Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

From a biblical perspective, little discussion is required for it says...


"It is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgement"  

God would be unrighteous to allow second chances through reincarnation.

ace

    RE: .1 Do you have a reference for that quote? Thanks.
    
    		Alfred
    
    PS: 2 pet pieves of mine are quoting a verse without the reference
    and giving a reference to a verse or two without quoting the text.
    

    RE: .2   Alfred,
    
                      It is interesting that the author of .1 should pick
    one of the most controversial of verses to "prove" his idea.
    
                      You will find the verse in Hebrews 10:27.  The word
    for "appointed" is very much in doubt according to many Greek scholors.
    
    
       *    Hebrews 10:24   And as it is appointed unto men once to die, 
                            but after this the judgement:
                                                       
                                                           KJV
    
    Dave

Good topic, Dave.

A book a group I was in used for a Lenten study was _The Hope of Heaven_ by 
Helen Oppenheimer (or is it Oppenheim?)  She is an Oxford taught theologian,
and while her sentence structure tends to be rather convoluted and difficult
to read, I found it a fascinating, if challenging, book. 

She discusses many topics, comparing and contrasting them, among which are
resurrection and reincarnation.  Briefly, this is her view on the subject... 

To be "reincarnated" is to say that there is some part of a being that does
not die, but is transfered to some new form.  The fact that some spirit part 
is immortal makes us not 100 per cent dependent on God.

When we die, we are dead completely; physically, mentally, spiritually.  There 
is no part that lives.  However, Jesus has conquered death in his
Resurrection, and thus we have the "Hope of Heaven".  We are completely
dependent on the Grace of God. 

She goes on to explore the nature of Heaven...I think the strongest point she 
makes is that we are recognizable entities, not some sort of spirit stew.  In
the same way that people in the Bible recognized the risen Lord (cooking fish
on the beach, walking to Emmaus, et cetera), we will all be recognizable. 
Like a crystal of which we now can see only a single facet, all facets will be
visible.  (Think of the ways one recognizes another person, through physical
image face to face, or one's voice on the telephone, or hand writing, or style
of noting.  Sometimes a person remains unfamiliar until a particular turn of
phrase triggers recognition.  From childhood friends to penpals to notes
friends, though we grow and change, we will be individually recognizable.) 

We will also continue in the process of being made perfect.  As we are loving 
now, we will be loving in heaven.  As we are shameful and in pain we will be 
in heaven, too, but that shame and pain will be exposed and dealt with in the
presence of God.  (There's no hiding in Heaven!)  It will be the greatest
healing experience of our, er, um, afterlives? .-)

That being said, and I must say her book made a lot of sense to me, there may 
be other different concepts of reincarnation which Ms. Oppenheimer doesn't 
deal with (admittedly, she approaches non-Resurrection theologies as a 
foreigner), so I offer this only as a resource for exploration, and will read 
with interest other viewpoints.

Peace,

Jim

    Jim,

    I like the idea that "we will also continue in the process of being
    made perfect" in an afterlife, and that "it will be the greatest
    healing experience of our afterlives".  This is consistent with my own
    belief that salvation is a process, rather than a simply binary
    condition that you either attain or don't attain.  I think that this is
    a potent contribution to theology by those religions that express
    a belief in reincarnation, and a useful one even for the Christian
    doctrine of a single life on Earth followed by an afterlife in heaven. 
    The idea of spiritual growth continuing after we die, assuming that
    there is a life after death, makes a lot of sense to me.

    This doctrine also implies, by the way, a kind of Universalism, since
    it holds out the possibility for *everyone* to grow towards God.  This
    view would deny that anyone is permanently and irrevocably consigned to
    "hell", since it presumes that God would always present the opportunity
    for individuals even in the afterlife to move closer to God.  I find
    that much more consistent with my understanding of God's compassionate
    nature than the notion of eternal damnation.  I also believe that it
    leads to a conception of religion not being a kind of passport to
    heaven but rather a means and a process of growth, healing, and
    reconciliation with God, others, and ourselves.  

    -- Mike

re.3 
Dave,

>                    You will find the verse in Hebrews 10:27.  The word
>    for "appointed" is very much in doubt according to many Greek scholors.
    
Which greek scholars and what is in doubt? The word appointed in this verse
means "reserved" or "laid up". 

I'm sure those who don't accept its directness will doubt it.

Ace

BTW the verse is Hebrews 9:27, not 10:27. But I like 10:27 too... 8*)  8*)

"But a certain fearful expectation of judgement and fiery zeal about to consume
the adversaries"

    What of the statement in the Bible that John the Baptist was the
    reincarnation of Elijah?
    
    Bonnie

re.7

	The Bible doesn't say that John was the reincarnation of Elijah.

ace

P.S Would you mind quoting the verse you're referring to so that Alfred (.2)
doesn't get ticked off again. 8*)  8*)  8*)

	RE: .7 Come on Bonnie, give us the reference and save the wear and tear
	on our concordances. :-)

	RE: Hebrews 9:27 I don't think the question is on the work "appointed".
	Rather the question is on "once". Does it mean the once we had to die
	or does it mean we had to die one time? The second half could mean that
	after we die we are judged. That's fairly clear but then what? Do we
	get to live and die again? I think not but it is open to dispute. The
	grammar is somewhat unclear. Perhaps less so in the Greek? I don't
	read Greek I'm afraid.

			Alfred

    I don't have a reference, but it's something that my husband and
    my father in law have frequently mentioned.
    
    Guess we'll have to wait until DR gets a chance to log into the file.
    
    Bonnie

Indeed it is clear that

  1)  Elijah was to come again and that John the Baptist came

  2)  John the Baptist was not Elijah

  3)  John the Baptist was Elijah

Finding the appropriate verses is left as an exercise to the (ticked off)
reader...  :-)

Collis

    Actually reincarnation makes no sense to me from a practical point of
    view.

    I believe that there are more people alive today than have lived
    since the time of Christ. (or close on to that) in the mid 21st
    century, we may well be adding more *people* to the earth in 
    a few weeks than lived in the entire past of human history. 

    So there just aren't enough 'personalities' around to be recycled.
    Anyone who believes they've been reincarnated more than once has
    had more than their 'share' of past lives.

    One thing that I've thought of, to explain the phenomenon of people
    feeling they have lived before is something carried in memory RNA.

    It could be possible that the experiences of having lived before
    could be prompted by memories carried in the RNA we get via the
    egg from our mothers.

    Bonnie

>Finding the appropriate verses is left as an exercise to the (ticked off)
>reader...  :-)

	Who can't find *any* New Testament reference to Elijah. Is it spelled
	differently in the NT or is my concordance program just broken?

			Alfred

Re:  Elijah

  Matthew 11:7-15  (v14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the
    Elijah who was to come.)

  Matthew 17:9-13 (v11-13  Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and
    will restore all things.  But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and
    they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they
    wished.  In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their
    hands."  Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them
    about John the Baptist.)  Mark 9:11-13

  John 1:21  They asked him, "Then who are you?  Are you Elijah?"  He said,
    "I am not."  Are you the Prophet?"  He answered, "No."

Other reference: Mark 6:15

Collis

re .-1

Matthew 17:12,13 perhaps , In this scripture the disciples perceived that
Jesus was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

But, Jewish priests asked John, "Are you Elijah"  and he replied "I am not"
John 1:21

In Luke 1:17 Jehovah's angel foretold, John went before Jehovah's Messiah
"with Elijah's spirit and power, to turn back the hearts of fathers to children 
and the disobedient ones to the practical wisdom of righteous ones, to get
ready for Jehovah a prepared people." So John was fulfilling the prophecy
by doing a work like that of the prophet Elijah.- Mal 4:5,6

Phil.

oops .15 was meant for .13

Collis

You beat me to it -)

Phil. 

	Oh, good I like this. Thanks guys. It appears BTW that my Bible uses
	Elias in the NT rather than Elijah. That's why I could  not find things
	myself.

	Several points. Elijah did not die, so strictly speaking even if John
	the Baptist was Elijah would that be reincarnation? I don't know. How
	is reincarnation defined? II Kings for all you other nit pickers :-)

	Also in note that the verses where Jesus is talking He doesn't come
	right out and say that John was Elijah. Just that the deciples 
	"understand" that to be what He meant. Perhaps "misunderstood" would
	be a more accurate way to describe what happened?  Pehaps Jesus meant
	someone or something else?

	This would explain John saying he was not Elijah. Also perhaps what
	was meant was the spirit of Elijah was in John much like the spirit
	of Elijah was left on Elisha when Elijah was taken to heaven. (II Kings
	2:15)

	Or perhaps Jesus and Elisha where one and the same. Perhaps Jesus was
	not the first time God took human form. Surely God taking human form
	is not reincarnation.

	All sorts of options. Too many to use the John/Jesus/Elijah connection
	to "prove" reincarnation.

			Alfred

    Re: .11
    
    Nice contradiction!

    RE: .6  Ace,
    
                     Sorry my comment sounded a bit terse.  I'll have to
    dig up the information about it.  There seems to be some dispute as to
    the "proper" meaning of the word in the "old" Greek".  I'll get it and
    put it in when I find it.  It is interesting.  Its kinda like the
    dispute concerening the author of Revelations vs the Gospel of John.
    
    
    Dave

Indeed, Pete, it is a nice contradiction - and yet it is not a contradiction.

:-)  :-)

Collis

    Isn't the notion of reincarnation really just an exercise in
    wishful thinking on the part of people who don't want to die?
    
    Mike

    
    RE: .21 Mike
    
    Gee, I don't think so Mike.  You still have to go through the dying
    process!
    
    Carole

    Yeah, but they are hoping for a second time around.  Some people have a
    hard time accepting that all we get is one life to live.  Period. 
    Anything else is just wishful thinking, in my opinion. 
    
    Besides, I can't think of anything more depressing than the thought that
    I would have to repeat THIS mess again! 8-)
    
    Mike

    re:  .17
    
    
    >   of Elijah was left on Elisha when Elijah was taken to heaven. (II Kings
    >   2:15)                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


     John 3:13, RS  "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from
                     heaven, the Son of man."

     Elijah didn't enter into the spirit realm, he was simply transported by 
     Jehovah to a different location, through the heavens where the birds fly.
     (see Genesis 1:6-8, 20)  Elijah didn't die at that time either, as he 
     later wrote a letter to the king of Judah (2 Chron. 21:1, 12-15).  Also,
     consider the following verse:

     1 Cor. 15:50, NWT  "However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood
                         cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption
                         inherit incorruption."


     Steve

	RE: .24 There is I suppose an apparent contridiction between II Kings 
	2:11 where it says (KJV) "... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into 
	heaven." And John 3:13 in your reply. On the other hand there are a
	number of possibilities.

	1. Elijah was Jesus. And some have proposed this.
	2. The word "heaven" in II Kings was intended to mean some other place
	   then what Jesus talked about. As you suggest.
	3. John 3:13 was intended to mean no one has returned from heaven to
	   explain things but Jesus.
	4. One other thing that I can't seem to remember right now.

	In any case the case for reincarnation does not appear to be supported
	by the John/Jesus/Elijah stories.

			Alfred

    I lean more towards the *possibility* of reincarnation, and it's not
    out of wishful thinking. :-)  But actually to make matters perhaps more
    confusing, I am more of the opinion that we do live other lives, but in
    reality, they are all happening simultaneously with this one.  Just a
    sense I have from many personal experiences I have had that would "fit"
    into these *possible* models.  (I stress the word *possible*.)
    
    There is also a thought provoking book out called _Reincarnation and 
    Christianity_ that addresses this subject.  I have it, but have not
    read it yet.  Has anyone else?  
    
    Kb

     re:  .25


      >	2. The word "heaven" in II Kings was intended to mean some other place
      >	   then what Jesus talked about. As you suggest.

     That's why I pointed to the verses in Genesis.

      >	3. John 3:13 was intended to mean no one has returned from heaven to
      >	   explain things but Jesus.
     
     It says no man has ascended into heaven.  If man could have died and gone
     to heaven, then what Jesus did was unnecessary.

     Acts 2:34 NWT  "David did not ascend to the heavens."

     David was a man described as agreeable to Jehovah's heart, but when he
     died, he did not go to heaven.

     Matt. 11:11 NWT  "Truly I say to you people, Among those born of women
                       there has not been raised up a greater than John the
                       Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the king-
                       dom of the heavens is greater than he is."

     John the Baptist didn't go to heaven either, even though Jesus called him
     greater than any of those born of women.  Neither David or John, or Moses,
     Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Elijah, Isaiah, etc., etc., for that matter, went
     to heaven when they died.  Why?  They weren't part of the covenant that
     Jesus made with his disciples:

     Luke 22:28, 29 NWT  "However, you are the ones that have stuck with me in
                          my trials, and I make a covenant with you, just as my
                          Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom."

     Luke 12:32 NWT  "Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has 
                      approved of giving you the kingdom."

     >	In any case the case for reincarnation does not appear to be supported
     >	by the John/Jesus/Elijah stories.

     Reincarnation is not supported anywhere in the Bible.  The hope of resur-
     rection is:

     John 5:28, 29 NWT  "Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in
                         which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his 
                         voice [Jesus' voice] and come out,........."

     
     Steve

Re:  .27

Quick side note on Matt 11:11.  The reason that there was not raised
up one greater than John the Baptist is because John was privileged
to see (and be involved in the baptism of) the Messiah.  It was John's
relationship with Jesus that made him "great", not the person of
John himself.  At least, this is the conclusion I (and many others) have
come to after studying this passage.

Collis

    re:  .28
    
    Then why the comparison of John the Baptist to a lesser one in the 
    kingdom of the heavens?  
    
    Your explanation does not show Jesus demonstrating humility.  It's like
    you have Jesus saying at Matt. 11:11, "John the Baptist is the greatest
    of all, because he's associated with me."  Whether or not John is great
    because of that association is not the question here.  I just don't
    think Jesus had that attitude.  Or am I misunderstanding what you're 
    saying?  Are you saying that John ascended to heaven when he died?
    
    
    Steve
    

Hi Steve,

What I am saying is that all of the prophets up to and including John
looked forward to the Messiah coming.  John is the greatest of these
not because of his own work, but because he was privileged to see
the fulfillment of the Messiah coming to earth.  Look at the second
half of the verse (Matt 11:11), "yet he who is least in the
kingdom of heaven is greater than he [John the Baptist]".  What does
this mean?

John the Baptist came before Jesus started his ministry (Matt 11:13).
When Jesus comes, there is the "kingdom of heaven" (or at least a
new kind of kingdom of heaven).  Does this make more sense?

Collis

    Alfred, you're going to hate me - I don't have the references for
    this....

    It seems to me that reincarnation must have been on the minds of the
    disciples when they asked about the man born blind.  (This was late in
    the ministry, presumably after much secret training of the disciples
    that may not have been documented in the Gospels.)  You will recall
    that the disciples wanted Jesus to tell them whether it was this man's
    sins or those of his parents that caused the blindness.

    Jesus's reply speaks to three of themes in this string.  It went
    something like, "Not this man's sins nor his parents, but that God
    might be glorified."  

    Note first that Jesus didn't say, "Why in heaven would you be asking
    whether this man's sins could have caused his blindness?   Obviously,
    having been born blind, he couldn't have sinned.  Don't be so stupid!" 
    If reincarnation was out of the question for Jesus, this seems like one
    of the obvious things he could have said.

    Nor did he ask why they might imagine that the parents' sins could have
    affected the child.  That concept was already within the Hebrew
    tradition.  It goes something like, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes
    and the children's teeth are set on edge."  (Interestingly, Jeremiah
    refers to this folk-saying in foretelling Jesus's incarnation.  It goes
    something like, "No longer will men say, 'The fathers ....'")  This
    side of the question alludes to some sort of genetic reincarnation, as
    mentioned by Bonnie, I think.  I believe that there is a familial
    influence in many persons' lives.
    
    As He did so often, however, Jesus hit them from a completely
    unexpected side:  He stated that this is an example of a trans-personal
    or impersonal karma.  The man's destiny, it seems was to encounter
    Jesus and to experience healing.  That destiny had nothing to do with
    the sins of anyone -- any one.  Rather, it was the blindness of the
    race, for which this man was the surrogate.  (Which of us would not
    endure a couple dozen years of blindness for that!  As an aside, I am
    wondering lately whether such a thing is not happening in my own life.)

    This much said, I am of the opinion that concepts of reincarnation are
    often helpful in understanding what's going on in one's life, but that
    one of the principle reasons for de-emphasizing (not to say almost
    completely eliminating) such concepts in the Christian church is that
    reincarnation, like other esoteric arts such as astrology and
    channeling, is a double-edged sword.  There is a temptation to leave
    off responsibility for one's life, because (after all) X and Y did a
    nasty to me in the 12th century, or because Pluto is transiting my
    seventh house, or Dolphinia says we shouldn't be harvesting tuna.
    
    "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we
    are underlings."
    
    DR

>    Alfred, you're going to hate me - I don't have the references for
>    this....

	John chapter 9 verses 2 and 3. DR you're just going to have to get
	a workstation so you can load un my bookreader Bible. :-)

>    It seems to me that reincarnation must have been on the minds of the
>    disciples when they asked about the man born blind. 

	Perhaps. Or perhaps they were mearly acting the shill for others then
	and in the future. Or perhaps they did not know the man was born blind.
	In other words, in verse 2, they were asking 

	IF NOT BORN_BLIND was it his sin?
		OR
	IF BORN_BLIND     was it his parents sin?

	I tend towards the latter. They would by this time expect Jesus to know
	if the man was blind or not even if they did not.

				Alfred

re:  .30  Collis


> What I am saying is that all of the prophets up to and including John
> looked forward to the Messiah coming.  John is the greatest of these
> not because of his own work, but because he was privileged to see 
> the fulfillment of the Messiah coming to earth. 

What Jesus is saying at Matt. 11:10 is that John is the "messenger" of
Jehovah foretold in Malachi 3:1, and at Matt. 11:14 Jesus says that John
is also the prophet Elijah, foretold at Malachi 4:5, 6 (also compare Luke
1:15-17).  Jesus did not say that John was greater than any prophet who 
lived before him, he said that there were none greater than John.  In other
words, John was the equal of any prophet who lived before him.  That's what
the first half of Matt. 11:11 is saying.


>                                                   Look at the second
> half of the verse (Matt 11:11), "yet he who is least in the
> kingdom of heaven is greater than he [John the Baptist]".  What does
> this mean?

If you read verse 12, it says that men who came after John were attaining
the kingdom of the heavens.  Neither John nor any prophet prior to him
ascended to heaven upon his death.  


> John the Baptist came before Jesus started his ministry (Matt 11:13).

Yes.  He was the one to prepare the Jews for the arrival of the Messiah.


> When Jesus comes, there is the "kingdom of heaven" (or at least a
> new kind of kingdom of heaven).  Does this make more sense?

No, it doesn't.

Actually, this little tangent started from a comment made about Elijah going
to heaven, and it's my fault that the discussion got off the original topic
of reincarnation.  So, to get back to the subject, I'll re-state what I did
before:  The Bible does not, in any way, support reincarnation in the normal
understanding of the term.  It promises resurrection of the dead.


Steve

Re:  .33

I agree with much of what you wrote.

Re:          <<< Note 260.33 by COMET::HAYESJ "Duck and cover!" >>>

>          The Bible does not, in any way, support reincarnation in the normal
> understanding of the term.  It promises resurrection of the dead.

Steve,

I'm curious to know how you define the differences between "reincarnation in
the normal understanding of the term" and the "resurrection of the dead"?  

I ask this question because there are some who see these two phrases as being
synonymous.


Thanks,

Joe

re:  .35  Joe

> I'm curious to know how you define the differences between "reincarnation in
> the normal understanding of the term" and the "resurrection of the dead"?  

There are people who claim to have been someone else in a "past life".  There
are religions that teach that after you die, you are given a new life, and
according to how you conducted your old life, the new life may be as a higher
or lower form of life, or a higher or lower class of person.  The person usually
doesn't have a clear, if any, recollection of the past life.  These are the kind
of things I'm referring to as "reincarnation in the normal understanding of the
term".  These are not Bible teachings.

Resurrection involves a reactivating of the life pattern of the individual, 
which life pattern God has retained in his memory.  The individual would be
restored in either a human body or a spirit body, depending on God's will.
The individual would still retain his personal identity, having the same per-
sonality and memories as when he died.  This is what is taught in the Bible.  


Steve