Did Jesus teach reincarnation?

Give me a chance to edit if the numbers don't add up.Let me know, but I hope my quotes of jaywill don't count against me.

quote:

---

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.

---

The conservative Oxford Dictionary of World Religions disagrees with you. (it was covering the synoptic Gospel quotes of Jesus and it said flatly that John was a reincarnation of Elijah).Ultimately, it comes down to one of two possibilities.Did Jesus know what he was talking about and, assuming the answer was "yes", then was he correct?Or did Jesus simply make the reincarnation story up to try to shoehorn the Malachi 4 text (and 1st century Jewish expectations) into what he was trying to portray himself as to the people.Those who deny that John was a reincarnation of Elijah think Jesus was just using a lame excuse (he lied) to justify peoples acceptance of him.Period.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

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 ( )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.

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.

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 1:4There 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Ah, you're flaming already. So you want to see me say "Look everybody, I can say something original !"

---

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.

quote:

---

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 people who came up with the "66 books" were a bunch of mass murderers. They had absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.Be careful about calling a bunch of theocrats, who kill everybody "unorthodox", "Holy Spirit filled individuals" (or whatever).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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Show me where Enoch was rebuked.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?

quote:

---

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.

---

Enoch was an Old Testament hero. He had a book named after him that people believed. 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.Jude was quoting from a book that was felt to date from before the flood and it had all three Trinitarian parts.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.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.Hebrews quoted 2 Maccabees. That makes at least 2.That's more quotes than the Gospel of John got from any other book in the Bible. John wasn't even quoted by Polycarp (who I despise btw), Bishop of Smyrna, who (though liar) claimed to be Apostle John's disciple.John wasn't known by anybody till after 150 AD.A fake Gospel and a fake disciple who was unaware of the gospel eventually named after the one he supposedly was a disciple of.The liars testify against each lie."Inspired" to lie.Be careful about attributing the Holy Spirit to these pukes.

quote:

---

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.

---

None of the authentic letters of Paul quote the Gospels.The Gospels did not exist during Paul's lifetime.
(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)

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

There were Jews in the Gospels who speculated that Jesus was Elijah.Jesus said John was.Either you believe Jesus was telling the truth or you think he was a fraud.

quote:

---

"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?

---

Be humble and admit that there are a trillion times a trillion times a googolplex MORE THINGS you don't know than know.I know that Jesus (in the Gospel of Matthew) had a message that was fundamentally different from the one in the Gospel of John.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.

quote:

---

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.

---

You seem to know an awful lot.That leaves people with the impression that you know nothing at all.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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Amazing your chronology works, doesn't it?So where is Elijah then, Mr. expert?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.Jesus didn't seem to think Elijah died in the 800s BCE, I guess.

quote:

---

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.

---

Palestinian Jewish Christians of the first century AD are my "Spirit filled individuals" who carry the "tradition" of Jesus and James, his brother.They agree with Jesus that there was reincarnation.I'll go with them.

quote:

---

The Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica
Judeo-Christian sect connected with the Essenes. They existed from the 2nd century in the Transjordan. They emphasized ritual purification, encouraged procreation, and regarded Jesus as one of a series of reincarnations of the Messiah.

​

Just a moment......

---

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In other words, YOU claim that the Bible teaches reincarnation. But the Interpreter's Bible Commentary denies this. And the early church fathers also denied this and called it heresy.
No offense, but I will side with early church fathers and expert commentators rather than with revisionist new age mystics.

---

I suppose the earliest Christian communities were new age mystics then?Here is what Bart Ehrman said about the Gospel dates from his book,The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (3rd edition), by Bart Ehrman.

quote:

---

p.93
If Mark was produced around 65 or 70 C.E., then Matthew was obviously written later, but it is difficult to know how much later. Most scholars are content to date the book sometime during the latter part of the first century, possibly, as a right guess, around 80 or 85 C.E.

---

Since the Sadducees rejected reincarnation and resurrection, then Jesus and the early Christians (before the Gnostics and Apostolic Fathers) were "new age".Ehrman points out

quote:

---

p.43
It appears that most of the chief priests who ran the temple and its sacrifices were aligned with the Sadducees.

---

Among the "Early Church Fathers", were the "Apostolic Fathers", which dated from Clement of Rome ( 1 Clement ) in 96/97 AD up till about 156 AD.The Gnostics are also an issue.
Here is Ehrman again.

quote:

---

p.188
So, in the way I will be using the term here, "Gnosticism" refers to a diverse set of views, many of them influenced by Christianity, that may have been in existence by the end of the first century but certainly by the middle of the second. Our best evidence for specific Gnostic groups comes from the second century, the period in which the proto-orthodox opponents of the Gnostics were penning their vitriolic attacks...

---

It is a demonstrable fact that the Ebionites existed in the 1st century A.D. and lived in the same area that Jewish-Christian associates of Jesus fled. The Elkesaites existed 100/101 AD and came out of that community. Ehrman dates the Gospels these groups used as 1st century and essentially based on Matthew (I would suppose they used pre-Matthew documents that Matthew was based on).The Apostolic Fathers seem to be liars. Polycarp is accepted as a hero of "Apostolic Tradition" by the same folks who accept the Gospel of John. Polycarp claimed to be a disciple of the Apostle John. Amazing that of Polycarp's 50 clear quotations of the New Testament verses, none come from the Gospel of John.I will trust the 1st Jewish Christians (pre-Gnostic!) who were genuinely associated with James over these fakers called the "Apostolic Fathers" any day.

quote:

---

I'm not feeling up to climbing your walls of text, so forgive me if you've already addressed this, but I'd like to see your evidence supporting this.

​

If you've already posted it, a link and copy paste will do. I'd like to discuss this aspect of your position more.

​

Also, I'd be interested in seeing where it is Jesus is described teaching reincarnation.

---

For crying out loud.This tired old tactic - "please show me where" - is NOT APPLICABLE when the plain-text, in its 100% literal sense, says what you clearly want to ignore.I admit that I can't find Clement of Rome or Polycarp quotes that support reincarnation.I do have quotes of Jesus though. See OP post.

quote:

---

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.

---

I will give a longer response to the posters in this thread (but my time is limited tonight). I need to put one fact out.Historians say that Paul DID NOT teach that Jesus was any sort of incarnation of God.The (undisputed)authentic letters of Paul are:Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
Thessalonians
PhilemonThe certain forgeries:
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus3 disputed:
2 Thessalonians
Ephesians
ColossiansHistorians agree that Paul taught the incarnation in the Pastoral Epistles (they don't claim he got it from India btw, infact they ignore the Bhagavad Gita and the strong Indian incarnation views).The possible incarnation teachings in the 10 other epistles are in
Romans 9:5
Philippians 2 (around verse 5-10 I think)For Romans 9,see the different translations in the NRSV and NIV for example. The historians agree strongly with the NRSV type of translation. They say that even if the NIV type of translation is correct, then it could be a later Christian emendation .Here is a website that covers the issue (I didn't have time to read it btw)."God Over All" in Romans 9:5: Translation Issues and Theological ImportEnglish translations might obscure the issue, but Jesus is called Kurios (sp?) and God is Theos (sp?) in Greek.Romans 9 might be an exception. (Historians seem certain that the massive bulk of what Paul said is clear enough to settle the issue and thus is an indication that he DID NOT teach that Jesus was God)This is all I have time for right now.But this needs to be laid out.

quote:

---

You have merely CLAIMED, not DEMONSTRATED, let alone PROVEN, that the early Christians held to reincarnation. Your quotes from Ehrman are unrelated to reincarnation and do nothing to support your claims. (This is the case for all of your lengthy quotes, BTW.)
You are not making logical (or even intelligible) arguments. You make nonsensical claims, you provide lengthy off-topic quotes, and then you declare that these prove your ridiculous claims, even though they do not.

​

Please try to make logical arguments that we can assess and respond to in a logical fashion.

---

Actually, I showed a respected evangelical bible commentary that admitted (or seemed to) that the plain reading of the Matthew/Mark texts suggests reincarnation.I showed what the Oxford Dictionary said. He taught reincarnation!The problem with you is that you don't consider an important 100 AD Christian group (closely related to the Ebionites) to be early enough.You want to retroject your own views back to 50 AD and then claim that 100/101 AD evidence is unimportant and late.Your backward projections allow you to claim that your own views are "early".Your arguments rely on seeing what you want to see (like the resurrection issue we keep hearing about in this thread). My arguments are based on seeing what is actually there.Ill be back in a while.