Did Jesus teach reincarnation?

This is an honest report in that you acknowledge the necessity of subjectivity. I believe God wanted it that way in order to give people the freedom to reject Him.

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.

I consider myself a Fundamental Christian, yet I believe that Reincarnation is in fact Biblical.Yes, Jesus really did teach Reincarnation.In fact...Reincarnation is one of the biggest themes in the Bible, yet Christians are taught otherwise and thus, they can't see it.This is one of the few forums on the internet that allows this topic to even be discussed.It is a HIGHLY censored topic. I know why.

If we see Elijah in the future (this is a bad assumption, because I don't know how to identify him), by definition, he "resurrected", but not "reincarnated".There is no reincarnation in Christianity. Otherwise, the doctrine is not Christianity.Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed broken quote

I guess you may mistake "incarnation" as "reincarnation".
If you did not, then please tell me one case of reincarnation suggested in the Scripture.

Hi Juvenissun.There are several examples of reincarnation in the Bible. The first one is in the book of Genesis.God originally created two beings called Adam and Ishshah. Those two ended up partaking of the Forbidden Fruit.God made it clear that anyone who partook of the Forbidden Fruit would 'surely die'. Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."And that's exactly what happened. Adam and Ishshah died... completely and totally.Because Christians are taught reincarnation is not Biblical, the Church had to make up a lie to cover this up. Christians are therefore *told* that Adam and Ishshah died a 'Spiritual Death'.In other words, they didn't really die as God said they would. Thus, according to this false doctrine, God lied.The Truth is that since Adam and Ishshah died, God had to resurrect them, judge them, pass them through the Lake of Fire, and ultimately reincarnate them into completely new and different bodies.The newly reincarnated Adam kept the same name. However, the reincarnated Ishshah received a new name... Eve.Long story short, Adam and Ishshah died and were reincarnated as Adam and Eve.

Assume your story is believable. Why should Adam still keep his old name? Don't say you do not know. Because your reincarnation argument leans totally on the name change of Eve.

The answer as to why Adam kept his name has not been completely revealed to me yet, however I believe it has something to do with this verse... 1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."The fact that the Bible goes out of its way to teach that there is more than one Adam says a lot in my opinion.As far as my argument leaning on name change...No.The name change is simply a side note as to what actually happened. Let's be clear on this. God gave Adam and Ishshah completely different bodies.In other words, God took the Soul and Spirit of Adam and Ishshah from one body and placed them in another. Technically speaking, that is reincarnation. Since their was no Earth Mother to be reincarnated into, God had to do this process manually.How do we know? God says so... Genesis 3:16
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."Previously, a Man was made from the dust of the ground and a Woman was made from a rib. BTW, we call this Cloning. This method would now be changed to an entirely new system called 'conception'.Ishshah's new body would now have a uterus and something called 'Seed of the Woman' or as we call it, an Ovum. Adam's new body would now produce something called 'The Seed of the Serpent' which we call Sperm. God put 'enmity' between the Sperm and the Ovum... Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."The above verse is speaking of fertilization. The Ovum is 'bruised' while the Sperm 'injures its head' during Conception. Again, the Church has to lie and say the Seed of the Woman is Jesus or some nonsense to cover what's really going on.The bottom line here is that the only way for Adam and Ishshah's punishment to occur, they had to have been placed into completely different bodies with physiology designed to produce children through conception and birth via the Womb.

The idea of reincarnation seems belongs to Buddhism. In Buddhism, the reincarnated life could be anything similar or unsimilar to the earlier life. It is NOT appropriate to use that concept on Christianity.Another fatal problem in your argument is the definition of "death". In Christianity, death is NOT defined as you think. It is not the same as a biological death.Put Adam and Eve aside, do you have another example of "reincarnation" described in the Scripture?

Let's look at the most obvious example... everyone here. How did you get here? How did I get here?According to Scripture, we came from the 'Lowest Parts of the Earth'. In other words, we all came from Hell... Psalms 139:15
"My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth."Here is a graphic to help illustrate the point... What the Bible clearly teaches is that Hell is a parable for the Womb and the process of Reincarnation.The verse is literal, yet again the Church has to hide this from everyone and claim that verses like that are merely 'poetry'.Adam and Ishah's 'eyes were opened' because they had just been resurrected from being dead. This was the Resurrection of the Damned... John 5:29
"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."They were subsequently judged and made to 'pass through the Fire'. That is what the Flaming Sword and Cherubim were. They were symbolic of the Lake of Fire.Those that are thrown into the Lake of Fire pass through it. They don't 'burn forever' or are 'annihilated'. How do we know? Because the concept of the Lake of Fire comes from the Old Testament and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom... Leviticus 18:21
"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD"Molech is simply an allusion to the Womb and the process of reincarnation. Moloch is another version of the Golden Calf. The Golden Calf is Hathor which means 'Womb of Horus'. Hathor is the Earth Mother... she is Mystery Babylon. She is the Sycamore Fig Tree in the Garden of Eden... Look at what Jesus says about Hell... Matthew 23:15
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."How much clearer can Jesus be? Child of Hell means Child of Hell. It is as literal as can be. It is not 'poetry' and it is not a 'figure of speech'.Note that the word Hell is translated from Gehenna which is the Lake of Fire.So to summarize...Those thrown into the Lake of Fire pass through it to be reincarnated. We are all Children of Hell.

Thanks much for the elaboration. However, to your disappointment, I only see "resurrection" in your argument, but not "reincarnation".Reincarnation means I had a previous "human" life.
If so, how many times can one "reincarnate"?Nothing wrong with your idea. I just think you used a wrong word, which leads to serious doctrine error.

I agree with you that reincarnation refers to having a past life as a human... or in some cases as a 'human like' being.I assure you that the Bible teaches both reincarnation and resurrection. Resurrection happens first, then one of two things happen...1) The Unsaved get reincarnated back into human form again.or...2) The Saved get a new 'Glorified Body'. That's an excellent question. I think of that often.From what I can see in Scripture, it depends on the sentence and punishment.The whole point of the Unsaved being judged is to determine the severity of their crimes that must be reconciled.Like the concept of Karma, the punishment is to 'reap what one has sown'. Revelation 20:13
"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."If everyone received the exact same punishment (i.e. burning forever or annihilation), then there would be no point in judging 'according to their works'.What is the point of adding up every sin if it only takes one sin to be guilty? That would be an incredibly unfair system.Therefore, once the sins are tallied up, that person will now have to live as many lives as necessary to 'reap what they have sown'.That is a fair system. It also explains why some of us have a worse life than others. It explains why life seems so unfair for some and not others.Let's be honest here. Not everyone is born into good health and opportunity. It is most likely because of what we did in our past lives.Now of course as a Christian, we believe that Jesus will cover for us and get us out of that legal mess.Here is a verse that may answer your question... Psalms 12:6
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."As Earthen Vessels, could it be that we are reincarnated seven times to be purified?

This man makes some excellent points on how Jesus taught reincarnation...

I believe this has been covered already, but Jesus taught that John the Baptist was Elias (Elijah) reincarnated.Christians are taught "it's not literal because that would contradict the lies we tell".Sorry folks, the words of Jesus stand... Matthew 11:14
"And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come."THIS IS ELIAS means just that!The debate is over. The only way to reconcile that verse with the lie that reincarnation is not Biblical is to say Jesus lied. PERIOD.Jesus even goes as far as to say 'if ye will receive it', meaning most Christians will not be able to recieve this profound Wisdom.I have received it... loud and clear.