“don’t think there’s any hint of reincarnation discussed even in the Gospel of John”
Passages that could be interpreted as suggestive of reincarnation:
Matthew 16 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied,
“Some say John the Baptist;
others say Elijah;
and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
Mark 6:15 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Others said,
“He is Elijah.”
And still others claimed,
“He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
Mark 6:16 (New Living)
When Herod heard about Jesus, he said,
“John, the man I beheaded, has come back from the dead.”
John 9:2 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
His disciples asked him,
“Rabbi, who sinned,
this man
or his parents,
that he was born blind?”
Hat tip:
Bart’s interview on reincarnation.
DavidFord said
“a link to the video: Did Early Christians Believe in Reincarnation?”
Did Early Christians Believe in Reincarnation? – Bart D. Ehrman
light edits, 26:07+
I will say, though, that there’s not so much a move toward reincarnation– although some people are moving that way– but the bigger move is towards some other kinds of universalism.
Because in a way, Origen’s doctrine of reincarnation was a way of expressing how God’s power _ultimately_ will dominate, that you cannot stop God.
You might try, you might resist, but you can’t, and in the end, you too will be convinced.
And in Origen’s view, God’s not _forcing_ you to agree.
He’s not.
It just, over time, after a few million ages, you’re going to realize you’re wrong, because you _are_ wrong, and so God’s being merciful.
But this modern universalist movement is really a lot more about that, it’s not just for God to say,
‘You died, now time’s up’– boom– ‘heaven or hell– you don’t get more chances.’
‘Why not after death? Why isn’t God merciful? Why does he torture you for trillions of years for 20 years of sin? That just doesn’t make any sense.’
And so people are moving toward more of a universalist model– even Evangelical Christians– many I know Evangelical thinkers apologists theologians, who are moving in that direction.
This is like close to the 10th time I’ve seen this episode of MQJ.
Thanks for posting it, with the full-screen on the forum as well.
DavidFord said
“don’t think there’s any hint of reincarnation discussed even in the Gospel of John”
Passages that could be interpreted as suggestive of reincarnation:
Matthew 16 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied,
“Some say John the Baptist;
others say Elijah;
and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
Mark 6:15 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Others said,
“He is Elijah.”
And still others claimed,
“He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
Mark 6:16 (New Living)
When Herod heard about Jesus, he said,
“John, the man I beheaded, has come back from the dead.”
John 9:2 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
His disciples asked him,
“Rabbi, who sinned,
this man
or his parents,
that he was born blind?”
Hat tip:
Bart’s interview on reincarnation.
Great call & great calls!
Thanks Again.
Helen Young said
DavidFord said
“a link to the video: Did Early Christians Believe in Reincarnation?”
Did Early Christians Believe in Reincarnation? – Bart D. Ehrman
light edits, 26:07+
I will say, though, that there’s not so much a move toward reincarnation– although some people are moving that way– but the bigger move is towards some other kinds of universalism.
Because in a way, Origen’s doctrine of reincarnation was a way of expressing how God’s power _ultimately_ will dominate, that you cannot stop God.
You might try, you might resist, but you can’t, and in the end, you too will be convinced.
And in Origen’s view, God’s not _forcing_ you to agree.
He’s not.
It just, over time, after a few million ages, you’re going to realize you’re wrong, because you _are_ wrong, and so God’s being merciful.
But this modern universalist movement is really a lot more about that, it’s not just for God to say,
‘You died, now time’s up’– boom– ‘heaven or hell– you don’t get more chances.’
‘Why not after death? Why isn’t God merciful? Why does he torture you for trillions of years for 20 years of sin? That just doesn’t make any sense.’
And so people are moving toward more of a universalist model– even Evangelical Christians– many I know Evangelical thinkers apologists theologians, who are moving in that direction.
This is like close to the 10th time I’ve seen this episode of MQJ.
Thanks for posting it, with the full-screen on the forum as well.
I had my AI watch, and I watched for the kitty a moment.
Dr. Ehrman has come a long way since a webinar I was attending where he’d just kinda shut it down with ‘no reincarnation.’ This was pleasant and educating in that Dr. Ehrman perceives a difference between Jewish people asking Jesus about reincarnation/soul transmigration, which Dr. Ehrman recognizes as happening in the Gospels, and whether Jesus is saying that this is something that God offers. Dr. Ehrman doesn’t address the second part at all.
Afaik, the dirtnap style of resurrection starts with early Eblaite nobility. Mandaeans have Eblaite DNA.
Robert said
I am indeed curious if you are able to support your claim or not. I would think this would be more important to you since you made the claim here.
I am not required and I will not. If we were to put a “burden of proof” in the discussion, it will be on you. You need to prove that the Davidic line survived.
I’m not surprised that you’re unaware of the evidence to the contrary.
Is that evidence happen to be proposed by Bart Ehrman? 🙂
I have an ancestor, a French noble who had his head chopped off by Cardinal Richelieu, and his family claimed to be descended from Clovis, the first king of the Franks, whom Dan Brown claimed was descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. So my claim certainly Trump’s yours.
Exactly. You don’t know who your great-grand-father was, but you know the famous man from your lineage. That’s exactly how it works and that’s exactly how it would work in the past, thus, reducing Bart’s argument to zero. Yes, nobody knows more than his grand-parents, but they will surely be aware if a famous person were in their family even a millennia ago.
Helen Young said
I have an ancestor who signed the American Declaration of Independence, and another who came over on the Mayflower, (he wasn’t a Puritain however).
Correct; despite that you don’t know more than up 3 generations of your family, probably up until your grand-grand-parents, you surely know about your famous ancestors from the history, even if they go up until 500 years ago. If Jesus was indeed a descendant of David, He definitely would know so.
The terms Israeli, Jew, and Hebrew overlap and converge in interesting ways. I’m not sure if I understand it all.
Jesus was definitely called an Israelite. But I’m not sure if that’s in the bible or when the designation was first recorded.
They don’t, really, you just been exposed to pro-Jewish propaganda. Hebrews were a people 1 millennia prior the ancient Jews; they wrote the Mosaic Law and many other. This was considered scripture by many people in the area, including non-Jews. Jew comes from 1 tribe of Israel, Judah, who happened to be a dominant one. But there are 11 tribes more! Jesus was an Israelite, yes. If He was Jewish, that’s up to debate. Sold scholars say He was. Some other people say He wasn’t, I mean, He literally destroyed them.
Robert said
You’re still misconstruing the various potential meanings of the phrase ‘beyond the Jordan’.
Ah, the rivers, that were always natural borders…
Steefen said
Let me tell you, nobody writes those parables without having watched it happen.
That’s actually a very astute observation. You’re correct, but if someone tell a story like the one in the gospel, that doesn’t mean it cannot carry another meaning aside the physical action.
Helen Young said
I like the idea that Jesus had traveled all over and had a kind of education.
From the Christian point of view, Jesus was God. How exactly does God needs education? It is a very silly idea, and it is proposed by the “historical Jesus” lunatics.
Serene said
He’s supposed to be the poor one but he doesn’t sound like a poor.
Same as above. There’s nowhere in the Gospels that said He was poor. The authors believed He was God. How exactly can one make God poor? It is implied that Jesus could transform rocks into bread in the desert but refused to do so. There are no historical documents that portray Jesus at all, so we have none of them that say He was poor. This idea is simply put a naive invention of people like Bart Ehrman that propose the ridiculous idea of the historical Jesus.
Serene said
I think Jesus may be side-hinting at various times that he knows that the Tetragrammaton is a syncretic deity, adding a deity to Yah?I don’t mean El the sweet fatherly deity which is already academic consensus.
As far as I can tell, one that adds the Lord of Foreign Lands, YHW-H (Yahu-Ha.)
No, the “father” was the Devil; it clearly say so in the next verses.
Robert said
irrational polemics.
When might you learn to prefer intelligent discussion?
My dear friend, with a simple AI search the “discussion” can be handled well. We are not scholars but we can get scholastic answers. You have your opinions, I have mind. After passing to the main 10 arguments for David’s lineage, I conclude that most of them are weak.
The main historical arguments that David’s lineage survived are:
- Jehoiachin and his sons survived the exile (archaeology confirms).
- Exilarchs claimed Davidic descent for centuries.
- Post‑exilic genealogies list Davidic descendants.
- Second Temple Jews expected a Davidic Messiah, meaning they believed the line still existed.
- Jesus was publicly called “son of David.”
- Both Gospel genealogies trace Jesus to David.
- No ancient source claims extinction of the Davidic line.
- Archaeology confirms the dynasty’s historical reality.
The fact that a group of people claimed Davidic descent that doesn’t make it real. As I said, I can claim Napoleon’s lineage. And the Gospel genealogies are symbolic. Then again, the absence of evidence that doesn’t mean it’s evidence for absence; the fact that no ancient sources claims extinction that doesn’t mean the lineage continued. The arguments against David’s lineage are far more reasonable.
Summary of the strongest arguments against biological descent:
- Matthew and Luke contradict each other.
- Both genealogies go through Joseph, not Mary.
- Luke uses Nathan, not Solomon.
- Matthew includes Jeconiah, who was cursed.
- Genealogies are symbolic, not historical.
- No external source confirms Davidic descent.
- “Son of David” was a title, not proof.
- Galilean families were not Davidic.
- Mary’s Davidic descent is a late invention.
- Jesus did not fit the expected Davidic king profile.
No real scholar, even Bart Ehrman, believe that the genealogies from the gospels of Matthew and Luke are real. Then again, Galilean families, which we know for sure that Jesus belong to, are not claiming Davidic descent. The evidence is simply not there; it is not historical. It can’t be historical. In fact, we have no real historical books on Jesus.
Another 2 proofs for Jesus non-Jewishness:
Mark 10:10-12
10 In the house His disciples asked Him concerning this matter again. 11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Ancient Jews did not had in their customs the possibility of the woman divorcing her husband. Only the man could. Hence, Jesus speaks to a non-Jewish audience, or at least, mixed. Why? I thought Bart said Jesus is just a Jew who had disputes with other Jews inside Judaism. Surely this pericope looks very historical; there is no reason not to believe so, according to Bart’s standards. It seems that the non-Jewish Jesus was speaking to a mixed audience.
17 And He taught them, and said, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”
Now, the wording here is very strange. At the first glance, one might get the message that the Jewish priesthood, with their Temple, transformed their religion into a money racket, preying on poor Jewish people. But at the second look, there are 2 expressions that suggest something else, even more nefarious: “house a prayer for all nations” and “den of thieves”. Thieves do not steal in their den; thieves rest in their den after stealing outside; it’s their safe house. For all nations suggests an inclusivity, an openness towards other races and nations; the opposite is Jewish tribalism. Ancient Jews, as modern Jews today, are tribal, and that involves a double standard: a better way to interact with your fellow tribesmen and almost no rules when interacting with the non-tribesmen.
It is possible that Jesus was calling out Jews here for holding a monopoly on the Temple, a nepotistic ethnical tribal monopoly, while defrauding other people, mostly non-Jewish, and they were using the Temple as headquarters. Like organized crime, like mafia.
That’s a very non-Jewish thing to say and do.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)