Originally posted by dj2beckerDid you find any copy-pastable material from professional historians you disagree with?
So it seems you really didn't bother to read the link:
"Because the New Testament
provides the primary historical source
for information on the resurrection,
many critics during the 19th century
attacked the reliability of these biblical
documents.
By the end of the 19th century, however,
archaeological discoveries had
confirmed the accuracy of ...[text shortened]... of the facts of ancient
history…."
E.M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University
15 May 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI don't think "reincarnation" is like past life, per se .
Perhaps you'd like to contribute to the thread a little more constructively?
'The question in the OP wasn't really about what was more believable, the Resurrection or Reincarnation, but whether or not there is indeed more 'evidence' for the Resurrection.'
It's more like a dream where you remember the details... or like a child that seems to already have learnt past life lessons. I don't think it's as specific as " Oh, I lived a past life as this certain somebody " ... it's a bit more spicey than that.. bit more intricate
15 May 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelReincarnation, in the traditional sense, is very much about past lives.
I don't think "reincarnation" is like past life, per se .
It's more like a dream where you remember the details... or like a child that seems to already have learnt past life lessons. I don't think it's as specific as " Oh, I lived a past life as this certain somebody " ... it's a bit more spicey than that.. bit more intricate
16 May 17
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYes and no.
Reincarnation, in the traditional sense, is very much about past lives.
It's about learning life lessons as a certain "soul" . These lessons are said to be universal. So in the end every sentient being is supposed to wake up to his or her own self-realization.
This is not explainable and can only be pointed at. Usually the poetic and artistic methods achieve this pointing better than the strictly informative, straightforward descriptions.
The ultimate realization usually revolves around the idea that everything is connected in your real "Self" and you have actually chosen to "go on a journey" to this part of the universe to realize these universal truths.
To realize these truths you have evolved through millennia to grow a brain powerful enough to reflect/tune into the universal eternal truth about selfhood/everything.
So we go through many incarnations to reach this realization, which is said to bring more light into our part of the universe. But it's only the instinctive, positive universal lessons that we retain from past incarnations that make us relate it to a certain individual from history rather than looking at it the other way around, from the non-ego perspective. 🙂
Any clearer?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by FMFBy 'finalized' you mean changed to be totally different to the original manuscripts? Which texts were added to the original manuscripts?
What is your basis for this claim? The New Testament is a set of texts that were written and edited and added to for hundreds of years by many unknown authors before they were 'finalized'. They are therefore a secondary source, and only a primary source in so far as they are evidence of what texts Christians use for the basis of their religion.
16 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou are free to project whatever gimmicky definition onto the word "finalized" you feel you need to. The post you were responding to was crystal clear. With your red herring, you have ~ for all intents and purposes ~ sidestepped it.
By 'finalized' you mean changed to be totally different to the original manuscripts?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
16 May 17
Originally posted by FMFI have asked you for clarification which you have sidestepped. Are you not implying that the words currently recorded in the new testament are totally different in meaning to the original words written by the actual authors?
You are free to project whatever gimmicky definition onto the word "finalized" you feel you need to. The post you were responding to was crystal clear. With your red herring, you have ~ for all intents and purposes ~ sidestepped it.