immediate forerunner of Jesus. So of all those born of women, John was the greatest because of his proximity to the Son of God.

However, the Son of God did not live in John the Baptist as He lives in every member of the new covenant church. Christ has come to live within even the least Christian brother or sister.

"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20) That day is the day of the revelation that Jesus is resurrected and living and available and we receive Him into our innermost being. He then dwells within in His form as the life giving Spirit.

"... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) . In His "pneumatic" form Jesus Christ is closer to the least constituent of the kingdom of the heavens because He lives WITHIN them. This is closer to the Great One than even John the Baptist was.

Many places Paul confirms that Jesus Christ lives within the Christians.

"Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved." (2 Cor. 13:5)

Jesus Christ lives in me. That makes me, a little potato in the Body of Christ, greater than John the Baptist.

Jesus, resurrected and in the form of "a life giving Spirit" can be "organically" JOINED to the one who receives Him:

"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)

The one who was called great in Luke 1:32 can have a more intimate relationship with each believer in Christ than was enjoyed by John the Baptist.

quote:

Jaywill
You'll have to elaborate on that. I don't want to second guess what you may mean.

Jesus said John was born of a female. There was a conception. And he is Elijah.


Oh, I see now what you're getting at. I'll perhaps respond on another post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 11:45 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12808
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 43 of 230 (776992)
01-24-2016 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 4:18 PM


Re: Moderator Announcement
LamarkNewAge writes:

Give me a chance to edit if the numbers don't add up.

My appeals for more emphasis on expressing your ideas and arguments in your own words weren't meant to turn the writing of messages into an accounting exercise. I think you should compose your posts in a manner appropriate to circumstances while keeping in mind that threads here are like a discussion or debate, which don't often consist of long readings from written material. For example, in a debate rather than reading a page from St. Augustine someone might just say, "As St. Augustine argued in Confessions...<summarization of St. Augustine's argument>..."

Another reason to be wary of heavy use of quotes is that as responses they often only indirectly address the point or rebuttal that was raised. And sometimes people use quotes as a way of deflecting or ignoring arguments.

Rule 6 was added to the Forum Guidelines very early in EvC Forum's history. It's necessity quickly became obvious.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 4:18 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 44 of 230 (776996)
01-24-2016 9:15 AM


Here is a reasonable evangelical commentary
Pp. 383 to 384 of The Interpreters Bible A Commentary in Twelve Volumes volume 7 New Testament Articles Matthew Mark (Abingdon Press, 1951)

This is Matthew chapter 11 commentary

quote:

The messenger of the covenant, alluded to in vs. 10, is now explicitly identified with Elijah. According to Mal. 4:5, Elijah would remain before the day of the Lord. Some first-century Jews believed that Elijah had been hidden by God until the time of his return (Josephus Antiquities IX. 2. 2); and Justin Martyr speaks of a Jewish belief that Elijah would announce the Messiah (cf. note on 3:16). Here and else where Matthew expresses the Christian doctrine that John is Elijah (cf. 17:12-13). He does not necessarily mean that he is identical with the earlier prophet ; he simply exercises his functions and fulfills the prophecies regarding him.

This commentary series always was among the most honest of the honest in evangelical conservative works. This is fundamentally slanted for sure (against reincarnation), but not fundamentally dishonest ("He does not necessarily mean" is slightly honest if you give the benefit of the doubt to this commentary being written by massively stupid people. I think the commentators are very smart mind you, but I can let it slide). I do think the text requires a necessary interpretation that John the Baptist is the bodily reincarnation of Elijah. Infact the text requires a reexamination of just what basis the Catholics have in claiming "Apostolic Tradition".

The fact that not a single one of the so-called "Early Church Fathers" thinks belief in reincarnation is anything but a heresy should send chills down our spines when we see just who taught reincarnation (hint hint see Matthew 11:11-15 and 17:10-13).

The so-called "Apostolic Tradition" of the Catholics isn't the tradition that is based on the founders o Christianity.

Jesus, James, Peter, and Paul have no connection at all to modern "Christianity" and it is disrespectful to Jesus to spell out his name as I just did.

Todays *Christians (just disrespected Jesus again) should be spelled Xtians.

Popular Xtianity opposes reincarnation.

Jesus taught it.

Find out who promoted the teachings of Jesus and then find out who carried the tradition of Jesus verses the (Catholic) traditions of (un-Christian)men (who claim to be Christian or followers of Christ).

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by kbertsche, posted 01-24-2016 9:10 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1216 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 45 of 230 (776998)
01-24-2016 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 11:45 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
quote:
I want historical records available, regardless of what they say.

Mark was written as early as 65 AD, and no later than 80 AD.

Matthew seems to have been known to Clement of Rome (the majority of historians say his 96/97 AD epistle shows knowledge of Matthew), so I doubt Matthew dates more than a few years (in either direction) from 90 AD.

These are the earliest Gospels.


The letters of Paul pre-date these I have heard.
So the earliest documents informing us of what Christian evangelists taught are the letters of Paul.

Do you have something in Paul's epistles leading you to believe reincarnation was a major tenet of the gospel message ?

quote:

What does Jesus say about Elijah?

quote:
Oxford Dictionary of Worlds Religions
John Bowker
p.309
Elijah
....
the *gospels record speculation that John the Baptist, who wore the same clothes..., was a reincarnation of the prophet.

Its there in plain English.

Anybody can read it.


Yes, the Gospels record speculation about this and other things.

They speculated that maybe Jesus was John the Baptist come back after being beheaded.

They speculated that Jesus was demon possessed or a drunkard or was a madman.

They speculated that the disciple John was to live until Jesus returned at the end of the age.

The fact that some evidence of speculation occurred is just that.
It doesn't argue for the truth of the matter.
It doesn't argue that it was a part of Christ's teaching or of that of the apostles.
It is simply a record of the concepts that were entertained by some people.

Matthew 17:13-19

" For all the prophets and and the law prophesied until John; And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah, who is to come."

You are using this sentence to argue that Elijah was reincarnated Hinduism style in John the Baptist.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear. But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like little children sitting in the marketplaces, who call to the others

And say, We have played the flute to you, and you did not dance; we have sung a dirge, and you did not mourn.

For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they say, He has a demon. The Son of Man came eating and drinking; and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. ..."

I think the thrust of this talk is that the religionists will not be satisfied but will always come up with an excuse to reject whom God sends. For all intents and purposes John the Baptist came doing the kind of preparatory work that Elijah did. But John was rejected.

The scholars had confidence in their knowledge of the Scriptures. In spite of their knowledge of the letters, they were exposed as to the reluctance of their hearts to come along with God.

I don't see Jesus there emphasizing reincarnation. I see Jesus telling whoever is willing to hear, that man's rebellion against God is exposed. Man's heart does not want to be under God's administration.

"Your Elijah was John the Baptist" Jesus is saying. "How then you will react to WHOMEVER God sends, will reveal the condition of your heart towards God."

Now if you go further in the chapter you see Jesus speaking about final judgment of the cities that rejected Him.

His scolding of those cities include these words in verse 24:

"But I say to you [Capernaum] that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in tha day of judgment than for you."

If each person that lived in Sodom or in Capernaum is recycled in reincarnation to be multiple people, than HOW can God judge each one ? If Mr. Jaywill is the reincarnation of 14 previous people, how can God judge Mr. Jaywill for any OTHER life lived beside the one he lived as Mr. Jaywill?

One does not put on a new self in successive ages. Another person born is another person. And John the Baptist will answer to Christ for the life of John the Baptist. And Elijah will answer to Christ for the life of Elijah.

John the Baptist will not have to answer before God for the life of Elijah nor Elijah for the life of John the Baptist.

The cleansing from sin is in the redemption of Christ. And that is where the Gospel tells us to put our trust. In Christ's redeeming death on our behalf we are to have confidence in Justification.

There is transformation and sanctification. But that pertains to each individual.

Now think about what you are teaching. You are saying that Elijah was reincarnated in John the Baptist. Then John the Baptist is beheaded. Then Elijah is seen again on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus.

How come it was not John the Baptist seen with Moses ? That was suppose to be the last recycling of Elijah in reincarnation.

So I would advize that you consider Matthew 11:11-18 to mean that HOW God led the people in Elijah He similarly led them in the ministry of John the Baptist. Their functions were very similar. And in similar fashion their function exposed the rebellious hearts of some of the nation of Israel.

Less likely - Jesus was teaching everyone experiences reincarnation.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 11:45 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-24-2016 12:05 PM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022