Excellent post earthpages. Enjoyed reading your answer.

Joe

I would like to reply to NK & VB.
No, I haven't met anyone who has been resurrected. The first resurrection began with Jesus Christ, but the rest of us will have to wait until the Church age is completed. Have you ever met anyone who has been reincarnated? That's going to be real hard to prove.

As to what kind of body will be resurrected, (at least for believers) I give you the words of the Apostle Paul.

1 Cor 15:35-44
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
(KJV)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthpages

Myself, I don't subscribe to the theory because I see it as intellectually and spiritually limiting.And yet another possibility is that certain memories are encoded in our genes.

---

I agree about the limiting... very bad idea to limit things, especially such unchartered things like intellect and spirit.

As for memories of ancestors being encoded in our genes, I once read an article in Psychology Today of cannibalistic ants that were taught to run a maze, killed and then fed to new batch of the same kind of ants who instantly picked up the maze at the skill level where the first ants left off... kind of hard to fathom but it certainly gives pause for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

While being neither "animist" nor "pagan"-- I understand God gave all living things spirit simply because I can both see it, feel it and sometimes even interact with it, which probably makes me sound cracked to many people LOL but I assure you this is as real as any physical object is. I don't know where that fits in with reincarnation but it is what it is.

---

Thank you for your thoughts on this. It seems evident from scripture that everything is spirit first and material second. That couod explain the difference between them firstthree chapters of Geneis from a Christian pioint of view. First, the spirit creations, then the creation using gross matter to clothe the spirit entities.



M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Thank you for your thoughts on this. It seems evident from scripture that everything is spirit first and material second. That could explain the difference between them first three chapters of Genesis from a Christian point of view. First, the spirit creations, then the creation using gross matter to clothe the spirit entities.



M:)

---

Hmmm that actually fits better how and what I see, Morganite, thanks!

Another thing about reincarnation is that it doesn't consider the possibility that the future might influence the present. Most people shrug when I mention this. How can something that hasn't happened yet influence us now?

But I suspect that space, time and eternity are far more interactive than we realize. So theoretically, every point in space time could have some kind of effect on every other point in space time. More like a multidimensional whole than a linear line of reincarnation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthpages

Another thing about reincarnation is that it doesn't consider the possibility that the future might influence the present. Most people shrug when I mention this. How can something that hasn't happened yet influence us now?

But I suspect that space, time and eternity are far more interactive than we realize. So theoretically, every point in space time could have some kind of effect on every other point in space time. More like a multidimensional whole than a linear line of reincarnation.

---

Historically, many people have in fact offered up this intriguing theory, everyone from Einstein to Zen author DT Suzuki -- that time is not in fact linear as we traditionally perceive it, more parallel and something of an illusion. This is one way in which the Buddhist theories, including rebirth, differ from the theory of reincarnation. In Buddhism, this is somewhat explained through "co-dependent arising." Nothing can exist independently of many other causes and conditions. All creation ebbs and flows in unison and harmony. Time and space are just two more hypothetical overlays upon a greater state of experiential reality, that we can never adequately express, nor encompass with words.

Multi-dimensional whole... codependent rising... now we are on to something here. Great discussion y'all--I am enjoying this immensely!

Glad to be a part of this thread!

Thomas... I've been discussing this a bit with a Buddhist friend. It seems to me that the main difference between my perspective and the majority Buddhist view (he informed me that there are several variations) is that I can't believe there's no individual self. I'm not speaking about a conceptually constructed or 'conditioned' self, which I agree is, for the most part, a convenient construct. I feel that when we strip down the layers of persona etc. there remains an essential individuality. Like a core, a seed or a spark. (You rightly say that words cannot fully describe it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I would like to reply to NK & VB.
No, I haven't met anyone who has been resurrected.

---

If you did you would not know it.

Jesus was not the only one resurrected at the time of his resurrection, although he was the first.


M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

If you did you would not know it.

Jesus was not the only one resurrected at the time of his resurrection, although he was the first.

M:)

---

Is that why I feel resurrected, by several times over even?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

Is that why I feel resurrected, by several times over even?

---

My take on this is that if you were resurrected you wold be aware of it, but if you met a resurrected person you would not be able to tell, except that you could not kill them. That is according to Christian teaching.

M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

If you did you would not know it.

Jesus was not the only one resurrected at the time of his resurrection, although he was the first.


M:)

---

Really? Who else was resurrected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I would like to reply to NK & VB.

1 Cor 15:35-44
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
(KJV)

---

OK. If I'm readingeth this right, his holiness starts by calling me a fool for asking the question. He then describes the flesh, the body and the glory as making up all things. (Hermetisists and alchemists use similar words.) But before that, indicating that all share the seed of God's body. That is a truly pagan idea that the 'flesh' of all thing, even the celestial bodies is of the matter of God. He than sadly chooses the words corruption, dishonor and weakness to equate to the natural body. A real wondrous, miracle of God's creation if you ask me. And it sounds like, he believes, that what is resurrected, is in no way physical or natural, but entirely spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VBNomad

OK. If I'm readingeth this right

---

We have to remember that the earliest versions of the Bible were mostly written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). So not only do we have the translation problem. We also have to think about copyists possibly adding stuff through the ages (last I heard, monks and scribes didn't have xerox machines or scanners back then!). Actually, in all seriousness, Biblical scholars call this "gloss."

~gloss : a commentary on, or sometimes a translation of, a manuscript work written between the lines or around the margins of the main text

Source: http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/glossary.htm

A Catholic Bible Dictionary (Eerdmans) says that gloss may be incorporated in the text.

Right. And we are not in medieval England. Why have such an important work be in anyway unclear or difficult to interprete. Maybe because a class of people owe their existence and celebrity to doing the interpreting? Maybe if it's too clear, people will be able to understand it for themselves?

I don't know. Some say that the mysteriousness and ambiguity give it credibility. I mean, if the Church leaders really wanted to fake it, they'd have just ironed out all the difficulties. The Bible is full of difficult stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VBNomad

Right. And we are not in medieval England. Why have such an important work be in anyway unclear or difficult to interprete. Maybe because a class of people owe their existence and celebrity to doing the interpreting? Maybe if it's too clear, people will be able to understand it for themselves?

---

I'm with you VB, one only needs to observe the natural universe to see how direct and elegant God was in all creation. The "directions" to this, while being complex or indepth, need not be anything complicated or even mystical -- there is a difference. Complicated to the point of bamboozlement belongs in Dr Hook's Medicine Show, frankly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VBNomad

Really? Who else was resurrected?

---

Matthew 27:52-53

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VBNomad

Right. And we are not in medieval England. Why have such an important work be in anyway unclear or difficult to interprete. Maybe because a class of people owe their existence and celebrity to doing the interpreting? Maybe if it's too clear, people will be able to understand it for themselves?

---

The Bible is accessible to anyone willing to pay the price for understanding it. That price involves long and serious study, far removed from occasional reference to Strong's Lexicon, etc. or to some particular commentary.

What becomes clear as a result, is that the dearly-held positions of many Christians are shown to be in error and often out of step with what the Bible really says. For many, that price is too high and so they cling to their old understandings that are based on faulty interpretations and populist, often minimalist, theologies.

Sincerity and antiquity are not proofs of Biblical orthodoxy, and there lies the challenge. Much modern theology owes its existence to mediaeval concatenations and some, to a lesser degree, to post modern reinterpretations after the fashion of existentialism dressed in the clothhing of non-existentialism.

Modern translations of the Bibe are in most cases riddled with interpretations forced on the text by theological necessity, unrelated to faithfulness to the Bible's text.


M:)