Karma and Reincarnation.

[Soul Doctor]

---

This was given by Gregory the Bishop of Nyssa (Not Nicaea)
Reason why Reincarnation was condemn as heresy ( 500 A.D. circa ) R.C.C.

- It is in conflict with the resurrection of the body.

- There is no recollection of previous lives.

- It creates an unnatural separation between body and soul.

- It is built on a much too speculative use of Christian scriptures.

- It seems to minimize Christian salvation.


informasyon lang mga kapuso/kapamilya TY .....

1.
The body can not be ressurected bro.

madecompose ra na siya and breaksdown into compounds and elements.

2.
the brain dies with the body and so does the memory,
that is why there is no recollection of previous lives.
But some people have "residual" memory.
They remember things even if they were never there before.

3.of course the body and soul are unnaturally separated.
body is matter whereas, soul is energy.

4.
It never used the christian scriptures.
belief of such reincarnation is older than the christian teachings.

5.
Christian salvation is a myth.
why do you need to be saved?
It is only you who can save your soul.

No religion can save your soul.
And you do not have to save your soul.
All you need to do is let it gain higher level of understanding.

[bluedes]

1.
The body can not be ressurected bro.

madecompose ra na siya and breaksdown into compounds and elements.

2.
the brain dies with the body and so does the memory,
that is why there is no recollection of previous lives.
But some people have "residual" memory.
They remember things even if they were never there before.

3.of course the body and soul are unnaturally separated.
body is matter whereas, soul is energy.

4.
It never used the christian scriptures.
belief of such reincarnation is older than the christian teachings.

5.
Christian salvation is a myth.
why do you need to be saved?
It is only you who can save your soul.

No religion can save your soul.
And you do not have to save your soul.
All you need to do is let it gain higher level of understanding.

+5 nice explanation!

[Existanz]

Yes the bible is full of contraidiction but do you see any contradictions in those verses that I cited? It dsoesnt mean that if the bible is full of contradiction, there are no basis anymore in the bible when it comes to the doctrine of reincarnataion!

Try to analyze kuno those verses FYI!

Mark 11:2-7, Luke 19:30-35 - Following Jesus’ instructions, the disciples bring him one animal
Matthew 21:2-6 - Following Jesus’ instructions, the disciples bring him two animals
John 12:14 - Jesus doesn’t instruct the disciples at all and gets a single animal himself

Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, John 12:14 - Jesus rides a single animal when entering Jerusalem
Matthew 21:7 - Jesus rides two animals at the same time

Were one or two animals brought to Jesus?

Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:2-7 and Mark 11:2-7; Luke 19:30

1. Donkey and colt (Matthew 21:2-7) - "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them, and bring them to Me. 3“And if anyone says something to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” 4Now this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 5“Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” 6And the disciples went and did just as Jesus had directed them, 7and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat."
2. A colt (Mark 11:2-7) - "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3"And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here." 4And they went away and found a colt tied at the door outside in the street; and they untied it. 5And some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6And they spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission. 7And they brought the colt to Jesus and put their garments on it; and He sat upon it."
3. A colt (Luke 19:30) - "Go into the village opposite you, in which as you enter you will find a colt tied, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it, and bring it here."

There is no contradiction. Matthew 21:2-7 tells us that there was both a donkey and a colt. Mark and Luke focus on the colt only and mention that no one had ever sat upon it. Mark and Luke are focusing on this detail while Matthew focuses on the prophetic fulfillment (Matthew 21:4-5). Logically, if there are two animals, then there is also, at least, one animal. To say there was one does not mean there weren't two. This is not a verbal game. It is an issue of logic. Remember, the writers of the gospels wrote for a purpose. It was not to recount a chronologically precise account in minute details. It was to convey the validity of Christ. The fact that Mark and Luke mention one colt does not mean there is a contradiction anymore than saying that Frank and Joe came to my house last night but today I tell a friend about what Joe said last night and don't mention Frank.

Zechariah 9:9 is the scripture that Matthew refers to. It says, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; he is just and endowed with salvation, humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." We can see that Matthew is simply including both animals as was prophesied in Zechariah.

Why would both be needed if Jesus only rode one into Jerusalem? The simple answer is that the colt was young and still attached to the mother, and vice versa. They would travel together as a mother and offspring naturally would among many animal species.

Finally, the disciples did not steal the colt. Matthew states that the person who owned the animals would send them after the disciples stated that "The Lord has need of them." This means it was a voluntary action of the owners of the animals. Certainly, Jesus would not advocate stealing.

--->Bible Difficulties | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

[Existanz]

Why cannot Christianity accept reincarnation?

The idea of reincarnation has never been accepted by Christianity because it undermines its basic tenets. First, it compromises God’s sovereignty over creation, transforming him into a helpless spectator of the human tragedy. But since he is sovereign and omnipotent over creation, God can punish evil and will do it perfectly well at the end of history (see Matthew 25,31-46; Revelation 20,10-15). There is no need for the impersonal law of karma and for reincarnation to play this role.

Second, belief in reincarnation may affect one’s understanding of morality and motivation for moral living. An extreme application of reincarnationist convictions could lead to adopting a detached stand to crime, theft and other social plagues. They could be considered nothing else but normal debts to be paid by their victims, which originated in previous lives.

Third, reincarnation represents a threat to the very essence of Christianity: the need for Christ’s redemptive sacrifice for our sins. If we are to pay for the consequences of our sins ourselves in further lives and attain salvation through our own efforts, the sacrifice of Christ becomes useless and absurd. It wouldn’t be the only way back to God, but only a stupid accident of history. In this case Christianity would be a mere form of Hindu Bhakti-Yoga.

As a result, no matter how many attempts are made today to find texts in the Bible or in the history of the Church that would allegedly teach reincarnation, they are all doomed to remain flawed.

----> World Religions: Comparative Analysis

[SEED OF LIBER]

1.
The body can not be ressurected bro.

madecompose ra na siya and breaksdown into compounds and elements.

2.
the brain dies with the body and so does the memory,
that is why there is no recollection of previous lives.
But some people have "residual" memory.
They remember things even if they were never there before.

3.of course the body and soul are unnaturally separated.
body is matter whereas, soul is energy.

4.
It never used the christian scriptures.
belief of such reincarnation is older than the christian teachings.

5.
Christian salvation is a myth.
why do you need to be saved?
It is only you who can save your soul.

No religion can save your soul.
And you do not have to save your soul.
All you need to do is let it gain higher level of understanding.

Thanks for that particular manner of looking at something.

I didnt say that you wrong either bro.

Different people begets different response.


ty..

[Soul Doctor]

Why cannot Christianity accept reincarnation?

The idea of reincarnation has never been accepted by Christianity because it undermines its basic tenets. First, it compromises God’s sovereignty over creation, transforming him into a helpless spectator of the human tragedy. But since he is sovereign and omnipotent over creation, God can punish evil and will do it perfectly well at the end of history (see Matthew 25,31-46; Revelation 20,10-15). There is no need for the impersonal law of karma and for reincarnation to play this role.

Second, belief in reincarnation may affect one’s understanding of morality and motivation for moral living. An extreme application of reincarnationist convictions could lead to adopting a detached stand to crime, theft and other social plagues. They could be considered nothing else but normal debts to be paid by their victims, which originated in previous lives.

Third, reincarnation represents a threat to the very essence of Christianity: the need for Christ’s redemptive sacrifice for our sins. If we are to pay for the consequences of our sins ourselves in further lives and attain salvation through our own efforts, the sacrifice of Christ becomes useless and absurd. It wouldn’t be the only way back to God, but only a stupid accident of history. In this case Christianity would be a mere form of Hindu Bhakti-Yoga.

As a result, no matter how many attempts are made today to find texts in the Bible or in the history of the Church that would allegedly teach reincarnation, they are all doomed to remain flawed.

----> World Religions: Comparative Analysis

I have not read the bible in years but my life is much better now than when I was still reading the bible.

[Malic]

Mark 11:2-7, Luke 19:30-35 - Following Jesus’ instructions, the disciples bring him one animal
Matthew 21:2-6 - Following Jesus’ instructions, the disciples bring him two animals
John 12:14 - Jesus doesn’t instruct the disciples at all and gets a single animal himself

Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, John 12:14 - Jesus rides a single animal when entering Jerusalem
Matthew 21:7 - Jesus rides two animals at the same time

Were one or two animals brought to Jesus?

Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:2-7 and Mark 11:2-7; Luke 19:30

1. Donkey and colt (Matthew 21:2-7) - "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them, and bring them to Me. 3“And if anyone says something to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” 4Now this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 5“Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” 6And the disciples went and did just as Jesus had directed them, 7and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat."
2. A colt (Mark 11:2-7) - "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3"And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here." 4And they went away and found a colt tied at the door outside in the street; and they untied it. 5And some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6And they spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission. 7And they brought the colt to Jesus and put their garments on it; and He sat upon it."
3. A colt (Luke 19:30) - "Go into the village opposite you, in which as you enter you will find a colt tied, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it, and bring it here."

There is no contradiction. Matthew 21:2-7 tells us that there was both a donkey and a colt. Mark and Luke focus on the colt only and mention that no one had ever sat upon it. Mark and Luke are focusing on this detail while Matthew focuses on the prophetic fulfillment (Matthew 21:4-5). Logically, if there are two animals, then there is also, at least, one animal. To say there was one does not mean there weren't two. This is not a verbal game. It is an issue of logic. Remember, the writers of the gospels wrote for a purpose. It was not to recount a chronologically precise account in minute details. It was to convey the validity of Christ. The fact that Mark and Luke mention one colt does not mean there is a contradiction anymore than saying that Frank and Joe came to my house last night but today I tell a friend about what Joe said last night and don't mention Frank.

Zechariah 9:9 is the scripture that Matthew refers to. It says, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; he is just and endowed with salvation, humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." We can see that Matthew is simply including both animals as was prophesied in Zechariah.

Why would both be needed if Jesus only rode one into Jerusalem? The simple answer is that the colt was young and still attached to the mother, and vice versa. They would travel together as a mother and offspring naturally would among many animal species.

Finally, the disciples did not steal the colt. Matthew states that the person who owned the animals would send them after the disciples stated that "The Lord has need of them." This means it was a voluntary action of the owners of the animals. Certainly, Jesus would not advocate stealing.

--->Bible Difficulties | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

my take,

i still find these passages problematic considering the time factor involve. The transmission of the events from one source to another also presents a different predicament.


what do i mean?

-it is conceded among scholars that the gospel of Mark was the first to be written. Matthew and Luke used Marcan and Q document as reference for their work. It is worth mentioning here, that most of the authors never saw Jesus. In other words the author of mark, the first gospel to be written, relied from what scholars would call the Q document as reference for his book. Then the other authors of the Gospel copied the information of Jesus' account and teachings both from the gospel of Mark and Q document.

here is the problem...

Mark only mentioned a colt. Matthew following a Marcan text copied it and added the word Donkey. Luke the most educated of them all, only mentioned the word Colt. Since the other source w/c scholars would call the Q document is more of a theory than a reality, in other words this Q document is non existing, we can't really say what's in there and to prove something that it was actually there, we need a hard copy not some theory.

so why did Matthew added the word Donkey? simple.

In Matthew 21:4-5, it says there...Tell the people of Zion, 3 ‘Look, your king is coming to you,unassuming and seated on a donkey,and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’” 4

the verse is really a quotation from an old testament book. Matthew wanted to make it appear that Jesus' had fulfilled the messainic prophecy. He added his own interpretation of the events which took place behind his eyes, for he had never saw Jesus and never was an eye-witness of the event.

Matthew is known for this. This is not the only verse where he is guilty of adding and even taking words from other old sources just so he can add his own theological bias of Jesus.

so to me it is a contradiction.

[Existanz]

I have not read the bible in years but my life is much better now than when I was still reading the bible.

Good for you Doc you found what you want...

[Existanz]

my take,

i still find these passages problematic considering the time factor involve. The transmission of the events from one source to another also presents a different predicament.


what do i mean?

-it is conceded among scholars that the gospel of Mark was the first to be written. Matthew and Luke used Marcan and Q document as reference for their work. It is worth mentioning here, that most of the authors never saw Jesus. In other words the author of mark, the first gospel to be written, relied from what scholars would call the Q document as reference for his book. Then the other authors of the Gospel copied the information of Jesus' account and teachings both from the gospel of Mark and Q document.

here is the problem...

Mark only mentioned a colt. Matthew following a Marcan text copied it and added the word Donkey. Luke the most educated of them all, only mentioned the word Colt. Since the other source w/c scholars would call the Q document is more of a theory than a reality, in other words this Q document is non existing, we can't really say what's in there and to prove something that it was actually there, we need a hard copy not some theory.

so why did Matthew added the word Donkey? simple.

In Matthew 21:4-5, it says there...Tell the people of Zion, 3 ‘Look, your king is coming to you,unassuming and seated on a donkey,and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’” 4

the verse is really a quotation from an old testament book. Matthew wanted to make it appear that Jesus' had fulfilled the messainic prophecy. He added his own interpretation of the events which took place behind his eyes, for he had never saw Jesus and never was an eye-witness of the event.

Matthew is known for this. This is not the only verse where he is guilty of adding and even taking words from other old sources just so he can add his own theological bias of Jesus.

so to me it is a contradiction.

Then let it stand for you- a contradiction...

By the way, it was Jesus who actually orchestrated the whole act of entry to make it appears that He has fulfilled the messianic prophecy...the writer of Matthew simply interpreted it as that.

If you're implying that the writers of the gospels were not an eyewitness, well its not new...

[amingb]

read the The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ then you will know what was the real Christianity, if Karma and Reincarnation was in the real Christianity, and what were really the practices of the early and true Christians

Yes its true gi practice na sa mga Early Christian but nawala mana nga practice coz it find out na kana nga Practice is Mystical and contradict the Christian Doctrine.

Kana nga work is Purely apocryphal.