Did Jesus teach reincarnation?

I know what you tell us your belief is. That's just a truism. How many times over how many years? If there is evidence, it's not a belief, it's a fact. That is not a problem with my position. That's a problem with his postion. I do not say that, I say that you need to examine why you feel the need for this so called truth, in the light of the tangible and inescapable evidence that others have your same conviction but for a different god.Please explain how that is possible. Crap, I have no doubt and I don't lack belief. Religious belief is just irrelevant to me, just like fairy dust and unicorn droppings an absurdity.

I think it depends more on evidence. Logic is just a sieve that we run the evidence through. The problem with that idea is that the people who believe in "truth beyond logic" can't agree on what that truth is.

I've been researching and publishing these concepts since the mid 2000's.Many talented folks have contributed, which is why I pass this on to others freely. Nothing is copyrighted and I don't take credit for any of it.This is not about me. Who I am matters not.At the end of the day it's God who gets all of the credit.Amen.Edited by Base12, : No reason given.

It does not matter. Scientists rarely agree on new things or new feature. But they know it is something new.

Do you think what we (who argued against you) know is wrong? Or what you know is in addition to what we know?

That's a good sign. They test a lot of possibilities before drawing conclusions. Believers in ultimate "truth" do not.And there's more good news: scientists eventually come to a consensus. Believers just cling to their own versions of "the truth".

Whether someone is right or wrong is ultimately up to God to decide.Having said that, if someone interprets a verse in contradiction to the rest of the Bible, I'm going to challenge that interpretation by posting proof in the form of other verses.If the other person has no verses to back up their claim, then the debate is over. In other words, simply saying "you're wrong" isn't proof of being correct. If that is all they have then I see no point in any further discussion.As far as what others have posted in this thread, I've yet to see any verses challenging or contradicting my claims.

Among other things, I oppose your use of the word "reincarnation". I think you can not tell "reincarnation" from "incarnation". All examples you gave can easily be interpreted as incarnation, rather than re.... .

Yes, they do can. Do you know what it is? Of course you do.

They sure as hell do NOT. Christians don't believe in the same "truth" as Buddhists. Catholics don't even believe the same "truth" as Protestants and fundamentalists don't believe the same "truth" as Anglicans. Tell us.

Agreed. Were I to summarize the important truth that *should* be global, I would say that it is Jesus Christ. Literal Bibles, talking snakes, and karmic dualistic and/or humanistic concepts are irrelevant in light of the messenger. You may claim that if everyone simply followed the message it would work just as well and maybe better. The question is whether we can do it without any help from God.

All religious people believe in one thing: God exists.
Plus another one: There is life after this life. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

And the messenger is irrelevant in light of the message. You know that. You don't throw your mail away and keep the envelopes. The answer is yes.Your perverted idea of God is a stumbling-block.

They believe in many different gods. There is certainly not a universal truth. Again, there are many different views of the afterlife.You might as well claim that the best flavor of ice cream is a universal truth, even though everybody has a different favorite.

I beg your pardon? How is my idea of God in any way perverted?