Reincarnation - Scripture or imagination?

[nazz]

It doesn't, actually:

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.


You can say that the Apostles may have held the idea of the preexistence of souls, but Jesus corrects their understanding. If anything, this passage can be better used as a refutation of reincarnation.

I don't see it as Jesus correcting their reincarnation belief per se but rather that the man's blindness was not caused by any sin he may have committed in another life.

 

[Ken Brown]

I don't see it as Jesus correcting their reincarnation belief per se but rather that the man's blindness was not caused by any sin he may have committed in another life.

Hi nazz, so you don't think that his karma from a past life could have had anything to do with his blindness? But you would be of the opinion that anyone being born today with birth defects would be reaping the result of sins committed in past lives (a bad karma)? Or on the other hand, those who would be born with a whole body would be benefiting from all the good karma from their past lives? I don't know, but I think reincarnation is a vehicle that evil spirits use to deceive the gullible into thinking they have multiple tries to get a broken heart and contrite spirit (Psa 34:18). KB

 

[nazz]

Hi nazz, so you don't think that his karma from a past life could have had anything to do with his blindness? But you would be of the opinion that anyone being born today with birth defects would be reaping the result of sins committed in past lives (a bad karma)? Or on the other hand, those who would be born with a whole body would be benefiting from all the good karma from their past lives? I don't know, but I think reincarnation is a vehicle that evil spirits use to deceive the gullible into thinking they have multiple tries to get a broken heart and contrite spirit (Psa 34:18). KB

My idea of karma is not the traditional eastern view. I don't think it's a tit for tat moral recompense.

 

[Shermana]

It doesn't, actually:

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.


You can say that the Apostles may have held the idea of the preexistence of souls, but Jesus corrects their understanding. If anything, this passage can be better used as a refutation of reincarnation.

On the contrary, Jesus could be saying "No, not this time, this is an exception!"

 

[nazz]

On the contrary, Jesus could be saying "No, not this time, this is an exception!"

exactly

 

[Ken Brown]

exactly

Hey nazz, how is the work of G-d revealed or made manifest by this man born blind from birth? KB

 

[nazz]

Hey nazz, how is the work of G-d revealed or made manifest by this man born blind from birth? KB

Through his healing

 

[Ken Brown]

Through his healing

Hi nazz, that may be a start, but have you thought any deeper into it? What is the "work" of G-d, and what is the "condition" of mankind? KB

 

[nazz]

Hi nazz, that may be a start, but have you thought any deeper into it? What is the "work" of G-d, and what is the "condition" of mankind? KB

No, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts

 

[Ken Brown]

No, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts

Hi nazz, this is my first day on the forum and it might be best to hold off just a little on some of my thoughts. But I am sure I will get to that in the near future. KB

 

[Muffled]

It is important to note that there is another similar scenario like this one elsewhere in the Gospels. In Matthew 16:13-15 and Mark 8:27-29, Jesus asks, “Who do men say that I am?” The Apostles respond with the three answers of John the Baptist, Elijah and Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Now, the Jews cannot mean that literally, because Jesus and John the Baptist cannot possibly be reincarnations of each other, as the two were alive for thirty years together! Keeping this consideration in mind, we must logically conclude that Jesus was not speaking literally when He, for example, spoke of John the Baptist as being Elijah, just as the Apostles and the Jews were not speaking literally when saying who Jesus is commonly identified with.

Matthew 16:
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

Is Jesus Elijah, Jeremiah, one of the Prophets or John the Baptist by this same logic? Even though Jesus and John the Baptist lived for 30 years on the same earth together, people still said that Jesus was John the Baptist. So saying "Person X is Person Y!" cannot be taken to mean reincarnation.

Rather, this whole concept of saying "John the Baptist is Elijah" or "Jesus is John the Baptist must logically mean "John the Baptist is continuing and fulfilling Elijah's ministry, and therefore represents Elijah.

I believe You are first presuming that the apostles were not speaking literally however they werre speaking with a lack of understanding but in truth were just reporting what other people said who presumably had less knowledge of either Jesus or John the Baptist. I believe your second presumption is that Jesus speaks in the same way as his apostles. I believe since neither assumptions are correct your conclusion is also not correct.

This is logically flawed. The premise is that Jesus speaks as incorrectly as the general public when I believe Jesus had all the knowledge of God available to Him and would not likely make the same mistake others made.

 

[Muffled]

And also the fact that the Jews believed in resurrection rather than an immortal soul that left the body at death, helps us to understand that they may have simply assumed that these men had been raised from the dead.

The Jews never believed in immortality of the soul and Jesus certainly never taught about such a thing. This is a belief adopted from Platonic Greek notions.

If there is no soul that leaves the body at death....reincarnation is impossible.

I believe Jesus is not limited to whatever Jews thought but had the knowledge of God available to Him.

I haven't seen any evidence to support this notion. I believe early Christians saw their own beliefs reflected in Plato and therefore considered Plato to be a wise man.

So then, how does one explain resurrection which is a return to a previously dead body. If the spirit died with the body there would be no return? IMO resurrection is simply re-incarnation into the same body.

 

[Muffled]

"Naked I return to the womb"

- Job

Doesn't get much more clear.

It is doubtful that Job is Jewish. Most scholars think Job is the oldest book in the Bible. Perhaps it was written by a Jewish author retelling an old story from before the tribe of Israel was formed.

 

[Muffled]

Hi nazz, so you don't think that his karma from a past life could have had anything to do with his blindness? But you would be of the opinion that anyone being born today with birth defects would be reaping the result of sins committed in past lives (a bad karma)? Or on the other hand, those who would be born with a whole body would be benefiting from all the good karma from their past lives? I don't know, but I think reincarnation is a vehicle that evil spirits use to deceive the gullible into thinking they have multiple tries to get a broken heart and contrite spirit (Psa 34:18). KB

I believe that Jesus has offered an alternate explanation that suggests that not everything is a "reaping the result of sins committed in past lives." It also reveals that Jesus knows things about this man that only God could know.

However it appears to me that Jesus taught the concept of second chances when He told the parable of the man who owed money that he couldn't pay.

 

[Ken Brown]

I believe that Jesus has offered an alternate explanation that suggests that not everything is a "reaping the result of sins committed in past lives." It also reveals that Jesus knows things about this man that only God could know.

However it appears to me that Jesus taught the concept of second chances when He told the parable of the man who owed money that he couldn't pay.

Hi Muffled, nice name! If reincarnation was a true concept wouldn't you think the world would be more and more righteous as each generation comes through the process of re-birth again? Just something to think about. KB

 

[nazz]

Hi Muffled, nice name! If reincarnation was a true concept wouldn't you think the world would be more and more righteous as each generation comes through the process of re-birth again? Just something to think about. KB

Why assume that reincarnation necessarily leads to moral improvement?

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi Muffled, nice name! If reincarnation was a true concept wouldn't you think the world would be more and more righteous as each generation comes through the process of re-birth again? Just something to think about. KB

Not really. It's not like anyone remembers the lessons they learned in previous lives. Which brings up the question: Is there any real difference between reincarnation and living one life, in terms of net advantages/disadvantages?

 

[Shiranui117]

I believe You are first presuming that the apostles were not speaking literally however they werre speaking with a lack of understanding but in truth were just reporting what other people said who presumably had less knowledge of either Jesus or John the Baptist.

This sentence. I do not understand it. Can you translate it into English, please?

I believe your second presumption is that Jesus speaks in the same way as his apostles.

Jesus speaks in the same way as His Apostles, meaning, non-literally and without any thought of reincarnation? Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I believe since neither assumptions are correct your conclusion is also not correct.

What do you find incorrect about my argument?

This is logically flawed. The premise is that Jesus speaks as incorrectly as the general public when I believe Jesus had all the knowledge of God available to Him and would not likely make the same mistake others made.

No, the premise is that neither Jesus nor the general public are thinking of reincarnation. Where did I say that Jesus was speaking incorrectly? All I said was that the general public had some false ideas about who they thought Jesus was, and He said, "No. Come on guys, any other guesses?"

 

[davidthegreek]

He called it detestable because it was communicating with demons.

You are welcome to hold that position. The fact remains that speaking with spirits of ANY description is wrong.


I am no expert on Judaism by any means. I only know what I have read.

Perhaps you may want to check out this site.....

Immortality: Jewish Belief in a Bodiless Existence - My Jewish Learning




Of course.
The text reads as clearly as it does when you strip away the false beliefs. The serpent said man would not die if he disobeyed God's command.....God said that they would...so who lied? God or the serpent? Who benefits from belief that a person continues to live after death? God said no such thing. He simply told Adam that he would die and return to the dust, period.

Are you in denial about the origin of the doctrine Shermana? Even Jews say it is not a Jewish doctrine, but Greek. It is not as mind bogglingly ignorant as you assume. :sad:

The "ghost of Samuel" was not seen by Saul. Nor was it heard by him. Only the woman who called up the spirit saw it and heard its words, which she relayed to Saul.

The predictions made did not come true in the detail.
Not “tomorrow,” as the demon incorrectly said, but a number of days later King Saul and three, not all, of his sons fell in battle at Mount Gilboa. King Saul, wounded by a Philistine arrow, hastened his own death by falling on his sword. (1 Sam. 28:4-25; 31:1-13)

In Isaiah's day, the prophet said...
“In case they should say to you people: ‘Apply to the spiritistic mediums or to those having a spirit of prediction who are chirping and making utterances in low tones,’ is it not to its God that any people should apply? Should there be application to dead persons in behalf of living persons?” (Isaiah 8:19)

All of this was going on in Judah despite the fact that Jehovah had forbidden the practice of spiritism. Under the Mosaic Law, it was a capital offense. (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-12) So serious that the death penalty applied.

For a Jew, destroying the soul meant destroying the person. It carried the idea that they would be left in sheol forever with no resurrection. Adam was told he would 'return to the earth from which he was made'...nothing more. No afterlife of any description is mentioned for him or his wife. They would not see life again.

An immortal soul cannot be destroyed. The word "immortal" itself means "the power of an indestructible life." Immortality is granted only to the ones "called" to life in heaven. These will be resurrected first in the position of kings and priests to assist Christ as king in his kingdom. (Rev 20:6)
Kings need subjects to rule over and priests needs sinners for whom to perform their priestly duties. Who will these be then?

You are entering a whole new ball game with Christianity. Jesus tried to tell his Jewish apostles that he was going to die and return to heaven to prepare a place for them, but they could not comprehend what he was trying to tell them. Even after his death and resurrection, as he ascended to heaven, they wanted to know if he was establishing the kingdom to Israel at that time. (Acts 1:6) They believed Messiah's kingdom would be earthly.

They had no notion of life as anything but humans. Now the holy spirit would have to educate them about life in heaven by implanting a desire in their hearts to go there to be with their Lord.
No one had gone to heaven before Jesus but his death opened the way for others to follow later. (John 3:13; John 14:2, 3; Hebrews 9:24; 10:19, 20)

Would you like to explore these things Shermana? They have wonderful reasonable, logical explanations.

The "afterlife" is not quite what most people imagine.

The "afterlife" is not quite what most people imagine.
I know all the denominations and people's arrogance have screwed the gospel very badly. But since you mentioned. What is your idea of afterlife?

 

[Ken Brown]

Not really. It's not like anyone remembers the lessons they learned in previous lives. Which brings up the question: Is there any real difference between reincarnation and living one life, in terms of net advantages/disadvantages?

Hi Shiranui, there are many reincarnatist which believe they remember what happened in past lives. Just go to Allan Cronshaw's site. Allan claims he was "Jesus'" brother James, and also claims he was Thomas Paine. And gives great detail as to what he did in those lives. So as far as those who say they remember, then they should be getting better. KB