Did Jesus teach reincarnation?

quote:

---

You are ignoring some elements of the story. What Abraham told Isaac (that a sheep would be provided for sacrifice) was completely inconsistent with an expectation that Isaac would die and then be resurrected.

---

"And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, My father! And he said, Here I am, my son. And he said, The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering ?

​

And Abraham said, God Himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son. So the two of them walked together." It was long known to Abraham that his only son Isaac would be that lamb for the offering. Now he informs Isaac that God will provide a lamb.Isaac was probably capable of physically escaping. But what we see is not resistance but cooperation. He apparently allowed his father to tie him up. It dawned upon Isaac that the "lamb" for the offering was to be himself.The father and the son walked on together. This was a foreshadow of the Son of God and His Father "walking together" to Golgotha where "the Lamb of God" offered Himself for the eternal redemption of sinners.Willingly, the son allowed himself to be sacrificed by the loving father. "And they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar on top of the wood." (v.9) This seems not the forced tying of a baby. This seems the cooperation of a youth capable of putting up a struggle. So I think it dawned upon Isaac that he, Isaac, was going to be the lamb for the offering.I think it would have said that Isaac struggled fiercely at realizing he had been LIED to, if that was the case. So I rather feel Abraham was speaking allegorically. And the meaning of the allegory dawned upon Isaac, who was submissive in trust in an understandably difficult circumstance.I would say you vastly underestimate the centrality of the sacrifice of the father of his only son in the whole Bible.

quote:

---

Further, this story and others in Genesis tell us that Abraham was quite capable of lying if he felt the circumstances warranted it.

---

I agree with this about his earlier life. I think by this time and at least TWO occasions of seeing what trouble his lying caused him (Gen.12:9-20; 20:1-18) , I think he was over that weakness.So I think the lamb provided by God explanation was his truthful speaking in an allegorical way.

quote:

---

One egregious example is telling King Abimelech that his wife was his sister where the clear expectation was that his wife would be raped and Abraham would be spared.

---

That is right. But as I said, this scheme, which he used twice, blew up in his face.
By the time we get to chapter 22 I think he had overcome that particular weakness.Interestingly, on the second occasion, he had to pray intercessory prayers for the royal household so that the women could have children. His OWN prayers for a child still went unanswered. Yet God heard his prayers that OTHER women besides Sarah would successfully conceive. Through the irony of these lessons, Abraham's faith in God grew.

quote:

---

So the question becomes exactly which of Abraham's utterances we should take as being the truth.

---

If you want to separate the account so that it has nothing to do with the central revelation concerning the offering of the only Son of God for eternal redemption by the Father to Whom the Son meant everything, then I suppose you prefer to believe that Abraham was trying to completely deceive Isaac. " And the Angel of Jehovah called Abraham a second time from the heavens and said, By Myself I have sworn, declares Jehovah: Because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, YOUR ONLY SON, ... (vs.14,15) The significance is uncanny. And some divine hindsight is okay with me. This is the Faith and Belief Forum. My faith and belief is that when John 19:17 says, "And bearing the cross Himself, He went out to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha." a type was given in Genesis. Isaac and his father walked the same path on the way to Mount Moriah that the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father later walked on the way to Golgotha.A picture is worth 1,000 words. The loving and trustful communion of Isaac with his father on the way to the sacrifice foreshadows the communion Jesus had with His Father on the way to His cross. Abraham and Isaac typified the Father and the Son.The loving fellowship between the Father and His only Son on the way to accomplish eternal redemption for sinners is typified in the talking of Abraham with Isaac, his only son on the way to have him slain.I believe in this neither Isaac resisted as the Son of God did not resist but was obedient unto death (Phil. 2:8). Jesus had said "Not as I will, but as You will." (Matt. 26:39)

quote:

---

A second question is whether Abraham was expecting that "the Lord would provide" a sheep or a resurrection.

---

I think he expected both. In the former case he knew the "lamb" for the slaughter that God was going to provide, up to the point before seeing the ram stuck in the thorns, was his only son.Somehow, God would have to have a living Isaac in order for God to fulfill His own purpose. So I think he truthful expected to return sometime from the sacrifice with a living son.But there is something even more in the typology. That is the provided ram with its horns caught in the thicket. "And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and there behind him a ram, caught in the thicket by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up for a burnt offering in place of his son." (v.13) Some may be able to receive this. This too is probably a symbol of the Son of God to come. He came from heaven and had the fighting power. He could well have called twelve legions of angels to rescue Him from the mob and the execution. But in His incarnation as a man he was, so to speak, tangled up by the horns. His love for us in whose likeness and nature He took on in incarnation, limited Him.His fighting power, (horns) were tangled in the thorns. Thorns speaking of fallen man (Gen. 3:17,18). Jesus as God incarnate came " ... in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin ... (Rom. 8:3b) The capable fighting God became a man, locked in His joining our fallen race. Instead of warring and fighting as He was capable of doing, was held in limitation. So there is some correspondence for me in the obedience of Isaac and the ram being caught by its horns in the thicket.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Assuming that Abraham expected to kill his son, but there is no way to read his statement as communicating that fact to Isaac. And that is ignoring the problem with the tense which indicates that the lamb was yet to be provided. And to compound things, we have the resolution that does not involve resurrection. The idea that Abraham expected resurrection is speculation, and perhaps just Nostradamus type prophecy. And by that I mean prophecy constructed after the fact.My own reading of the story is that Abraham expected to kill his son, and spoke to Isaac as he did to keep Isaac's mind at ease. In the end, Isaac was as dutiful to his father as Abraham was obedient to God. But regarding the possibility that Abraham expected resurrection, that simply seems to me at least to be a complete after the fact construction that simply is not justifiable by anything present in Genesis. I am a Christian, and I don't find the after the fact prophecy to be compelling. It is small wonder that others feel it same way.

I didn't say it was. I said that the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac is weak evidence of that hope.

They are similar in that both Job and Abraham accepted the death of their children and remained loyal to God.

I'm not overlooking his hope in resurrection. I'm saying that the story is weak evidence of that hope. It is weak evidence because he said they would come back after the sacrifice. I'm not. I'm saying that Abraham's experience is weak evidence of his belief in resurrection. It is evidence - but it is weak evidence. The basic reason is that any work of literature supersedes second-hand discussion of it. What The Lord of the Rings says is automatically more important that what somebody else claims it says.

Lord of the Rings and Nostradamus not withstanding, I see nothing wrong with a Christian like myself looking for indications of the New Testament's analysis of Genesis 22. And that even if the evidence seems questionable.You fellas are welcomed to have another opinion about it. But the bottom line for me is the whole revelation of Scripture in its unity. Hebrews 11:17 - 19

​

"By faith Abraham, being tested, offered up Isaac; indeed he who gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten.

​

Of whom it was said, 'In Isaac shall your seed be called':

​

Counting that God was able to raise men even from the dead, from which he also received him back in figure. " As I said, after the fact explanation is not a stumbling block to most people.
Rather it is after the fact explanation which involves God.Abraham counted ... that God was able to raise men even from the dead - period.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's fine for you, particularly when nobody is questioning your belief. Nobody is saying that you should be trying to persuade yourself to any particular point of view. However in a discussion/debate the standards for holding up your end of a conversation are a bit different.In particular, you've asked explicitly why others don't find your logic persuasive. You've been told why. Perhaps you should not take a poll of yourself and a few buds and then expand that to other folks. That's even less persuasive exposition that the one we are criticizing you for. Nice! Just plain assertion.

quote:

---

Paul teaches Jesus is the UNIQUE manifestation of God manifest in the flesh.
He does not teach Jesus was one of many in the sense that I think you believe.

---

I will give a longer response to the posters in this thread (but my time is limited tonight). I need to put one fact out.Historians say that Paul DID NOT teach that Jesus was any sort of incarnation of God.The (undisputed)authentic letters of Paul are:Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
Thessalonians
PhilemonThe certain forgeries:
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus3 disputed:
2 Thessalonians
Ephesians
ColossiansHistorians agree that Paul taught the incarnation in the Pastoral Epistles (they don't claim he got it from India btw, infact they ignore the Bhagavad Gita and the strong Indian incarnation views).The possible incarnation teachings in the 10 other epistles are in
Romans 9:5
Philippians 2 (around verse 5-10 I think)For Romans 9,see the different translations in the NRSV and NIV for example. The historians agree strongly with the NRSV type of translation. They say that even if the NIV type of translation is correct, then it could be a later Christian emendation .Here is a website that covers the issue (I didn't have time to read it btw)."God Over All" in Romans 9:5: Translation Issues and Theological ImportEnglish translations might obscure the issue, but Jesus is called Kurios (sp?) and God is Theos (sp?) in Greek.Romans 9 might be an exception. (Historians seem certain that the massive bulk of what Paul said is clear enough to settle the issue and thus is an indication that he DID NOT teach that Jesus was God)This is all I have time for right now.But this needs to be laid out.

quote:

---

You have merely CLAIMED, not DEMONSTRATED, let alone PROVEN, that the early Christians held to reincarnation. Your quotes from Ehrman are unrelated to reincarnation and do nothing to support your claims. (This is the case for all of your lengthy quotes, BTW.)
You are not making logical (or even intelligible) arguments. You make nonsensical claims, you provide lengthy off-topic quotes, and then you declare that these prove your ridiculous claims, even though they do not.

​

Please try to make logical arguments that we can assess and respond to in a logical fashion.

---

Actually, I showed a respected evangelical bible commentary that admitted (or seemed to) that the plain reading of the Matthew/Mark texts suggests reincarnation.I showed what the Oxford Dictionary said. He taught reincarnation!The problem with you is that you don't consider an important 100 AD Christian group (closely related to the Ebionites) to be early enough.You want to retroject your own views back to 50 AD and then claim that 100/101 AD evidence is unimportant and late.Your backward projections allow you to claim that your own views are "early".Your arguments rely on seeing what you want to see (like the resurrection issue we keep hearing about in this thread). My arguments are based on seeing what is actually there.Ill be back in a while.

There is a lot I would like to quote, but I will limit things.FIRSTLet me just say that there was one place in the world, before the time of Jesus Christ, where there was a religion that featured God incarnating a female in a spermless birth. That was India. The God Vishnu (which seems like a God to me, and Brahma seems like the "Holy Spirit", but often Vishnu is described as something like the "Hindu Holy Spirit") incarnated a female, and Krishna was his 8th Avatar.It is in the Baghavad Gita. Dated no later than 100 BCE.The issue was very much tied to reincarnation.

quote:

---

Avatar and incarnation
Wilde lectures in natural and comparative religion
Geoffrey Parrinder
(1970)
p.223
In the classical text in the Baghavad-Gita it is said clearly: 'I come into being age after age' (4,8). This repeated Avatar seems to be quite different from the Incarnation and death of Christ 'once for all'.
....
p.224
...it could be held that the difference is not as great as it appears, at least in the classical Indian doctrine. For while Krishna comes 'age after age' (yuge-yuge), yet these ages are separated by many thousands of years, so that the Avatar is the Incanation for the present world era. And in the Gita there is no suggestion that the Avatars are any other than Krishna, or Rama, or another, and many hold that their own special Avatar is the supreme divinity, as he is regarded in practical worship.
....
pp.224-225
The Baghavad-Gita is the classical text for teaching the supremacy and uniqueness of Krishna. He is the puru shottama, the Supreme Spirit, manifested but identical with the eternal Brahman. Yet he appears in different ages, to restore order and harmony, and to bestow grace on his devotees. And the repeated Avatars are set in the context of the doctrine of reincarnation, for that is clearly stated.

​

Many births have passed for Me,
And for you, Arjuna.
I know all of these
But you do not know them. (4, 5)

​

The divine manifestation appears to be the same as that of men, in happening many times; the difference is that Krishna knows the details of all his previous births, which the man Arjuna did not.

---

The Hindu religion is extremely diverse, but Krishna was quite popular during the time of Jesus Christ. We have a parallel to the incarnation. Krishna ended up taking an eternal-life of his own. He is said to return in a way very similar to Jesus.When I previously said that early evidence, if it exists, of Christian belief in the incarnation of God forming Jesus, would serve as an indication of reincarnation, then understand that I was saying that it would be evident in that it would then be following/matching the Indian religion.There is a lot I would like to quote, but I will limit it to this fundamentalist work. Here is an evangelical fundamentalist dictionary covering the Incarnation. It is the Zondervan All-In-One Bible Reference Guide by Kevin Green (Compiler). It is a dictionary, concordance, and topical Bible all in one. Listen to its description closely. Tell me this doesn't spring from the Avatar religion of India. p.316

quote:

---

INCARNATION (taking on flesh). The doctrine of the incarnation is taught or assumed throughout the Bible and comes to explicit statement in such passages as Jn. 1:14, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (cf. 1 Ti 3:16; Ro 8:3). In NT usage "flesh" means "human nature." Incarnation is from the Latin meaning "becoming flesh," that is, "becoming human." The doctrine of the incarnation teaches that the eternal Son of God (see Trinity) became human, and that he did so without any manner or degree diminishing his divine nature. A somewhat detailed statement of the incarnation is found in Php 2:5-11. Christ Jesus, "remaining" (hyparchon) in the "form" of God, that is, with all the essential attributes of God, took the "form" of a servant and died on the cross.
The virgin birth is necessary for our understanding of the incarnation. In the process of ordinary birth, a new personality begins. Jesus Christ did not begin to be when he was born. He is the eternal Son. The virgin birth was a miracle, wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby the eternal Son of God "became flesh", that is, took to himself a genuine human nature in addition to his eternal divine nature. It was a virgin birth, a miracle. The Holy Spirit has never been thought of as the father of Jesus. Jesus was not half man and half god like the Greek mythological heroes. He was fully God, the second person of the Trinity. "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col 2:9). At the same time be became genuinely a man. To deny his genuine humanity is "the spirit of the anti-Christ" (1 Jn. 4:2-3).
The biblical data on the incarnation came to permanent doctrinal formulation at the council of Chalcedon, AD 451. That council declared that Christ was "born of the virgin Mary" and is "to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably...the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person."

---

Sounds like India and the Avatar issue to me. Does that sound like anything in the Jewish religion? Didn't think so either.Go ask a Hindu about the Trinity. Then ask a Jew. Listen and learn. It's good for the soul.Now, did Jesus and Paul (and the middle of first-century Christians) teach the Incarnation? Or did it come a little later? If it was part of the original teachings, then nobody objective can deny that the ACTUAL FOUNDERS of the faith taught what had fundamentally been a reincarnation-based doctrine, based on previous incarnation type antecedent beliefs.The Elkesaites were a very large (Jewish-)Christian sect that began 100/101 AD. They were an offshoot of the Ebionites. The Ebionites were of the THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OF JAMES, the Brother of Jesus.There was a man named Hegesippus. He was a church chronicler of the mid-late 100s AD. He wrote a five volume work that is now lost, though we can all hope and pray that it is found someday. The discovery of this now-lost work would be more important for the study of early Christianity than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Steve Mason reported, that the complete work of Hegesippus was still extant in the 16th-17th century (in Greek libraries), in his (Mason's) unmatched, massive, excellent and unique Early Christian Reader.Hegesippus (chronicler) - WikipediaHegesippus was one of many who reported on the Ebionites. This unmatched Church chronicler said that James, the brother of Jesus, was a vegetarian.See the quote here.Was Jesus a Vegetarian? | HuffPost LifeThe Jewish associates of James were called the Ebionites. They fled to Pella in Transjordan during the 60s AD.I already quoted Bart Ehrman above(though Ehrman correctly spelled the Greek word for pancakes as *egkrides, which I screwed up in my quote. I need to go back and fix it). It was the post that one person said was off topic and irrelevant.Research the Ebionites for yourself.GoogleNow the Elkesaites were an offshoot of the Ebionites. They existed 100/101 AD. They very clearly were vegetarians, like James (and Paul) and the Ebionites. They also believed in reincarnation and felt Jesus was an Avatar. Jesus said that spiritually blind people would not be able to accept reincarnation. Witness it in this thread lol.GoogleI read a book on the Mandeans, the world's last Gnostics (it was called The Last Gnostics, but I don't remember it very well). They worship John the Baptist. They are an offshoot of the Elkesaites. The book says they believe in reincarnation.The Manicheans were an offshoot, and they believed in reincarnation and Avatars. It all came from the 100/101 AD Elkesaites.It isn't clear if the Avatar and reincarnation doctrine was held by the Ebionites, but I suspect it was. There is no (good)reason it wouldn't have been. The 80-90 AD Gospel of Matthew clearly showed a teaching of both the Incarnation and the fact that (per the actual words of Jesus) John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. The Ebionites valued the Gospel of Matthew highly. If a 100/101 Ebionite offshoot clearly held the Avatar and reincarnation "doctrines" (explicitly!), then the implication should clearly point to the Ebionite community holding the views.By 100 AD the clear Avatar and reincarnation views were explicitly held by an Ebionite (offshoot) community.The Gospel of John indicates these issues were explicitly concerned.(I will bet that somebody will tell me "this has nothing to do with the topic". I'll bet it is a fundi too.)

quote:

---

Perhaps you should not take a poll of yourself and a few buds and then expand that to other folks. That's even less persuasive exposition that the one we are criticizing you for.

---

Maybe some people come to the Faith and Belief room kind of like the Ghostbusters extermination team to morph it into Lack of Faith and Disbelief Room.Just in case you didn't know I regard the Bible as God's speaking to man.
In its unity and harmony it says Abraham believed in the God of resurrection.
And I can see why.If that is not legitimate conversation to you here, sorry.

Romans 4 doesn't say Abraham believed in resurrection.Hebrews 11 covers 2 Maccabees and beliefs there.You reject Maccabees and its afterlife teachings.You aren't being consistent.Your rejection of 2nd Maccabees cancels out your belief in Hebrews 11, and that cancels out your belief that Abraham believed the resurrection. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

You have a lot to read here of which I took only a portion to comment on:

quote:

---

The Baghavad-Gita is the classical text for teaching the supremacy and uniqueness of Krishna. He is the puru shottama, the Supreme Spirit, manifested but identical with the eternal Brahman. Yet he appears in different ages, to restore order and harmony, and to bestow grace on his devotees. And the repeated Avatars are set in the context of the doctrine of reincarnation, for that is clearly stated.

​

Many births have passed for Me,
And for you, Arjuna.
I know all of these
But you do not know them. (4, 5)

​

The divine manifestation appears to be the same as that of men, in happening many times; the difference is that Krishna knows the details of all his previous births, which the man Arjuna did not.

---

I think I have an idea about Avatars from this. Moving the conversation forward, perhaps we could just draw some lines of demarcation or distinction, if there are, concerning my Faith and Belief and what you present.Just to highlight what I would propose as differences from what I would certainly call the Bible's revelation and what you present above may be constructive.I don't expect you to "back down" from what you believe about this.
Some people reading along might find the exchange interesting.Because these matters involve personal beliefs we may get touchy at times.
I think these matters take time - even sometimes many years.
Before I really got to know Jesus Christ I did study Zen Buddhism for awhile.Now, NT textural criticism I probably will not get into as deep as you'd like.
Suffice it to say I have no problem with the so called "disputed" epistles as to Paul's authorship. And I certainly don't excise John from the New Testament.What we both are interested in, I think, is oneness between God and human beings. What I think we both are interested in is God manifesting Himself within humanity. Would I be right about that ?So you believe Jesus taught everybody is being reincarnated or just some special agents of God are ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What we both are interested in, I think, is oneness between God and human beings. What I think we both are interested in is God manifesting Himself within humanity. Would I be right about that ?

​

So you believe Jesus taught everybody is being reincarnated or just some special agents of God are ?

---

If people have no respect for what Jesus said, and what the early Jewish-Christian communities (associated with James the Just) believed, then it is tough to have a conversation.Somebody earlier wrote Jesus, James, the Ebionites, and the Elkesaites as simply a bunch of "new age mystics" (if I quoted them correctly) and instead preferred the later traditions of the Greco-Roman church as the pre-eminent authority.I will listen to you, but you have to have respect for the earliest evident communities of the family of Jesus.Nobody has responded to the issue of the early communities at all.I do find that offensive when I see people who call themselves "Christian" totally disrespect the James (associated) community of Ebionites by ignoring them and their (identifiably) early offshoots (like the Elkesaites). It bears the mark of outright indifference. And I have witnessed it by self-professed "Christians" in this thread.

LNA, This kind of post is more manageable and frankly has sufficient impact.

quote:

---

Romans 4 doesn't say Abraham believed in resurrection.

---

What do you think giving life to the dead means ? " ... in the sight of God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead ... " (v.17b)

quote:

---

Hebrews 11 covers 2 Maccabees and beliefs there.
You reject Maccabees and its afterlife teachings.

---

I don't know much about Maccabees.
I know its concerns is in the enter-testamental time.I go from Malachi to Matthew. Sure many great things may have been written in-between those books."Afterlife" is not a term that I use.
I do use the term resurrection. And it would not be true that I do not believe in resurrection.

quote:

---

You aren't being consistent.

---

Because I don't take Maccabees as part of the inspired oracles of God, I am not consistent ? I don't see that that follows as far as my belief in the Bible's utterances about resurrection.

quote:

---

Your rejection of 2nd Maccabees cancels out your belief in Hebrews 11, and that cancels out your belief that Abraham believed the resurrection.

---

I have no familiarity with 2nd Maccabees. I hardly have enough time for all the unsearchable riches of Genesis to Revelation. My whole life could easily be spent in digging into this gold mine.I do not "REJECT" the book of Maccabees as of historical interest or even as having some pious or devotional or spiritual material in it.But I cannot recall anything from Maccabees. Can you show me my disbelief in resurrection from the book of Hebrews chapter 11 ?You don't need a lot of documentation of a bibliographical type. How am I rejecting resurrection from my reading of Hebrews 11 ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.