So why did Job say it then, if he did not think that's what would happen after he died?Adama wrote:I can't believe this. The man would rather believe that Job could literally re-enter his mother's womb, rather than believe in salvation in Jesus by faith alone. That really shows us how confused some people are, who deceive themselves.
Titus 3:11 KJV
 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss religion and spirituality topics.
Can someone correct me? When people talk about reincarnation, are they talking about being reborn by the same woman? Are they talking about re-entering their mother's womb? I thought reincarnation was a soul in a new body in a new circumstance. I have never heard that reincarnation occurs when a person is born again to the same mother.
Also, have any of you ever heard of a person being literally re-entering a woman's womb? And if no one has ever heard or seen of this phenomenon ever in the complete history of humanity, why on earth would anyone assume that reincarnation occurs by such a method? When that method has never been observed or known to happen. Does that make sense to anyone reading this?
How caught up in nonsense are the unbelievers? Now you can see the veil and the blindness of the unbelievers. Does it astonish you? This blows my mind.
Job 1:21 KJV
 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.
You're born naked, you will die naked. Just as a man is born out of his mother's womb naked, so shall he return to God, in nakedness.
Do you think he was talking about dying and going back into his mother's womb upon death? If so, has anyone ever observed anyone die or otherwise return to their mother's womb? Or does Job more likely mean that naked he was born and naked he will return to God?
At what point in life can a man get himself naked, go to his mother, and then re-enter her womb? Is it possible for anyone to return to their mother's womb, naked or otherwise? No one can re-enter their own mother's womb ever under any circumstance. People don't even realize they are only born once. Can someone jump back into their mother's womb at some point at the end of their life? Or is the soul reborn from the now barren and elderly mother? (How interesting that it is easier to believe this than to believe the words of Jesus.) Is this some unlisted marvelous wonder that Christians somehow don't know about or ever heard of ? (Except for the atheist "scholars" who don't believe one word of the Bible believe this reincarnation nonsense is in the Bible, though they would not believe the Bible on the most important aspect of it, which is salvation unto eternal life.)
Also, did Job say he was going to live again after returning? If Job did not say that he would be reborn, how can someone assume that he would be reborn? Wouldn't Job explicitly say something like after he returns thither thus shall he be reborn by his mother? Or is he just going to leave us hanging with no real indication?
People would rather believe that Job can literally or spiritually re-enter his mother's womb than believe that believing in Jesus will give them the gift of eternal life.
Is it easier for a man to accept that believing in Jesus yields eternal life as the Bible says in hundreds of places? Or is it easier for a man to believe that Job thought he could literally re-enter his own mother's womb, and use that as proof for a phenomenon that has never ever occurred in the complete history of humanity. That's just insanity. People believe in the doctrines they want to believe. Some are just so blinded by their own self deception that they cannot see the brightest light in the world.
John 1:19-23 KJV
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
When it is said that John the Baptist was Elijah, they really mean that he had the same job to do as Elijah.
John the Baptist himself when asked directly said that he was not Elijah.
You ever heard of pulling a Homer, to make an example?
Re-read the story of the blind man. The man was blind for the glory of God, not because anyone sinned. Neither is it implied anywhere that he was blind for any other reason. Jesus was able to heal him there, showing His wonder and glory (that the works of God may be shown in him), that He is God, the Son of God, the Christ. Jesus didn't say he was blind because of sin. Jesus actually said that the man had not sinned to cause it. Reincarnation is an assumption without any evidence. Jesus tells us plainly it is so that He could show the power of God to heal. That's what manifest means, to show.
John 9:1-3 KJV
 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
People will believe that which they want to believe, as long as it isn't Jesus. They really reach for reincarnation without Jesus. That will never happen.
Last edited by Adama on May 1st, 2016, 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
...which I clearly noted before. The point is that Jesus didn't correct them, despite Jesus correcting people frequently. In other words, if their belief was so off-base, why wouldn't he mention it? And yet He doesn't.
But that's not what Jesus said. Jesus said that John the Baptist IS Elijah. Don't twist it or play mental gymnastics.
He wouldn't have known.
I don't mean to disrespect you, but did you read this?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Jesus said the man didn't sin. That means the man didn't sin. It says JESUS ANSWERED. He said that the works of God may be shown in the blind man, that work being Jesus' ability to heal because He is God. That is the reason He was blind, so that Jesus could show everyone that He has the power to heal. Jesus explicitly corrected their false impression. There is no mistake about this, unless you either don't understand the plain text or you are willingly ignorant of the words which are right in front of your eyes.
And never was it implied that he sinned before birth. It was assumed that either his parents sinned or he sinned at some point in his life. Nowhere does the question ask if a person sinned before birth or in another life? Oh but it is so hard to believe the words of Jesus, but they willingly deceive themselves with words and doctrines which aren't even in there. But the doctrines that actually are in there, they will refuse to believe entirely and dismiss outright as corruption.
You can't make this stuff up. [Edit. Re-reading these, I figure this may be evidence of the strong delusion. Bear witness to these posts if you're saved.]
Last edited by Adama on May 3rd, 2016, 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Elias was used as a title, not a name. Just as Christ is a name and also means messiah. He was saying that John the Baptist had the same job as Elias. But you know there is only one Christ, although it means Messiah, it is also the Lord's name.
"And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come."
Let's say we try this: Now what if we put Christ's name there, it would make sense that it is the title or job description rather than the literal person:
If you will receive it, if you will accept that this man is the [job title here]... John was going to perform the same work as Elias, which made him another Elias.
This doctrine of reincarnation is the most childish doctrine I've personally encountered. People would rather believe that stuff that isn't even written in the Bible (try searching on the word reincarnation) rather than believing the clear verses which are repeated hundreds of times on how believing in Jesus grants us eternal life. Oh that part about Jesus is definitely corrupted, although it is supported by the whole of the rest of the Bible. But three misunderstood passages on reincarnation must prove that reincarnation is true.
Reincarnation is more stuff related to other religions, Hinduism and Buddhism. Why is it childish? Because it is not compatible with Christian belief?
The Bible is not a 'superior book', it is 'equal' with any other religious book. Not worse, but surely also not better than any other religious stuff.
Because the doctrines of those religions support reincarnation. The Bible doesn't support reincarnation. If you want to believe in reincarnation, stop searching the Bible and become a Buddhism, Hindu or Jainist.
It is clear, the only way to a second life is through Jesus. In Hebrews Paul tells us that we live and die only once.
YES. It seems you are the one who didn't read what I wrote, or you have no reading comprehension. My point was that when the disciples asked Jesus if the man had caused his own blindness by sinning (implied: in a past life) Jesus didn't correct that assumption. He simply answered that, no, that wasn't why the man was blind, that he was born blind so that God's glory could be demonstrated. Nowhere in the verses does Jesus point out a problem with their premise that reincarnation is real, which is odd because Jesus frequently corrected people when they erred.
No, he didn't correct their assumption/belief about reincarnation; he answered that there was another reason, which didn't in any way negate the belief in reincarnation.
What are you talking about? The disciples explicitly ask if the man or his parents sinned that caused the man to be born blind. There's no interpretation needed; they clearly accept the idea of past lives.
Or are you suggesting that the man could have sinned as a fetus? Which if you are, that's a whole other can of crazy to open up.
That's because there is no implied reincarnation. They were perplexed about the cause of the man's blindness. They know that some illness is the punishment for a person's sin or for their parents' sin. They asked who sinned because they didn't know which one sinned. Jesus explicitly states that the man didn't sin. There is no assumption of reincarnation in that question. Therefore there is no need to correct them out of reincarnation. That is really inserting a lot into the scripture. That's assuming things which aren't even there, which is really an amazing trait that some people seem to have, reading things which are not there, but refusing to believe the things which are clearly there.
The man did not sin. That would mean in the past he didnt sin. Does Jesus need to say he didn't sin in a past life? No, because:
1. The question itself doesn't even imply it.
2. Sin is in the past. So even if it were possible for the man to sin in a previous life, Jesus said the man didn't sin.
Now if they had asked, "Had this man sinned in his previous existence?" Then you could say that there is reincarnation. They merely asked who sinned. The people who desperately want to believe in eternal life without belief in Christ hang on to this doctrine.
Also, at that point it seems the disciples were still learning doctrine from Jesus. They weren't saying what happened or even would could have happened. They were asking their Rabbi questions to learn. That doesn't even mean their questions imply anything useful, because they were students still being taught by their teacher.
Jesus said that He is the only way. You can't get around that by twisting three scriptures to make them fit into reincarnation, especially when there is a clear verse in Hebrews which says it doesn't happen.
Go with the clear verse that says it doesn't happen, rather than the nebulous verses that must be twisted to fit an unChristian Doctrine.
This must really be part of the strong delusion for the people who have pleasure in unrighteousness. They'll believe the doctrines of false religions and demons which they will import into Christianity if they could, rather than believing the Words of Jesus which He spoke. Oh they'll believe His words when it implies reincarnation (to their minds), but when He talks about everlasting life, which is far better than reincarnation, they refuse to believe the multitude of verses on the topic are genuine and will say that they ALL must be corrupted. Meanwhile a few passages they can twist to imply reincarnation must be true, and the words of Jesus around that topic are irrefutable, whereas everywhere else the words of Jesus must have been corrupted by men.
Wow. Just mind-blowing blindness.
You apparently don't know how to read. Read very carefully this time, Adama. I repeat:
1. The man was born blind.
2. They are clearly asking if the man sinned to cause himself to be born blind. Now unless you're going to argue that he could have sinned as a fetus, there's only one possible reason they are asking this: the disciples think he sinned in a past life that caused him to be born blind in his current life.
It's very simple, but like all churchians I've seen, you play mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that the Bible says what it says.
So when you say things like this:
It shows that you apparently don't know how to read. The question quite clearly implies that the disciples think that the man possibly sinned in a past life to cause his blindness upon being born.
There is no implication of past life. Nowhere. It was only a question. It wasn't a statement of fact. It was a question. You cannot take doctrine from questions, especially since the Lord Himself did not confirm it. Neither is there any clear teaching on it. There is only THIS QUESTION, which the disciples were asking because they were still learning from Jesus.
Now if you want to take key doctrine FROM A QUESTION, then by all means, do so. I hope other people who read this can see that Christianity is about faith in Jesus for everlasting life, not some hope in being reincarnated, which is a doctrine of demons from eastern religion.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Verse one tells us that in the last days, which we are in because those are all the days after the start of the NT, that people will depart from the true faith of Christianity and give heed to the teachings of demons.
Verse three gives us examples of teachings of demons, which include those which forbid their pastors from marrying, and those which tell people they can't eat meat.
Interestingly enough, the end of verse three also tells us who are God's people, those who believe and know the truth. Who is the truth? Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.