Could a Little Boy Be Proof of Reincarnation?

ABC News ^ | April 20, 04 | ABC News

[Cvengr]

The report of the boy's memory recall might not be false, but the assertion of reincarnation is false. One possible explanation is familiar spirits. Considering the amount of public acceptance of sorcery recently made by the Harry Potter fad and Wicca, I suspect we might become exposed to many more similar reports. Dabbling in the occult isn't without consequence.

[Optimist]

Are they so stupid as to not realize this is a little boys vivid imagination fueled with presents?

Heeeeey.....You know , I remember seeing a little kid on Leno who knew all about dinosaurs .....

you don't suppose......

naaaah, he couldn't be......

or - could - he ........

do you suppose he is a reincarnated stegosaurus?

WOW......how else could he know soooooo much about dinosaurs??????

[Styria]

This will last until his parents catch him advocating for putting Japanese-Americans in detention camps.

[RonHolzwarth]

reply to "Where in Scripture do you find Elijah's soul and spirit to have been separated from his body?"

Wow! I really had to look for that one! I suppose you could say he didn't really ever die,,,

—In Rabbinical Literature:

Elijah, "let him be remembered for good," or "he who is remembered for good" (Yer. Sheb. iii., end); or, as he is commonly called among the Jews, "the prophet Elijah" (Eliyahu ha-nabi'), has been glorified in Jewish legend more than any other Biblical personage. The Haggadah which makes this prophet the hero of its description has not been content, as in the case of others, to describe merely his earthly life and to elaborate it in its own way, but has created a new history of him, which, beginning with his death or "translation," ends only with the close of the history of the human race.

From the Apocrypha (canonized by the Catholic church, but not the Protestant):

Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, Chapter 48

[1] Then the prophet Elijah arose like a fire, and his word burned like a torch.
[2] He brought a famine upon them, and by his zeal he made them few in number.
[3] By the word of the Lord he shut up the heavens, and also three times brought down fire.
[4] How glorious you were, O Elijah, in your wondrous deeds! And who has the right to boast which you have?
*[5] You who raised a corpse from death and from Hades, by the word of the Most High;
[6] who brought kings down to destruction, and famous men from their beds;
[7] who heard rebuke at Sinai and judgments of vengeance at Horeb;
[8] who anointed kings to inflict retribution, and prophets to succeed you.
[9] You who were taken up by a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot with horses of fire;
[10] you who are ready at the appointed time, it is written, to calm the wrath of God before it breaks out in fury, to turn the heart of the father to the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob.
[11] Blessed are those who saw you, and those who have been adorned in love; for we also shall surely live.
[12] It was Elijah who was covered by the whirlwind, and Elisha was filled with his spirit; in all his days he did not tremble before any ruler, and no one brought him into subjection.
[13] Nothing was too hard for him, and when he was dead his body prophesied.
[14] As in his life he did wonders, so in death his deeds were marvelous.

* WOW! He raised the dead!!!

1 Maccabees, Chapter 2:
[58] Elijah because of great zeal for the law was taken up into heaven.

That does seem to imply he "died", in the way we understand death,,, but I have to bow out on this one! I dunno,,, if Elijah indeed could raise the dead, I suppose he could also survive his own!

[Quix]

I understand your perspective.

I think.

[Quix]

I probably will be very unlikely to presume

to ever have the skill or supernatural power to

persuade Dave S

of much of anything.

Paul is plenty believable to me. He certainly was around the event scenes that involved Christ. That is, he was of that culture in that location at that time--regardless of his age.

IF

you ever decide you want to examine the evidence fairly,

Josh McDowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by a formerly very, very, VERY hostile atheist--is a worthy read.

Cheers.

[RonHolzwarth]

I didn't find a definitive answer to the language yet, but here's an AWESOME site:

The Origins of the New Testament:

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/origins/originsc.htm#_Toc409530502

I'm getting lost in this one, it is very interesting!

[STFrancis]

I am with you Howlin, there is more to this then we know.

I have been baptized and believe in the Lord. However, I have had experiences I have questioned all my life, where they came from and prayed to receive the answers. This leads me to believe there is a LOT more out there then we realize.

We will receive the answers when we are ready for them.

[Paradox]

I believe you missed my point. Just because multiple explinations of this even can be explained via paranormal activity doesn't mean one should reject paranormal activity out of hand.

You are right, I did miss it. Of course it doesn't mean it ISN'T something paranormal, but if thats the case, you can never really know what it is, so in effect you are still p*ssing in the wind. I mean, there really MIGHT be 100 angels on the head of that pin, but then again, it might just be Whoville.In my mind, I always leave the possibility open for something paranormal. Heck, it would be cool! But it is essentially a useless argument. (unless, of course, somebody can come up with some kind of repeatable measurement for these things, in which case it becomes SOMETHING of a science, but even the researchers at Duke University were not able to get it anywhere close to mainstream).

[LibKill]

Coincidence.

Jung (the famous contemporary of Freud) worked at a sanitarium. He saw a laborer with a long history of 'madness' squinting his eyes and staring at the sun.

He asked him why he was doing this. The man replied that if he squinted his eyes he could see the sun's wing-wang waving, and that it created the winds of the earth.

Jung had just read some translations of Sumnerian texts that said the same thing.

Knowing that this illiterate laborer could never have read the same texts, Jung jumped into ludicrousy and posited a theory of "racial memory".

He ignored the fact that different people in different places and times can have the same idea.

This kid may or may not be re-incarnated, but I tend to think there is a simpler explanation.

[RonHolzwarth]

This is an interesting site also:
Origins Of The Bible,
as researched by John Moore:

http://www.ao.net/~jmo/john/personal/origins.html

The New Testament books were originally written in Greek (the cultural language of the world at that time), with some Aramaic words mixed in.
The books and letters were written on papyrus and parchment, and formed into scrolls; later into Codex, or book, form.
The same reproduction techniques, as established by the Masorites and scribes, were probably used to copy the manuscripts.
The oldest known New Testament manuscript is the Rylands Papyri (125 AD), a section of John chapter 18. It is verification, that Jesus was a historical figure, on trial before Pilate. Was this the original "eyewitness" manuscript or a copy from it?
The oldest complete New Testament manuscript is the Sinaitic Codex dating to 325 AD.
The Codex Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Alexandrian Codex (400 AD) are of equal importance in comparison of text from that period.
Over 5,000 other New Testament manuscripts or associated manuscripts have been found. Some of these are letters which quote portions of the New Testament, translations into the Syriac and Coptic from the Greek, and lectionaries which are sermons containing selected OT and NT portions.
All manuscripts differ from one another in some way. However, the painstaking science of "textural critisisim" has led scholars to believe that 7/8 of the New Testament is established as original.
The remaining 1/8 is mostly trivial differences, such as: Jesus Christ for Christ Jesus, ancients for elders, etc.
Only 1/1000th of the New Testament differences from one manuscript to another represent a substantial variation. However, not one question poses a doubt on one principle of faith or divine command, thus allowing full confidence in the final product.

[solo gringo]

I read most of the post through #100.I can tell all of you believers and none believers.I will be 70 years old my next birthday i remember my demise in a past life.But i found out in my early years you did not tell people about it.If you tried to you would get laughed at.In later years i told my wife and my brother just older than i.If they believe me i did not ask because i do not want to know.

[CyberAnt]

Hmmm? Thanks for that link - should prove to be some interesting reading.

[CyberAnt]

If you have questions, I'll try to answer them.

[aruanan]

With respect to either the immaculate conception or to the resurrection, something along these lines written in response to a comment about a critic of the Shroud of Turin:

Amen. I saw the same show. I thought, "Yet another dogmatist posing as a scientist."

You've fallen for the very belief that such people have always tried to promote: The scientist as noble, clear-eyed, dispassionate revealer of truth.

The truth is that the intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.

If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.

The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because others witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because

1. something like that cannot happen,

2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and

3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.

The answer to the above is, of course,

1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;

2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,

3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.

The retort to 3. (because they cannot argue with the first two) would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?

* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?

Amen. I saw the same show. I thought, "Yet another dogmatist posing as a scientist."

You've fallen for the very belief that such people have always tried to promote: The scientist as noble, clear-eyed, dispassionate revealer of truth.

The truth is that the intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.

If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.

The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because others witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because

1. something like that cannot happen,

2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and

3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.

The answer to the above is, of course,

1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;

2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,

3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.

The retort to 3. (because they cannot argue with the first two) would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?

* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?

[william clark]

My money is on the parents running a scam for fame and fortune.

[servantoftheservant]

Interesting. My cousin was about 6....one day he was on a drive with my Grandfather, and of nowhere he said 'Grandpa, I died in a train the last time I was alive.' Aunt and Grandpa are both good Catholics, and were quite taken aback.

[servantoftheservant]

Furthermore what I have read on this topic only suggests other forces are at work but not reincarnation.

Hmmmm -- I've thought and read quite a bit on this topic myself. In my opinion, if we have souls, then reincarnation is plausible. To irrevocably tie an eternal spiritual entity to a mortal coil he will inhabit for a comparitive millisecond is ludicrous.

Reincarnation is simply the migration of the soul from one form or 'body' to another. If this migration is not possible, then how does a soul 'go to heaven'?

[I_dmc]

Knowlege of the unknown. Trust me, you'd hate it.

[Marie]

Missionaries who follow these teachings (nearly all of them as far as I can tell) suggest that G-d knew, when He gave the Torah to the Jewish people, that they would never be able to fulfill it.

You mean that Christians are the world's first liberals?! LOL! ("These pesky rules are just too hard. We need to grant all good things to everybody even if they don't work for it. These standards are too high... We're not comfortable with all this repression of freedom. God can't really expect normal folks to do all this crap...")