Why I reject Karma and Reincarnation as a Born Again Christian?

[Alan McDougall]

Why I reject karma and reincarnation​

​

By Alan McDougall​

Karma is a belief that a person has to live many lives and improve in each until they become an ascended master and finally lose self-awareness into the mindless soup of the cosmic mind

Alternatively, one chooses their own next life from the spiritual plane in order to learn something in the next.

It is claimed by some variants of this illogical belief that one might have to live sometimes millions of lives before becoming perfect to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth and find enlightenment.

I believe this Karma is nonsense and will list my objections to this belief below.

1) The bible says it is appointed for a person once to live and then the judgment.

2). Karma says that a soul must live many mortal lives to reach perfection. Thus humanity undergoes must undergo countless incarnation from an insect or bad human until one finally becomes an enlightened master.

One, nevertheless, must start out as a lowly life form such as a cockroach or garden Lilly and finally, after countless millions of years progress to become human.

For the life of me, how does a bad cockroach or garden Lilly become a "good cockroach or garden Lilly"?

This belief if it were not so tragic would be very funny indeed.

3). Karma says that if we have a weakness or fault in this life, we must return reborn, again and again, and overcome our failings in the previous in the next life, or horrors upon horrors maybe revert to been a cockroach again.

4) Therefore, any suffering we have to endure in this life, be it cancer, aids, all other sicknesses poverty, etc, etc is our own fault due to the evil or bad things we did in our past life. This is a cruel belief as many saintly people suffer and die in the most horrific manner. What soul would choose to be a Jew in the Second World War and see their beloved's torn from them in the holocaust and consumed in the ovens of Hitler's death camps?

5). the above paragraphs shows that Karma is nonsense, how can one so often be punished so terribly for something they do not even remember from a sinful forgotten past life.

6.) Another view favored by spiritualists and modern day channellers is that between lives we sit in some other dimensions and decide exactly what kind of life we choose to be it beggar, a rich person or whatever. Therefore, our fate is decided by ourselves, what nonsense.

7). What then about souls like Hitler, Stalin, Nero and the numerous depraved people on earth at the moment, did they deliberately choose a life of depraved evil and what they could learn from their wicked actions? They will degenerate further and further through each life as they are totally depraved without any redeeming good qualities what so ever. Surely, this type of person deserves judgment and eternal punishment, not escape into karma.

8). If we look at the out of controlling world population we see an exponential increase in the total world population, which is already a frightening 6.5 billion and growing faster and faster by the day. Where are all these people coming from? If karma is true, surely people should be reaching perfection and escaping the cycle of life and the world's population decreasing. Not so?

9). Again, if karma were true we should be observing just the reverse. With more and more people becoming better and better and finally reaching enlightenment and escaping the relentless birth and rebirth with a subsequent decrease in the world population.

10) Although people are no eviler now than they were in the past (middle age horrors as an example), they are also no better, if we read our daily newspaper or listen to the news on the electronic media.
We just have to read up on the mechanized world wars of the past century and see the awful weapons humanity has developed and continue to develop to kill one another, with more and more sophisticated tools of death. Where is Karma in all of this?

11). Where are all the enlightened masters? There seems to me so few in these latter days. Please, could one name just one living master for me?

12). A person I would call an enlightened master in present times would be mother Teresa and she did definitely not believe in the law of Karma but believed and practiced active love caring and charity nearly all the years of her long life.

13). If the law of karma is true, why are we still having more and more conflicts and wars all over the planet, instead of peace?

14). How then are the memories some claim to come from past lives? I believe that locked up in our genes and encoded within the colossal D.N.A. molecule racial memories could be stored. Perhaps these ghosts of memories could perhaps leak into the conscious mind of some people who then believe they are remembering past lives.

15) Another fact that, has been proven, is forgotten childhood memories that are remembered in the case of trauma or under hypnoses.

16). My personal search for an explanation has shown not one indisputable past life memory in anyone. All could be explained rationally.

17.) My own personal view on Karma and past life regression is that I hope this awful concept is not true. Who wants to live earthly mortal repeatedly?

18) Anyway, 99.999999999+++ of people just like me have no memories of past lives.

19) In addition, if I lived in the past and have no recollection of that life, the person I was then is truly dead.

20.) I believe I exist now because years ago my beloved parents decided (Not me) to make love. I am sure I did not choose this life and am positive it is the only life I have ever had. What comes after, if anything remains an enigma to me and to everyone else on eat?


21.) I, therefore, reject the concept of karma as a potentially cruel false belief and nonsense to any logically rationally thinking person.
Please give me your input for instance reincarnationist say that proof that the bible says that reincarnation happens is the case of John the Baptist supposedly being the reincarnation of Elijah? In my opinion, what Jesus meant by this that John the Baptist was a prophet of the likes of Elijah
Alan McDougall

 

[shnarkle]

Why I reject karma and reincarnation​

​

By Alan McDougall​

Karma is a belief that a person has to live many lives and improve in each until they become an ascended master and finally lose self-awareness into the mindless soup of the cosmic mind

Alternatively, one chooses their own next life from the spiritual plane in order to learn something in the next.

It is claimed by some variants of this illogical belief that one might have to live sometimes millions of lives before becoming perfect to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth and find enlightenment.

I believe this Karma is nonsense and will list my objections to this belief below.

1) The bible says it is appointed for a person once to live and then the judgment.

2). Karma says that a soul must live many mortal lives to reach perfection. Thus humanity undergoes must undergo countless incarnation from an insect or bad human until one finally becomes an enlightened master.

One, nevertheless, must start out as a lowly life form such as a cockroach or garden Lilly and finally, after countless millions of years progress to become human.

For the life of me, how does a bad cockroach or garden Lilly become a "good cockroach or garden Lilly"?

This belief if it were not so tragic would be very funny indeed.

This is playing fast and loose with the concept of Karma. I would say that is pretty close to a straw man argument, but I will respond anyways since we all play pretty loose with Christian doctrines as well.

Forget about the irrelevant details and look at the meaning. How do any of us start out? We start out as the union of seed and egg; a zygote. Some are better than others. Regardless this lasts but a short "lifetime", and in no time at all there is a beating heart, limbs, feet, eyes, etc. Then it all comes to an abrupt end (perhaps not abrupt enough for some women)and with end of that existence or "life" we are again born into this world. It is a not so well known fact that there is not one single cell in your body that existed even six months ago. Do you understand the ramifications of this statement? Not only that, but as we learn new things, our perspectives change. We literally become different people than we were after something as innocuous as a lecture by a college professor, a sermon by our preacher, etc. In both scenarios, i.e. Christianity vs. Karma the overall sequence of events is very much the same. It is just the details that vary. These details vary from one "learned master" to another so it stands to reason to compare "Mere Karma" to "Mere Christianity"

3). Karma says that if we have a weakness or fault in this life, we must return reborn, again and again, and overcome our failings in the previous in the next life, or horrors upon horrors maybe revert to been a cockroach again.

4) Therefore, any suffering we have to endure in this life, be it cancer, aids, all other sicknesses poverty, etc, etc is our own fault due to the evil or bad things we did in our past life. This is a cruel belief as many saintly people suffer and die in the most horrific manner. What soul would choose to be a Jew in the Second World War and see their beloved's torn from them in the holocaust and consumed in the ovens of Hitler's death camps?

You might be making their argument for them here. Who's fault is it then if it isn't our own? Did Adam sin because he was tricked by the devil? Do we blame the devil for all of our woes? Are we responsible for nothing? Do we get a pass for all of our sinful behaviors? I could post a wall of text showing not only the link, but the direct cause of most, if not all; cancers, AIDS,heart disease, and many other diseases and disorders. None of them can be pinned on the devil. All are directly linked to behavior and environmental factors; ultimately to the choices we make. Every decision you have ever made has led you to the point you're at right now; all of which were from your past life; none of them are the direct result of your present life at this moment in time. Most Jews don't get to choose their race. Those who chose to stay and ignore the literal writing on the walls did so at their own peril. I'm not blaming them, mind you. However, there were plenty who could see that none of that was going to end well and chose to save themselves rather than hope for the best. There are still some alive today who are saying the same thing about living in the US now. Many of them are leaving in droves, and not just Jews either.

Christianity states effectively the same thing. We are born in a fallen sinful state, we must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God, otherwise, "horror upon horrors" we end up in hell. We all have different ideas of what hell is, if someone sees it as becoming a cockroach, perhaps they are just interpreting Jesus' illustration of the garbage pit outside Jerusalem, e.g. "Gai Hinnom" aka Gehenna a bit too literally and equating all those cockroaches down there as sinful unrepentant vessels fit for destruction.

5). the above paragraphs shows that Karma is nonsense, how can one so often be punished so terribly for something they do not even remember from a sinful forgotten past life.

I ask the same question of Christians quite often. It goes something like this: How can you repent from a sin that you know in your heart is revolting and repulsive, and then two or three weeks later go right back like the proverbial dog to their vomit and commit the exact same sin again? Their reply is that they forget how bad it is and their flesh is weak so they have to just repent again and again and again and again until they finally get it right and can move on.

6.) Another view favored by spiritualists and modern day channellers is that between lives we sit in some other dimensions and decide exactly what kind of life we choose to be it beggar, a rich person or whatever. Therefore, our fate is decided by ourselves, what nonsense.

7). What then about souls like Hitler, Stalin, Nero and the numerous depraved people on earth at the moment, did they deliberately choose a life of depraved evil and what they could learn from their wicked actions? They will degenerate further and further through each life as they are totally depraved without any redeeming good qualities what so ever. Surely, this type of person deserves judgment and eternal punishment, not escape into karma.

The atheist would suggest the same thing to the bible believer as well for their beliefs. God takes scum bags and saves them. St. Paul being, admittedly; one of the worst
Here again, you're illustrating what I pointed out earlier that there are quite vast and varied perspectives on Karma. However, this example you just gave seems to reject our own free will, which is what that is implying. Do you think that you decide your own fate or is it predetermined?

8). If we look at the out of controlling world population we see an exponential increase in the total world population, which is already a frightening 6.5 billion and growing faster and faster by the day. Where are all these people coming from? If karma is true, surely people should be reaching perfection and escaping the cycle of life and the world's population decreasing. Not so?

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but populations are declining worldwide. Not just human populations either. Whole populations of species are becoming extinct, and as the good book says, "wars, pestilence, disease, etc." until were it not for the sake of the elect we'd all be toast. A population has to produce a minimum of 2.2 children per couple to maintain its level. ALL first world countries are falling way below this number and their is no sign or indication that this trend is going to change anywhere in the near or far future.

9). Again, if karma were true we should be observing just the reverse. With more and more people becoming better and better and finally reaching enlightenment and escaping the relentless birth and rebirth with a subsequent decrease in the world population.

Well, as I pointed out before, we're in a downtrend in population growth. However, correspondence isn't causation so this line of questioning isn't really proving anything.

10) Although people are no eviler now than they were in the past (middle age horrors as an example), they are also no better, if we read our daily newspaper or listen to the news on the electronic media.
We just have to read up on the mechanized world wars of the past century and see the awful weapons humanity has developed and continue to develop to kill one another, with more and more sophisticated tools of death. Where is Karma in all of this?

The atheist, agnostic, or skeptic would ask, "Where is god in all of this?". What you just pointed out doesn't negate the claims of karma; instead it reinforces them as they plainly state that these reincarnations can go on indefinitely

11). Where are all the enlightened masters? There seems to me so few in these latter days. Please, could one name just one living master for me?

What difference does it make if you have a dozen names? You already have one. Isn't one enough? Look at how many people knew Jesus' name and didn't recognize him for who he was. Jesus even pointed out that his parables weren't for everybody. Everyone isn't supposed to get it; at least not at first.

12). A person I would call an enlightened master in present times would be mother Teresa and she did definitely not believe in the law of Karma but believed and practiced active love caring and charity nearly all the years of her long life.

I've often made the same argument for the doctrine of the rapture; e.g. You don't have to believe in the doctrine of the rapture to be raptured. There's also the argument that one doesn't need to know the truth in its entirety. One doesn't have to have an exhaustive understanding of the truth; just the simple truth will suffice.

13). If the law of karma is true, why are we still having more and more conflicts and wars all over the planet, instead of peace?

Because karma works both ways. The history of humanity is also peppered with periods of peace as well; so what? Karma has all the time in the world.

14). How then are the memories some claim to come from past lives? I believe that locked up in our genes and encoded within the colossal D.N.A. molecule racial memories could be stored. Perhaps these ghosts of memories could perhaps leak into the conscious mind of some people who then believe they are remembering past lives.

What you're talking about is more of a Buddhist idea than a Hindu one; as they say, "The news travels"

15) Another fact that, has been proven, is forgotten childhood memories that are remembered in the case of trauma or under hypnoses.

16). My personal search for an explanation has shown not one indisputable past life memory in anyone. All could be explained rationally.

17.) My own personal view on Karma and past life regression is that I hope this awful concept is not true. Who wants to live earthly mortal repeatedly?

18) Anyway, 99.999999999+++ of people just like me have no memories of past lives.

19) In addition, if I lived in the past and have no recollection of that life, the person I was then is truly dead.

I couldn't tell you what I ate for breakfast yesterday, or even if I had breakfast at all.

Please give me your input for instance reincarnationist say that proof that the bible says that reincarnation happens is the case of John the Baptist supposedly being the reincarnation of Elijah? In my opinion, what Jesus meant by this that John the Baptist was a prophet of the likes of Elijah [/color][/i]
Alan McDougall

I think what Paul says is a much more obvious reference to reincarnation, i.e. "the new creature in Christ", "a new creation"' also "what is flesh is flesh, what is spirit is spirit" This indicates a completely new spiritual creature rather than the old creation that cannot sustain itself into or through eternity. Jeremiah and Ezekiel both talk about God putting a new heart into mankind with similar results. The bible also talks about "the world that then was", and "the world that is to come" which indicates that there are at least three incarnations of the world as well.

 

[7angels]

i was going to say a similar thing. it all comes down to how you define things and at what angle you look at things. Jesus theoretically was reincarnated from God to man and again from man to God. man was reincarnated from our sin nature to God's nature(the bible tells us we are new creatures). don't get prejudiced against something just because you don't see truth in it. the devil cannot create anything but instead twists and corrupts what God created for his own use. so doesn't that mean that somewhere in karma and reincarnation there has to be truth in there somewhere? God calls people who tell the future prophets and satan calls them seers. same thing but from 2 different kingdoms. i hope this helps you.

God bless

 

[shnarkle]

i was going to say a similar thing. it all comes down to how you define things and at what angle you look at things. Jesus theoretically was reincarnated from God to man and again from man to God. man was reincarnated from our sin nature to God's nature(the bible tells us we are new creatures). don't get prejudiced against something just because you don't see truth in it. the devil cannot create anything but instead twists and corrupts what God created for his own use. so doesn't that mean that somewhere in karma and reincarnation there has to be truth in there somewhere? God calls people who tell the future prophets and satan calls them seers. same thing but from 2 different kingdoms. i hope this helps you.

God bless

Good points! Yes, I've often thought in these same terms as well. God incarnates Himself as the creator(to manifest is to incarnate, no?), then through His creative power incarnate the creation, then as a man who then becomes an offering for sin(this, too is a sort of incarnation as well, no?). He then ceases to exist altogether, or perhaps it isn't that he ceases to exist, but that he empties himself completely. What better way to illustrate this than with an empty tomb? What do we see then? Do we see the absence of his presence, or the presence of his absence? How much more reincarnated can one be that one's closest friends don't even recognize him?
I do think that the Christian view of reality takes reincarnation so much farther though. It takes it to a point where the incarnation is within God Himself and God is within the incarnation. The Father is in the Son, the Son is in us and we in him to the point that All is in all.

 

[lforrest]

Mehh.

Jesus was able to escape from the midst of a crowd. I think he has power to alter the perception of others. I doubt his resurrected body looks very different from before the resurrection.

 

[shnarkle]

Mehh.

Jesus was able to escape from the midst of a crowd. I think he has power to alter the perception of others. I doubt his resurrected body looks very different from before the resurrection.

A Roman scourging leaves the flesh that isn't severed in tattered ribbons. I also doubt that Jesus was in a chipper mood just prior to his arrest. Unless Jesus was walking around like some warmed over corpse from Return of the Living Dead, it stands to reason that they're not going to recognize him. I think there's something more here that's going on. They seem to have no clue who he is until he sits down to 'break bread' with them. They are also feeling as if they know him while their senses are telling them he's just some ignorant stranger they met on the road.

In other words, Jesus doesn't alter the perceptions of others, he changes their hearts, e.g. "We're not our hearts burning within us...etc?" They weren't walking by sight anymore.

 

[7angels]

A Roman scourging leaves the flesh that isn't severed in tattered ribbons. I also doubt that Jesus was in a chipper mood just prior to his arrest. Unless Jesus was walking around like some warmed over corpse from Return of the Living Dead, it stands to reason that they're not going to recognize him. I think there's something more here that's going on. They seem to have no clue who he is until he sits down to 'break bread' with them. They are also feeling as if they know him while their senses are telling them he's just some ignorant stranger they met on the road.

In other words, Jesus doesn't alter the perceptions of others, he changes their hearts, e.g. "We're not our hearts burning within us...etc?" They weren't walking by sight anymore.

nice analysis but have you tried thinking of it from divine a perspective? what if the reason they don't see Jesus as "a warmed over corpse from the return of the dead" could be that He was completely healed and everyone was expecting a Jesus that was beat to a pulp or not even expecting to see Him again. remember mary recognized Jesus right away when she saw Him so Jesus had to of looked similar.

God bless

 

[shnarkle]

nice analysis but have you tried thinking of it from divine a perspective? what if the reason they don't see Jesus as "a warmed over corpse from the return of the dead" could be that He was completely healed and everyone was expecting a Jesus that was beat to a pulp or not even expecting to see Him again. remember mary recognized Jesus right away when she saw Him so Jesus had to of looked similar.

God bless

You're effectively saying the same thing I just did. The example of Mary is different in her recognition, but also in the fact that she can't touch him. So in a way it's the same in that on the way to Emaus they could eat with him, and there was no instructions to warn them that they couldn't touch him until they recognized him. It's as if she recognizes him, but also knows that it isn't really Jesus. It's some sort of inversion, or maybe it's just a matter of recognizing Christ in others, and at the same time understanding that you can't physically touch that which is spirit. They see Jesus with faith rather than sight.

 

[BreadOfLife]

i was going to say a similar thing. it all comes down to how you define things and at what angle you look at things. Jesus theoretically was reincarnated from God to man and again from man to God. man was reincarnated from our sin nature to God's nature(the bible tells us we are new creatures). don't get prejudiced against something just because you don't see truth in it. the devil cannot create anything but instead twists and corrupts what God created for his own use. so doesn't that mean that somewhere in karma and reincarnation there has to be truth in there somewhere? God calls people who tell the future prophets and satan calls them seers. same thing but from 2 different kingdoms. i hope this helps you.

God bless

Bad argument.

For starters, Jesus coming down from Heaven in the flesh is NOT a "reincarnation". It was the Incarnation of God.
Jesus was never "reincarnated". After His Resurrection, He appeared in His glorified Body - and that is the Body that ascended to Heaven.

Jesus's flesh wasn't recreated after His Resurrection - it was glorified.
The Word of God condemns the notion of reincarnation, as Paul states:

Heb. 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die ONCE and after this comes judgment.

 

[shnarkle]

Bad argument.

It isn't really an argument to begin with. So calm down. Here's an argument: Christ states that he came to reveal the Father. John states that everything that was made was made through the Word, which is referring to the Son. Obviously this isn't referring to the Son in his incarnation as Jesus. However, just who was Moses talking to on Mt. Sinai if it wasn't the Father? This and other manifestations of God throughout the old testament would seem, to any observant Jew; to be God. Jesus is pointing out that they were looking at the Father, but didn't know it anymore than Jesus' own disciples did. The pillar of fire during the night and pillar of smoke during the day as well as the burning bush and every single other manifestation of God were all the Son. The Son is the image of the godhead bodily as Paul says. He gives form to God the Father. Regardless, Jesus himself even points out the glory he had from before the creation of the world. He may have only one human incarnation, but obviously no one is suggesting that Jesus was walking around in some infinite singularity before creation.

However, Jesus' glorified body isn't a physical one; it can't be "sinful flesh" anymore so he is truly a completely separate incarnation from an incarnation in sinful flesh. This isn't to say that he is someone else, but only to show that the body he counted as nothing was discarded. The temporal incarnation was replaced with an eternal incarnation.

Heb. 9:27
[background=#fdfeff]And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die ONCE and after this comes judgment.[/background]

Bad argument. An eternal incarnation doesn't die.

 

[7angels]

Bad argument.

For starters, Jesus coming down from Heaven in the flesh is NOT a "reincarnation". It was the Incarnation of God.
Jesus was never "reincarnated". After His Resurrection, He appeared in His glorified Body - and that is the Body that ascended to Heaven.

Jesus's flesh wasn't recreated after His Resurrection - it was glorified.
The Word of God condemns the notion of reincarnation, as Paul states:

Heb. 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die ONCE and after this comes judgment.

i don't mind you pointing out my mistakes. because this allows us to see where people stand on different issues. by your statements you like the politically correct wording. nothing wrong with that. i know because all you have done is change the words but the meaning are basically the same. i can post the definitions for you if you like. i don't want you to stumble on my behalf if it can be helped. so what is the difference you in why my argument is bad if you don't mind saying. you say the bible condemns reincarnation correct? then please show me. the bible condemns worldly thinking but if it is applied to God then isn't it becoming righteous and holy? just like there are Godly seers too. they are called prophets. it all comes down to how you interpret things. a dirty joke could be funny or disgusting depending upon who you talk to. it all comes down to how you view something.

God bless

 

[BreadOfLife]

It isn't really an argument to begin with. So calm down. Here's an argument: Christ states that he came to reveal the Father. John states that everything that was made was made through the Word, which is referring to the Son. Obviously this isn't referring to the Son in his incarnation as Jesus. However, just who was Moses talking to on Mt. Sinai if it wasn't the Father? This and other manifestations of God throughout the old testament would seem, to any observant Jew; to be God. Jesus is pointing out that they were looking at the Father, but didn't know it anymore than Jesus' own disciples did. The pillar of fire during the night and pillar of smoke during the day as well as the burning bush and every single other manifestation of God were all the Son. The Son is the image of the godhead bodily as Paul says. He gives form to God the Father. Regardless, Jesus himself even points out the glory he had from before the creation of the world. He may have only one human incarnation, but obviously no one is suggesting that Jesus was walking around in some infinite singularity before creation.

However, Jesus' glorified body isn't a physical one; it can't be "sinful flesh" anymore so he is truly a completely separate incarnation from an incarnation in sinful flesh. This isn't to say that he is someone else, but only to show that the body he counted as nothing was discarded. The temporal incarnation was replaced with an eternal incarnation.

Bad argument. An eternal incarnation doesn't die.

Another bad argument.

To say that Jesus' glorified body is NOT physical is to deny the Scriptures that illustrate plainly that he ATE with his disciples (Luke 24:42-43).
A purely spiritual being doe not eat nor does is have any need of food.

 

[BreadOfLife]

i don't mind you pointing out my mistakes. because this allows us to see where people stand on different issues. by your statements you like the politically correct wording. nothing wrong with that. i know because all you have done is change the words but the meaning are basically the same. i can post the definitions for you if you like. i don't want you to stumble on my behalf if it can be helped. so what is the difference you in why my argument is bad if you don't mind saying. you say the bible condemns reincarnation correct? then please show me. the bible condemns worldly thinking but if it is applied to God then isn't it becoming righteous and holy? just like there are Godly seers too. they are called prophets. it all comes down to how you interpret things. a dirty joke could be funny or disgusting depending upon who you talk to. it all comes down to how you view something.

God bless

Sorry - but that is nothing but relativism. "MY" truth vs. "YOUR" truth.
Truth doesn't depend on the hearer. It is true regardless of who hears it.

 

[shnarkle]

To say that Jesus' glorified body is NOT physical is to deny the Scriptures that illustrate plainly that he ATE with his disciples (Luke 24:42-43).

Where do the scriptures state that spiritual bodies cannot eat with their disciples? Where does it state that physical bodies can walk through the walls of locked rooms, appear out of nowhere, and disappear suddenly? I'm not denying that Jesus did some pretty miraculous things in his physical body, but there are limitations.

Why does Jesus only appear to his disciples and not to anyone else? This isn't the property of a physical body. Physical bodies like the one Christ had during his entire earthly existence in his incarnation are easily perceivable by believers and non believers alike. It was only after his resurrection that the unbelievers could no longer see him. What that's telling me is that it isn't enough to just be able to identify Jesus in a police line up. We've got to know Who He really is, and we need to be known of and by him, or we're not going to see him when he returns.

There's nothing wrong with using scripture to support your points, but there's also nothing wrong with using the intelligence we've all been given by God to ask those same scriptures what they mean. When scripture states that Christ is firstborn of the dead and a new creation, this is not what would lead me to believe that it is still the same old creation or incarnation in sinful flesh. Jesus came in "sinful flesh". That was what most people refer to as "the incarnation", but at the resurrection we don't look at the risen Christ in the form of "sinful flesh" anymore; at least I don't. Sinful flesh is as old as the day Adam and Eve sinned, but not as old as the day God created them "very good". Christ makes all things new again, starting with his own incarnation as the first born of the dead.

A purely spiritual being doe not eat nor does is have any need of food.

Purely spiritual beings do a lot of things that physical human beings do, e.g. send messages, obey God, sin against God, etc.; we're all created in God's image, aren't we? It's just that human beings were created " a little lower than the angels" There are also a number of things that physical bodies can do that they don't need to do, e.g. speak, have sex, go to the moon etc.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where do the scriptures state that spiritual bodies cannot eat with their disciples? Where does it state that physical bodies can walk through the walls of locked rooms, appear out of nowhere, and disappear suddenly? I'm not denying that Jesus did some pretty miraculous things in his physical body, but there are limitations.

Why does Jesus only appear to his disciples and not to anyone else? This isn't the property of a physical body. Physical bodies like the one Christ had during his entire earthly existence in his incarnation are easily perceivable by believers and non believers alike. It was only after his resurrection that the unbelievers could no longer see him. What that's telling me is that it isn't enough to just be able to identify Jesus in a police line up. We've got to know Who He really is, and we need to be known of and by him, or we're not going to see him when he returns.

There's nothing wrong with using scripture to support your points, but there's also nothing wrong with using the intelligence we've all been given by God to ask those same scriptures what they mean. When scripture states that Christ is firstborn of the dead and a new creation, this is not what would lead me to believe that it is still the same old creation or incarnation in sinful flesh. Jesus came in "sinful flesh". That was what most people refer to as "the incarnation", but at the resurrection we don't look at the risen Christ in the form of "sinful flesh" anymore; at least I don't. Sinful flesh is as old as the day Adam and Eve sinned, but not as old as the day God created them "very good". Christ makes all things new again, starting with his own incarnation as the first born of the dead.

Purely spiritual beings do a lot of things that physical human beings do, e.g. send messages, obey God, sin against God, etc.; we're all created in God's image, aren't we? It's just that human beings were created " a little lower than the angels" There are also a number of things that physical bodies can do that they don't need to do, e.g. speak, have sex, go to the moon etc.

1 Cor. 15:6 tells us on NO uncertain terms that Jesus appeared to over FIVE HUNDRED people at the same time - not just to the Twelve.

As for walking through walls and dematerializing - Jesus is GOD as well as man. He has the ability to do WHATEVER He wills. Anyway, we read in Acts 8:39, where Philip DISAPPEARS right before the Ethiopian Eunuch after baptizing him. It says that this was done by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, tell me - was Philip still a man in the flesh - or was he spirit??

 

[shnarkle]

1 Cor. 15:6 tells us on NO uncertain terms that Jesus appeared to over FIVE HUNDRED people at the same time - not just to the Twelve.

The text says, "five hundred BRETHREN..." which doesn't refute what I said. No, it proves my point that he never appeared those who weren't saved.

As for walking through walls and dematerializing - Jesus is GOD as well as man. He has the ability to do WHATEVER He wills.

Sorry, but no. False. He only does the will of the Father. He only does what he sees the Father doing, and while he was walking the earth in his physical body, he couldn't pull that one off. He could give a crowd the slip, but he didn't just vanish. FAIL.


Anyway, we read in Acts 8:39, where Philip DISAPPEARS right before the Ethiopian Eunuch after baptizing him. It says that this was done by the power of the

Holy Spirit.

More like the grace of the Holy Spirit. Philip was a troll. The Ethiopian was simply rejoicing because Philip was gone. The fact is that when the text states that the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip and he was seen "no more". This is a double negative emphatically stating that the Ethiopian never saw Philip again.

So, tell me - was Philip still a man in the flesh - or was he spirit??

Definitely in the flesh, which the Ethiopian never saw again. Good effort, at least you're reading your bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

More like the grace of the Holy Spirit. Philip was a troll. The Ethiopian was simply rejoicing because Philip was gone. The fact is that when the text states that the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip and he was seen "no more". This is a double negative emphatically stating that the Ethiopian never saw Philip again.

Sorry, but no. False. He only does the will of the Father. He only does what he sees the Father doing, and while he was walking the earth in his physical body, he couldn't pull that one off. He could give a crowd the slip, but he didn't just vanish. FAIL.

More like the grace of the Holy Spirit. Philip was a troll. The Ethiopian was simply rejoicing because Philip was gone. The fact is that when the text states that the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip and he was seen "no more". This is a double negative emphatically stating that the Ethiopian never saw Philip again.

Definitely in the flesh, which the Ethiopian never saw again. Good effort, at least you're reading your bible.

Hmmmm, for a person who likes to argue about what the Bible says - your ignorance of Scripture is astounding.
Here's a little lesson for you: When in doubt - always go to the original language.

In the Greek, the word used in Acts 8:38 to describe the disappearance of Philip is ηαρπαζο (har-pad'-zo), which means to be "CAUGHT UP" and "SNATCHED AWAY".
No "double negatives", nothing strange - other than the fact that Philip de-materialzed by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

As to Jesus disappearing bodily - this is exactly what happened on the Road to Emmaus. In Luke 24:31, we read about Jesus DISAPPEARING right before the eyes of the 2 disciples. Again - the Greek word used is απηαντοσ (af'-an-tos), which means, "VANISHED".

Finally - as to the 500 who saw Jesus - WHO said that they were "saved"??
The Bible doesn't say that. It merely calls them "Adelphoi" (brothers).

You need to stop simply reading the Bible and learn what it means . . .

 

[shnarkle]

Hmmmm, for a person who likes to argue about what the Bible says - your ignorance of Scripture is astounding.
Here's a little lesson for you: When in doubt - always go to the original language.

In the Greek, the word used in Acts 8:38 to describe the disappearance of Philip is ηαρπαζο (har-pad'-zo), which means to be "CAUGHT UP" and "SNATCHED AWAY".
No "double negatives", nothing strange - other than the fact that Philip de-materialzed by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit grabs people and snatches them away all the time. That's what people who are born of the Spirit do. "The Spirit breathes where HE WILL, you hear his voice, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes, so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" John's gospel. The Ethiopian simply got a dunking to document that he was a believer which shouldn't be confused with those who are born of the Spirit. Regardless, the Ethiopian never saw Philip again which somehow leads you to believe that Philip just vanished into thin air. Fine with me sister, believe whatever you want to. If you're really into the whole gospel message as some sort of magic act then so be it. Be my guest. I'm not really into looking for signs and wonders; it's just not something I need in order to believe the gospel.

As to Jesus disappearing bodily - this is exactly what happened on the Road to Emmaus. In Luke 24:31, we read about Jesus DISAPPEARING right before the eyes of the 2 disciples. Again - the Greek word used is απηαντοσ (af'-an-tos), which means, "VANISHED".

Well, I don't know what you're trying to prove with this one, but I don't dispute that he vanished here as this was after the resurrection in his glorified body. Showing that he "vanished" seems a bit more likely to be something a glorified spiritual body would do, rather than getting snatched away by the will of the Holy Spirit which happens with all who are born of the Spirit.

Finally - as to the 500 who saw Jesus - WHO said that they were "saved"??
The Bible doesn't say that. It merely calls them "Adelphoi" (brothers).

Okay so you're saying they were actually blood relatives?

You need to stop simply reading the Bible and learn what it means . . .

No, what I need to do is move on to discussions with people who aren't so obnoxious. Thanks for reminding me of why I'm here. Good luck with that though, hope it works out for you.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Holy Spirit grabs people and snatches them away all the time. That's what people who are born of the Spirit do. "The Spirit breathes where HE WILL, you hear his voice, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes, so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" John's gospel. The Ethiopian simply got a dunking to document that he was a believer which shouldn't be confused with those who are born of the Spirit. Regardless, the Ethiopian never saw Philip again which somehow leads you to believe that Philip just vanished into thin air. Fine with me sister, believe whatever you want to. If you're really into the whole gospel message as some sort of magic act then so be it. Be my guest. I'm not really into looking for signs and wonders; it's just not something I need in order to believe the gospel.

Well, I don't know what you're trying to prove with this one, but I don't dispute that he vanished here as this was after the resurrection in his glorified body. Showing that he "vanished" seems a bit more likely to be something a glorified spiritual body would do, rather than getting snatched away by the will of the Holy Spirit which happens with all who are born of the Spirit.

Okay so you're saying they were actually blood relatives?

No, what I need to do is move on to discussions with people who aren't so obnoxious. Thanks for reminding me of why I'm here. Good luck with that though, hope it works out for you.

Translation:
"I don't have any Biblical evidence for the claims I've made and I have absolutely no way to defend my position anymore."

Pretty much what I thought.
You spew out a lot of unsubstantiated rubbish but you can't back it up with Scripture or understand the linguistic implications of the original languages.

The plain fact of the matter is that Philip vanished in front of the Ethiopian eunuch - and that is precisely what the Greek says.
If you don't get it - just admit it - but don't keep embarrassing yourself by pretending you do . . .

 

[7angels]

bread of life is correct that philip actually did vanish after doing what God charged him to do with the ethiopian eunuch. even Jesus when crossing the lake when He got in the boat tells us that they crossed immediately. john 6:19 says Then they were eager to let him in the boat, and immediately they arrived at their destination! so if Jesus can do it so can His disciples.

God bless