Reincarnation

[Perplexity]

Yeah, I don’t think there’s much to add: just as Aquinas could be “Aristotelian” even though he disagreed with a great number of Aristotle’s positions, one could be a “Thomist” even though she disagrees with a great number of Aquinas’ positions. What makes one a “Thomist”, strictly speaking, is the acceptance of Aquinas’ metaphysics.

As it happens, I do think a Thomist can consistently endorse pre-embodiment, but that’s a whole can of worms to open (it’d essentially involve an “angel” becoming the rational component in a human’s substantial form!). But, one needn’t think anything like that to endorse multiple reincarnations: if you find Aquinas’ arguments for our cyclical tendencies compelling, but not his arguments for why these tendencies halt after one’s first death, she’s got a good reason to believe in multiple reincarnations. Nothing wrong in finding yourself with belief in one part of a larger argument and not another.

Oh, and ChineseCatholic fair points. I know John Dillon thinks Plotinus engaged in a “mental” theurgy, and I believe that philosophers in general find themselves at odds with the conventional forms of their religions. It seems to me there’s always an element of ‘rationalization’ when philosophers argue on behalf of conventional religion; but, I think the Neoplatonists succeeded in harmonizing what appear to be disparate Pagan traditions – especially by their unique hermeneutics and theory of henadology.

 

[superwimp]

Hello ericc

But it would be interesting to hear your take on how reincarnation work in your world.

Since perplexity mentioned earlier that he was unconcerned about the nuts and bolts of how reincarnation worked, I’ll go ahead and (name removed by moderator)ut my understanding. We were all created as souls a long time ago. Various worlds were formed and we thought it would be nice to experience life in flesh. We began inhabiting the bodies of various insects and animals. It became like an addiction. The soul that would become the Christ eventually came with others and prevented us from inhabiting the souls of animals but rather evolved a body which we now know as human. As humans we have the ability to break the cycle. We must all inhabit only human souls. There are other types of souls which inhabit animals and plants.
Habitation begins at birth. God doesn’t put us in these bodies but we do it by choice.

That’s all I can think of right now.

 

[ericc]

,

When they used the term heaven they meant sky. If you read the bible Elijah was tired of being God’s prophet so he had him ordain Elisha.

Which Chapter and verse did the Bible say Elijah was tired of being God’s prophet?

He then began walking towards a school of the prophets but Elisha wouldn’t leave. Finally god sent a chariot down to take him up into the sky and separate him from Elisha. Then some years later Elijah sends one of his students to give a message to the king.

You mean after Elijah has been taken up to heaven in a whirlwind , he sent a letter through one of his students to the king? Chapter and verse please. This is new to me. So God gave Elijah a ride on his whirlwind and put him back to earth where no one could find him except his students? Don’t make sense at all.

Then we must assume he died sometime afterwards.

By replacing any word in the Bible that you don’t agree with, you could actually change the meaning. Why change heaven to sky? How do you know that the translators intended the meaning of sky instead of heaven? Why assume Elijah died when the Bible didn’t indicate it? I hope you are not trying to fit Elijah into the reincarnation of John the Baptist by merely assuming he died. No one dies in heaven, so if heaven is changed to sky, yep you may actually get away with that. But no, there is not one translation that Elijah was taken to the sky and not heaven. Could you provide the source of your translation? Which Bible are you using? Previously you have readily ascribed John 1:21 being erroneous. Now you are saying 2 Kings 2:9 -12 is translated wrongly. I think we ought to have a common point of reference by at least agreeing which Bible translation is credible for our discussion purposes.

There is no verifiable proof for any version of the afterlife. The study of dreams (and what needs to be done to make them useful) is a whole other topic. .

If you have no proof, why would you make a statement that you believe that some knowledge is retained at the subconscious level? Is this an extrapolation, a guess or just a whatif?

So without proof, how did you derive that information is passed subconsciously? You must have some basis to arrive at that stance.

I heartily recommend the information provided through Edgar Cayce if one has a desire to begin working with their dreams

Please stay focus on the reincarnation subject as it is getting interesting… There is no need to change the subject to dreams. There is no need to recommend new readings. I think if you just furnish the relevant information we could have more interesting conversations about reincarnation.

 

[superwimp]

hello ericc,

I was going from memory so I made some inaccuracies in my previous comment.

 >>>Which Chapter and verse did the Bible say Elijah was tired of being God's prophet?<<<

In 1st kings 19 he appears to be having an emotional breakdown.

Heaven is used quite often in the OT and it is always referring to the sky.

He sent a letter but it wasn’t by way of one of his students like I wrote earlier.

2CHRON 21:12 And there came a writing to him from Elijah the
prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father, Because
thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the
ways of Asa king of Judah,

Please stay focus on the reincarnation subject as it is getting interesting… There is no need to change the subject to dreams.<<<

OK. If you don’t mention them I won’t.

 

[ericc]

hello ericc,

I was going from memory so I made some inaccuracies in my previous comment.

That’s ok. No sweat.

 >>>Which Chapter and verse did the Bible say Elijah was tired of being God's prophet?<<<

In 1st kings 19 he appears to be having an emotional breakdown.

His life was threatened. He was ready to die and he communicated that to God. One can’t just assume that he was tired of being God’s prophet. That is being presumptuous that one knows intimately Elijah’s state of mind.

Heaven is used quite often in the OT and it is always referring to the sky.

Yes, sometimes it is heaven and sometimes it is sky. But are they always interchangeable? Bible translators know when to use the appropriate meaning. So which Bible translation for this particular verse translate it as the sky? Let me know which Bible you are using.

Bible translators are learned in Biblical languages. They know the context of the language and when to use which meanings in what circumstances. For example, a word in a dictionary carries multiple meanings. A learned person know which and when to apply the appropriate meaning. If you are just replacing words on a whim, then you do a major disservice to the Word of God. But if you are learned in Ancient Hebrew, you can educate us why you think your translation of sky is the correct one and not heaven.

He sent a letter but it wasn’t by way of one of his students like I wrote earlier.

2CHRON 21:12 And there came a writing to him from Elijah the
prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father, Because
thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the
ways of Asa king of Judah,

Sorry to bust your bubble, but Kings and Chronicles are not in chronological order. You can do some research. It is indeed dangerous to jump to such conclusions without assistance from knowledgeable people.

So your reincarnation model is busted.

 

[superwimp]

Hello Erica,

Can you show me one time in the bible either old or new testament, where heaven doesn’t mean the sky.

 

[Vico]

Hello Erica,

Can you show me one time in the bible either old or new testament, where heaven doesn’t mean the sky.

2 Cor 12

2 I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body I know not, or out of the body I know not, God knoweth, such a one caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I know such a man, whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not, God knoweth:

4 That he was caught up into paradise: and heard secret words, which it is not allowed to man to utter.

Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary

If I must glory. St. Paul in the whole of this discourse shews the repugnance he had of speaking in his own praise, and that if he did it, it was only through constraint, and for the advantage of the Corinthians; as also to defend himself from calumniators. (Calmet)

I know a man, &c. He speaks of himself, as it were of a third person. — Whether in the body, I know not. If St. Paul himself knew not, how can we pretend to decide, whether his soul was for some moments separated from his body, or in what manner he saw God. (Witham) — It appears that this took place about the period when the Holy Ghost commanded that he should be separated for the work whereunto he was called. (Acts xiii. 2.)

Caught up into paradise. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are of opinion that this third heaven and paradise are the same place, and designate the abode of the blessed. In order to understand the language of the apostle, we must observe that the Hebrews distinguished three different heavens. The first comprised the air, the clouds, &c. as far as the fixed stars. The second included all the fixed stars; and the third was the abode of Angels, in which God himself discovered his infinite glory, &c. The first is called in Scripture simply the heavens, the second the firmament, and the third heaven the heaven of heavens. (Calmet)

 

[superwimp]

Hello Vico,
In the above my understanding is that Paul is defining the third heaven to be paradise. Unless someone else had previously defined it to be something else I have no problem with it. The bible doesn't say Elijah went up to the third heaven so I don't see how this pertains to Elijah.

 

[Vico]

Hello Vico,

In the above my understanding is that Paul is defining the third heaven to be paradise.  Unless someone else had previously defined it to be something else I have no problem with it.  The bible doesn't say Elijah went up to the third heaven so I don't see how this pertains to Elijah.

Ok. Certainly are a diversity of opinions on the meaning for Elijah (Elias, into heaven). For example from the Haydock Commentary:

To decide where the paradise which they inhabit, (Haydock) is situated, would be rash. (St. Chrysostom, hom. 21. in Gen. &c.) Some suppose it is still in some unknown region of the earth: others place it above the sky, (Menochius) or in the bosom of Abraham. (Calmet)

For the Haydock on Elijah (4 Kings 2 Douay = 2 Kings 2):
1 And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elias, into heaven, by a whirlwind, *that Elias and Eliseus were going from Galgal.

Ver. 1. Heaven. By heaven here is meant, the air, the lowest of the heavenly regions, (Challoner) through which he was carried by the ministry of angels, who directed the storm, (Haydock ) to the place designed for him.

— It is generally supposed to be Paradise, (Calmet) whither Henoch had been translated. (Haydock)

— They are still living, (Calmet) and must come again, to invite all to repent. After which they will die martyrs, in the persecution of Antichrist. (Haydock)

— See St. Augustine, de Gen. ad lit. ix. 6., and Apocalypse xi. (Worthington)

— Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 10. (Menochius)

— They are a proof of a future resurrection. (Calmet)

— To decide where the paradise which they inhabit, (Haydock) is situated, would be rash. (St. Chrysostom, hom. 21. in Gen. &c.) Some suppose it is still in some unknown region of the earth: others place it above the sky, (Menochius) or in the bosom of Abraham. (Calmet)

— The Jews (following Munster) assert that Elias penetrated the sphere of fire, where his body was consumed. (Vatable)

— The earthly paradise is very probably no longer existing, in its ancient luxuriant state. (Haydock)

— It may now be covered with the waters of the Persian Gulf. (Worthington)

 

[ericc]

Hello Erica,

Can you show me one time in the bible either old or new testament, where heaven doesn’t mean the sky.

I am ericc, not erica.

You are off to a tangent. You should be asking when should the correct meaning of a word be used. The Hebrew word shamayim could mean sky or heaven depending on the context. For example, Proverbs 30:19 the eagle in the sky. There is no possibility of the eagle in heaven. But Deuteronomy 4:39 God is in heaven and not the sky.

You avoided answering which Bible translation rendered it as sky. As far as I can determine, no Bible translations use that definition in this particular verse. If you are doing your own translation, then you need to establish credibility that you are qualified to do such translations and that your translation is correct and other translations are wrong. I am open to be convinced by you. You would need to prove that sky is the correct translation in 2 Kings 2:11 instead of heaven.

 

[superwimp]

I am ericc, not erica.

You are off to a tangent. You should be asking when should the correct meaning of a word be used. The Hebrew word shamayim could mean sky or heaven depending on the context. For example, Proverbs 30:19 the eagle in the sky. There is no possibility of the eagle in heaven. But Deuteronomy 4:39 God is in heaven and not the sky.

You avoided answering which Bible translation rendered it as sky. As far as I can determine, no Bible translations use that definition in this particular verse. If you are doing your own translation, then you need to establish credibility that you are qualified to do such translations and that your translation is correct and other translations are wrong. I am open to be convinced by you. You would need to prove that sky is the correct translation in 2 Kings 2:11 instead of heaven.

Hello ericc,

Sorry about the misspelling.  It was probably due to me responding with my kindle.  Often it will correct words and I don't notice.

I use the king James.  In 2 kings 2 :11 heaven is the proper translation.  The question is do we use the popular Christian definition of heaven which is something to the effect of God's kingdom or do we use the common understanding of it being the sky, atmosphere, ether, area outside of the earth.

Deuteronomy 4:39 says know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, there is non else.

So it says God is everywhere and in this instance heaven can be defined as the area surrounding the earth.

 

[ericc]

Hello ericc,

I use the king James.  In 2 kings 2 :11 heaven is the proper translation.  The question is do we use the popular Christian definition of heaven which is something to the effect of God's kingdom or do we use the common understanding of it being the sky, atmosphere, ether, area outside of the earth.

It is not for me (us?) unlearned in ancient Hebrew to decide. We defer to those who studied and are familiar with it. Not all who study ancient languages are Christians so incorrect translations will be noticed for biases. We don’t use a particular meaning merely because it is Christian or popular to do so. You have noticed that sky is used sometimes and other times heaven. The choice of meaning must therefore be in accordance to its context. Whether it is heaven where God and his angels and saints live (i.e. heaven not as a physical location but as a spiritual realm) or as a geographic description of the space above the earth where eagles and rain clouds and rainbows hang about.

Deuteronomy 4:39 says know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, there is non else.

So it says God is everywhere and in this instance heaven can be defined as the area surrounding the earth.

When you say God is everywhere, you can absurdly claim the sky is the sea too or any other spot on earth or outer space. Your reasoning is getting fallacious.

Heaven in Deuteronomy denotes heaven as God’s abode, where he lives. Similarly, in 1 Kings 8:30 “hear in heaven your dwelling place”. In the “Our Father” prayer, we say our Father who art in heaven, it means his place of abode and not as a geographic description of the space above the earth i.e. your sky. Jesus didn’t intend his prayer about his Father to say " Father who is everywhere" although He is too.

Perhaps in the face of such evidence you should reconsider your position . To twist it beyond unreasonableness is not going down the path of truth or reason. Alternatively, if you can provide a credible source to back up your translation of sky, there will be room for further arguments. Clutching at straws only mean the straws will sink too. With this , I shall end my (name removed by moderator)uts to this post unless you have arguments supported by credible linguistic or Biblical experts.

 

[superwimp]

Hello

ericc>>>With this , I shall end my (name removed by moderator)uts to this post unless you have arguments supported by credible linguistic or Biblical experts. <<<

 Thank you for your responses so far.  Feel free to post or not post.  Since my claim with regards to Elijah isn't based on either linguistics or experts I won't be providing that type of support to my claim.

For the following I’m going to use the term outer space which will encompass both our atmosphere and everything out to infinity.

I believe that in order to understand the message that the bible writers were trying to  convey you have to determine what the words meant at the time they were written instead of the present day understanding.  What did the apostles mean when they used the term "saved" or "eternal life".  What did they mean when they used the term "heaven"?

The present understanding of heaven (at least within Christianity) is a place somewhere in outer space, where God is and if we meet some criteria we will get to go there.  In other words heaven is at a location in outer space.  Thus far I haven't seen any indication that this was how the bible writers defined heaven.  It seems like to me when they used the term heaven they would be using it the way we would use the term outer space.

 

[ericc]

Since my claim with regards to Elijah isn’t based on either linguistics or experts I won’t be providing that type of support to my claim.

Obviously.

I believe that in order to understand the message that the bible writers were trying to  convey you have to determine what the words meant at the time they were written instead of the present day understanding.  What did the apostles mean when they used the term "saved" or "eternal life".  What did they mean when they used the term "heaven"?

And the Church would be the most appropriate to help you there since she gave you the Bible.

For the following I’m going to use the term outer space which will encompass both our atmosphere and everything out to infinity.

The present understanding of heaven (at least within Christianity) is a place somewhere in outer space, where God is and if we meet some criteria we will get to go there.  In other words heaven is at a location in outer space.  Thus far I haven't seen any indication that this was how the bible writers defined heaven.  It seems like to me when they used the term heaven they would be using it the way we would use the term outer space.

Totally wrong. Who told you these nonsense? Source please. Christian of course.

 

[superwimp]

Hello ericc,

me>>>The present understanding of heaven (at least within Christianity) is a place somewhere in outer space, where God is and if we meet some criteria we will get to go there. In other words heaven is at a location in outer space. Thus far I haven’t seen any indication that this was how the bible writers defined heaven. It seems like to me when they used the term heaven they would be using it the way we would use the term outer space. <<<

Totally wrong. Who told you these nonsense? Source please. Christian of course.

So at you claiming that the majority of Christians do not consider heaven to be an actual place?

 

[The_Old_Maid]

Oof. And I thought Ferengi reincarnation was convoluted.

I’d heard that there were fringe elements in ancient Judaism that proposed reincarnation, but I thought they’d been rooted out on a long time ago.

As to Heaven as a real place, assuredly. If we died today in the Lord, the redeemed would go in soul/spirit to the Intermediate Heaven. When God resurrects all bodies on the Last Day, the redeemed go to the New Heaven and New Earth.

 

[superwimp]

Oof. And I thought Ferengi reincarnation was convoluted.

I’d heard that there were fringe elements in ancient Judaism that proposed reincarnation, but I thought they’d been rooted out on a long time ago.

As to Heaven as a real place, assuredly. If we died today in the Lord, the redeemed would go in soul/spirit to the Intermediate Heaven. When God resurrects all bodies on the Last Day, the redeemed go to the New Heaven and New Earth.

Hello old maid,
What do you find convoluted about reincarnation?

 

[The_Old_Maid]

To my mind, to my faith, reincarnation is not compatible with Christian issues of Christ’s Authority, or with issues of Revelation, Redemptive History, or Salvation. Who’s in charge. Who makes the determination. What anyone could gain by it. Who or what created us and why he/they/it would do that to us. And so forth.

It seems to me that reincarnation doesn’t look like a plan of the Creator, doesn’t lead to the glory of the Creator, or to the blessing of His Children.

Especially I have grave concerns with reincarnation’s approach to Theodicy, and its denial of:

• The deity of Christ
• The atoning work of Christ on the Cross

From post #62, “the soul that would become the Christ” … my faith teaches that Jesus Christ is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, of one Being with the Father.

I thought I’d have more time to post than I do, so perhaps I should apologize if my lack of further engagement looks like a dine-and-dash. But I should add that as a Christian I’m a pretty satisfied customer.