Re: [GTh] Let's not be hasty just yet.....
- Michael Mozina wrote:
> Where I specifically get the notion of reincarnation is in saying 84.[Mike]:
> Perhaps you [Ron McCann] could explain what Jesus meant by "your
> images which came into being before you", if he's not talking about a
> previous physical incarnation.
> Quite simple - one's individual spirit/soul.[Michael M.]:
> I'm not sure that works frankly, since he is saying a couple things here.Pooh, pooh, pooh. The 'you' and 'your' is plural to begin with - the saying
> First he uses the word "images" (plural) as though we've had many images
> that came into being before this one.
is addressed to a group, not an individual. Thus, this group has many
images, just as a group has many heads. Doesn't mean that an individual
member of the group has more than one head.
> He's also suggesting it's a burden to bear to see these revealed and thatit
> the[y] neither die (are forgotten) nor come again (physically). I think
> makes a very *STRONG* case for reincarnation as well.The saying doesn't assert that these "images" don't "come again", physically
or otherwise. It says that they don't become visible, ever. Obviously, then,
one can't "see" them with physical eyes. Far from making a strong case for
reincarnation, it doesn't make any case at all.
> Now I'll tell you why one's "image" _cannot be_ a previous physical[Michael M.]:
> incarnation: because, according to #84, these "images" don't die and they
> don't become visible. Physical incarnations do both.
> Not once they've died they don't. You don't get the same physical bodymade
> back, just the memories. The memories do not die. The bodies are not
> manifest again.Again, Th84 doesn't say the images are not made manifest _again_; it says
they're _never_ made manifest (which I take to mean 'visible to the physical
eye'). Also, it's an absurd non sequitur to say, as you do, that physical
incarnations don't die once they've died. The point is, if these physical
incarnations were the "images" of Th84, they wouldn't die at all - not even
> So these "images" have to be non-physical thingies.[Michael M.]:
> Memories of "ourselves" in previous experiences?Or memories of Sundays in the park? Or an infinite number of other memories?
If the "images" of Th84 are memories, why memories of previous bodies?
> ... that brings us back to the first point which was why this document,and
> the origins of this document are so important to Christianity. I think itI don't presume any such thing. I also don't presume that _canonical_
> sets many of the Church doctrines aside and it is presumably from the lips
> of Jesus himself.
sayings came "from the lips of Jesus himself". _Of course_ GTh "sets many of
the Church doctrines aside", if you want to say it that way. (By the same
token, one might say that _church councils_ set many of the _GTh_ doctrines
aside.) That's not a new insight, and repeating it doesn't make it any newer
or more insightful.
Mt. Clemens, MI