viaro:

1. Jewish Prophets taught about resurrection, not reincarnation

Let's go back to that quote from the NDE website where the author claims that:
If you only did a bit of search for yourself, you will find that your author was spewing out what is patently and shamefully false. The fact is that reincarnation was not originally part of Jewish prophetic thinking.

No need to quibble on this - I agree that it was not a part of Jewish Prophetic transmissions. I did not at any point infer that - I stated rather that the Jews of Jesus' time who were questioning him had it as part of their worldview. We carry on.

viaro:

2. Biblical resurrection predates Christianity

In my initial reply to your reincarnation argument (reposted in #103 this thread), it was made plain that the Jewish Scriptures already spoke of resurrection long before the emergence of the NT, and hence even before the emergence of Christianity and the Church! Therefore, for the author of your article to place it as late as an unidentified 'great schism' in Christian history is a bold and shameless whopper! Could I remind you of some of the Old Testament references to resurrection among Jewish prophets? See below:

* And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2

* Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead
Isaiah 26:19

* Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to
come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
Ezekiel 37:12

The interesting thing here is that the OT prophets quoted above were solidly making a case for resurrection. Please, DeepSight, could you do me the fav of pointing out reincarnation from those Jewish prophecies? Does reincarnation (as you defined earlier) speak about the rising of people from the grave? Or were Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel members of the 'great schism' of your author's unidentified Christian history? Why do people have to resort to these fibs just to sell their misfooted NDE arguments for 'reincarnation'?

I am struggling to see the relevance of this to anything. This is what i mean by meaningless but wordy posts that go off on a fabulously irrelevant tangent.

I am familiar with the biblical idea of resurrection. I agree with you that the idea predates Christianity. I never at any point stated that any of the Prophets discuss reincarnation. So i am at a stark loss as to how you pull the wool over the eyes of your adoring Christian audience by asking me to point out such. Thus you waste my time when you quote these passages on resurrection. No one can deny the doctrine of the resurection within the whole of the bible. Nor was i attempting to do so. I was talking about what the Jews at a particular time had in mind when asking a particular question. Thus i see no reason to respond further to your quotes above. That the prophets taught resurrection is very well agreed and not at issue for me.

viaro:

3. Was Jesus Christ a reincarnation of an OT prophet?

You are already aware that I have not made this claim, but I understand you say this for the purpose of making an analogy. But the analogy is tediously misconceived.

You cannot trail off arguing linearly about others and yet miss the case of Jesus Christ. He had asked His own disciples who men thought that He was. Please read Matthew 16:14 and Mark 8:28 and see that the answers were varied - some said that He was either 'Jeremiah' or 'one of the prophets'. But did you notice that the answers also alleged that Jesus Christ was 'Elias' (that is 'Elijah'), and that the same Jesus Christ was John the Baptist?!?

The answers describing him as Jeremiah or Elias surely point to the fact that the persons giving these answers felt that such prophets could return to the world through birth as an infant – and they were aware that Jesus was born as an infant – as they knew his mother, brothers and family.

Being born as an infant is the definition of reincarnation.

Now let us note something with careful certainty -

The persons who said that he was John the Baptist must have been, as you suggested, deluded lunatics. I say this for two reasons –

1. He could not be John the Baptist by reincarnation, since he was alive and already a full blown adult during John’s lifetime AND –

2. He could not be John the Baptist by resurrection for the very same reason: he was alive and already a full blown adult during John’s lifetime

Thus the suggestion that he was John the Baptist thus cannot pass EITHER the reincarnation or resurrection tests!

However the suggestions that he might be Elias or Jeremiah CAN ONLY BE CONCEIVED UNDER ONE TEST – THE REINCARNATION TEST.

This is so simply because the very fact that the Jews were aware of Jesus birth: that he had a mother and family in Nazareth, and that he was the “Carpenter’s son” firmly shuts the door against the notion that they were considering resurrection when saying these things because resurrection does not happen through re-birth as an infant.

Can I scream it loudly enough – Rebirth as an infant is the exact definition of reincarnation! ! ! !

Thus it emerges by plain deductive reasoning that the claims that he was John the Baptist had no basis in either reincarnation or resurrection,[b] but the claims that he was Elias or Jeremiah COULD ONLY BE CONCEIVABLE AS CLAIMS OF REINCARNATION GIVEN THAT HE WAS BORN AN INFANT.

Now note carefully: none of the claims are proof of anything, I agree: they are only indicative of what the persons claiming thought in their minds: and haven shown that some of the claims were absolutely inconceivable under any circumstances (the claims of Jesus being John the Baptist) – we can see that some other claims are conceivable [b]only in terms of reincarnation given that the subject was born an infant.

This affirms my assertion that the Jews of the time CLEARLY factored reincarnation into their worldview – and positively debunks your claim that they did not.

[list](a) In saying that Jesus Christ was Elijah, then John the Baptist could not be the same Elijah at the same time - because reincarnation does not teach that one person could appear as two different people at the same time;

This is frankly meaningless: you missed the obvious fact that the claims were made by different people at different times, thus one person might think that Elijah has come as Jesus; another might think that it is not Jesus he came as, but John. Thus the issue of Elijah appearing as two people exists only in your mis-footed conjecture and is a non starter, as it is clearly not the same person that claims that both Jesus and John are Elias. The text in your won verse shows this –

Matt: 16:14 – “they replied some say John the Baptist, others say Elias, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets”

I hope you can now see how shockingly obtuse this statement of yours is.

What the claims do show though, is that incontrovertibly, the Jews thought that a man born as an infant could in fact be Elijah – and being born as an infant is defined as . . .reincarnation – not resurrection.

Herod had spread the misconception that Jesus Christ was John the Baptist, but even in that, he did not speak of reincarnation but rather of resurrection: "It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead" (Mark 6:16).[/list]

Meaningless again. The fact that resurrection is believed does nothing to discredit that obvious fact that another things – such as reincarnation – were also widespread beliefs at that time. Beliefs which Jesus had several opportunities to controvert, but never did.

The import of this is simple: public opinions can be hugely misplaced!

Of course: but this does nothing to help the case of your GOD, Jesus, who had several opportunities to correct such, but never did. Why didn’t he?

Viaro, i am off to the bank now - PLEASE DO NOT UTTER A WORD UNTILL I COME BACK AND FINISH RESPONDING TO THE REST OF YOUR POSTS.

I don't want confusion, let me finish, and you can have at it.

Deep Sight:

Viaro, i am off to the bank now - PLEASE DO NOT UTTER A WORD UNTILL I COME BACK AND FINISH RESPONDING TO THE REST OF YOUR POSTS.

I don't want confusion, let me finish, and you can have at it.

I have been waiting patiently and can hardly resist not saying anything - my apologies. The reason why I would decline your request is simply because you are making circular arguments that have no bearing on the points I put across. And frankly, rather than let you go on and on in that manner, I shall perhaps take our concerns to another thread and ask that we meet up there, yes?

I'm making that request for the sake of leaving this thread to deal with its own topic ('Is Jesus God') and let other discussants have a breath of fresh air. Please watch for the new thread, and cheers.

Ok, Bro. . .lets do that, open the thread. But let me just say one thing - I only debate this subject out of my desire to deal with certain logical fallacies - I am not really interested in the biblical acceptance or rejection of reincarnation as i do not hold the bible as my creed and i personally have extended memories of previous lifetimes which of course i cannot prove to anybody, but which give me a living conviction about the reality of reincarnation. These memories are the basis of my Poetry collection which i titled Memories of Eternity.

Here is the Prolouge of the Collection -

I have memories of Eternity
Things my mind just cannot place
Sights of ethereal rarity
Vibes of things of ancient face

Now and then the Picture floats
Of loves and lives past far and gone
Now and then the mind devotes
To ills recurred and loves forgone

Be my be, would you be
On and on this song I sing
It hoards my soul and rules my me
This ever, ever, ever thing…

I hope you like it!

Open the the thread sha - maybe you should open it by quoting extensively the main arguments made here so that we don't need to repeat them there for readers who may not have read this thread.

viaro:

. . . I shall perhaps take our concerns to another thread and ask that we meet up there, yes?

Deep Sight:

Ok, Bro. . .lets do that, open the thread.

Thread opened - enjoy.

But let me just say one thing - I only debate this subject out of my desire to deal with certain logical fallacies - I am not really interested in the biblical acceptance or rejection of reincarnation as i do not hold the bible as my creed and i personally have extended memories of previous lifetimes which of course i cannot prove to anybody, but which give me a living conviction about the reality of reincarnation.

That's okay, just that any definition of 'reincarnation' you proffer would immediately collapse as soon as you try to force-read it into the Bible.

These memories are the basis of my Poetry collection which i titled Memories of Eternity.

Here is the Prolouge of the Collection -

I have memories of Eternity
Things my mind just cannot place
Sights of ethereal rarity
Vibes of things of ancient face

Now and then the Picture floats
Of loves and lives past far and gone
Now and then the mind devotes
To ills recurred and loves forgone

Be my be, would you be
On and on this song I sing
It hoards my soul and rules my me
This ever, ever, ever thing…

I hope you like it!

I like it, yes.

Open the the thread sha - maybe you should open it by quoting extensively the main arguments made here so that we don't need to repeat them there for readers who may not have read this thread.

Oh well, I was a bit forward - please excuse me on that.

Mavenb0x:

Viaro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL This viaro guy has never ceased to impress me, even when we disagree on a topic (though I confess I am not usually glad to debate him when I'm on the wrong side of his convictions)! You take a topic and like a log of wood you tear it apart to shreds, giving no room for weevils to hide! I throway salute o![/color]

Lol, the reincarnation argument was cheap - so nothing there, really. But debating you?? Oh c'mon!! Who dares marvellous Maven??

@Viaro: To confess, when I saw Deepsight's article, I was like "here's another of those articles written by misinformed christian bible-discussants in a bid to spread confusion and pollute the gospel with oriental myths and religions" and I refrained from responding because I knew you would return to do a good job. I couldn't have done that better, I guess!

It just beat me to read many people recycling that article from the NDE website without carefully going through to see that the author(s) were hardly making any sense - it does not even rise to the level of 'nonsense', which means that a complete idiot would have done a better job at it than someone confusing his history lessons! Oh dear me!

I do hope you're doing great? Enjoy.

nuclearboy:

@Viaro:

I just knew you wouldn't protest over the Jesoul thing! I see and have proved you lean towards a Solomonic mindset? I needed something over you in case I ever debate against you and I have it now - I'll disclose that mindset to the "someone important" who got you off this topic if you ever shred my arguments the way you like to do. Send her details

Oh shooks, man!! This is why I just grow cold feet around you, commander, anytime you call my attention to something! I just knew somehow that you were scanning me with a remote device - and trust 'her', I landed in deep trouble hours later! How many times I bought e-flowers to appease the 'gods' for devulging such info, I lost count!

Hehehe. . .I know now never to get into any debate with you! I will just swallow hard and refrain from going there!!

Viaro apologises to all threaders here - the derailment is regretted and e have taken our concerns to the appropriate thread to discuss reincarnation and no longer suffer this one to be hijacked.

Back to topic: 'Is Jesus God'.

Thank you for your patience and warmth.

@bee444:

bee444:

@nuclearboy

Sorry for not clarifying that area the way I should have done!

No, I'm not saying Jesus is God, and i'm also not denying him as the begotten son of God.

Note that a son is different from a father in every aspect. Now lets look at the highlighted word 'begotten'. To beget means to father, create, to cause to exist, to produce, to bring forth, to generate, procreate etc. Now,we all call God our Creator, and if we truly sincere with ourselves, we can boldly say God has begotten us all, 1 John 3:1, Romans 8:14. Jesus while on earth was always led by the Spirit of God. God was so impressed with him that HE begat him instantly.

Anyone that does the will of God reproduces the mind of God. And as believers, we are now sons and daughters of God and join heir with Jesus,
Hallelujah!!!

God bless

Did you ever hear the expression "I am my ancestors and without me, they never existed for where are they if I am not?" ?

I love Christianity because it is an individual finding his way to life. BUT statements like what is in bold (especially the larger sized) above scare me. If we are reading the same Bible, it points numerous times to the emergence of the Messiah, who is also called the Mighty God, Wonderful, Counselor, Prince of Peace. One other word used to describe Him is "Emmanuel" which for avoidance of doubt, the Bible translates to mean "GOD with us" or "GOD in our midst".

If you hear that Bill Gates is in a meeting with you, would you say it is his son who impressed him yesterday that he sent? Or Bill Gates himself?

Also, consider the phrase, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One!". I take absolutely categorical statements like this, and then use them as a guide for other statements that could be interpreted in many ways. If the Lord our God is One, then I refuse to accept any bending of the truth to suit any fancy. My question for you, sir, is this - Do you believe God can be God, a man, a dog, a stone and a piece of wood at the same time? If not, I fear there is a misunderstanding somewhere because I read His Word and find it cogent that in describing Himself, God says "I AM THAT I AM", which in effect means "I do whatever I want and it is done and whoever doesn;t like it should go to court where he will find me as judge". The Bible supports this assertion over and over. If you want, I'll be glad to give you references.

But you say "Jesus impressed God and that was why He "instantly" begat Him? When? After the 40 day fast? After/During baptism? When He refused to sin even as a little boy? Which would make me ask "which particular sin"? When He became led with the Spirit of God? When did He start being led?

BTW, your definition of "Beget" is dictionary based, not God based. If He truly is God, He can beget Himself in another form which settles our brouhaha.

Cheers Bro.

@DeepSight:

I see you attempting to stand against Viaro's posts? What say you of mine?

Quote from Nuclearboy -

@DeepSight:

[1] Hebrews 9:27-28: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” In no uncertain terms, this explains that the "normal" course of man’s existence is that he dies only once, and then faces judgement based on that one life. To strengthen his assertion, the writer made it clear men die the same number of times that Christ was offered on the cross i.e. only once."normal" above excludes miraculous situations where a man came back to life as in the case of Lazarus.

[2] In the case of the Transfiguration (I, a dwarf stand on the shoulders of the Mighty Expounder Viaro), Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus. If they had re-incarnated, they had to have been omnipresent to also be with Him. Would you attribute omnipresence to these gentlemen ?

[3] Luke 23:43 - Jesus told one thief he'd be with Him THAT DAY in paradise. If the body would be dead and buried and the soul with Jesus in Paradise, what portion of him would remain and be re-incarnated?

[4] Luke 16 tells a story that supports this assertion too. The 3 men mentioned as having died (Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man) were obviously consciously in the realm of death. Considering the time span between his death and Jesus parable, Abraham ought not be in that realm (except he too were omnipresent) if re-incarnation is valid. In fact, the rich man begs that Abraham send Lazarus back to warn his family; a request that was refused (supporting one death, not re-runs of an action flick).

The case of John being Elijah is easily dismissed - Luke 1:17 - Jesus said John came in "the Spirit of Elijah" meaning he had similar attributes to Elijah. This particular quote informed my earlier seemingly "weak" argument about "A Daniel come to judgment". I try to consider the intellect of my audience to avoid accusations of being long-winded and have never refrained from saying I believe you truly blessed intellectually. I still sincerely believe you understood my meaning but like to play the intellect game. Ah well, they say you're a lawyer and that even demons feel insulted when compared to lawyers for lying and turning things on their head(s)! I find it amazing that you still came back after Viaro noted you'd discussed this on another thread and I pushed a tidbit I believe you understood.

Please note that each example above does not require a long stretch of imagination to "infer", "convince", "accept". Your postulations, on the other hand, distort, then force an inference that is to say the least, a ridicule of Biblical information - come on, Bro!

My respected friend, we have moved the discourse to another thread as indicated above by Viaro to avoid derailing this thread. Please i will revert to you on that thread, thanks.