The Bible supports reincarnation

[Aunty Jane]

Due to time constrains I can only respond in brief

Ecclesiastes 12
7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

The spirit is not the soul....these are two entirely different things in scripture. Do you understand how they differ?
Do you understand how the "spirit returns to God who gave it"? What did God give Adam in order for him to "become" a "soul"?

When you have time, we can discuss these things if you wish.

 

[Adam]

You must not have heard my previous post Adam (#14) where I state that 'Elijah' is used as metaphor. If you do not understand the word 'metaphor' look it up on an online dictionary!

In my post I put forward a counterargument that it is not just a metaphor but actually a prophetic requirment for Elijah to return before the Messiah.

Lambs represent innocence, and it was their blood that atoned for sin in Israel temporarily. The blood of animals needed to be offered by sacrifice so that the people felt the loss of something valuable in atoning for their sins, before God sent his own Lamb into the world to pay Adam’s debt in a permanent way.

Yes, lambs represent innocence but why does slaughtering an innocent creature justify a person? Why was Abel's sacrifice accepted buy not Cain's? Cain also gave up something valuable but his labor was rejected.

The fact that we will reap what we sow is an inescapable truth. Consequences are not often in the thoughts of those tempted into sin.....so a hasty decision to do wrong can result in dire consequences for the rest of our lives. Those who repent can be forgiven, but God will not remove the result of our sin, which can cost a life or last for the duration of our life. King David experienced this. None can escape those consequences.

Yet there are many evil people who live long and healthy lives and seemingly get away with their crimes. Nobody ever brought Stalin to justice for the millions he killed. There are many more examples if you don't like that one.

No one escapes “Hell” (hades) because it awaits all who live and die in this world....one of the two certainties in life. But you need to understand the difference between “hades” and “Gehenna”. Do you?

Hades is the common grave of all mankind......Gehenna OTOH, is a metaphorical place where the wicked are cast with no hope of living again. It is called the “second death” because the first death is the one we inherit from Adam and can be reversed by resurrection, whereas the second death is what we experience when we fail to obey all the laws of God once we have dedicated our life to God as a disciple of his son. It is a place where there is no forgiveness and life is withdrawn completely. It is eternal death.

So tell me how you envision Gehenna if there is no afterlife and only a physical ressurection.

If it was intentional then the command not to eat from the fruit was meaningless. God gave his children (made in his image) free will.....it was the abuse of free will that got the first humans into trouble because the devil was observing and plotting a way to gain their worship for himself. He did that by lying to the woman about the fruit they were told not to eat. He said it would make them “like God”.....did it? He also said that they “would not die”....the beliefs you are offering are just a continuation of that lie. We do die and there is nothing we can do to prevent death.....the Bible offers only one solution.....but the devil offers several.

God says "Behold, they have become like us". The command not to eat was a test of the new mankind. A baby's first act of evil is to rebel against their parents and thereby establish in their own psychology the fact that they are independent beings from their mothers. It is a crucial milestone and fundamental to human nature.

What is the basis for Christ to act as redeemer? The ones covered by his blood are only those who inherited sin from Adam...the ones sold into slavery to sin and death through no fault on their part.....this does not cover the perpetrators of the crime, who were all originally created without defect and who had no valid reason or excuse to disobey their Sovereign.

None of the first rebels will receive for God’s forgiveness, because they do not qualify under God’s provision of the redemption. These will indeed “reap what they sowed” because they will never live again. The devil will go into an abyss with his demon hoards for a thousand years while God brings the benefits of Christ’s ransom to the redeemed ones on earth, and after one final test, he too will be thrown into “the lake of fire” to be destroyed with everything else that is already in there. (Revelation 20:1-3)

The explanation of divine fiat doesn't really explain anything. If God decrees something thetr should be a logical and moral reason for it. The question is to figure out what that is.

Also, as mentioned in previous posts, Tobit says that God leads out of hell. The parable of the lost sheep says that God leaves no one behind.

 

[Adam]

The spirit is not the soul....these are two entirely different things in scripture. Do you understand how they differ?
Do you understand how the "spirit returns to God who gave it"? What did God give Adam in order for him to "become" a "soul"?

When you have time, we can discuss these things if you wish.

John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

This was the word used in the original greek translation:

Pneuma - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Pneuma (πνεῦμα) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul".[1][2] It has various technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of ruach רוח in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Greek New Testament.

In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (ψυχή), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul".[3]

It could mean "breath" or "soul". Does it make more sense that the body returns to dust and the soul returns to God, or the air that someone breaths returns to God? The latter seems quite meaningless if taken literally, the world has no shortage of air. Similarily if we take it to simply mean animating force, or some sort of energy field with no personality, then why must this return to God? Does God need it back for some reason? God is clearly throughout all of the Bible more intetested in a person's character than in harvesting energy. And if God did take your life energy, for what purpose? Just to stick it back into your mouldy bones at some unspecified future date for reasons unknown? It makes a lot more sense to think that God takes your soul, or the continuity of your consciousness, which He has gone through painstaking lengths to instruct in cultivating a holy mindset.

Also for that matter, Jesus ressurected HIMSELF. This would not be possible except by maintaining some form of consciousness and continuity of existence after physical death.

2 Timothy 1
10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

 

[Aunty Jane]

In my post I put forward a counterargument that it is not just a metaphor but actually a prophetic requirment for Elijah to return before the Messiah.

John the Baptist did the same work that Elijah did....it was a prophetic role, just as Moses spoke of a prophet like himself, who was to come.....which was Jesus.
John prepared the way for the Jews to accept their Messiah....baptizing them in repentance of sins committed against the law covenant. Putting them in the right frame of mind to accept the teachings of God's son. The Pharisees had neglected the "lost sheep" and God sent John to round them up ready for the best instruction from the greatest teacher on earth.

Yes, lambs represent innocence but why does slaughtering an innocent creature justify a person?

Its the blood that atones for sin.....atonement is "at-one-ment".......one for one.......like for like.
The blood of the sacrificed literal lamb was to give temporary atonement, until the real Lamb of God was to offer his life, once for all time.

Why was Abel's sacrifice accepted buy not Cain's? Cain also gave up something valuable but his labor was rejected.

It had to do with the heart attitude, not the offering itself.....God warned Cain that his jealousy would get the best of him, but he continued on in his way, proudly harboring resentment instead of trying to change his attitude to be humble.

Yet there are many evil people who live long and healthy lives and seemingly get away with their crimes. Nobody ever brought Stalin to justice for the millions he killed. There are many more examples if you don't like that one.

No one "gets away with" anything.....we all account to the same judge. Paul wrote...."And there is not a creation that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we must give an account." (Hebrews 4:13) We can take that to the bank...

So tell me how you envision Gehenna if there is no afterlife and only a physical ressurection.

Gehenna was the rubbish dump outside of Jerusalem's walls in the Valley of Hinnom. In the days of Ahaz and Manasseh the apostate Israelites were sacrificing their children to the god Molech......King Josiah put a stop to that practice and turned the valley into the city's garbage tip where fires were kept burning day and night with the addition of brimstone. The carcasses of dead animals and the bodies of executed criminals were often cast into the fire for disposal because these were not worthy of a decent burial. With no burial tomb, it was considered that those cast into Gehenna would not receive a resurrection.

There is no afterlife and the souls that were executed were dead when they were thrown into Gehenna. Nothing alive was ever cast there. It came to represent eternal death, NOT eternal suffering.

God says "Behold, they have become like us". The command not to eat was a test of the new mankind. A baby's first act of evil is to rebel against their parents and thereby establish in their own psychology the fact that they are independent beings from their mothers. It is a crucial milestone and fundamental to human nature.

That is pure speculation. After the first humans had sinned they were evicted from paradise to eke out an existence on cursed ground. They went from eating ripe and delicious fruits, for which they did not have to work......to trying to grow grain on unyielding soil to make "bread".
What a huge toll their disobedience took on their lifestyle.
"Knowing good and bad" was the privilege of their Sovereign...it was not theirs for the taking. Free will gives us all choices. They could have chosen differently and with a different outcome. God was prepared for any eventuality.

The explanation of divine fiat doesn't really explain anything. If God decrees something thetr should be a logical and moral reason for it. The question is to figure out what that is.

I never mentioned a divine fiat....did I? When God decrees something, there is always a logical and moral explanation for it....I agree...so what's to figure out? Christ's redemption covers only those who were held captive to sin and death by the disobedience of Adam and his wife. None of the original rebels had a reason or an excuse to disobey their Sovereign. Nothing was predestined....God's response relied purely on the choices they made.

Also, as mentioned in previous posts, Tobit says that God leads out of hell. The parable of the lost sheep says that God leaves no one behind.

Tobit is not part of the inspired scriptures, so what it says really holds no interest for me.
In Tobit we are asked to believe that a pious old Jew was blinded by bird’s dung falling in both of his eyes; that an angel impersonating a human became the traveling companion of his son, whom the old man sent to collect a debt; that on the way the son acquired the heart, liver and gall of a fish; that by burning the heart and liver he caused a stench that drove away a certain demon, who, in jealousy, had killed seven husbands of a certain woman; that this widow then married the son, who, after accomplishing his mission, returned home and restored the sight of his father by placing the gall of the fish on his eyes. Really?
And you think this book could be inspired of God? No thanks...I'll pass.

 

[Aunty Jane]

It could mean "breath" or "soul".

They both mean the same thing....a "soul" is a living breathing creature, never is it used for a disembodied spirit.

Does it make more sense that the body returns to dust and the soul returns to God, or the air that someone breaths returns to God?

No, it makes more sense that God is the one who restores 'the breath of life' at the resurrection. That decision rests with him.

Similarily if we take it to simply mean animating force, or some sort of energy field with no personality, then why must this return to God? Does God need it back for some reason?

It returns to God figuratively.....it is in his jurisdiction alone as to who is resurrected....and who stays dead....never to see life again.

It makes a lot more sense to think that God takes your soul, or the continuity of your consciousness, which He has gone through painstaking lengths to instruct in cultivating a holy mindset.

God remembers everything we have done and will recompense all of us for the life we have endured in this world which he handed over to satan. (Luke 4:6)
Instead of eliminating the rebels in Eden and starting over, God used the rebellion to implement an object lesson. Those who "get it" will learn valuable lessons concerning obedience....and those who don't, never will.

Also for that matter, Jesus ressurected HIMSELF. This would not be possible except by maintaining some form of consciousness and continuity of existence after physical death.

LOL...how can a dead man resurrect himself? If Jesus was an immortal, he could never die. He said he would be in his tomb for three day and only then was he resurrected. Where was he for those three days? The same place as his friend Lazarus....he was unconscious in his grave waiting for his Father to resurrect him as he promised. Lazarus and his sisters believed in the resurrection. (John 11:23-24)

Acts 2: 29-36....Peter wrote...
"Men, brothers, it is permissible to speak with freeness of speech to you about the family head David, that he died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ 36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”
Who does Peter say resurrected Jesus?
From whom did Jesus receive the holy spirit?
Who made Jesus both Lord and Christ?

 

[Davy]

Good article on Biblically-supported reincarnation here, though I came to the same conclusion separately:

May a Christian Believe in Reincarnation?

This brief study of reincarnation will be to determine if in good conscience a Christian may believe in reincarnation. You will be surprised!

ocoy.org

Many Bible quotes can be found within that support this concept. I won't spam the page up by listing them all redundantly when the article does a nice enough job. Here is one quote I feel is particularly ironclad:

Genesis 9:6
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This would not be possible without reincarnation. As you know, many murderers are imprisoned or evade capture and die of natural causes.

The common counterargument to Christian reincarnation is the idea of an eternal hell which is countered here:

Tobit 13:2
“For he doth scourge, and hath mercy: he leadeth down to hell, and bringeth up again: neither is there any that can avoid his hand.”

How can one come out of hell without another chance at life?

On moral grounds, I would reject the concept of eternal hell, as an all-loving God would not create a being to suffer for all eternity. In fact, the Bible says that God will go through great lengths to save everyone, not stopping until He has succeeded.

Luke chapter 15 KJV (King James Version)

Luke chapter 15 KJV (King James Version)

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

Furthermore, the idea of a loving God throwing sinners into eternal hell isn't just either - it is a cop-out. If you have an argument with someone, you can't win the argument by silencing them, only by proving them wrong. Evil can't be defeated with violence, only by turning evil to good can it be defeated in a moral sense. Hence, turn the other cheek. The question of good and evil, I would go so far as to say, is the fundamental question of our universe. It is one of the first things written about in the Bible, in Genesis chapter 3. So did God create evil just to lock it away? Or is there in fact a higher purpose to it? My personal theory is that your soul retains memory of its past suffering, and after experiencing evil, becomes more compassionate. Across the cycles, a soul gradually rises in consciousness from a base and evil state to a good and holy state, through toiling and suffering.

Now here is where I am about to get really unorthodox: human souls can transmigrate into animal souls. This is why the Hebrews sacrificed lambs and goats. A Jew repents for his sins by killing HIMSELF in his next life. A penance cycle as a lamb destined for slaughter. Therefore, the spiritual timeline of the world is not the same as the material timeline. A soul can be born to live concurrently with its previous or subsequent incarnation.

Now, how can Jesus atone for the collective sins of all mankind? There is only one possible explanation. Jesus is the Son of Man. The spiritual son, IE. the reincarnation of Man. The sum total of all human incarnations with a fully awakened soul memory.

Matthew 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Or in other words: all life in our universe really only has a single soul, which is inferior to God, but is in the process of purifying itself to return to God.

Philosophers have often grappled with the quesion: how can a loving God create a universe filled with so much evil? Well the answer to this is clear: it's a moral lesson. We think there is good and evil but we've really just been screwing ourselves over for thousands of years. Everything we do meets with exact justice because we suffer at our own hands and learn from it.

So whose moral education was this universe created for? The book of Job has the answer.

Job 1
8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

 

[Adam]

I think that what I am really learning is, as Plato said, man can only know that man really knows nothing. There is so much metaphor and ambiguity that it is impossible to really determine what happens after death, especially because, unlike most religions, the Bible is actually quite vague on the topic. One can only choose to look at things in the way that makes sense to them, which I suppose was not really revealed to us as it is not yet our time to know.

This is a satan. My views may differ from Aunty Jane's position, but I respect that she is well-researched and is taking a lot of time to explain it thoroughly.

This sort of reaction adds nothing of meaning to the conversation and only provokes hostility. If you think my position is foolish then I would prefer that arguments be made to debunk it so I can be made wiser, and not just be taunted into being an angry fool.

 

[Davy]

I think that what I am really learning is, as Plato said, man can only know that man really knows nothing. There is so much metaphor and ambiguity that it is impossible to really determine what happens after death, especially because, unlike most religions, the Bible is actually quite vague on the topic. One can only choose to look at things in the way that makes sense to them, which I suppose was not really revealed to us as it is not yet our time to know.


This is a satan. My views may differ from Aunty Jane's position, but I respect that she is well-researched and is taking a lot of time to explain it thoroughly.

This sort of reaction adds nothing of meaning to the conversation and only provokes hostility. If you think my position is foolish then I would prefer that arguments be made to debunk it so I can be made wiser, and not just be taunted into being an angry fool.

Many of the unbelieving Jews of antiquity believed in the 'theory' of reincarnation. That didn't make it so. Thus what Plato has to say is nothing more than what Apostle Paul found when he visited Athens per Acts 17:16-22.

 

[ScottA]

John 9
9 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

The man was BORN BLIND and the disciples knew this. They asked Jesus if it was him or his parents that sinned to cause him this curse. How would it be possible for him to sin before he was born unless he were reincarnated?

Let me just say first, that this and all passages of scripture cannot be defined by their literary meaning. That, by the way, is the meaning portrayed in the "tongues" passages--that is, that only by the Spirit can anyone understand what may otherwise seem to be gibberish, but can be clearly understood as if in their own tongue/language. Therefore, I will answer you, not by word, but by the spirit of God.

Now then, John 9:1-2 is not about reincarnation, but about the origin of sin and how it is handed down from Adam. Having been born of a father whose roots go back to Adam and the original sin in the Garden of Eden, the blind man was not blind for his own sin or that of his parents, but rather suffered for that original sin as we all do. For this reason, Jesus answered that it was not for the blind man's sin or his parent's sin, but rather that it could be shown that Jesus could heal him showing the world that He was the promised Messiah who was to come that all who believe need not perish in the end, but have eternal life.

Is there another passage that you would also like to know the truth about?

 

[Adam]

Let me just say first, that this and all passages of scripture cannot be defined by their literary meaning. That, by the way, is the meaning portrayed in the "tongues" passages--that is, that only by the Spirit can anyone understand what may otherwise seem to be gibberish, but can be clearly understood as if in their own tongue/language. Therefore, I will answer you, not by word, but by the spirit of God.

Now then, John 9:1-2 is not about reincarnation, but about the origin of sin and how it is handed down from Adam. Having been born of a father whose roots go back to Adam and the original sin in the Garden of Eden, the blind man was not blind for his own sin or that of his parents, but rather suffered for that original sin as we all do. For this reason, Jesus answered that it was not for the blind man's sin or his parent's sin, but rather that it could be shown that Jesus could heal him showing the world that He was the promised Messiah who was to come that all who believe need not perish in the end, but have eternal life.

Is there another passage that you would also like to know the truth about?

I would have to disagree with this interpretation because the concept of being punished by lineage is already part of the question

Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

So this would make the question entirely redundant to itself with this interpretation: did his predecessor sin or did his predecessor sin?

Furthermore - if original sin caused blindness, then everyone would be born blind because of it.

And - the concept of original sin itself, makes no sense without the concept of reincarnation. How is it just for someone to pay for their anscestor's crimes when we have no ability to influence the past? Original sin only makes sense when we consider that these are in fact our own past life sins as reincarnations of Adam and Eve.

 

[Adam]

Many of the unbelieving Jews of antiquity believed in the 'theory' of reincarnation. That didn't make it so. Thus what Plato has to say is nothing more than what Apostle Paul found when he visited Athens per Acts 17:16-22.

Much of Christian doctrine owes an intellectual lineage to Plato and his theories. I find it truly amazing that he was able to intuit the things he said even before Christ. It makes me confident that there are many churches in the world - including non-Christian ones, which all serve the same God, just by different means of understanding.

 

[ScottA]

I would have to disagree with this interpretation because the concept of being punished by lineage is already part of the question

Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

So this would make the question entirely redundant to itself with this interpretation: did his predecessor sin or did his predecessor sin?

Furthermore - if original sin caused blindness, then everyone would be born blind because of it.

And - the concept of original sin itself, makes no sense without the concept of reincarnation. How is it just for someone to pay for their anscestor's crimes when we have no ability to influence the past? Original sin only makes sense when we consider that these are in fact our own past life sins as reincarnations of Adam and Eve.

You don't understand, and you are not listening. I did not say this was mine or anyone's "interpretation." I said it was by the spirit of God.

That means this is not a discussion. Agreement is not required.​

But I will address your comments. "Lineage" in the passage is clarified as not being the blind man's immediate lineage, but rather his original lineage...a statement that says that each is born "according to its kind", as it was written from the beginning. In this case, "its kind" means born of sin, which is to say, born to die according to the wages of sin.

But, yes, that is correct, everyone is born blind--spiritually blind.

As for "How is it just for someone to pay for their ancestor's crimes", that is not what is happening here. Again, you misunderstand. There is no actual ancestry--again, I am not speaking according to life as experienced in the world, but am speaking the greater truth from God. The would-be ancestry is rather the unfolding of One, one who was born and sinned and was sentenced to die, and One who was "born again." Thus, there is only one who dies with all his "kind" in him, and also One who is born who lives (having paid the price of sin) with all His kind in Him. Which for me to say, is to give you the true meaning of life that all who are born search for. Don't waste it.

So, no, not reincarnation, not past lives, One life...as it is written, there is only "one begotten." But it is also written that God has intended to "expand His tent" "bringing many sons to glory."

Meanwhile, these are times of revelation of all truth, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.” One thing at a time.

 

[Mr E]

And the obvious....

"You must be born again."

 

[Adam]

And the obvious....

"You must be born again."

Funnily enough, I think that this phrase, though very widely known, is too open to metaphorical interpretation to be used as proof of my claims.

You don't understand, and you are not listening. I did not say this was mine or anyone's "interpretation." I said it was by the spirit of God.

That means this not a discussion. Agreement is not required.​

But I will address your comments. "Lineage" in the passage is clarified as not being the blind man's immediate lineage, but rather his original lineage...a statement that says that each is born "according to its kind", as it was written from the beginning. In this case, "its kind" means born of sin, which is to say, born to die according to the wages of sin.

But, yes, that is correct, everyone is born blind--spiritually blind.

As for "How is it just for someone to pay for their ancestor's crimes", that is not what is happening here. Again, you misunderstand. There is no actual ancestry--again, I am not speaking according to life as experienced in the world, but am speaking the greater truth from God. The would-be ancestry is rather the unfolding of One, one who was born and sinned and was sentenced to die, and One who was "born again." Thus, there is only one who dies with all his "kind" in him, and also One who is born who lives (having paid the price of sin) with all His kind in Him. Which for me to say, is to give you the true meaning of life that all who are born search for. Don't waste it.

So, no, not reincarnation, not past lives, One life...as it is written, there is only "one begotten." But it is also written that God has intended to "expand His tent" "bringing many sons to glory."

Meanwhile, these are times of revelation of all truth, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.” One thing at a time.

There is a punishment prescribed by God for the original sin:

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And people do work for their bread (especially if bread is used metaphorically for the word of God), so this is something that can be said to apply to all mankind.

The disciples, as religious devotees, surely would have known this and therefore the question implies that blindness is an additional curse caused by some other sin.

The question they ask is, is the man being punished for himself, or were his parents being punished to have a blind son. There is no reference to Adam and Eve here or some universal human condition.

Jesus' answer was not to be unsympathetic and assume he deserved his fate, but that in fact his curse had a higher purpose, but it is the question itself and the context of it that hints at the underlying belief systems.

 

[Aunty Jane]

And the obvious....

"You must be born again."

What does that mean to you.....explain what being "born again" actually means to a Christian....Nicodemus was puzzled by the expression and so I suspect are a lot of other people.
Please give us your definition....

 

[Gottservant]

The easiest lightest recognition of reincarnation, comes in the passage where Jesus says John the Baptist was Ellijah.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The easiest lightest recognition of reincarnation, comes in the passage where Jesus says John the Baptist was Ellijah.

John B did the same work as Elijah.....its figurative.
There is no teaching of reincarnation in the Bible because there is no such thing as an immortal soul. A "soul" is not a disembodied spirit...it is a living, breathing creature, both man and animal. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

 

[Adam]

John B did the same work as Elijah.....its figurative.
There is no teaching of reincarnation in the Bible because there is no such thing as an immortal soul. A "soul" is not a disembodied spirit...it is a living, breathing creature, both man and animal. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

I believe I have found a verse that contradicts this:

2 Corinthians 5​

5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

 

[Gottservant]

John B did the same work as Elijah.....its figurative.
There is no teaching of reincarnation in the Bible because there is no such thing as an immortal soul. A "soul" is not a disembodied spirit...it is a living, breathing creature, both man and animal. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

You're introducing words, that aren't there.

What I said, hung on the simplicity of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I believe I have found a verse that contradicts this:

2 Corinthians 5​

5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Can I re-quote that from a modern English translation...? I loath archaic English.....who speaks like that anymore?

The verses are all over the place so I don't know where you got this...?

I'll try 2 Cor 5:1-8...ESV....
"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands."
This is one of God's elect (the apostle Paul) speaking about their new abode in heaven.....leaving the old body behind and being given a new spiritual body in order to dwell in that "house in heaven".....the one Jesus said he was going away to prepare for them. (John 14:2-4)

"2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."
When the holy spirit was poured out at Pentecost, the elect were given a token or "deposit" guaranteeing what was to come.... i.e. life in heaven with Jesus, being given the role of a King/Priest, just as Jesus was.......with a new body and a new dwelling place. (Revelation 20:6) They wanted this to happen more than anything in the world, but they would have to wait until it was God's time to bring it about.

"6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. "
Whilst they remained in the flesh they were earth bound, but their Lord was already in heaven and he promised that he would return to take them home to be with him....(John 14:2-4) they just did not know when. It would involve a transformation into spirit beings so that they could dwell in the presence of God. Mortal flesh and blood cannot exist in a spirit realm. The elect have to give up their material bodies and be given a new spirit body. That is what being "born again" means.....

"7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."
The 'token' received from God by his spirit gave the elect an inordinate desire to go to heaven, leaving all earthly ties behind. If they had a choice, they would go to be with their Lord immediately.

I find no mention of immortal souls or anything that contradicts Ecclesiastes 3:19-20....
"Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [spirit]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return."

Resurrection is a return to life....NOT a continuation of it.
If animals are also "souls"....and even though we alone were made in God's image and likeness, in our imperfect sinful state, we have no advantage over these creatures. We all stop breathing and our body organs are no longer oxygenated, so they fail and we die. The mortal creature returns to the dust or the earth from which God made us. But because he created us to live forever, we alone also have the advantage of the resurrection. Jesus will call all the dead from their graves because they are all still in them. (John 5:28-29)