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.

Quote:


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:


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

Quote:


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

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.
"

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_i...

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.