Did Jesus teach reincarnation?

The revelation of the Bible is progressive and unfolding. I don't know if it is significant to challenge when a certain aspect of the revelation, according to some date, is always significant.And just because it occurs after a certain arbitrary pinpointed date may not be significant.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. Since there were gaps in the Hebrew genealogies I don't think we can conclusively date the life of Adam. The genealogies in the Bible are often according to God's priorities of accounting rather human. The connections are sometimes related to whom God accounted as important rather than strict unbroken family links. As I said, I am not sure pinpointing the date of such mention is conclusive.The oldest book in the Bible is the book of Job. Though Job does not mention a physical resurrection he certainly believed he would stand before God even without a physical body at the end of the world before God his Redeemer (Job 19:25). I cannot think of Adam speaking of resurrection. The evidence is that Abraham believed in God's raising the dead.We should also consider that Genesis surprisingly devotes a whole chapter to the purchasing of a grave site for Sarah, Abraham's wife (Gen. 20). This was in a cave in a nice field in Macpelah. Since they never saw the full fulfillment of God's promises, and they lived all their lives as nomads in tents, the purchasing of a burial site with such care is significant.Abraham never bought a house for Sarah but a whole chapter is devoted to his purchasing a tomb. I say this indicates that he expected God would raise them both from the dead and not fail to cause them to SEE the fulfillment of the promises that God had given them.Abraham's life speaks of his belief in resurrection. Paul writes of Abraham - " (As it is written, 'I have appointed you a father of many nations?') in the sight of God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being." (Romans 4:17) Do you think that it has to be that EACH Old Testament prophet HAD to speak on the subject of resurrection ? I think it is not a necessary criteria. Abraham believed in resurrection and he precedes Moses.And Job certainly precedes Moses. And I demonstrated Job's hope in at least a semi-physical resurrection at the end of the world. I don't know much about Avatars.Of course we have a teaching of resurrection in the prophesy of Daniel and of Isaiah. See Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 25:7,8 Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Paul's commentary is more conclusive to us disciples of Jesus - " ... in the sight of God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being ." (Rom. 4:17b) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The subject matter is whether or not Jesus taught Reincarnation.
No.If you come back as another person or another living creature it is of absolutely no benefit to the supposed "previous" creature you allegedly were.Reincarnation will not cleanse one from his sins in the bible.
Reincarnation is not taught in the Bible.You can hope in reincarnation to be of some benefit to you.
But the fact of the matter is you have NO sense and no recollection of how your existence TODAY is of any advantage to what you believe you were before in another life.You were not in the past.
You are here now.
Of what advantage is there to your totally unknown previous life (IF such a thing is true)?Your self is YOUR self. And previous person was some previous SELF of which you have no subjective knowledge personally as being that person.Evil spirits and demonic beings in the spiritual world can deceive people to thinking some kind of channeling or contact with past persons is taking place. This is the occult and deception of deceiving spirit which the Old Testament warned against as "familiar spirits".Jesus didn't teach a thing about reincarnation. That is what I would say. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have been thinking on this definition ? And I think I can think of one exception possibly in the Bible. That is someone coming again in another person's body. But I will not go into it here. Maybe on a thread on Bible Study I would do so.One legitimate case of someone coming from a previous age in which he died into a subsequent age in another person's body, I can locate in the book of Revelation. But the progression is not for the better but for the worse.The Antichrist is a return of the soul of Caesar Nero into the body of an assassinated and resuscitated coming world leader. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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.

quote:

---

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

---

The disembodied spirits were demons [b] (unclean spirit[s]). [/b] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ah, you're flaming already. So you want to see me say "Look everybody, I can say something original !"So Peter faithfully repeated Jude or Jude faithfully repeated Peter. Does it make that much difference ? The disciples continued in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles. So they lived the same life and they followed the same teaching, if they were wise.Yes, I have a Bible of 66 books. And NO I did not do the ancient work of sorting though the huge amounts of writings to discover the inspired writings. That was done by ancient brothers led by the Holy Spirit before I was born. I trust the leading of the Holy Spirit and the eventual last word by the Holy Spirit in this.The question is how did the inspired books USE the quotations from non-canonical writings. This is more important than going back to those writings and assuming everything written there is the word of God.God told the three friends of Job that they did not answer rightly as His servant Job had done. There are some quotations from the three friends of Job in the New Testament. I do not discount them as untrue because those men were rebuked by God.Rather I tend to how those quotations were used by the inspired writers of the New Testament. The same would go for quotations from Enoch or from one of the poets Paul quoted.In that sense the situation is the same to me.My general rule runs something like this:If an interpretation causes me to love Jesus and be more dependent upon Jesus, then it is at least a safe interpretation, even if it is not so good. Of course I seek a good interpretation.If an interpretation causes me to be bothered about Jesus or cold in my love towards Jesus or feel I can be independent from Christ, then there is something wrong with the teaching no matter how good it sounds.Over forty years I have heard lots of interpretations of Bible verses.
My smell test is "Does this cause me to love God and Christ more? Or does this cause me to feel drawn back from God, cold towards God, indifferent towards Christ?"If the latter is the case, even is it sounds very scholarly, something is wrong there.
For the renewing and cleansing of my soul, I look to Christ's salvation.
I don't feel to replace that sense with a high hope in reincarnation. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You said I was just seeing what I want to see.

​

Then you went and said that a bunch of men led by the Holy Spirit did your thinking for you.

---

The determination of the books that bear the authority of inspiration has been carried out in previous centuries. I do believe that.I do have tasks particularly set before me. That task is not one of them

quote:

---

The people who came up with the "66 books" were a bunch of mass murderers. They had absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

---

That's a wild over generalization. You'll find that I will not be arguing much with you on this process of recognizing inspiration. I am going to steer my discussion more toward reincarnation.

quote:

---

Be careful about calling a bunch of theocrats, who kill everybody "unorthodox", "Holy Spirit filled individuals" (or whatever).

---

Though we Christians are eternally redeemed, nonetheless we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to answer for our service to the Lord as Christians.Since Paul said "WE" he included himself. However in your system of reincarnation it is difficult to see WHO is going to be responsible for WHAT. "For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God." (Romans 14:10b) "We" means Paul himself and all Christians as servants of the Lord Jesus. This judgment seat of God Paul also calls the judgment seat of Christ. "Therefore also we are determined ... to gain the honor of being well pleasing to Him. For we all must be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body according to what he has practiced, whether it be good or bad." ( 2 Cor. 4:9-10) God keeps track of the quality of service each of His servants has rendered.On one hand you want to believe reincarnation bring a person closer and closer to the ideal of goodness. But on the other hand you seem to gloat that some Christian men of the past at least should be judged for wrongdoings.Is it that the benefits of reincarnation only serve you and not those whom you condemn?Which is it? Are you happy that said people have by now been reincarnated to be improved individuals or they are still worthy of scorn and contempt for misbehavior ?

quote:

---

The people they killed, especially the Manicheans, were devout pacifists. Mani and his followers did indeed follow the example that the Bible sets out as "Spirit" filled individuals.

---

Not knowing much about these blanket generalizations, I have no comment at this time. But it does present something of a genetic fallacy.IE. " Your New Testament canon cannot be true because all those who recognized inspiration were murderers of the Manicheans."I am pretty sure that your going overboard in broad generalizations or guilt by association.

quote:

---

Jude quoted the Book of Enoch. And he presented it as the actual words of Enoch.

---

I understand that.

quote:

---

Show me where Enoch was rebuked.

---

I didn't say Enoch was rebuked.
I said HOW the words were used by the inspired canonical writings was more important to me.

quote:

---

Jude quoted the Book of Enoch in agreement with it message and he felt Enoch, the man, actually said what he quoted. Jude wasn't attacking people who believed in the Book of Enoch, was he?

---

I didn't say Jude was attacking anyone.
I said what is important to me is HOW did Jude, under inspiration, use the quotation from the book of Enoch.That Enoch may have genuinely prophesied from God is not a problem to me.
Enoch of Genesis was definitely a man of God.
This does not mean the a "Book of Enoch" was canonical.And I think you would have to blame the Jews of the pre-New Testament time for not including a Book of Enoch in the Hebrew canon.

quote:

---

Enoch was an Old Testament hero. He had a book named after him that people believed.

---

I understand that. And the book "The Wars of Jehovah" no doubt referred to Hebrew kings heroic and not. Neither the book of the Wars of Jehovah or the Book of Enoch did the Jews under the leading of the Spirit of God include in the Old Testament canon.That some spiritual things were written IN those books, is not disputed.

quote:

---

Although there is a dispute about when the various parts were written, it is actually a Trinitarian book. (the "holy spirit" parts are generally dated after the time of Jesus, though some argue for early dates). By the time of Jude (100 AD), even the Holy Spirit parts were in existence.

---

No comment further.

quote:

---

Jude was quoting from a book that was felt to date from before the flood and it had all three Trinitarian parts.

---

If you want to insert the book of Enoch into your Bible, go ahead.
I won't be doing this.

quote:

---

We, when I hear about the "66 books", then I think of all the murdered Christians and Jews by those who created that sacred canon.

​

It makes me sick.

---

So you hold that reincarnation will perfect you to some ideal of goodness?
But you are sickened that it does not apply to others?I don't understand. How come you are not holding out good news that REINCARNATION by now, how surely made those people you condemn better people?

quote:

---

But it still doesn't change the facts.

​

The fact is that Jude quoted Enoch as the inspired antediluvian patriarch. That makes at least 67 books now.

---

And the Book of the Wars of Yahweh? Or the other books referred to somewhere in the Old Testament ?You recommended Norman Giesler in a post above. I recommend you read A General Introduction to the Bible by Giesler and Nix. Particularly, pay attention to the chapters on forming the Old Testament and New Testament canons.You'll find it a thorough discussion on the different schools concerning Inspiration also.

quote:

---

Hebrews quoted 2 Maccabees. That makes at least 2.

---

Perhaps you are arriving at a position that there are no apocryphal books at all.You'll find my responses more steering towards the subject matter of reincarnation, whether Jesus taught it or not.

quote:

---

Be careful about attributing the Holy Spirit to these pukes.

---

On the subject matter of REINCARNATION. I don't think the New Testament teaches it. However, it does teach TRANSFORMATION into the image of Christ. "And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

​

But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being TRANSFORMED into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17,18) Here the normal Christian life should be one of being TRANSFORMED in one's Christian lifetime from one degree of expressing Jesus to another degree. But this is not over several reincarnated lifetimes but over one person's individual existence.Here again we see New Testament renewing and TRANSFORMATION rather than reincarnation - " And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be TRANSFORMED by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." Renewing of the mind and TRANSFORMATION is a part of Christ's salvation.Reincarnation is not taught in the New Testament but CONFORMATION is: " Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be CONFORMED to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers ..." (Romans 8:29) Here we have each believers has a destiny marked out for him or her to be CONFORMED into the image of Christ the Firstborn Son of God. But his pertains to each individual. It is not accomplish through successive instances of reincarnating into someone else.The New Testament speaks of RENEWING as a putting on of a new holy humanity: " That you put off as regards your former manner of life, the old man, which is being corrupted according to the lusts of the deceit.

​

And that you be RENEWED in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man, which was created according to God in righteousness and holiness of the reality." (Eph. 4:22-24) .Instead of being recycled from life to life to life - changing physical bodies as homes for evolving souls, the Gospel speaks of TRANSFORMATION, CONFORMATION, RENEWING and the process of Christ being formed in the saved person for a "metobolic" change.Paul was quite burdened about this to the churches in Galatia. He said he was like a laboring mother working that Christ would take shape and be formed in them: "My little children, with whom I travail in birth until Christ be formed in you." (Gal. 4:19) .He sees Jesus Christ as a seed planted in man to be developed and formed for their transformation. This is what I hope in rather than Hindu reincarnation. And this was both the prayer and teaching of Jesus.For example, in His mighty prayer (which cannot fail to be answered) He prays that the PROCESS of perfecting into oneness with God would operate over all His followers. " And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they all may be one, even as We are one;

​

I in them, and You in Me, that they may be PERFECTED into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me." (John 17:22,23) Christ's New Testament salvation is our hope rather than Hinduism's reincarnation. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I was commenting on the story of Abraham and Isaac and your claim that, "The evidence is that Abraham believed in God's raising the dead." At best, it is weak evidence that Abraham may have believed in the possibility of resurrection.

---

"Now after these things God tested Abraham and said to him, Abraham. ... etc. Take now your son, your only son ... etc." When Genesis 22:1 says that God TESTED Abraham I think it means God tested not only his obedience but his FAITH.That faith included his experience of seeing God follow through and give the two "good as dead" people (Abraham and Sarah) a natural born child.Just reading Genesis, the case that Abraham believed in the God of resurrection, may be arguable to some, though not to myself.And Paul's [authoritative] comment in Romans 4 says that an aspect of Abraham's FAITH was that God could give life to the dead. That is resurrection. ' ... God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being.

​

He, beyond hope believed in hope in order that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, "So shall your seed be.:

​

And not weakening in his faith, he considered his own body as already dead, being about a hundred years old, as well as the deadening of Sarah's womb;

​

But with regard to the promise of God, he did not doubt in unbelief, but was empowered by faith, giving glory to God and being fully persuaded that what He had promised He was able also to do.

​

Therefore also it was accounted to him as righteousness.' (Rom. 4:17b-21) So when it says that God TESTED Abraham, it is evident that WHAT was being tested were these things:1.) The righteousness of believing God and God's promise.2.) That as God brought life from ones as good as dead, He could further do the same with a slain only son - Isaac.3.) The empowering to obey God.4.) The unwavering of his belief in God and hope in God's promise.5.) That God gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being.6.) That God was ABLE to fulfill His promise even if Isaac be slain to death.I believe that Abraham PASSED the test because he had all these things in his heart, built up over the experiences of his life. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

None of the authentic letters of Paul quote the Gospels.

---

I think you are saying now what I said. The earliest documents about what the apostles of Jesus taught are the letters of Paul.No contradiction here.

quote:

---

The Gospels did not exist during Paul's lifetime.

---

The Gospel as a oral tradition existed. And Paul tells the Corinthians about what he received from his predecessors and passed on to them.This is in First Corinthians 15:1-4 which begins this way: "Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I announced to you, which also you received, in which also you stand ... For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures." You like Bart Erhman. Have you heard of Gary Habermas ?
I recommend you see some YouTube lectures or debates with Gary Habermas.
He is also a NT textural critic and a fine NT historian.Now "Scriptures" in this passage, you well know would have to be Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus, after His resurrection, taught how the Hebrew Scriptures spoke of Himself and His death and resurrection.IE. "And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! And beginning with Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:25-27) So the Gospel as Jesus had preached AND explained from the Hebrew Scriptures was what Paul received and passed on the the church in Corinth. This is earlier than the WRITING of the four Gospels, I think, as you said. But it is NOT earlier than the Gospel.Did you notice anything in that summary of Paul's about reincarnation ? I didn't.
Rather he does say that "Christ died for our sins". The hope in the redemption from a life of sinning consists in justification through belief in the redeeming death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.It is not a preaching of hope that successive recycling reincarnation into different people or animals or plants will cause one to be cleansed from any moral wrongs.

quote:

---

(I Timothy does have a quote of the Gospel of Luke or from one of the Logoi that would become part of the Gospel of Luke, thus giving even more evidence that the Pastorals are a forgery)

---

So you are at war with John and with Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus.It does strike me that over the years I have seen many people who wish to establish a kind of divine and mystical teaching immediately seek to discredit the Gospel of John. I have come to expect this.Anyone wanting to put forward a new age or new belief system has to:1.) Say "Jesus is saying what we say."
2.) Then "John's Gospel is NOT saying what Jesus said."There are other characteristics of competing "gospels". But these are two tendencies I notice the most.You're right on time, sorry to say.Anyway, I am not a NT textural critic. But I have absolutely no problem in believing that Paul wrote those letters to Timothy and Titus.

quote:

---

jaywill:

​

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

​

Yes.

​

Paul teaches that Jesus was an incarnation of God (despite many critics harping to the contrary). That is strong evidence that Paul believed in the Avatar doctrine and thus reincarnation.

---

Paul teaches Jesus is the UNIQUE manifestation of God manifest in the flesh.
He does not teach Jesus was one of many in the sense that I think you believe. "Concerning His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh, Who was designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 8:3,4). Now this is just one passage from a long letter among many letters of Paul. But I would draw your attention to it. For here Paul connects the uniqueness of the Son of God with I RESURRECTION. No one else was raised by God from the dead to be designated the Son of God, though God had raised people from the dead.To be sure, this manifestation of God in man Paul does say continues. But that is in the BELIEVERS in Christ who also must be conformed to the image of Christ the FIRST BORN of God's sons. "Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers;

​

And those whom He predestinated, these He also called, and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those who He justified, these He also glorified." (Rom. 8:29,30) The Unique manifestation of God in man is firstly Jesus Christ.
The continuation of God being dispensed into man is through Jesus Christ the Justifier. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus ... "(Rom. 3:23,24) This One designated as the FIRST Son of God, is the Redeemer through whom all other human beings can be JUSTIFIED. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Every other person born has sinned and has fallen short of the glory of God.
This One - Jesus, was both sinless and glorious. He was not just good. He was gloriously righteous in a way of splendor unmatched by any other human being.Even if successive reincarnations did occur for everyone else, they still have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It is not towards successive reincarnations men should look to be reconciled to God but to redemption in Christ Jesus through God's grace.Concerning Jesus saying John the Baptist was Elijah you say:

quote:

---

Either you believe Jesus was telling the truth or you think he was a fraud.

---

Here it is a matter of how do we interpret what was said there.
The disagreement is not on the quotation, but on the interpretation.What you want to prove is that Jesus was teaching that everyone is reincarnated.
In other words, I think you want to say Jesus was teaching Hinduism, at least in this regard.Now I know you do not like John. I love John But I also love Matthew, Mark, and Luke too. And in Matthew the new covenant which includes forgiveness of sins, is not taught by Jesus to be a matter of reincarnation. But it is in faith in the shed blood He poured out in His redeeming death for sinners. "For this is the blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28) For peace towards God do not hope in coming back to earth as another better reincarnated person. First look to the shed blood of Jesus to thoroughly cleanse you from your sins. He was JUDGED on His cross in your place, and in my place. Luke, to which you have not raised objection, says the same thing: "And He took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

​

And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood. which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:19,20) We are justified not because we come back as someone better in reincarnation.
We are justified because the righteous judgment which should have fallen on us, fell instead on a Substitute who had His body broken and shed His sinless and holy blood on our behalf.Our dept is paid not because God extends it to other subsequent lives we will live. Our dept has been paid on our behalf in the judgment of God upon His Son on His cross.Concerning what I said about Jesus scolding cities which rejected Him and the final judgment, you wrote:

quote:

---

Be humble and admit that there are a trillion times a trillion times a googolplex MORE THINGS you don't know than know.

---

I do admit that there are some unknowns.
I do not claim that God has told us everything.

quote:

---

I know that Jesus (in the Gospel of Matthew) had a message that was fundamentally different from the one in the Gospel of John.

---

It is not fundamentally different. It is with a different emphasis.
The two gospels NEED each other to arrive at a full portrait of Christ's full salvation.
Mark and Luke are also needed for this full panoramic view of such a marvelous Person as Jesus Christ.Matthew is not fundamentally different from John. But it does have its own emphasis.
The demand in Matthew can only be met by the divine life in John.The being perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect in Matthew can only be attained from the new birth from the begetting Father in John and the subsequent spiritual growth, transformation, and building up together.

quote:

---

Read the Gospel of Matthew without preconceived notions. The things Jesus cared about were 100% different than what your preacher has brain-washed you into believing.

---

Could you give me your two strongest examples of this opinion, please?
Your next post to me should include two strongest examples of things in Matthew which are "100%" different from what is in John.I put myself out here on a limb now. So don't disappoint me.And "brain washed" just because we have a disagreement ? Come on.

quote:

---

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.

​

LNA:
You seem to know an awful lot.

---

I don't know everything by a long shot.
I don't think we are told everything by God.I do think what has been revealed is adequate for our cooperation.
He wants us to believe for His full salvation.Manifesting God in the flesh and on a very large level IS important to God.
And Jesus did say that His death has a multiplicative aspect to it as well as a redeeming aspect. Right here: "Truly, truly I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24) This is certainly about Jesus releasing what was within Him that it might be multiplied in many others. Here it is not the redeeming of His blood for sins which is the emphasis. Rather it is the breaking of the shell of His humanity to release the divine life that was within Him, in multiplication to produce "much fruit" . That is many grains like the one unique grain.This God wants to do that Jesus would not "abide alone" .
So in discarding as you do the Gospel of John you undervalue a crucial reproductive aspect of His teaching.IE. "What I am, I desire to mass produce in many other people."

quote:

---

That leaves people with the impression that you know nothing at all.

---

You could ask a person like me if there are some things they do NOT know or are not sure of. Then I might plainly tell you of important things, which I really do not know for sure.

quote:

---

Read Matthew without such an arrogant attitude. I can assure you that Jesus knew a heck of a lot more than you, so stop ridiculing him.

---

I do try to read the Bible with humility.
Visa Versa ?

quote:

---

jaywill:

​

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.

​

you:

​

After you just called him a speculative fool, and mocked his views that Elijah and John were the same spirit.

---

I didn't call my Lord Jesus "a speculative fool". I did interpret His words there differently from how you interpret them.The quotation is not in question. The interpretation is in dispute.Besides, even if in that one instance Jesus was saying John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah, that is still a long way off from Jesus teaching generally that human beings are all reincarnated as Hinduism teaches.By the way, it was God who was working in the ministry of both Elijah and John the Baptist. The consistency is really in the things that God does and not so much in those individuals.Jesus' message there was that the religious opposers of His ministry were predictable in their reactions to God's moving and operating.

quote:

---

Me:
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.

​

Amazing your chronology works, doesn't it?

---

I noticed that you didn't answer the question.
Moses and Elijah were seen with Jesus on that vision.
If John the Baptist was Elijah's reincarnation, why wasn't it John the Baptist there ?

quote:

---

So where is Elijah then, Mr. expert?

---

I don't know.
But I do believe that God has some places we may not know about.

quote:

---

Do you know that there are 1st century Jewish writings which said Elijah was the same flesh body as a great nephew of Moses? There was an occultation of a person who lived, according to scripture, roughly 600 years before Elijah. Then Elijah was felt not to have died.

---

If your point is that other people on earth believed in something like reincarnation besides those in Hinduism, I would not argue against that.The point of this thread, I think, is whether reincarnation was taught by Jesus.
I don't think so.So you say that Matthew 11:14 reminds you of things ancient Jews talked about. I think His expression reveals that He was saying something unusual rather than something generally known and accepted as the familiar reincarnation: "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah, who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear." .Isn't His tone rather accommodating rather than insistent? If it were so crucial that they understand that reincarnation took place, He would insist that they receive it. Or He might say "Verily, verily I say to you" which Jesus was prone to doing when He really did not want the disciples to miss something. "If you are willing to receive it" is an expression of making allowance for their inability to believe it. And I think the important thing to realize is the God was operating in the ministry of John the Baptist in such a similar way as He would in the ministry of Elijah.The opposers in like manner rejected God's moving in both prophets.I stop here for length's sake. 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.

I don't regard this as a really serious question.So you are a clever skeptic of the Christian faith.
I got that.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.