XnForums

Why thank you, Ros.

And it's good to see that you don't think more highly of yourself than you should.

John was a "type" of Elijah. He came as prophesied to proclaim and herald the coming of the Lord.



Sure, as a type of Elijah, not as a "reincarnate" Elijah.



To those that wish to accept "reincarnation" as truth and not the fiction it is that is certainly true. If one chooses to voluntarily dismiss the mountains of evidence regarding the state of the dead then any belief is possible I suppose.

But, let's just say, for a second you might be on to something. How then do you explain Jesus raising His friend Lazarus from the dead and not he "reincarnated?"

Jhn 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Jhn 11:12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Jhn 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Jhn 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Lazarus' sister Martha was confident that Lazarus would be "raised" on the "last day." Jesus talked specifically about "resurrection" and the resurrection of Lazarus not in his reincarnation.

Jhn 11:23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Jhn 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

If we choose to take one singular verse of scripture and attempt to make a doctrine out of it we inevitably lose site of the much broader scope and understanding that the whole of the Torah, Tanakh Gospels and Epistles teach.

Doc, if you are hurt by the truth of the Bible is that 1) The Bibles fault, 2) My fault, or 3) Your fault?

Doc, if a complete stranger walked up to you and said, "I just saw this guy put a bomb in your car" would you believe him? If you didn't, and got in your car anyway, and the bomb went off would that be 1) His fault, or 2) Your fault?



Exactly! And so because I don't believe in "reincarnation" because it is never discussed in scripture, anywhere, somehow I'm not in "self-sacrificial" mode because I didn't agree with your obvious error and sought to provide truth and shred some sorely needed light in the darkness? I would say the "slings and arrows" I have received in the short time I have been here are proof that the truth was spoken - people hate the truth!

You evidently missed the point of what I was saying... It has nothing at all to do with who's at fault. Rather, it it has to do with inflicting hurt while reveling in the process, as opposed to expressing compassion, forgiveness, and humility when one attempts to provide edification and promote sanctification.

You also missed my second point. We are not 'forcing' you to believe in reincarnation. Rather, we are showing you that reincarnation has its place, and that it cannot be enitirely ruled out by Scripture. Consider my first post where I discussed the fact that Jesus did not rebuke his followers for thinking him to be a reincarnated soul. If they were having 'wrong thoughts' isn't it likely that Jesus would have set them straight, by telling them how foolish they were being for having those thoughts?

Also, the SDA has its own views on what death is, and what happens to the body and spirit upon the death of the body. Yet there are other sects and denomination that believe the living spirit ascends or descends immediately after death, this being in accordance with the 'No one who believes shall taste of death" verses. IOW, some denominations believe the eternal spirit is all that matters, and that it never dies although the body most certainly dies.

So it is that your 'truth' may not be someone else's 'truth'. But if your truth gives you a sense of well-being and abundance, then by all means continue to express it. But if others find your 'meat' offensive, then perhaps you ought not to offer it, especially if others cannot digest it or the means whereby you endeavor to explain your truth is found to be offensive.. (re: Romans 14) By this, I mean to say you have no right to judge the beliefs of others as being in error, as your own overall beliefs may be in error as well.

Consider how Paul handled a similar issue when he visited the folks at Athens in Acts 17. Did he tell them that they erred in their beliefs and that what they believed was wrong? No...He said "I perceive you are very religious." And then he went on to talk about the characteristics and the name of the UNKNOWN GOD they also worshipped.

Would it it be so bad to offer the same kind of courtesies while engaging in conversation at this forum? Course you probably won't get the same courtesies from us until you do, but that's cuz folks have come by here on numerous occasions attempting to correct the errors of everyone else's beliefs...and we find that somewhat arrogant, presumptuous, and utterly preposterous, not to mention that it's very unChristlike.

So it's not that we hate the truth, it's more that we hate the arrogance of those who claim they have the only truth.

Someone once said "I will gladly walk with those who seek the truth, but I will run like hell away from those who claim to have found it."

Think on that for a bit, and then maybe you'll understand where we are coming from...

doc

Give me a break! You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. You are just a dogmatic narrow minded BIBLE WORSHIPER, plain and simple. You have your head firmly planted in the ground.

And what gives me the right to say this about you? The truth jumped up and bit you in the ass in the form of Jame's story and all you did was wave it off without really addressing the meat of the claims that were made. You are apparently no better than the materialist skeptic that was interviewed in video #2 because his excuse for rejecting Jame's story was about as lame as yours.

Lazarus? Sorry, I don't believe in rotting stinking corpses regaining life and breath.

It is an imaginative story though. Like, where is Lazarus today? Supposedly those who are raised up will never suffer death again. Lazarus should be walking around Jerusalem or somewhere among the Jews today. He should be the number one witness for Jesus and telling the whole world of his deadly cave experience. There is no mention that Lazarus went to heaven or that Jesus took him to heaven with him or brought him back to earth or sent him somewhere else. Lazarus didn't present himself before the priests at Jerusalem. Lazarus isn't mentioned as becoming one of Jesus' disciples. Lazarus just fades out of the story without people insisting on his public testimony before Herod or any other official. Makes you wonder if the story wasn't an inventive example for Jesus to get his point across that he was the most powerful man among the Jews, doesn't it.

In Matt.11:5 Jesus sent a message to John in prison. "Go tell John again, the blind are made to see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, lepers cleansed, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

While the ignorant looked for a physical resurrection, the people appointed their role were already being trained to rise up against the enemies of Christ. These were the first resurrected on which the second death had no power, Jesus wanted Jerusalem. His battle was against the Pharisees, Elders, Scribes, and Herod. So the dead came forth to fight against the enemies of Christ as they were the annointed. Others would join them through the preaching of their gospel. Uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles had no part in the resurrection, nor could they due to Jesus adhering to his gods commandments of law and covenant of circumcision.

As a side note, some believe and teach that Lazarus is representative of the Gentiles, who were 'dead to God' but were nonetheless 'raised up and given new life' through Jesus Christ.

So where we read "Though he were dead" or "Though he die", (eg John 11:25) the meaning of these particular teachings is that the Gentiles, (and those who have lost their life or faith in God) can be given new life through Jesus Christ.

A lot of people believe a lot of things Doc. But if we follow the story of Jesus and his purpose of being sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel, we must exclude the Gentiles as they didn't even rate being among "the dead" of Israel.

I'm not so sure I can accept your 'Theory of Exclusion', Ros.

Seems to me that the gentiles (i.e. non-jew) were welcome to worship the Hebrew God without having to convert over to Judaism. In addition, the Hebrews hoped everyone would come to know and love their God. Heck, they even included a "Court of the Gentiles" in their main temples. (It was in the Court of the Gentiles where Jesus whipped the money-changers.) See also, Isaiah 56, keeping in mind that 'foreigners' were folks who were outside the Judaic Faith, only having to keep the Sabbath and not do any evil in their praise and worship of Jehovah, while the Synagogue/Temple would be "a house of prayer for all peoples".

I do agree that Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, but at the same time He was also a revelation for the Gentiles, and as such He became the 'bridge' between the Gentiles and their faith in Jehovah, whereas the Jews had the Mosaic Law as their bridge to Him.

Do some research on "The Temple Court of the Gentiles", and see if your [overall] theory doesn't need a bit of revisioning...

doc

I will certainly investigate your recommendation Doc. After all, I could be wrong, But I don't see how the Jews giving permission to the Gentiles to worship their god satisfies the OT requirements of God in circumcision and law keeping. Without those two protocols, the Gentiles could not have been accepted as "children of God". And Jesus didn't change the protocols even though he may have been tolerant of the gentiles as strangers.

Doc, the only thing I could find is that law of Jews prohibited - on penalty of death - the Gentiles from entering their Temple space. I can't find in OT anything about the Jews giving Gentiles space in a courtyard. Was this a NT invention? In the NT story did Jesus speak of it?

What did Gentiles do in the courtyard? Just walk around, stare into the heavens, what did the Jews require them to do?

The way things were constructed, it makes no sense that Jews would have allowed Gentiles to worship their God. And, according to the words of God in OT, Gentiles were the unclean thing, "beasts of the field". With this condemnation of Gentiles as unclean, means they were considered blemished and God would not allow such humans to worship him, not even come near to him. The Gentiles as strangers in the land of the Jews were to be treated kindly, but kindness did not include worship of the Jewish God. For that would have meant blasphemy simply because God said the Gentiles were "unclean", and their worship would have been considered as an offense in their state of uncircumcision and lawlessness. An offense that demanded the death penalty. So, maybe the Jews were at fault in giving a courtyard space to Gentiles. It wouldn't be the first time that the Jews went against commandments.

Try Googling "The Temple Court of the Gentiles", and read up on it...

I'm also thinking the death penalty was for entering the innermost part of the temple (the Holiest of Holies), which could only be entered by the High Priests, but I am not certain of this.

Overall, the best way to get educated about all this is to go talk with a reputable Rabbi..They know the O.T. in the way it was meant to be understood.

Also, be sure to let the Rabbi know that you're an 'unbeliever' but you have some questions that need answering, otherwise he just might try to kill you for trying to enter the temple.

Oh yeah, you might also want to check out this video.