Berserk,

Thank you for your excellent response to the issues I raised in the thread on channeling.  I will respond to some of your points in that thread tomorrow.  For now, I want to start a new thread to talk more about the question of reincarnation.


wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2005 at 10:28pm:

I reject reincarnation for many evidential reasons, but I remain open to the possibility of being wrong on this point.

I would like to know, what evidence are you talking about?  How could there be any evidence proving that reincarnation is false, unless you mean direct revelation from God stating this to be the case?  I have never found any statements in the Bible that directly rule out reincarnation.  (The few verses Christians often point to I have found very unconvincing.)

I see the Bible as being mostly silent on the issue.  The Elijah/John the Baptist connection could be interpreted as reincarnation, but not necessarily.  I have a feeling that many Christians object to reincarnation not so much because there is any Biblical or other evidence refuting it, but simply because the concept is associated with Hinduism, Gnosticism, and New Age spirituality, all of which contain some seriously erroneous viewpoints.  Thus, reincarnation is condemned by association.

The problem is, there are several logical reasons why reincarnation would make sense.  One is the problem of aborted fetuses, stillborn babies, and babies who die in infancy.  Their lives are so short that they really have no chance to do anything on earth, so it would make sense for them to get another shot to learn the valuable lessons of earth-life by means of reincarnation.

Another reason for reincarnation is that it could be a method God uses to redeem souls and enable them to enter heaven -- a purgatorial process, where if one life is not enough, another life is granted until the soul is perfected enough to "graduate" from the earth plane.

I do not accept the karmic view of reincarnation.  If reincarnation is true, I see it only as a means of purging, purifying, and perfecting the soul, not the karmic model most often assumed to be the reason for reincarnation.

If God does not send the wicked back to another life on earth, how can they ever learn the lessons earth has to offer well enough to enter heaven?  Presumably if you "flunk out" of earth one time, you'd have to go there again until you "pass."  The other alternative is eternal damnation -- that some souls will never be able to enter heaven because they didn't do well enough on earth.  Or, perhaps souls could be perfected in some other plane of existence -- but why not earth?  What is so verboten about the notion of God sending a soul to the earth plane more than once, if that would benefit the soul's progression towards heaven?


Quote:

Would you be willing to consult relevant posts on Robert Bruce's website "Astralpulse.com" under the topical section "Judaism and Early Christianity?"  A moderator (Beth) created a post that defends your viewpoint in detail ("Reincarnation in Judaism and Christianity").  I rebut all her historical claims in a post (by "Berserk") entitled "Reincarnation in the Bible and the Early Church?"  I argue that reincarnation cannot be found in the Bible, the Palestinian Judaism of late antiquity, or the early church (aoart from 2nd century Gnosticism).   After several months,  neither Beth nor her supporters have challenged any of my points.  So I'd appreciate your feedback.

Thanks for directing me to these articles.  I went to that forum and read through the two threads you mentioned, yours and Beth's, but I will have to read them again more carefully.

My initial reaction is as follows:  I neither agree with Beth that reincarnation is an explicit teaching of the Bible and/or the early Christian church, nor do I agree with you that it is antithetical to these sources of spiritual wisdom.  It seems to me that the issue just was not settled.  Some Christians probably believed in it and others didn't, and the Bible seems not to discuss it at all, except a few verses possibly promoting it and a few verses possibly rejecting it.

Certainly the most common belief among the Jews at the time was resurrection of the physical flesh.  But there was also a common belief in a non-physical soul that survives death.  The New Testament can be interpreted as promoting either view, or possibly both.  Today, there are some Christian denominations that teach only physical resurrection and no afterlife for the soul alone, and there are other denominations that teach that the soul immediately goes to heaven upon death of the body.

The point is, the issue of exactly what happens after death has always been an open question in Christianity.  The possibilty of reincarnation remains also in the mix because of some Bible verses about Elijah and John the Baptist and speculations about Jesus being the return of Old Testament prophets.

I want to comment briefly on why in my own mind the Elijah/John the Baptist issue is so significant.  The traditional Christian view, which you explained so well in your posts on the Astralpulse forum, leaves open some really heretical possibilities about the return of Christ.  Allow me to explain.

In Malachi, it says Elijah must return before Messiah comes.  In two Gospels (Matthew and Mark), Jesus identifies John the Baptist as Elijah, and therefore the OT prophecy has been fulfilled.  Most Christians argue that the statement in Luke that John the Baptist comes "in the spirit and power of Elijah" means it is something short of reincarnation; it is only the return of certain characteristics, not the soul.  But here's the problem -- and boy is it a BIG problem!  If Elijah can come back as another person, and this is not actual reincarnation but just another person with similar characteristics, and this is good enough to fulfill prophecy, then why can't Jesus do the same?  Could Jesus Christ return as some new guy, a totally new person, and not even be the reincarnation of the historical Jesus?  Could the Return of Christ prophesied in the NT be legitimately fulfilled by a totally different person with a different soul -- not even the same soul as Jesus -- but who shares characteristics with Jesus?

The fact is, if Christians accept the idea that John the Baptist is the legitimate, prophetically designated return of Elijah required by the Book of Malachi in order for Jesus to be the true Messiah -- even though John the Baptist is not even the reincarnation of Elijah's soul -- then there is no logical reason whatsoever to reject the idea of Jesus Christ returning as some new guy with a totally different soul, who has some "christlike" characteristics.

Guess what?  There is a whole religion founded on this argument.  It's called the Baha'i faith.  In the 1800's a Persian Shi'ite Muslim spiritual leader named Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri declared himself "Baha'u'llah" (the Glory of God) and claimed to be the return of Christ, the return of the 12th Imam of the Shi'ite mystical tradition, the Shah Bahram of Zoroastrianism, the Maitreya Buddha, and just about every other prophetic figure expected by various religions.  He made this claim based on the idea that he came in their spirit and power, with their characteristics -- not reincarnation or anything more substantive.  His religion spread into the West and has gotten about 6 million followers worldwide.  Several prominent liberal Christian ministers in Europe and America converted to the Baha'i faith in the early 1900's.  Guess what one of the main arguments was that Baha'u'llah used for his claim to be the return of Christ prophesied in the Bible, and which the Christian ministers embraced, and which Baha'is today use in their efforts to convert Christians?  It is the argument that "If John the Baptist could be the return of Elijah, then Baha'u'llah can be the return of Christ.  And Christ himself laid down this principle of prophetic return in the Bible."

I think it's very dangerous to accept such a loose view of prophetic fulfillment, that a whole new man can be the fulfillment of a prophecy of the return of a past prophet, and he doesn't even have to have the same soul.  New body, new soul, totally new person -- but somehow the return of a prophet which is required by scripture?  I don't think so.  It leaves the door wide open for false prophets and false christs.

At least if reincarnation is required in order for a prophet to return, a case could be made that he could come in a new physical body if God doesn't want him appearing on earth in his spirit-body.  But if not even the soul has to be the same, then in what way was the Elijah prophecy in Malachi fulfilled, in any way that is not a total stretch of scripture which Jews have an excellent argument for rejecting and therefore choosing not to accept the Messiahship of Jesus?  JMHO.

Freebird

I'm sorry but you can't be a christian and not believe in what the religion tells you. It's like saying "I like fruit pie except for the fruits".

You either believe in reincarnation or in incarnation. Christians believe in incarnation.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/113/story_11397_1.html

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=198

wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2005 at 7:29am:

I'm sorry but you can't be a christian and not believe in what the religion tells you. It's like saying "I like fruit pie except for the fruits". You either believe in reincarnation or in incarnation. Christians believe in incarnation.

There are a lot of things Christians believe which may or may not be accurate.  Most Christians believe in eternal hell, which is a flagrant mistranslation/misinterpretation of the Bible.  Many Christians (Catholics) believe it is necessary to consume the literal body and blood of Christ in order to be saved, and they teach that the eucharist is literally transformed from bread and wine into flesh and blood even though it doesn't look and taste like it.  Catholics also believe the virgin Mary was born without original sin, which is an idea found nowhere whatsoever in the Bible.  There is even less Biblical justification for Catholic beliefs about Mary than there is for reincarnation.  Does that mean the billions of Catholics in the world are non-Christians?

IMHO, whether or not a person is a Christian is defined by a few simple things: do you believe Jesus is the Messiah and you accept his teachings and pledge your allegiance to him as Lord, and you believe he died on the cross and rose from the dead?  If so, you are a Christian.  Various Christians disagree on a whole lot of other things taught by religion -- by different competing churches and denominations, each with their own ideas about the details of Christianity.  I do not believe in religion; I only believe in Jesus and his teachings.  If that means I'm not a "Christian" by some people's standards... so be it.

Freebird

I know what you mean about the bible and everything. Lucifer wasn't even a character in the original bible. It was created thru bad traduction.  The whole story of the fallen angel was actually about a babylonian king.

Anyhow, If you call yourself a christian you believe in the resurection of mankind at the end of time. Which is in direct opposition with reincarnation which states that you will live again and again.

If you take parts of a religion to make yourown beliefs, then you are not a christian. You are a spiritual person.

Nothing bad with that though. I am such a person too.

Dear Raphael,

Freebird is quite capable of defending his own perspectives.  But I thought you might be interested in an important point about the traditional Christian belief in "bodily resurrection at the end of time."   After his dramatic encounter with the blinding Christ light on the Damascus road, it took Paul years to shed all his theological baggage from his days as a Pharisee.  Old Testament Judaism noticed that the fate of the body affected the plight of the mind (senility in old age, etc.).  They concluded that body and soul were inseparable and therefore the soul cannot survive death without a restored body.  Thus, in his earliest epistles, Paul does teach the resurrection of the body at the end of time (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17).  But fresh revelation brings Paul to the conviction that we survive fully conscious at death, at which time we receive our spiritual or heavenly body:

"Now we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down--when we die and leave these bodies--we will have a home in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. . . We long for the day when we will put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing.  For we will not be spirits without bodies, but we will put on our new heavenly bodies. . .It's not that we want to die and have no bodies at all.  We want to slip into our new bodies, so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by everlasting life (New Living Translation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-4)."

"For me to live is Christ and to die is gain.  If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me.  Yet what shall I choose?  I do not know!  I am torn between the two; I DESIRE TO DEPART AND BE WITH CHRIST, WHICH IS BETTER BY FAR; but it but it is necessary for you that I remain in the body (Philippians 1:21-24)."

Paul's ongoing revelations bring his teaching into line with the  crucified Jesus' promise to the penitent dying thief:

"Then he [the thief] said, `Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.'  I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:42-43).'"  

Jesus may even be promising a soul "retrieval" here.  Jesus conceives of death as such an immediate transition from one dimension to another that He deems it helpful to think of death as illusory : "Whoever lives and believes in me will never die (John 11:26)."

Once the church realized that we survive fully conscious at death, the prior notion of a latter-day bodily resurrection loses its former function and becomes obsolete.

Berserk

P.S. I hope people don't think you are the Raphael I have in mind in my post on channeling.
"

Berserk explained the issue of resurrection and the soul very well.  I agree with everything he said about it.

I would add two opinions of mine for your consideration.  One, I believe there will be a time in the future when redeemed (or advanced) souls in heaven will be able to come down to earth in "resurrection bodies" and live on earth among the physically living.  This will be a new era in human history, and it can be understood as the "general resurrection of the dead" prophesied in the Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions.  For people alive on earth when this happens, they will suddenly see all kinds of dead people appearing among them, in bodies similar to a physical body but with greater powers such as Jesus had after his resurrection (ability to walk through walls, appear and disappear at will, instantaneous travel, telepathy, etc.).  They will be in spiritual bodies that are enabled to fully interact with the physical world, including such things as eating and drinking.  The reason this will happen is that these advanced souls will be coming down to transform the civilization of earth into the promised millennial kingdom of God.  The veil between living and dead will finally be lifted, and this planet will pass into a new era of greater spiritual advancement long awaited by most religions.

Secondly, I want to say that I do believe the physical body of Jesus did disappear from the tomb, and was transenergized into light and radiation.  This is what caused the image on the Shroud of Turin, as scientific research is beginning to show (see www.shroud.com to learn more about this amazing cloth).  However, I do not believe, as most Christians do, that this disappearance of the body represents an arising or revival of the physical flesh of Jesus.  Jesus arose in his spirit-body, and his physical body was miraculously transformed or dematerialized.  The reason why this had to be done by God was to prove that Jesus really was still alive.  If his body had slowly decayed, all the appearances people saw of the risen Jesus could have been dismissed as mere visions or as somebody else, not the same Jesus.  That's because many of the Jews at that time believed the only way to survive death is through the raising up of the physical body.  God wanted to prove that Jesus Christ totally defeated death and allow for no doubt about this.  That was the purpose of the sudden disappearance/dematerialization of the body.  By doing this, God also left scientific proof of the resurrection on a cloth that people today can examine with modern technology, confirming the truth of Christ in a skeptical age.

I also should mention, the issue of whether the afterlife is a raising of the physical flesh only, or a non-physical soul departing the body and going into another dimension at death, is a major bone of contention among evangelical/conservative Christians.  The bodily-resurrection-only view actually seems to be gaining ground in recent years, from what I can tell.  I think that's really unfortunate, because it is a step backward into the ideas of primitive Judaism, and it requires a total rejection of phenomena such as NDEs and OBEs, for which there even seems to be some evidence in the Bible.

Among some Christians, the condemnation of belief in a non-physical soul that survives death is so strong, that it is condemned no less strongly than the belief in reincarnation!  This is interesting because it just goes to show that different Christians hold very different views about the afterlife, and that is yet another reason why I am open to the possibility of reincarnation.  The Bible provides little guidance on the issue of the precise nature of the afterlife, and actually contains competing views within itself and a lot of vague statements and metaphors that can be interpreted multiple ways.  A large degree of open mindedness is therefore warranted among mature Christians on these matters, IMO.

Freebird

Well I am not a christian like I already said but this debate is quite interesting.

I would like to refer to the Vatican report on the new age movement : http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

In which they clearly state that a lot of beliefs, like reincarnation, are not compatible with christianity. (just go directly to the comparison)

As for Berserk :

What you said isn't realy in favor of reincarnation from the Christian point of view. Being counscious in heaven is not a problem. The thing is, they believe you stay in the afterlife until the end of time after which there will be a resurection. So the good souls will be recycled, will live again in a much better world.