Acts 1:11 (Please Read)

[runningdude]

Firstly, excuse my typo. Yes I obviously meant Resurrection. But I still can’t see how you can define any essential difference between Resurrection and Reincarnation. Jesus was humanly dead. … This mortal, human being named Jesus was absolutely no more for three whole days. And then he was resurrected. Or reincarnated ; ) Whatever word you’d like to choose. After all, he didn’t exist any longer.

Again, you are treading the outer edges of orthodox Christian thought, (and fyi stepping outside the realm of medical science regarding death). Death does not eliminate the human person. Jesus’ human soul persisted, and on the third day, it was reunited to his body.

Everyone’s human soul is immortal, though bodily death is a tragic consequence of sin.

Since Jesus’ human soul persists to this day, and this is Christian Dogma, your statement that “he [Jesus] didn’t exist any longer” is Fundamentally untrue. I harp on this point, because you use it to demonstrate a novel thesis that Resurrection and Reincarnation are equivalent.

Again, your thesis keeps shifting to dodge criticism. First you argue that Jesus will simply be reborn. Then you admit he would be a separate person, but still Jesus. Now reincarnation and resurrection are the same thing, and you say you “still can’t see” how anybody sees a difference, as though you were arguing this along.

It would be fine to admit this that you are developing a theory, but you argue as though you had it all figured out from the beginning. The vast amounts of evidence to the contrary simply prove the strength of your original position.

I’m certainly not the first one to raise John’s passage in light of the topic of Reincarnation and God. It’s a very well-known interpretation, that of course has its trenchant opinions. I would understand in a parish you may have never come across such a controversial topic–but scripture is scripture. Remember, the literal reading implies the disciple’s belief in Reincarnation. After all, the quote is: ***“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” NRSV-CE ***

Lot’s of people believe in reincarnation; that doesn’t make it true. The concept is so incompatible with the faith, that Jesus ignores its, and goes on to describe the true purpose of blindness. As another poster pointed out, Elijah himself shows up during the Transfiguration.

 

[TimGreeley]

Again, you are treading the outer edges of orthodox Christian thought, (and fyi stepping outside the realm of medical science regarding death). Death does not eliminate the human person. Jesus’ human soul persisted, and on the third day, it was reunited to his body.

Everyone’s human soul is immortal, though bodily death is a tragic consequence of sin.

Since Jesus’ human soul persists to this day, and this is Christian Dogma, your statement that “he [Jesus] didn’t exist any longer” is Fundamentally untrue. I harp on this point, because you use it to demonstrate a novel thesis that Resurrection and Reincarnation are equivalent.

Again, your thesis keeps shifting to dodge criticism. First you argue that Jesus will simply be reborn. Then you admit he would be a separate person, but still Jesus. Now reincarnation and resurrection are the same thing, and you say you “still can’t see” how anybody sees a difference, as though you were arguing this along.

It would be fine to admit this that you are developing a theory, but you argue as though you had it all figured out from the beginning. The vast amounts of evidence to the contrary simply prove the strength of your original position.

Lot’s of people believe in reincarnation; that doesn’t make it true. The concept is so incompatible with the faith, that Jesus ignores its, and goes on to describe the true purpose of blindness. As another poster pointed out, Elijah himself shows up during the Transfiguration.

Do you really think I would be discussing scriptural interpretation of eschatology on this forum if I didn’t believe in the immortality of the soul?

You must be careless in reading my replies carefully, because I never admitted that a reborn Jesus would be a different Jesus. I was arguing the exact opposite! Jesus–the Logos or God–has the power to incarnate himself whenever and in whatever form. And to qualify God’s capacity as being restricted from reincarnating himself as Jesus again is certifiable nonsense.

“Thesis changing?” First of all, as I’ve said, I’m only playing advocate for this position because my interpretation of the relevant passage does not sync with much traditional commentary for it. If the passage does imply my interpretation, it’s essential aspect better fits the life, character, and mission of the Jesus in the Gospel I know. As I’ve already characterized your opinion, many Christians have a hard time believing Jesus will arrive from the Sky while we’re minding our children at the playground. It’s specifically that aspect of your literally-interpreted eschatology that jars with my sensibilities of who Jesus was. But again, this is my opinion.

 

[MarkInOregon]

As I’ve already characterized your opinion, many Christians have a hard time believing Jesus will arrive from the Sky while we’re minding our children at the playground. It’s specifically that aspect of your literally-interpreted eschatology that jars with my sensibilities of who Jesus was. But again, this is my opinion.

Tim,

You are the first Christian I have encountered who has a hard time believing this.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

First off Mark, I’m not saying my interpretation is exactly more tenable than any other. But I do think the passage on its own terms–in its local context–has some mysterious phrasing and context. Here below I highlight what these are:

"And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they were beholding him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by them in white garments. Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven? This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven." (DRA)

First off, it is clear in the passage that the angels appear while they’re watching him ascend. Secondly, their statement “why stand (you) looking up to heaven?” is introduced with the words “Who also said”. This implies, at least in my grammatical opinion, a non-imperative statement. That is, that statement could very well be made not to be interpreted as the Angels chiding them towards their mission. After all, that last appearance of Jesus–after 3 years of preparation–was doing just that. Reminding them about their mission one last time. Lastly, my interpretation is the only interpretation I know that interprets the Angel’s statements* in relation and context* with each other.

I do think the question as to why Jesus–or the Logos–didn’t arrive from the Sky in the first place is profound. It’s very relevant–in my opinion–to the literally-interpreted eschatology of his arrival "on clouds" by reframing the discussion back to what Jesus was essentially about. Why didn’t Jesus do everything he did as the phantasm of Gnostic belief? One reason. His humility. Which in my opinion, is the center of the Christian heart. God, in his sheer love, humility and selflessness, didn’t take on human form to communicate his Love to us–but became a human form, and physically suffered and died in expression of his Love for us.

I think this passage should also be read keeping in mind another passage that Luke wrote concerning the ressurection. Luke 24:3-8 : “3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were puzzling over this, behold two men in dazzling garments appeared to them. 5 They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground. They said to them, 'Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but he has been raised. Remember what he said to you while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners and be crucified, and rise on the third day. And they remembered his words.”

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Michael57]

Remember what Jesus says to that, ***“With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19) *** ; )

Sure thing. I just would caution you against running after a strange teaching, based on a single piece of scripture, and no support theologically from the Magisterium. Many schismatic and heretical teachings have begun thus.

Don’t be one yourself.

biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-3.htm

 

[Michael57]

Tim,

You are the first Christian I have encountered who has a hard time believing this.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

Ditto - and I’ve attended many forms/denominations of churches.

 

[runningdude]

Do you really think I would be discussing scriptural interpretation of eschatology on this forum if I didn’t believe in the of the soul?

I am not arguing with you just to be contrary, but because I am honestly concerned that you are speculating too far from legitimate interpretations. You are very articulate and charismatic, and that can be dangerous if used to spread misconceptions regarding the nature of our Lord and Savior.

You must be careless in reading my replies carefully, because I never admitted that a reborn Jesus would be a different Jesus.

You conceded or at least entertained this point:

Apart from my first general criticism of this explanation I have above, why wouldn’t he be Jesus? …Secondly, why wouldn’t this second, human Jesus not be able to be the judge of mankind? ?

I was arguing the exact opposite! Jesus–the Logos or God–has the power to incarnate himself whenever and in whatever form. And to qualify God’s capacity as being restricted from reincarnating himself as Jesus again is certifiable nonsense.

I’ve read your arguments, and whole heartedly disagree. I spoke of Gnosticism already; while you don’t believe Jesus to be a “phantasm”, you seem to believe Jesus to be a human body directly animated by the divinity God the Son. The implication of this incorrect belief is that God the Son could directly animate a second human shell, and it would be the same person. However, this would defy human nature.

Jesus’ human soul is separate from his divine soul - this is pretty much dogma dating from the early church. His human soul was conceived at the Annunciation, during the reign of Herod the Great, and will persist forever more. Jesus’ human soul and human will is united to his divine soul, and perfectly obedient to his divine will. His human soul is reunited with his resurrected body, the body that was formed at his conception.

According to Catholic teaching regarding human nature, a human soul cannot be “reused” in a second body. Thus “Jesus”, the true man united to the true God, cannot be reborn. I concede that the Logos could have a second incarnation, taking on a second human soul and body, but I have already addressed why I find this unlikely in other posts.

“Thesis changing?” First of all, as I’ve said, I’m only playing advocate for this position because my interpretation of the relevant passage does not sync with much traditional commentary for it. If the passage does imply my interpretation, it’s essential aspect better fits the life, character, and mission of the Jesus in the Gospel I know. As I’ve already characterized your opinion, many Christians have a hard time believing Jesus will arrive from the Sky while we’re minding our children at the playground. It’s specifically that aspect of your literally-interpreted eschatology that jars with my sensibilities of who Jesus was. But again, this is my opinion.

I hope this is simple speculation on your part. Again, my goal is motivated by love, not spite, that we teach about Christ within reasonable speculation.

 

[CrispSnowflake]

In Revelation, Jesus comes down from the sky. “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.” - Revelation 1:7