Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Has reincarnation been taught by Christians?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Has reincarnation been taught by Christians?

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Can Christians believe in reincarnation?

No. Life's a b`'ch and then you die --> once.

55%

[ 5 ]

Yes. Scripture does not unequivocally rule it out.

44%

[ 4 ]

Total Votes : 9

Author

Message

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:01 pm Post subject: Has reincarnation been taught by Christians?

I started this thread because here in the evolution thread, a side-discussion began, and it didn't feel right to keep hijacking the original subject.

Troll_Bait wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Rteacher wrote:

For example, early Christians believed in transmigration of the soul/reincarnation (and vegetarianism...)

Utterly and completely false on all three counts. And I noticed just an unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

First of all, Rteacher is correct about early Christian belief about transmigration of the soul/reincarnation (see below for links and quotes).

Secondly, what do you mean by "all three counts"? I only counted two. Have you forgotten how to count?

Thirdly, I do agree that Rteacher sneaked in that bit about vegetarianism.

Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians

Quote:

And there is solid evidence that during its first centuries, Christianity did indeed impart what it had learned about the pre-existence of souls and their reimbodiment.

Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his day, while his contemporary in Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, in various of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form. Moreover, there are passages of the New Testament that can be understood only if seen against the background of pre-existence of souls as a generally held belief. For instance, Matthew (16:13-14) records that when Jesus asked his disciples "Whom do men say that I am?" they replied that some people said he was John the Baptist (who had been executed only a few years before the question was asked). Others thought he was Elijah, or Jeremiah, or another of the prophets. Later in Matthew (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth Jesus tells his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah.

John (9:2-4) reports that the disciples asked Jesus whether a blindman had sinned or his parents that he had been born blind. Jesus replied that it was in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the blind man, that is, that the law of cause and effect might be fulfilled. Or, as St. Paul phrased the thought: we reap what we sow. The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime.

Christian Reincarnation: Scriptural support for reincarnation

Quote:

There are many Bible verses which are suggestive of reincarnation. One episode in particular from the healing miracles of Christ seems to point to reincarnation:

"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)

The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed the sin that led to his blindness. Given the fact that the man has been blind from birth, we are confronted with a provocative question. When could he have made such transgressions as to make him blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some prenatal state. The question as posed by the disciples explicitly presupposes prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing to dispel or correct the presupposition. Here is incontrovertible support for a doctrine of human preexistence.

Also very suggestive of reincarnation is the episode where Jesus identifies John the Baptist as Elijah.

"For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:13-14)

"And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said, 'Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:10-13)

Here again is a clear statement of preexistence. Despite the edict of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the New Testament. Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding, contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology.

REINCARNATION AND CHRISTIANITY

Quote:

Early references to reincarnation in the New Testament were deleted in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Could it be that the emperor had felt that the concept of reincarnation was threatening to the stability of the empire? Citizens who believed that they would have another chance to live might be less obedient and law abiding than those who believed in a single Judgement Day for all?
In the 6th century, in the year 553 A. D., the 2nd Council of Constantinople officially declared reincarnation a heresy and the doctrine of reincarnation was officially banished by the Christian Church. It was banished for no other reason than it was considered to be too much of an influence from the East. The decision was intended to enable the church to increase its power at that time, and to tighten its hold upon the human mind by telling people their salvation had to be accomplished in one incarnation and one lifetime, and if they didn't make it, they would go to Hell. It would appear that the Church like Constantine was afraid that the idea of `past lives` would weaken and undermine the Church`s growing power and influence by affording followers too much time to seek salvation? During the same Early Christian Era leading up to the Council of Constantinople, notable Church fathers like Origen, Clement of Alexander and St. Jerome accepted and believed in the reincarnation principle.

P.S. We're still waiting for you to explain those inconvenient bits about the Roman Empire. Not to mention those other successful non-Christian nations.

Meegook wrote:

Troll_Bait wrote:

transmigration of the soul/reincarnation (and vegetarianism...)

1. transmigration of the soul

2. reincarnation

3. vegetarianism.

Had I said two, I'm quite sure you'd have said three.

"First of all, Rteacher is correct about early Christian belief about transmigration of the soul/reincarnation (see below for links and quotes)."

I beg to differ but really don't feel inclined to prove my point. If you'd like to think that you're free to.

"(see below for links and quotes)."

What links?

Quote:

Seriously Meegook, anyone who's ever read a translation and even glanced at the original can see that translation is never exact. I read some originals for a Russian short story class and in one particular story (can't recall which) the English translator felt the need to clean up the мат (bad language) in the original and make it less crude. That's a fairly significant change, and if you think editorial decisions like that didn't happen with regards to the Bible, you're crazy.

It didn't happen with the Bible. So someone's crazy and I'm sure it's not me.

1."Meegook, anyone who's ever read a translation and even glanced at the original can see that translation is never exact."

It's never exact, and that is why there are many translations. But that is not to say the Bible's been changed, it was just translated using the terms and languages is use by the translaters at the time of the translation.

And you just proved the point, the originals is the Bible, not the translations. They're translations. The originals are accurate.

Although the langauge is the same as in the 1600's in England, English, we don't use the same words, phrases or grammatical construction today as then. Should we stick with the Thees and Thous of the 1600s?

Even a cusory check on the Bible translations commonly accepted as accurate in relation to the original languages used, ie. Hebrew and Greek, would find the translation accuracy exceptional for a manuscript this old.

All you apparently done is gone to some web sites that agree with your opinion and copied, cut and pasted hearsay.

Very poor research for such an important issue, not to mention foolish, considering the consequences if you're wrong.

gang ah jee wrote:

Meegook wrote:

What links?

The titles are hyperlinked.

And I thought you said you were multilingual, Meegook. Your other languages can't be doing too well if you don't know about the difficulties of translation, especially of moribund languages.

Not that a knowledge of the issues involved would concern you much since you can always just roadrunner back into the circular logic of your holy book every time you hear some information you don't like.

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

John (9:2-4) reports that the disciples asked Jesus whether a blindman had sinned or his parents that he had been born blind. Jesus replied that it was in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the blind man, that is, that the law of cause and effect might be fulfilled. Or, as St. Paul phrased the thought: we reap what we sow. The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime.

Just a quick glance at the first link above:

This is just an interpretation of John 9:2-4.

"The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime."

This is simple a wrong interpretation of the passage. Notice it is about the parents or the man.
and Jesus clearly says, neither , but that "in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the blind man."

Nothing is said about re-incarnation.

More, same link:

"Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his day, while his contemporary in Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, in various of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form."

Notice, no passages from either Josephus or Philo Judaeus are quoted. The writer makes assertions but doesn't support them with facts.

"Moreover, there are passages of the New Testament that can be understood only if seen against the background of pre-existence of souls as a generally held belief. For instance, Matthew (16:13-14) records that when Jesus asked his disciples "Whom do men say that I am?" they replied that some people said he was John the Baptist (who had been executed only a few years before the question was asked). Others thought he was Elijah, or Jeremiah, or another of the prophets. Later in Matthew (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth Jesus tells his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah."

"can be understood only" is clearly BS as they are other ways of understanding the passages he quotes.

Very poor research on your part.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this dog doo.

gang ah jee wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Very poor research on your part.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this dog doo.

So just to clarify, do you deny that some early Christians believed in reincarnation/transmigration of the soul?

Troll_Bait wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Troll_Bait wrote:

transmigration of the soul/reincarnation (and vegetarianism...)

1. transmigration of the soul

2. reincarnation

3. vegetarianism.

As indicated by Rteacher by his use of the /, "transmigration of the soul" and "reincarnation" are synonyms for the same thing. Therefore, they are counted together as "one."
Vegetarianism counts for "one." 1 + 1 = 2
So was it with reading comprehension, or with counting, that you were having difficulty?

P.S. We're still waiting for you to explain those inconvenient bits about the Roman Empire. Not to mention those other successful non-Christian nations.

Troll_Bait wrote:

Meegook wrote:

More, same link:

"Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his day, while his contemporary in Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, in various of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form."

Notice, no passages from either Josephus or Philo Judaeus are quoted. The writer makes assertions but doesn't support them with facts.

"Moreover, there are passages of the New Testament that can be understood only if seen against the background of pre-existence of souls as a generally held belief. For instance, Matthew (16:13-14) records that when Jesus asked his disciples "Whom do men say that I am?" they replied that some people said he was John the Baptist (who had been executed only a few years before the question was asked). Others thought he was Elijah, or Jeremiah, or another of the prophets. Later in Matthew (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth Jesus tells his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah."

"can be understood only" is clearly BS as they are other ways of understanding the passages he quotes.

Very poor research on your part.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this dog doo.

Red:

The author didn't quote Josephus, but he cited the relevant parts of his books, as indicated by the numbers that I highlighted in red.

Green:

"Other ways"? Such as what? If reincarnation did not exist, then how could John the Baptist have been Elijah?

Orange:

Says you. If it's so poor, then why were you unable to provide an adequate rebuttal?

Violet:

Sounds like the roadrunner is running away again from the hard questions.

P.S. There were two more links for you to look at.

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

he author didn't quote Josephus, but he cited the relevant parts of his books, as indicated by the numbers that I highlighted in red.

That may be fine and dandy, but as I showed with one of the other quoted texts, it's bunk.

Quote:

Later in Matthew (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth Jesus tells his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah."

That's pure male cow dung. Christ did not tell his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah.

Quote:

We're still waiting for you to explain those inconvenient bits

Let's get one thing straight. You're free to believe anything you want, just like I am. I'm not your dog who's going to chase every ball you happen to throw. There are plenty of web sites that deal with the male cow dung you deposit here.

It looks like you've made up your mind. I'm not here to try and change it. If you are serious about further discussion about something you don't know or aren't sure of, I'll look into it. But for you to think I'm obligated somehow to reply or answer every notion you've got, think again.

gang ah jee wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

Later in Matthew (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth Jesus tells his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah."

That's pure male cow dung. Christ did not tell his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah.

Matt 17:11-13 wrote:

11 Jesus answered them, "Elijah indeed comes first, and will restore all things,
12 but I tell you that Elijah has come already, and they didn't recognize him, but did to him whatever they wanted to. Even so the Son of Man will also suffer by them."
13 Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptizer.

Meegook wrote:

But for you to think I'm obligated somehow to reply or answer every notion you've got, think again.

See, Meegook, herein lies the problem. You come on to a public forum and make claims that are of highly questionable truth, then when people ask you to provide evidence or explanation, you run away. Thus, you have no credibility. Of course you don't have to answer anything, but if you refuse to back up your assertions, then people will think less of you, as you have found.

Troll_Bait wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

he author didn't quote Josephus, but he cited the relevant parts of his books, as indicated by the numbers that I highlighted in red.

That may be fine and dandy, but as I showed with one of the other quoted texts, it's bunk.

Quote:

Later in Matthew (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth Jesus tells his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah."

That's pure male cow dung. Christ did not tell his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah.

Red:

You "showed"? When? Where? How?

Green:

You sure about that? Then please explain this:

Matthew 17:12 wrote:

but I tell you that Elijah has come already, and they didn't recognize him, but did to him whatever they wanted to. Even so the Son of Man will also suffer by them."

alternative versions of Matthew 17:12 wrote:

ASV: but I say into you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.

BBE: But I say to you that Elijah has come, and they had no knowledge of him, but did to him whatever they were pleased to do; the same will the Son of man undergo at their hands.

DBY: But I say unto you that Elias has already come, and they have not known him, but have done unto him whatever they would. Thus also the Son of man is about to suffer from them.

KJV: But I say unto you, That Elias is 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.

WEY: But I tell you that he has already come, and they did not recognize him, but dealt with him as they chose. And before long the Son of Man will be treated by them in a similar way."

WBS: But I say to you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatever they pleased: likewise will also the Son of man suffer by them.

WEB: but I tell you that Elijah has come already, and they didn't recognize him, but did to him whatever they wanted to. Even so the Son of Man will also suffer by them."

YLT: and I say to you -- Elijah did already come, and they did not know him, but did with him whatever they would, so also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them.'

Matthew 17:13 wrote:

Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptizer.

alternative versions of Matthew 17:13 wrote:

ASV: Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

BBE: Then the disciples saw that he was talking to them of John the Baptist.

DBY: Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the baptist.

KJV: Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

WEY: Then it dawned upon the disciples that it was John the Baptist about whom He had spoken to them.

WBS: Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them concerning John the Baptist.

WEB: Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptizer.

YLT: Then understood the disciples that concerning John the Baptist he spake to them.

It sure sounds like reincarnation to me.

Edit: Beaten to the punch by Gang Ah Jee

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

There are plenty of web sites that deal with the male cow dung you deposit here.

Quote:

You "showed"? When? Where? How?

Quote:

Truth never contradicts itself.

The Bible clearly states

"It is appointed unto men, once to die, then cometh the judgment."

Men die once. Not twice. So what ever the passage says, it does not refer to reincarnation.

Heb 9:27

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

Quote:

then when people ask you to provide evidence or explanation, you run away.

Run away? Like Wile E. Coyote, I'm still here.

Of course, Elijah didn't die.

Troll_Bait wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

The author didn't quote Josephus, but he cited the relevant parts of his books, as indicated by the numbers that I highlighted in red.

That may be fine and dandy, but as I showed with one of the other quoted texts, it's bunk.

Red:

You "showed"? When? Where? How?

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

You "showed"? When? Where? How?

Quote:

No, no. You claimed to have posted a rebuttal to Josephus. You did not.

The bible itself supports Josephus' claim that, in 1st-century Palestine, reincarnation was widely believed in by the general populace:

Matthew 16:14 wrote:

"Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
[His disciples replied:]
"Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

Also, you still haven't answered our questions about Matthew 17:11-13.

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

No, no. You claimed to have posted a rebuttal to Josephus. You did not.

Show me where I "claimed to have posted a rebuttal to Josephus."

Quote:

The bible itself supports Josephus' claim that, in 1st-century Palestine, reincarnation was widely believed in by the general populace:

That maybe true and that may be what you meant to say but that's not what you claimed.

What you claimed is this"

Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians

Reincarnation being "believed in by the general populace" is not the same as "Taught by Early Christians."

Learn to say what you mean.

Quote:

Also, you still haven't answered our questions about Matthew 17:11-13.

I also haven't walked to Bangkok and back tonight either.

You seem to think that every passage is the Bible is easy to explain. It's not. I'll have to dig a some to get the answers.

Since you are so quick to misconstrue, misrepresent, misquote and miss just about everything else I say, I'm going to take my time. I've got some demanding answers to the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and accusing me of 'running away,' 'not answering questions," etc.

huffdaddy wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Truth never contradicts itself.

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm

gang ah jee wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Of course, Elijah didn't die.

Troll_Bait wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

No, no. You claimed to have posted a rebuttal to Josephus. You did not.

Show me where I "claimed to have posted a rebuttal to Josephus."

I guess you got lost on our little collective train of thought. Take a look at my post, a little above. Here, let me summarize.

Me: Here's a website that says, "Josephus wrote that ... "

Meegook: The author did not quote Josephus.

Me: No, he didn't quote Josephus, but he cites the relevant parts of his books with numbers.

Meegook: Fine and dandy, but I showed it to be bunk.

Me: You showed it to be bunk? When? Where? How?

Meegook: Here, where I explained John 9:2-4.

Me: No, no. You claimed to have posted a rebuttal to Josephus. You did not.

Meegook: Show me where I "claimed to have posted a rebuttal to Josephus."

And here we are. Maybe you forgot what you were posting a rebuttal to.

"Believe the Bible! Believe the Bible!! What was the question again?"

Meegook wrote:

What you claimed is this"

Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians

Reincarnation being "believed in by the general populace" is not the same as "Taught by Early Christians."

Learn to say what you mean.

Quote:

Also, you still haven't answered our questions about Matthew 17:11-13.

Evidently, you still haven't read any of the three websites that I linked to.

Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians

Quote:

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (AD 100-l65), St. Clement of Alexandria ( AD 150-220), and Origen ( AD 185-254) teaching the pre-existence of souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works, especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: "Is it not rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance with their merits and previous deeds . . . ?" And in De Principiis he says that "the soul has neither beginning nor end." St. Jerome (AD 340-420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few "as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged."

Synesius (AD 370-480), Bishop of Ptolemais, also taught the concept, and in a prayer that has survived, he says: "Father, grant that my soul may merge into the light, and be no more thrust back into the illusion of earth." Others of his Hymns, such as number III, contain lines clearly stating his views, and also pleas that he may be so purified that rebirth on earth will no longer be necessary. In a thesis on dreams, Synesius writes: "It is possible by labor and time, and a transition into other lives, for the imaginative soul to emerge from this dark abode." This passage reminds us of verses in the Revelation of John (3:12), with its symbolic, initiatory language leading into: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."

So, as you can see, some of the earliest Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, taught reincarnation.

And I take it that anything taught by Jesus would be "something taught by Christians" too, right? Well, until you adequately explain * Matthew 17:11-13, I will take it that Jesus himself talked about reincarnation with his followers.

* I can't wait to see what kind of tortured "logic" you will use.

Meegook wrote:

Heb 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Troll_Bait wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Heb 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

on page 148 (11 pages ago) Gang Ah Jee and Troll_Bait wrote:

Matthew 17:11-13 wrote:

Jesus answered them, "Elijah indeed comes first, and will restore all things,

but I tell you that Elijah has come already, and they didn't recognize him, but did to him whatever they wanted to. Even so the Son of Man will also suffer by them."

Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptizer.

Your quote contradicts ours. Yours says that men only die once. Ours says that Elijah died twice, once as Elijah, and again as John the Baptist.* You still haven't been able to provide an adequate rebuttal to it, or to how some of the early Christian fathers clearly believed in and taught reincarnation, or to the success of many non-Christian nations, or to the collapse of the Christianized Roman Empire. You also never told us approximately how many years Emperor Nero lived before Rome's ultimate collapse.

Also, the word that's commonly translated as "once" is the Greek word απαξ , whose definition is the following:
hapax (hap'-ax) : [adverb] - probably from hapas; one (or a single) time (numerically or conclusively); once.

So it is possible to interpret it not as the one and only time, but rather as the final time.

* Lazarus also died twice, which is another passage from the bible that directly contracts the notion that people only die once.

Hebrews 9:27 Does Not Disprove Reincarnation

Quote:

Hebrews 9:27 is often quoted out of context as proof that the New Testament preaches against reincarnation. The verse that is quoted says: "... man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,.. KJV.
The logic expressed is that since a man only dies once that this is proof that we only incarnate physically once. The argument goes that if we reincarnate over and over then we die more than once. Since this scripture plainly says we die only once then this scripture obviously disproves reincarnation. However, this logic doesn't hold up. The New Testament teaches that more than one death is possible. In fact it teachs that the majority of mankind is in danger of a second death. Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. Why would Hebrews talk of man only dying once and in Revelation speak of man dying twice. Is this a contradiction? There is no contradiction. This is made clear when Hebrews 9:27 is read in the context of what is being taught.

The author of Hebrews 9:27 was not discussing reincarnation at all. The subject being addressed was whether or not Yeshua (Jesus) had to die more than once for the sins of mankind. One of the misconsceptions about the sacrifice Yeshua made for the sins of mankind was whether or not he had to be sacrificed over and over like the sacrifices made in the temple were every year. From the Jewish mindset, this was a legitamate concern. The Jewish law required a blood sacrifice every year for the sins of the nation. The author of Hebrews dispells the notion that Yeshua had to die more than once and this is made clear when it is read in the context of the other verses.

Bible and reincarnation - Hebrews 9:27

Quote:

The verse most commonly used to dispute reincarnation is Hebrews 9:27, which states that it is appointed to man to die once, and after that face judgment. This verse does not, by itself, rule out reincarnation.
[ ... ]
Hebrews is different from most other New Testament books (in part because it was directed towards Jewish Christians throughout the Roman Empire rather than those living in Palestine), so Hebrews 9:27 may have been intended only to refute a common Jewish belief of the time, that the soul ceases to exist after death.

Meegook wrote:

Elijah didn't die the 'first' time.

Quote:

Lazarus also died twice,

lazarus was ressurected by the Lord Jesus. That's not the same as re-incarnation.

No one does the Bible teach reincarnation.

Troll_Bait wrote:

wrote:

No one does the Bible teach reincarnation.

Talk like Yoda, you do.

To my many other points, post rebuttals, shall you?

Edit:

Troll_Bait wrote:

Lazarus also died twice ...

wrote:

lazarus was ressurected by the Lord Jesus.

That still doesn't change the fact that it contradicts the notion that, before Judgement Day, people die only once.

Meegook wrote:

If and when I get time. I'm not on your payroll.

And I'm not trying to convince you of anything. And it looks as if you've made up your mind apriori, so what's the point?

Quote:

this logic doesn't hold up. The New Testament teaches that more than one death is possible. In fact it teachs that the majority of mankind is in danger of a second death. Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. Why would Hebrews talk of man only dying once and in Revelation speak of man dying twice. Is this a contradiction? There is no contradiction. This is made clear when Hebrews 9:27 is read in the context of what is being taught.

The death spoken of in Revelation 'the second death' refers to our spirits not our bodies. Our spirit is that part of us the grave digger can't bury and will be separted from God for all eternity if we die in our sins. this is what is refered to as the 'second death.'

It takes a thorough knowledge of the entire Bible to interpret Scripture correctly. The author of you quote obviously lacks that knowledge.

laogaiguk wrote:

Troll_Bait wrote:

wrote:

No one does the Bible teach reincarnation.

Talk like Yoda, you do.

To my many other points, post rebuttals, shall you?

I was thinking the same thing. He picked out just one thing, and then glossed over all the other important parts. I wish I could just make my brain totally ignore things like Meegook. It must have taken years of training.

gang ah jee wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Elijah didn't die the 'first' time.

Actually, that's a good a point:

2 Kings 2:11 And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

But hold on...

John 3:13 No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man.

Hmm. Is it possible that Elijah was not actually a man? The truth never contradicts itself so there has to be some explanation. Maybe Elijah was a sexbot.

(sorry for the repeat, but Meegook posted the same claim about Elijah on page 148 then was unable to respond to the contradiction it caused. Maybe he can do better this time)

Meegook wrote:

lazarus was ressurected by the Lord Jesus. That's not the same as re-incarnation.

But that contradicts your reading of Heb 9:27: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Or did Lazarus not die the second time?

And Meegook, protip: a priori is two words. Do you have pay pal?

Meegook wrote:

You guys expect an entire course on Bible 101 in this thread and then accuse me of not responding to some posts?

Bugger off.

I can't go into detail into each and every statement you make and why should I? You're not seriously seeking answers, you just want me to respond so you can tear apart anything you don't agree with.

Each and every question you raise as been discussed a thousand times and there are several web sites that deal with them more exhaustively than I can here.

I address the ones that are easily refuted ad take little time. I'd have to go into great detail to refute some of the other points, and frankly, you're not worth the time. Why, because you've already made up your minds.

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

And Meegook, protip: a priori is two words.

See what I mean, I run apriori together and a nit picker picks it out.

Bugger off.

Quote:

Ours says that Elijah died twice, once as Elijah, and again as John the Baptist.

Elijah didn't die as John the Baptist, as John got his head cut off. That's how John died.

gang ah jee wrote:

Meegook wrote:

I address the ones that are easily refuted ad take little time. I'd have to go into great detail to refute some of the other points, and frankly, you're not worth the time. Why, because you've already made up your minds.

But Meegook, there might be people who haven't made up their minds reading the thread, and when they see that someone who reads the Bible every day doesn't know how to defend its contradictions they might be turned away from god! What about those people?

I mean, c'mon! It's the literal, infallible word of God! It can't be that hard to defend!

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject:

Well, I can't say I'm particularly hot for reincarnation, but the evidence does point to the fact that some Christians have taught it.

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:04 am Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

Elijah didn't die as John the Baptist, as John got his head cut off. That's how John died.

If Elijah didn't die then how did he become John the Baptist, as Jesus says in both Matthew 17:11-13 and Matthew 11:14?

Matthew 11:14 wrote:

If you are willing to receive it, this* is Elijah, who is to come.

Alternative Versions:

ASV: And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.

BBE: And if you are able to see it, this is Elijah who was to come.

DBY: And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, who is to come.

KJV: And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

WEY: And (if you are willing to receive it)

WBS: And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah who was to come.

WEB: If you are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come.

YLT: and if ye are willing to receive 'it', he is Elijah who was about to come;

* The "this" that He's referring to is John the Baptist.

Did God chronologically retrogress him back into an embryo and then insert him into a womb, to be reborn nine months later?

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:42 am Post subject:

I think Christians, today, believe you die and you either go to heaven or hell. Rteacher's transmigration of souls is not compatible with Christian teaching. Clearly Christians are in error and will not be saved.

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:29 am Post subject:

Ah, yes, thanks for reminding me ... Here, I'm only referring to human-to-human transmigration of souls. I think that, even amongst people who believe in reincarnation, relatively few people coughRteachercough believe in human-to-slug or cockroach-to-human transmigration.

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:05 am Post subject:

I'm not interested in the above slugfest, which just makes people angry and convinces no one.. but I don't think the evidence is compelling that mainstream Christianity ever taught reincarnation.

Quote:

11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Elijah comes, but perhaps not in human form. I don't have theological evidence here, but to me it is likely that when Christ speaks of John the Baptist as Elijah he simply means 'a modern-day Elijah' and not literally the same person. If someone played guitar very well we might say 'here's Jimi Hendrix!', without meaning it's actually him.

Quote:

And in De Principiis he (Origin) says that "the soul has neither beginning nor end." St. Jerome (AD 340-420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few "as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged."

Saying the soul has no beginning or end has nothing to do with multiple bodily incarnations. Jerome claims that some sects taught reincarnation, and we should take this "some sects" to emphasize that they are exceptional.

Quote:

"Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his day, while his contemporary in Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, in various of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form."

Josephus is not a Christian and so writes somewhat from the outside, as good as his histories are. This again does not suggest that teachings in reincarnation were the norm.

Quote:

It is frustrating to see, in the past couple years and partly because of Da Vinci, this growing idea that (a. the church hated women / b. the church taught reincarnation / c. Christ was a poached egg / d. whatever conspiracy theory you like) and Constantine deleted whatever he and the old men didn't like. The lack of evidence in scripture or history is given as proof it happened. But Constantine wouldn't possibly have been able to suppress all copies of scripture and other writings all over Europe and western Asia, even if we had a scrap of evidence that he tried. Furthermore, reincarnation would not have upended the basic premises of Christianity even if it were true; this idea of threats to obedience and law is purely conjecture.

Ken:>

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:30 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga: You sure like your "poached egg" analogies. I'll know where it came from if I ever see a "Trinity of the Poached Egg Church" ("In the name of the Shell, the White, and the Yolk, I baptize thee in the hot holy water and purge thy sins ... ") Basically, all of your points above are good ones, though I would like to add a few things: * Though I agree that those that believed in reincarnation were probably a minority, and not part of the mainstream practice, I do think that there were significant numbers. * The fact that it existed is evidenced by the fact that the teachings of Origen were declared to be anathema (heresy) at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, A.D. 553). Amongst these writings were some that could be interpreted as supporting belief in reincarnation (full explanation here). Some Origenists went Eastward to avoid persecution, where they founded the first Christianity in China. In an Eastern museum (I forgot exactly which one), we can find the "Sutra of Jesus the Messiah" (sutra is a word that describes Buddhists scripture, so this is akin to finding, in a western museum, the "Gospel of Buddha.") This early eastern form of Christianity has some interesting qualities. For example, instead of "original sin," it has "original goodness," which is somewhat similar to the Buddhist notion of Buddha-nature (the idea that each being has innate goodness and the potential to be enlightened). * Yes, there are some slugfest-y qualities to the excerpts above, but these are snapshots in a stream of discussion that has a lot of background story (not that it excuses it; your point is well-taken).

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:34 am Post subject:

Looking back, I think I've used the poached egg comparison too many times-- I remember seeing the expression used in C.S. Lewis. The strange thing is, I don't like them! Ken:>

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:36 am Post subject:

Hi Ken, thanks for your well thought out contributions to the discussion. I always enjoy your posts, even when I don't agree with them

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject:

Considering the fact almost everything christians believe was 'borrowed' from other religions (Buddhism, Induism, and ancient Egyptian mythology) and many sects and cults existed amongst early christians, it wouldn't surprise me if some did believe in reincarnation. Besides, the belief that there will be a 'second coming of Christ' seems to suggest reincarnation.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe