Evidence of Reincarnation

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10868
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:52 pm

PostMon Sep 17, 2012 4:19 am » by Noentry

Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation by Dr Ian Stevenson

Upload to Disclose.tv

Dr Ian Stevenson presents cases of children who claim to remember previous lives and people with birth marks and birth defects.
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Posts: 921
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:12 am

PostMon Sep 17, 2012 4:53 am » by Baboogdi

If you've never seen this take a few minutes to watch it...

Upload to Disclose.tv

Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:56 am

PostMon Sep 17, 2012 5:53 am » by Iwanci

A nice story, personally I dont believe it, but it does make you wonder.. 'what if'...
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10868
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:52 pm

PostMon Sep 17, 2012 3:41 pm » by Noentry

Baboogdi thanks for that. This is a very famous story. :cheers:

Iwanci Great story aint it. Makes one think. :think:


Upload to Disclose.tv

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

User avatar
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:23 pm
Location: 'Happiness is the angle at which the wise are gathered'

PostSat Nov 17, 2012 5:24 pm » by SamueltheLion

The library of Alexandria was burned down, but what might we have found?

within it, all that is necessary to explain what is currently "the limit"
knowledge is power and now is the hour to restore
it to your innerself and discover the hidden wealth;
your soul can't set itself free if your mind is locked away outside of infinity,
hell is truth seen too late, so here it is now, hopefully you see your fate is your own, how?
Follow your excitement and allow yourself to be astounded as you unwind it and bend your spine
reverse your mind; see you will be yourself in another incarnation or is that an incarceration of space,
and time.

what will you choose to do with your heart which is and always has been your true home?
fake it till you make it or find a new song.

give it away and refuse to play or find a way to walk away and stay in -the zone-?
well, when it comes down to it the choices we make are always made on our own, so, whatever,
stay clever.

well, i'm posting this cause i know there's a lot of people who... kind of sort of believe, but don't really understand how this all measures up and connects. I think reincarnation is an important concept to understand for anyone, and see it as logical myself.

not to say i understand its system, or laws, but, can you really imagine not existing?
and then all of a sudden coming into existence? i believe many of us here are intertwined,
and that we are working together, despite how things might seem. not to argue "it can't be so because i can't imagine it", but, it always just seemed so natural and logical; that we jump out of

Reincarnation in Christianity:

The controversy
During the period from A.D. 250 to 553 controversy raged, at least intermittently, around the name of Origen, and from this controversy emerged the major objections that orthodox Christianity raises against reincarnation. Origen of Alexandria, one of Christianity's greatest systematic theologians, was a believer in reincarnation.

Origen was a person devoted to scriptural authority, a scourge to the enemies of the church, and a martyr for the faith. He was the spiritual teacher of a large and grateful posterity and yet his teachings were declared heresy in 553. The debates and controversies that flared up around his teachings are in fact the record of reincarnation in the church.

Looking at the sequence of creation from its inception to its conclusion, one could summarize Origen's theological system as follows: Originally all beings existed as pure mind on an ideational or thought level. Humans, angels, and heavenly bodies lacked incarnate existence and had their being only as ideas. This is a very natural view for anyone like Origen who was trained in both Christian and Platonic thought. Since there is no account in the scriptures of what preceded creation, it seemed perfectly natural to Origen to appeal to Plato for his answers.

God, for the Platonist, is pure intelligence and all things were reconciled with God before creation - an assumption which scripture does not appear to contradict. Then as the process of the fall began, individual beings became weary of their union with God and chose to defect or grow cold in their divine ardor. As the mind became cool toward God, it made the first step down in its fall and became soul. The soul, now already once removed from its original state, continued with its defection to the point of taking on a body. This, as we know from Platonism, is indeed a degradation, for the highest type of manifestation is on the mental level and the lowest is on the physical.

There are many Bible verses which are suggestive of reincarnation. One episode in particular from the healing miracles of Christ seems to point to reincarnation:

"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)

The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed the sin that led to his blindness. Given the fact that the man has been blind from birth, we are confronted with a provocative question. When could he have made such transgressions as to make him blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some prenatal state. The question as posed by the disciples explicitly presupposes prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing to dispel or correct the presupposition. Here is incontrovertible support for a doctrine of human preexistence.

Also very suggestive of reincarnation is the episode where Jesus identifies John the Baptist as Elijah.

"For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:13-14)

"And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said, 'Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:10-13)

Here again is a clear statement of preexistence. Despite the edict of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the New Testament. Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding, contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology.

As for the John the Baptist-Elijah episode, there can be little question as to its purpose. By identifying the Baptist as Elijah, Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. Throughout the gospel narrative there are explicit references to the signs that will precede the Messiah.

"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi 4:5)

This is one of the many messianic promises of the Old Testament. One of the signs that the true Messiah has come, according to this passage from Malachi, is that he be preceded by a forerunner, by Elijah.

Although the Bible also contains other reincarnational passages, these Elijah-John passages constitute clear proof of reincarnation:

1. The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself (not someone "like" him or someone "similar" to him, but Elijah himself) would return before the advent of the Messiah.

2. Jesus declared that John the Baptist was Elijah who had returned, stating bluntly "Elijah has come".

Now, based on these passages alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:

(A) John the Baptist was Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah had reincarnated. If this is true, then reincarnation must belong in Christian theology, and the West's entire doctrinal interpretation of "Life After Death" in general, and the "Last Day Resurrection" in particular, must be radically revised, or...

(B) John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah himself had not returned. If this is so, then either:

(1) The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the Messiah failed to come to pass (meaning that Biblical prophecy is fallible), OR

(2) Jesus was not the Messiah.

Basically, it comes down to this simple question: What do you want to believe? One of the following A, B, or C, must logically be true:

A. Reincarnation is true, or

B. Jesus was not the Messiah, or

C. The prophecies of the Bible are unreliable.

As surely as two and two make four, one of the above must be true. At any rate, the passage in which Jesus says in no uncertain terms that John was Elijah is "overt" and direct:

"But I tell you, Elijah has come." (Mark 9:13)

so, whether a, b, or c, this is a topic for people who find the new testament an important work of history, which, let's face it, everyone does, sooner or later.

plagiarism, divine inspiration or continuation of a global plan?

who can see the unseen hand,
and wrestle from it the invisible hour glass?
with each act in hour planet's history, one more grain of hope, or despair is added,
metaphorical mystical sand.

more at http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen.html


Your faith will make you whole

Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:38 am

PostMon Dec 03, 2012 12:05 pm » by Myriad Force

Jesus clearly said John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 11:15).

User avatar
Posts: 3898
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostTue Dec 04, 2012 12:04 am » by Truthdefender

How about D.) None of the above

It seems Origen knew his words would one day be twisted because he spent a great deal of time debunking this post 1,700 plus years ago. The John is Elijah reincarnated misunderstanding was spoken out against by many of the early fathers. Early Christians, and Judaism, most definitely did not believe in reincarnation.

229 AD Origen "In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration ,which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures" ... "But if . . . the Greeks, who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the Scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of things concerning the consummation, which, even if they wish, they will not be able to do" (Commentary on Matthew 13:1).

229 AD Origen--"[Scripture says] 'And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" [John 1:21] and he said, "I am not."' No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: 'If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come' [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, 'Are you Elijah?'--'I am not'? . . . one might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John's birth, but the Spirit and power of Elijah" (Commentary on John 6:7).

229 AD Origen--"As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a manner their property (slaves), as 'The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets' [1 Cor. 14:32] and 'The Spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha' [2 Kgs. 2:15]. Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, 'in the Spirit and power of Elijah,' turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this Spirit that he was called 'Elijah who is to come'" (Commentary on John 6:7.).

229 AD Origen--"If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts in the . . . doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless" (Commentary on John 6:7.).

229 AD Origen "Some might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the form John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the Spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, "This is Elijah who is to come' [Matt. 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John worked in his case works of baptism and teaching--for John did not do one miracle [John 10:41]--but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents" (Commentary on Matthew 10:20).
I'm not crazy, I have a profoundly developed worldview!

Acts 17:24-28

In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge

User avatar
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:16 am

PostTue Dec 04, 2012 3:29 am » by mediasorcery

good post sam, logic & common sense says of course its real, trust god, not religions.

its an existential threat to the "authority" of doctrine, it means we answer to god, not to the church, exactly what they dont want, since they claim authority of god, but are anything but that, as no1 and no thing is the authority of god, but god itself.
the story of life is quicker than the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye, until we meet again my friend.

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10868
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:52 pm

PostWed Dec 05, 2012 10:57 pm » by Noentry

The burning of the library of Alexandria set man back a thousand years.
The knowledge lost was a great loss for all.

I would go with A.

Sam it would of been a good idea if you made a vote for this.
It would of been interesting to see what people think.

Great post. :cheers:
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne


  • Related topics
    Last post