[Coolhand]

Quote

Two Forms of the Preexistence View

The Uncreated-Preexistence View

According to Plato (c. 427–347 b.c.), human souls are not only intrinsically immortal but they are also eternal (see P); they were never created but are part of the eternal world that exists outside of God (the Demiurgos). Just like Plato’s proposed world of eternal Forms (Ideas), there are also eternal souls that exist by virtue of the World Soul, which animates all things. Before birth, allegedly, these souls enter a body (in a woman’s womb) and become incarnate in human flesh. Thus, human beings essentially are eternal souls in temporal bodies.
So goes the uncreated-preexistence view . . .

The Created-Preexistence View

The created-preexistence view, maintained by some early Christians, borrowed heavily from Plato. Origen (c. 185–c. 254) and even Augustine (earlier in his life) believed that the soul existed before birth, but that rather than having existed without creation from eternity, it was created by God from eternity. . .

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), 27.

Quote

Preexistence is self-explanatory. This theory of transmigration of souls is held by Hinduism, Theosophy, Rosicrucians and many occult religions.

Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles, Calif.: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983), 133.

Quote

The doctrine of the preëxistence of the soul has been presented in two forms. Plato held that ideas are eternal in the divine mind; that these ideas are not mere thoughts, but living entities; that they constitute the essence and life of all external things; the universe and all it contains are these ideas realized, clothed in matter, and developed in history. There was thus an ideal, or intelligible world, anterior to the world as actually existing in time. What Plato called ideas, Aristotle called forms. He denied that the ideal was anterior to the actual. Matter is etenial, and all things consist of matter and form —by form being meant that which gives character, or determines the nature of individual things. As in other respects, so also in this, the Platonic, or Aristo-Platonic philosophy, had much influence on Christian Theology. And some of the fathers and of the schoolmen approached more or less nearly to this doctrine of the preëxistence, not only of the soul, but of all things in this ideal world. St. Bernard, in his strenuous opposition to nominalism, adopted the Platonic doctrine of ideas, which he identified with genera and species. These ideas, he taught, were eternal, although posterior to God, as an effect is in the order of nature after its cause. Providence applies the idea to matter, which becomes animated and takes form, and thus ("du monde intelligible est sorti le monde sensible") "ex mundo intelligibili mundus sensibilis perfectus natus est ex perfecto."1 Among modern writers, Delitzsch comes nearest to this Platonic doctrine. He says, "Es giebt nach der Schrift eine Praexistenz des Menschen und zwar eine ideale;.... eine Praexistenz... vermöge welcher Mensch und Menschheit nicht bios ein fernzukünftiges Object göttlicher Voraussicht, sondern ein gegenwärtiges Object göttlicher Anschauung sind im Spiegel der Weisheit... Nicht blas Philosophic und falschberühmte Gnosis, sondern auch die Schrift weiss und spricht von einer göttlichen Idealwelt, zu welcher sich die Zeitwelt wie die geschichtliche Verwirklichung eines ewigen Grundrisses verhält".2 That is, "There is according to the Scriptures, an ideal preëxistence of man; a preëxistence in virtue of which man and humanity are contemplated by the divine omniscience not merely as objects lying far off in the future, but as present in the mirror of his wisdom. Not only philosophy and the so called Gnosis, but also the Scriptures recognize and avow a divine ideal world to which the actual world stands related as the historical development of an eternal conception."


Origen’s Doctrine.

Preëxistence, as taught by Origen, and as adopted here and there by some few philosophers and theologians, is not the Platonic doctrine of an ideal-world. It supposes that the souls of men had a separate, conscious, personal existence in a previous state; that having sinned in that preëxistent state, they are condemned to be born into this world in a state of sin and in connection with a material body. This doctrine was connected by Origen with his theory of an eternal creation. The present state of being is only one epoch in the existence of the human soul. It has passed through innumerable other epochs and forms of existence in the past, and is to go through other innumerable such epochs in the future. He held to a metempsychosis very similar to that taught by Orientals both ancient and modern. But even without the encumbrance of this idea of the endless transmutation of the soul, the doctrine itself has never been adopted in the Church.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Originally Published 1872. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 2:65.

I saw mention of preexistence in another post and an curious what people think about the idea of preexistence.

[mark 45]

my take on the subject is this,everything existed in some form,always has,always will.

[Fawzo]

Since the great Divine being was all that was, He/she/it didn't have any external maleable building blocks from which to form anything. All He had was consciousness. Everything that exists is an extension of this consciousnesss virbrating and condensing at various levels. Thought forms of God.

So one could view it as everything existing eternally within the mind of God or came into being as a thought from of God.

My big question is can God create anything distinctly seperate from himself. Can he truely have a son or daughter which exists independent of his being as humans do with free will?

[panpareil]

In the oldest Genesis myth, God only breathed life into Adam, not the other animals, which seems to indicate the belief that our souls are the breath of God, or a part of God. This should mean that we are eternal but only first existed when we were separated from God at birth.

It could also mean that we are nothing more than God's balloon animals.:lol:

[Fawzo]

panpareil, on 05 January 2010 - 09:01 AM, said:

In the oldest Genesis myth, God only breathed life into Adam, not the other animals, which seems to indicate the belief that our souls are the breath of God, or a part of God. This should mean that we are eternal but only first existed when we were separated from God at birth.

It could also mean that we are nothing more than God's balloon animals.http://forum.ulc.net/public/style_emoticons/default/laughing.gif

If God was breathing what was he breathing? Something external to himself?!

Why would God be breathing, what happened if this source of breath stopped? Where did it come from?

I hope he wasn't a smoker!

[Brother Michael Sky]

Fawzo, on 05 January 2010 - 09:10 AM, said:

If God was breathing what was he breathing? Something external to himself?!

Why would God be breathing, what happened if this source of breath stopped? Where did it come from?

I hope he wasn't a smoker!

ummmm, Fawzo..... I am a smoker.... and we're both God..... :jest:
and isn't the "breath of life" referring to the soul... telling you that man is slightly different than the rest of the beasts - and responsible for them as His representative...?

Here's where our guy DS could help us..... I particularly like the hindu style of debate for a topic like this...

obviously the question is : what people think of the preexistance of souls....

Myself - I believe that prexistance of the soul is the obvious choice for a system that "makes sense"... I believe in reincarnation so it's a no brainer for me.
why? - i must needs respond with a question.... what do you suppose this means ( not being flip, genuinely curious of your take..) "But I say unto you that Elijah is come already and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatever they listed"

and- "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The Voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." - jesus speaking of John...

(as a side note - don't the passages indicated also point to the fact that Jerusalem has ALREADY been restored? wasn't John to come before the Lord "to make his path straight"??? --- feel free to ignore this quest. as it may complicate things...)

I believe there is Living proof of reincarnation in past life regressions, child prodigies, and SOME folks may access the akashic record which is proof positive...... no doubt in my mind.... as i said - for me - a no brainer...

This post has been edited by Brother Michael Sky: 05 January 2010 - 10:44 AM

[Fawzo]

Brother Michael Sky, on 05 January 2010 - 01:39 PM, said:

ummmm, Fawzo..... I am a smoker.... and we're both God..... http://forum.ulc.net/public/style_emoticons/default/jester.gif
and isn't the "breath of life" referring to the soul... telling you that man is slightly different than the rest of the beasts - and responsible for them as His representative...?

As an allegorical story it does fine, but for those Biblical literalists I wanted to show how the anthropomorphism of projecting human traits onto a Deity making it necessary that he needed to inhale and exhale made little sense. Any deity worth its weight in ectoplasm could simply think things into existence in the same manner we humans do when we dream.

Quote

Here's where our guy DS could help us..... I particularly like the hindu style of debate for a topic like this...

obviously the question is : what people think of the preexistance of souls....

Myself - I believe that prexistance of the soul is the obvious choice for a system that "makes sense"... I believe in reincarnation so it's a no brainer for me.
why? - i must needs respond with a question.... what do you suppose this means ( not being flip, genuinely curious of your take..) "But I say unto you that Elijah is come already and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatever they listed"

and- "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The Voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." - jesus speaking of John...

Remember in The Gospel of John though that the Baptist flat out rejects the idea that he is Elias come again.

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. John 1:19-21 (KJV)

Quote

(as a side note - don't the passages indicated also point to the fact that Jerusalem has ALREADY been restored? wasn't John to come before the Lord "to make his path straight"??? --- feel free to ignore this quest. as it may complicate things...)

There are other verses as well that could make the same point, but as most topics in the Bible there are verses for both sides.

Quote

I believe there is Living proof of reincarnation in past life regressions, child prodigies, and SOME folks may access the akashic record which is proof positive...... no doubt in my mind.... as i said - for me - a no brainer...

"Many Lives Many Masters" and 'Many Lives Many Loves" "Same Soul Many Bodies" make good cases for reincarnation.

[Coolhand]

Fawzo, on 05 January 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

Remember in The Gospel of John though that the Baptist flat out rejects the idea that he is Elias come again.

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. John 1:19-21 (KJV)

Was he denying that he had come in the spirit of Elijah? Or ws he denying that he was Elijah the person?

[Fawzo]

Coolhand, on 05 January 2010 - 06:15 PM, said:

Was he denying that he had come in the spirit of Elijah? Or ws he denying that he was Elijah the person?

I personally feel he knew of the intention behind the questioning of the priests and Levites and answered accordingly as it is written by this Gospel writer. We must be aware though it appears that John the Gospel writer goes out of his way to marginalize anything pertaining to John the Baptists.

The reason for this could be because of the cults who worshipped The Baptist as the Messiah during the time period the Gospel writer wrote his piece. One of the arguments the Baptist Followers used was in those days when someone was Baptized by another person they were usually that persons disciple. Some also argued that once John was imprisoned then Jesus took over and carried on the movement.

These reasons would make sense of why in the Gospel of John it never mentions specifically that John Baptizes Jesus. John is an eyewitness to the dove descending. Jesus also doesn't make his statement "that of Men born of women John is the greatest" as Jesus claims in the Synoptic Gospels. John also goes out of his way it seems to make note that The Baptist was not yet in prison when Jesus selects disciples and starts his own ministry whle The Baptist is still active, Jesus even baptizing the same time as the Baptist. The Synoptics don't have Jesus starting his ministry or selecting disciples until The Baptist is imprisoned. Quite contrary to the other Gospel writers.

The Baptist isn't the only one John takes pot shots at. Mark and Thomas are also targets as these other Gospels were popular to certain groups of believers.

John had his own agenda when he wrote his Gospel. The deification of the Man Yeshua being the main one.

This post has been edited by Fawzo: 05 January 2010 - 03:54 PM

[Brother Michael Sky]

my question was specifically aimed at our brother Coolhand. The answer i believe is implied.

My quotes were stolen from a web paper ( I just KNEW you were gonna bust me on that..) proving John had come in the " spirit " of Elijah.... hence the post in the current mood section... last post

i was specifically trying to understand Coolhands point of view.... we have discussed this before in other posts...

I admire and respect your seriousness Coolhand... just trying to pin down your perspective...

This post has been edited by Brother Michael Sky: 05 January 2010 - 04:40 PM

[Coolhand]

Brother Michael Sky, on 05 January 2010 - 04:37 PM, said:

my question was specifically aimed at our brother Coolhand. The answer i believe is implied.

My quotes were stolen from a web paper ( I just KNEW you were gonna bust me on that..) proving John had come in the " spirit " of Elijah.... hence the post in the current mood section... last post

i was specifically trying to understand Coolhands point of view.... we have discussed this before in other posts...

I admire and respect your seriousness Coolhand... just trying to pin down your perspective...

Oh.....I see. Well let me 'pin you down' on something in regard to this quote of yours:

Brother Michael Sky, on 05 January 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

and- "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The Voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." - jesus speaking of John...

Which is more correct:

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:

A) the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord. make his paths straight."

OR

B) the voice of one crying, "In the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord. make his paths straight."

(click here while thinking about it: )

Fawzo, on 05 January 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

I personally feel he knew of the intention behind the questioning of the priests and Levites and answered accordingly as it is written by this Gospel writer. We must be aware though it appears that John the Gospel writer goes out of his way to marginalize anything pertaining to John the Baptists.

The reason for this could be because of the cults who worshipped The Baptist as the Messiah during the time period the Gospel writer wrote his piece. One of the arguments the Baptist Followers used was in those days when someone was Baptized by another person they were usually that persons disciple. Some also argued that once John was imprisoned then Jesus took over and carried on the movement.

These reasons would make sense of why in the Gospel of John it never mentions specifically that John Baptizes Jesus. John is an eyewitness to the dove descending. Jesus also doesn't make his statement "that of Men born of women John is the greatest" as Jesus claims in the Synoptic Gospels. John also goes out of his way it seems to make note that The Baptist was not yet in prison when Jesus selects disciples and starts his own ministry whle The Baptist is still active, Jesus even baptizing the same time as the Baptist. The Synoptics don't have Jesus starting his ministry or selecting disciples until The Baptist is imprisoned. Quite contrary to the other Gospel writers.

The Baptist isn't the only one John takes pot shots at. Mark and Thomas are also targets as these other Gospels were popular to certain groups of believers.

John had his own agenda when he wrote his Gospel. The deification of the Man Yeshua being the main one.

Has it occurred to you that you are interjecting your bias into this text?

Im not really clear what your answer was:

Was he denying that he had come in the spirit of Elijah? Or ws he denying that he was Elijah the person?

[Brother Michael Sky]

Coolhand, on 05 January 2010 - 09:48 PM, said:

Oh.....I see. Well let me 'pin you down' on something in regard to this quote of yours:




Which is more correct:

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:

A) the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord. make his paths straight."

OR

B) the voice of one crying, "In the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord. make his paths straight."

(click here while thinking about it: )



Has it occurred to you that you are interjecting your bias into this text?

Im not really clear what your answer was:

Was he denying that he had come in the spirit of Elijah? Or ws he denying that he was Elijah the person?

It is not my intention to imply any sort of evasion ... I was simply looking for your personal opinion as to the answer to the question.
I was trying to " pin down " your belief so as to have a vantage to truly understand your perspective. You seem willing to share your view - starting threads about your belief, asking questions about topics that interest you, didn't think a question would get your dander up...

It has repeatedly occurred to me that I have a Very Large and Unwieldy Bias..... when I ask for clarification on a particular point it's usually because my view is blocked by said VLU bias......

Also if you notice, frequently I am a bit impatient as well, and sometimes slightly sarcastic, these are things I'm working on....

My question was about prexistance of souls and the passages referring to John the Baptist - your take.
My answer was clearly given to the question asked.

If you are referring to my take on the passages in question - I believe it is pointless speculation. Personally I find people's willingness to discuss such subjects interesting in itself, and it's my belief that partaking in such conversations will tell you a lot about a person...

My beliefs are not static, they are subject to change under the pressure of common sense and clear thought. Sometimes, a slightly different vantage point is what is needed for my beliefs to begin to shift.

If i have offended you - why?
and im still wondering about your use of the word " correct "....... you can't possibly think that was the appropriate word? can you? there are dictionaries online..... no charge....

[Fawzo]

Coolhand, on 05 January 2010 - 09:48 PM, said:

Has it occurred to you that you are interjecting your bias into this text?

You see no difference yourself from the way John the Baptist is portaryed in the Gospel of Mark and the way he is marginalized in the Gospel of John? To be honest I never was cognizant of this either until it was pointed out to me, but once I was aware of it, the evidence makes a strong case for this being true. It is hard to ignore.

Just as the anti-Jewish stance in the Gospel of John is far from the way the Jewish people are portrayed in Matthew.

Quote

Im not really clear what your answer was:

Was he denying that he had come in the spirit of Elijah? Or ws he denying that he was Elijah the person?

My thougts are that in The Gospel of John he is categorically denying he was Elijah. But what John writes means little to me. He is the least credible of all the Gospel writers. Luke/Acts is next to last in credibilty. I do love a lot of Matthew all except for the lineage and Virgin Birth creations and I feel Mark is the most credible. Secret Mark would be the most credible but it would still be stories heard and retold second hand by Peter's scribe.

When one reads the four Gospels most times one creates a fifth Gospel which hodge podges the others into one. If one is whole heartedly looking for the truth that is conveyed in the Bible one must read them side by side and compare them and get an idea of what each Gosepl writer was trying to convey. The messages are more different than most people have been led to believe.

John's quest was to deify Jesus to a level far above that of the other writers. He has Jesus in control in all situations. Compare the same stories that co-exist between Mark and John and this is easy to see. He even moved back Jesus becoming the Son of God eariest of all to before the world was created.

This post has been edited by Fawzo: 06 January 2010 - 12:56 PM

[Coolhand]

Brother Michael Sky, on 06 January 2010 - 11:20 AM, said:

It is not my intention to imply any sort of evasion ... I was simply looking for your personal opinion as to the answer to the question.
I was trying to " pin down " your belief so as to have a vantage to truly understand your perspective. You seem willing to share your view - starting threads about your belief, asking questions about topics that interest you, didn't think a question would get your dander up...

It has repeatedly occurred to me that I have a Very Large and Unwieldy Bias..... when I ask for clarification on a particular point it's usually because my view is blocked by said VLU bias......

Also if you notice, frequently I am a bit impatient as well, and sometimes slightly sarcastic, these are things I'm working on....

My question was about prexistance of souls and the passages referring to John the Baptist - your take.
My answer was clearly given to the question asked.

If you are referring to my take on the passages in question - I believe it is pointless speculation. Personally I find people's willingness to discuss such subjects interesting in itself, and it's my belief that partaking in such conversations will tell you a lot about a person...

My beliefs are not static, they are subject to change under the pressure of common sense and clear thought. Sometimes, a slightly different vantage point is what is needed for my beliefs to begin to shift.

If i have offended you - why?
and im still wondering about your use of the word " correct "....... you can't possibly think that was the appropriate word? can you? there are dictionaries online..... no charge....

1) I was unable to determine what your question was. Ask it and Ill answer it. The only question I could find in your post was directed to Fawzo.

2) The Bias comment was not meant for you, it was in response to Fawzo's post and was directed at him.

[Coolhand]

Fawzo, on 05 January 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

Remember in The Gospel of John though that the Baptist flat out rejects the idea that he is Elias come again.

Fawzo, on 06 January 2010 - 12:55 PM, said:

My thougts are that in The Gospel of John he is categorically denying he was Elijah.

So John is denying that he is Elijah the prophet, and whether he has come in the spirit of Elijah is not addressed here, so there is no conflict and based on this particular text no reason for all the negative sentiment you have expressed about the Gospel of John. We can say that this text is free from error.

[Coolhand]

Coolhand, on 05 January 2010 - 06:48 PM, said:

Which is more correct:

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:

A) the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord. make his paths straight."

OR

B) the voice of one crying, "In the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord. make his paths straight."

(click here while thinking about it: )

Fawzo? What do you think?

[Brother Michael Sky]

Coolhand, on 06 January 2010 - 06:25 PM, said:

Fawzo? What do you think?

It's your assumption that one MUST be correct that stumps me...
I think there has been too much meddling in the texts to be left with anything remotely accurate about such an alleged conversation... especially since the question is directly concerning a very serious crime against christianity - a literal anathema - Preexistance of souls....

[Fawzo]

Coolhand, on 06 January 2010 - 06:25 PM, said:

Fawzo? What do you think?

Here are some notes I have on it from my Bible Software.


Verse 14. If ye will receive it. This is a way of speaking implying that the doctrine which he was about to state was different from their common views; that he was about to state something which varied from the common expectation, and which, therefore, they might be disposed to reject.



This is Elias, etc. That is, Elijah. Elias is the Greek mode of writing the Hebrew word Elijah. An account of him is found in the first and second books of Kings. He was a distinguished prophet, and was taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire, 2 Kings 2:11. The prophet Malachi, (Malachi 4:5,6) predicted that Elijah should be sent before the coming of the Messiah, to prepare the way for him. By this was evidently meant, not that he should appear in person, but that one should appear with a striking resemblance to him; or, as Luke Luke 1:17 expresses it, "in the spirit and power of Elijah." But the Jews understood it differently. They expected that Elijah would appear in person. They also supposed that Jeremiah and some other of the prophets would appear also to usher in the promised Messiah, and to grace his advent. Matthew 16:14, 17:10, John 1:21. This expectation was the reason why he used the words, if ye will receive it, implying that the affirmation that John was the promised Elijah, was a doctrine contrary to their expectation.

—Barnes' Notes on the New Testament



Notes for Verse 3

Verse 3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight -- The second of these quotations is given by Matthew and Luke in the same connection, but they reserve the former quotation till they have occasion to return to the Baptist, after his imprisonment (Mt 11:10 Lu 7:27). (Instead of the words, "as it is written in the Prophets," there is weighty evidence in favor of the following reading: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet." This reading is adopted by all the latest critical editors. If it be the true one, it is to be explained thus -- that of the two quotations, the one from Malachi is but a later development of the great primary one in Isaiah, from which the whole prophetical matter here quoted takes its name. But the received text is quoted by IRENÆUS, before the end of the second century, and the evidence in its favor is greater in amount, if not in weight. The chief objection to it is, that if this was the true reading, it is difficult to see how the other one could have got in at all; whereas, if it be not the true reading, it is very easy to see how it found its way into the text, as it removes the startling difficulty of a prophecy beginning with the words of Malachi being ascribed to Isaiah). For the exposition, see on Mt 3:1-6, 11; Mt 3:11.

—Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

[Coolhand]

Brother Michael Sky, on 06 January 2010 - 03:53 PM, said:

It's your assumption that one MUST be correct that stumps me...
I think there has been too much meddling in the texts to be left with anything remotely accurate about such an alleged conversation... especially since the question is directly concerning a very serious crime against christianity - a literal anathema - Preexistance of souls....

I was just asking a question; I am not assuming anything. I have not expressed my thoughts on the matter.

[Coolhand]

This isn't working out like I had intented. In regard to:

Which is more correct:

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:

A) the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord. make his paths straight."

OR

B) the voice of one crying, "In the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord. make his paths straight."

Neither is "more correct" because there is no punctuation in the old Hebrew. It could be either; either is as valid as the other.

Brother Michael Sky, on 05 January 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

and- "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The Voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." - jesus speaking of John...

(as a side note - don't the passages indicated also point to the fact that Jerusalem has ALREADY been restored? wasn't John to come before the Lord "to make his path straight"??? --- feel free to ignore this quest. as it may complicate things...)

It depends on whose understanding of what kingdom, I would say. Jesus seemed to be refering to the Kingdom of God and the Jews seemed to thing the Kingdom of God was the Jewish nation.

[Brother Michael Sky]

here's where we approach my position..... so what we have is a passage that it is impossible to nail down a concrete,definitive meaning for.... but the answer seems to be - here's what is said, but you know they didnt meant THAT, what they meant was this......


and in my personal opinion, he was born as John for that lifetime.... perhaps he wanted the focus on our man Jesus.... rather than running his own horse and pony show..... why WOULD he say: " Yes, I am Elijah come again, come and marvel at the wonder of it all..."? he had a job to do and he did it.....

This post has been edited by Brother Michael Sky: 08 January 2010 - 09:59 PM

[Coolhand]

Brother Michael Sky, on 08 January 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

here's where we approach my position..... so what we have is a passage that it is impossible to nail down a concrete,definitive meaning for.... but the answer seems to be - here's what is said, but you know they didnt meant THAT, what they meant was this......


and in my personal opinion, he was born as John for that lifetime.... perhaps he wanted the focus on our man Jesus.... rather than running his own horse and pony show..... why WOULD he say: " Yes, I am Elijah come again, come and marvel at the wonder of it all..."? he had a job to do and he did it.....

Well....either way you look at that Scripture the meaning is the same, so it is not like we have no idea what it is saying, or it is impossible to descern the meaning.

On prexesistance...........

I meet people that I cannot ever remember meeting before, or there is no possible way I could have met them before yet there is something so familiar about the person, or I can predict how they will respond to certain comments. Kinda makes you wonder why that is.

[Brother Michael Sky]

Coolhand, on 10 January 2010 - 01:19 AM, said:

Well....either way you look at that Scripture the meaning is the same, so it is not like we have no idea what it is saying, or it is impossible to descern the meaning.

On prexesistance...........

I meet people that I cannot ever remember meeting before, or there is no possible way I could have met them before yet there is something so familiar about the person, or I can predict how they will respond to certain comments. Kinda makes you wonder why that is.

Brother Coolhand you have reached into my mind with that.... if reincarnation was an original christian teaching, without the meddling of the early church fathers, that Book we love so much might have held the answer to that very question... What am i left to believe when they held a very large gathering with the primary intention of taking the concept out of doctrine....
I DO NOT disagree with the word of God, I am disappointed with it's caretakers, and i do not know what is left to trust... you see??

[Coolhand]

Brother Michael Sky, on 10 January 2010 - 11:24 AM, said:

Brother Coolhand you have reached into my mind with that.... if reincarnation was an original christian teaching, without the meddling of the early church fathers, that Book we love so much might have held the answer to that very question... What am i left to believe when they held a very large gathering with the primary intention of taking the concept out of doctrine....
I DO NOT disagree with the word of God, I am disappointed with it's caretakers, and i do not know what is left to trust... you see??

People still find portions of the Bible that affirm reincarnation. One of the links NW posted in the Liberal Christianity topic displays them. I am still not convinced of these claims of the tampering. There are far too many texts that agree. There are far too many scholars that have spent thier lives in the study for the texts that affirm the translations we have now. There are too few people that oppose the translations we have now. There are too few people that make claims to earlier and more relaiable texts, and on top of that, we are supposed to rely on "one man translations" as the proof. Peer review is ultimatly important! Moses said established the practice of getting the witness of two or three; Jesus affirmed this practice.

As you continue to practice the things you learn in the Bible you will find that a new layer of revelation will come to you, if you have not already noticed it. The use and implementation of the Bible into your life will cause you to find your trust level, and you will find that that grows in direct proportion to how much you apply it to your life and how faithful you are in that implementation.

[Fawzo]

Coolhand, on 10 January 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

There are far too many texts that agree. There are far too many scholars that have spent thier lives in the study for the texts that affirm the translations we have now.

We definitely aren't reading the same authors. Everything I read speaks about the 100,000 or more discrepancies they find among the texts and the more texts and manuscripts they find this number increases.

You have read some of Bart D. Ehrman's writings haven't you?