From the Book of Mark:“Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.“ And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the messiah.”Doesn't this passage indicate that reincarnation was widely believed by the followers of Jesus?Bub
No. They believed in resurrection. Thats different. Some believed that he was Elijah resurrected from the dead. Nothing in Judaism indicated a belief in reincarnation.The writer of Hebrews laid it all to rest when he wrote:Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.Krispy
Krispy, Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure that I understand the difference between someone being "resurrected" as someone else, and someone being reincarnated. Bub
If a person was resurected from the dead, they would not die a 70 yr old and be resurected a new born. They would be resurected a 70 yr old. Its not a "reincarnation" its the same incarnate. If that makes sense...
Thanks Preachparsly, The problem is that the disciples knew Jesus was born of a woman. If what you are saying is true, then why would they be speculating on who He was resurrected from? He couldn't have been a resurrected person according to your point, because he was born. Thus, don't they have to be speaking in terms of reincarnation -- a person coming back and growing through life with another identity? Bub
The problem is that the disciples knew Jesus was born of a woman.That could be why they didn't think he was a resurected person. He asked, "who do men say that I am?" Then they gave what "men" say. Those "men" obviously didn't know Jesus was born of Mary to think he was John the Baptist. Where does it say that the disciples thought he was anyone other than Jesus?
John the Baptist and Jesus were alive at the same time.
Hi Bub,I'm not a Bible scholar but will throw my two cents in for whatever they're worth.If what you are saying is true, then why would they be speculating on who He was resurrected from? The disciples weren't speculating but rather the people were. Here's the entire passage from Mark 8:27-30 " Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ." Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him."The speculation wasn't on the part of the disciples but the people, as a whole. It's rather curious that Jesus wanted this secret kept from the people at this time. That I don't quite understand...
As Preach said... Jesus was basically asking them who OTHERS said He was when they answered some say he was JB or Elijah. Others would not necessarily be thought of as "followers".Krispy
Thanks, that makes more sense. Apparently, reincarnation was widely believed by "the people" at the time?? but not by the disciples??Bub
Hi Bub,This is from an Adam Clarke commentary. There are similar passages in Matthew and Luke (I can't recall if there's something akin to this in John).I pray this is helpful to you. It's specifically speaking to Matthews 16. Apparently many of the Pharisees believed in something akin to reincarnation, at least it would appear to me to be the case. You can get his commentary in a number of different places and it's free at E-sword.Whom do men say] He asked his disciples this question, not because he was ignorant what the people thought and spoke of him; but to have the opportunity, in getting an express declaration of their faith from themselves, to confirm and strengthen them in it: but see on Luke ix. 20. Some, John the Baptist, &c. By this and other passages we learn, that the Pharisaic doctrine of the Metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls, was pretty general; for it was upon this ground that they believed that the soul of the Baptist, or of Elijah, Jeremiah, or some of the prophets, had come to a new life in the body of Jesus. Verse 16. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.] Every word here is emphatic-a most concise, and yet comprehensive, confession of faith. The Christ, or Messiah, points out his divinity, and shows his office; the Son-designates his person: on this account it is that both are joined together so frequently in the new covenant. Of the living God tou qeou, tou zwntov, literally, of God the Living One. The C. Bezae has for tou zwntov the Living One, tou swzontov, the saviour, and the Cant. Dei Salvatoris, of God the saviour. Living-a character applied to the Supreme Being, not only to distinguish him from the dead idols of paganism, but also to point him out as the source of life, present, spiritual, and eternal. Probably there is an allusion here to the great name hwhy Yeve, or Yehovah, which properly signifies being or existence.
bubbaguy wrote:Thanks, that makes more sense. Apparently, reincarnation was widely believed by "the people" at the time?? but not by the disciples??BubNot to my knowledge. No one in there right might would think that Jesus is the reincarnation of John the Baptist. It is impossible. John the Baptist and Jesus were alive at the same time. What people thought was that John was killed and now alive. They thought Jesus was John the Baptist (or another) raised from the dead.
Krispy, Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure that I understand the difference between someone being "resurrected" as someone else, and someone being reincarnated. Bubdo you really not understand the difference between resurrection and reincarnation? Resurrection is the reunification of the soul with its original body. Lazarus experienced a resurrection. Every individual will be reunited with their body in time for the final judgment. A few individuals will actually experience more that one resurrection; Lazarus is such. But in resurrection the identity of the individual is unique. Hence, "it is appointed unto men, once to die and after this the judgment" (Heb 9:27) Reincarnation is a belief that a soul can return as a different individual in a different body and so begin the whole process over again. This is a notion believed much in Eastern religion but never by Christians. Resurrection is a Biblical truth, reincarnation is not.One of the things which never ceases to surprize me is the way you quote from a source that you don't believe in order to try to prove your points. Is this honest?
Quote: "One of the things which never ceases to surprize me is the way you quote from a source that you don't believe in order to try to prove your points."Ron, You know very well that I believe in the Gospel of Christ. (And as such, is your comment honest?)It is true that I don't believe in a literal bible and that much of Genesis is allegorical. I also find much of Revelations to be inscrutable, and I am not interested in any speculation on future events. Faith is enough and these beliefs do not interfere with my understanding and acceptance of the Truth of Christ's Redeeming Sacrifice. From what I understand of your point of view, the entire Bible must be literally true, or none of it is trustworthy. That's throwing out the baby with the bath water.Bubbaguy
Ron, You know very well that I believe in the Gospel of Christ. (And as such, is your comment honest?)Mu comment was certainly intended to be honest. I don't play those kinds of games and never have on this site. However, which 'gospel of Christ' do you believe? The 4 gospel accounts you 'cut and paste' with abandon. You don't like the predictions of tribulations and a fiery end to all things, so 'out' they go. The 'gospel of Christ' that you espouse is an extract of your own making. I am not being 'hateful' but just holding you to account for the views you have frequently expressed on this site.From what I understand of your point of view, the entire Bible must be literally true, or none of it is trustworthy. That's throwing out the baby with the bath water. I don't know how you can believe this after all the conversations we have had. The Bible is narrative, didactic, poetry, apocalyptic and each genre must be interpreted according to its kind. What it is NOT is a mixture of truth and error which we must pick through using our own predispositions and prejudices.
Quote "The Bible is narrative, didactic, poetry, apocalyptic and each genre must be interpreted according to its kind."This I wholeheartedly agree with. I look at Genesis this way. It needs to be interpreted in the spirit it was delivered and I don't believe it was intended to be taken literally.Bub
bubbaguy's This I wholeheartedly agree with. I look at Genesis this way. It needs to be interpreted in the spirit it was delivered and I don't believe it was intended to be taken literally.I have more sympathy with your position than you would imagine but my contention has been that you constantly superimpose your interpretation of scripture upon the grid of your own preconceptions. This is why YOU find 'evidence' of woman's shape change, a carnivore diet being the 'original sin' and why you are constantly on the look for verses which will substantiate your belief in reincarnation. Essentially you are receiving the 'testimony' of scripture as you might receive the 'testimony' of any living person. You receive it as 'confirmation' of your own inner light or you reject or reinterpret it. This is NOT the same as recognising different literally genres within the body of infallible scripture.
If parts of the Bible are not true... then by what compass, Bubba, do you decide which parts are true and which are not? Personally, if I know a person who sometimes tells the truth and sometimes tells lies... I tend not to trust them at all. Even when they are telling the truth. I would feel the same way toward a book (Bible).As far as I know you are not a Bible scholar (meaning that your expertise is not necessarily studies of Biblical history)... so what, exactly, do you base your opinions on concerning what is true in the Bible, and what is not?Bub, you know I like ya, and we've had some good discussions, but I have to agree with Ron here. It seems you pick out things in scripture that agree with your philosophies, and throw out things that dont. Until you learn to accept truths that may be hard for you to swallow you will continue to misuse scripture in this manner.I've found in my life that growth usually occurs more when I accept truths that are hard for me to swallow. Sometimes God points out an area in my own life that needs to be washed out, and I dont like it and it's painful... but without it there would be no growth.Krispy
bubbaguy wrote:Quote "The Bible is narrative, didactic, poetry, apocalyptic and each genre must be interpreted according to its kind."This I wholeheartedly agree with. I look at Genesis this way. It needs to be interpreted in the spirit it was delivered and I don't believe it was intended to be taken literally.BubYou believe that about the WHOLE Bible, even Paul’s epistles? I'm reminded of this quote of you.Paul wrote this passage. The man was a zealot and wanted to amend for his extremely wicked past. It is SELF referencing. It's like saying, everything I write here is God inspired, because I say so. I wrote it down, I am God's messinger, so I must be inerrant in writing this message to you.It is Found Here
This discussion is locked.
