In reincarnation supported by the Bible?

[cosmosdan]

IN this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352976) thread raindog and I had a disagreement about reincarnation in the Bible.

raindog claims
At any rate, there is no biblical basis to support reincarnation---none. On the contrary. The bible's teaching on such matters are in stark contradiction to the teaching of reincarnation. If Jesus was walking among us I can't imagining him giving any quarter to those who would merge reincarnation into his teachings.
My contention is not that reincarnation is obviously supported by the Bible, but that since the Bible is subject to interpretation there are enough references to reincarnation to keep the question open to an individual judgement call.
Several years ago I began studying this by posing the question "Is reincarnation incompatible with the Bible and what Jesus taught?" That question being apart from but considering,traditional Christian doctrine.
I discovered that some early Christians did believe and teach reincarnation and it was eventually outlawed as official church doctrine. This being the same official church that persecuted and murdered dissenters and destroyed the writings of those who considered other beliefs, I didn't consider what they declared official to hold much spiritual authority.
In the Bible itself there are some references. We'll start with two obvious ones.

Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. (Mal. 4:5)

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. (Matt. 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." (Matt. 17:10-13)

Here the interpretation can be that Jesus recognizes John The Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah.
the other is,

Mat 16: 13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

This seems to indicate that people of that era believed Jesus might be the reincarnation of one of the prophets. raindog correctly points out that this does not indicate that Jesus taught reincarnation, only that others believed in it. Fair enough, but it is in combination with other passages that it supports reincarnation. We might note that there's nothing in the conversation about Jesus speaking against reincarnation as a valid belief.

Other passages will come up as the thread continues. { I hope :) }
What say you Dopers? Does the Bible suggest the possibility of reincarnation or does it clearly dismiss it?

[cmkeller]

Orthodox Jews believe that after the Messiah comes, the dead will return to earthly life. Is that included in what you mean by re-incarnation, or do you specifically mean it in the sense of "an old soul inhabiting a new body"?

For the revival of the dead, there are oblique scriptural references, for the other kind of reincarnation, while Judaism does traditionally believe it occasionally happens, I know of no specific support for it in the Bible...however, neither does the Bible say it can't happen. It's just one of those things that exist but the Bible sees no need to mention, like the existence of duck-billed platypuses.

Elijah, in any case, wouldn't be a re-incarnation. He was borne to heaven in the firey chariot while still alive, and his body never ceased functioning. Tradition says he still walks amongst us doing G-d's work in hidden ways, and there are many great Rabbis who have claimed he has appeared to them. When he will herals the Messianic era, he will make himself apparent to everyone, obviously.

[cosmosdan]

Orthodox Jews believe that after the Messiah comes, the dead will return to earthly life. Is that included in what you mean by re-incarnation, or do you specifically mean it in the sense of "an old soul inhabiting a new body"?

For the revival of the dead, there are oblique scriptural references, for the other kind of reincarnation, while Judaism does traditionally believe it occasionally happens, I know of no specific support for it in the Bible...however, neither does the Bible say it can't happen. It's just one of those things that exist but the Bible sees no need to mention, like the existence of duck-billed platypuses.

Elijah, in any case, wouldn't be a re-incarnation. He was borne to heaven in the firey chariot while still alive, and his body never ceased functioning. Tradition says he still walks amongst us doing G-d's work in hidden ways, and there are many great Rabbis who have claimed he has appeared to them. When he will herals the Messianic era, he will make himself apparent to everyone, obviously.

I'm speaking about our spirits going through a process of spiritual growth by living a series of physical lives in different bodies.

Obviously I don't agree that the Bible doesn't mention it. The fact that Elijah was borne to heaven and may not have experienced physical death doesn't rule out him being reincarnated as John the Baptist. The manner in which he gave up his Elijah physical form is irrelevant.

[Ethilrist]

You're all taking a much more detailed look at this, which is cool, but didn't Jesus come back from the dead himself?

[ultrafilter]

The manner in which he gave up his Elijah physical form is irrelevant.

As I read cmkeller's post, Elijah never gave up his physical form. He was assumed bodily into heaven and he's continuing on with that body to this day.

That aside, the usual support for a belief in reincarnation is John 9:1-2.

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

The argument is that it wouldn't have made sense for a man to be born blind because he sinned if there was no opportunity for him to have sinned before he was born.

[Tevildo]

The standard text that's wheeled out against reincarnation is Hebrews 9:27 - "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

It's not Dominical, and most liberal Christians are more than happy to dismiss a literal interpretation of very large chunks of the Epsitles, but there it is.

It doesn't really resolve the issue either way, but there's Matthew 22:30-32 :-

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

The first part of this would seem to imply, as a minimum, that whatever form "resurrection" takes, it's not re-birth into normal human society. The second part, however, could certainly be used by the pro-reincarnation camp, and is offered up accordingly. :)

[Tevildo]

That aside, the usual support for a belief in reincarnation is John 9:1-2.

The argument is that it wouldn't have made sense for a man to be born blind because he sinned if there was no opportunity for him to have sinned before he was born.
I think this is more of an indirect reference to the Second Commandment, Exodus 20:5 - "... visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." One of the many aspects of the God of the Old Testament that's rather downplayed these days.

[cosmosdan]

You're all taking a much more detailed look at this, which is cool, but didn't Jesus come back from the dead himself?

Yes, but there is a difference beween resurrection and reincarnation.

You'll probably hear several versions of what the details of reincarnation means. There are various forms. For myself, I believe that there is a process of spiritual growth that goes through several lives depending on our choices. When we reach a certain point ,one with God, or the Universe or spiritual perfection, whichever term one prefers, then there is no need to be physically reborn to this earth. When you graduate from high school you don't need to go back to 6th grade to learn anything. You move forward. Jesus had reached that point so his resurrection, was not the same as the learning process of reincarnation. Personally I believe these things are all pointed to in the Bible.

[ultrafilter]

I think this is more of an indirect reference to the Second Commandment, Exodus 20:5 - "... visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." One of the many aspects of the God of the Old Testament that's rather downplayed these days.

Not that I necessarily buy into any interpretation, but if that's all it was, wouldn't the disciples have asked "Did this man's parents sin that he was born blind?"?

[cosmosdan]

As I read cmkeller's post, Elijah never gave up his physical form. He was assumed bodily into heaven and he's continuing on with that body to this day.
Yes, he said thats a traditional belief not a scriptural one. Being spiritual beings I don't think we retain our physical bodies in the spiritual realm.

That aside, the usual support for a belief in reincarnation is John 9:1-2.



The argument is that it wouldn't have made sense for a man to be born blind because he sinned if there was no opportunity for him to have sinned before he was born.

Thanks, that's one on the list. It does indicate at least a belief in reincarnation and something like Karma. Although Jesus says this is not the case he again does not spefically denounce reincarnation.

[Tevildo]

Not that I necessarily buy into any interpretation, but if that's all it was, wouldn't the disciples have asked "Did this man's parents sin that he was born blind?"?
* nods *

The passage as a whole addresses, even if it doesn't completely answer, the perennial question - "Why do the innocent suffer?" If we start from the premise that all suffering is punishment for sin, then the blind man's suffering is either due to his own sin (before birth - possibly in a previous life, but not necessarily) or the sins of his parents being "visited upon" him. Jesus' answer ("Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents") is a denial of the premise, rather than a choice between the two alternatives. I agree that it doesn't constitute an unambiguous denial of reincarnation, and that the idea of reincarnation was certainly part of the "discourse" of the disciples.

[cosmosdan]

The standard text that's wheeled out against reincarnation is Hebrews 9:27 - "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

It's not Dominical, and most liberal Christians are more than happy to dismiss a literal interpretation of very large chunks of the Epsitles, but there it is.
Read this a lot when I was studying the subject. Of course we have to then consider Lazerus and the child Jesus raised from the dead and ask how literal this is. Are we talking final judgement or the judgement that decides if you come back or move on? The best article specifically on this was by JJ Dewey. He examined the original Greek

in 9:26 the word translated into end of the world is AION which more correctly means eon or age.
Man in verse 27 is ANTHROPOS which indicates mankind as a whole.
Judgement is the greek word KRISIS which is used in the Bible as accusation, condemnation, damnation, and judgment. In this case by comparing it to other scriptures in which it is used, he indicates it might be interpreted as a decision that brings correction. Seen in this way this passage can be seen as supporting reincarnation rather than denouncing it. It might be
Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die (in this present age), on the other hand after this comes the resurrection of correction" (where we will be born and die again in a future age).

It doesn't really resolve the issue either way, but there's Matthew 22:30-32 :-

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

The first part of this would seem to imply, as a minimum, that whatever form "resurrection" takes, it's not re-birth into normal human society. The second part, however, could certainly be used by the pro-reincarnation camp, and is offered up accordingly. :)

Except the resurrection refered to in the first part is not be the only resurrection refered to in the Bible. It refers to the our coming to our full spitritual growth when it is no longer nessecary to reborn in physical form here on earth.

"The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 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 (KRISIS)." John 5:28-29
two resurrections, one the resurection of correction. {krisis}

[cosmosdan]

* nods *

The passage as a whole addresses, even if it doesn't completely answer, the perennial question - "Why do the innocent suffer?" If we start from the premise that all suffering is punishment for sin, then the blind man's suffering is either due to his own sin (before birth - possibly in a previous life, but not necessarily) or the sins of his parents being "visited upon" him. Jesus' answer ("Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents") is a denial of the premise, rather than a choice between the two alternatives. I agree that it doesn't constitute an unambiguous denial of reincarnation, and that the idea of reincarnation was certainly part of the "discourse" of the disciples.

Correct, Jesus actually says it's to display the work of God in his life and then proceeds to heal his blindness.

The disciples assume that blindness must be a punishment for something...... Jesus says not nessecarily. The physical human view is not the spiritual view.

[gigi]

For myself, I believe that there is a process of spiritual growth that goes through several lives depending on our choices. When we reach a certain point ,one with God, or the Universe or spiritual perfection, whichever term one prefers, then there is no need to be physically reborn to this earth.That's what I don't understand about reincarnation. If it's the case, we always start over from the beginning. No one is born remembering any of the past life so where is the growth?

[FriarTed]

That's what I don't understand about reincarnation. If it's the case, we always start over from the beginning. No one is born remembering any of the past life so where is the growth?


Reincarnationists would say that the spirit subconsciously retains the memories/karma & experiences the growth.

As a Christian, I've been anti-Rein, then pro-Rein, now I just consider it an open question- reincarnation may occur if God has some purpose for it, but He has chosen not to emphasize it in the teachings of the Hebrew prophets, the Lord JC or His apostles, so beyond some interesting speculation, I don't dwell on it.


BUT here are speculations I've heard-

Jesus>Melchizedek and/or Adam (Edgar Cayce names about twelve), oh yeah- and Ernest L. Norman, who founded Unarius with his wife Ruth
:D

Eve>Virgin Mary, maybe also Miriam, sister of Aaron & Moses

and I could make a good argument for King Saul>Saul of Tarsus

[cosmosdan]

That's what I don't understand about reincarnation. If it's the case, we always start over from the beginning. No one is born remembering any of the past life so where is the growth?

It's more the situation you're born into, and certain personality traits, and other things that are determined by progress made or not made in a previous life. Are you born into a loving nurturing enviorment or in a major dysfunctional enviorment? All the specifics we have to deal with in this life and make choices about are determined in large part by a previous life. The choices we make in this life, to love or not, to conquer our fears, to be honest or dishonest, determine where we go next. There's no need to remember to learn by choosing.

IMHO Karma isn't about reward and punishment. It's about what you give out and what comes back to you. That is the law we cannot escape. If we give out love eventually love comes back to us. If we seek and cling to and live according to the truth, then we will discover more truth.

As I said before, ir isn't instant or even always in one lifetime. We see good people suffer and we see b ad people who appear to do well, but at some point the wheel turns and what goes around comes around. We are tempted to sacrifice love and truth for the sake of our more immediate needs. We can choose that, but those choices have consequences.

[spingears]

IN this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352976) thread raindog and I had a disagreement about reincarnation in the Bible.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Pretty hard to make a case for reincarnation from the above, more so, when taken in context.

[cosmosdan]

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Pretty hard to make a case for reincarnation from the above, more so, when taken in context.

Not so hard actually. You'll find I've already dealt with Hebrews 9:27

The other two make no clear case against reincarnation. Return to dust after how many lives, or how many times? Both passages only state that we are spiritual beings rather than merely physical. That doesn't clash with reincarnation. Reincarnation is merely the path by which we return to "God who gave it"

Remember, my arguement is not that reincarnation is not clearly promoted by the Bible. It's that there are enough passages that suggest it to make it a reasonable choice when interpreting the scriptures. I think that is fairly evident. PArt of my reason for believeing that is the fact that reincarnation was believed and taught by early Christians which I only discovered a few years ago.
Origen (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm) pne of the great thelogians of the early church taught reincarnation. It wasn't until around 533 A.D.
that the Roman church declared reincarnation to be heresy. How much theological credibility do they have when they persecuted and killed people for thinking differently?

Here's some other passages.

"And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it." (Gen. 28:12)
could we be the angels of God?

"He who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it." (Rev. 3:12)
Does this mean we leave it....once...or more than once?

"And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell." (James 3:6, ASV)

the wheel of nature is a common symbol indicating reincarnation among many civilizations.

"Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens, from there I will bring them down." (Amos 9:2)
john 10:9 I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and go out, {of physical bodies?} and shall find pasture.


Gal 6
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life.

9 And let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. along with

1 Cor 15: 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

speaking of the cycle of repeating our physical birth vs. the spiritual growth nessecary to avoid it.

[Tevildo]

This has proved very interesting - there are a couple of questions I'd like to ask cosmodan, or anyone else who shares this view, if I may.

1. Is your main issue whether or not the doctrine of reincarnation is compatible with Christianity, or just with the Christian Bible?

2. If "Christianity" is your answer to the first question, how do you regard the various doctrines of the Atonement? What, if anything, did Jesus accomplish by His death on the cross?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Pretty hard to make a case for reincarnation from the above, more so, when taken in context.
All this shows is that the Bible contradicts itself. Matthew implies a belief in reincarnation (it pretty much claims flat out that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah) and I would also argue that revelation alludes to a populist belief that the Roman Emperor Domitian was the reincarnation of Nero.

The fact that other parts of the Bible show contradictory beliefs does not erase the bits that do show such a belief. The Bible is lots of different books written by lots of different people at lots of different times. It does not express anything like a unified, consistent view of practically anything.

[Tevildo]

I would also argue that revelation alludes to a populist belief that the Roman Emperor Domitian was the reincarnation of Nero.
That would take a bit of doing. Domitian was born in 51 AD, Nero died in 68 AD. I would have thought that, on any view of reincarnation, the person reincarnated has to be dead before his sucessor is born. :)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That would take a bit of doing. Domitian was born in 51 AD, Nero died in 68 AD. I would have thought that, on any view of reincarnation, the person reincarnated has to be dead before his sucessor is born. :)
Not in this case. The Nero redivivus myth saw Domitian as Nero either reborn or in disguise. I guess it wouldn't really match Eastern conceptualizations of reincarnation, though.

[Joey Jo Jo]

First off, let me say that since the bible is a large, complex work, you can make it support pretty much anything that you want, provided that you are willing to take it enough out of context. So for instance the KKK sees themselves as a "Christian" organisation that has biblical support. They do this though not because the bible actually supports their views, but because they take the bible completely out of context to support their views.

In fact I never cease to be amazed at the number of people that ignore the plain text reading of the bible and insert their own views into passages which the passages themselves do not support. So for instance the stuff with Elijah is obviously not talking about re-incarnation, if it is read in its proper context. One of the literary devices that the bible uses is that of "representatives". Here people are described in the light of people from the past who had their same characteristics. It is used constantly when referring to the nation of Israel (commonly called Jacob or even Joseph, as in Psalm 80). The point is NOT that the entire nation of Israel is the reincarnation of Jacob, but that Jacob is representative of the nation of Israel. Another example is in Romans 5, where Paul describes Jesus as a representative Adam, in that he represents all humanity. Just as Adam's sin effects all humanity, so too Jesus death brings the possibility of salvation to all humanity. There is no implication here that Jesus is somehow Adam re-incarnated.

It is in this same way that John the Baptist is Elijah. Elijah was regarded as the greatest of the OT prophets, and so in Malachi he is prophesying not that Elijah will be re-incarnated (difficult anyway since he never technically died), but that before the Messiah comes there will be a great prophet LIKE Elijah. And so when Jesus says that JtB is Elijah, this is what he means, that JtB is the prophet that Malachi predicted in the style of Elijah.

And while you may argue that the bible doesn't directly condemn reincarnation (even though absence of evidence != evidence of absence) reincarnation does directly contradict stuff that the bible does talk about, namely resurrection. In biblical thought resurrection is fundamentally a bodily resurrection. Jesus resurrection, pointed to as the firstfruits and a prototype of our resurrection (in 1 Cor 15) is a bodily resurrection. This means that in biblical thought there is a fundamental link between the body and the soul. If you are re-incarnated into several bodies then that destroys the idea of having a unique body that is raised at Jesus return. If you are re-incarneted into several bodies, which, if any are raised. The bible is clear that at least one is raised. From this standpoint re-incarnation makes no sense.

So have a read of 1 Thesselonians 4:14-17
1Th 4:14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
1Th 4:15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Here the idea is that we live, we then "fall asleep" (ie: bodily die) and then after that the faithful are raised when the Lord returns. There is simply no room in there for re-incarnation. The silence on people having multiple lives is deafening.

As well as this re-incarnation also tends to bring with it several non-biblical and I think rather cruel doctrines as well. For instance the idea of Karma is often brought in with re-incarnation. This is IMHO an incredibly cruel belief because it basically teaches that if anything bad happens to you it is because you deserve it. To the idea of Karma all suffering is a result of your actions either in this life or in a previous life. So if you get cancer, it is payment for something you did in a previous life. If your child dies, it is payment for something you did in a previous life. If you are starving and poor, it is payment for something you did in a previous life.

It removes any need for people to have compassion for those who are suffering, because if they are suffering it is because they deserve it. It also means that any attempt at helping people is fundamentally useless. It is God/the cosmos whatever that is making people suffer because of their previous bad actions. If you help them then Karma will just come back to them in some other way. Helping them only delays them paying their Karma debt. And this view of Karma is bourne out in countries where that is the overwhelming philosophy. So for instance in the predominately Hindu Nepal, while there is widespread poverty, there is little effort to really do anything about it, either from the rich or the poor themselves, because the poor suffering is seen as the will of the Gods, which is fixed and immutable.

This is certainly NOT the biblical view of suffering. In biblical thought people suffer for a variety of reasons, not all of which are their own doing, and their situation can be improved.

Diogenes the Cynic
All this shows is that the Bible contradicts itself. Matthew implies a belief in reincarnation (it pretty much claims flat out that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah) and I would also argue that revelation alludes to a populist belief that the Roman Emperor Domitian was the reincarnation of Nero.

The fact that other parts of the Bible show contradictory beliefs does not erase the bits that do show such a belief. The Bible is lots of different books written by lots of different people at lots of different times. It does not express anything like a unified, consistent view of practically anything.

No, all this shows is that you don't really understand what the bible is saying. That is why it appears contradictory to you.

Joey Jo Jo.

[cosmosdan]

This has proved very interesting - there are a couple of questions I'd like to ask cosmodan, or anyone else who shares this view, if I may.

1. Is your main issue whether or not the doctrine of reincarnation is compatible with Christianity, or just with the Christian Bible?

2. If "Christianity" is your answer to the first question, how do you regard the various doctrines of the Atonement? What, if anything, did Jesus accomplish by His death on the cross?

For me the question is what did Jesus actually teach? Apart from what has been handed down by tradition and what has become popular in the last few centuries, what did Jesus actually teach. Figureing this out takes infoormantion from many sources and there's not much doubt I won't reslove it in this lifetime :)

Christianity has various doctrines and all Christians don't agree but I do think that some major Christian doctrines are pointing in the wrong direction. They stress believing Christ is the Savior more than personal transformation. At the end of the day what we think about what happens in the afterlife doesn't matter much. How our beliefs affect our day to day behavior with each other {love they neighbor} does matter. In other words if we love, truly and sincerely, our theology or lack of it, doesn't matter much

I think Jesus was an example of what we can be in this life. He stressed that it isn't about obeying a set of rules or sacrificing a goat, but actually being transformed from within. He changed the spiritual level of the world.
I haven't figured out what the atonement means in light of that . I think it's pretty obvious reading the NT that accepting Jesus as Savior isn't enough, and there is a process of spiritual transformation we have to go through.

When Jesus says " I am the way" I translate it as "I am the example of what you must do to be saved." "He who believes in me" means those who believe I am one with the Father and they can be also"

[Trust]

I have a few questions for you.

1) Growing up I was never introduced to any sort of religion and I also had no idea who Christ was or that Christmas was much more than giving and receiving presents. Yet the idea of reincarnation seemed to be an almost logical assumption to make. Why do you think that reincarnation is not very prevalent today in America? One reason I can see is that Christians felt that it would be far to easy to judge others according to what we think of as their "past lives experience". This is a huge problem to deal with since we have no idea what people deserve or do not deserve in their lives. Christ taught that you cannot simply place blame like that.

2) How are there the huge number of concious beings alive today vs. the very small number of conscious beings that the world started with?

3) How does Christ tie into your view of reincarnation and karma? To understand this , I would need to know how you consider people make it to heaven. Do we have to believe in Christ, do good (aka a report card), etc.? To me, it seems as if Christ is the person who got rid of karma. So under your beliefs, it would be the constant reincarnation and slow improvement until you finally find the truth?

Reincarnation does answer some very tough questions that otherwise would be incredibly hard to answer. One of the biggest reasons for needing reincarnation would be understanding why most of the world is in the terrible shape it is. I mean just look at other countries living standards. I guess I have always lived my life as if there was reincarnation, just that I really don't know if I genuinely believe in it. I have always lived as if we are going to be every other person so that when you help someone you help yourself. And when you bring someone else down, you are really bringing yourself down. It made much more sense to me that way because it got rid of the whole need for God to put huge punishments on us and made complete sense of "you reap what you sow".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

First off, let me say that since the bible is a large, complex work, you can make it support pretty much anything that you want, provided that you are willing to take it enough out of context. So for instance the KKK sees themselves as a "Christian" organisation that has biblical support. They do this though not because the bible actually supports their views, but because they take the bible completely out of context to support their views.

In fact I never cease to be amazed at the number of people that ignore the plain text reading of the bible and insert their own views into passages which the passages themselves do not support. So for instance the stuff with Elijah is obviously not talking about re-incarnation, if it is read in its proper context. One of the literary devices that the bible uses is that of "representatives". Here people are described in the light of people from the past who had their same characteristics. It is used constantly when referring to the nation of Israel (commonly called Jacob or even Joseph, as in Psalm 80). The point is NOT that the entire nation of Israel is the reincarnation of Jacob, but that Jacob is representative of the nation of Israel. Another example is in Romans 5, where Paul describes Jesus as a representative Adam, in that he represents all humanity. Just as Adam's sin effects all humanity, so too Jesus death brings the possibility of salvation to all humanity. There is no implication here that Jesus is somehow Adam re-incarnated.

It is in this same way that John the Baptist is Elijah. Elijah was regarded as the greatest of the OT prophets, and so in Malachi he is prophesying not that Elijah will be re-incarnated (difficult anyway since he never technically died), but that before the Messiah comes there will be a great prophet LIKE Elijah. And so when Jesus says that JtB is Elijah, this is what he means, that JtB is the prophet that Malachi predicted in the style of Elijah.
Yopu're basically just making things up. Matthew says no such thing, nor does he imply it.

And while you may argue that the bible doesn't directly condemn reincarnation (even though absence of evidence != evidence of absence) reincarnation does directly contradict stuff that the bible does talk about, namely resurrection.
Yes. The Bible contradicts itself.
In biblical thought resurrection is fundamentally a bodily resurrection. Jesus resurrection, pointed to as the firstfruits and a prototype of our resurrection (in 1 Cor 15) is a bodily resurrection. This means that in biblical thought there is a fundamental link between the body and the soul. If you are re-incarnated into several bodies then that destroys the idea of having a unique body that is raised at Jesus return. If you are re-incarneted into several bodies, which, if any are raised. The bible is clear that at least one is raised. From this standpoint re-incarnation makes no sense.

So have a read of 1 Thesselonians 4:14-17

Here the idea is that we live, we then "fall asleep" (ie: bodily die) and then after that the faithful are raised when the Lord returns. There is simply no room in there for re-incarnation. The silence on people having multiple lives is deafening.
Yes, for the most part, the Jewish eschatological view was that everybody would be physically resurrected on Judgement Day (a notion they got from Zorastrianism. Prior to the Babylonian exile, afterlife beliefs were all but non-existent). Nonetheless, Matthew's Gospel reveals that beliefs about transmigration of souls or reincarnation were extant among the Hellenistic gentiles which produced the gospels.
As well as this re-incarnation also tends to bring with it several non-biblical and I think rather cruel doctrines as well. For instance the idea of Karma is often brought in with re-incarnation. This is IMHO an incredibly cruel belief because it basically teaches that if anything bad happens to you it is because you deserve it. To the idea of Karma all suffering is a result of your actions either in this life or in a previous life. So if you get cancer, it is payment for something you did in a previous life. If your child dies, it is payment for something you did in a previous life. If you are starving and poor, it is payment for something you did in a previous life.

t removes any need for people to have compassion for those who are suffering, because if they are suffering it is because they deserve it. It also means that any attempt at helping people is fundamentally useless. It is God/the cosmos whatever that is making people suffer because of their previous bad actions. If you help them then Karma will just come back to them in some other way. Helping them only delays them paying their Karma debt. And this view of Karma is bourne out in countries where that is the overwhelming philosophy. So for instance in the predominately Hindu Nepal, while there is widespread poverty, there is little effort to really do anything about it, either from the rich or the poor themselves, because the poor suffering is seen as the will of the Gods, which is fixed and immutable.

Actually, doctrines of karma propose no such thing. You seem to have been taught a rather simplistic and cardboard version version of how karma is really conceived in Eastern thought but it's also irrelevant to the fact that the New Testament does indeed hint that one or two of its authors were aware of some version of reincarnation. The NT was written by Greeks and a version of reincarnation existed in Greek philopsophy. It's not so remarkable. The fact that it would contradict other parts of the Bible is just par for the course. The Bible is massively self-contradictory at virtually every turn. It's a mistake to think that there is any such thing as a definitive "Biblical view" on anything. The Bible is a compilation of many different evolving, overlapping and contradictory views.
This is certainly NOT the biblical view of suffering. In biblical thought people suffer for a variety of reasons, not all of which are their own doing, and their situation can be improved.
It's exactly the same in Eastern thought but that's really irrelevant to the converstaion.
Diogenes the Cynic

No, all this shows is that you don't really understand what the bible is saying. That is why it appears contradictory to you.
[sigh] I understand the Bible just fine, dude, I assure you. The Bible is thick with contradictions. If you'd like, I can srart another thread itemizing some of the really good ones.

[Joey Jo Jo]

For me the question is what did Jesus actually teach? Apart from what has been handed down by tradition and what has become popular in the last few centuries, what did Jesus actually teach. Figureing this out takes infoormantion from many sources and there's not much doubt I won't reslove it in this lifetime :)

The problem is though how do you work out what Jesus actually taught. The bible really forms the only reliable source on what Jesus taught, and what his background philosophy was (ie: the OT). The documents that are undesputably written closest in time and place to the teaching if Jesus are in the NT (ie: gospels and some of Pauls letters). If we disreagard these, then there is no real way of knowing what Jesus taught. The only thing we really can do then is just make stuff up.


Christianity has various doctrines and all Christians don't agree but I do think that some major Christian doctrines are pointing in the wrong direction. They stress believing Christ is the Savior more than personal transformation. At the end of the day what we think about what happens in the afterlife doesn't matter much. How our beliefs affect our day to day behavior with each other {love they neighbor} does matter. In other words if we love, truly and sincerely, our theology or lack of it, doesn't matter much

I think that Christianity teaches that having Christ as the saviour is the only way to personal transformation. And I think that theology is fundamentally important, regardless of what you believe. Jesus says that his followers are to worship God in "Spirit and truth" (John 4:23). How can we worship God in truth if we know nothing of what he is. Even in just saying we have to love each other, how do we know what love is without first understanding how God loves us?


I think Jesus was an example of what we can be in this life. He stressed that it isn't about obeying a set of rules or sacrificing a goat, but actually being transformed from within. He changed the spiritual level of the world.
I haven't figured out what the atonement means in light of that . I think it's pretty obvious reading the NT that accepting Jesus as Savior isn't enough, and there is a process of spiritual transformation we have to go through.

I think that you are right thta there is a process of spiritual transformation that we have to go through. I think though that this process happens once we accept Jesus as our saviour. God then gives us his Holy Spirit which then transforms us over time into the likeness of Jesus. However without first accepting Jesus this process can't happen.

And I don't know what version of the NT you are reading, but the idea that it is God who saves, and that God's slavation is enough is at the core of the NT, and inf fact the bible as a whole. It was the basis for the entire reformation, that fainth in God alone was enough, and that church rituals were no necessary for salvation. Large chunks of the NT are devoted to telling it's readers to beware of the Judaisers who insisted that Christians had to follow the law (specifically circumcision) to be saved. It argues quite forcefully that faith in Jesus is ALL that is needed for salvation. Galatians for instance (which IIRC is one of the first NT books written and almost universally acknowledged to actually have been written by Paul) is pretty much entirely devoted to this point.

There is spiritual transofrmation in Christianity, but it comes as a result of salvation, not before or instead of. To argue otherwise is to put the cart before the horse so to speak.


When Jesus says " I am the way" I translate it as "I am the example of what you must do to be saved." "He who believes in me" means those who believe I am one with the Father and they can be also"
Then I am afraid you are missing the point of what Jesus is saying. And if in general your method of reading the bible is just reading what you want the bible to say into different passages, then I don't think you will ever really understand what Jesus taught. All you will learn is more about what you would like to be true.

Joey Jo Jo.

[DrDeth]

Reincarnation is such a non-issue in the Bible that the Oxford Companion to the Bible doesn't even have an entry for it. Sorry, cosmosdan, dude.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The problem is though how do you work out what Jesus actually taught. The bible really forms the only reliable source on what Jesus taught, and what his background philosophy was (ie: the OT). The documents that are undesputably written closest in time and place to the teaching if Jesus are in the NT (ie: gospels and some of Pauls letters). If we disreagard these, then there is no real way of knowing what Jesus taught. The only thing we really can do then is just make stuff up.
The New Testament is by no means a reliable source for what Jesus taught. None of it was written by witnesses and much of the Gospel narratives are highly fictionalized. It is unlikely that Jesus said more than a fraction of what is attributed to him in the NT. Your pentultimate sentence above is completely true. There is no way of knowing what Jesus actually taught. To rely on the NT is to rely on faith alone. Don't mistake faith for fact.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Reincarnation is such a non-issue in the Bible that the Oxford Companion to the Bible doesn't even have an entry for it. Sorry, cosmosdan, dude.
It's presence as an idea is extremely brief and allusory, to be sure. It's really only hinted at as a popular belief a couple of times and it's not exactly expounded as doctrine. Still, iit's not completely absent from the Bible, but it is admittedly insignificant.

[astorian]

Does the Bible state that reincarnation occurs? Absolutely not. But is it clear from some passages that many ancient Israelites believed in it? Definitely.

[Joey Jo Jo]

Yopu're basically just making things up. Matthew says no such thing, nor does he imply it.

No, I am not. It is a legitimate literary device for which i have provided examples. But anyway lets have a look at the specific passage that we are talking about.

Mat 11:1 When Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities.
Mat 11:2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples
Mat 11:3 and said to him, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?"
Mat 11:4 And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see:
Mat 11:5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.
Mat 11:6 And blessed is the one who is not offended by me."
Mat 11:7 As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?
Mat 11:8 What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
Mat 11:9 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
Mat 11:10 This is he of whom it is written, "'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.'
Mat 11:11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Mat 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mat 11:13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John,
Mat 11:14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.
Mat 11:15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.



Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
Mat 17:2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.
Mat 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.
Mat 17:4 And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah."
Mat 17:5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
Mat 17:6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified.
Mat 17:7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and have no fear."
Mat 17:8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.
Mat 17:9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, "Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead."
Mat 17:10 And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?"
Mat 17:11 He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things.
Mat 17:12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands."
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.

In the first passage Jesus says nothing specifically about JtB being the re-incarnated Elijah. It could just as easily be read as Jesus saying that John is the "Elijah" that Malachi prophesyed about. Since many expected an "Elijah" to accompany the coming of the Messiah, Jesus is just pointing out that by "Elijah" Malachi meant JtB.
Besides, do you really expect that every biblical prophesy about someone to come MUST use their exact name? Jesus is prephesyed about 1000s of times in the OT, yet he is rarely if ever called "Jesus" in these prophesies. He is given instead representative names, like "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7, which are representative of his character. Why then must Malachi call John "John the Baptist" if he is going to prophesy about him?

The second passage (Matt 17) is much more revealing. In Matthews chronology JtB is dead JtB is dead at this point (being killed in chapter 14). Nevertheless Matthew unswervingly calls the vision "Elijah", even though according to the re-incarnation theory he would be more rightly be a hybrid of both Elijah and JtB. This very strongly implies that there are two different souls for Elijah and JtB, and that the same soul that was in Elijah was NOT re-incarnated into JtB.


Yes. The Bible contradicts itself.

To your understanding of it, yes. I maintain that the bible in not inherently contradictory.
Besides if you start with the assumption that something is contradictory then it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophesy. I start declaring something contradictory, then I interpret it in a way that is contradictory, and then I have proven my premise.


Yes, for the most part, the Jewish eschatological view was that everybody would be physically resurrected on Judgement Day (a notion they got from Zorastrianism. Prior to the Babylonian exile, afterlife beliefs were all but non-existent). Nonetheless, Matthew's Gospel reveals that beliefs about transmigration of souls or reincarnation were extant among the Hellenistic gentiles which produced the gospels.

Care to provide some examples so that we have something concrete to discuss? I remain skeptical


Actually, doctrines of karma propose no such thing. You seem to have been taught a rather simplistic and cardboard version version of how karma is really conceived in Eastern thought but it's also irrelevant to the fact that the New Testament does indeed hint that one or two of its authors were aware of some version of reincarnation. The NT was written by Greeks and a version of reincarnation existed in Greek philopsophy. It's not so remarkable. The fact that it would contradict other parts of the Bible is just par for the course. The Bible is massively self-contradictory at virtually every turn. It's a mistake to think that there is any such thing as a definitive "Biblical view" on anything. The Bible is a compilation of many different evolving, overlapping and contradictory views.

I acknowledge that Karma is not a necessary part of re-incarnation, but it does quite commonly follow from a re-incarnation worldview. Besides the voew of Karma I posted is the logical endpoint from the assertion that "all suffering is the result of actions in this life or a past life". You may assert that there is other random suffering not directly brought about by our own actions in our lives, but then you flow into other problems of weighing Karmic suffering against random suffering, ect. So for instance if being good results in 2x units of suffering, yet being bad results in 1x unit of suffering as punnishment, then why be good?

And merely saying "The bible is contradictory" is not an argument, it is a statement. Care to provide any evidence that it is true? I would ask have you ever tried reading the bible assuming that it does actually fit together in some way, or did you just start from the assumption that it is conradictory and go from there?

[sigh] I understand the Bible just fine, dude, I assure you. The Bible is thick with contradictions. If you'd like, I can srart another thread itemizing some of the really good ones.
Your posting history on biblical matters suggests otherwise :-)

Besudes I have seen those lists of "contradictions", and they almost entirely rely on distortions and taking things out of context. I remain unconvinced.

Joey Jo Jo

[amarinth]

That aside, the usual support for a belief in reincarnation is John 9:1-2.I have heard and read John 9 is reference to the idea of pre-natal sin. ( "Was this man not just born bad, but conceived bad?")
That it was a not unknown belief that someone could sin (against the mom, causing her undue pain) in the womb.

[DrDeth]

The New Testament is by no means a reliable source for what Jesus taught. None of it was written by witnesses and much of the Gospel narratives are highly fictionalized.

Well, the Oxford Companion does says that having John dictate the basis for the Gospel of that name is the most likely hypothesis. Thus, for most intents & purposes- the Gospel of John was 'written" by one of the Apostles, very much a witness. We have had this argument before, of course. I rely upon the general consensus of experts in the field, written in a highly respected, multi-authored peer-reviewed book. And, even so, I (nor the experts) don't claim this is certain- just "the most likely hypothesis". You never seem to qualify your statements, you state very highly debated hypothesis as fact. And, indeed, the above statement is VERY highly debated, and it takes a lot of hubris to state any such thing so baldly as fact. Frankly, we don't know. That's about all scholars are sure of.

And, IF Mark is written by "Mark the interpreter of Peter" then it is possible that it is that Mark refered to in Acts 12:12. It's certainly possible then that "Mark" was a witness to some of the things in the Gospels.

The authorship of Matthew and Luke is frankly unknown. Tradition could be correct, but it's doubtful.

astorian- it's far from "clear". Possible, I'll grant, and certain passages- if viewed in a certain way- do lend themselves to that hypothesis. But "clear"? :dubious:

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I rely upon the general consensus of experts in the field
The overwhelming consensus of experts in the field is that all four authorship traditions of canonical Gospels are completely spurious. I don't bother to qualify my statemenst because I'm not stating anything that isn't regularly taken for granted and asserted without argument in the field.

[Joey Jo Jo]

I have heard and read John 9 is reference to the idea of pre-natal sin. ( "Was this man not just born bad, but conceived bad?")
That it was a not unknown belief that someone could sin (against the mom, causing her undue pain) in the womb.

I think there is a fair bit of wisdom in this. It may even be the case that the Israelistes believed that the soul existed in some sort of pre-incarnate state, like in Mormonism. That the guy sinned in a past life is not the only explaination, and IMHO it is not even the most likely.

But anyway regardless of what you think is behind the disciples question, Jesus explicitly rejects both options as the cause of this guys sin, so basing a theology of re-incarnation on that passage is spurious at best

Joey Jo Jo

[Joey Jo Jo]

The overwhelming consensus of experts in the field is that all four authorship traditions of canonical Gospels are completely spurious. I don't bother to qualify my statemenst because I'm not stating anything that isn't regularly taken for granted and asserted without argument in the field.

I don't think that the right adjective is "overwhelming". It is true that the majority (as in >50%) opinion is that the authorship traditions are spurious, but there is a sizeable dissent from the majority opinion. Part of the problem is that in theological circles (and in academic circles in general) the majority simply ignores the minorty, because they can. But despite how much they ignore them it is still true that not all experts agree on the reliability of these traditions. And just because a group of experts say they spurious (even if they are the majority), it doesn't make it necessarily true.

Joey Jo Jo

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The only dissent comes from a tiny minority of conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence. They are not "experts," they are religious believers and they are perfectly welcome to participate in debates or contribute to journals all they want. They just aren't able to contribute anything that holds up to scrutiny. Their opinions are dictated by their faith, not by methodology.

[Joey Jo Jo]

The only dissent comes from a tiny minority of conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence. They are not "experts," they are religious believers and they are perfectly welcome to participate in debates or contribute to journals all they want. They just aren't able to contribute anything that holds up to scrutiny. Their opinions are dictated by their faith, not by methodology.

I think the problem is that academic theology is split into two camps. On one hand you have almost entirely liberal Christians or atheists making up the larger side, and on the other you have the smaller camp of almost entirely evangelical making up the smaller group. These two groups rarely interact with each other, and I think the larger reason for that is the unwillingness of the majority to consider minorty opinion.

If you think that academia in general is the disspassionate search for truth, then I think you need a reality check. Academia across all disciplines is greatly effected by the politics and individual agendas of those that participate in it. This is not just a problem in theology, but across all academia. So for instance the stories of scientists trying to get their theories accepted is full of stories of persecution of the minorty by the majority, even when the work has no religious implication. The persecution of Maxwell by Lord Kelvin is one famous example of this, but there are many more.

Therefore I can't believe that you are so nieve as to claim that evangelical scholars are free to participate in whatever they want. You don't think that editors of journals would filter out papers that disagreed with their own personal views? That editors wouldn't refuse to publish work that discreditied theirs? Get real! Note that this is a problem across academia, not just theology.

Secondly, your attack of the minority opinion as "conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence" is pretty meaningless, since there is a strong ideological bias on the majority side as well. You could just as equally argue that the majorty form their opinion based on their own materialist worldview. If the majority represented a range of Christian opinion then your criticism might have merit. As it is it just smacks of you saying the other side is wrong because they disagree with your sides obviously correct theological beliefs.

Thirdly, your faith in "experts" from an epistemological point of view is quite fascinating. In essence you are little different to the conserviative Christian you deride, except you have replaced the priest who tells you about God with the "expert" who tells you about God. If you just take someones word for it, instead of examining the evidence for yourself, then you have just as much faith as the conservative Christian, you just have placed it somewhere else

Joey Jo Jo.

[cosmosdan]

First off, let me say that since the bible is a large, complex work, you can make it support pretty much anything that you want, provided that you are willing to take it enough out of context. So for instance the KKK sees themselves as a "Christian" organisation that has biblical support. They do this though not because the bible actually supports their views, but because they take the bible completely out of context to support their views.
In fact I never cease to be amazed at the number of people that ignore the plain text reading of the bible and insert their own views into passages which the passages themselves do not support. I agree. That's why I'm here to try and set the record straight.

But seriously, Some beliefs that are "based on the Bible" are a little ridiculous. Pulling out one passage and letting snakes bite you during church is a streching it a little. The Bible is not clear no matter how often people say, the "plain" text. People will stress certain passages and fit them together while explaining away any passage that seems to contradict their interpretation. They make choices on what is literal and what isn't based on their preconcieved notions. It's a pretty human thing. It's up to the individual to decide how reasonable their own interpretation is. My own interpretation has changed since I started reading it 30 years ago. You're welcome to disagree but I don't see your particular interpretation any more reasonable than my own.
So for instance the stuff with Elijah is obviously not talking about re-incarnation, if it is read in its proper context. <snip> Elijah was regarded as the greatest of the OT prophets, and so in Malachi he is prophesying not that Elijah will be re-incarnated (difficult anyway since he never technically died), but that before the Messiah comes there will be a great prophet LIKE Elijah. And so when Jesus says that JtB is Elijah, this is what he means, that JtB is the prophet that Malachi predicted in the style of Elijah
Obviously you say. Ignoring the plain text reading you say. It seems to me that in this case that's what you are doing. I've heard this explaination before.

Mal 4:5 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come. The plain text doesn't say someone like Elijah , but Elijah.

Matt 17: 12 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.

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

Again the plain text as you put it says John was Elijah, not just like, Elijah.
There is a passage that at a glance supports your proposition.
speaking of John in Luke 1:17 And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.
You would read this and say it supports your position. John was like Elijah. I can just as easily say It's speaking of reincarnation. The spirit and power of Elijah is speaking specifically of the spirit of Elijah in the new incarnation of John. Neither claim is more valid than the other.
And while you may argue that the bible doesn't directly condemn reincarnation (even though absence of evidence != evidence of absence)
that's funny. Isn't that the same arguement atheists use?

reincarnation does directly contradict stuff that the bible does talk about, namely resurrection. In biblical thought resurrection is fundamentally a bodily resurrection. Jesus resurrection, pointed to as the firstfruits and a prototype of our resurrection (in 1 Cor 15) is a bodily resurrection. This means that in biblical thought there is a fundamental link between the body and the soul. If you are re-incarnated into several bodies then that destroys the idea of having a unique body that is raised at Jesus return. If you are re-incarneted into several bodies, which, if any are raised. The bible is clear that at least one is raised. From this standpoint re-incarnation makes no sense.
That would be your interpretation not actual biblical thought. {which is what exactly?} I've alreadt dealt with the two resurrections in a previous post.
So have a read of 1 Thesselonians 4:14-17

Here the idea is that we live, we then "fall asleep" (ie: bodily die) and then after that the faithful are raised when the Lord returns. There is simply no room in there for re-incarnation. The silence on people having multiple lives is deafening.
read it. This illustrates my previous point. Is it possible that those passages are representative of some spiritual principle. I mean is it a real trumpet we'll hear?
You might also notice that the author believes that Jesus is returning soon and he will be one of those caught in the air upon Christ's return. I suppose that could be true if he is reincarnated.

As well as this re-incarnation also tends to bring with it several non-biblical and I think rather cruel doctrines as well. For instance the idea of Karma is often brought in with re-incarnation. This is IMHO an incredibly cruel belief because it basically teaches that if anything bad happens to you it is because you deserve it. To the idea of Karma all suffering is a result of your actions either in this life or in a previous life. So if you get cancer, it is payment for something you did in a previous life. If your child dies, it is payment for something you did in a previous life. If you are starving and poor, it is payment for something you did in a previous life. Like Christianity there are several versions and varied beliefs when it comes to Karma. Don't mistake your misunderstanding for the complete picture. In fact Karma is also mentioned in the Bible in it's simple form.
You will reap what you so. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword and
23If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 4:24And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

[cosmosdan]

No, I am not. It is a legitimate literary device for which i have provided examples. But anyway lets have a look at the specific passage that we are talking about.

It is a legitimate literary device. What you haven't shown other than your own desire to believe it, is that these passages are using that representative device.

In the first passage Jesus says nothing specifically about JtB being the re-incarnated Elijah. It could just as easily be read as Jesus saying that John is the "Elijah" that Malachi prophesyed about. Since many expected an "Elijah" to accompany the coming of the Messiah, Jesus is just pointing out that by "Elijah" Malachi meant JtB. Because evidently the disciples didn't know that John was the reincarnated Elijah. Jesus was telling them that.

The second passage (Matt 17) is much more revealing. In Matthews chronology JtB is dead JtB is dead at this point (being killed in chapter 14). Nevertheless Matthew unswervingly calls the vision "Elijah", even though according to the re-incarnation theory he would be more rightly be a hybrid of both Elijah and JtB. This very strongly implies that there are two different souls for Elijah and JtB, and that the same soul that was in Elijah was NOT re-incarnated into JtB.
Wow, this is some screwy logic. Now you're making up reincarnation doctrine from scratch. Do you think these men visually recognized Moses and Elijah?
They spiritually knew or sensed that it was Moses and Elijah. The idea that they didn't sense that Elijah was John indicates nothing unless you're desperatly looking for it.

To your understanding of it, yes. I maintain that the bible in not inherently contradictory.
It is full of them. That's the plain text I mean.


I acknowledge that Karma is not a necessary part of re-incarnation, but it does quite commonly follow from a re-incarnation worldview. Besides the voew of Karma I posted is the logical endpoint from the assertion that "all suffering is the result of actions in this life or a past life". You may assert that there is other random suffering not directly brought about by our own actions in our lives, but then you flow into other problems of weighing Karmic suffering against random suffering, ect. So for instance if being good results in 2x units of suffering, yet being bad results in 1x unit of suffering as punnishment, then why be good?
You need to read something about Karma other than by those who are bashing it.
Karma is the spiritual equivilent to the physical law, To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This principle is repeated in the Bible. How do you interpret the Biblical passages I referd to that indicate Karma.

And merely saying "The bible is contradictory" is not an argument, it is a statement. Care to provide any evidence that it is true? I would ask have you ever tried reading the bible assuming that it does actually fit together in some way, or did you just start from the assumption that it is conradictory and go from there? I believed the Bible was the word of God. I read about possible contradictions and decided to take a look at them for myself. Some can be explained away with a little effort. To explain away others requires some form of denial IMHO. After that I had to reasses my thinking. I've also studied where the Bible came from, how the books were selected and by whom, as well as books that were rejected. It has helped me to understand what the Bible is and what it isn't and seperate tradition from truth.

[sigh] I understand the Bible just fine, dude, I assure you. The Bible is thick with contradictions. If you'd like, I can srart another thread itemizing some of the really good ones.
please do. It's been a while since I've gone over them.

Besudes I have seen those lists of "contradictions", and they almost entirely rely on distortions and taking things out of context. I remain unconvinced.
I've seen the lists as well and respectfully disagree with you. When two passages speaking of the same event describe it two different ways that are mutually exclusive, thats a contradiction.

[Joey Jo Jo]

I agree. That's why I'm here to try and set the record straight.

But seriously, Some beliefs that are "based on the Bible" are a little ridiculous. Pulling out one passage and letting snakes bite you during church is a streching it a little. The Bible is not clear no matter how often people say, the "plain" text. People will stress certain passages and fit them together while explaining away any passage that seems to contradict their interpretation. They make choices on what is literal and what isn't based on their preconcieved notions. It's a pretty human thing. It's up to the individual to decide how reasonable their own interpretation is. My own interpretation has changed since I started reading it 30 years ago. You're welcome to disagree but I don't see your particular interpretation any more reasonable than my own.


Just to explain where I am coming from, I don't think that the bible is, as some have claimed, a collection of metaphors on which we place our own meaning. I think that the bible writers had a clear and specific message in writing the biblical books. And since I also believe the bible to be inspired by God I believe that the message of the bible is consistent. So when I talk about the bible's view, what I mean is the view of the authors that they were expressing when they wrote their parts. Since then the bible was written with an abjective message in mind I think that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of the bible. Those that do not reveal the original intent of the authors are incorrect, those that do are correct.

In terms of discovering what this view is I think we should take a self consistent type approach. Read some passages and then form an opinion as to what they mean. Then read some more and see if our view still holds. If not change it. Keep going until your framework encorporates the entire bible. I agree that we shouldn't just discard passages. If a passage doesn't agree with our theology, then it is our theology at fault.


Obviously you say. Ignoring the plain text reading you say. It seems to me that in this case that's what you are doing. I've heard this explaination before.

The plain text doesn't say someone like Elijah , but Elijah.

Again the plain text as you put it says John was Elijah, not just like, Elijah.
There is a passage that at a glance supports your proposition.
speaking of John in
You would read this and say it supports your position. John was like Elijah. I can just as easily say It's speaking of reincarnation. The spirit and power of Elijah is speaking specifically of the spirit of Elijah in the new incarnation of John. Neither claim is more valid than the other.

There are a few problems with your reading
1) We use names today differently then they were in biblical times. In our mind names are just an arbitrary label for something. In the biblical view names were more, in that they told you something about the person. So for instance there are a few examples of God actually changing the name of someone to reflect something about them. (For instance Abram -> Abraham or Jacob -> Israel). Just calling someone by a different name did not necessarily mean that the person WAS someone else, just that the characteristics embodied by the name also applied to them.

2) Biblical prophecy rarely, if ever used the actual name of the person they were talking about. Jesus is prophecied about a lot in the OT, yet the actual name Jesus is not used. In it's place are a variety of names that talk about his character. A good example is the name "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7, which Metthew explicity connects with Jesus, even though Matthew know full well that Jesus name was Jesus. There is no reason to think that Matthew didn't see the same thing going on here, with JtB being given the figurative name "Elijah", even though it wasn't literally Elijah.

3) The background assumption was not that Elijah would be re-incarnated, but that he would be raised from the dead. In Matthew and Mark, the "Who do you say I am" incident says that Jesus is Moses or one of the prophets. That could mean either resurrection or re-incarnation. In Luke the account is given as

Luk 9:18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"
Luk 9:19 And they answered, "John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen."
Luk 9:20 Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered, "The Christ of God."

Note here that the assumption is that if one of the prophets was going to come back, it would happen through resurrection, not re-incarnation. So if you are going to argue that JtB was literally Elijah, (dubious, but if we go with it) it is far more logical to claim that we was risen from the dead, not re-incarnated. This is also explains in the transfiguration account, while Elijah and John were both dead the figure was unswervingly called "Elijah", not "John" and certainly not "Elijah/John"


that's funny. Isn't that the same arguement atheists use?

Doesn't make it any less true. Besides it contradicts the common atheist argument that since there is no evidence for God, then God cannot exist.



That would be your interpretation not actual biblical thought. {which is what exactly?} I've alreadt dealt with the two resurrections in a previous post.

read it. This illustrates my previous point. Is it possible that those passages are representative of some spiritual principle. I mean is it a real trumpet we'll hear?
You might also notice that the author believes that Jesus is returning soon and he will be one of those caught in the air upon Christ's return. I suppose that could be true if he is reincarnated.
Like Christianity there are several versions and varied beliefs when it comes to Karma. Don't mistake your misunderstanding for the complete picture. In fact Karma is also mentioned in the Bible in it's simple form.
You will reap what you so. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword and

To my mind you didn't deal with resurrectino at all, just skirted the issue. The main problem is that for re-incarnation to make any sense you have to comletely divorce the body and the spirit. If the spirit inhabits many bodies, then the body is not a fundamental part of the self. This flies in the face of what the bible says about the resurrection being fundamentally a bodily resurrection. Even in the passages you quoted the body was talked about. Sowing to the body in Galatians makes no sense in a re-incarnation model as then the body is not fundamental to the self.

And if you actually understand what is being talked about in the Thesselonians passage it expressly prohibits re-incarnation. The reason Paul was writing is because the Thesselonians thought that Jesus was about to return, and those that were still alive would go to heaven with him. The dead however they freaded would not, as they were dead. Note that this prohibits re-incarnation, as then why would they be worried? Paul re-assures them by telling them that those that are dead aren't really dead, but sleeping, and that when Jesus returns they will wake and be with him too. You may argue that only those on their "last life" or whatever fall asleep, but that is reading some major stuff into what the bible actually says. Besides it raises more questions than it answers. What if Jesus returns while people are in-between lives? What happens to them? They can't be born again as there is no birth in the new kingdom (and no marraige either), and they can't be resurrected because they havn't gotten to their last body. The idea of re-incarnation just doesn't make sense in the framework provided by this passage.

Joey Jo Jo

[cosmosdan]

I have a few questions for you.

1) Growing up I was never introduced to any sort of religion and I also had no idea who Christ was or that Christmas was much more than giving and receiving presents. Yet the idea of reincarnation seemed to be an almost logical assumption to make. Why do you think that reincarnation is not very prevalent today in America? One reason I can see is that Christians felt that it would be far to easy to judge others according to what we think of as their "past lives experience". This is a huge problem to deal with since we have no idea what people deserve or do not deserve in their lives. Christ taught that you cannot simply place blame like that.
I think reincarnation is fairly prevelent in America today. I don't quite understand the last part of your statement. The idea of Karma and reincarnation teaches us to take responsibility for our choices and be aware of what kind of energy we are sending out into the world. It also teaches us to not judge others who may be ona different path than we are , but rather to respect and revere their journey and their God given right to choose. The interaction that day to day life brings is how we learn from each other. When we see suffering we try to help. Thats part of our journey and our choice. If something happens and we get angry it's an opportunity to learn about our anger and how to deal with it.
2) How are there the huge number of concious beings alive today vs. the very small number of conscious beings that the world started with?
I believe we are eternal spiritual beings. There are biblical passages refering to our pre existance. The physical world unfolded as it did and when it was called for another spiritual being would descend to mortality. I think some spirits just refused to come to earth until we had cable TV :D
3) How does Christ tie into your view of reincarnation and karma? To understand this , I would need to know how you consider people make it to heaven. Do we have to believe in Christ, do good (aka a report card), etc.? To me, it seems as if Christ is the person who got rid of karma. So under your beliefs, it would be the constant reincarnation and slow improvement until you finally find the truth?
Yes. The NT clearly points to a process of spiritual growth and transformation.
Jesus says the Holy Spirit that lives within us will guide us to all truth. HE says the kingdom of heaven is within us. {via that spiritual transformation} Jesus' tie in is that he taught us to seek and follow that inner spirit and to live according to love and truth.
The Bible also says, Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect,
and to work out your own salvation and continue on to perfection and many many other passages that teach this. Reincarnation teaches that in each successive life we have the opportunity to hear, seek and listen to this inner guideing spirit and when we finally get to where Christ was, total communion and surrender, then we will not need to be reborn into this physical world again.

Reincarnation does answer some very tough questions that otherwise would be incredibly hard to answer. One of the biggest reasons for needing reincarnation would be understanding why most of the world is in the terrible shape it is. I mean just look at other countries living standards. I guess I have always lived my life as if there was reincarnation, just that I really don't know if I genuinely believe in it. I have always lived as if we are going to be every other person so that when you help someone you help yourself. And when you bring someone else down, you are really bringing yourself down. It made much more sense to me that way because it got rid of the whole need for God to put huge punishments on us and made complete sense of "you reap what you sow".

I think you're right on. Jesus taught that by the spirit we are all members of the same body. That means exactly what you said. "Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me. "
One reason reincarnation makes sense to me is that whole spiritual growth thing. Look at the world and the people in it. One short life time in comparison to all eternity is not enough opportunity to grow as we need to. It doesn't make sense that a timless loving God in whom there is perfect justice would limit us to just a few years.

[Sampiro]

As I read cmkeller's post, Elijah never gave up his physical form. He was assumed bodily into heaven and he's continuing on with that body to this day.

That aside, the usual support for a belief in reincarnation is John 9:1-2.



The argument is that it wouldn't have made sense for a man to be born blind because he sinned if there was no opportunity for him to have sinned before he was born.

Another verse I've seen used is Job 1:21, which is sometimes translated as
"Naked I came from my mother's womb,
and naked I will return there.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised."

Other times it is translated as "and naked will I depart this life". Not knowing Hebrew I've no idea, and ideologically I've no dog in this fight.

Another I've seen used is the Jacob have I loved (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:9-14;&version=31;) passage, though I don't really understand how it's used for this since it makes it clear neither babe had sinned before he decided which would be master and which servant.

[Measure for Measure]

Flipping through my New Oxford Annotated Bible, I find the following.

From the Apocrypha, Wisdom of Solomon, 8.19-20:

As a child I was naturally gifted,
and a good soul fell to my lot;
or rather, being good, I entered an
undefiled body.

The notes say, "The Platonic view of the soul as preexistent is reflected here, as in other Hellenistic Jewish writings (compare Philo, On the Giants 6-14). The author may be referring also to Hellenistic theories about the transmigration of souls, a belief attibuted by Josephus to the Pharisees (War 2.8.14)."

From Josephus: http://www.biblenet.net/library/josephus/war02.html
...the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.Emphasis added.

[Joey Jo Jo]

It is a legitimate literary device. What you haven't shown other than your own desire to believe it, is that these passages are using that representative device.

Done that one already. See biblican name changing, Jesus != Immanuel, ect.


Because evidently the disciples didn't know that John was the reincarnated Elijah. Jesus was telling them that.

But if you insist on interpreting Jesus in an excessivly literal fashion, he doesn't actually say that JtB is Elijah re-incarnated. All he says is that JtB is Elijah. The passage that I quoted from Luke woud suggest that if you want to take it literally, then it is much more likely that Jesus saw JtB as the resurrected Elijah. The only reference to re-incarnation comes from you yourself.



Wow, this is some screwy logic. Now you're making up reincarnation doctrine from scratch. Do you think these men visually recognized Moses and Elijah?
They spiritually knew or sensed that it was Moses and Elijah. The idea that they didn't sense that Elijah was John indicates nothing unless you're desperatly looking for it.

First off, the passage describes them as appearing, not sensing, so it seems that there is largely a visual component to it. Of course you wonder how the disciples knew it was Elijah and Moses, since they had never seen them. Maybe the conversation with Jesus tipped them off.
Anyway the point is that if JtB is the re-incarnated Elijah, (that is, the spirit of Elijah left his body and went into the body of JtB), then it is incorrect to talk of the "spirit of Elijah" and the "spirit of JtB" as two separate entities. It is essentially the same spirit, so logically Elijah alone cannot apear, as there is no singular "just Elijah". The spirit of Elijah is necessarily the spirit of JtB as well. Since the passage unswervingly refers to the person as only "Elijah", that would speak against the re-incarnated duality you suggest.


It is full of them. That's the plain text I mean.

And this I think is the central cause of our disagreement. If you believe that the bible is full of contradictions then asking what the bible says is a non-sensical question. If the bible is contradictory then there is no coherent message to discover in reading it.
In fact I think that the fundamental way we understand written stuff is through logical contradiction. We form an opinion as to what the writer is saying as we read, and as we read our view is shaped by its consistency to the text. If you assume that the text is inherently contradictory then we have no way of knowing if any percieved inconsistencies are a result of our view or are inherent in the text.

So for instance I could argue that the bible supports killing all humans. Jesus says "I come not to bring peace but a sword". I take that to mean that I should kill all humans (ie: use the sword on them). Nothing in the rest of the bible could convince me otherwise because I could just say "that the bible is inconsistent".

So to assert that both the bible is inconsistent and the bible supports X is in my mind a tautology, as you can just take any old passage out of context to prove what you want, and then claim that anything that does not support your view is part of the inherent inconsistency. And to be perfectly honest I think the only way that you can come to the view of what the bible says that you have is by explicitly ignoring large parts of what the bible says. So fir instance the fact that it is God alone that works salvation through faith, and that we are not saved by our own works is the central theme of quite a few NT books (Romans and Galatians for instance) which flies in the face of your idea of us working our own salvation out through multiple lives.

My position in this thread is that you can't claim that both the bible is consistent and that the bible supports re-incarnation. No part of the bible endorses re-incarnation as true, and too many parts logically exclude it.


You need to read something about Karma other than by those who are bashing it.
Karma is the spiritual equivilent to the physical law, To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This principle is repeated in the Bible. How do you interpret the Biblical passages I referd to that indicate Karma.

Maybe instead of just telling me that I am wrong you sould tell me what you think Karma is. You talk about Karma being the equivalent the the law of equal action. Does that not imply that if I do bad things then bad things will happen to me? Does that not imply that if I see someone who is suffering it is because they have done something previously bad to bring that suffering on themselves? And since it is a near physical law that those who do bad must suffer, how is it possible to help those who are suffering if their suffering is a direct result of their past deeds. If it is a law that they must suffer, then if we help them then their bad deeds will only catch up to them later.

Let me ask you, why do you think people suffer?

While you tell me to go get a better understanding of Karma, I think you should also do the same, particularly how it is worked out in the religions that include it. I think many in the west have a negative view of Christianity, thinking that it is all about persecuting others, and that Eastern monism is all about follwoing your own path and respecting others. That is a completely nieve view of what these religions actually teach. So for instance look at the Caste system in India. Here Karma is used to justify the dividing people up into different classes, with the top classes (the Brahmin) oppressing the other lower castes. Because in their view if you are in a lower caste it is because you deserve the abuse they give for your past misdeeds. In fact there is even the argument that in opressing them you are helping them work out their negative Karma and therefore being re-incarnated to a higher station. Or you could look at the widespread fatalism in many Hindu countries. Since karma is only apportioned by the cosmos, then there is nothing you can do to improve your situation but ride it out for this lifetime and hope that the next life has something better. Since the cosmos is working against then there is nothing you can do. That is how Karma is understood by the religions that incorporate it as a central tenant.

As for what the bible says about suffering, I think that the biblical view of suffering is much broader than just "Everyone gets what they deserve". There is a sizable thread in the bible (especially in Proverbs) that all things being equal generally wise living leads to a peaceful life, and that generally foolish living leads to an unhappy life. But there are many other threads as well. So there is the thread (especially in Job and Ecclesiasties) that acknowledges that many wicked people do in fact prosper, and many righteous suffer. That just being good is no guarantee of not suffering. There is also another strong thread that people suffer for doing right, and for worshipping Jesus. So in the sermon on the mount Jesus says


Mat 5:1 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.
Mat 5:2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
Mat 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Mat 5:5 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat 5:6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Mat 5:7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Mat 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Mat 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Mat 5:10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Notice how it goes from "blessed are the" in verses 3-10 to "blessed are YOU" in verse 11-12. Jesus is telling his disciples to be ready for suffering for doing what is good, because it will happen. Paul even goes so far as to say in 2Timothy

2Ti 3:12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
2Ti 3:13 while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

This does not fit with Karma at all which suggests that if you do good you will be rewarded, not given suffering.

The largest problem with the idea of Karma and Christianity is that Jesus is fundamentally the suffering Messiah. Jesus is not portrayed as one who lives the ultimately good life who reaps all the rewards of his goodness. Jesus is the innocent person who suffers terribly on the cross. This is about 180 degrees away from any idea of karma. In fact Jesus himself says of his mission

Mar 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Jesus mission was fundamentally one of suffering for humanity. Therefore the bible argues that if we are to be like Jesus then we too must suffer in doing good for others. This is completely different to any idea of Karma, in which doing good and suffering are mutually exclusive.

Besides it is almost certain that the early church did not believe in Karma either because the experience of the church for the first 250 years was almost exclusivly one of suffering for following Jesus as they were brutally persecuted by the Romans. These people were suffering and dying for their faith. Telling them that they were suffering or that their persecutors were propering because of some sort of natural law that you get back what you put out would make no sense.


I believed the Bible was the word of God. I read about possible contradictions and decided to take a look at them for myself. Some can be explained away with a little effort. To explain away others requires some form of denial IMHO. After that I had to reasses my thinking. I've also studied where the Bible came from, how the books were selected and by whom, as well as books that were rejected. It has helped me to understand what the Bible is and what it isn't and seperate tradition from truth.

I don't know what to say. I am certainly not ignorant of church history and the bible, and I have not found anything to make me think that the bible in inherently contradictory.


I've seen the lists as well and respectfully disagree with you. When two passages speaking of the same event describe it two different ways that are mutually exclusive, thats a contradiction.
I would say though that my idea of the accuracy of the bible is somewhat more nuanced than you might expect. I only believe that the bible is accurate in so far as the authors intend ti to be accurate. It is not a contradiction if the contradiction relies on implying something that the bible writer didn't intend.

So for instance take the phrase "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west". In astronomical terms, this senstance is complete rubbish. The sun doesn't move, it is the earth that moves around the sun, but anyway it is not the translation of the earth it is the rotation that makes the sun appear to move relative to your position on the earth. However this is not how this phrase is commonly understood. All this phrase is commonly meant to mean is that the sun appears in the east in the morning and in the west in the evening. To try and create some sort of planetary model out of this statement is to completly misunderstand the way in which it was given.

The same can be said about the bible. I think that the bible is only non-contradictory in the points it intends to make. So I don't think that evolution necessarily contradicts the bible, because I don't believe that the bible intends to tell you the exact meachanism behind creation, but more who created it and how it was when it was originally created.

In the same way I don't think that the gospels necessarily intend to give you a tight chronology of Jesus' life and times. The gospels are not biographies, nor do they read as such. Mark for instance ignores the first 30 years of Jesus life, and the other gospels do little to fill in the details. Even in the time they record there is not much thought given to tracking exactly when things happen, or indeed what happened in the large gaps that are necessarily in the narrative. The point of the gospels is for more to tell you about the remarkable things that Jesus did and why he did them rather than to give you a water-tight chronological account of everything that Jesus did. There is also a string theme of linking the story of Jesus to wider theological points (so in Matthew the recurring theme of Jesus is the true Israelite, or in John the connection between miracles and the "I am" statements). Therefore I am not surprised that some of the minor details are slightly different, or that there are some things that may have happened twice or more (for instance feeding groups of people, ect).

This is important because when you look at these lists of contradictions they always seem to focus on the most minor points in the story that are completely beside the point. A common one is what Jesus last words are on the cross. In Matthew and Mark it is "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?", in Luke it is "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!", and in John it is "It is finished". This is commonly pointed to as a contradiction. It completely ignores though that the point if the passages is not exactly what Jesus said as he died on the cross, but that he died. It also ignores the vast similarity between the accounts, in that all agree that Jesus was on the cross on the Friday before passover at the authorisation of Pilate, and that he died on that Friday. Exactly what his last words were is not the focus of the story, and therefore it doesn't surprise me that there is some disagreement in what is an unimportant detail.

Besides I think it is a catch 22 situation anyway. If the bible did agree on everything then it would be accused of being engineered that way. I actually thing that in some ways the witness of the bible is more compelling with small imperfections, as this demonstrates that the accounts wern
t doctored to fit some agenda as is commonly (and erroneously) claimed.


One reason reincarnation makes sense to me is that whole spiritual growth thing. Look at the world and the people in it. One short life time in comparison to all eternity is not enough opportunity to grow as we need to. It doesn't make sense that a timless loving God in whom there is perfect justice would limit us to just a few years.

Another idea that is contradicted by the bible. The bible (and specifically the psalms) is constantly is telling us how comparatively short human life is. The common image is that of the grass and the flowers, that man quickly withers and dies like the grass. The point that it is making is that human life is short. In Psalm 144 the writer even wonders at why God bothers with humans at all, since they are only like breath and his days are fleeting like a shadow. All this is stated without any mention of re-incarnation, the obvious implication being that death is a once for all thing.

Joey Jo Jo

[cosmosdan]

The problem is though how do you work out what Jesus actually taught. The bible really forms the only reliable source on what Jesus taught, and what his background philosophy was (ie: the OT). The documents that are undesputably written closest in time and place to the teaching if Jesus are in the NT (ie: gospels and some of Pauls letters). If we disreagard these, then there is no real way of knowing what Jesus taught. The only thing we really can do then is just make stuff up.
I do not disregard them. Although I do not believe the Bible is the word of God I maintain a great reverence for the book as a source of study. In a nutshell, I believe Jesus when he says the Spirit will guide us into all truth. I also believe 1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.


I think that Christianity teaches that having Christ as the saviour is the only way to personal transformation. And I think that theology is fundamentally important, regardless of what you believe. Jesus says that his followers are to worship God in "Spirit and truth" (John 4:23). How can we worship God in truth if we know nothing of what he is. Even in just saying we have to love each other, how do we know what love is without first understanding how God loves us?
See above. It became importent for me to seperate truth from tradition. That's an important part worshiping in Spirit and truth. Jesus said not to follow the traditions of men. He also said call no man teacher for there is one who teaches. To me that means that I can gather information from different sources and listen to scholars and study various works, keeping my focus on discerning the truth, and at the end of the day, it is my moral and spiritual responsibility to decide what the truth is for myself and what that means for me. People have studied the Bible as well as other "holy" books for years and still don't agree.Why would I let them dictate to me what the truth is? I don't.

I think that you are right thta there is a process of spiritual transformation that we have to go through. I think though that this process happens once we accept Jesus as our saviour. God then gives us his Holy Spirit which then transforms us over time into the likeness of Jesus. However without first accepting Jesus this process can't happen.
I respectfully disagree. The Bible tells me why this is not true. Jesus tells us what the fruits of the spirit are. Regaedless of lip service it is our actions and choices in day to day life that reveals what spirit we follow. It's very obvious that many people who haven't accepted Christ exhibit the fruits of the spirit. My conclusion. Jesus is not an egotist insisting that we worship him. If we seek love and truth then we are following that spirit. Eventually all who seek the truth unswervingly will come to the truth about Christ.
Matthew 12
32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

And I don't know what version of the NT you are reading, but the idea that it is God who saves, and that God's slavation is enough is at the core of the NT, and inf fact the bible as a whole. It was the basis for the entire reformation, that fainth in God alone was enough, and that church rituals were no necessary for salvation.
I agree it is God who saves. We don't agree on the process. In fitting the Bible passages together and trying to understand we must balance the passages about belief and faith with passages like

Mat.7:

20 "So then, you will know them (17) by their fruits.
21 "(18) Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Mat 16 26 "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.

I also did a study on passages like the one above. Turns out there are many
like this one. for every
Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
there is a
James 2:24
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
or a 2 Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."
To worship in spirit and truth we must discover how these work together.

Large chunks of the NT are devoted to telling it's readers to beware of the Judaisers who insisted that Christians had to follow the law (specifically circumcision) to be saved. It argues quite forcefully that faith in Jesus is ALL that is needed for salvation.
Sure it does. And you can pull those scriptures out of context and make a good case of it. For God so loved the world....and, I am the way the truth and the light, and....there is no other name given...etc As I just pointed out there are just as many passages that speak of us being rewarded and judged according to our works and deeds. How do we reconcile all those passages as well?

There is spiritual transofrmation in Christianity, but it comes as a result of salvation, not before or instead of. To argue otherwise is to put the cart before the horse so to speak.That's a nice theory but it doesn't fit reality. I've met plenty of non Christians who exhibit the fruits of the spirit. I would call accepting Christ as a step in salvation not salvation completed. I would agree that somewhere in our journey it helps to acknowledge that guiding spirit.

Then I am afraid you are missing the point of what Jesus is saying. And if in general your method of reading the bible is just reading what you want the bible to say into different passages, then I don't think you will ever really understand what Jesus taught. All you will learn is more about what you would like to be true.

Funny. I could reprint your paragraph here word for word and it would be just as true and sincere as you present it to me. One exception, I don't think either of us fully understands what Jesus taught,.......... but we will.

[DrDeth]

The overwhelming consensus of experts in the field is that all four authorship traditions of canonical Gospels are completely spurious. I don't bother to qualify my statemenst because I'm not stating anything that isn't regularly taken for granted and asserted without argument in the field.

Odd that the Oxford Companion to the Bible- written by some 300+ of the greatest experts in the field; Rabbis, Professors, writers, scholars, Linquists, Archeaologists, Preists, Skeptics, beleivers and so forth; well researched, completely footnoted, peer reviewed, unbiased, and generally the most respected Publisher in this field- disagrees. :dubious: I guess that those dudes are just "The only dissent comes from a tiny minority of conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence. They are not "experts," they are religious believers and they are perfectly welcome to participate in debates or contribute to journals all they want. They just aren't able to contribute anything that holds up to scrutiny. Their opinions are dictated by their faith, not by methodology." :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dude- I have a cite- backed by over 300 of the worlds greatest experts in the field. You have....your posts. Hmm, let's see- Oxford University press and 300 dudes with PhD after their name vs DtC. Guess who wins.

[cosmosdan]

Just to explain where I am coming from, I don't think that the bible is, as some have claimed, a collection of metaphors on which we place our own meaning. I think that the bible writers had a clear and specific message in writing the biblical books.
Of course they did, and those messages were intended for the people of their own era. Fortunatly, people still being people, we can still find plenty of valuble and enriching material that relates to us today.
And since I also believe the bible to be inspired by God I believe that the message of the bible is consistent.
I can accpet the term inspired for the Bible but I doubt we agree on what that means. The spirit moves through less than perfect people and the Bible has passed from generation to generation through less than perfect people . Since people are not consitent, neither is it.

So when I talk about the bible's view, what I mean is the view of the authors that they were expressing when they wrote their parts. Since then the bible was written with an abjective message in mind I think that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of the bible. Those that do not reveal the original intent of the authors are incorrect, those that do are correct.
I disagree. It is a valuble study tool and the truth that is relevent to the individual is revealed by the spirit. There is a consistent and unchanging truth that we seek and Christ promised the spirit will lead us to. It is contained within us, not within any book. In my studies I discovered that Christians will often interpret passages about the word of God as being about the scriptures. In many cases those passages are about the living word, which is that inner guiding spirit.

In terms of discovering what this view is I think we should take a self consistent type approach. Read some passages and then form an opinion as to what they mean. Then read some more and see if our view still holds. If not change it. Keep going until your framework encorporates the entire bible. I agree that we shouldn't just discard passages. If a passage doesn't agree with our theology, then it is our theology at fault.
OKay, but it appears both you and I have done this and we don't agree. It is a matter of personal interpretation. That doesn't mean any interpretation is just dandy. It means individuals have individual spiritual journeys, and thats okay.


There are a few problems with your reading
<snip>
Your conclusions and how you get there are not conclusive or convincing. You are free to see it that way. My objection is that you think that is the only reasonable and correct way to see it. Neither of us is nessecarily correct. My point is that it is just as reasonable to see this as an example of reincarnation as not based on existing evidence.

3) The background assumption was not that Elijah would be re-incarnated, but that he would be raised from the dead. In Matthew and Mark, the "Who do you say I am" incident says that Jesus is Moses or one of the prophets. That could mean either resurrection or re-incarnation.
It seems obvious that some did believe in reincarnation.
Note here that the assumption is that if one of the prophets was going to come back, it would happen through resurrection, not re-incarnation. So if you are going to argue that JtB was literally Elijah, (dubious, but if we go with it) it is far more logical to claim that we was risen from the dead, not re-incarnated. This is also explains in the transfiguration account, while Elijah and John were both dead the figure was unswervingly called "Elijah", not "John" and certainly not "Elijah/John"
I have no idea where you find the assumption of resurrection here.


To my mind you didn't deal with resurrectino at all, just skirted the issue. The main problem is that for re-incarnation to make any sense you have to comletely divorce the body and the spirit. If the spirit inhabits many bodies, then the body is not a fundamental part of the self. This flies in the face of what the bible says about the resurrection being fundamentally a bodily resurrection. Even in the passages you quoted the body was talked about. Sowing to the body in Galatians makes no sense in a re-incarnation model as then the body is not fundamental to the self.

I thought dust to dust meant exactly that the body is not a fundamental part of the self. Tell you what. I haven't really studied this but if you have some suggested books or passages about this subject I will go over them and we could deal with it in another thread. Our posts are getting to large to continue this subject here,

Work calls. :)

[Captain Amazing]

All this shows is that the Bible contradicts itself. Matthew implies a belief in reincarnation (it pretty much claims flat out that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah) and I would also argue that revelation alludes to a populist belief that the Roman Emperor Domitian was the reincarnation of Nero.

Just to repeat what cmkeller said before, John the Baptist being Elijah wouldn't be a case of reincarnation. Jews at the time believed, and Orthodox Jews still believe, based on the biblical passage, that Elijah never died...that God miraculously took him up to heaven, and will send him back to earth before the messiah comes.

So the belief wasn't that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah. The belief that John the Baptist was Elijah.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Odd that the Oxford Companion to the Bible- written by some 300+ of the greatest experts in the field; Rabbis, Professors, writers, scholars, Linquists, Archeaologists, Preists, Skeptics, beleivers and so forth; well researched, completely footnoted, peer reviewed, unbiased, and generally the most respected Publisher in this field- disagrees. :dubious: I guess that those dudes are just "The only dissent comes from a tiny minority of conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence. They are not "experts," they are religious believers and they are perfectly welcome to participate in debates or contribute to journals all they want. They just aren't able to contribute anything that holds up to scrutiny. Their opinions are dictated by their faith, not by methodology." :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dude- I have a cite- backed by over 300 of the worlds greatest experts in the field. You have....your posts. Hmm, let's see- Oxford University press and 300 dudes with PhD after their name vs DtC. Guess who wins.
Your Oxford book represents the opinions of translators and theologians, not critical scholars. We've gone over this many times before. I am not misrepresenting anything. Why don't you spend some time browsing Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/). It's one of the best NT resources on the internet. Read some articles on individual books and see for yourself where the scholarship is.

[DrDeth]

Your Oxford book represents the opinions of translators and theologians, not critical scholars. We've gone over this many times before. I am not misrepresenting anything. Why don't you spend some time browsing Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/). It's one of the best NT resources on the internet. Read some articles on individual books and see for yourself where the scholarship is.

Yes, you are. Oxford has in it's authors list many critical scholars, not just theologians. See
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195046455/qid=1137693229/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7852925-1621517?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

"." Entries written by over 250 leading international scholars reflect the current state of biblical scholarship"
"The Oxford Companion to the Bible opens with a list of the 267 contributors, most academically affiliated, who come from a variety of religious backgrounds"

". While many zealots and fanatics might disagree with several definitions/discussions such as the topics of homosexuality, prostitution, and any other acts that they feel go against God's words, the editors take a non-biased, neutral approach."

"Oxford University Press has a reputation second to none in the production of scholarly reference works, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. It has certainly upheld that fine reputation for scholarship, objectivity, and authoritative research with its latest 'Oxford Companion to the Bible',""The Companion reflects this diversity: it is consciously pluralistic, and its more than 250 contributors, as well as its editors and editorial advisory board, encompass a wide spectrum of intellectual and confessional perspectives."
"The tone and views of many contributors is sharply cynical over the inspiration of the Bible and the truth of Christianity in general. Some reference material is informative and okay, but this book should be left to egghead intellectuals, humanists and unitarians."



But let's look at your source. Lets take a look at Matthew:

"It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew". Ok.

Now lets take a look at the Catholic Encly:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Indeed, they admit of doubt.

So now, lets look for a line like "It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew" under your cite for John. No such thing. Sure, in this very cynical source- doubt is cast. But no such line as "It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew"- not even close. For fun, let's take a look at the Catholic encycl:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm

Thus, yes, there are doubts- but the consensus of experts in Oxford accepts John as at least a partial "author" of that Gospel- as the best hypothesis.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No critical scholar seriously thinks GJohn was written by an apostle. From the ECW page on GJohn (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html) (bolding mine):
Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

And I wouldn't call Catholic Encyclopedia a very critical source (although it's better than many and is often a very good source. It's still steeped in certain necessary assumptions, though)..

[Trust]

I think reincarnation is fairly prevelent in America today. I don't quite understand the last part of your statement. The idea of Karma and reincarnation teaches us to take responsibility for our choices and be aware of what kind of energy we are sending out into the world. It also teaches us to not judge others who may be ona different path than we are , but rather to respect and revere their journey and their God given right to choose. The interaction that day to day life brings is how we learn from each other. When we see suffering we try to help. Thats part of our journey and our choice. If something happens and we get angry it's an opportunity to learn about our anger and how to deal with it. If everyone valued love and truth like you do then we would not have many problems in the world. The problem comes from the fact that people are not like you. You have to realize that people already misrepresent Christianity for their own uses. What more do you think people will judge others based on karma? Think about it, a person has a shity life. Do we need to help them? Of coarse not, they brought everything on themselves and deserve it....See the problem with this? Also think about the less educated, poor people who would be taught karma. They might not know better. I have no problem with your theory on reincarnation as long as you realize that it is not heavily alluted to. What I do have to make sure is that you understand the consequences of teaching karma to people.
Yes. The NT clearly points to a process of spiritual growth and transformation.
Jesus says the Holy Spirit that lives within us will guide us to all truth. HE says the kingdom of heaven is within us. {via that spiritual transformation} Jesus' tie in is that he taught us to seek and follow that inner spirit and to live according to love and truth.
The Bible also says, Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect,
and to work out your own salvation and continue on to perfection and many many other passages that teach this. Reincarnation teaches that in each successive life we have the opportunity to hear, seek and listen to this inner guideing spirit and when we finally get to where Christ was, total communion and surrender, then we will not need to be reborn into this physical world again. I fundamentally disagree with this assessment. You make it sound as if life is a report card and if we get an 89 percent instead of a 90 percent, we do life over again until we get that 90 percent. Do you honestly believe that a benevolent, all-knowing God would put a report card on our lives? The whole purpose of Christ is to save.


Basically the two main reasons for reincarnation as you present them are:
a) A means for us to have more time to come to know God/Christ
b) A means for reaping what we sow (in a strictly non-judgmental way).


The only thing that I ask is that you take another look at the purpose of Christ because I feel as if you are forgetting about the whole reason for Him coming. The only sinless man died for the sinful. Do you think when Christ says he has come to fulfill God's purpose, he is simply talking about being a good example?

[Voyager]

John the Baptist being either the reincarnation or resurrection of Elijah has many problems. As mentioned several times, he cannot be reincarnated since he never died - which is what makes him special. As far as I am aware, all those resurrected are resurrected in their adult form. Is there any evidence that John was not born of man and woman, and did not have a childhood?

For those of us who do not have faith in Jesus, either atheist or Jew, the words of Jesus or the gospel writer who wrote for him can be much more easily explained as that of Jesus calling John the virtual Elijah, fulfilling one of the many Messianic prophecies that did not come to pass around Jesus. The Immanuel reference is yet another, as is Matthew's claim of a virgin birth based on the misreading of Isaiah. If one reads the Bible with an open mind, the contradictions and problems spring out at you. If you begin reading convinced that there are no contradictions, of course they can be explained away. But the Sherlockians can do the same with their sacred writings, after all.

Now, a question for cosmosdan. If the Christian belief in redemption through Jesus is correct, and if there is reincarnation, does each reincarnation have to be save all over again, or the last before judgement day, or at least one? I don't understand how these two concepts are compatible.

[FriarTed]

In the interests of full disclosure, let's admit that the scholars we agree with are the scholars who agree with us. And where we stand on faith issues has a lot to do with it.

Except for my disagreement that those who die w/o faith in JC go into eternal conscious damnation, I am in agreement with the vast majority of the Fundist/Evangelical community. I am in most points a Theologically & Politically Right-wing Christian. I even believe that the Law of Moses should at least be
studied, but not completely adopted, in developing a good & fair civil & criminal justice system.

That said, I could still believe that the New Testament was written two-three generations after JC, constructed around oral traditions, the consensus of the various C'tian communities. and maybe written snippets, yet still hold it to be an
accurate representation of the works & miraculous deeds of JC & His
Apostles, and thus, God's authoritative written record for us today.

Diogenes does not believe in God, or that Jesus could do actual miracles, or that the NT gives us an adequate representation of what he truly taught & did. If tomorrow, it was announced that a cache of NT documents which substantially match our present NT has been irrefutably dated 40-70 AD, Diogenes may concede that the NT was written by contemporaries of JC & the Apostles and that it might give us a reliable representation of their teachings & purported miracles.
However, this would still not constitute proof of God, that JC is His Son, or that JC
& Pals could do anything outside our natural abilities.

However, it is easiest for us to side with those scholars who seem to support us theologically. So DtC can call those on my side closet fundies & I (with Anne Rice) can call those on his side closet Jesus-haters.

[DrDeth]

No critical scholar seriously thinks GJohn was written by an apostle.

And I wouldn't call Catholic Encyclopedia a very critical source (although it's better than many and is often a very good source. It's still steeped in certain necessary assumptions, though)..

That's written by one, count 'em one author. I have 250.

But here's what you said earlier: "The only dissent comes from a tiny minority of conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence. They are not "experts," they are religious believers and they are perfectly welcome to participate in debates or contribute to journals all they want. They just aren't able to contribute anything that holds up to scrutiny. Their opinions are dictated by their faith, not by methodology."

Oxford is NOT a "a tiny minority of conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence" and is you are also wrong when you thereby claim Oxford is "are not "experts," they are religious believers ". I proved that by the cites above. Do you still maintain that Oxford University press are a bunch of religious fanatics and fundamentalists?

And did you not also say "But did you also not say "Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic The overwhelming consensus of experts in the field is that all four authorship traditions of canonical Gospels are completely spurious" (italics mine)

But in your own damn cite:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
"However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Mark needn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material". Hmm, looks like your own cite is thus "completely spurious. :rolleyes:

You own cite even give credence to Luke writing that Gospel.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html

Yep. I agree. Your cite is spurious, which only leaves mine. :p

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's written by one, count 'em one author. I have 250.
I cited an author who is representative of the mainstream and, most importanly, an author who actually lists the reasons that traditional authorship is rejected by the mainstream.You haven't cited anyone who has made a reasoned argument for the traditional authorship of John. You just keep falling back on this Oxford staff of translators and clergy like it's meaningful and then trying to extropolate from it. How do your theologians and translators counter the hard evidence against traditional scholarship?
But here's what you said earlier: "The only dissent comes from a tiny minority of conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence. They are not "experts," they are religious believers and they are perfectly welcome to participate in debates or contribute to journals all they want. They just aren't able to contribute anything that holds up to scrutiny. Their opinions are dictated by their faith, not by methodology."

Oxford is NOT a "a tiny minority of conservative religionists who assume their conclusions a priori and don't back them up with evidence"
Yes they are.
and is you are also wrong when you thereby claim Oxford is "are not "experts," they are religious believers ". I proved that by the cites above. Do you still maintain that Oxford University press are a bunch of religious fanatics and fundamentalists?
I ddn't say "fanatics" and I didn't say "fundamentalists." I said religious believers and conservatives. I stand by that. Theya ssume their conclusions a priori. They are not performing critical scholarship and they are not in the mainstream.
And did you not also say "But did you also not say "Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic The overwhelming consensus of experts in the field is that all four authorship traditions of canonical Gospels are completely spurious" (italics mine)
Absolutely.
But in your own damn cite:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
"However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Mark needn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material". Hmm, looks like your own cite is thus "completely spurious. :rolleyes:
ECW cites every side. If you keep reading, and if you read all the linked commentaries, you;ll see that it often presents the most traditional views first before blowing them out of the water. The quote above relies on patristic tradition which is no longer taken seriously by the mainstream.

All four authorship traditions of the Canonical gospels have long been abandoned as spurious in mainstream NT scholarship. That is a fact, not an opinion.

[DrDeth]

I cited an author who is representative of the mainstream and, most importanly, an author who actually lists the reasons that traditional authorship is rejected by the mainstream.You haven't cited anyone who has made a reasoned argument for the traditional authorship of John. You just keep falling back on this Oxford staff of translators and clergy like it's meaningful and then trying to extropolate from it. How do your theologians and translators counter the hard evidence against traditional scholarship?


ECW cites every side. If you keep reading, and if you read all the linked commentaries, you;ll see that it often presents the most traditional views first before blowing them out of the water. The quote above relies on patristic tradition which is no longer taken seriously by the mainstream.

All four authorship traditions of the Canonical gospels have long been abandoned as spurious in mainstream NT scholarship. That is a fact, not an opinion.

As you well know, in other posts I have given you lengthy quotes form the book. The book covers all side of the debate, and alights upon John being the source for that Gospel as the most likely hypothesis. Your source makes no hypothesis at all.

And you go on claiming Oxford is just a bunch of "theologians & translators" even though I have proven otherwise: :rolleyes: ." Entries written by over 250 leading international scholars reflect the current state of biblical scholarship"
"The Oxford Companion to the Bible opens with a list of the 267 contributors, most academically affiliated, who come from a variety of religious backgrounds" "Oxford University Press has a reputation second to none in the production of scholarly reference works, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. It has certainly upheld that fine reputation for scholarship, objectivity, and authoritative research with its latest 'Oxford Companion to the Bible',""The Companion reflects this diversity: it is consciously pluralistic, and its more than 250 contributors, as well as its editors and editorial advisory board, encompass a wide spectrum of intellectual and confessional perspectives."

I have 250 experts- you have one.

Indeed- ECW does do that. But not in the case of Mark. Read it yourself-rather than blowing such claims "out of the water" it makes no serious claims at all that Mark is not the author.

In fact, in general, your own source accepts the authorship of Luke, even! :dubious:

However, I agree- your cite is "spurious" and is "no longer taken seriously by the mainstream" :dubious:

[Voyager]

Doesn't make it any less true. Besides it contradicts the common atheist argument that since there is no evidence for God, then God cannot exist.


Since you're new here (and welcome!) I want to mention that this is not a common atheist argument. The actual argument is that the absence of evidence gives us no reason to believe god exists, not that god cannot exist. Certain gods, like the deistic one, offer no direct evidence of existence by definition.

We might say that the god defined by a literal reading of the Bible has been falsified both by internal contradictions and external evidence, but this is not the god you believe in, clearly.

(We have many threads about this, which you can get to if you join.)

Carry on.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

As you well know, in other posts I have given you lengthy quotes form the book. The book covers all side of the debate, and alights upon John being the source for that Gospel as the most likely hypothesis. Your source makes no hypothesis at all.

And you go on claiming Oxford is just a bunch of "theologians & translators" even though I have proven otherwise: :rolleyes: ." Entries written by over 250 leading international scholars reflect the current state of biblical scholarship"
"The Oxford Companion to the Bible opens with a list of the 267 contributors, most academically affiliated, who come from a variety of religious backgrounds" "Oxford University Press has a reputation second to none in the production of scholarly reference works, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. It has certainly upheld that fine reputation for scholarship, objectivity, and authoritative research with its latest 'Oxford Companion to the Bible',""The Companion reflects this diversity: it is consciously pluralistic, and its more than 250 contributors, as well as its editors and editorial advisory board, encompass a wide spectrum of intellectual and confessional perspectives."

I have 250 experts- you have one.
In fact, in general, your own source accepts the authorship of Luke, even! :dubious:

However, I agree- your cite is "spurious" and is "no longer taken seriously by the mainstream" :dubious:[/QUOTE]

What are the CV's of your precious Oxford scholars? What are their areas of expertise? What are their formal arguments for traditional authorship?

ALL arguments for traditional authorship are based on 2nd century patristic tradition. Religious traditionalists accept these traditions at face value (except perhaps for Matthew which is impossible to defend even for conservatives). Mainstream NT scholarship has concluded that the patristics do not hold up to analysis and cannot be taken as serious evidence for those authorship ascriptions. I can't comment on the particular staff of scholars you keep referencing without seeing their CV's and their specific arguments. Bible translations tend to be sponsored by churches, not by groups of critical scholars. I'm betting that most of those involved in your Oxford book are employed as translators and theological exegetes, not as historians or for expertise in other critical disciplines.
Indeed- ECW does do that. But not in the case of Mark. Read it yourself-rather than blowing such claims "out of the water" it makes no serious claims at all that Mark is not the author.
Did you read the whole thing? How about this?
The connection Mark-Peter-Rome looks like second-century guessword based on 1 Pet 5:13. Remove the Petrine connection, and the question of provenance becomes wide open. Mk is a Hellenistic gospel. Its language is Gk, and, as we shall see, its traditions, especially in their christology, contain Hellenistic elements, which Mk qualifies in a Pauline direction.
The piece also mentions some of the other elements which undermine the tradition that the author of Mark was a confidant of Peter (such as Mark's mistakes about Palestinian geography). I can also name several other reason why traditional authorship is not tenable but I don't want to hijack this thread anymore.


On a personal note, DrDeth, I'd like to say that despite our vociferous disagreements, I always enjoy these exchanges and appreciate the work you put into them. You keep me on my toes. I just want to let you know that I bear no ill feeling or resentment about our disputes. Engaging in heated debates with people who couldn't disagree more with what I have to say is one of the things that's always drawn me to this board.

[DrDeth]

What are the CV's of your precious Oxford scholars? What are their areas of expertise? What are their formal arguments for traditional authorship?

ALL arguments for traditional authorship are based on 2nd century patristic tradition.

The piece also mentions some of the other elements which undermine the tradition that the author of Mark was a confidant of Peter (such as Mark's mistakes about Palestinian geography).

On a personal note, DrDeth, I'd like to say that despite our vociferous disagreements, I always enjoy these exchanges and appreciate the work you put into them. You keep me on my toes. I just want to let you know that I bear no ill feeling or resentment about our disputes. Engaging in heated debates with people who couldn't disagree more with what I have to say is one of the things that's always drawn me to this board.

I have posted them before, and once I get home, I can post more. Several of Kysar's strongest arguments are "blown out of the water" by the fact that Oxford (and even the Catholic enclopedia to an extent) accepts the nigh certainty of a redactor, or even several later editors. Which is why neither I (nor Oxford) claim John is the author per se of that Gospel, but rather it's source, or rather that John dictated it to his disciples (perhaps over years, and perhaps while John was somewhat senile, even. He was around 90!). There is no doubt at all that the Gospel comes from John's disciples. I personally do not doubt that much of that Gospel comes from John, albeit not all.

Sure- more or less. But that tradition can be right too, of course.

Indeed, it does cast some doubt upon Marks authorship. But in general, iyour source seems to accept it- as the best hypothesis. And, Mark is possibly an eyewitness to some parts of Jesus's life. (I have some doubts, myself)

Yes, DtC, I enjoy these exchanges also. You are clearly intelligent and well educated. Your problem lies mainly in stating as an absolute FACT something which is highly debatable and debated. You only see in Black or White, not even gray. If you had even said "Many experts doubt that any of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses"- I would have let it pass. But there is no doubt that you know what you are talking about- just how you say it! :p

[Captain Amazing]

Just as a note on sources, the problem with using the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source is that it's 95 years old, so it's not going to be up to date on some of its sources...:)

[Joey Jo Jo]

Cosmosdan

A few points on the debate thus far

1) It looks like to me that your actual beliefs aren't Christian in any real sense of the word at all. It looks like that your beliefs are really from the new-age movement that you express in Christian terms. While the term "Christian" is fairly broad, re-incarnatnation and karma are traditionally excluded from being called Christian

2) It seems that you get a lot of your quotes about the Spirit and such from John's gospel. Even a cursory reading of John's gospel (or the others for that matter) would show that your message is not what Jesus is recorded to have taught. Jesus in several places quite clearly says that only those who accept the Son are the children of God (and by implication have hos Spirit), and those who do not accept the Son do not.
It seems that what you are doing has little to do with objectively studying the bible and what it says. It appears what you are doing is just picking passages that you agree with and ignoring the rest. I pointed out to you how the passages that you quote don't support your conclusions, yet your response seems to be one of just claiming that you are right regardless. And you are free to do that if you want but it hardly seems like a logical or well thought out thing to do. All you are really doing is just creating God in your own image.

3) I think that your ideas of people being lead by the Spirit to truth is contrary to all Christian tradition, and is in of itself illogical. If people were being lead by the spirit you would expect large groups of people being lead to mutually compatable points. This is not the case. People who claim to follow their own logic as you end up in a range of mutually incompatable places. So much so that it can only be concluded that if you are following a spirit that it is not a spirit of truth and unity, but one of lies and confusion.

4) The bible consistently presents God as the creator and sustainer of the world, and therefore is deserving of worship by his creation. The bible also consistently argues that not worshipping God is a grevious sin. I don't know how you can argue that there are some non-Christians have God's Spirit when they refuse to worship him. Your whole premise of there being "good" people who don't worship God. The bible consistently says that only the fools and the wicked people refuse to worship God.

Biblical Scholarship
Just to weigh in some more on the whole concept of biblical scholarship

1) Historically the Liberal position (ie: the one DtC advocates) is anything but mainstream. Many of the positions rejected by Liberals were held as true for the first 1900 years of Christian history. While Liberals love to paint those that disagree with them as religous nutbags, it is worth remembering that it is the Liberal side that is the reactionary side, and that if any claims were to be made of fitting truth to ideology, then it should logically go to them.

2) That while DtC claims that it is the conservatives that ignore evidence, in many ways it is the other way around. The historical record is clearly on the side of the conservative. Nearly all of the accounts of biblical history that we have from antiquity are one the side of the conservatives, or taken as a whole are inconclusive. One of the things that is remarkable about many of the Liberal beliefs about scripture is that as best we can tell they are the only ones in all history who believe them. Liberals in many cases are not siding with monority opinions from history, they are actually making their own opinions that no-one in history apart from they thenselves have believed.
This is interesting as it reveals I think a fundamental arrogance in Liberal scholarship. It also goes against the fundamental principle of history that someone writing closer in time to an event to you probably knows more about it. In this regard it is the Liberals, not the conservatives, who are the enemies of history.

3) Much of the "evidence" that is presented by Liberals in support of their arguments is really just speculations based on literary analysis of texts. In many cases they are not bringing anything new into the discussion, or bringing in anything that wasn't already known. So the Liberal position on the biblie is not based really on modern archeology that has revealed a lot of new information that was not available to previous generations.

4) The division of scholarship into "Liberal" and "Conservative" itself is pretty dubious. As much as Liberals love to categorise scholarship into the rigourous "mainstream" and the "lunatic religious fringe", this simply does not fit where many are at. While there are significant numbers of people at both ends there is also an extensive middle ground as well. Theology is not just two positions, but a spectrum of thought.

Joey Jo Jo.

[DrDeth]

Just as a note on sources, the problem with using the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source is that it's 95 years old, so it's not going to be up to date on some of its sources...:)

The on-line version is copyrighted 2003, and "updated 6 Oct 2005".
It's actually a damn good source. For example on the dating of Christmas, it even accepts- as the best hypothesis- that Dec 25 (of various calculated dates, mind you. Dec 25th was sincerely- and likely incorrectly- calculated by several early Church fathers) was selected from a choice of several possible dates as it would come near the date of the Solstice and the holidays related unto that date.
It shows suprisingly little bias and quite a bit of very good scholarship. It's a good cite, IMHO.

Note that it also shows quite a few of the arguments about the authors of the Gospels.

[Captain Amazing]

The on-line version is copyrighted 2003, and "updated 6 Oct 2005".


Right. The online version is copyrighted 2003 and "updated 6 Oct 2005", but it's a transcription of the book version that's dated 1913. The 2003 was when the people at the New Advent site started copying it online. The 2005 update was to the "List of Popes" to add Benedict. Which is why you get articles like this:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02121b.htm

And why, under the article "Pope Pius X", it can say:

At present (Dec., 1910) complications are feared in Spain, as, also, separation and persecution in Portugal; Pius X has already taken opportune measures. The new Government of Turkey has sent an ambassador to the Pope. The relations of the Holy See with the republics of Latin America are good. The delegations to Chile and to the Argentine Republic were raised to the rank of internuntiatures, and an Apostolic Delegate was sent to Central America

The Catholic encylopedia is a good source. It's just not a very modern or up to date one, and it can generally give a good description of theological matters at the time it was written...just not neccesarily now.

[cosmosdan]

Just to repeat what cmkeller said before, John the Baptist being Elijah wouldn't be a case of reincarnation. Jews at the time believed, and Orthodox Jews still believe, based on the biblical passage, that Elijah never died...that God miraculously took him up to heaven, and will send him back to earth before the messiah comes.

So the belief wasn't that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah. The belief that John the Baptist was Elijah.

Yes, but the Bible also tells us of the birth of John the Baptist. Even if Elijah was caught up into heaven and never experienced physical death in his previous body, that doesn't make it impossible for his spirit to reincarnate as John. The Bible aslo says that Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If Elijah was taken withoout the ynpleasent experience of physical death, it's likely he still gave up his physical body to dwell in a spiritual realm.

[Joey Jo Jo]

Yes, but the Bible also tells us of the birth of John the Baptist. Even if Elijah was caught up into heaven and never experienced physical death in his previous body, that doesn't make it impossible for his spirit to reincarnate as John. The Bible aslo says that Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If Elijah was taken withoout the ynpleasent experience of physical death, it's likely he still gave up his physical body to dwell in a spiritual realm.

Some more thoughts on what the bible reveals about JtB:

1) John himself never actually says that he is Elijah. Jesus is the only one that makes that connection. In fact in John's gospel JtB flat out says that he is NOT Elijah in John 1:21. So if JtB is the re-incarnated Elijah, he must be so without his knowledge, which kind of makes you wonder what the point is.

2) JtB does say in John's gospel, (and in others) that he is the one to come before (in John 1:23 and John 3:28). This fits in with the figurative understanding of Elijah from Malachi, as the role of Elijah in Malachi is to come before the great day of the Lord.

3) The references around Elijah all seem to point to a resurrection or re-appearance of Elijah was expected, not a re-incarnation. Another example is in the crucifixion accounts. When Jesus cries out those around him say that he is calling out for Elijah. Since JtB was dead at this point they obviously didn't expect him to show up. And an on the spot re-incarnation wouldn't do much good because Jesus would be long dead before we was no longer an infant. It seems that the people expected Elijah just to appear, which would mean that he would either come back from heaven where he went up, or that he would rise from the dead. This also fits into Lukes account where the assumption is that if Jesus was one of the prophets, he would have been raised from the dead, not re-incarnated.

4) The point about flesh and blood is not that in God's kingdom we won't have bodies. The point is that the current body != our resurrection body. The quote comes from 1 Corinthians 15:50 and is said in the context of the question in verse 35 as to what the resurrection body will be like. To understand what Paul means, look at the full section


1Co 15:35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"
1Co 15:36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
1Co 15:38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
1Co 15:39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
1Co 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1Co 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1Co 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."

What is being discussed here is not the taking off of the body to eneter heaven. What is being discussed is the transformation of the body from perishable to imperishable. If anything this contradicts your argument as if Elijah had already entered heaven he would have put on his resurrrection body. Why then would he want to be re-incarnated back into an earthly one?

Joey Jo Jo

[Measure for Measure]

Reincarnation is such a non-issue in the Bible that the Oxford Companion to the Bible doesn't even have an entry for it. Sorry, cosmosdan, dude.If you're interested, you may want to look up, "transmigration" (of souls), which is mentioned in Oxford's Annotated Bible. (I'm not saying that it's in the Companion, I'm just suggesting a lead.) See my prev post #45 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7012267&postcount=45).

[Measure for Measure]

Well, the Oxford Companion does says that having John dictate the basis for the Gospel of that name is the most likely hypothesis. Just to throw this into the mix.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd ed, (c) 2001, states, "Who wrote this Gospel? Tradition says it was the apostle John. Scholarly opinion has long held that it was composed by a disciple of John who recorded his preaching." The work also dates the final editing of John to 80-90 C.E. Some of the source material may date to before 70 CE, since its descriptions are apparently consistent with recent archeological finds (re: The Temple). A "longer period of theological gestation and symbolic development" is observed within the text by most scholars.

I'm curious about whether DtC believes that this is an accurate depiction of scholarly consensus.

I'm gathering that John's disciple didn't live to see the final "editing" completed, but that's just my impression. (A little math shows that I may be mistaken: if John was 20 in CE 30, that would make him 70-80 in CE 80-90. Life expectancy at age 20 was about 55 in Roman Times: cite (http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html). If John's disciple was 20 years younger, that would have had him born in CE 30 and living until CE 85 on average. If John survived to age 45, his life expectancy would shift up to about 65, with a death in CE 75.)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Just to throw this into the mix.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd ed, (c) 2001, states, "Who wrote this Gospel? Tradition says it was the apostle John. Scholarly opinion has long held that it was composed by a disciple of John who recorded his preaching." The work also dates the final editing of John to 80-90 C.E. Some of the source material may date to before 70 CE, since its descriptions are apparently consistent with recent archeological finds (re: The Temple). A "longer period of theological gestation and symbolic development" is observed within the text by most scholars.

I'm curious about whether DtC believes that this is an accurate depiction of scholarly consensus.

I'm gathering that John's disciple didn't live to see the final "editing" completed, but that's just my impression. (A little math shows that I may be mistaken: if John was 20 in CE 30, that would make him 70-80 in CE 80-90. Life expectancy at age 20 was about 55 in Roman Times: cite (http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html). If John's disciple was 20 years younger, that would have had him born in CE 30 and living until CE 85 on average. If John survived to age 45, his life expectancy would shift up to about 65, with a death in CE 75.)
The consensus date is more like 100 CE and perhaps as late as 120 CE in its final form.

GJohn is believed to have been composed in multiple layers. Most think the core is what is referred to as a "Signs Gospel" (basically a series of seven miracle stories). There are some long discourses wrapped around this and (this is where the possibility of genuine apostolic tradition comes in), a passion (probably derived from post Marcan oral tradition) and a few anecdotal fragments which may have come from very early oral tradition. There is also an appendix which was added after the body of the text was finished.

So the belief is that even if some authentic anecdotal material survives from an apostle, it is embedded under several other layers of composition (which would include the miracle stories).

[Blake]

What is being discussed here is not the taking off of the body to eneter heaven. What is being discussed is the transformation of the body from perishable to imperishable. If anything this contradicts your argument as if Elijah had already entered heaven he would have put on his resurrrection body. Why then would he want to be re-incarnated back into an earthly one?


That question makes no sense at all. The passage can indee dbe interpreted as describing the transformation of the body from perishable to imperishable. However the passage also says that Jesus was in heaven, and thus had an imperishable body, and that he came to Erath in an earthly one after that.

Quite simply, if we interpret the passage the way you do then we also need to acknowledge that it says that people have incranated into earthly bodies after having incorrupitble spiritual bodies in heaven. If Jesus could undergo such an incarnation for the greater good then certainly Elijah could manage the same trick.

[DrDeth]

Just to throw this into the mix.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd ed, (c) 2001, states, "Who wrote this Gospel? Tradition says it was the apostle John. Scholarly opinion has long held that it was composed by a disciple of John who recorded his preaching." The work also dates the final editing of John to 80-90 C.E. Some of the source material may date to before 70 CE, since its descriptions are apparently consistent with recent archeological finds (re: The Temple). A "longer period of theological gestation and symbolic development" is observed within the text by most scholars.

I'm curious about whether DtC believes that this is an accurate depiction of scholarly consensus.

I'm gathering that John's disciple didn't live to see the final "editing" completed, but that's just my impression. (A little math shows that I may be mistaken: if John was 20 in CE 30, that would make him 70-80 in CE 80-90. Life expectancy at age 20 was about 55 in Roman Times:


Legends say that John lived to be about 90.

The Oxford Companion sez: "None of the proposed restorations takes the problem seriously or resolves it adequately. A third (and more plausible) explanation.." They then go on to describe a 3 stage composition- 1. John the Apostle transmits orally to his followers... 2. John & his disciples move to Ephesus, disciples "commit to writing" what John said. 3. After the death of John there is a final edited version. They explain and deduce these stages with a very long paragraph for each, each backed up. Then "if some such process was involved in the making of Johns Gospel, it explains many of the features of it's composition already discussed."

And, what you posted there seems to be the VERY short version of what the Companion says.

In the first two pages of contributors (that's a little less than half), I counted no less than 8 Professors of History- and the Archbishop of Canterbury, no less!

[Joey Jo Jo]

That question makes no sense at all. The passage can indee dbe interpreted as describing the transformation of the body from perishable to imperishable. However the passage also says that Jesus was in heaven, and thus had an imperishable body, and that he came to Erath in an earthly one after that.

Quite simply, if we interpret the passage the way you do then we also need to acknowledge that it says that people have incranated into earthly bodies after having incorrupitble spiritual bodies in heaven. If Jesus could undergo such an incarnation for the greater good then certainly Elijah could manage the same trick.
No, it doesn't. You seem to assuming that we exist in some pre-incarnate state in heaven in which we have a resurrection body, then we are incarnated into a physical body, and then after we die we go back to a resurrection body. I don't think that we exist in any form of pre-incarnate state. In fact the passage speaks against that as it states that it is the natural (incarnate physical body) that is first, and then following that the spiritual (post incarnate resurrection body)

The only difficult question is what was Jesus pre-incarnation. John's gospel is clear that Jesus (or the Word) existed in a pre-incarnate state before becoming man. All John describes it as is "the Word became flesh" without going into specifics. As best I can tell the bible doesn't really describe what Jesus was like in his pre-incarnate state, so it remains as a mystery. I think though that the point of the incarnation is that Jesus takes on flesh, rathar than changing flesh. It therefore seems unlikely that Jesus in his pre-incarnate state had a resurrection body. There is a definite sense in the bible that Jesus post-resurrection is not the same as Jesus pre-incarnation.

Joey Jo Jo.

[Blake]

No, it doesn't. You seem to assuming that we exist in some pre-incarnate state in heaven in which we have a resurrection body, then we are incarnated into a physical body, and then after we die we go back to a resurrection body.

No, I make no such assumption. I simply read the passage as written.

I don't think that we exist in any form of pre-incarnate state. In fact the passage speaks against that as it states that it is the natural (incarnate physical body) that is first, and then following that the spiritual (post incarnate resurrection body)

If we follow your 'logic' then Jesus must have had a physical body in heaven, since he couldn't have a had a spiritual body before he gained a natural body on Earth. Is this what you are claiming, that Jesus prior to incarnation had existed as a physical body?

If that is not what you are claiming then quite clearly we can not read natural precedes physical as an absolute.

It therefore seems unlikely that Jesus in his pre-incarnate state had a resurrection body.


First off you are now arguing aginst your own position.

If Elijah or Jesus was already in heaven and had put on a resurrrection body why then would they want to be incarnated into an earthly one? You seem to have tied yourself in knots. Either a being with a resurrection body is willing and able to be incarnated into an earthly one, or they are not. You can't logically adopt the position that it is plausible for Jesus but not for Elijah without a shred of evidence. That's just special case pleading and it invalidates your entire position.


Secondly you just said that the natural body must always precede the physcial body. Yet now you seem to want to claim that Jesus had a spiritual body before he had a natural body. You can't have it both ways, does the natural always precede the spiritual, or can some entities like Jesus have a spiritual that precedes the natural? Or are you attempting to argue that the ressurection body is on fact anatural body?

[Joey Jo Jo]

No, I make no such assumption. I simply read the passage as written.



If we follow your 'logic' then Jesus must have had a physical body in heaven, since he couldn't have a had a spiritual body before he gained a natural body on Earth. Is this what you are claiming, that Jesus prior to incarnation had existed as a physical body?

If that is not what you are claiming then quite clearly we can not read natural precedes physical as an absolute.




First off you are now arguing aginst your own position.

If Elijah or Jesus was already in heaven and had put on a resurrrection body why then would they want to be incarnated into an earthly one? You seem to have tied yourself in knots. Either a being with a resurrection body is willing and able to be incarnated into an earthly one, or they are not. You can't logically adopt the position that it is plausible for Jesus but not for Elijah without a shred of evidence. That's just special case pleading and it invalidates your entire position.


Secondly you just said that the natural body must always precede the physcial body. Yet now you seem to want to claim that Jesus had a spiritual body before he had a natural body. You can't have it both ways, does the natural always precede the spiritual, or can some entities like Jesus have a spiritual that precedes the natural? Or are you attempting to argue that the ressurection body is on fact anatural body?

OK, the reason that I assert that humans move from a physical body to a resurrection body and that they do not enter heaven as disembodied spirits is because that is what the bible says. In biblical terms people enter heaven with a resurrection body. The option of entering as purely spirits is not given. Therefore I agree that it is not so much that it is a priori impossible for any spiritual being to be in heaven. What I am arguing is that the bible gives a natural progression from birth to death to resurrection that excludes any idea of re-incarnation.

In terms of what Jesus was in his pre-incarnate state I cannot say with any certainty because the bible doesn't say. To be honest I can't tell you the exact nature of God the Father either for the same reason. All I can say is what the bible says. which is that when he was incarnate Jesus had a physical body, and that when he was resurrected he had a resurrection body. Jesus may have been entirely "Spiritual" (whatever that means) in his pre-incarnate state. I don't kjnow the bible doesn't really say with any certainty.

This does not go against the original argument that death is universally represented in the bible as being followed by resurrection, (either to condemnation or eternal life) with exacly zero references to anything that would support re-incarnation. You can try and cram re-incarnatnion in there, but it simply doesn't fit.

Joey Jo Jo.

[cosmosdan]

Cosmosdan

A few points on the debate thus far

[QUOTE]1) It looks like to me that your actual beliefs aren't Christian in any real sense of the word at all. It looks like that your beliefs are really from the new-age movement that you express in Christian terms. While the term "Christian" is fairly broad, re-incarnatnation and karma are traditionally excluded from being called Christian
That's correct. I am not nor do I claim to be a Christian in any traditional sense of the word. I am a spiritual seeker who reveres the teachings of Christ more than the traditional teachings of man. In fact although I understand and in some cases respect tradition, when people cling to traditon over truth I think they are not following what Christ taught. I don't care about labels. Christian, Wiccan, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist Agnostic. They don't say much about the quality of the person or their priorities. The Bible says seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened. James 1: 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Can I trust this promise? To me it means that God who discerns the true hearts of all people will commune with any who sincerely seeks, no matter the label.
2) It seems that you get a lot of your quotes about the Spirit and such from John's gospel. Even a cursory reading of John's gospel (or the others for that matter) would show that your message is not what Jesus is recorded to have taught. Jesus in several places quite clearly says that only those who accept the Son are the children of God (and by implication have hos Spirit), and those who do not accept the Son do not. really? I notice you have chosen to ignore the other scriptures I mentioned and asked you about. Show me the scriptures that say only those who accept Christ as savior are the children of God and only they have the Holy Spirit, and I'll show you other scriptures that indicate that is not true and your interpretation is incorrect.
It seems that what you are doing has little to do with objectively studying the bible and what it says. It appears what you are doing is just picking passages that you agree with and ignoring the rest. I pointed out to you how the passages that you quote don't support your conclusions, yet your response seems to be one of just claiming that you are right regardless. And you are free to do that if you want but it hardly seems like a logical or well thought out thing to do. All you are really doing is just creating God in your own image.
Are you cognizant of the fact that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of?
Honestly, the fact that I don't find your arguements convincing or compelling doesn't lead to the conclusion that I am illogical or simply ignoreing the obvious truth. I understand your literary representative arguement and how names are not always literal. My point is that your arguements are not proof. They may indicate that your conclusions are one reasonable possiblity but they do not mean that there are no other reasonble conclusions. I hope you are getting my point here.

3) I think that your ideas of people being lead by the Spirit to truth is contrary to all Christian tradition, and is in of itself illogical. If people were being lead by the spirit you would expect large groups of people being lead to mutually compatable points. This is not the case. People who claim to follow their own logic as you end up in a range of mutually incompatable places. So much so that it can only be concluded that if you are following a spirit that it is not a spirit of truth and unity, but one of lies and confusion. Actually I didn't say following my own logic did I? I said I believed in following the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is exactly what Jesus instructed isn't it? PLease honestly examine your own logic here. Christianity doesn't agree with itself. There are various doctrines, beliefs and theories, some mutually incompatible, all under the umbrella of Christianity. Does that mean Christianity should be cast off as irrelevent? Who of all the Christians that disagree are actually following the Holy Spirit? Only the ones that agree with you evidently. Even Paul recognized that we only know part of what there is to know. "Now I see as through a dark glass. Now I know in part" The truth is that many people who sincerely worship God and seek the truth will not agree on everything because we are still on the path to understanding and like apostle Paul, we only see in part. It is wisdom and humility to realize the limits of our knowledge and understanding.
4) The bible consistently presents God as the creator and sustainer of the world, and therefore is deserving of worship by his creation. The bible also consistently argues that not worshipping God is a grevious sin. I don't know how you can argue that there are some non-Christians have God's Spirit when they refuse to worship him. Your whole premise of there being "good" people who don't worship God. The bible consistently says that only the fools and the wicked people refuse to worship God.

The Bible consistantly says that the sincereity of our worship is revealed in our actions not merely with our words. Wouldn't you agree? I already asked you and you failed to answer. How would you explain the people who exhibit what Jesus called the fruits of the Spirit, and yet do not believe as you do? Isn't God the well from which all love is drawn? When God looks into the hearts of people to discern their true intent do you suppose it matters to God whether they call him, Lord, Jehovah, Yaweh, Allah, Great Spirit, or simply Love? What I'm saying that an act of sincere Love, is worshiping God and the scriptures back me up.
7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

[Measure for Measure]

And, what you posted there seems to be the VERY short version of what the Companion says.Well, yes. It's from a 2 page introduction to the Book of John. Six paragraphs in total. I don't want to imply that the author of the introduction was providing a precis of the Companion though.

[Joey Jo Jo]

[QUOTE=Joey Jo Jo]Cosmosdan

A few points on the debate thus far

That's correct. I am not nor do I claim to be a Christian in any traditional sense of the word. I am a spiritual seeker who reveres the teachings of Christ more than the traditional teachings of man. In fact although I understand and in some cases respect tradition, when people cling to traditon over truth I think they are not following what Christ taught. I don't care about labels. Christian, Wiccan, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist Agnostic. They don't say much about the quality of the person or their priorities. The Bible says seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened. James 1: 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Can I trust this promise? To me it means that God who discerns the true hearts of all people will commune with any who sincerely seeks, no matter the label.
really? I notice you have chosen to ignore the other scriptures I mentioned and asked you about. Show me the scriptures that say only those who accept Christ as savior are the children of God and only they have the Holy Spirit, and I'll show you other scriptures that indicate that is not true and your interpretation is incorrect.

Are you cognizant of the fact that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of?
Honestly, the fact that I don't find your arguements convincing or compelling doesn't lead to the conclusion that I am illogical or simply ignoreing the obvious truth. I understand your literary representative arguement and how names are not always literal. My point is that your arguements are not proof. They may indicate that your conclusions are one reasonable possiblity but they do not mean that there are no other reasonble conclusions. I hope you are getting my point here.
Actually I didn't say following my own logic did I? I said I believed in following the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is exactly what Jesus instructed isn't it? PLease honestly examine your own logic here. Christianity doesn't agree with itself. There are various doctrines, beliefs and theories, some mutually incompatible, all under the umbrella of Christianity. Does that mean Christianity should be cast off as irrelevent? Who of all the Christians that disagree are actually following the Holy Spirit? Only the ones that agree with you evidently. Even Paul recognized that we only know part of what there is to know. "Now I see as through a dark glass. Now I know in part" The truth is that many people who sincerely worship God and seek the truth will not agree on everything because we are still on the path to understanding and like apostle Paul, we only see in part. It is wisdom and humility to realize the limits of our knowledge and understanding.


The Bible consistantly says that the sincereity of our worship is revealed in our actions not merely with our words. Wouldn't you agree? I already asked you and you failed to answer. How would you explain the people who exhibit what Jesus called the fruits of the Spirit, and yet do not believe as you do? Isn't God the well from which all love is drawn? When God looks into the hearts of people to discern their true intent do you suppose it matters to God whether they call him, Lord, Jehovah, Yaweh, Allah, Great Spirit, or simply Love? What I'm saying that an act of sincere Love, is worshiping God and the scriptures back me up.

To be honest I am getting tired of this debate because it is becoming increasingly clear that you don't seem to care of your position is consistent or not. Since you believe that scripture is fundamentally inconsistent then there is no way that I can demonstrate to you that your position does not fit with what the bible says, since you can just say that any inconsistency with the bible and you is because of the bible's inconsistency, not your misunderstanding.

For what it is worth I think that your position is fundamentally strange in that you believe in things that are at best not directly taught by the bible or Jesus (such as re-incarnation), your beliefs are much more new-age than Christian, yet you insist on holding onto the bible as some sort of guide. Ultimately though since you shy away from saying that all of the bible is the word of God you end up just picking buts and pieces that you like, and then try to justify it by claiming to be following Jesus. You are free to do what you want, but if you are just going to follow your own ideas of spirituality you should at least have the courage to admit that rather than hiding behind Jesus.

In terms of people woeshipping God without following Jesus, well Jesus as he is recorded in the bible would disagree with you. A read though the gospel of John alone provides these passages which talk about people having faith in Jesus being justified, and those that do not are not.


Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Joh 4:13 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again,
Joh 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty forever. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Joh 5:22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
Joh 5:23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
Joh 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Joh 6:27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Joh 6:56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

Joh 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.
Joh 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"
Joh 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Joh 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."

Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Joh 8:45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
Joh 8:46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
Joh 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Joh 10:7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Joh 10:8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
Joh 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
Joh 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
Joh 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Joh 12:26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.

Joh 12:44 And Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.
Joh 12:45 And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.
Joh 12:46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.
Joh 12:47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.
Joh 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak.
Joh 12:50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me."

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Joh 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

Joh 14:1 "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.
Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Joh 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
Joh 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."

Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

Joh 15:23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also.

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Joh 18:37 Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."


And all of that is just from one of the gospels. The other gospels and the epistles contain much more. Explain it away if you want, but the Jesus of the bible CLEARLY expected his followers to worship him, and that he was the only way to having relationship with God.

Which leads me into the point about the spirit and being justified by works or by faith. I know most of the "saved by works" passages that you would quote. The logic behind these is best summed up in John 6:29, that the work of God is to believe in the one that he has sent. The assumption behind these passages is that everyone who has faith in Christ has done good, and all those that have not had faith in Christ have done bad.

I simply don't know how you can say that it is OK to follow your own path and not acknowledge God (ie: Jesus) when Jesus himself says that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your being. The idea that there are many paths to salvation and that different religions represent different paths is NOT an idea found in the bible anywhere. In fact hugh chunks of the OT is devoted to God telling off the Israelites for following other Gods and not him. He even goes so far as to call the nation of Israel a whore in Hosea and in Ezekiel. The logic behind this is that it is God who created the world and it was God who was sustaining their lives. For them to then go off and worship other Gods that not only gave them nothing but that weren't even real is incredibly insulting to God. And he calls them out on it.

And in terms of the original discussion about re-incarnation, I understand that sometimes passages have more than one logical interpretation. My point is that JtB is literally Elijah re-incarnated is NOT a reasonable interpretation of the passage. Given the context the figurative name hypothesis is far more likely, and failing that the JtB was Elijah returned from heaven seems much more likely. Sure, the passage doesn't say explicitly that Elijah wasn't re-incarnated into JtB, but there is exactly zero evidence in the text itself or in the wider bible that re-incarnation is how we are to understand that passage. You could just as reasonably argue that aliens implanted DNA from Elijah into Elizabeth creating a clone of Elijah that was JtB. That makes absolutely as much sense as JtB being the re-incarnated Elijah.

Joey Jo Jo

[cosmosdan]

If everyone valued love and truth like you do then we would not have many problems in the world. The problem comes from the fact that people are not like you. You have to realize that people already misrepresent Christianity for their own uses. What more do you think people will judge others based on karma? Think about it, a person has a shity life. Do we need to help them? Of coarse not, they brought everything on themselves and deserve it....See the problem with this? Also think about the less educated, poor people who would be taught karma. They might not know better. I have no problem with your theory on reincarnation as long as you realize that it is not heavily alluted to. What I do have to make sure is that you understand the consequences of teaching karma to people. Let's be clear. Karam does not teach that you don't help people because they deserve what they are getting. I have no idea why you think Karma is more harmful to the poor and uneducated. I can't make any sense of that. The wheel of nature in reincarnation isn't much different than the old saying, "What goes around comes around"
I fundamentally disagree with this assessment. You make it sound as if life is a report card and if we get an 89 percent instead of a 90 percent, we do life over again until we get that 90 percent. Do you honestly believe that a benevolent, all-knowing God would put a report card on our lives? The whole purpose of Christ is to save.
A report card is not how I meant it. It is more the consequences of our own choices. Honestly, I am unsure how Jesus fits in. I have a suspicion that Christianity doesn't quite get Jesus either. The problem is too many really think they do. I am content that in seeking to understand love and truth I will come to understand Christ as well.


Basically the two main reasons for reincarnation as you present them are:
a) A means for us to have more time to come to know God/Christ
b) A means for reaping what we sow (in a strictly non-judgmental way).

A fair assessment

The only thing that I ask is that you take another look at the purpose of Christ because I feel as if you are forgetting about the whole reason for Him coming. The only sinless man died for the sinful. Do you think when Christ says he has come to fulfill God's purpose, he is simply talking about being a good example?
Rest assured that it is a subject I seek to understand. A good example is a vast understatement. Jesus altered the spiritual plateau of the world and has touched the lives of millions to move them toward spiritual growth. What I don't believe is that the physical death of Christ was somehow a bloody atonement for the sins of all mankind, in a similar way to how the Jews used to treat goats. It's the spiritual nature of the event that matters more than the physical.

[cosmosdan]

To be honest I am getting tired of this debate because it is becoming increasingly clear that you don't seem to care of your position is consistent or not. Since you believe that scripture is fundamentally inconsistent then there is no way that I can demonstrate to you that your position does not fit with what the bible says, since you can just say that any inconsistency with the bible and you is because of the bible's inconsistency, not your misunderstanding.

I don't believe my position is inconsistent. I have tried to make it clear and evidently haven't done so. What I do see is that while you accuse me of cherry picking pasasages while doing exactly that. I am happy to discuss the Bible from the standpoint of it being the word of God. If we accept that as true then we must try and reconcile the passages I mentioned as well as others to try and understand the complete message of the Bible. You'll note that I have backed up my beliefs with Biblical passages and can continue to do so in a logical reasonable manner. You will not agree and tell me your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong. In the end all that is is your opinion. You might point out years of Christian tradition and how many people agree with you. Sorry, ...that doesn't matter to me. My responsibility is to decide honestly for myself what I believe and where the spirit is leading me, since that's what Christ taught me to do.

For what it is worth I think that your position is fundamentally strange in that you believe in things that are at best not directly taught by the bible or Jesus (such as re-incarnation), your beliefs are much more new-age than Christian, yet you insist on holding onto the bible as some sort of guide. Ultimately though since you shy away from saying that all of the bible is the word of God you end up just picking buts and pieces that you like, and then try to justify it by claiming to be following Jesus. You are free to do what you want, but if you are just going to follow your own ideas of spirituality you should at least have the courage to admit that rather than hiding behind Jesus.
History tells us that reincarnation was taught by Christian theologians for a few hundred years after Jesus. Should we not question why that was and what happened to those beliefs? A church corrupted by it's merger with the state declared them heresy and then proceeded to not worship Christ as they persecuted and murdered those who disagreed with them. You can choose to value the traditions of that corrupt church if you like. I have good reason to doubt them.
IMHO I follow the teachings of Jesus by seeking to commine with and follow the Holy Spirit over the traditions and teachings of men. I clearly see that in the Bible and in his words. OTOH can you show me any passages that tell me to follow a book and that it's God's plan that I do so. How about other mens interpretation of said book. Where does it tell me to follow that rather than the Holy Spirit?

In terms of people woeshipping God without following Jesus, well Jesus as he is recorded in the bible would disagree with you. A read though the gospel of John alone provides these passages which talk about people having faith in Jesus being justified, and those that do not are not.And all of that is just from one of the gospels. The other gospels and the epistles contain much more. Explain it away if you want, but the Jesus of the bible CLEARLY expected his followers to worship him, and that he was the only way to having relationship with God.

That was really long and unessecary but onward. The question is what is actual worship of God and Jesus? What constitutes following the teaching of Christ? Not by our standards but by his. As I've already pointed out, it's following the Holy Spirit that will lead us to acts of love, compassion, and courageous honesty.

Not every one that says Lord Lord but he who DOES THE WILL ....right?
Here's another example.
The parable of the sheep and goats in Matt 25:31-46

The goats who thought they had done much in the name of the Lord {meaning they were obviously religious but missing the point} were sent away. The sheep didn't know why they were being rewarded. Wouldn't someone who followed Christ know why they were being rewarded? Here Jesus obviously points out that real worship is reflected by your acts of love and compassion, not lip service.
Which leads me into the point about the spirit and being justified by works or by faith. I know most of the "saved by works" passages that you would quote. The logic behind these is best summed up in John 6:29, that the work of God is to believe in the one that he has sent. The assumption behind these passages is that everyone who has faith in Christ has done good, and all those that have not had faith in Christ have done bad.
WOW...assumption is indeed the correct term. That seems to be a convoluted way of forceing the scripture to fit presupposed beliefs. There are numerouos passages that clearly state we {mankind not just Chistians} will be judged according to our works and rewarded according to our deeds. Not 1 not 2 numerous. If you truly believe the Bible is the word of God then you must believe those verses are also true and the challenge is to then reconcile them with the passages refering to faith in Christ being enough to save us. If A is true and B is also true, then what is the truth that equals the sum of A and B?

I simply don't know how you can say that it is OK to follow your own path and not acknowledge God (ie: Jesus) when Jesus himself says that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your being. Try to get this, That's not what I said. Of course love God with all your being. What I'm saying is that loving God is deeper than the superficial language of organized religion. It occurs within the individual on a level that we cannot see but God sees. If someone rejects the wrathful God of fundamentalists they are not rejecting God, but simply some human teaching.

Work calls. I'll complete this response later.

[cosmosdan]

The idea that there are many paths to salvation and that different religions represent different paths is NOT an idea found in the bible anywhere.
Then someone better tell the hundreds of different Christian denominations.
I agree there is one true path and it exists within us when we follow the Holy Spirit. It's not the name of our religion or the name we give lip service to. By one spirit do we become members of the same body.
And in terms of the original discussion about re-incarnation, I understand that sometimes passages have more than one logical interpretation. My point is that JtB is literally Elijah re-incarnated is NOT a reasonable interpretation of the passage. Given the context the figurative name hypothesis is far more likely, and failing that the JtB was Elijah returned from heaven seems much more likely. Sure, the passage doesn't say explicitly that Elijah wasn't re-incarnated into JtB, but there is exactly zero evidence in the text itself or in the wider bible that re-incarnation is how we are to understand that passage. You could just as reasonably argue that aliens implanted DNA from Elijah into Elizabeth creating a clone of Elijah that was JtB. That makes absolutely as much sense as JtB being the re-incarnated Elijah.
Joey Jo Jo

Again, this is only your opinion. If that passage existed in a void I might agree with you but it does not. In this thread I've pointed out several passages that indicate reincarnation. The other factor that strengthens my belief is the very obvious references to a process of spiritual growth and things like "continue on to perfection" or "Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" or "work out your salvation." In the face of eternity and a timless God and this process of spiritual growth that is so clear in the Bible, does it make sense that we only have a few years to get our act together. Not to me. Is it reasonable to consider that a corrupt church might suppress a legitimate doctrine for it's own purposes? Again, yes.

[Trust]

Let's be clear. Karam does not teach that you don't help people because they deserve what they are getting. I have no idea why you think Karma is more harmful to the poor and uneducated. I can't make any sense of that. The wheel of nature in reincarnation isn't much different than the old saying, "What goes around comes around" Karma in the way you are viewing it does not teach to not help people. Yes. The problem I am seeing is that you are attempting to understand other people based on your own values. Take for instance a racist person. Someone who completely pre-judges black people. Under your set of values, this almost does not even make sense. What you have to realize is that different people have different values. Do you not know the negative consequences karma has had in some eastern countries? People don't give two shits about the lower people and their excuse is that they deserve it based on their past lives experiences. It provides a reason for people to justify negative actions. Would you be okay with giving people a logical reason for being racist? The only facts we know are that we have no idea whether we get what we deserve. And Christ taught just the opposite. That we cannot simply know what people deserve and do not deserve. Tragedies strike sinner and saint alike.




Rest assured that it is a subject I seek to understand. A good example is a vast understatement. Jesus altered the spiritual plateau of the world and has touched the lives of millions to move them toward spiritual growth. What I don't believe is that the physical death of Christ was somehow a bloody atonement for the sins of all mankind, in a similar way to how the Jews used to treat goats. It's the spiritual nature of the event that matters more than the physical.What intellectual leap do you have to do to get past

Timothy 2:3-6-3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

A ransom for all men. What does this mean to you?


I must ask you what your reasons are for finding a biblical basis for reincarnation. The one thing I find troubling about a forum such as this is that we never find out peoples reasons for what they say. Your reasons are the most important thing when discussing a non proveable discussion. Everyone knows that when it comes to scientific discussions, you have to be truthful because what you say can be verified. This is obviously not quite the same in discussions about life. So what are your reasons? From what I have gathered (and please correct me at the slightest misunderstanding) is that you are looking for a reason for people to have more time to find God/Christ, to understand punishment/reward, and to have a better understanding of how you reach salvation. In regards to the last question about how you reach salvation, it seems as if you have a problem with Christs' and Gods' explanation that you need to know Christ to go to heaven. You appear to be making a way for other people who do not know Christ to know him in other lives. But why would you have a problem with people who have an honest chance to know Christ, who simply do not accept Him? Is that not a good enough reason to turn down someone? It seems as if you know exactly what Christ is teaching, you just are not willing to accept it.

[jeffh3000]

Yes, but there is a difference beween resurrection and reincarnation.

You'll probably hear several versions of what the details of reincarnation means. There are various forms. For myself, I believe that there is a process of spiritual growth that goes through several lives depending on our choices. When we reach a certain point ,one with God, or the Universe or spiritual perfection, whichever term one prefers, then there is no need to be physically reborn to this earth. When you graduate from high school you don't need to go back to 6th grade to learn anything. You move forward. Jesus had reached that point so his resurrection, was not the same as the learning process of reincarnation. Personally I believe these things are all pointed to in the Bible.

Well, while this is all true, many scholars have debated whether Jesus appeared in a different physical body (at least in terms of appearance) after the resurrection, as he was not recognized by those that knew him well.

In that context, if one wanted to, one could imply or count this as a form of reincarnation, while it isn't the way that we usually consider it in the strictest sense.

[Joey Jo Jo]

Cosmosdan
Let me see if I can make this clearer.


With the whole faith/works issue.
As far as I can see you are envisioning essentially 3 or four sets of people.
1) Those that have faith in Jesus and have "good works"
2) Those that have faith in Jesus and do not have "good works"
3) Those that do not have faith in Jesus and have "good works"
4) Those that do not have faith and do not have "good works"

It seems that you are arguing that of these four groups, groups 1 and 3 are populated by "good" people who go to heaven, not sure what you think about 2, and 4 is full of bad people that do not go to heaven.

This view is NOT how the bible presents it. In the biblical view groups 1-4 are all full of bad people, and it is only the grace of God that saves any, in this case those in group 1.

Now you retort "what about the saved by your deeds passages". These fit into this view because in the eyes of God the "good deeds" that these passages talk about demonstrate your membership of group 1.

So you may ask, what about group 2, they have faith in God, why aren't they saved? The answer is in passages like James

Jam 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
Jam 2:11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Jam 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
Jam 2:13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Jam 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jam 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
Jam 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jam 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!
Jam 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jam 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Jam 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.
Jam 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Jam 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
Jam 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

What James is saying here is NOT that you can be saved by works alone, what he is saying is that faith without works is no faith at all. That one of the necessary characteristics of faith is that it leads people into good works. And this is the understanding that evangelicals have about the "saved by works" type passages. That they are not saying that it is possible to be saved by works alone, but that the works that are talked about are demonstrative of a saving faith.

Now, what about the people in group 3 you ask? Aren't they "good" people. Don't their good works show evidence that they have the Holy Spirit? Aren't they saved as well. The answer is no., they are not saved, because we are saved by faith, and they have none.

First of all it is worth pointing out that in God's eyes the set of "good people" that do not worship him is an empty set. To God failing to love God is a grevious sin. To see how God looks at people worshipping other Gods (or none at all) look at Ezekiel 16. This passage talks about Israel as a young child that was rescued and nurtured by God, but when it came time for her marriage instead of being betrothed to God who loved her and cared for her she became a skanky whore, going after other gods that did nothing for her. That is how God sees people worshipping other gods, and it is not the actions of a "good" person.

Fundamentally Christianity is not a legalistic religion. It is not about obeying all the rules that God lays down. It is about relationship, most importantly relationship with God, and secondly relationship with each other. Saying that Christianity is just about loving others misses the fact that Jesus saw loving God as being even more important than loving others (since loving God was the first commandment, and loving others was the second). And Jesus and the bible writers make this point in a variety of ways. Even as you pointed out, that Christians are to be one body, yes, but with Christ as the head. Those that do not accept Jesus cannot be part of the body for they are not united with its head. Secondly, think about how the bible presents heaven. The fundamental point about heaven is that heaven is where God is with his people. Why would someone who is not in relationship with God want to spend eternity with Him?

Secondly on the group three people the bible would also say that those in group three do NOT have the Holy Spirit either. The point if the Holy Spirit is not to just make people do good things. The point if the Holy Spirit is as the bible says to testify to the truth of Christ.

Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
1Jo 4:4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
1Jo 4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.
1Jo 4:6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

1Jo 2:21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
1Jo 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
1Jo 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

So people who do not accept Jesus do not have the Holy Spirit, because that is what the Spirit does, testify to Christ. Even in terms of its transforming work, the Spirit transforms people into the likeness of Christ. Jesus worshipped God the Father. Of you don't worship God the Father then you are not in the likeness of Christ, and therefore are not being transformed by his Spirit.

Now, some questions for you

1) You keep accusing me of being inconsistent in my view of what the bible says. Well then how do you treat the legion of passages that make it quite clear that Jesus is the sacrifce for sin, and that we are saved by faith alone. A sample of which

Mar 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

om 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain?
Gal 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith--
Gal 3:6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?
Gal 3:7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Phi 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Phi 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phi 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Phi 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Phi 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Phi 3:3 For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh--
Phi 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
Phi 3:5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
Phi 3:6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless.
Phi 3:7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
Phi 3:8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
Phi 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--
Phi 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
Phi 3:11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

2Ti 1:8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God,
2Ti 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
2Ti 1:10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

1Jo 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jo 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Anyway, what do you see these passages as saying? Are we saved by faith alone or not?

2) How do you know that you have the Holy Spirit? The bible is pretty clear that that people get the Spirit by confessing Christ as the Messiah (as in Galatians 3:2). If you don't do that, then why would you think that you have the Spirit? Or do you think that everyone just has the Spirit by default?

3) How do you know what is the leading of the Spirit and what is you just doing whatever you want? Or is whatwver you want necessarily the leading of the Spirit? Related to this, can you sin, or does the Spirit always lead you from sin into truth?

4) Do I have God's Spirit working in me? If so, then if the Spirit is to lead us to truth, why then do I say that you are fundamentally wrong in your reading of the bible. In fact why would just about every Christian community say that you are reading the bible wrong? Are you the only one with the Spirit who understands the truth? Does it matter that if we are being lead mainly by the Spirit that the Spirit seems to be leading different people in vastly different and mutually exclusive directions?

Joey Jo Jo

[Tevildo]

In the face of eternity and a timless God and this process of spiritual growth that is so clear in the Bible, does it make sense that we only have a few years to get our act together. Not to me.
Trying to pour a little oil on troubled waters here, although I fear that my efforts may not be particularly successful. :)

cosmodan, although I have the greatest respect for your position, and recognize that it's a very noble and uplifting attitude to take, I'm afraid I have to agree with Trust that it's not compatible with Christianity - that is to say, the core doctrines of the majority of modern Christian churches.

If your argument is that the Christian church of today has departed from the teachings of Jesus, then I accept that you do have some valid points. But I would also say that, for better or for worse, the Christian doctrine of personal salvation through Jesus' sacrifice - "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28) - can't be reconciled with your view that our salvation, or whatever word you prefer, comes through our own spiritual development over the course of many lives. On the mainstream Christian viewpoint, our salvation comes only through Jesus' sacrifice and God's mercy, not through our own efforts.

Again, I'm not saying that your position is wrong, or that the way you've chosen doesn't lead towards God. But - it's not the Christian path, if we use "Christian" to mean "what the Christian church of today believes".

[cosmosdan]

Karma in the way you are viewing it does not teach to not help people. Yes. The problem I am seeing is that you are attempting to understand other people based on your own values. Take for instance a racist person. Someone who completely pre-judges black people. Under your set of values, this almost does not even make sense. What you have to realize is that different people have different values.
I don't understand this. Of course different people have different values. PLease explain.

Do you not know the negative consequences karma has had in some eastern countries? People don't give two shits about the lower people and their excuse is that they deserve it based on their past lives experiences. It provides a reason for people to justify negative actions. Would you be okay with giving people a logical reason for being racist? The only facts we know are that we have no idea whether we get what we deserve. And Christ taught just the opposite. That we cannot simply know what people deserve and do not deserve. Tragedies strike sinner and saint alike.

Um....yeah....and nobody has ever used Christianity to justify negative actions. Comon you know better than that. Buddhism which contains reincarnation teaches that we revere all life as a sacred part of the greater whole. That means we revere the poor, and all races. It's no different than what Jesus taught "Love thy neighbor as thyself" Where's the prejudice in that?




What intellectual leap do you have to do to get past

Timothy 2:3-6-3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

A ransom for all men. What does this mean to you?
Honestly, I'm not sure. What keeps coming back to me is that God is a spirit and we're talking about a spiritual realm, so the atonement and Christ's ransom for us is on some spiritual level, not the physical one that is usually stressed. One thought that occurs to me. We do know that there was much controversy about Christ being just an exstention of Judism. The concept of Jesus being a physical sacrifice for our sins springs from Jewish religious practice and tradition doesn't it? Perhaps this author leaned heavily in that direction. Also keep in mind that Jesus told his disciples that their was much they were not ready to learn. Is it possible and maybe reasonable, to think that the authors of the Bible {we're not sure who they are} didn't fully grasp the significance and true meaning of Christ on earth?
I mean it's 2000 years later. Do we grasp it yet?
I must ask you what your reasons are for finding a biblical basis for reincarnation. The one thing I find troubling about a forum such as this is that we never find out peoples reasons for what they say. Your reasons are the most important thing when discussing a non proveable discussion. Everyone knows that when it comes to scientific discussions, you have to be truthful because what you say can be verified. This is obviously not quite the same in discussions about life. So what are your reasons?
As I mentioned, I asked myself if reincarnation was in any way compatible with what Christ taught. From my studies I believe it is.
My reason saying so is because it's what I believe, as simple as that. I want to seperate truth from tradition. Moreover I find certain Christian doctrine and practices to be contrary to the truth that Christ taught, and terribly distorted, promoting a real lack of unity as people. Believeing as I do, why wouldn't I say so? Basically I would like people to at least consider alternatives to tradition.
Let me add that at the end of the day, what choices we are making moment to moment, whether acts of kindness and compassion or selfishness, are what matters most. All this speculation about the next life doesn't matter a whole lot.
Of course, if we choose spiritual growth as a priority we do have to make choices about how that happens.

From what I have gathered (and please correct me at the slightest misunderstanding) is that you are looking for a reason for people to have more time to find God/Christ, to understand punishment/reward, and to have a better understanding of how you reach salvation. In regards to the last question about how you reach salvation, it seems as if you have a problem with Christs' and Gods' explanation that you need to know Christ to go to heaven. You appear to be making a way for other people who do not know Christ to know him in other lives. But why would you have a problem with people who have an honest chance to know Christ, who simply do not accept Him? Is that not a good enough reason to turn down someone? It seems as if you know exactly what Christ is teaching, you just are not willing to accept it.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding of what I am saying. No No No I don't have a problem with needing to know Christ to go to heaven. What I have a problem with is the widespread misunderstanding of what that actually means.
Jesus said look for the kingdom of heaven within yourself. I repeat, everyone who sincerely seeks love and truth will have to come to the truth about Christ. So if a Buddhist, Muslim, or Atheist sincerely strives to be loving and truthful will they be punished for not accepting Jesus by name, while a slightly dishonest and impatient Christian is forgiven and recieves eternal reward? PLease tell me that doesn't make any sense to you either.

[cosmosdan]

Well, while this is all true, many scholars have debated whether Jesus appeared in a different physical body (at least in terms of appearance) after the resurrection, as he was not recognized by those that knew him well.

You are quite right, I had forgotten that. Interesting point.

In that context, if one wanted to, one could imply or count this as a form of reincarnation, while it isn't the way that we usually consider it in the strictest sense.

I suppose you could. I prefer the concept that once we reach a certain spiritual height we can choose how we want to appear to mortals if we intereact with them.
Remeber also that Christ told MAry not to touch him after he ressurected because " I have not yet ascended to the father" WHat's that all about?

[cosmosdan]

Trying to pour a little oil on troubled waters here, although I fear that my efforts may not be particularly successful. :)

cosmodan, although I have the greatest respect for your position, and recognize that it's a very noble and uplifting attitude to take, I'm afraid I have to agree with Trust that it's not compatible with Christianity - that is to say, the core doctrines of the majority of modern Christian churches.

If your argument is that the Christian church of today has departed from the teachings of Jesus, then I accept that you do have some valid points. But I would also say that, for better or for worse, the Christian doctrine of personal salvation through Jesus' sacrifice - "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28) - can't be reconciled with your view that our salvation, or whatever word you prefer, comes through our own spiritual development over the course of many lives. On the mainstream Christian viewpoint, our salvation comes only through Jesus' sacrifice and God's mercy, not through our own efforts.

Again, I'm not saying that your position is wrong, or that the way you've chosen doesn't lead towards God. But - it's not the Christian path, if we use "Christian" to mean "what the Christian church of today believes".

I see your point and I tend to agree if we're talking about what most Christian churches teach. Yet, it is there in the very Bible Christans call the word of God. I readily admit the allusions to reincarnation itself are few. You might call that a conspicuous absence until you study the history of the church and the belief in the church. Then rational explanations present themselves. For me the strongest point is not the brief references to what seems like reincarnation but might be something else. It's the numerous references to the process of spiritual growth through the spirit living within us. It's passages like "continue on to prefection" and "be ye perfect" that indicate what the goal is. Jesus taught not just to follow religious ceremony and try to be nice, but don't worry if you occasionaly fail because you're forgiven. He taught that we are to be one with God through the Spirit as he was. Seeing that clearly stated makes spiritual growth through reincarnation seem a more reasonable answer.

Years ago a minister said "You can save a man from drowning but he still has a life to lead after that" The decision to accept Christ is only one step of the journey.
In an old tract that we here on SDMB love to ridicule I saw a cartoon of man and God and a bridge spanning the gulf between the two labeled Christ. Believing the bridge is there for you is one thing. To cross it you have to take steps, one after the other. You may at times be tempted and take backward steps but it's not instantaneous. The bridge is there by the grace and love of God so we don't earn anything, but we do have to take the steps that lead accross the bridge. I/4 way across isn't it, neither is 1/3 , 1/2, or 3/4, although they are progress.

Well enough of that.... I thank you for your input and I hope I've expressed myself without malice. None is intended.

[cosmosdan]

Let me see if I can make this clearer.

I appreciate your willingness to continue. I've had these conversations before and I know they can be frustrating. Personally I find that explaining and defending my beliefs helps me to claify them for myself. You get asked harder questions by those who don't agree with you rather than discussing with those who do. It reminds me of the passage they reasoned together for days concerning the scriptures. Sincere thanks. I would request out of consideration for other posters that you give me scriptural chapter and verse ie James 2:10-26, which I promise to read rather than create such huge posts. This one, however is pretty interesting.


With the whole faith/works issue.
As far as I can see you are envisioning essentially 3 or four sets of people.
1) Those that have faith in Jesus and have "good works"
2) Those that have faith in Jesus and do not have "good works"
3) Those that do not have faith in Jesus and have "good works"
4) Those that do not have faith and do not have "good works"
Okay lets start with this.
It seems that you are arguing that of these four groups, groups 1 and 3 are populated by "good" people who go to heaven, not sure what you think about 2, and 4 is full of bad people that do not go to heaven.
Group 2 are the goats Jesus mentioned and he already told us what happens to them.
<snip>

What James is saying here is NOT that you can be saved by works alone, what he is saying is that faith without works is no faith at all. That one of the necessary characteristics of faith is that it leads people into good works. And this is the understanding that evangelicals have about the "saved by works" type passages. That they are not saying that it is possible to be saved by works alone, but that the works that are talked about are demonstrative of a saving faith.
I agree. Please read my explaination about Christ being the bridge in my post before this one. I'm not saying we are saved by our works. As you say, the works are evidence of our faith or evidnce of the spirit living within us. If you say you have faith but can't find tthe courage to act on it, you haven't progressed much.
Now, what about the people in group 3 you ask? Aren't they "good" people. Don't their good works show evidence that they have the Holy Spirit? Aren't they saved as well. The answer is no., they are not saved, because we are saved by faith, and they have none.
Here's where we disagree. Their good works are evidence of the spirit within them. Like the sheep of the parable, they do good because they have faith in love, compassion, honesty and that faith is reflected in their actions. They may have rejected organized religion and how popular religion presents Christ but on a deeper spiritual level they are on the path. Since God is the well from which all love is drawn, I can't think of any other rational explanation.

First of all it is worth pointing out that in God's eyes the set of "good people" that do not worship him is an empty set. To God failing to love God is a grevious sin. To see how God looks at people worshipping other Gods (or none at all) look at Ezekiel 16. This passage talks about Israel as a young child that was rescued and nurtured by God, but when it came time for her marriage instead of being betrothed to God who loved her and cared for her she became a skanky whore, going after other gods that did nothing for her. That is how God sees people worshipping other gods, and it is not the actions of a "good" person.
I think empty set is an exageration. The Bible says God wants all people to be saved. I understand what you're saying here. I think the problem is people and religious groups decide their version of God must be the right one and judge how others worship according to that view. They let semantics and unfamiliar terms and rituals seperate them. Look at the frivilous reasons churches have been divided. The body that Jesus spoke of that we one in, is not defined by titles, but by God as he discerns our inner spirit.
Remember that passage I mentioned where Jesus said "say what you want about me but don't deny the Holy Spirit."God sees someone's desire to serve his fellow man in sincere love and to seek the truth. The details of his formal religion aren't crucial. All that will work itself out as the individual "works out their own salvation"

Fundamentally Christianity is not a legalistic religion. It is not about obeying all the rules that God lays down. It is about relationship, most importantly relationship with God, and secondly relationship with each other.
Saying that Christianity is just about loving others misses the fact that Jesus saw loving God as being even more important than loving others (since loving God was the first commandment, and loving others was the second). And Jesus and the bible writers make this point in a variety of ways.
Well, I think in other passages you see that what Jesus said was loving your fellow man is loving God and loving God is loving your fellow man. They aren't 1 and 2 except in the list. They are the same thing.
Even as you pointed out, that Christians are to be one body, yes, but with Christ as the head. Those that do not accept Jesus cannot be part of the body for they are not united with its head. Secondly, think about how the bible presents heaven. The fundamental point about heaven is that heaven is where God is with his people. Why would someone who is not in relationship with God want to spend eternity with Him?
Yes but again my friend, it is the living spirit of Christ that is the head not merely the verbage. That is also made clear.
Let me try this example. A christian can learn the details of Christ from their youth and appear outwardly to love God, but in reality they are serving tradition and pleasing the people around them. They may not have the personal relationship with God you describe although they say all the right words and sing praises every Sunday. Someone else may be following the spirit but useing different verbage than traditional Christianity. God sees the inner man, the spirit not the outward labels. We must worship God in spirit and truth remember?

Secondly on the group three people the bible would also say that those in group three do NOT have the Holy Spirit either. The point if the Holy Spirit is not to just make people do good things. The point if the Holy Spirit is as the bible says to testify to the truth of Christ.
To guide us into all truth. To transform us as we surrender to it's guidence. It is the thread that connects us to God and each other. The spirit testifies about Christ by guideing us to love and truth. Not just Jesus the physical individual but the truth of what he taught.

So people who do not accept Jesus do not have the Holy Spirit, because that is what the Spirit does, testify to Christ. Even in terms of its transforming work, the Spirit transforms people into the likeness of Christ. Jesus worshipped God the Father. Of you don't worship God the Father then you are not in the likeness of Christ, and therefore are not being transformed by his Spirit.
I don't agree. I'll look for some passages to show that the same spirit that sustains us as living beings is the one that guides us. I will answer your questions in the morning. Work calls again. In the meantime, if non Christians can't be transformed by the spirit and are not being guided by the spirit then how do you explain great acts of love and service by non christians? The scriptures say "all who love are born of God" don't they?

[Trust]

I don't understand this. Of course different people have different values. PLease explain. .

I am failing to see why you don't understand this. This world, overall, does not follow love and truth. It follows selfishness. It follows survival at all costs. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is not our world. All I am trying to say is that karma is an incredibly easy way for people to justify being terrible people. If you studied other countries that believe in karma you will see the negative consequences of it.

Um....yeah....and nobody has ever used Christianity to justify negative actions. Comon you know better than that. Buddhism which contains reincarnation teaches that we revere all life as a sacred part of the greater whole. That means we revere the poor, and all races. It's no different than what Jesus taught "Love thy neighbor as thyself" Where's the prejudice in that? .

You are not making a distinction between the teaching, and the actions of the followers. The teaching of Christianity has nothing but love and compassion for one another. However, some people cheery pick verses from the bible for their own selfishness. The same applies to Buddhism. As far as I know, it teaches all good things and nothing anywhere close to judging others for their lives experience. But it doesnt take much time to see that people will find ways to judge others.

Honestly, I'm not sure. What keeps coming back to me is that God is a spirit and we're talking about a spiritual realm, so the atonement and Christ's ransom for us is on some spiritual level, not the physical one that is usually stressed. One thought that occurs to me. We do know that there was much controversy about Christ being just an exstention of Judism. The concept of Jesus being a physical sacrifice for our sins springs from Jewish religious practice and tradition doesn't it? Perhaps this author leaned heavily in that direction. Also keep in mind that Jesus told his disciples that their was much they were not ready to learn. Is it possible and maybe reasonable, to think that the authors of the Bible {we're not sure who they are} didn't fully grasp the significance and true meaning of Christ on earth?
I mean it's 2000 years later. Do we grasp it yet? .

No offense, but I am afraid you just pulled what the KKK Christians do. You use verses that further your argument, and explain away at the ones that do not. There is no getting around that Christ is the ransom for men. If there ever was a time I could urge you to look at who Christ was instead of looking inside yourself for who Christ was, it would be now.




This seems to be a common misunderstanding of what I am saying. No No No I don't have a problem with needing to know Christ to go to heaven. What I have a problem with is the widespread misunderstanding of what that actually means.
Jesus said look for the kingdom of heaven within yourself. I repeat, everyone who sincerely seeks love and truth will have to come to the truth about Christ. So if a Buddhist, Muslim, or Atheist sincerely strives to be loving and truthful will they be punished for not accepting Jesus by name, while a slightly dishonest and impatient Christian is forgiven and recieves eternal reward? PLease tell me that doesn't make any sense to you either.

If you are talking about people who have a chance to know Christ who simply reject him, then that makes sense to me. I do not judge others based on it and allow Christ/God to make decisions based on their wisdom, but it does make sense. Now in regards to people who do not have a chance to come to know Christ, then yes, I admit it does not make much sense to me. If the reason you are wanting reincarnation to be true is because you have compassion for others, then that is great. But look at the cost. You just denied the very essence of Christ for some theory that doesn't matter much if it's true or not. Your theory would just be a benefit, not something that we have to believe in to change much of anything in our current lives. Don't you get that?

[Joey Jo Jo]

Cosmosdan
I don't mean to be mean or nasty, but the more you explain of your view the more amazed I am at its wilful ignorance and sheer arrogance. The problem is that you keep claiming to be following Jesus and the bible, yet even a cursory glance would show you that most of your fundamental assumptions are not biblical ones. Yet you offer no real biblical arguments to support your position, you just keep repeating, essentially, that because you are guided by the Spirit you must be right. What I would like as the outcome of this debate would be for you to realise that the bible is fundamentally opposed to your beliefs and for you to start following the real Jesus, and not one of your own imagination.

Here's where we disagree. Their good works are evidence of the spirit within them. Like the sheep of the parable, they do good because they have faith in love, compassion, honesty and that faith is reflected in their actions. They may have rejected organized religion and how popular religion presents Christ but on a deeper spiritual level they are on the path. Since God is the well from which all love is drawn, I can't think of any other rational explanation.

You assert that those that do good works, yet don't acknowledge Jesus are actually following him in some sort of deeper sense. This makes no sense. First off, who are these saintly people that you are talking about who know Jesus on some "deeper" level. Our world is full not of people who live perfectly loving lives, but selfish, lying greedy people, ourselves included. Why don't you turn on the news and have a look at the reality of the world around you? I don't know how anyone in the west can claim to be perfectly loving when there are people literally starving to death and dying of diseases that are almost unheard of in the west, yet we sit back and do nothing and let them die.

Secondly, how are you defining "love, compassion and truth"? Certainly not in a biblical way. As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) the bible views those that do not accept Jesus as fundamentally unloving people because they do not love God. And what of truth? How can you follow truth, yet deny God? How can people who believe irreconcilably different things all be following truth?


I think empty set is an exaggeration. The Bible says God wants all people to be saved. I understand what you're saying here. I think the problem is people and religious groups decide their version of God must be the right one and judge how others worship according to that view. They let semantics and unfamiliar terms and rituals separate them. Look at the frivolous reasons churches have been divided. The body that Jesus spoke of that we one in, is not defined by titles, but by God as he discerns our inner spirit.
Remember that passage I mentioned where Jesus said "say what you want about me but don't deny the Holy Spirit. "God sees someone's desire to serve his fellow man in sincere love and to seek the truth. The details of his formal religion aren't crucial. All that will work itself out as the individual "works out their own salvation"

This shows a fundamental ignorance of what Christians and other religions believe. Different religions are not just separated by "let semantics and unfamiliar terms and rituals separate them". There are deep theological issues that separate most religions. This is especially true when you include ancient religions that included things like human sacrifice and the like. Some of these religions are even described in the OT, such as Molech, who required the sacrifice of children through fire. You can't just wave your hands and ignore that these differences don't exist. If one religion is true, then the others that all disagree with it must be wrong.

Secondly this section shows some of the worst bible proof-texting yet. In their proper contexts the passages that you allude to are


1 Timothy 2:1-6
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Paul says in verse 4 that God wants everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth. However Paul then goes on in verses 5 and 6 to explain that the truth is the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. Truth here is NOT some nebulous thing that is left to the reader to define. The truth of Jesus as the sacrifice for sin is the truth that God wants all people to come to the knowledge of.


Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Mat 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

In alluding to this one you didn't even get the sense of the word right, let alone the meaning. Here Jesus is clearly saying that if you don't follow him, then you are against him. This actually speaks directly against your idea that people can follow Jesus on some "deeper level"
Secondly Jesus does not say that you can say whatever you like about him. What he says is that you can be forgiven for what you say about him. This therefore implies that denying Jesus is actually a sin that you need forgiveness for.


Phi 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Phi 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phi 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Phi 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Phi 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Phi 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
Phi 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Phi 2:14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning,
Phi 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,
Phi 2:16 holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labour in vain.

This verse IMHO is one that you have completely twisted. What Paul is saying here is not that we earn our own salvation through our works. Paul in verses 5-11 talks about the nature of Jesus and how Jesus has already given us salvation. Then having obtained that salvation Paul exhorts the Philippians to work out that salvation that they have already in the way the live their lives. Note too that Paul in verse 16 urges them to hold fast to the word of life, upon which it seems that their salvation depends. Again this speaks against your view that good works alone are evidence of our salvation.


Well, I think in other passages you see that what Jesus said was loving your fellow man is loving God and loving God is loving your fellow man. They aren't 1 and 2 except in the list. They are the same thing.

Cite?


Yes but again my friend, it is the living spirit of Christ that is the head not merely the verbiage. That is also made clear.

Cite?


Let me try this example. A Christian can learn the details of Christ from their youth and appear outwardly to love God, but in reality they are serving tradition and pleasing the people around them. They may not have the personal relationship with God you describe although they say all the right words and sing praises every Sunday. Someone else may be following the spirit but using different verbiage than traditional Christianity. God sees the inner man, the spirit not the outward labels. We must worship God in spirit and truth remember?

First off, it is a false dilemma. Someone mouthing stuff that they don't believe has no faith and so they would not be saved anyway. Secondly as I said before different religions have fundamentally different views of God.

As an example imagine you married an Olympic gold medallist from Sweden named Inga. Only you didn't call her Inga, you called her Stan. And you insist that she is from Thailand, not Sweden. And you insist that she never won an Olympic gold medal. In fact you are pretty sure that she has a drinking problem, and treat her as such, even though she doesn't. How well do you think that relationship would go? I would doubt it would last more than 10 minutes before she quite rightly got sick of you pretending that she was something that she wasn't. Yet this is precisely what you expect God to put up with.

Any sort of relationship at all must be based in truth of who the person you are relating to is. Anything else is just offensive and annoying. You expect God to welcome "good" people who refuse to acknowledge God for who he is. The difference is not just "verbiage" as you say. As you point out we are to worship God in spirit and truth. Worshipping God in truth means praising him for what he actually is, not how you would like to think of him. Praising God for something he is not (or anyone else for that matter) is just stupid and offensive.


To guide us into all truth. To transform us as we surrender to it's guidence. It is the thread that connects us to God and each other. The spirit testifies about Christ by guiding us to love and truth. Not just Jesus the physical individual but the truth of what he taught.

Fair enough, Jesus taught that he was on the one true sacrifice for sin. Jesus did not teach that we should just "love one another" (whatever that means since different religions mean different things by this) and that whatever else we believed was irrelevant.


I don't agree. I'll look for some passages to show that the same spirit that sustains us as living beings is the one that guides us. I will answer your questions in the morning. Work calls again. In the meantime, if non Christians can't be transformed by the spirit and are not being guided by the spirit then how do you explain great acts of love and service by non Christians? The scriptures say "all who love are born of God" don't they?


The passage that you are alluding to is 1 John 4

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
1Jo 4:4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
1Jo 4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.
1Jo 4:6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.
1Jo 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jo 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
1Jo 4:12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
1Jo 4:13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
1Jo 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
1Jo 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
1Jo 4:17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.
1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
1Jo 4:19 We love because he first loved us.
1Jo 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
1Jo 4:21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
[QUOTE]
Here John asserts that there are essentially two types of people. Those know God and love others, and those that do not know God and do not love others. It is not possible to know God and not love, nor it seems is it possible to not know God and to love. From this passage it also seems that listening to John the Apostle is a pre-requisite for knowing God, that knowing God is not just some nebulous thing. I would argue therefore that form this passage those that don't know God don't love, at least in the Christian sense. The logic is:

Loving => Knowing God
Listening to John + confessing Jesus => Knowing God
Implies:
Loving => Listening to John + confessing Jesus
Non-Christians don't confess Jesus (by definition)
Therefore non-Christians do not love in the sense that the passage is talking about.

Note that I DON'T think that non-Christians are heartless monsters who kick puppies and eat babies. Non-Christians can still be relatively nice people. Buth they don't love Christians in the same self-sacrificial way for the benefit of Jesus that Christians do.

[QUOTE]Honestly, I'm not sure. What keeps coming back to me is that God is a spirit and we're talking about a spiritual realm, so the atonement and Christ's ransom for us is on some spiritual level, not the physical one that is usually stressed. One thought that occurs to me. We do know that there was much controversy about Christ being just an extension of Judaism. The concept of Jesus being a physical sacrifice for our sins springs from Jewish religious practice and tradition doesn't it? Perhaps this author leaned heavily in that direction. Also keep in mind that Jesus told his disciples that their was much they were not ready to learn. Is it possible and maybe reasonable, to think that the authors of the Bible {we're not sure who they are} didn't fully grasp the significance and true meaning of Christ on earth?
This to me is one of the most arrogant things that you have said yet. You have no trouble in saying things like
Moreover I find certain Christian doctrine and practices to be contrary to the truth that Christ taught, and terribly distorted, promoting a real lack of unity as people
basically in one stroke saying that 100,000,000s of Christians worldwide have the wrong idea, yet when asked what a simple passage means you throw up your hands and just say "I don't know". Unbelievable.

Yet if you follow closely what you actually say it gets far worse. You actually go so far as to say that the bible writers themselves may actually be confused as to what Jesus actually said, but of course you understand. Riiiiiight. The people either knew Jesus personally or knew people taught by him, spoke the same language as Jesus with the same paradigms, lived in the same type of world as Jesus with the same Jewish background, and who wrote the bible, the only way in which we know anything about the teachings of Jesus, these guys got it wrong. But you, living 2000 or so after Jesus in a world that was completely alien to him, with a completely different non-Jewish background, who doesn't speak biblical languages natively and who never met Jesus personally or even met anyone who met the pre-resurrection Jesus, you can understand Jesus teachings better than them. Again, unbelievable.


My reason saying so is because it's what I believe, as simple as that. I want to separate truth from tradition.

You do know what a tautology is, right?

Joey Jo Jo

[Joey Jo Jo]

This seems to be a common misunderstanding of what I am saying. No No No I don't have a problem with needing to know Christ to go to heaven. What I have a problem with is the widespread misunderstanding of what that actually means.
Jesus said look for the kingdom of heaven within yourself. I repeat, everyone who sincerely seeks love and truth will have to come to the truth about Christ. So if a Buddhist, Muslim, or Atheist sincerely strives to be loving and truthful will they be punished for not accepting Jesus by name, while a slightly dishonest and impatient Christian is forgiven and receives eternal reward? Please tell me that doesn't make any sense to you either.


What makes no sense to me is how you can claim that different people with fundamentally irreconcilable belief systems, with fundamentally irreconcilable differences as to what "love" and "truth" actually mean, are converging on any sort of common ground. Nor does it make any sense to me why God would have to accept people that wish to have nothing to do with him, just because they are "good" people. Besides, if just being slightly dishonest or slightly impatient is enough to disqualify you from heaven, where are you getting people to go to heaven from? I don't know if anyone in history has lived up to the standards you wish to place on people.

Nor does it make any sense to me why spending an eternity in heaven is something that any of these people would actually want. To a Buddhist, eternal life just means eternal suffering. Far better to go into the nothingness of Nirvana. To the Muslim spending eternity with God is impossible, because God has no companions. Heaven is merely a place that is filled with pleasure, God has nothing to do with it. Atheists don't even believe that God exists. For them being in heaven would be surreal, how can you be with someone who doesn't exist?

Simply put no matter how much you want to gloss over the differences between religions they are there, they are fundamental and they do matter.


I see your point and I tend to agree if we're talking about what most Christian churches teach. Yet, it is there in the very Bible Christians call the word of God. I readily admit the allusions to reincarnation itself are few. You might call that a conspicuous absence until you study the history of the church and the belief in the church. Then rational explanations present themselves. For me the strongest point is not the brief references to what seems like reincarnation but might be something else. It's the numerous references to the process of spiritual growth through the spirit living within us. It's passages like "continue on to perfection" and "be ye perfect" that indicate what the goal is. Jesus taught not just to follow religious ceremony and try to be nice, but don't worry if you occasionally fail because you're forgiven. He taught that we are to be one with God through the Spirit as he was. Seeing that clearly stated makes spiritual growth through reincarnation seem a more reasonable answer.


No, if you study the history of the church you will find that the church has never believed in reincarnation. So far the only cite that you have given to show that the early church believed in reincarnation was a vague reference to Origen on the first page. As these sites (http://www.catholic.com/library/Reincarnation.asp) show (http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/reincar4.html) Origen never taught reincarnation or transmigration of souls. He did believe in the pre-existence of souls in a pre-incarnate state. He believed that these souls were only born once and then after that faced death and judgement. This is in no way re-incarnation. The first page also gives a number of quotes from early church fathers (even one from Origen himself) that show that re-incarnation was NOT a belief of the early church.

Besides this your whole argument is lacking any real logic. Passages about spiritual transformation DO NOT equal endorsement of re-incarnation. Re-incarnation is completely separate from spiritual transformation. Besides, if re-incarnation was real, wouldn't you think that the bible would mention it somewhere? If re-incarnation is real why does the bible consistently talk as it there is no re-incarnation? How does the biblical message of atonement fit in with re-incarnation? If re-incarnation is so obvious why has no other serious theologian in 2000 of biblical study thought that re-incarnation was taught by the bible. Why are you right and 100,000,000s of Christians world wide and throughout time wrong? Which is more likely, that a doctrine that has never been historically believed, and in the bible is never directly taught, never unambiguously alluded to and is in fact strongly alluded against if not flat out refuted is real, or that you might be mistaken? I think that you might be mistaken is the far more likely.

Joey Jo Jo.

[Joey Jo Jo]

Cosmosdan

One more thing that is worth discussing:

Read this a lot when I was studying the subject. Of course we have to then consider Lazerus and the child Jesus raised from the dead and ask how literal this is. Are we talking final judgement or the judgement that decides if you come back or move on? The best article specifically on this was by JJ Dewey. He examined the original Greek

in 9:26 the word translated into end of the world is AION which more correctly means eon or age.
Man in verse 27 is ANTHROPOS which indicates mankind as a whole.
Judgement is the greek word KRISIS which is used in the Bible as accusation, condemnation, damnation, and judgment. In this case by comparing it to other scriptures in which it is used, he indicates it might be interpreted as a decision that brings correction. Seen in this way this passage can be seen as supporting reincarnation rather than denouncing it. It might be
Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die (in this present age), on the other hand after this comes the resurrection of correction" (where we will be born and die again in a future age).


This is a terribly flawed interpretation of the passage

1) Krisis does not mean correction. Krisis nearly always carries with it the connotation of final separation or jusdgement. My Greek lexicon defines it thusly

1) a separating, sundering, separation
2) selection
3) judgment
3a) opinion or decision given concerning anything
3a1) especially concerning justice and injustice, right or wrong
3b) sentence of condemnation, damnatory judgment, condemnation and punishment
4) the college of judges (a tribunal of seven men in the several cities of Palestine; as distinguished from the Sanhedrin, which had its seat at Jerusalem)
5) right, justice


2) This reading makes no sense in the wider context of the passage
The context is:

Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

The writer of Hebrews is talking about Jesus' sacrifce for sin being better than the OT sacrifices, because Jesus sacrifice is once for all, where as the OT sacrifices were a never-ending thing. Therefore that which is permanent superscedes that which is temporary.
Anyway the context of verses 27 and 28 is that the writer is making a comparison between our lives and Christ's sacrifice and return. The obvious logic is that as we die once and only once and then are judged at the end of time, so Jesus dies for sin once and only once and then returns at the end of time to execute judgement. In this context your reading makes no sense. If verse 27 implies that we come back for many lives, then that means that the writer must think that Christ will die for sin many times, or that he will return many times. But that goes against everything that he has been saying in the rest of the chapter, and turns the whole sentance into nonsense.

3) The idea that this "resurrection of correction" really means re-incarnation is silly. Resurrection is a logically distinct idea to re-incarnation. Resurrection is fundamentally the re-animation of an existing body with the same spirit, where as re-incarnation is the animation of a different body with the same spirit. The two are not equivalent.

4) Biblically there is not two distinct resurrections. There is only one resurrection, the difference being what happens to people at the resurrection. Some are raised and given eternal life, others are raised to eternal judgement.

5) Biblically the general resurrection is a once only event at the end of times. It is not an ongoing thing by which we can continually die and be reborn. We are in the "last days" now, and have been ever since the resurrection of Jesus. The only age to come after this is the resurrection age, where those that have faith in Christ will be with him in heaven, and those that have not will not. There is no age to come in which we will be re-incarnated into.

6) The resurrection has not happened yet. Paul is quite emphatic on this in 2 Timothy 2:18.

7) As best I can tell JJ Dewey is an ex-mormon who is now part of the new age movement, and has no real qualifications (evangelical, liberal or otherwise) in biblical interpretation. So even as a basic appeal to authority this argument doesn't work.

I'm sorry, but the only logical way to read this passage is that we die once, and then face final judgement without any intervening re-incarnations. That is the only logical way to understand the passage in its proper context.

Joey Jo Jo.

[cosmosdan]

I am failing to see why you don't understand this. This world, overall, does not follow love and truth. It follows selfishness. It follows survival at all costs. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is not our world. All I am trying to say is that karma is an incredibly easy way for people to justify being terrible people. If you studied other countries that believe in karma you will see the negative consequences of it.

Yes , people do bad things, sometines useing religious beliefs to justify their bad choices. I really doubt that belief in Karma has more potential for bad choices than other beliefs. The potential for evil lies within people.



You are not making a distinction between the teaching, and the actions of the followers. The teaching of Christianity has nothing but love and compassion for one another. However, some people cheery pick verses from the bible for their own selfishness. The same applies to Buddhism. As far as I know, it teaches all good things and nothing anywhere close to judging others for their lives experience. But it doesnt take much time to see that people will find ways to judge others.
um......yes I am making the distenction which is why I don't understand or agree whith you saying the belief in Karma has more bad potential. {If that's what you're saying}


No offense, but I am afraid you just pulled what the KKK Christians do. You use verses that further your argument, and explain away at the ones that do not. Welcome to scripture study 101. You may have noticied that there are hundreds of different Christian denominations which don't agree with each other in the meaning of scripture or apply their interpretations in the same way. It's what we have to do as human beings.
I recognize that I am interpreting the Bible through the filter of my own personality and experience. That's what all people do who read the Bible. What disturbs me are the folks who can't see that and think their interpretation is the will of God.
My brother tells me off two famous Christian theologians {John Calvin and someone else} who disagreed on certain doctrinal points. Calvin was concerned that the disagreement would ruin any potential friendship and they would end up antagonists. The other said "Not at all, We think and let think"


There is no getting around that Christ is the ransom for men. If there ever was a time I could urge you to look at who Christ was instead of looking inside yourself for who Christ was, it would be now.
Sigh,.... What I'm saying is I don't blindly accept the common interpretation of that passages or the ones like it. Since it is my soul on the line here what person or group of people should I trust to tell me what those passages mean? Should I go by simply popular opinion. More people believe a certain way so that must be the right one. I prefer to choose for myself, and let the right and wrong of it be between myself and God.

So Christ atoned for all mankind. My question is how did he do that? How does that work exactly? What does that atonement require of me? If it is a gift from God? How do I claim that gift for myself? I'm not embaressed or ashamed to ask those questions and to trust my personal relationship with God to furnish the answer. Most of Christianity says the physical death of Christ and his blood served as an atonement. Since we are spiritual beings and God is a spirit and our bodies are fleeting I have a hard time believeing that a physical sacrifice can somehow atone for a spiritual state. I am not rejecting the atonement of Christ. I am questioning the popular interpretation of that atonement and trusting that "the Spirit will guide me into all truth" as Jesus promised.


If you are talking about people who have a chance to know Christ who simply reject him, then that makes sense to me. I do not judge others based on it and allow Christ/God to make decisions based on their wisdom, but it does make sense. Now in regards to people who do not have a chance to come to know Christ, then yes, I admit it does not make much sense to me. If the reason you are wanting reincarnation to be true is because you have compassion for others, then that is great. But look at the cost. You just denied the very essence of Christ for some theory that doesn't matter much if it's true or not. Your theory would just be a benefit, not something that we have to believe in to change much of anything in our current lives. Don't you get that?

Is it better to accept something that doesn't make sense to you because lots of people seem to agree it right? I don't want reincarnation to be true or not true. I want to know what is true. Right now, reincarnation makes sense to me. I hope you see now that I have not denied the essence of Christ but am seeking to understand it more fully.

When I say it doesn't matter I mean, there's not much chance you or I will know with certainty if reincarnation is true or not. We do live our day to day lives and make choices. If we make the best of that day to day and try to be better more loving people then we can trust what comes after to the grace of God.

[cosmosdan]

Now, a question for cosmosdan. If the Christian belief in redemption through Jesus is correct, and if there is reincarnation, does each reincarnation have to be save all over again, or the last before judgement day, or at least one? I don't understand how these two concepts are compatible.

I'm sorry. I intended to answer this but apparently got caught up in my dicussion with Joey and forgot.

In a nutshell, Jesus is an example of the way back to God. Through total communion and surrender to the Holt Spirit we become one with the father as Jesus did.

"I am the way, the truth and the light no one comes to the father but by me" means just that. There is no other way to become one with the Father except the way Jesus did. It's not through ceremony or a set of rules. You must surrender to the living spirit within you and let it guide you to all truth and set you free.
That is the spiritual process which our physical lives are a part of. We grow and draw closer to God through a series of lives until we attain the oneness that Jesus spoke of. "I am in the Father and the Father in me" All of this is clearly pointed to by Biblical passages
There are other aspects I am unsure of. Was Jesus the first one to do this and thus open the door for all mankind? Probably. Those are details I am willing to discover later. Jesus said look for Heaven within yourself. Eternity exists in each moment and each moment is my eternity. I choose and learn how to make better choices and try to discern that guiding spirit.

Does that explain it?

[cosmosdan]

Now, some questions for you
okey dokey

1) You keep accusing me of being inconsistent in my view of what the bible says. Well then how do you treat the legion of passages that make it quite clear that Jesus is the sacrifce for sin, and that we are saved by faith alone. A sample of which

Anyway, what do you see these passages as saying? Are we saved by faith alone or not?


I hope I've made it clear that I am not saying we are saved by works. You youself said faith without works is no faith at all. That means we are not saved by faith alone but are required to put that faith into action right? What I said was that if if A is true "we are saved by faith not works" and B is also true "what good is faith without works, can faith save him" and the numerous passages that say we are judged by our works then we must find a theology where both are equally true. That theology would be in harmony with the Bible would it not?

Here's a good example the classic John 10: 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son
seems pretty plain doesn't it. Now look at the next few verses.
19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

We are required not only to have faith but to live according to the truth.
2) How do you know that you have the Holy Spirit? The bible is pretty clear that that people get the Spirit by confessing Christ as the Messiah (as in Galatians 3:2). If you don't do that, then why would you think that you have the Spirit? Or do you think that everyone just has the Spirit by default?
I have faith. I've had spiritual experiences that comvinced me. This is a subject worthy of study. In the NT there are passages that indicate the Holy Spirit was not around until after Christ rose again. Yet the Holy Spirit is all over the OT. How are both things true. What is the spirit that leads people to God before they accept Christ if they are not allowed to have the Holy Spirit? Is there one spirit that leads before and another that leads after? What seems probable to me is that the presence of Christ and his conquest of physical death changed the spiritual level of the whole world. I do feel that all people have access to the Holy Spirit but once again the access is not made by superficial means but by a surrender of the heart and mind to that spirit.
3) How do you know what is the leading of the Spirit and what is you just doing whatever you want? Or is whatwver you want necessarily the leading of the Spirit? Related to this, can you sin, or does the Spirit always lead you from sin into truth? I don't always know. I choose and I try to grow and I face the consequences of my choices. Jesus described the fruits of the spirit pretty plainly. If I find anger and resentment or selfishness in my heart I know I am away from the spirit. Don't you see the fruits of the spirit as described by Jesus in non Christians? How do you explain that?

4) Do I have God's Spirit working in me? If so, then if the Spirit is to lead us to truth, why then do I say that you are fundamentally wrong in your reading of the bible. In fact why would just about every Christian community say that you are reading the bible wrong? Are you the only one with the Spirit who understands the truth? Does it matter that if we are being lead mainly by the Spirit that the Spirit seems to be leading different people in vastly different and mutually exclusive directions?

Joey Jo Jo
Thats a fair question. How would you explain the vast difference among Christians that seems to be a stumbling block for non believers. If Christians who follow the same Lord can't agree amongst themselves why should anyone believe their testimony? If Christians accept Christ and verbally praise him but behave badly what kind of spirit resides in them?

Each person is unique and how the spirit expresses itself through each person will also be unique. I have described it as the purest water ppouring through an impure filter. {we humans} What comes out may be the best water you ever had but it still isn't as pure as the water going in until we lose the filter and are one with that living water. You and I have different backgrounds and different experiences. Our spiritual growth unfolds differently. We may disagree now but when we know as we are known, we will agree.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Joey Jo Jo]Cosmosdan
I don't mean to be mean or nasty, but the more you explain of your view the more amazed I am at its wilful ignorance and sheer arrogance.
Again, your opinion. You seem well versed and sheltered within Christian apologetics. What seems unfortunate to me is that your stubborn insistance that your and only your interpretation is the right and logical one. You refuse to even entertain other possibilities although I back them up with reason and scripture.

The problem is that you keep claiming to be following Jesus and the bible, yet even a cursory glance would show you that most of your fundamental assumptions are not biblical ones.
Yet you offer no real biblical arguments to support your position, you just keep repeating, essentially, that because you are guided by the Spirit you must be right. What I would like as the outcome of this debate would be for you to realise that the bible is fundamentally opposed to your beliefs and for you to start following the real Jesus, and not one of your own imagination.
I find this completely disingenuous. The fact is I have backed up my beliefs with scripture that you claim to hold as the word of God. I can continue to do so. Your only arguement is that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong. Yours are logical while mine aren't {which seems obviously untrue to me} You have no more evidence than I do. No more {actually less} scriptural backing and yet you insist you are right. What it amounts to is you insisting your opinion is the truth and mine is not. Yet I am the arrogent one. It's silly really.


You assert that those that do good works, yet don't acknowledge Jesus are actually following him in some sort of deeper sense. This makes no sense.
For God's sake man read the Bible {pun intended} Is God the author of all that is good or is he not?

First off, who are these saintly people that you are talking about who know Jesus on some "deeper" level.
I'm not talking perfect. I'm saying by seeking love and truth they must be on the path to God according to the teachings of Christ. Two examples who come to mind are Ghandi {a hindu} and Buddha {who taught the same principles CHrist taught 600 years before Jesus lived}
Our world is full not of people who live perfectly loving lives, but selfish, lying greedy people, ourselves included. Why don't you turn on the news and have a look at the reality of the world around you? I don't know how anyone in the west can claim to be perfectly loving when there are people literally starving to death and dying of diseases that are almost unheard of in the west, yet we sit back and do nothing and let them die.

Yes, there is plenty of room for improvement. Plenty of room for those who give lip service to God to apply their faith. That includes myself.

Secondly, how are you defining "love, compassion and truth"? Certainly not in a biblical way. As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) the bible views those that do not accept Jesus as fundamentally unloving people because they do not love God. And what of truth? How can you follow truth, yet deny God? How can people who believe irreconcilably different things all be following truth?
It is here that you are denying the Bible and holding to two conflicting beliefs. The Bible says those that love are born of God and God is the author of all love. Yet you say an act of love by a non Christian is not really love. I find that doctrine wrong, tragic and harmful. Certainly not biblical.
People with differences can still be seeking the truth. Think, be reasonable. How can Christians with conflicting beliefs be following the truth? We are far from a complete understanding, just as the Bible says.

This shows a fundamental ignorance of what Christians and other religions believe. Different religions are not just separated by "let semantics and unfamiliar terms and rituals separate them". There are deep theological issues that separate most religions. This is especially true when you include ancient religions that included things like human sacrifice and the like. Some of these religions are even described in the OT, such as Molech, who required the sacrifice of children through fire. You can't just wave your hands and ignore that these differences don't exist. If one religion is true, then the others that all disagree with it must be wrong. My statement was obviously in general. MAny religions with various termnology and traditions still teach the brotherhood of mankind etc. Some Christians become alarmed at the concept of Karma but still accept, He who lives by the sword, and You reap what you sow because it's in the Bible. They are pointing to the same thing in different terms. I am not ignoring the differences. I am focusing on the similarities in pursuit of the truth and the fact that we are all children of God.
To clarify, none of us, no religion, has it right. Paul expressed in the NT that we know in part. We choose our path and hopefully make progress. It seems foolish to me for religions to quarrel like school chidren over whose doctrine is the most betterah. They should grow up. {Thats biblical as well}

Secondly this section shows some of the worst bible proof-texting yet. In their proper contexts the passages that you allude to are
Paul says in verse 4 that God wants everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth. However Paul then goes on in verses 5 and 6 to explain that the truth is the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. Truth here is NOT some nebulous thing that is left to the reader to define. The truth of Jesus as the sacrifice for sin is the truth that God wants all people to come to the knowledge of.
That sounds good when you take this passage out of context with other passages. If the truth you refer to here is all of it, then what are the things Jesus told the apostles they weren't ready for. Why did they need the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth if they already had all they needed?
check this out. 1 Peter 1: 16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
21Who by him do believe in God,that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
This speaks directly to what I'm talking about. Through Christ we believe in God's love and see it differently. Yet we are called to purify our souls by obeying {action} through the spirit and unfeigned {truly, not just lip service} love.
once again, scriptural support for what I have been saying. I'm not trying to ignore or distort the passages you post {please please, not so many} What I'm saying is if you believe the Bible is the word of God then these other passages must also be true and theology has to reconcile them.

In alluding to this one you didn't even get the sense of the word right, let alone the meaning. Here Jesus is clearly saying that if you don't follow him, then you are against him. This actually speaks directly against your idea that people can follow Jesus on some "deeper level"
Secondly Jesus does not say that you can say whatever you like about him. What he says is that you can be forgiven for what you say about him. This therefore implies that denying Jesus is actually a sin that you need forgiveness for.
Sigh!! Follow him how?.......by obeying the truth presented by the Holy Spirit. IMO you've avoided the point. What did Jesus mean by a sin against the HS will not be forgiven? As I see it, he is saying "you may not understand Jesus the physical man, and that's okay, but you must still follow the spirit within. If you love you follow the spirit even if you don't understand Jesus the man. BTW, how can people sin against the spirit if it hasn't been given yet?

This verse IMHO is one that you have completely twisted. What Paul is saying here is not that we earn our own salvation through our works. Paul in verses 5-11 talks about the nature of Jesus and how Jesus has already given us salvation. Then having obtained that salvation Paul exhorts the Philippians to work out that salvation that they have already in the way the live their lives. Note too that Paul in verse 16 urges them to hold fast to the word of life, upon which it seems that their salvation depends. Again this speaks against your view that good works alone are evidence of our salvation.

Yes and the word of life they need to hold onto is the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
Really Joey, if we are saved the moment we accept Christ then can we do whatever we want after that? What about purifying your soul by following the light. What about "endure to the end"
If we can't do whatever we want but continue to be less than perfect, what amount of sin does God find acceptable?

Cite?
1 John 4:
7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8He who does not love does not know God, for God is love
12No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 13By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
This chapter goes on to say that Jesus was a testimony of God's love and if we belive in Jesus {as a testimony of love} then we will believe in God's love. This does not say that only those who believe can love God. It says if we love one another we love God.

Cite?

First off, it is a false dilemma. Someone mouthing stuff that they don't believe has no faith and so they would not be saved anyway. Secondly as I said before different religions have fundamentally different views of God.


Please pay attention. You ask for a cite and your next sentance agree with the point I just made. Millions of Christians mouth "love thy neighbor" and yet don't fulfill this with their actions. Does that mean none of them have faith or are saved even though they accept Christ and have recieved the HS?
As an example imagine you married an Olympic gold medallist from Sweden named Inga. Only you didn't call her Inga, you called her Stan. And you insist that she is from Thailand, not Sweden. And you insist that she never won an Olympic gold medal. In fact you are pretty sure that she has a drinking problem, and treat her as such, even though she doesn't. How well do you think that relationship would go? I would doubt it would last more than 10 minutes before she quite rightly got sick of you pretending that she was something that she wasn't. Yet this is precisely what you expect God to put up with.
No Joey I don't. What I expect is that we love one another as instructed and purify our souls through love and the spirit as the Bible says. That's what I think God requires. Much of Christianity seems to think that once we accept Jesus then we only have to be pretty good and reasonably loving. That's not how I read the scriptures.

[Trust]

Welcome to scripture study 101. You may have noticied that there are hundreds of different Christian denominations which don't agree with each other in the meaning of scripture or apply their interpretations in the same way. It's what we have to do as human beings.
I recognize that I am interpreting the Bible through the filter of my own personality and experience. That's what all people do who read the Bible. What disturbs me are the folks who can't see that and think their interpretation is the will of God.
My brother tells me off two famous Christian theologians {John Calvin and someone else} who disagreed on certain doctrinal points. Calvin was concerned that the disagreement would ruin any potential friendship and they would end up antagonists. The other said "Not at all, We think and let think"

Sigh,.... What I'm saying is I don't blindly accept the common interpretation of that passages or the ones like it. Since it is my soul on the line here what person or group of people should I trust to tell me what those passages mean? Should I go by simply popular opinion. More people believe a certain way so that must be the right one. I prefer to choose for myself, and let the right and wrong of it be between myself and God.

So Christ atoned for all mankind. My question is how did he do that? How does that work exactly? What does that atonement require of me? If it is a gift from God? How do I claim that gift for myself? I'm not embaressed or ashamed to ask those questions and to trust my personal relationship with God to furnish the answer. Most of Christianity says the physical death of Christ and his blood served as an atonement. Since we are spiritual beings and God is a spirit and our bodies are fleeting I have a hard time believeing that a physical sacrifice can somehow atone for a spiritual state. I am not rejecting the atonement of Christ. I am questioning the popular interpretation of that atonement and trusting that "the Spirit will guide me into all truth" as Jesus promised.

You're going to have to do present your point much better than this for any reasonable discussion on the matter. You are disagreeing with the very foundation of Christianity so you are going to have to explain your point of view. First, look at the words that were used before translation such as "ransom" and all of the other verses that express that Christ died for our sins. Then, if you have a problem with how they chose to translate these words, then we can discuss this. If this is not the problem for you, then you have to explain to me how you can accept one thing the authors wrote about Christ, and not something else. How can you justify picking and choosing quotes that these specific authors wrote? If these authors screwed up that, why wouldnt they have screwed up just about everything else about Christ?

I have a huge problem with your assertion that Christ did not die to erase our sins. The entire genius behind God and Christ is that the only way for God to be just and erase our sins, is for Christ to have died for us. By giving us free will, we certainly have sins to be forgiven for. This is a huge part of what makes Christ believeable in the first place. Your assertion that reincarnation is the way God allows us to reap what we sow is flawed. By knowing that the number of beings when the world was created was less than it is now, it shows that God would have to have had a part in giving new people souls. Giving life. Unless you want to propose that God just got the ball rolling and you take back your belief in Christ, then you are not connecting the dots properly. It has nothing to do with believing what the popular opinion is. It has to do with logic. Here me out. Why would Christ, the perfect sinless man, have to die an incredibly painful death? That is the most unjust thing that God could ever do. For what? Just so we could follow his example? Please. He is not telling us to physical throw our lives away just because this is what he did. If you remember, Christ knew what he had to do before he did it. There are better ways for an all-knowing God than to make Christ suffer for no reason. It was for a purpose. A damn good one at that.

I am afraid that you are looking to me for answers that I probably cannot provide. Possible ways to accept Christs/Gods gift is by believing in Christ. It might also require being like Christ. If you want the tell all way that you can accept His gift, then I am afraid you will have to take it up with Him. I also do not know exactly how His dying works. It could be that the way the world functions, we simply need a reason for blame to fall on somewhere. If Christ had not died, we would have to have died. It could also be that by Christ giving up his spirit, he provided a spirit for all of us. Once again, I do not have a tell all answer.

[Trust]

If you want to believe that God simply creates our souls and has no other part in our lives and we reap what we sow by how we treat each other via reincarnation,then that is a possible logical explanation. But why would you believe in Christ? Would God want a relationship with His creation? The reason for me believing in Christ is because His words "penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." He brings more truth and intelligence than anyone has even come close to bringing in this life. I believe in a God who has a relationship with His creation. I know you do too. That is why I think you are being illogical with the scripture. The idea of Christ giving His life for a purpose only to benefit us was not meant to be open to interpretation.

[cosmosdan]

You're going to have to do present your point much better than this for any reasonable discussion on the matter. You are disagreeing with the very foundation of Christianity so you are going to have to explain your point of view.

I know how it can seem that way.Many would agree with you. However, I'm not asking people to stop worshiping Christ or disregard his teachings. I completely agree with what Jesus said is the foundation. Love God, and love they neighbor.
Did Christ die for our sins? I would say yes. What I'm suggesting is that we rexamine what that sacrifice asks of us. Where do we go after we choose to believe?


First, look at the words that were used before translation such as "ransom" and all of the other verses that express that Christ died for our sins. Then, if you have a problem with how they chose to translate these words, then we can discuss this. If this is not the problem for you, then you have to explain to me how you can accept one thing the authors wrote about Christ, and not something else.
That's not to tricky. After studying the history of the Bible I no longer believe it is the infallible word of God. Like any other person I may agree with the authors on some points and not on others. That's the quick answer but it's a little more complicated than that. I don't question the passages that ask us to believe in Jesus, or have faith in Jesus, or that through him we can know God. The passages that I struggle with are the ones that specifically use the word ransom, or that his blood was an atonement for the sins of the world. I don't dismiss it. I just don't accept the traditional interpretation.
My brother who is a wonderful Christian man suggested I read Leviticus to help me understand the atonement. Have you ever read it? It did zero to help. It tells how God {supposedly} commanded the Jews to twist the heads off birds and that according to God women who had girls were unclean longer than women who had boys. Puh-leeez. Since we know there was much disagreement in those first decades about Jesus and his teachings being an exstension of Judaism it doesn't seem far fetched to me that the misunderstanding of Christs atonement sprang from trying to fit him into Jewish tradition.
How can you justify picking and choosing quotes that these specific authors wrote? If these authors screwed up that, why wouldnt they have screwed up just about everything else about Christ?

There's a lot of great stuff in the Bible and I find it moving and inspiring. I am still learning from it. I believe it is a tool but true spiritual learning comes from within. as in, The Spirit will guide you into all truth. I also believe in seek and ye shall find and James 1:5 If any lack wisdom let him ask of God. Since all mankind are children of God I think many religions have some truth mixed in with tradition and mans influence.

I have a huge problem with your assertion that Christ did not die to erase our sins. Once again. I wouldn't disagree with this statement. That's not what I'm saying. Yes, the purpose of Christ being here was to erase sin. I don't accept the tradtional beliefs of how that works. The entire genius behind God and Christ is that the only way for God to be just and erase our sins, is for Christ to have died for us. By giving us free will, we certainly have sins to be forgiven for. This is a huge part of what makes Christ believeable in the first place. Your assertion that reincarnation is the way God allows us to reap what we sow is flawed. By knowing that the number of beings when the world was created was less than it is now, it shows that God would have to have had a part in giving new people souls. Giving life. Unless you want to propose that God just got the ball rolling and you take back your belief in Christ, then you are not connecting the dots properly.
I don't see how that is a problem. What are the guidelines for when a sould begins it's mortal journey. Many believe in pre existance. All souls existed before the Earth came to be. "Before you were in the womb, I knew you"

It has nothing to do with believing what the popular opinion is. It has to do with logic. Here me out. Why would Christ, the perfect sinless man, have to die an incredibly painful death? That is the most unjust thing that God could ever do. For what? Just so we could follow his example? Please. He is not telling us to physical throw our lives away just because this is what he did. If you remember, Christ knew what he had to do before he did it. There are better ways for an all-knowing God than to make Christ suffer for no reason. It was for a purpose. A damn good one at that. Yes Yes, I completely agree it was for a purpose. Just as your life has purpose and mine as well. The example was in how Christ lived not how he died. His example showed us to live according to the will of God, not only in religious ceremonies but in moment to moment life. He lived love and truth completely and because he did death {and reincarnation} had no hold on him. His example showed that salvation was not just obeying the rules in a superficial sense but spiritually becoming one with God as Jesus was.

Once again, I do not have a tell all answer.
Neither do I my friend. We are both still seeking and there is more to discover. :)

[cosmosdan]

If you want to believe that God simply creates our souls and has no other part in our lives and we reap what we sow by how we treat each other via reincarnation,then that is a possible logical explanation. But why would you believe in Christ? Would God want a relationship with His creation? The reason for me believing in Christ is because His words "penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." He brings more truth and intelligence than anyone has even come close to bringing in this life. I believe in a God who has a relationship with His creation. I know you do too. That is why I think you are being illogical with the scripture. The idea of Christ giving His life for a purpose only to benefit us was not meant to be open to interpretation.

I do believe we have a relationship with God. We have to remind ourselves that our relationship with each other is how that is expressed. I understand completely how the words of Christ affect you. Me too. I had several powerful spiriitual experinces that led me to Christianity and I was content there for some time. I've also had powerful spiritual experiences apart from Chritianity and that led me to realize that as Christ said, the kingdom of Heaven is within and the spirit will guide you, as well as other things. I find my beliefs reflected in the Bible and I don't find illogical. I realize I have much more to learn but I trust in God for that.

Let me try and explain what doesn't make sense to me.
The basic belief is that Christs died for our sins and if we acknowledge him as Savior we are saved? Is that right?
Does that mean after we accept Jesus we can do whatever we want? Almost all Christians would say no. Well if Christ died to erase all our sins then why not?
Which sins won't he erase?
So you might say that when the spirit enters us after we accept Jesus we are transformed? OKay. How much are we transformed? We don't become perfect instantly do we? No of course not. So we've accepted JEsus, we can't do whatever we want, but we're not perfect so we still fall a little short. That makes my question , how much sin will God tolerate from us after we accept Jesus. DId Jesus teach believe in me and try to behave reasonbly well? Did JEsus teach believe in me and do your very best but don't worry about it?
That's the prevailing idea among Christians that doesn't fit for me. It makes no sense.
Think, of course it is open to interpretation. We must interpret it. There is no other way. Name me one person who is not interpreting it. That's what humans do.

While studying some scripture for this thread I found this
1 Peter 1: 16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
21Who by him do believe in God,that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

You tell me friend, what is asked of us?

[Tevildo]

Does that mean after we accept Jesus we can do whatever we want? Almost all Christians would say no. Well if Christ died to erase all our sins then why not?
Two glib answers:
Which sins won't he erase?
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:32)
how much sin will God tolerate from us after we accept Jesus.
Four hundred and ninety of them (Matthew 18:22). :)

More seriously. I find it very inspiring that you and I are approaching the problem from opposite ends, as it were. I've never felt comfortable with "be ye perfect" and all the related references - I know that I'll never be perfect, or even moderately good, no matter how long I have or how many attempts I get; assuming that, whatever "I" may be, it has the same basic character and personality as it does at the moment. My hope, in the theological sense, is based on the doctrine that Jesus took upon Himself all of my sins, and paid the penalty that I deserve. If I thought that I had to rely on my own efforts to reach a state where I'd be acceptable to God, I'd just give up and reconcile myself to my inevitable damnation; indeed, I quite often feel like that anyway, despite my professed belief in the Atonement.

To answer your question - I believe that God will tolerate all of our sins, both before and after we accept Jesus. Although I'd prefer to use the word "forgive".

I don't know how difficult you find your chosen path, but I know that it's not one that I could follow. But - I think it's a good thing that there can be many routes to the same ultimate goal.

[baronsabato]

I usually lurk, and I've been reading this thread with great interest, but I thought I'd jump in here and defend cosmosdan a little.

Frankly, I don't understand why Trust and Joey Jo Jo are demanding that cosmosdan read the Bible as literally and as conservatively as they do. He acknowledges that he does not believe in much of what traditional Christianity has taught, he agrees that he does not believe the Bible is completely consistent and/or accurate, and he doesn't even consider himself a Christian. Why do you expect him to read the Bible the same way you do when he admits that he is not even following the same faith as you? Comparing him to the KKK because he's doing what Christians have been doing for 2000 years now is pretty darn offensive if you ask me, and I think it's amazing that he responded with so much grace.

Let's face the facts, the Bible is subject to interpretation, and literalists don't read it as literally as they think. Even when you use language like "substitutionary atonement" and "Christ died to erase our sins", you're interpreting the Bible, just like cosmosdan. Calling anyone who disagrees with these theological points a heretic is pretty much ignoring 1000 years of Christian history (http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/atonemen.htm) and a pretty major Christian denomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church).

[cosmosdan]

Any sort of relationship at all must be based in truth of who the person you are relating to is. Anything else is just offensive and annoying. You expect God to welcome "good" people who refuse to acknowledge God for who he is. The difference is not just "verbiage" as you say. As you point out we are to worship God in spirit and truth. Worshipping God in truth means praising him for what he actually is, not how you would like to think of him. Praising God for something he is not (or anyone else for that matter) is just stupid and offensive.
Here again. You seem to assume that you and those that agree with you know God for who he is and those that don't agree with you must simply be making up their own definition, yet somehow I am being stupid and offensive.

Fair enough, Jesus taught that he was on the one true sacrifice for sin. Jesus did not teach that we should just "love one another" (whatever that means since different religions mean different things by this) and that whatever else we believed was irrelevant.

He didn't huh?

Luke 10: 25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
If we strive to do these things sincerely and completely the rest will fall into place.



The passage that you are alluding to is 1 John 4
<snip>
Here John asserts that there are essentially two types of people. Those know God and love others, and those that do not know God and do not love others. It is not possible to know God and not love, nor it seems is it possible to not know God and to love. From this passage it also seems that listening to John the Apostle is a pre-requisite for knowing God, that knowing God is not just some nebulous thing. I would argue therefore that form this passage those that don't know God don't love, at least in the Christian sense. The logic is:

Loving => Knowing God
Listening to John + confessing Jesus => Knowing God
Implies:
Loving => Listening to John + confessing Jesus
Non-Christians don't confess Jesus (by definition)
Therefore non-Christians do not love in the sense that the passage is talking about.

Note that I DON'T think that non-Christians are heartless monsters who kick puppies and eat babies. Non-Christians can still be relatively nice people. Buth they don't love Christians in the same self-sacrificial way for the benefit of Jesus that Christians do.
Interesting mental gymnastics there. One problem is that history and real life experience tells us you're mistaken. We must listen to John to be able to love? That applies to all mankind? You realize that this was written as a letter from the author to a specific group addresses their specific issues right? I doubt the author wrote it with a "when this is in the Bible" concept. Looking honestly at the world of Christians and non Christians I see non Christians who sincerely offer sacrifical love to their fellow man. Now you're telling me that it isn't really love because of your interpretation of this scripture. Sorry, I believe the evidence of my own experience more than I believe your interpretation.



This to me is one of the most arrogant things that you have said yet. You have no trouble in saying things like

basically in one stroke saying that 100,000,000s of Christians worldwide have the wrong idea, yet when asked what a simple passage means you throw up your hands and just say "I don't know". Unbelievable.
I guess I understand you taking it that way. I don't intend it as arrogent to have the conviction to decide for myself what I believe. You're not saying that the truth is a matter of popular vote are you? A few others have questioned the status quoe of Christianity. Martin Luther for one. Imagine the arrogence for him to dare question the church. When you think of it the ones who created the very doctrine you accept, said the Catholic church, which was basically all of Christianity for a long time, was wrong. Was that arrogence as well? I have no problem honestly admitting the things I don't understand.
Yet if you follow closely what you actually say it gets far worse. You actually go so far as to say that the bible writers themselves may actually be confused as to what Jesus actually said, but of course you understand. Riiiiiight. The people either knew Jesus personally or knew people taught by him, spoke the same language as Jesus with the same paradigms, lived in the same type of world as Jesus with the same Jewish background, and who wrote the bible, the only way in which we know anything about the teachings of Jesus, these guys got it wrong. But you, living 2000 or so after Jesus in a world that was completely alien to him, with a completely different non-Jewish background, who doesn't speak biblical languages natively and who never met Jesus personally or even met anyone who met the pre-resurrection Jesus, you can understand Jesus teachings better than them. Again, unbelievable.

I didn't pull that out of a void. Jesus said there were things that the apostles were not ready for before he was crucified. Paul admitted there were things he didn't understand. All through the gospels the apostles struggled to try and understand what Jesus was teaching and weren't always successful. They didn't even consistently agree with each other. Does that reflect a perfect understanding of what Jesus taught? Not that any of the original apostles wrote and of the NT books anyway. Furthermore, I'll thank you not to misrepresent my statements. I didn't say I understood all aspects better. I said it seems possible {even probable} that the authors might not understand certain aspects
of what Jesus taught. It is possible that 2000 years of spiritual development and much wider access to information might be an advantage for a present day seeker.

are we allowed to question the validity of what Paul describes as his opinion when it comes to marriage? Should we just accept it and not think for ourselves because it's Paul saying it?

[cosmosdan]

I usually lurk, and I've been reading this thread with great interest, but I thought I'd jump in here and defend cosmosdan a little.

Frankly, I don't understand why Trust and Joey Jo Jo are demanding that cosmosdan read the Bible as literally and as conservatively as they do. He acknowledges that he does not believe in much of what traditional Christianity has taught, he agrees that he does not believe the Bible is completely consistent and/or accurate, and he doesn't even consider himself a Christian. Why do you expect him to read the Bible the same way you do when he admits that he is not even following the same faith as you? Comparing him to the KKK because he's doing what Christians have been doing for 2000 years now is pretty darn offensive if you ask me, and I think it's amazing that he responded with so much grace.

Let's face the facts, the Bible is subject to interpretation, and literalists don't read it as literally as they think. Even when you use language like "substitutionary atonement" and "Christ died to erase our sins", you're interpreting the Bible, just like cosmosdan. Calling anyone who disagrees with these theological points a heretic is pretty much ignoring 1000 years of Christian history (http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/atonemen.htm) and a pretty major Christian denomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church).

Thanks for the support and the interesting links. I especially enjoyed the one about atonement. One of the problems I see in studying the Bible is that even if we manage to look it as "God's inspiried word" the arguement then deteriorates into which verses are figurative and which ones are literal and "well what that actually means is" I have no problem with people choosing their own interpretation. What bothers me is those who refuse to see that they are interpreting it for themselves and allowing others that same privilage. Of course we can't all be right but what I find likely is that none of us are right. We are each a unique mix of right and wrong as we walk our individual path.

[cosmosdan]

Two glib answers:

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:32)

Four hundred and ninety of them (Matthew 18:22). :)
7 times 70, pretty funny.

More seriously. I find it very inspiring that you and I are approaching the problem from opposite ends, as it were. I've never felt comfortable with "be ye perfect" and all the related references - I know that I'll never be perfect, or even moderately good, no matter how long I have or how many attempts I get; assuming that, whatever "I" may be, it has the same basic character and personality as it does at the moment. My hope, in the theological sense, is based on the doctrine that Jesus took upon Himself all of my sins, and paid the penalty that I deserve. If I thought that I had to rely on my own efforts to reach a state where I'd be acceptable to God, I'd just give up and reconcile myself to my inevitable damnation; indeed, I quite often feel like that anyway, despite my professed belief in the Atonement.

I understand the feeling. I just think we can, through our choices and experiences of several lifetimes, become what Christ was, that is; one with God.

To answer your question - I believe that God will tolerate all of our sins, both before and after we accept Jesus. Although I'd prefer to use the word "forgive". forgive is acceptable. Does that mean we can do anything and it will be forgiven? Hatred? {which Jesus compared to murder} Lust? {which Jesus compared to adultery} Those are pretty human, but it is possible to let them go.

I don't know how difficult you find your chosen path, but I know that it's not one that I could follow. But - I think it's a good thing that there can be many routes to the same ultimate goal. It's not so difficult. Along with learning to love there comes a certain peace and letting go of petty angers and contentions. Forgiveness of others and myself is quite joyful. It's an intersting journey.

[cosmosdan]

What makes no sense to me is how you can claim that different people with fundamentally irreconcilable belief systems, with fundamentally irreconcilable differences as to what "love" and "truth" actually mean, are converging on any sort of common ground. Nor does it make any sense to me why God would have to accept people that wish to have nothing to do with him, just because they are "good" people. Besides, if just being slightly dishonest or slightly impatient is enough to disqualify you from heaven, where are you getting people to go to heaven from? I don't know if anyone in history has lived up to the standards you wish to place on people.
Remember, love and truth are a constant and unchanging as qualities of God. Our perception of these eternal qualities may be quite different as we walk our different paths with different experiences. If those qualities are what we really seek, sincerely, then the more truly we percieve them , the more our differences will fade.
Regarding the section I bolded. That's funny. You really don't know anyone? Who have we been talking about? Hint...his initials are JC.
1 John 2: 3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Joey I'll say it again, When someone rejects a certain concept of God {either yours or mine} that doesn't mean they want nothing to do with God. If they are seeking love and truth they are on the path but they have to find a way that is true and meaningful for them. They need a relationship with God, not a relationship with someone elses concept of God.
To help illustrate I'll share a testimony with you.
I heard a sermon by a minister who was a counselor at a church collage. He talked to several students who were questioning the churches beliefs and expirimenting with other ideas and this worried him. He felt a responsibility to guide them back into the churches fold and save them from their doubt and spiritual danger. As he was walking and praying about how to approach it the impression came to him very clearly "Don't interfere with them, they are in my hands. Trust me"
These kids were searching for their own relationship with God. Something more real than church tradition and what their parents said but something born of their own search and encounter with God's guiding spirit. The minister out of a sense of duty was about to tell them they were wrong to do that and because of his sincere prayer was told. "Back off.......I got this one"
If they seek sincerely {by God's judgement not yours or mine} they will find. Thats the promise.



Nor does it make any sense to me why spending an eternity in heaven is something that any of these people would actually want. To a Buddhist, eternal life just means eternal suffering. Far better to go into the nothingness of Nirvana. To the Muslim spending eternity with God is impossible, because God has no companions. Heaven is merely a place that is filled with pleasure, God has nothing to do with it. Atheists don't even believe that God exists. For them being in heaven would be surreal, how can you be with someone who doesn't exist?

Simply put no matter how much you want to gloss over the differences between religions they are there, they are fundamental and they do matter.

I never said they don't matter at all, in any way, except in this way.

When faced with a choice, let's say some confrontation with another person, the Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and Atheists must choose how to respond. Choosing love and truth in that situation is choosing the path to God and choosing fear, and dishonesty, is choosing to remain apart. At the moment of that choice, what we may or may not believe about the next life is irrelevant.



No, if you study the history of the church you will find that the church has never believed in reincarnation. So far the only cite that you have given to show that the early church believed in reincarnation was a vague reference to Origen on the first page. As these sites (http://www.catholic.com/library/Reincarnation.asp) show (http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/reincar4.html) Origen never taught reincarnation or transmigration of souls. He did believe in the pre-existence of souls in a pre-incarnate state. He believed that these souls were only born once and then after that faced death and judgement. This is in no way re-incarnation. The first page also gives a number of quotes from early church fathers (even one from Origen himself) that show that re-incarnation was NOT a belief of the early church.
Your sources are questionable and not a neutral observer. The quote you mention does seem pretty clear but it is taken out of context and is attributed to Origen. This (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm) link from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy claims otherwise. I will concede that the issue is in question and I should not state it as fact without further research.
Besides this your whole argument is lacking any real logic. Passages about spiritual transformation DO NOT equal endorsement of re-incarnation. Re-incarnation is completely separate from spiritual transformation.
Of course it isn't. Spiritual transformation is the purpose of reincarnation.
Besides, if re-incarnation was real, wouldn't you think that the bible would mention it somewhere? If re-incarnation is real why does the bible consistently talk as it there is no re-incarnation?
I've tried to point out in this thread that it is mentioned in the Bible. The reason it isn't more clear is that the early church decided it was herecy so writings that supported it clearly would not be considered scripture. I have a question. You believe the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God right? Where is that doctrine supported in the Bible? Where is there any passage that indicates it was God's plan and intention that we have one final and authoritative collection of writings to reveal his will and plan? Where is it? PLease show me.

How does the biblical message of atonement fit in with re-incarnation? If re-incarnation is so obvious why has no other serious theologian in 2000 of biblical study thought that re-incarnation was taught by the bible. Why are you right and 100,000,000s of Christians world wide and throughout time wrong? Which is more likely, that a doctrine that has never been historically believed, and in the bible is never directly taught, never unambiguously alluded to and is in fact strongly alluded against if not flat out refuted is real, or that you might be mistaken? I think that you might be mistaken is the far more likely.
Yeah, that's what the church told MArtin Luther about his beliefs.
Again you reduce the truth to a popular vote. Atonement and reincarnation, here's a possibility.
Through his sacrifice and sinless life Jesus conquered death, and rose again so that all mankind could be saved. He became the mediator, the bridge between Man and God. How do we cross that bridge? We can accept that the bridge is there but it takes action to cross it because faith without works is no faith at all.
By following the guide of the Holy Spirit to all truth we purify our souls in love and work out our salvation through a series of lives untile we become perfect as he is perfect and become one with the Father as JEsus was.


There have been people who believed in reincarnation and Jesus down through the years. I wasn't the first to propose this and when I looked plenty of people who offered information. Perhaps no theologian who proposed it was taken seriously.

[Trust]

Let me try and explain what doesn't make sense to me.
The basic belief is that Christs died for our sins and if we acknowledge him as Savior we are saved? Is that right?

My basic belief is that if you believe in Christ, then you are saved, yes. Now in regards to the people who do not have a chance to believe in Christ, I do not make any opinion on them based on this. I rely on God to work out the details when it comes to this exception. The reason being, I would just be making guesses as to what will happen to people who do not have a chance of knowing Christ.


Does that mean after we accept Jesus we can do whatever we want? Almost all Christians would say no. Well if Christ died to erase all our sins then why not?
Which sins won't he erase?

Speaking from only my personal experience, it is impossible to genuinely know Christ and to do whatever we want. The two do not go together. The easy answer to your question is that Christ erases all sins for those who believe in Him.

So you might say that when the spirit enters us after we accept Jesus we are transformed? OKay. How much are we transformed? We don't become perfect instantly do we? No of course not. So we've accepted JEsus, we can't do whatever we want, but we're not perfect so we still fall a little short. That makes my question , how much sin will God tolerate from us after we accept Jesus. DId Jesus teach believe in me and try to behave reasonbly well? Did JEsus teach believe in me and do your very best but don't worry about it?
That's the prevailing idea among Christians that doesn't fit for me. It makes no sense.

Once again speaking only from my personal experience, we are transformed. We become new. To non-believers this seems completely idiotic and at one time I would have thought the exact same thing. But I know the incredible day to day changes that took place in me and noone can deny that. Now here is where we differ in our interpretations of the bible. I do not believe that we have to reach a certain height in our search for God. The very essence of belief in Christ tells me that it does not matter how good I am. I would strongly argue that the very knowledge of being genuinely forgiven for any possible thing I could do is what sets me free. Because of that simple fact, I am a million times of a better person now than I was before I knew Christ. The root of our disagreement is the fact that I do not believe that it is even possible for people to come even close to being like Christ. It would be like me reaching for a star down here on earth with my little hands. It's not gonna work. The very genius of the idea is that we have no idea what anyone else is going through. I am sure you see these people on tv all the time who have no freakin clue what Christ is about. They spout off the word Jesus for their own selfish reasons. Isn't it obvious that they are not about dying to themselves? I grew up with the best parents anyone could probably ever ask for. Never once did they use the word "Jesus" or "Christ". Hell, I didnt even know that Christmas had anything to do with a guy named Jesus. I had always looked up to people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi. Yet, I always knew that they had something other people didn't. I just couldn't put my finger on what was different about them. Now I know that they were simply following Christ's example and died to their crosses. They never even had to say His name. I simply knew.

[Trust]

I usually lurk, and I've been reading this thread with great interest, but I thought I'd jump in here and defend cosmosdan a little.

Frankly, I don't understand why Trust and Joey Jo Jo are demanding that cosmosdan read the Bible as literally and as conservatively as they do. He acknowledges that he does not believe in much of what traditional Christianity has taught, he agrees that he does not believe the Bible is completely consistent and/or accurate, and he doesn't even consider himself a Christian. Why do you expect him to read the Bible the same way you do when he admits that he is not even following the same faith as you? Comparing him to the KKK because he's doing what Christians have been doing for 2000 years now is pretty darn offensive if you ask me, and I think it's amazing that he responded with so much grace.

Let's face the facts, the Bible is subject to interpretation, and literalists don't read it as literally as they think. Even when you use language like "substitutionary atonement" and "Christ died to erase our sins", you're interpreting the Bible, just like cosmosdan. Calling anyone who disagrees with these theological points a heretic is pretty much ignoring 1000 years of Christian history (http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/atonemen.htm) and a pretty major Christian denomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church).

If I came across as being disrespectful, I apologize. Cosmosdan and I disagree on a lot of the smaller points. I have no problem at all with his viewpoints and I very well know that there are numerous other points that are equally valid. In my eyes, when we discuss things like this we come to know God better. The reason I probably sound slightly more harsh on this is because I strongly feel that Cosmosdan is not taking the intended view on Christ. That is why we are discussing in the first place. To understand each others viewpoint better.

[Trust]

Cosmosdan, It seems as if you are having a problem with believing that Christ takes away our sins because you do not understand how that is possible. That is a very logical argument. Let me try and explain my view on this. I will use another example in hopes that you will connect this example to how Christ takes away our sins.

Take the example of Free Will. It is not possible in human terms, to understand how God could make us have free will. The reason being, we only understand cause and effect. Pretend a human is making a body that runs by a program. The program simply responds to inputs that it receives and then provides the necessary outputs. Of coarse we can do all kinds of tricks to make him appear more real such as making him function randomly, or give him special artificial intelligence. But we still know that this computer does not have life. In this way, it does not make sense to us that God could have made us to have the attributes of spontenuity, or be free thinking. We simply do not have a mechanism by which this would work. However, it is fairly obvious that we have free will. At any time we can do whatever the hell we want. We understand that God could have made us this way, we just do not have a mechanism by which it would work. Now if you relate this to how Christ died for our sins, you will see what I am talking about. We do not have a mechanism by which Christ died for our sins. We have ideas as to what that could be. But we have to still rely on faith and scripture that Christ is who he is portrayed as being in the new testament. That is how we come to know who Christ is in the first place.

[cosmosdan]

My basic belief is that if you believe in Christ, then you are saved, yes. Now in regards to the people who do not have a chance to believe in Christ, I do not make any opinion on them based on this. I rely on God to work out the details when it comes to this exception. The reason being, I would just be making guesses as to what will happen to people who do not have a chance of knowing Christ.


I think we differ here. I understand the feeling of spiritual salvation when one surrenders their heart to God and Christ. I understand the feeling of forgivness and incredible gratitude. I have great reverence for that experience. I do believe our journey continues after that experience.

Speaking from only my personal experience, it is impossible to genuinely know Christ and to do whatever we want. The two do not go together. The easy answer to your question is that Christ erases all sins for those who believe in Him.
Yes, according to the Bible it is impossible to truly know God and sin at all. And yet people who have accepted Christ do sin. How does that work? I think that profound experience is only beginng to know. Remember Paul said, "know we know in part , but then I will know as I am know" And
Phil 3: 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. 13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,
Remember the parable of the seeds when Christ described some seeds on rocky ground, some on fertile soil, some were choked by thorns. The seeds were the word of God. Not the written or spoken word but the living word which is the spirit that speaks to our heart. When we recieve that seed and it begins to grow there are seasons to follow. It doesn't start out mature. I appreciate your feelings on the matter but how do you as a believer view the scipture that indicates this process of growth.

Once again speaking only from my personal experience, we are transformed. We become new. To non-believers this seems completely idiotic and at one time I would have thought the exact same thing. But I know the incredible day to day changes that took place in me and noone can deny that. Now here is where we differ in our interpretations of the bible. I do not believe that we have to reach a certain height in our search for God. The very essence of belief in Christ tells me that it does not matter how good I am. I would strongly argue that the very knowledge of being genuinely forgiven for any possible thing I could do is what sets me free. Because of that simple fact, I am a million times of a better person now than I was before I knew Christ. The root of our disagreement is the fact that I do not believe that it is even possible for people to come even close to being like Christ. It would be like me reaching for a star down here on earth with my little hands. It's not gonna work.
I think accepting Christ is the beginning of the transformation. Again, I understand the feeling you describe about not being able to measure up and be completely Christ like, and yet, there are many scriptures saying exactly that. How do you view those scriptures? Of course you must believe God could create a way for us to be perfected spiritually as Christ was. I believe he did and that path includes reincarnation.

The very genius of the idea is that we have no idea what anyone else is going through. I am sure you see these people on tv all the time who have no freakin clue what Christ is about. They spout off the word Jesus for their own selfish reasons. Isn't it obvious that they are not about dying to themselves? I grew up with the best parents anyone could probably ever ask for. Never once did they use the word "Jesus" or "Christ". Hell, I didnt even know that Christmas had anything to do with a guy named Jesus. I had always looked up to people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi. Yet, I always knew that they had something other people didn't. I just couldn't put my finger on what was different about them. Now I know that they were simply following Christ's example and died to their crosses. They never even had to say His name. I simply knew. Interesting you should mention Gandhi. I have great respect for Gandhi and have several books of his writings. I feel strongly that he was a holy man who communed with God, yet he remained a Hindu all his life. He's one of the reasons I feel like I do. Many Christians would say if Gandhi did not accept Christ as savior he went to hell regardless of the fact that he devoted his life to service to others and a pursuit of truth and love. To me that denies all the scriptures that indicates otherwise.

[cosmosdan]

Cosmosdan, It seems as if you are having a problem with believing that Christ takes away our sins because you do not understand how that is possible. That is a very logical argument. Let me try and explain my view on this. I will use another example in hopes that you will connect this example to how Christ takes away our sins. I don't really have a problem believeing it. I think we just disagree somewhat on how the process actually unfolds.

Take the example of Free Will. It is not possible in human terms, to understand how God could make us have free will. The reason being, we only understand cause and effect. Pretend a human is making a body that runs by a program. The program simply responds to inputs that it receives and then provides the necessary outputs. Of coarse we can do all kinds of tricks to make him appear more real such as making him function randomly, or give him special artificial intelligence. But we still know that this computer does not have life. In this way, it does not make sense to us that God could have made us to have the attributes of spontenuity, or be free thinking. We simply do not have a mechanism by which this would work. However, it is fairly obvious that we have free will. At any time we can do whatever the hell we want. We understand that God could have made us this way, we just do not have a mechanism by which it would work. Now if you relate this to how Christ died for our sins, you will see what I am talking about. We do not have a mechanism by which Christ died for our sins. We have ideas as to what that could be. But we have to still rely on faith and scripture that Christ is who he is portrayed as being in the new testament. That is how we come to know who Christ is in the first place.

In the beginng that's true but the Bible tells us we can understand spiritual things with the guidence of the spirit. As a 3rd grader we can't comprehend what a college professor might teach but with faith patience and some disclipline we can get there. Thats how I see it, and the Bible supports it.

Let's recap I don't think we have that many differences.

We both believe that faith in Christ will lead to salvation although we disagree on the process.
I believe that sincere people from any or no religion are on the path to God if they seek love and truth. You seem to believe this but I'm not really sure.

I appreciate your willingness to continue our discussion. It apears Joey thinks I'm too arrogent to continue to talk with. I agree with your previous post. Being able to discuss things with people we don't agree with promtes mutual understanding as well as helping us examine and challenge our own beliefs.
Sincere thanks.

[Trust]

I think we differ here. I understand the feeling of spiritual salvation when one surrenders their heart to God and Christ. I understand the feeling of forgivness and incredible gratitude. I have great reverence for that experience. I do believe our journey continues after that experience. .

I think we just have to agree to disagree. I just do not see enough evidence for reincarnation and I consider it a non-issue. I have no problem talking about it with you however.

Yes, according to the Bible it is impossible to truly know God and sin at all. And yet people who have accepted Christ do sin. How does that work? I think that profound experience is only beginng to know. Remember Paul said, "know we know in part , but then I will know as I am know" And .

Just because we have accepted Christ does not mean that we are always able to truly see God at every second of our lives. We are still able and still do make poor decisions. I have no idea what that quote means lol. I know that God says "I am is I am" or something like that. So maybe if we are know God we know so we know :D


Remember the parable of the seeds when Christ described some seeds on rocky ground, some on fertile soil, some were choked by thorns. The seeds were the word of God. Not the written or spoken word but the living word which is the spirit that speaks to our heart. When we recieve that seed and it begins to grow there are seasons to follow. It doesn't start out mature. I appreciate your feelings on the matter but how do you as a believer view the scipture that indicates this process of growth.

The process of growth is a huge part of a Christians life. I make a huge distinction between receiving salvation and the process of growth. Just because someone receives salvation does not mean that they are always going to be able to follow Christs example perfectly. I do know that a real relationship with Christ leads to incredibly great things. Our church within the past year gave out over 100,000 meals for thanksgiving, gave hundreds of presents to kids whose parents are in prison who otherwise wouldnt have had presents, partnered with www.xxxchurch.com, built the largest AIDS hospice is South Africa, built a bigger church to hold 3000 people (we still need 4 services), and just closed on the citylink center which will feed less fortunate people in the Cincinnati area. And this is just a secondary goal. The main goal is to come to know Christ. Everything else follows naturally.


I think accepting Christ is the beginning of the transformation. Again, I understand the feeling you describe about not being able to measure up and be completely Christ like, and yet, there are many scriptures saying exactly that. How do you view those scriptures? Of course you must believe God could create a way for us to be perfected spiritually as Christ was. I believe he did and that path includes reincarnation.

I consider those scriptures that say to be perfect like our father to mean what they sound like... To be just like your father. I just dont think it is meant to be taken completely seriously as in something that is attainable during this life. That would kind of take away the point of Christ for me and the perfect idea of Christ.

Interesting you should mention Gandhi. I have great respect for Gandhi and have several books of his writings. I feel strongly that he was a holy man who communed with God, yet he remained a Hindu all his life. He's one of the reasons I feel like I do. Many Christians would say if Gandhi did not accept Christ as savior he went to hell regardless of the fact that he devoted his life to service to others and a pursuit of truth and love. To me that denies all the scriptures that indicates otherwise.

Based on everything I know about Ghandi, I would have to agree with you on this point. Now of coarse I have no idea what went through his thoughts so I cannot come close to being a perfect judge. I do feel that Ghandi followed Christ a million times more than a lot of people I know. I really cannot make judgements on the exceptions. I leave it to God.


The one question I am curious about is this. How can you say that this life is about reaching a certain spiritual level? The reason I ask is because, who do you know that is even close to being like Christ? There are so few people who are like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa etc. That would imply that, what, like a few hundred people ever get saved before this earth and life ends?

[Trust]

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
I Corinthians 13:4-8a (NIV)

Love is not proud? I always thought to myself that the writers of this surely made a mistake. How could love not be proud? Of coarse love is proud. Now I have come to realize that love has nothing to do with pride. When you are proud of someone, you love them for their accomplishments. God does not love us for our accomplishments. Besides, what accomplishments? We have none. I honestly believe that when you let go of this feeling of constantly trying to be perfect and you believe in Christ, that you become perfect like our father. Not by our doing, but by grace. That is why I do not believe in a spiritual goal as you put it.

[cosmosdan]

The process of growth is a huge part of a Christians life. I make a huge distinction between receiving salvation and the process of growth. Just because someone receives salvation does not mean that they are always going to be able to follow Christs example perfectly. I do know that a real relationship with Christ leads to incredibly great things. Our church within the past year gave out over 100,000 meals for thanksgiving, gave hundreds of presents to kids whose parents are in prison who otherwise wouldnt have had presents, partnered with www.xxxchurch.com, built the largest AIDS hospice is South Africa, built a bigger church to hold 3000 people (we still need 4 services), and just closed on the citylink center which will feed less fortunate people in the Cincinnati area. And this is just a secondary goal. The main goal is to come to know Christ. Everything else follows naturally.

That's awesome. I know other churches are doing a lot to feed the poor and other things Christ commanded. A friend of mine goes to a methodist church that shelters and feeds the homless. It's great.


The one question I am curious about is this. How can you say that this life is about reaching a certain spiritual level? The reason I ask is because, who do you know that is even close to being like Christ? There are so few people who are like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa etc. That would imply that, what, like a few hundred people ever get saved before this earth and life ends?

Thats a good question. Sometimes I think this world is like a grade in grade school and once you grow beyond it you move on to another place of higher learning although we have not yet "graduated" Dr. Wayne Dyer has a CD set out called the Power of Intention that mentions this. There are very few spiritual giants that come to earth. The Bible says God created worlds without end and in my father's house are many mansions. It even mentions a man caught up to the third heaven.
So, I think it's likley that people can move on from this earth before they achieve a true CHristlike stature.

[baronsabato]

Honestly cosmosdan, I don't think I would have any qualms at all with you if you decided to consider yourself a Christian. It sounds to me like you're truly seeking a relationship with God, and to follow Christ, which is pretty much my definition of a Christian. You may not believe in salvation the same way much of mainstream Christianity does, but frankly, neither do I. I may not go so far as to consider reincarnation, but I really don't consider that essential at all- if we know that we are indeed guaranteed our salvation through Jesus, but disagree on what that salvation means, I would gladly welcome you as a brother in Christ.

[cosmosdan]

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
I Corinthians 13:4-8a (NIV)

Love is not proud? I always thought to myself that the writers of this surely made a mistake. How could love not be proud? Of coarse love is proud. Now I have come to realize that love has nothing to do with pride. When you are proud of someone, you love them for their accomplishments. God does not love us for our accomplishments. Besides, what accomplishments? We have none. I honestly believe that when you let go of this feeling of constantly trying to be perfect and you believe in Christ, that you become perfect like our father. Not by our doing, but by grace. That is why I do not believe in a spiritual goal as you put it.

True spiritual growth and communion with the Holy Spirit removes pride. You realize you are part of the larger whole and there's no sense of "Look what I have done" It's more of a sense of gratitude and joyous particpation and anticipation. I'm not a perfectionist in the traditional sense of the word. I have plenty of imperfections. I believe that the day to day experience of life is there to help us toward this spiritual perfection. It's not a personal accomplishment. You use what you have as best you can and more will be given. If someone really pisses me off I try to see what I learn about myself from that. I want to learn how to let it go and forgive because I am aware that I need forgiveness.

It's okay that our paths are different. One doesn't have to be right and the other wrong. The important thing is to find the path that is your path given born from within yourself.

[cosmosdan]

Honestly cosmosdan, I don't think I would have any qualms at all with you if you decided to consider yourself a Christian. It sounds to me like you're truly seeking a relationship with God, and to follow Christ, which is pretty much my definition of a Christian. You may not believe in salvation the same way much of mainstream Christianity does, but frankly, neither do I. I may not go so far as to consider reincarnation, but I really don't consider that essential at all- if we know that we are indeed guaranteed our salvation through Jesus, but disagree on what that salvation means, I would gladly welcome you as a brother in Christ.
I made the decision to not call myself a Christian for a couple of reasons. 1 All the attention the religious right are getting. I am throughly disgusted with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robinson and others useing the name of Christ to justify their hatefulness. 2. In general I think Christianity is clinging to some traditional beliefs that point in the wrong direction. That being said I know there are many wonderful loving sincere people who embrace Christianity and thats great. I look at the spirit driving the person not the title. When I meet someone who says "I'm a Christian" it doesn't tell me anything about what kind of person they are. It seems to me that it should because they are saying " I follow and worship Jesus"

I have friends and family from with various beliefs including a atheist or two. Love is love and my atheist sister gives of herself to help strangers by doing volunteer work and has a keen insight into people needing an emotional boost from a kind word a phone call or letter. It does seem to me that there is an inner decision about what kind of person we want to be, what we place value on, that is different from what religious beliefs we hold in some intellectual place. I think God sees that inner decision. I wish more Christians were as open minded as you are. and again my sincere thanks.