Did Jesus teach reincarnation?

There is a lot I would like to quote, but I will limit things.

FIRST

Let me just say that there was one place in the world, before the time of Jesus Christ, where there was a religion that featured God incarnating a female in a spermless birth. That was India. The God Vishnu (which seems like a God to me, and Brahma seems like the "Holy Spirit", but often Vishnu is described as something like the "Hindu Holy Spirit") incarnated a female, and Krishna was his 8th Avatar.

It is in the Baghavad Gita. Dated no later than 100 BCE.

The issue was very much tied to reincarnation.

quote:

---

Avatar and incarnation
Wilde lectures in natural and comparative religion
Geoffrey Parrinder
(1970)
p.223
In the classical text in the Baghavad-Gita it is said clearly: 'I come into being age after age' (4,8). This repeated Avatar seems to be quite different from the Incarnation and death of Christ 'once for all'.
....
p.224
...it could be held that the difference is not as great as it appears, at least in the classical Indian doctrine. For while Krishna comes 'age after age' (yuge-yuge), yet these ages are separated by many thousands of years, so that the Avatar is the Incanation for the present world era. And in the Gita there is no suggestion that the Avatars are any other than Krishna, or Rama, or another, and many hold that their own special Avatar is the supreme divinity, as he is regarded in practical worship.
....
pp.224-225
The Baghavad-Gita is the classical text for teaching the supremacy and uniqueness of Krishna. He is the puru shottama, the Supreme Spirit, manifested but identical with the eternal Brahman. Yet he appears in different ages, to restore order and harmony, and to bestow grace on his devotees. And the repeated Avatars are set in the context of the doctrine of reincarnation, for that is clearly stated.

Many births have passed for Me,
And for you, Arjuna.
I know all of these
But you do not know them. (4, 5)

The divine manifestation appears to be the same as that of men, in happening many times; the difference is that Krishna knows the details of all his previous births, which the man Arjuna did not.

---

The Hindu religion is extremely diverse, but Krishna was quite popular during the time of Jesus Christ. We have a parallel to the incarnation. Krishna ended up taking an eternal-life of his own. He is said to return in a way very similar to Jesus.

When I previously said that early evidence, if it exists, of Christian belief in the incarnation of God forming Jesus, would serve as an indication of reincarnation, then understand that I was saying that it would be evident in that it would then be following/matching the Indian religion.

There is a lot I would like to quote, but I will limit it to this fundamentalist work. Here is an evangelical fundamentalist dictionary covering the Incarnation. It is the Zondervan All-In-One Bible Reference Guide by Kevin Green (Compiler). It is a dictionary, concordance, and topical Bible all in one. Listen to its description closely. Tell me this doesn't spring from the Avatar religion of India. p.316

quote:

---

INCARNATION (taking on flesh). The doctrine of the incarnation is taught or assumed throughout the Bible and comes to explicit statement in such passages as Jn. 1:14, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (cf. 1 Ti 3:16; Ro 8:3). In NT usage "flesh" means "human nature." Incarnation is from the Latin meaning "becoming flesh," that is, "becoming human." The doctrine of the incarnation teaches that the eternal Son of God (see Trinity) became human, and that he did so without any manner or degree diminishing his divine nature. A somewhat detailed statement of the incarnation is found in Php 2:5-11. Christ Jesus, "remaining" (hyparchon) in the "form" of God, that is, with all the essential attributes of God, took the "form" of a servant and died on the cross.
The virgin birth is necessary for our understanding of the incarnation. In the process of ordinary birth, a new personality begins. Jesus Christ did not begin to be when he was born. He is the eternal Son. The virgin birth was a miracle, wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby the eternal Son of God "became flesh", that is, took to himself a genuine human nature in addition to his eternal divine nature. It was a virgin birth, a miracle. The Holy Spirit has never been thought of as the father of Jesus. Jesus was not half man and half god like the Greek mythological heroes. He was fully God, the second person of the Trinity. "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col 2:9). At the same time be became genuinely a man. To deny his genuine humanity is "the spirit of the anti-Christ" (1 Jn. 4:2-3).
The biblical data on the incarnation came to permanent doctrinal formulation at the council of Chalcedon, AD 451. That council declared that Christ was "born of the virgin Mary" and is "to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably...the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person."

---

Sounds like India and the Avatar issue to me. Does that sound like anything in the Jewish religion? Didn't think so either.

Go ask a Hindu about the Trinity. Then ask a Jew. Listen and learn. It's good for the soul.

Now, did Jesus and Paul (and the middle of first-century Christians) teach the Incarnation? Or did it come a little later? If it was part of the original teachings, then nobody objective can deny that the ACTUAL FOUNDERS of the faith taught what had fundamentally been a reincarnation-based doctrine, based on previous incarnation type antecedent beliefs.

The Elkesaites were a very large (Jewish-)Christian sect that began 100/101 AD. They were an offshoot of the Ebionites. The Ebionites were of the THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OF JAMES, the Brother of Jesus.

There was a man named Hegesippus. He was a church chronicler of the mid-late 100s AD. He wrote a five volume work that is now lost, though we can all hope and pray that it is found someday. The discovery of this now-lost work would be more important for the study of early Christianity than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Steve Mason reported, that the complete work of Hegesippus was still extant in the 16th-17th century (in Greek libraries), in his (Mason's) unmatched, massive, excellent and unique Early Christian Reader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesippus_%28chronicler%29

Hegesippus was one of many who reported on the Ebionites. This unmatched Church chronicler said that James, the brother of Jesus, was a vegetarian.

See the quote here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-a-vegetarian_b_276141.html

The Jewish associates of James were called the Ebionites. They fled to Pella in Transjordan during the 60s AD.

I already quoted Bart Ehrman above(though Ehrman correctly spelled the Greek word for pancakes as *egkrides, which I screwed up in my quote. I need to go back and fix it). It was the post that one person said was off topic and irrelevant.

Research the Ebionites for yourself.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ebionites

Now the Elkesaites were an offshoot of the Ebionites. They existed 100/101 AD. They very clearly were vegetarians, like James (and Paul) and the Ebionites. They also believed in reincarnation and felt Jesus was an Avatar. Jesus said that spiritually blind people would not be able to accept reincarnation. Witness it in this thread lol.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=elkesaites

I read a book on the Mandeans, the world's last Gnostics (it was called The Last Gnostics, but I don't remember it very well). They worship John the Baptist. They are an offshoot of the Elkesaites. The book says they believe in reincarnation.

The Manicheans were an offshoot, and they believed in reincarnation and Avatars. It all came from the 100/101 AD Elkesaites.

It isn't clear if the Avatar and reincarnation doctrine was held by the Ebionites, but I suspect it was. There is no (good)reason it wouldn't have been. The 80-90 AD Gospel of Matthew clearly showed a teaching of both the Incarnation and the fact that (per the actual words of Jesus) John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. The Ebionites valued the Gospel of Matthew highly. If a 100/101 Ebionite offshoot clearly held the Avatar and reincarnation "doctrines" (explicitly!), then the implication should clearly point to the Ebionite community holding the views.

By 100 AD the clear Avatar and reincarnation views were explicitly held by an Ebionite (offshoot) community.

The Gospel of John indicates these issues were explicitly concerned.

(I will bet that somebody will tell me "this has nothing to do with the topic". I'll bet it is a fundi too.)

Romans 4 doesn't say Abraham believed in resurrection.

Hebrews 11 covers 2 Maccabees and beliefs there.

You reject Maccabees and its afterlife teachings.

You aren't being consistent.

Your rejection of 2nd Maccabees cancels out your belief in Hebrews 11, and that cancels out your belief that Abraham believed the resurrection.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What we both are interested in, I think, is oneness between God and human beings. What I think we both are interested in is God manifesting Himself within humanity. Would I be right about that ?

So you believe Jesus taught everybody is being reincarnated or just some special agents of God are ?

---

If people have no respect for what Jesus said, and what the early Jewish-Christian communities (associated with James the Just) believed, then it is tough to have a conversation.

Somebody earlier wrote Jesus, James, the Ebionites, and the Elkesaites as simply a bunch of "new age mystics" (if I quoted them correctly) and instead preferred the later traditions of the Greco-Roman church as the pre-eminent authority.

I will listen to you, but you have to have respect for the earliest evident communities of the family of Jesus.

Nobody has responded to the issue of the early communities at all.

I do find that offensive when I see people who call themselves "Christian" totally disrespect the James (associated) community of Ebionites by ignoring them and their (identifiably) early offshoots (like the Elkesaites). It bears the mark of outright indifference. And I have witnessed it by self-professed "Christians" in this thread.

Jaywill quoted me saying this below.

quote:

---

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)

---

Then he said.

quote:

---

You have Romans in your list of "authentic" letters of Paul.
So you have no problem with saying these are Paul's thoughts.

---

They historians say Romans was written close to 60 AD.

Here is a page where you can see Bart Ehrman talk about Christology (that is study of what exactly the Christians thought Jesus was and when) Lots of videos.

http://www.patheos.com/.../templates/primaryJSP/fullview.jsp

Here is a fundamentalist linguist & greek expert talking about the linguistic difficulty (if not impossibility) he has to face in defending the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline.

https://bible.org/...1-timothy-introduction-argument-outline

Here he is again, and dealing with an important early manuscript of Paul's letters which lacks the Pastorals.
http://danielbwallace.com/tag/pastoral-epistles/

quote:

---

Now let's go to the 8th chapter of Romans. Here we do not see a systematic theological formal. But we do see his "shop talk". In other words he is speaking of the experience of his audience.

In speaking of the experience of his audience Paul uses, seamlessly and enterchangeably some titles -

The Spirit of God
The Spirit of Christ
Christ
The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead,

Notice how, in speaking of the Christians' enjoyment and subjective experience, he moves from one title to the the next without taking a breath. Each title speaks of the One who indwells the believers.

"But you are not in the flesh. but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:9-11)

Once again. A statement of systematic theology this is not. But it is "shop talk" in which his audience seems is suppose to perfectly understand that -

Christ is the Spirit of Christ.
Christ is the Spirit of God.
Christ is also the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

It is not FOUR separated Persons who indwell the believers. It is One mysterious Person with interchangeable titles, for man's enjoyment. For Paul the Spirit of God is Christ. And He is also the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

This verse is about the experience of the Trinity as an indwelling One giving divine life.
My God is the Man Jesus Christ. And He is able to dispense Himself into us.

---

But Jesus is considered the "eternal son of God" and it is considered a heresy to say that Jesus was just fulfilling a temporary "office" in the flesh. Jesus isn't simply "God the son" (in a temporary 30 year period) but he is considered a separate entity on his own. For one and all time. That is according to the typical interpretation of the Christological heretic hunters. Your interpretation is a heresy worthy of death.

Here is a Jehovah's Witness site that mentions this verse in its broader context.

quote:

---

H O L Y
S P I R I T

The Bible

§ When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, he shall testify of me (John 15:26).

§ When he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:8).

§ When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13).

§ The Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, he shall teach you all things (John 14:26).

§ His spirit that dwells in you (Romans 8:11).

§ Be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18; see also I Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 3:16).

§ But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Romans 8:9; see also vv. 14, 16).

Jehovah Witnesses

§ The holy spirit is the invisible active force of Almighty God which moves his servants to do his will (LG, p. 108).

http://www.menorah.org/jewitnes.html

---

So they make that verse even broader than just the 2 person's of the trinity (God and Jesus). They find a bunch of other verses.

quote:

---

This portion talks about the indwelling God Who gives life. And it agrees with Paul in the other letter First Corinthians that Christ became a life giving Spirit.

" ... the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)

To give life here really means to give God Himself - the uncreated and eternal life.

---

Good this this is the 21st century or you would get killed for taking away from the separate existence of the 3 persons of the Trinity.

Philippians 2 is interpreted, by historians, as an "exaltation" Christology, but not inborn incarnation at conception.

Your verses don't support incarnation Christological views.

See the Bart Ehrman videos above. I have not but I know that he is an accessible expert on the Christological issues.

I'm just trying to report what has been said. I don't know for sure myself. Just keep in mind that Paul is the decisive factor when it comes to early Christian evidence since the Gospels date later. Mark doesn't even have the virgin birth.

It does not back up the idea that Jesus was God, especially not from an at-conception incarnation.

It talks about the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ.

You say they were used interchangeably.

Jehovah's Witnesses rehash Arius?

What were the arguments of Arius? Arius said that Jesus was not of the exact same substance as God. The Roman Catholics said he was, and they appealed to a church tradition, homooúsios (a term not found in scripture), to back it up.

Are you sure JW use the same arguments?

I have no clue.

Its irrelevant.

So that Romans chapter 8 is your evidence that there was an incarnation. If we see mentioned a "spirit of God" and a "spirit of Christ" in the same verse then that proves that not only did Paul think Jesus to be God, but there was a spermless incarnation at conception?

If you keep falling back on the Gospel of John (and very exclusively so, considering Romans is the topic) to support a Hindu type of God-in-the-womb incarnation, then you will be left with a Jehovah's Witness type of Christological situation for most, if not all, of the first century AD.

You attacked Jehovah's Witnesses for not accepting the Holy Spirit as a separate member of the God-head, but in the same breath you interpreted two separate members of the Godhead (God and Jesus)Romans 9 as having just one spirit. You essentially took a (sort of)modalistic type of interpretation.

Here is Romans 8

quote:

---

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

---

If Romans 8 is your evidence for a God-in-the-womb incarnation, then I almost feel like reconsidering my statement earlier that Paul taught an incarnation.

Are you sure you are familiar with Bart Ehrman? Were you paying attention to those tapes? Just like Muslims and Jehovah's witnesses have a hell of a time using the Gospel of John to support their theology, Romans causes "Orthodox Christian" Christological views to suffer endless contradictions with the plain reading of Paul's text.

I think Romans 8 should tell us a lot about why Arius had such a strong following.

I will only start with the Jehovah's Witness issue because you keep using this group to sidestep the actual issue (which I can assure you, I will keep returning to).

quote:

---

You are incorrect here. I charge the Jehovah Witnesses for not teaching like the Bible, that "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17). The Holy Spirit to them is only a force.

---

I suspect that they say the Holy Spirit is the same as God, and that there isn't necessarily any sort of constant separation and differentiation. I imagine that they consider the Holy Spirit as something like God having the ability to think in multiple places at once. Sort of like a modalism of God. A temporary office or mode of operation. I have never looked into it though.

You seemed to use Romans 8:9 in a similar modalism. You said that the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God were the same thing.

quote:

---

The JWs do not believe that Holy Spirit is God.

---

You also said they think Jesus is Michael. That would not be modalism. Btw, since you keep obsessing over the JW, can you please show me evidence of this claim. I have never heard this before.

Arius was not a modalist either (I assumed that Arius was somewhat similar to Jehovah's Witness' , but after your Michael comment, now I don't know what to think about any parallels to the JW.)

You seem to keep dodging Romans 8, though you were eager to mention it earlier (it made up almost 98% of the text in your post #94).

Here is what you said back when you were eager to bring it up.

quote:

---

You have Romans in your list of "authentic" letters of Paul.
So you have no problem with saying these are Paul's thoughts.

Now let's go to the 8th chapter of Romans. Here we do not see a systematic theological formal. But we do see his "shop talk". In other words he is speaking of the experience of his audience.

In speaking of the experience of his audience Paul uses, seamlessly and enterchangeably some titles -

The Spirit of God
The Spirit of Christ
Christ
The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead,

Notice how, in speaking of the Christians' enjoyment and subjective experience, he moves from one title to the the next without taking a breath. Each title speaks of the One who indwells the believers.

"But you are not in the flesh. but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:9-11)

Once again. A statement of systematic theology this is not. But it is "shop talk" in which his audience seems is suppose to perfectly understand that -

Christ is the Spirit of Christ.
Christ is the Spirit of God.
Christ is also the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

It is not FOUR separated Persons who indwell the believers. It is One mysterious Person with interchangeable titles, for man's enjoyment. For Paul the Spirit of God is Christ. And He is also the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

This verse is about the experience of the Trinity as an indwelling One giving divine life.
My God is the Man Jesus Christ. And He is able to dispense Himself into us.

---

Then I pointed out that heresy hunters (which I considered you to be even BEFORE you started swiping at the Jehovah's Witness' to avoid the reference I made to them. I will return to them LATER - but not now - because you keep using them as an inversion)wouldn't appreciate your modalistic interpretation of Romans 8. You responded

quote:

---

The way we put it where I meet, is that He is distinct but not separate. But this is very difficult for human beings to explain - the three - oneness of God. That is why the Romans passage is so good. It just takes for granted that the believers were in the experience of this "three-oneness".

There are some things that are experiential and enjoyable though not [edited] easy or perhaps possible to fully explain. The Father and the Son are distinct but not separate.
The Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father are distinct but never separated.

---

You simply took the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" from Romans 8:9 and said they were the same thing. That is not an orthodox Trinitarian position. The typical position, as the councils obsessed over, was to see those as separate entities.

You seemed to think that the fact that they were mentioned in a single verse somehow made them the exact same spirit.

That can't be any better than what you witch hunt the Jehovah's Witnesses over.

And I quoted the Jehovah's Witness (before I knew that you would use them to confuse the issue and sidestep the actual point of debate) just to show that there are Christians that see Romans 8:9 in a broader holistic sense as no different from the rest of scripture. The JW just see that (Romans 8:9) as a general issue of God's spirit.

You aren't any different (except you attack people in a tribalistic fashion)

Here is the (what I thought was an innocuous) quote

quote:

---

H O L Y
S P I R I T

The Bible

§ When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, he shall testify of me (John 15:26).

§ When he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:8).

§ When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13).

§ The Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, he shall teach you all things (John 14:26).

§ His spirit that dwells in you (Romans 8:11).

§ Be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18; see also I Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 3:16).

§ But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Romans 8:9; see also vv. 14, 16).

Jehovah Witnesses

§ The holy spirit is the invisible active force of Almighty God which moves his servants to do his will (LG, p. 108).

http://www.menorah.org/jewitnes.html

---

The point of the quote was that it makes no difference if Romans 8:9 mentions the "Spirit of God" or the "Spirit of Christ" in the same verse or not (the point was that another Christian group draws the spirit of God and Christ together ANYWAY/REGARDLESS/UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES with or without the mention in a single verse). I had no clue that you were on some sort of Inquisition against the JW on the Holy Spirit issue. For all intents and purposes, the JW seem to hold the exact same view of the Holy Spirit as you do IMO. It doesn't really matter, except you keep on attacking them - in order to avoid defending your inconsistent position.

Since you want to keep attacking the JW, I ask you to demonstrate the following:

1 Please show me that the JW feel that the Holy Spirit is not eternal and not separate from God.

2 Please show me that they feel Jesus was Michael. (and don't insult this site by first comparing the JW to Arius then contradicting yourself by saying that they consider Jesus to be Michael - which was in no way, shape, or form the view of Arius!)

Here is your response (which I take to be somewhat unethical NOW) from post 101.

quote:

---

I don't know why you want to bring in Jehovah Witnesses' rehash of the ideas of Arius. I am not sure of the point you want to make.

---

It was a slight of hand IMO.

Here is his post 103

quote:

---

LamarkNewAge said
"You say they were used interchangeably.
Jehovah's Witnesses rehash Arius?"

[jaywill response]
To the Jehovah Witnesses Jesus Christ is the same as Michael the archangel. They vehemently deny that God became a man. Essentially, they want to go back to a Law keeping Old Testament. And the Law to the Watchtower Society really has to do with going door to door and preaching JW doctrines.

There is nothing wrong with going door to door to preach if it is not wrong preaching and teaching. But going door to door teaching that Jesus is the archangel Michael and not the Word Who was God and WAS God, is rebellion against Jehovah.

Jesus said after His resurrection that the disciples would be HIS ... witnesses -

" ... and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:8b)

Jesus is Jehovah become a man. Jesus is the mingling of God and man. And He came not only that we could have forgiveness through redemption, but that we also might be the continuation of God dispensing Himself into man.

LamarkNewAge said:
"Are you sure JW use the same arguments?"

[jaywill responds]
Same argument as what ?? The JWs do not believe Jesus is God.
The JWs do not believe that Holy Spirit is God.
The JWs teach that the Son of God - Jesus, is the archangel Michael.
And many wrong things they teach because really rather than witnessing for Jehovah God they are in rebellion against the revelation of Jehovah God in Christ.

That is enough JW bashing.

---

Above was jaywill taking what I said totally out of its total context (it wasn't anything but a SIDE-ISSUE response on my part to his obsession, and NOT the essence of my MAIN POINT.

Overall he has chopped up and twisted the discussion. He ignored my main point. Here is my main point.

Romans 8 itself

quote:

---

Romans 8New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Life in the Spirit

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.

12 So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

---

See verse 3, "For God...sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh"?

You have God and his offspring/offshoot. ( Please respond to the text, and not what you think my "view" is!)

verse 9, "But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."

God and his offshoot. His "Son".

That is more like a parallel to the Zeus and the Titans. (again, don't start assuming you know "my view". JUST RESPOND TO THE TEXT MAN)

This chapter (Romans 8) was your example of the incarnation.

You continued to quote me, when I was discussing Romans 8 (while trying to get away from this Jehovah's Witness obsession).

quote:

---

[LamarkNewAge said]
"I have no clue.
Its irrelevant.

So that Romans chapter 8 is your evidence that there was an incarnation."

[jaywill responds]
It is not my ONLY biblical evidence. I used it because it is experiencial fellowship proving that Paul and his audience were enjoying the indwelling of Christ which was the indwelling of God. This is the normal Christian life.

I didn't say it was necessarily the typical Christian life. But it is the normal Christian life. God is seeking to recover this enjoyment among His believers in Christ.

[LamarkNewAge says]
"If we see mentioned a "spirit of God" and a "spirit of Christ" in the same verse then that proves that not only did Paul think Jesus to be God, but there was a spermless incarnation at conception?"

[jaywill responds]
The incarnation was a miracle in which that which was begotten in the virgin woman was of the Holy Spirit. No human father was involved. God as a child was conceive within her. He had two natures - the nature of the Divine and the nature of the human. He was and is God-man.

He had to be Man in order to be able to die.
He had to be God to make the effectiveness of that death have eternal efficacy.

He was God by way of incarnation.
The saved become sons of God by way of His salvation.

---

You keep changing the subject.

You choose Romans 8 as the evidence of the incarnation of God in the flesh. It does NOT say anything of the sort according to any plain reading of the text. It says that God and Jesus are separate entities (along with their respective spirits). You can't even decide if you consider God and Jesus to have separate spirits. And please segregate your (sure to come)attacks on the Jehovah's Witness' from the actual issue discussion.

quote:

---

[jaywill, post 99]

You have given a lot of information about Polycarp and Clement and Paul and Bart Erhman and Arius and other things

---

I was trying to discuss Romans 8 (since you brought it up),in post 100,and then you brought up Arius in post 101.

You said this:

quote:

---

[jaywill, post 101]

I don't know why you want to bring in Jehovah Witnesses' rehash of the ideas of Arius

---

From the start,it was extremely screwed up to bring a guy from 300 AD (the Bible you use wasn't even put together till 367!) and then compare him to a 19th century protestant group. Then to make matter worse, you kept harping about the Jehovah's Witnesses (after about a half dozen posts, you NOW claim you are finished attacking them), and then to really make things hopelessly confusing it seems that Jehovah's Witnesses have views on the Holy Spirit that Arius DID NOT.

So now I have to deal with you mixing into your obfuscating commentary on Romans the straw man attacks on the views of Jehovah's Witnesses on not only the nature of Christ (which was why you brought up Arius) but also the Holy Spirit.

Witness how you start (the substantive part of) your post 108

quote:

---

[jaywill, post 108]

You'll have to go read about their belief. All I point out is that Jesus is not God mingled with man to them and the Holy Spirit is only an energy or force and not God Himself.

---

Ironic that you are still talking about the Jehovah's Witnesses. You have not backed up any of your accusations. Assuming you are correct about their view of the Holy Spirit (which you haven't backed up), then what did that have to do with Arius? You said, in post 101, that my quote of the Jehovah's Witness website was just a "rehash" of the ideas of Arius.

It put me in a tough position, because I had to deal with wondering if I should research better on Arius and his view of the Holy Spirit and then I had to wonder what the heck you were endlessly blathering about on the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Amazing that you spent so much time confusing the issue, but then failed to back up any of your obsessive attacks on the JW. You still haven't told us what view Arius had of the Holy Spirit. From what I understand, he was pretty orthodox except he felt Jesus wasn't made of the same substance as God. But why did you bring him up, except to duck the issues?

You continued in post 108

quote:

---

[jaywill post 108]

We may get into modalism or "seems like" modalism in relation to what I wrote.
If I said that WHILE the Son is, the Father is NOT that would be modalism.
If I said that WHILE the Holy Spirit is, the Father and the Son are NOT, that would be modalism.

If I said each one of the Trinity was only in existence at one time so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were not simultaneously existing, that would be modalism.

---

The early Church Fathers, as far back as the late second century, were extremely critical of those who said that Jesus' spirit was the same as the Holy Spirit.

I suspect that Arius had more in common with the orthodox view of the Holy Spirit than you display here. But his view had NOTHING to do with the Jehovah's Witness view.

You got to Romans.

quote:

---

[jaywill post 108]

The most important thing I said about Romans 8 was that there is no discernible difference in the Christian's experience between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The person who receives the Spirit of Jesus Christ cannot detect any separation between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And Paul's speaking of the indwelling Spirit in verses 9 - 11 bear that out.

---

Paul taught that Jesus was the same substance as God or not in this chapter? You wanted to bring Arius up. We are talking about different issues. We are talking about the 7 authentic letters of Paul and whether they teach that Jesus was a fleshly human from an at conception incarnation of God. We aren't talking about the 100 AD Gospel of John or even Matthew.

Anyway, here is what Paul said.

quote:

---

NRSV
Romans 8
3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
....
7For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him

---

He was talking about Jesus and God BOTH from verse 3 on. Both were the subject. He went from discussing God's spirit to discussing the issue of Jesus. Romans 8 was in between Paul teaching that Jesus and the new Christian religion was superior to "the law" or the old Jewish religion. He was simply mentioning the Jesus Christ issue as an issue of God's current revelation.

Why is it that Romans doesn't have a single mention of the spermless incarnation? Romans 9:5 aside (since the translation is disputed), why didn't Paul mention the issue of Jesus being God.

Remember the Da Vinci Code obsession of fundamentalists? They kept saying that 1 Corinthians 9 was proof that Jesus wasn't married. Why? The endless fundamentalist echo-chamber response to the Da Vinci Code has been represented here:

quote:

---

The Bible Answer Book Volume 2
By Hank Hanegraaff
p.31
Finally, while no evidence from the historical record supports the notion that Jesus was married, the New Testament contains powerful evidence that Jesus was not.In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul defended his right to have a wife by appealing to the fact that Peter and other apostles had wives: "Don't we have a right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" If Jesus had been married it is unthinkable that Paul would have neglected to appeal to Jesus as the ultimate precedent.For this reason Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, aptly refers to 1 Corinthians 9:5 as "the graveyeard of the married-Jesus fiction."
https://books.google.com/books?id=H6988x16XiwC&pg=PT51&lp...

---

What about this set of verses?

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.

---

Show me anywhere Paul (and his 7 authentic letters of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Philemon are most important) mentioned the virgin birth?

The fact that jaywill is grasping at straws to defend the idea that Paul taught the incarnation should speak volumes to us.

It shows that he really has nothing to actually offer.

Paul talked a lot about Jesus and he talked a lot about God.

Where is the incarnation? Why is it so hard to find?

1) You have Jesus clearly teaching that John the Baptist was the (re)incarnation of Elijah's spirit (Jesus said he was the man himself).

2) Then you have Paul NEVER mentioning (in any verses I have seen presented so far) the incarnation of God or the Holy Spirit into his Jesus' mother. He sure the heck never mentioned the virgin birth (and Christian apologists felt that Paul not mentioning Jesus being married was 100% evidence against the Da Vinci Code marriage details).

Now notice something.

You have people in this thread denying the first while attempting to say that Paul knew of (and even taught and wrote?) the virgin birth.

This is just amazing and it should be an eye opener.

quote:

---

And the unmarried woman and the VIRGIN are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be HOLY in body and SPIRIT
-Apostle Paul- c.55 A.D.

---

Perhaps because he did know about it!

That could be why.

That Da Vinci Code obsession saw a tidal wave of apologetics.

I wonder if such foolish obsession, by fundamentalists, over a fictional novel will actually have a legacy that we can all learn from.

I think so.

The logic they used (and repeated endlessly) can be used against the idea that Paul knew of a virgin birth.

It should beg the question.

Was the spermless conception of Mary the mother of Jesus an import from India after Jesus was born (or after he died)? Was the incarnation just an import of an important doctrine from India?

Was Krishna, the 8th Avatar of Vishnu, becoming an eternal persona in his own right (separate from Vishnu, whom he was said to be an incarnation of), the inspiration for the incarnation, virgin birth, and trinity doctrine?

There are many possibilities.

Some possibilities are consistent with both the Hindu and Christian religions (and claims).

But jaywill seems to be making the case that the incarnation was a late concept that Jesus and Paul knew nothing of.

EDIT: This discussion is spilling over into another forum. Jon is mad that his preacher doesn't believe in reincarnation, while Jesus taught it, so he attacked me (see link below). see his attack in post 209. My response is in 210 & 211.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=19042&mpp=1...

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I think we should look at the authentic letters of Paul.
One by one.
And see if we can find 3 different things in them.

1)Verses saying Jesus was God

2) incarnation at conception

3)virgin birth

Those are the three things we will be looking for.

Now, where to look? The 7 authentic letters of Paul.

Start with the youngest epistle first, then get to the older ones, in order.

1 Thessalonians (most British scholars put Galatians earlier)

2 1 Corinthians

3 2 Corinthians

4 Galatians

5 Romans

6 Philippians

7 Philemon (I'm not even sure if this can be dated)

I actually do think Philippians 2:5-10 qualifies for #1 & #2 , but not #3 (the virgin birth). Romans 9:5 possibly qualifies for #1, though most would disagree (it depends on the translation). Philippians was a "prison epistle" (written from 59-61 AD).

I still can't understand why Paul didn't mention the virgin birth. I find it amazing that he only said Jesus was God in 1 place (and only in an epistle roughly 10 years after his first), and only 1 (the same)place was the divine incarnation (albeit not a spermless one)mentioned.

This post of mine will be an attempt to maintain direction.

I have attempted to inject honesty into Biblical discussion. It has ticked people off who prefer to see what they want to (I was accused of hacking or SPAMing the site in another thread by a wacko). I urge those who value honest discussion to stay vigilant and don't let dishonest arguments and hateful attacks overrun these important historical issues. Force the participants to display integrity and accuracy in their arguments. Challenge those with preconceived notions to empty out their prepackaged ideas, and to start clean with an open mind and open heart.

Anyway, lets see who can offer any evidence in 1 Thessalonians.

Don't let them smuggle verses in from the Gospel of John. Infact, every book of Paul should be able to stand on its own weight. (Don't forget this last point P-L-E-A-S-E)

To be fair, Hebrews 11 might say that Abraham accepted some sort of resurrection. Romans 4 doesn't say it though.

It depends on the interpretation.

Here is the (generally more dependable)NRSV translation of the relevant part of Hebrews 11.

quote:

---

17 By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 19 He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back

---

The Hebrews 11 logic seems related to the text of Paul in Romans 4. Paul wrote on the human sacrifice issue too. Paul, along with the Hebrews author, seems to have been straining to find an example of the afterlife in the patriarchal stories. It was a metaphor in Paul's eyes.

The fact that Hebrews had to use a metaphorical teaching technique should speak volumes to us.

Here is the text of Hebrews 11.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11&v...

Notice that it was ONLY the 2 Maccabees reference (verses 35-37) that covered the individuals holding literal resurrection views. Daniel wasn't mentioned, but if he had been mentioned by the unknown Hebrews author, then that would have been all they certainly had from the Jewish canon.

Jaywill rejects 2 Maccabees (just like he rejects the "Ethiopian" Book of Enoch) so Hebrews 11 is absent any literal Old Testament "Biblical" characters (or texts) in Hebrews 11 holding resurrection views.

Jesus mentioned reincarnation in more New Testament spots than the entire Old Testament (as protestants consider such) verses/spots covering resurrection beliefs.

Additionally, Jesus mentioned reincarnation more times than Paul (or any New Testament text outside Matthew and Luke) mentioned the virgin birth. The virgin birth wasn't mentioned in Mark or John or Acts or in any of the 13 letters claiming to be Pauline.

At least Jesus seemed to predict that reincarnation would be difficult to swallow. For those with "eyes to see" implies few would see exactly what he was teaching.

No text claiming to be Pauline (aside from the dubious(?)possibility of Romans 9:5 being correctly translated in the KJV, NIV, etc. - compare the NRSV translation) called Jesus God till 60 A.D. Colossians, assuming Paul wrote it (and I don't), was a (59-61 A.D.) "prison epistle" just like Philippians (which Paul did write for certain).

From his radio program, here is his exegesis.

Matthew 11:11-15

quote:

---

"and if you receive it this is Elijah which was for to come. He that hath ears to ear let him hear." Now what is it you are to hear? Well the spirit of God I think would make this clear to us. And will you listen very carefully here? The fact of the matter is that John the Baptist fulfilled the messenger that was to come in Malachi 3:1 but the question [is then] IF they had accepted Christ at that time [then it] had been promised that Elijah would come. Alright what about that? Our Lord said that this, if you will receive it, that is receive him, this is Elijah which was for to come.

I know somebody is going to say to me, "Well that means he would establish the kingdom immediately. Then that would mean that John the Baptist would have been Elijah." That's it exactly. Somebody then says, "Well how can that be?" And I have an answer for you: I don't know. I just know that's what Jesus said and do you know that he can do things that I can't explain and there are a lot of things God has done,is doing, going to do. I cant explain em but god says he's going to do em and I go along with the Lord on this -- that this would have been true. In other words this keeps this argument down [and from going on] today.

There are those who say, "Well it wasn't a sincere offer of the kingdom if he came and intended to go to the cross and die" Oh yes it was. Somebody says, "Well if they had accepted him [then what]? Well the interesting thing is they didn't and these iffy questions are no good anyway. People say, "If Adam and Eve had not sinned [then] what would it have been? I don't know because they sinned friend. That's an if question and these iffy questions are no good and these pose problems that don't exist and they're not problems that do exist without making some up.

---

Then his commentary fo Matthew 17:11-13

quote:

---

"...Elijah has come already and they knew him not but have done unto him whatsoever they listed, likewise shall also the son of man suffer of them." That has always raised a question, as you know, in the minds of a great many. What about this man? Was John the Baptist really Elijah? And the answer of course is no. When our Lord is saying this, you can't bring up an argument and say that he had to go to the cross - he had to die - for the simple reason that John the Baptist was not Elijah and Elijah has to come before he comes to establish his kingdom. Now I don't like iffy questions and we're not dealing with an iffy situation. This is the way it happened. Our Lord is saying this -- that if they would receive him as king [then] John the Baptist would be Elijah and again I say to you [if] you ask me how could that be [then I answer saying] I don't know. These are things God does friend. He does a lot of things and he hadn't let me in on [them] but he does them and this would have been one but it's an iffy question. It just didn't happen this way at all but the second time now our Lord says, "Likewise shall also the son of man suffer of them." Second time he's mentioned it. "Then his disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist."

---

His gymnastics aside , he said that the answer was "no" to John being Elijah.

That isn't what Jesus said.

Look at Oxford scholarship.

quote:

---

The Oxford Bible Commentary

(ed) Barton and Muddiman

p.860

In vv. 7-15 Jesus ... makes five points. John is a prophet and more than a prophet (v. 9). He is the figure foretold by Mal 3:1 (so v. 10; cf. Ex 23:20). He is the greatest of those born among women. ...He is the turning point in salvation history ( vv. 12-13; the suffering of John and the saints after him belong to the time when the Kingdom is attacked by violent men). And he is Elijah (v. 14; cf. Mal 4:5-6 and John's resemblance to Elijah in Mt 3:4; the issue will come up again in 17:9-13

p.866

The verses deprive Jewish criticism ... [that] since Elijah has not yet come (cf. Mal 4:5), the eschatological scenario cannot be unfolding. Jesus counters that Elijah, in the person of the Baptist, has indeed come. (v. 12).

---

Then Oxford on the John 1:22 verse.

quote:

---

p.963

...vv. 22-3, in his self-presentation the Baptist quotes only Isa 40:3 and not Mal 3:1, unlike the Synoptics which identify him with Elijah.

---

Here is a conservative evangelical commentary on Mark 9:9-13

quote:

---

The Expositors b Commentary with the New International Version

1995

Walter W. Wessel

Zondervan

p.101

Apparently the disciples did not feel free to ask Jesus what he meant by his "rising from the dead" (v. 10) Instead they asked him about Elijah.

....

13 Jesus' statement about Elijah goes beyond that of the teacher of the law: not only must Elijah ...come, he already has come in the person of John the Baptist. Though John is not names here ,the reference to him is obvious.

---

Here is a scholar that wrote the massive 1074 page 1996 James book.

His credits on book flap.

quote:

---

Robert Eisenman, coauthor of The Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls and The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, is Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University, Long Beach; and Visiting Senior Member of Linacre College, Oxford University. The consultant to the Huntington Library in its decision to free the Scrolls, he was the leading figure in the worldwide campaign to gain access to the Scrolls. A National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, he was a Senior Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies.

---

His comment and observation of Jesus' words.

quote:

---

1996 Viking 1074 pages

p.1003

John 1:20-21 perhaps has it right when he pictures John the Baptist as denying being both the "Christ" (essentially a translation into Greek of the incarnated 'Adam' ideology) and the Ebionite 'True Prophet' - but then, of course, the synoptics portray John as the incarnated Elijah, which, according to John 1:21-2, he denies as well

---

Jesus said "is" which is present of "to be"

Back to Venon Mcghee and his use of "was God" in John 1

quote:

---

...the Johanine authorship today is received by competent and conservative Bible scholarship so there's no question about that. ...the Early Church Fathers all ascribed the 4th Gospel to John. Theophilos was Bishop of Antioch about 180 AD. Irenaeus lived about 190 AD. He was a pupil of Polycarp and Polycarp was a pupil of John himself. And then Clement of Alexandria over in Egypt 200 AD and the Muratorian Fragment says the 4th Gospel is by John. ...Now the date of this Gospel is rather important. Some suppose that it's the last book of the New testament to be written. It was written somewhere, of course, between 90 and 100 AD. ...written ...during the last 10 years of the life of the beloved apostle.
....

'Was' is known as a durative-imperfect ...it is continued action. ...the 3rd statement sets uss straight. "The word was God." This is a clear emphatic declaration. ...Do you want to get rid of the deity of Christ? My friends you cannot get rid of it. The first 3 statements in John's Gospel tie the thing down.

---

comment by McGhee on John 10:30

quote:

---

he claimed to be God.

---

John comment by Venon McGhee (verse 10:33)

quote:

---

Now there's one thing for sure. In that day those who heard it understood that he made himself God.

---

Does the fundamentalist McGhee make sense?

He is using special pleading and faulty exegesis that isn't even consistent with his other exegesis.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

See this link for complete text of Eisenman's sequel to the 1000 plus page James book I quoted just above.

(I have both 1000 plus page monsters)

http://data.nur.nu/...t-and-the-Blood-of-Christ-complete.pdf

quote:

---

p.183
That this line is also linked to the ‘redivivus’-ones, whether the
‘Zealot’-Priestly one stemming from Phineas and Elijah or the one the
Synoptics suppose they are dealing with in portraying Elijah as reborn
in John the Baptist, should also be clear. In turn, these lines are paralleled
by the ‘Jewish Christian’/Ebionite/Elchasaite ‘Primal Adam’ or ‘Man’ – one
in Pseudoclementine and Sabaean tradition described above. As
Muhammad, another heir to this tradition – probably via ‘the Sabaeans’
(that is, ‘the Elchasaites’) either in Northern Syria or Southern Iraq
or the Manichaeans descended from them – puts this in the Koran as
we saw:

Behold, the likeness of Jesus with Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him
of the dust. Then He said unto him: ‘Be!’ And he was (3:59).

Paul himself shows great familiarity with this doctrine – again in key
passages of 1 Corinthians that follow his version of Jesus’ post-resurrection
sequences connected to a first appearance to James43 – referring
to it, as we also saw, as ‘the Primal’ or ‘First Man Adam’ or ‘the Second
Man’/‘the Last Adam’(15:21 and 45–48) and his whole discussion of these
matters precedes his delineation of the state man will enjoy after the
Resurrection.

---

Interesting.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.