Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
to be born again of spirit and water is literally to be recreated again. that is exactly how the heavens and earth were created in genesis 1:2. otherwise the water wouldn't be necessaryI think Christ explained quite clearly about the concept to Nicodemus that by rebirth is meant spiritual rebirth.
Because the two are incongruentso john the baptist didn't come in the spirit of elijah because reincarnation isn't true?
no they aren't. there is no need to create something from nothing when you're somethingBecause the two are incongruent
Hey, I was reincarnated as now a stud.Because the two are incongruent
Wasn't it "snub"?Hey, I was reincarnated as now a stud.
or is it a stub?
so john the baptist didn't come in the spirit of elijah because reincarnation isn't true?
I think Christ explained quite clearly about the concept to Nicodemus that by rebirth is meant spiritual rebirth.
Because the two are incongruent
transmigration = reincarnationI believe he could not come in his old body. That is not re-incarnation; that is transmigration, something I don't believe Elijah can do.
its interesting that deniers of reincarnation believe that their god only creates once. but that can't be literally. because god is always being, always creating.Wasn't it "snub"?
there is a difference between the definition of "reincarnation" as presented by the Hindus and being "born-again".its interesting that deniers of reincarnation believe that their god only creates once. but that can't be literally. because god is always being, always creating.
so the word regeneration is used literally twice in the bible. also, jesus told nicodemus that he would have to be born again as spirit and water. spirit and water is literally how god created everything in the 7 days of creation per genesis. that is spirit incarnating as a form from the formless waters or the abyss/void by the word to be
creating a new heaven and a new earth is reincarnation. that isn't a leap of faith. just how it works.
so those who don't believe in it are doomed to repeat it because they won't learn from their pasts.
the past/future is eternal. the dead have to awake before the 2nd death. those who won't wake up are forced back into the lake of fire, back into the illusion of change/difference
you're not awake
to be born again of spirit and water is literally to be recreated again. that is exactly how the heavens and earth were created in genesis 1:2. otherwise the water wouldn't be necessary
that is what reincarnation is. the flesh counts for nothing; so then the spirit incarnates into a form from the formless.
the spirit is eternal. there is no life or death for it. there is life and death only for the form, the person.
otherwise john baptist couldn't come in the spirit of elias(elijah). so then if johnny boy is elijah, jesus is elisha.
if jesus wasn't melchizedek, then abraham wouldn't have known him. and abraham was glad to see his day.
go ahead, let it burn
the word reincarnation is a new construct. it's early 18th centurythere is a difference between the definition of "reincarnation" as presented by the Hindus and being "born-again".
So, which definition are you giving it? (Lest you are presenting what is in our view
1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
within the context of my signature.
hindus didn't create the word reincarrnation. that was coined by europeans.My understanding is this.
In the Gospel it is stated that John the Baptist is Elijah.
But that does not mean the return of the rational soul and personality of
Elijah in the body of John, but instead the same qualities and attributes of
Elijah became manifest in John. They were both separate individuals.
When John denied being Elijah he meant that he was not the person Elijah and when Christ said he was Elijah, He meant the same spiritual qualities and mission existed in John not the same actual person.
the word reincarnation is a new construct. it's early 18th century
.
Reincarnation arose in northern India between the years 1000 and 600 BC,
History Of Reincarnation: The Ancient And Original Beliefs Revealed
I'm sorry for correcting your information.haggling over the history of who came up with the idea of a spirit taking human form again isn't going to change the concept/idea being stated in the NT about john the baptist coming in the spirit of elijah. the vedas and the egyptian book of the dead are considered older writtings tthan the OT in general.
"your" beliefs don't align with the word being used in matthew 19:28. the son of man is not to a specific person. it's to humanity in general. and it violates your belief it doesn't violate scripture. jesus doesn't deny reincarnation in reference to the blind young man john 9. reincarnation doesn't violate that john the baptist and elijah were of the same spirit.I'm sorry for correcting your information.
Regardless, born-again is not "reincarnation".
And john the baptist coming in the spirit of elijah is not reincarnation on two accounts. 1) it violates other scriptures and "in the spirit" does not mean "reincarnation".
BUT
If you want to believe that, I have no issues with you believing it.