Is Reincarnation baloney?

[Timtofly]

So that's where we went wrong. "... remove contradictions and human reasoning." Wow.
That's monumental. Thanks.

So, the status quo IS always right?

Have you removed human reasoning, and contradictions from your interpretation?

There is no status quo, because the status quo does not even read, much less interpret Scripture.

The status quo is human understanding.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Your view against reincarnation is as wrong as the view of reincarnation. The Greeks had the writings of the Hebrew Bible, in fact one Greek had them translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek.

So they were trying to rationalize the soul, the same way people in this thread have been doing over the last week, and nothing has changed in the last 3,000 years knowledge wise, nor has human rationale changed.

The soul dying is the physical and spiritual death that Adam went through and we are living today. We know the soul itself does not die, because they are still in sheol that have been there since Noah's Flood.

The issue would be the verse that states this:

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

The verses you quote would be the termination of life on earth. Which is different than the death of being placed in sheol by God. Many don't think bodies are in sheol, but Jesus indicates a body can be destroyed in sheol. The Psalmist is asking God not to destroy his soul in sheol, but grant it eternal life.

So you cannot state the soul stops existing. Even if you claim this body returns to dust when Jesus also claims it can be sent to sheol as well; should also apply to the soul.

Jesus is just stating that if God chooses, He can place a body in sheol along with the soul. While humans can only kill the physical body and not the soul.

Claiming the annihilation of the soul is also human reasoning, not God's Word.

Okay, so you are NOT using human reasoning but I am? Smoke and mirrors. Does Jesus save souls or not?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm not an expert on biblical reincarnation, but yes, there is a great need for the cross and salvation.

Being reincarnated is a bad thing, not a good thing. A relationship with God breaks that cycle.
There is no salvation in biblical reincarnation. It is corrective, even punitive in nature.

Again, my knowledge is limited. Still trying to get my head around it.
It tracks a bit with Universal Redemption. That helps me.

We already know that the spirit returns to God who made it.
And we must be born again to see the kingdom of God.

No one can be an expert on something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as Biblical reincarnation.

 

[Mr E]

Procreation is a process between two halves of the same being, male and female.

A son of God was not created as two on day 6. Eve was taken from Adam years later, and literally over a thousand years after Adam was created on day 6.

Is Procreation a totally different process if both sexes are in the same physical body?

Many think we will still be separated males and females after we die. Not if we are given back the original created bodies before Adam and Eve were split into two seperate identities. The point of Paradise is not being alone and needing two halves as the process is already completed on earth, and Paradise is already full of Adam and Eve's offspring.

If you think about it, at that point (Genesis 6) Adam's male offspring never had a womb to produce offspring, so only the females could. It may not be "politically correct" to state that the sons of God were both sexes, but they had to be, because it never says they were ever separated like Adam and Eve.

Many just erroneously assume only Adam and Eve existed, and don't even pay attention to what God even gives us in Scripture. You can thank theology for doing all the thinking for most people. Then people think only angels are around to fill in the logical gaps.

There were two different bodies prior to Adam's disobedience. One contained both sexes, and then God formed Eve out of Adam which technically would have changed Adam as that part of him was no longer there. Adam was still a son of God, but now both halves were sons of God. That changed when Adam disobeyed and they both physically died. Now we have the dead corruptible bodies that are genetic copies of fallen Adam and Eve. But we are not getting back our old bodies.

That is clear that once we leave this physical body, we are not getting it back by what Jesus said. He never said we become angels. He said like (as) the angels, who do not procreate. Jesus told you all right there it was not angels in Genesis 6. That is physically impossible. Jesus was just not explicit in saying we will have a body that is of one sex, or will contain two sexes, or no sex at all period. But if like the angels, in Paradise, the default, without explanation, would be no sexes at all. That ability would no longer be part of the physical makeup of the body.

Great discussion! I love that there are folks interested in exploring these concepts. A conversation is ALWAYS more valuable than an argument. Secondly, it's a higher level of communication when people can converse amicably about things they disagree on. I don't take it personally when folks see things differently and it doesn't bother me if they do. There's a lot to unpack in all you've suggested above, but I think this is a topic worth the time it will take to do so. I appreciate your perspective here and I think you are headed in the right direction.

Having said that-- I wish you would just abandon the reincarnation soapbox. Just stop using the term because the minute you do, the reader conjures up their own idea of what it means, and it means different things to different people. Some apply their understanding of Hindu traditions, or Buddhist, dictionary terms, or as I said-- their own ideas. I think "rebirth" or regeneration, or- as Jesus said-- being born again best describe the circumstances of what at least I'm talking about. While you might rail on against reincarnation, I'll leave you free to do so, but that's not what I'm talking about. Jesus said- "You must be born again" -- I'm agreeing with him.

Regarding your post above specifically- I think you confuse the issue by conflating creation with procreation. They are not the same and not interchangeable. Particularly when you are referencing a spiritual understanding but using a biological (physical) frame of reference. Your assumption is that Genesis describes different aspects of creation and procreation in the given accounts Chapter 1 versus 2 versus 4, or 6 and so on. I agree with that premise, but have a different perspective on it all. I'm happy to discuss, though we don't completely align-- like I said, I think you are on the right track.

A son of God was not created as two on day 6. Eve was taken from Adam years later, and literally over a thousand years after Adam was created on day 6.

This is supposition. Why do you think it was "literally over a thousand years" later?

Many think we will still be separated males and females after we die. Not if we are given back the original created bodies before Adam and Eve were split into two seperate identities. The point of Paradise is not being alone and needing two halves as the process is already completed on earth, and Paradise is already full of Adam and Eve's offspring.

Jesus explained clearly-- 'it's not like that...'

“The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, they can no longer die because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, since they are sons of the resurrection.

What the Greek references Jesus as saying-- 'sons of God' is the Hebrew equivalent- 'ben elohim' and this is why you should grasp the idea that there is a correlation between angels and sons of God. --because he said so, I believe him.

There were two different bodies prior to Adam's disobedience. One contained both sexes, and then God formed Eve out of Adam which technically would have changed Adam as that part of him was no longer there. Adam was still a son of God, but now both halves were sons of God. That changed when Adam disobeyed and they both physically died. Now we have the dead corruptible bodies that are genetic copies of fallen Adam and Eve. But we are not getting back our old bodies.

Kind of... I don't see it exactly this way and I'll explain why. To do so here however, would take this thread in a whole different direction and that isn't my intent. I'd be happy to discuss in another thread. There is an extremely important concept here that deserves attention.

Thanks again for jumping in!

 

[Mr E]

Bible: Death is the enemy.
Reincarnation: Death is irrelevant.

Bible: Death renders life futile and meaningless.
Reincarnation: Death does not render life futile.

Bible: Jesus died to save souls.
Reincarnation: souls are indestructible and don't need saving.

Bible: The soul is finite, perishable.
Reincarnation: the soul is eternal.

Bible: The afterlife depends on God's grace
Reincarnation: Deeds are meritorious and the afterlife depends on Karma or some other scale of virtues.

Bible: There is no point system and God hates religion.
Reincarnation: prior karma determines one's status in life

Bible: Belief and trust in Jesus is necessary for liberation.
Reincarnation: Karma is necessary for liberation.

Bible: Death is the enemy.
Reincarnation: Death is irrelevant.
Jesus: Physical death in reality is like sleeping. 'She's not dead, she's just asleep'

Bible: Death renders life futile and meaningless.
Reincarnation: Death does not render life futile.
Jesus: “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live49 even if he dies, 26 and the one who lives and believes in me will never die.

Bible: Jesus died to save souls.
Reincarnation: souls are indestructible and don't need saving.
Jesus: 'I'll be back' (paraphrase)

Bible: The soul is finite, perishable.
Reincarnation: the soul is eternal.
Jesus: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Bible: The afterlife depends on God's grace
Reincarnation: Deeds are meritorious and the afterlife depends on Karma or some other scale of virtues.
Jesus: (shows John) And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened—the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.

Bible: There is no point system and God hates religion.
Reincarnation: prior karma determines one's status in life
Jesus: Won’t God give justice to his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he delay long to help them? I tell you, he will give them justice speedily.

Bible: Belief and trust in Jesus is necessary for liberation.
Reincarnation: Karma is necessary for liberation.
Jesus: You must be born again.

 

[St. SteVen]

Have you removed human reasoning, and contradictions from your interpretation?

No. They are important to me.
Meaning...
I don't buy everything the church teaches, and the contradictions are glaring.
So, my interpretation bears that in mind.

 

[St. SteVen]

No one can be an expert on something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as Biblical reincarnation.

Let me introduce you to our local expert. @QuantumBit
I suppose you don't believe in Ultimate Redemption (UR) either? No such thing?
Catholicism? No such thing? Mormonism? No such thing? Anything else?

 

[Timtofly]

Okay, so you are NOT using human reasoning but I am? Smoke and mirrors. Does Jesus save souls or not?

Jesus restores the body and spirit back to a soul.

Jesus maintains souls in punishment, because sheol is currently used for that purpose.

Jesus allowed even the redeemed to only have a soul without a body and spirit for thousands of years up until the Cross.

Human reasoning is stating that a soul stops existence. But death is even the state of a body and soul while physically alive.

The destruction is the removal of the body, not the cessation of the soul itself.

 

[Timtofly]

This is supposition. Why do you think it was "literally over a thousand years" later?

Because the NT sheds light on the OT. Is the NT a supposition?

 

[Timtofly]

The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, they can no longer die because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, since they are sons of the resurrection.

Pretty sure humans created on the 6th day were equal to the angels up until they rejected God.

Those rebel angels have been placed lower than Adam's offspring.

In a dead state, we are lower than the angels. But we were created equal at the start. I think many miss that point. They literally give away their origins and attribute them to the angels instead, like Esau given away his birthright to Jacob.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Let me introduce you to our local expert. @QuantumBit
I suppose you don't believe in Ultimate Redemption (UR) either? No such thing?
Catholicism? No such thing? Mormonism? No such thing? Anything else?

It's simple. Either a proposition is true or it isn't. Are souls eternal? No. Do souls exist outside the body? No.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Jesus restores the body and spirit back to a soul.

Jesus maintains souls in punishment, because sheol is currently used for that purpose.

Jesus allowed even the redeemed to only have a soul without a body and spirit for thousands of years up until the Cross.

Human reasoning is stating that a soul stops existence. But death is even the state of a body and soul while physically alive.

The destruction is the removal of the body, not the cessation of the soul itself.

I'm not sure where you are getting these ideas? Not from the Bible, surely.
Dead is dead. People have no existence in Sheol.

 

[St. SteVen]

It's simple. Either a proposition is true or it isn't. Are souls eternal? No. Do souls exist outside the body? No.

All this is debatable.

 

[CadyandZoe]

All this is debatable.

Why is death the enemy?

 

[Mr E]

You are not seeing what Jesus said though.

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist."

They only understood it as John the Baptist. Not that Elijah is John the Baptist.

The coming of Elijah to restore all things is still future. Then Jesus said, "but".

Is Jesus contradicting Himself then? No.

Jesus was pointing out that John the Baptist in the spirit of Elijah already came. John told every one he was not Elijah. Was John lying as well? John 1:20-22

"And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?"

If Jesus was correct even John the Baptist did not know he was Elias. Which means reincarnation will not even work as it is posited in this thread, as a means of escape from sheol. No one even knows who they are. How can they consciously be redeemed?

Luke explains who John was in Luke 1.

"But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Jesus was not teaching at the moment, and certainly not reincarnation. Jesus could have been saying that an Elias would come, but not the reincarnation of Elias. The prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist with the spirit and power of Elijah, not Elijah himself. The way Jesus put it, Elijah could still come as prophecied. But in preparation for the first coming, John the Baptist, a totally different soul, was the one who came to prepare the way of the Messiah.

Jesus was not saying John the Baptist was Elijah, but that John the Baptist fulfulled the prophecy in part, not Elijah reincarnated. If Elijah came back it would not be through a womb and birth. He would simply show up as Elijah and declare himself to be Elijah.

Instead of the disciples thinking Elijah was reincarnated they just thought that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy instead of Elijah, no?

Reincarnation isn't baloney, but what you've written here certainly is.

You conveniently leave out the account from Matthew 11, which directly contradicts what you insist above.

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

To John, John was John. To Jesus, John was 'the Elijah who was to come.' Note that Jesus never said that Elijah was going to reincarnate. It's not the physical man that they should have been expecting, but the spirit that was in Elijah, would be found in another who was to come, and that person would be 'the Elijah' of that period. John answered honestly, and so did Jesus.

Luke gets it exactly right-

"But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

To one who overcame the world and was taken up, their return is not from the womb of a mother. Jesus made this clear in discussing the meaning of being 'born again' from above. A child is born the way all children are born, they are given a name by their parents. They have their own soul, but their spirit comes from God. That spirit may have once been called 'Elijah' as it was in a person who was given the name Elijah. Then, like that child born to Zacharias and Elizabeth-- that child will be filled with the holy spirit even in his mother's womb and that spirit is given a new name.... in this case-- John.

To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Jesus was not saying John the Baptist was Elijah, but that John the Baptist fulfulled the prophecy in part, not Elijah reincarnated. If Elijah came back it would not be through a womb and birth. He would simply show up as Elijah and declare himself to be Elijah.

Instead of the disciples thinking Elijah was reincarnated they just thought that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy instead of Elijah, no?

Wrong. Jesus said explicitly that John WAS 'the Elijah' they should have been expecting. You directly contradict his words in scripture here.

Your expectation, like theirs regarding the need for Elijah to physically arrive was wrong. They also missed entirely the arrival and presence of the Messiah himself. Regarding the messiah, they were expecting one like Moses, from the line of David.... they were not expecting Moses resurrected, but regarding Elijah-- they were fully expecting him to come again in the flesh, the way many people expect Jesus himself to return today in the flesh.

 

[Mr E]

Correct me if I am wrong. If reincarnation were true, there would be no need for the cross or salvation.

Consider yourself corrected. Being born again doesn't change your need for salvation. You are born, you will live your life and you will die, then face judgment. The cross is our example for all time. The gospel is the good news that though you will die, if you remain in Him, you will live again. God saves (preserves) your life and you remain.

Read John 15.... he makes this clear about 15 times, putting it in terms you can't miss unless you simply refuse to see>>>

“I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener. He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.
“I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me—and I in him—bears much fruit because apart from me you can accomplish nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire and are burned up. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want, and it will be done for you. My Father is honored by this, that you bear much fruit and show that you are my disciples.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Consider yourself corrected. Being born again doesn't change your need for salvation. You are born, you will live your life and you will die, then face judgment. The cross is our example for all time. The gospel is the good news that though you will die, if you remain in Him, you will live again. God saves (preserves) your life and you remain.

Read John 15.... he makes this clear about 15 times, putting it in terms you can't miss unless you simply refuse to see>>>

“I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener. He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.
“I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me—and I in him—bears much fruit because apart from me you can accomplish nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire and are burned up. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want, and it will be done for you. My Father is honored by this, that you bear much fruit and show that you are my disciples.

Born again is NOT reincarnation.

 

[Mr E]

Not in another womb as those pro-reincarnation would have us believe. 3 days later in the same body is how Jesus rose again.

Nope. Not the same body at all. He occupied whatever body he wanted to. -because he didn't return a physical man, but in spirit and a spirit goes in and out of whatever 'house' it chooses. Taking on 'the appearance of a man' the spirit is never that man, but it fills that man. We see this clearly in examples like when he appeared on the road to Emmaus. They didn't recognize him because 'their eyes were prevented from realizing who he was." You might think then that there was a problem with their eyes because it was obviously Jesus walking with them, talking to them about himself after all. But the reason they didn't recognize him was because the one they were walking with simply didn't look like him. In their view, it couldn't be Jesus because it didn't look like Jesus. It was someone else. It was only later after this walking and all this talking and sitting down to dinner when he broke bread that they realized the dude they were with was in fact- Jesus!

This is confirmed elsewhere in Mark, who wrote:

After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country.

 

[Mr E]

That is not what happened.

Jesus is the first begotten son of God.

Jesus is not the first begotten son of Joseph.

Next you will be saying, Jesus was Moses reincarnated.

Acts 3:22

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you."

Acts 7:37

"This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear."

Where does this foolishness stop?

Let's take this in chunks. Bite-sized....

That is not what happened.

Jesus is the first begotten son of God.

Jesus is not the first begotten son of Joseph.

Next you will be saying, Jesus was Moses reincarnated.

Sorry no. Adam came before Jesus. -it's in the book. Jesus was Joseph's son.... another book, same library.

But why would I say that Jesus was Moses reincarnated? Don't project. I've never suggested such a thing.

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you."

Acts 7:37

"This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear."

Where does this foolishness stop?

Stops right here. I never suggested what you are suggesting I suggested. Foolishness--- Hard stop.

The Holy Spirit was the means whereby God came into human form. Were is common sense? God created humans. God took Eve out of Adam to set up a whole new process of conception and birth, now you say 4,000 years later God forgot how it works, and was incapable of becoming human flesh?

Jesus had the image of God, and was God on earth. Jesus did not have Adam's dead corruptible flesh image passed down through a human father. See Genesis 5:1-3


"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"

Notice the distinction between Adam in God's image, and Seth now in the image of Adam? When Adam disobeyed, he was no longer in God's image. When Jesus was born, He was not in Joseph's image. He was the only begotten son of God in God's image. Adam was not born, but created out of the dust, even though he was the direct image of God.

This is relatively orthodox understanding, with perhaps your idea regarding 'a whole new process of conception and birth' - it hasn't been reinvented, by the way. Still works the same way it always has-- the way it was designed to work, and God doesn't violate His own design, nor His word, nor His nature. You just don't quite understand it all yet.

I do find it funny, or strange maybe- that you insist that Jesus was God's first son and then immediately start talking all about Adam.

God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

Here is something to think about. Cain and Abel were already born when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. They were still in the Garden when Adam and Eve were kicked out. Adam had to wait 100 years before Seth was born, after being kicked out of Eden. He may have had daughters, but highly unlikely. Cain and Abel are not mentioned in the generations of humans in dead corruptible flesh.

Of course God allowed Cain to kill Abel. He did not prevent the act from happening, but did kick Cain out of the Garden as well. Now the Garden was empty, with no one of Adam's offspring to fill it up. Now Paradise is in the firmament, and at the Cross, was physically entered by all the OT and presented by Christ to God as the firstfruits of Paradise. They were made alive, but had to wait until the Cross to physically return to their original homestead.

That may sound as strange as reincarnation to many posters, but it is from Scripture more than reincarnation is. Reincarnation is a theory that leads to all sorts of pagan proclamations. Many circumventing God's own plan of redemption and man's free choice to eternally reject God just like Satan.

Fine idea, but again it contradicts scripture. I guess if you take the liberty of adding in thousands of years where ever you wish to, it provides a lot of wiggle-room.

Of course God allowed Cain to kill Abel? I guess in a 'sovereignty of God' scenario, He allows all evil. But scripture tells us that God isn't desiring any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. That would include Cain. Being 'kicked out of the garden' doesn't exclude anyone from the opportunity for eternal life. It provides you an opportunity to come to repentance. Do you understand God's plan of redemption? You seem to dismiss entirely what Jesus taught it as-- 'You must be born again.'

While Hebrews 9:27 is a concise explanation, there is more to the story. And death is not just physical, just as life is not just spiritual. Those in Christ have been judged on the Cross. That is why those OT redeemed now have eternal physical life. All in Christ have been judged and have passed from death into life. The appointment of death is conception. That is what the verse means, not physical death at the end of one's earthly existence. Being born physically is the one time appointment to death, then the judgment. But no judgment for those in Christ.

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

That will be every one who is not removed from the Lamb's book of life. The final judgment is after the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. That is when the rest of the dead are judged who are not already in the LOF or in Paradise.

So birth is death? I guess you could look at it that way, as we are born 'into death' so to speak in terms of a 'life sentence' is actually also a death sentence-- since all men born will die. You live, you die... a direct one-for-one correlation. But you are missing the over-arching principle in play. If you really believed that being born is dying (from a spiritual perspective) then you have those alive above- dying and falling, and being born in the flesh-- living a physical life and then dying a physical death, upon which they become alive again in spirit.

Bravo. We agree on this.

-but then you say 'the OT redeemed now have eternal physical life.' -In heaven? On another planet? Where is this 'physical life' you imagine 'the OT redeemed' to be living eternally?

 

[Mr E]

Doesn't this confirm on some level that spiritual beings can reproduce with humans?

No-- one inhabits the other. People understand this concept (or say they do) when considering what we call 'demon possession' and see all kinds of evidence of this in scripture during the time of Jesus. Yet they can never get their heads around the idea of angel possession? If you could fancy yourself to be a horse it might help. It helped me. If you were a horse, and had one horse-power you can do all a horse might do. And a horseman might take you and tame you and own you and harness you to do his work. He would feed you and guide you and ride you and train you to suit his purposes. Maybe to plow, or to deliver the mail, or to go to war. If you are willing to bend to his will, and not buck or bristle-- a fine horse you will be. Or maybe you have the devil in you and you are untameable-- wild and no good to anyone as you are..... head strong, hard hearted and unbroken. We all need to be broken.

Spirits don't have sex with women. One is spiritual, the other is physical. One, is a reflection (image) of the other. Figure it out.