7 Reasons Reincarnation is False

resurrection of Jesus. Our guest today is perhaps the world's leading expert on the resurrection, been on this show many times a personal friend, doctor Gary Harbrmos, thanks for coming back.

the reincarnation. Lady, I haven't heard this objection in years, so I think it does have a lot to do with where you live. I think that's one thing. Another thing, I think this generation, these generations that you mentioned, are not real well grounded. When I see surveys on how scholarship goes for college students, I hear more and more things like, oh, I'm doing all my degrees online. What do you have to do? Not a lot. I just kind of read these articles and I read a few

paragraphs and I'm ready to go. I think up some good reasons and I could you know? And and then I see something on Wikipedia or something and it says college students today, I think they're scholars after reading an article and they usually quit halfway through the article. So I'm not putting down college kids. I don't teach that level. I teach PhD students. But it's like, no one's into reading and studying now. It's like, go on your phone

and read a few things. And I think we are into I don't want to say equality and religion, but I think we are into plurality. I think we are into anything goes. I think we are into well, I don't want to put you down, and I don't want to say your view is false. And what about the problem of evil? Well, come on, I know what the Bible says, but things have changed a lot, and I kind of think God will approve of anybody who seeks him. Honestly,

you know, I think it's all those things. I think it's changing world views and changing times, not well thought out positions.

z express that interest. But of course they're not shifting back towards historic Christianity traditional faiths always, but sometimes in New Age Now, I think it might be really helpful to define what we mean by reincarnation and maybe compare and contrast what reincarnation is and how it's similar and or different from what we mean by resurrection.

But years ago i'd heard that he'd written five books on reincarnation and one maybe the best known one published by the University of Virginia Press, was called Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. And he was a nice guy, well spoken. I'd never found him to be dogmatic. He would lay data out there, and when you would give data on the other side, he'd say, hey, I understand, I can roll with that. I just think there's some data for reincarnation.

And you say, well, here's a comeback or two. He'd say, hey, you give me your one or two and I'll give you a couple more reasons. That why reincarnation is kind of you know, you know, that's why his books entitled twenty Cases Suggestive. And here's how he defines it. He says, re incarnation is when one spirit enters another person, but in between conception and birth. That's reincarnation. Possession, which he does a lot of talking about and I will too.

Possession is a spirit entering another person's spirit in between

birth and life, sometime in the living process. But reincarnation is prior to birth, between conception and birth, and that's going to become really significant here as we get talking, because there's some cases that Stevenson gives where he says, well, I've found some cases I think reincarnation's true, but I'll give you a couple cases where reincarnation by my definition is not true and it looks more like possession, and he just says things just I mean, he's I think

he's pretty straightforward.

But some of the books will say possession can be so strong that many people will think it's a case of possession. In other words, as a clouding of definitions between oppression and possession. So you can be really bothered but not really infiltrated. If that makes.

is usually believed to be disembodied. So I love what Peter Krefft says that the Thomas philosopher who he accepts the Thomas accept the Thomas and the Aristotelian tradition, not the Platonist one. But he still says this comment about the intermediate state. He says Plato is right as far

as he went, and I think the great comment. In other words, the Christian view tewod Corinthians five seems to be that immediate after death, immediately after death the person is does not live and in between ron falses you're still with the Lord and it's better than here. But he says I wished I weren't here too long, because twice in those ten verses and second Corinthians five he says, I don't want to be found naked, and the Greek

word there naked refers to bodyless. So if you go back to Peter Craft, he's going to say, yep, that's my point, because I'm atoms and I believe we have to be re embodied to be our full persons. But there is an intermediate state and then there's a final state resurrection has to do. The traditional Christian view is living forever, and you can't say in a different body, but you'd say, you'd say living forever and your body, but for eternity, and.

in Indian or Indian friendly cultures. That's not always a case, but let's say, this little boy's name is Sam, and sometime after his birth, he could be very young, he could be three or four, and he'll say, don't call me Sam anymore. My name is Peter. No, honey, we gave you the name Sam. No, but I'm Peter. I know I'm Peter. And I lived in the town of X and I even remember who my parents were, and

I remember the house. It looks like this. And they'll say, well, well, that's true or false, you know, and he'll say, no, no, no, it looks like this. And when you go in the house, you turn left and you go down the hallway and the third room on the right is my bedroom. And so the parents do a little bit of checking and they find out, you know, because he tells them the town and where's a house like this? And this culture is really open to this. They've heard these stories. So

other parents are used to helping you do this. And they bring the little guy there, the newly made Peter, and he takes you to the house and turns left and goes down and there's his bedroom. He goes, well, they've changed this all around, but my bed used to be over there underneath the window. So he knows a lot about this, and that's famous. Those are famous. Little kids have a lot of details. Lesser examples, but they can still be something that convinces some people. Of course,

would be cases of scars. Let's see, let's say Sam slash Peter talks to the parents and they say, oh, yeah, he had this real strange birthmark on his left shoulder. Oh you mean like this, And the guy pulls his shirt down and they go, yeah, just like that. Where did you get that? So birthmarks are deformities, a limp and the same leg that the other boy had. Sometimes these people can even tell you where the boys are buried. But a deformity or a scar, that's one we're familiar

with us and Christian. But glossolalia or speaking in tongues. This guy might start rattling off a different language and he might talk in the dialect that Peter spoke in. But remember his name, his given name is Sam, and he starts talking to that language. So there's three of them right there, and those are three of the best ones. The main one is details, I can tell you where I lived, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and deformities.

Speaking in tongues. I mean by that not your birth language, but you're pretty good at it and you're only four years old. Yeah.

two hypotheses are reincarnation and possession. And several times throughout well the chapter where I cite him several times, you'll say, and actually here possession and seems like it's pretty good. And then he'll introduce he'll introduce another problem. He'll go, well, there's a number of ways to explain this, but the best to, well, we can just cut to the chase. The best to are still reincarnation and possession. He says it over and over again. Now you may have a

quote there. I've got one here. I can read it if you want please. This is this is Ian Stevenson himself, the lading leading scholar. And it's not because he's like not a believer. He wrote the book twenty cases suggests of reincarnation. Here he is. He says that the data fall quote a long continuum in which the distinction between reincarnation and possession becomes blurred close quote. Then he says another statement, the data quote do not permit a firm

decision between the hypothesis of possession and reincarnation. Close quote. Now it seems like he He definitely is saying these are the two best, but it almost sounds at points I got another one here. I can read you, but it almost sounds like he thinks it's a toss up.

Now he'll tell you why he doesn't like. Well, this is I don't know how far you want to go to the shoan, but this is going to involve two definitions of possession, and some Christians are going to be very ill at ease with one of the two definitions. But I'll just define them and you can go where you want. Of course, one is called discarnate possession, and I'll define that, and the other one is demon possession. Now this is interesting. I can only guess what's in

this man's mind, this doctor, the medical doctor. But uh, Stevenson makes the comment, of those two options, discarnate and demon, I don't prefer the demon one, and I'm thinking, wow, let me think through this. You already believe in the supernatural, I think, yeah, I you know, I believe in reincarnation. Okay, so you're already open to the supernatural, and you think there is a supernatural slash spiritual realm. Yeah, you don't like demon possession though, No, he could say, well, that's

a Christian view. Well, that's it's not true. You can find demon possession in many world religions, I mean major ones. But he could say yeah, and I'm just guessing her Sean, I don't know, but he could say, demon possession implies a satan, and whether or not you believe in a satan, there's probably a hell or a bad place to go.

And that's the my religion doesn't believe that. I think he's rejecting it for a damnation slash judgment slash you know, okay, and Christianity again is not the only one that believes that. But he does say that's not my favorite. Now here's the one that's going to cause some trouble. I think, okay, just discard it. Possession d I s c A r n A TE discarnate possession. Discarnate possession is the possession

of one individual by a second, previously deceased individual. But they're both human beings and person a after death can enter. Now again, what's what's the what you know, what definition you're going to use. But if you believe in reincarnation, you want him to enter another body between conception and birth. If you like the what we might call more of a Western Christian Jewish discardate view. Not too many people talk about this, but it would be after that person's birth.

So it sounds a little bit like demon possession, but it's possession by another individual. And you tell me whether you want to go any further. But here's the only thing I want to say about it. We'd say, no, God doesn't let one a deceased spirit into the body of another one. And I'd say, how do you know that? And they'd say, well, Hebrews chapter nine says it's a you know, it's a point that that man wants to die. And after the judgment, Well, I think that's kind of

an odd verse. It might be your best shot. But which judgment do you mean? And if it's the judgment at the end of time, golly, there's a lot of time between fifty one a d And today. What's been going on all those years? And you say, well, I don't know. Maybe I can't give you a good verse. I just don't think God would allow that. Okay, then here's my comeback. Would Satan allow that? With Satan? When Paul calls the God of this world, who has a lot of power, who could do miracles, who can deceive

the very elect. Could he let the spirit of a person who is his person that he controls? Could he mess Christians or others up by having the spirit of a dead person enter a living person. All I'm saying is, I don't say it's got to be true. But there's a number of cult experts all bricked in others, there's a number of cult experts who believe you can't rule

it out. Biblically, there's no problem. So there's two kinds human dead human spirit into a live human spirit or a demon, and I think it's good to have two options. Here's my personal view. I don't think we can rule out this carrent possession, at least as the possible province of Satan himself over with regard to one of his minions. He lets all kinds of strange things happen, even blaspheming God. This isn't even that bad. So what's wrong with that? Well,

I don't know. I just don't like it. Well, maybe you don't, But how do you dismiss it?

up and is likely true. You're convinced that at least something supernatural is taken here. And I say that because sometimes as Christians, when we see hear miracles in other religions like Islam and in say Mormonism, we can either explain and say no, it's false, miracle didn't happen, or explain away by supernatural forces arguably demonic. But in this case, in this line of reasoning, and you argue, there's enough here to make you think at least something supernatural is taken.

Is that fair insofar as it goes most likely.

It minim fits both. Well, if that's the case for murder trout when it comes to reincarnation, you're saying, even if this is supernatural, we're in come to your other critiques of it to show that you're not convinced. But even if it is, there's another suspect or two, namely that wear size two tennis shoes that can also explain the data. So it's not as forceful for reincarnation as somebody you would think it is. Does that sum up how you look at it?

really playing with that thesis. I also would raise questions like natural hypotheses. Why can't we raise natural hypotheses like this one? Well, these are cultures that almost always these occurr in cultures where either reincarnation in general is allowed or believe in, or they're Indian or maybe Buddhist cultures, but especially Indian cultures. If the parent wants your child, their child to be a star witness, why can't the parent do some research, pass it on to the child,

get it into his mind. So he says, no, my name's Peter. No, come on, we named you Sam. Now the kid might spill the beans if he said, yeah, but you told me to tell everybody my name's Peter. The parents or somebody else could do research. See, there's a lot of these families where they affirm this, they can't give me exactly. In Christian circles, apologists aren't going to buy this. Is what I'm going to say. Here

is a great evidence. But we pray for healing, and we see a healing in church, and we see a case maybe where this healing wasn't totally what we prayed for, but it prayed in a few it was fulfilled in a few areas, so we would and they were good areas. So we'll put those in the back burner. But it's not a one to one relationship. Maybe the parents do a little bit of research and teach the child why that's trickery. No, it's them believing in their own religion,

and we do that as Christians. We do that as Christian parents. I just think there's alternative reasons. So I wouldn't say it has to be supernatural, but I would say for many people, both views are going to involve supernatural.

this comes up in studies of near death experiences. Now, you were on I don't know three five months ago talking about how you've studied near death experiences since the seventies, really about five decades, and as you well know, the moment I talk about this, one of the biggest objections that comes up is people talk about, well, it points towards reincarnation. In fact, some studies suggests that NDEs tend to increase belief in reincarnation. What's your response to that concern.

Indie data. So the kind of data, you'd have to say. Here's the easy comment. Anybody who reads any of my stuff on indies. The distinction I make, probably more than any other one, is I only accept with very few exceptions. There are a couple exceptions, but they don't come close to reincarnation. But my argument is I only accept evidential cases that are this worldly evidence that is produced so

the person's hopefully there's dozens of cases. Now I measurably got to put that in there, as far as we know, a measurably flat heart, flat brain state, and they report something in the physical world out there, so to speak, and we've got data for it. The easiest way to say it, let's say you're lecturing, I'll make it you sea instead of me, and you pass out on the floor, and the emergency people come in and they know what time you went down because somebody looked at their watch.

There's a lot of students in the class. He went down to about twelve oh three, okay, and they get you situated at four oh five. But let's say there's a car accident five miles away, ten miles away, and you have a reason to be interested in that because maybe your family member was in a car accident, so you're drawn to that, and the the accident happened at two oh three, and it got reconciled at three to three, so all the data were in the space where you

had no brain or heart research. Now, to me, it's this worldly stuff of that nature. But I don't I don't trust, I don't cite. This goes back to the beginning of my studies. I don't think there's much evidence for these kind of things. Well, first I was here and I saw the trees in the mountains. But then

I zipped up to heaven. And by the way, not that many people go down tunnels, but a fair number, not even fifty percent, but they go up there and they go I met Jesus and he hugged me, and he said, you're going to come back here someday, but not now. And then you got the guy who says, what saw the forest and the trees and went up to heaven and I saw Jesus, what are you? Well,

I'm an agnostic or I'm a Hindu or whatever. And Jesus hugged me and said, I'm going to be here in a little while or some years for now, but not now. Whoa does that mean in the east teach other religions or pluralism. Now the problem is I can see that you know this event that happened in the woods around the mountain, or the car accident, But how do you know you saw Jesus? Well, I don't know. Did he say it was Jesus? No, it was just

to be that was all a light being. That was just the holiest thing I ever saw and infused me and it was really impressive. He never told you that. No, what if he did tell you his name of Jesus, that make it true? What's your evidence for that? None? How do you know you were even in heaven? Well that's what it seemed like to me. Now see the evidence is starting to get a little weaker. And I don't make world view decisions based on quote unquote heavenly

data that people see. And they're the only witness, and they're gonna come back and be the only interpreter. So they're the only witness. They're the only interpreter. Everybody goes, that's really cool. And if you really saw the car accident five miles away, you must have met Jesus too.

I don't think that follows it all. So I don't think, I don't think indes, I don't think the worldview specific I think a Hindu could use it as evidence for the afterlife, and a Christian could use it as the evidence like intelligent design or fine tuning.

we can come back and actually confirm it. That's where it's evidentially significant, and so points towards things like life after death, the existence of the soul, but not the particulars of Christian theology or any other view of theology. That's where you would land. Fair enough, go ahead. Did you want to add something.

I think I did. I think this is the book I did the forward for I should be a little clearer on this, but I think what happened was that the Buddhists never say they saw Buddha, the Hindus never say they saw Krishna. Muslims never mentioned the my named Muhammad. And they're going to say, well, that's because muhammadah is not a god anyway. So okay, I understand. But he's and he's got twenty cases out of one hundred one fifth where they said they saw Jesus. A number of

those people are not or not Christians. So non Christians say, Jesus talk to me, and the ones who are other religions don't even say their founder talk to them. Is a general rule. So he uses that. I don't think Steve says that proves that all the other religions are on. No, Steve doesn't go there, but he says it shoots the definition that nds argue for other religions, or that it leads people to the east. I think it leads people to the east who are not not paying attention to

the evidence. Real strictly, that's fair too.

would nonetheless challenge the reincarnation notion. All right, fair enough, now, you cided earlier, and I cut you off because I was holding until we got there about how you have some additional challenges just to reincarnation in itself. And here's kind of a way you asked the question, I'll put out there and then you can run the direction you

want to. In your chapter, you say, how do we bridge the gap between an individual's detailed knowledge pertaining to a person who lived in the past and the assumption that the two people are one and the same. Really interesting point. Maybe expand on that point or just the general other critiques you have with the evidence for reincarnation.

a lot of close cases like that. You're not going to have been scanning the newspapers and reading about car accidents. But if the thing happens in between that time. The problem I have with the little boy is multifaceted. I think the best critique is this, I will take either discarnate possession or demon possession. And even Ian Stevenson himself says these are almost toss ups. I don't like. I'm

talking for Stevenson. Now, I don't like demon possession, but discarnate is a toughie, and I think it's a good rival position. So, by the way, another reincarnation is Diortega says demon possession is the best hypothesis and he believes in reincarnation. So and that's on the same page there in the book. You can look it up. And still another one Maharaj, Now this would be what you're asking for, because a lesser comeback. He's he's Indian and he used

to be an Indian guru and he was converted. In fact, his book came under a couple of titles, but the first one was an intriguing title. It's called The Death of a Guru. And that's when he became a Christian. And he says, I'll tell you what. I'll read his statement. Just books. My book's opened, Dean Stevenson, and it's right there. Maharaj says this. He says he describes his the experience as this. This is when he was a budding young guru. Quote.

My world was filled with spirits and gods and occult powers, and my obligation from childhood was to give each its due end quote. Now that's a good argument to me from a Hindu for demon possession, because they believe in demon possession too. See, it's not just a Christian thing or a Jewish thing, it's he believes that. And he said we were into the cult, and you know his other things. Here he says, my obligation for childhood was for a cult and spirits and God, small g I'm

going to give my due to all these things. So if you say, all right, these folks are largely Indians or those cultures. Yeah, and you're raised and you were immersed in the occult, or at least very much into it, unfamiliar with the spirits and demons and so on, I think that makes demon possession a much likelier thesis and that culture. Because I don't object to discarnate possession. I would say, just a little person gets I'll give you

some other ones. But here's here's the the combat I would make, and that is if Stevenson of all guys says these things are one two, I mean, I don't even know who's one and who's two. Sometimes it's sometimes it's uh. I think it's possession sometimes it might be discarnate, I mean reincarnation or discarnate. I think we don't even have to go any further. I think, if the if these are the options two kinds of possession, if the person in your audience says, now I don't do that

discarnate stuff, let me do demon. Okay, fine, you've got demon versus reincarnation. I think we've got demon and discard, aren't it versus reincredation? But now here's my question. All right, you're Hindu, yep, and you believe these things yep. And you think some kind of possession is a good thesis yep. Your main man got your main guy does. And here's another guy who thinks it's mostly demon possession is better yep. Seems to me like this is a battle for world views.

And now you know where I'm going to go. What is your data for Hindu hindu Is? And I'll match you one for one. Good arguments for Christianity? Okay, I think Christianity's got the best arguments by far. I think, for example, just give you one example. This is why critics think the Gospel of John is late at plus sixty five, and they don't complain about Buddha at plus six hundred. They're just not They're just not tough on the world religions, but they're tough on Christianity. Why even

they recognize we have really good data. So if you want to go just at one conclusion alone, one type of possession compared to prepared to rec nation, I'm going to say, if my worldviews got the best data and you have very little data that we think would be recognized empirically or otherwise, I think case dismissed. I think possession wins. And if you've got two cases of reincarnation of possession, I think we really win. Now, let me

give you some sub arguments that I think are really helpful. Here. Ian Stevenson does this, and he goes, yeah, a couple of places. He says, I think possession and I gonna watch clipping my words around here. I think possession and reincarnation are really really tight. And then you go. He goes, but I'll give you. I'll talk to you about two

cases and I go, well, please do. And he gives two cases where reincarnation does not work but possession does, and in both cases via his definition that we that we handled at the outset here. The problem is this child wasn't infested by a renegade spirit in between concession, conception and birth the person whose spirit Peter. If we went back to the Indian case, the one saint Peter, Peter died when the little boy was four and now

he's eight. Now Sam is eight. But see if Peter died when he's four, and Sam can say, well, I know where he lived and I know where his bedroom was in Da Da Da Da Da Da, it's not it's not reincarnation because the kid was alive and died before the second one started claiming this. It doesn't even even Stevenson says, here, here's a couple of things that you know, just look like that's one. Here's a couple others. What about the marks on the shoulder or similar wounds. That's kind of intriguing.

for that. But the flip side is we have additional evidence for resurrection and for christian as a whole that cannot be explained in the way reincarnation can be explained on the other side. So if we start with the reincarnation data, that alone is not going to solve it. It's going to be interpreted somewhat by somebody's worldview. So now we have to have to step back and look at the scientific, philosophical, historical evidence as a whole for

a particular worldview. And that's where you say, let's have that conversation. We have the additional evidence for Christianity that other faiths don't. Now is that a fair summary.

any religion lousy, but I'm saying, whoa wa who. Even the best quarterback needs good wide receivers, needs a great blocking line. We both know examples where it's a great quarterback but the line can't keep anybody out. Guys running the whole time, or you want a good running running back because a quarterback wants a break. But if the other team doesn't have anybody in any of those possessions, the quarterback gets beat up all the time, hurt all

the time. In other words, there's there's two teams of players. A star pitcher needs people in other positions around the field. So I think it's important if Christianity has star players and others, and they say, well, you're just being prejudiced for Christians because we don't always all right, just stop right there. If you're gonna say I can't play that game with you, that's an issue. If you've got a

good quarterback but no team, where's this conversation going. If you've got a great pitcher throws the ball well over one hundred miles an hour but has no great team and your catcher's always passing the ball. What's going on? So I think it's really important if it comes right down to it. And remember the key here is Stevenson. It's basically a draw or close to a draw, all right. When it's a draw from the top reincarnation, guys, you've gotta ask what is teams like to use those illstrations.

the biblical evidence that's sometimes given. So for example, in Matthew seventeen, verses ten through thirteen, the disciples ask Jesus the prophecy that Elijah must come before the Messiah, and Jesus identifies the Elijah as John the Baptist, and of course the other early Gospels make that connection as well. Herod also responds to the fame of Jesus by saying, this is John the Baptist. He has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at

work with him? Is this reincarnation in the biblical text?

I can tell you this. I want to know whether Jesus is saying they're similar or they're the same, which one because in logic we know similarity does not prove sameness. Two things can be similar, it doesn't. You can think of a bunch of ludicrous examples. Two quarterbacks. I've just heard of two quarterbacks this last week, comparing two of the top teams going to nationals. Their statistics are almost identical, but they're not the same guy. So what is Jesus saying.

He's saying this guy's the reincarnation of him. I don't think that's justified anywhere in scripture. I don't think you can prove the point. And that's just that's one case. If that's your best case, I don't mean yours, but that's the person's best case. I think there's got to be a closer. The grit the bridge has got to be a little more solid than yeah, this is Elijah. What do you mean? We say that all the time, but we don't mean you're literally the other pitcher on

the team that at your high school. This guy was almost as famous. This guy was as famous then as you are now. It's an analogy. It's not a one to one. Let's put this way. It comes on several prob levels. There's no to me, no background philosophical reasons or theological reasons that would make the Bible a book that teaches reincarnation. And if we have to go to two or three cases that could be similarity and not proof.

I'm not walking on that bridge if that if that thing is going over you know, a big valley, I'm not working on the bridge because if you told me no, no, no, don't go out there, I only meant they were similar and yeah, now I'm dead. So it's just not a good similarity arguments not the same as sameness. Arguments, and you'd have to tell me that James, that Jesus meant they're the same people.

that through the lens of what else Matthew and Judaism taught. Now, if we had independent, reasonably reincarnation was true, then this passage we can maybe interpret in light of it, but we don't. So that's a really good hermonucule approach. The other thing I throw in there is when they ask the disciples, you know the prophecy that Elijah must come before the Messiah. Are they saying Elijah will come back from the dead or an Elijah type figure will analogy?

And it's an analogy. Now, of course, Elijah shows up with Moses in Mark nine and I think Luke nine and the transfiguration, But that's a different point. That's being asked here, it's an analogy, not saying he'll come. So that's where reincarnation is reading so much into this passage that's obviously not there. So let me ask you this, Gary, Is there a way to make reincarnation compatible with Christianity or are they completely incompatible belief systems?

who is Jesus's cousin John the Baptist. They're distinct people. Jesus treats them distinctly, and Jesus doesn't say, oh, this is the guy that was dead where his physical figure is my seemingly cousin, but he's not really my cousin. I mean Elijah's already there, and Jesus doesn't say, See, I told you he'd come before John the Baptist. See, if we wanted to, we could say this, Wow, darn, Elijah did come before Jesus. Have you ever read Mark nine? He came on the mountain. He came before Jesus. Did

you know? Before death and resurrection? But you're right. The main problem is there's not a body of data that make reincarnation true. So to jump into a view that is so incredible and deep with all kinds of things where Peter can go to his home and go down the hallway and turn to the right, I mean John doesn't talk like that of anybody. Jesus doesn't talk like that of anybody. You think we'd find a lot of verses like that. So I'm gonna go with assimilation, not sameness.

To me, you said Hermaeneutics, and you're right. It's also a logical principle. In this case. Sameness does not prove identity. I'm sorry. Similarity does not prove identity. So is.

often called an idealistic philosopher. But for the most part, idealism is somebody who's totally or almost everybody there is an idealist in Eastern you know, in some sense philosophical idealism, and they're doing their monas. No, that's a Judeo Christian view. They believe in pluralism, they believe in oh totally. So it's a a culture behind them that is totally different.

Your question was, can reincarnation be interpreted with if I understand it right, could it be interpreted within Christianity as a part of And I'd say, yeah, their underlying philosophies are totally different. What about polytheism versus monotheism. That's a huge one. I just don't see how how reincarnation fits into a Western Biblical either Judaism or Christianity monotheistic religion.

The two views I Hinduism and Christianity about as posed as you could be as far as having totally different perspectives.

call football. Yeah, it's not going to fit our picture. If the if the big pictures aren't that the philosophical overview is going to be a huge issue to me. So I don't have any reason. I don't have any reason to affirm reincarnation. I don't think it's taught in scripture. I think there's good alternatives by Stevenson and others, And like I said, the other guy says, the other reincarnation says, demon possession is a better option better. So now you're

going to criticize me. Okay, I'm gonna go to my worldview and don't forget I'm open to discarnate possession, which Stevenson says is the better of the two views. And you think that's a real rival to reincarnation. Okay, well my thesis I've got, you know, I got two running backs and you've got one. Or I've got two big home run hitters and you've got one. I'm not saying I'm gonna win. I'm just saying odds are with me.

If this is discarnate possession, it's another person. If it's demon possession, it's the demons. Could speak a hundred languages. But on my view, I'm surprised someone's not speaking messages out you know, other languages. Don't forget when you do the when you do spiritual gifts, whatever you I mean. I'm open to anything biblically spiritual gifts, but there are

cases in scripture. For an instance, the little girl who followed Paul and and she was wanted to they cast the demon out of her, but she was prophesying and making all kinds of things when you can do supernatural things. They didn't go, whoa, you're one of us, you're doing the supernatural. They go, get out of here. That supernatural is not from us, and they cast the demon out of her. Now is it odd that our thesis demon is one of two major counter theories and they didn't

accept her what she manifested? True? Yeah? Do you have evidence? Yeah? Is it of us? No, be gone Satan? You know so. I just think that's in both this carnate and possessive cases. I'm surprised if there's not other languages.

so that that's helpful, That makes sense. What about the birthmarks and deformities that somebody seems to have that they had in their previous life as well, which seems to show some kind of continuity between the two lives.

they say, see, I've been blessed. God's whatever with me. He's very happy with me. I'm showing the same wounds as Jesus does. And my one time of year, whatever the story is, one time a year at Easter, I start, I start bleeding in the palms in my hand. First of all, I got a little bit of a side one. Everybody today medical and theological think that the nails would here, so they're bleeding, they're bleeding in the wrong place. They're not bleeding, They're not bleeding in the right place. But

give it to him. Be that as it may. Here's the comeback. So are you arguing for reincarnation here? I'm just saying people show similar marks. Oh ah, so you're Jesus. Right. No, I didn't say that. But you've got the marks of Jesus on you, the same ones Jesus had, right, Yeah, are you Jesus? Now, I'm a follower of Jesus, but you're not Jesus. No, And I thought this discussion was hilarious.

You're not Jesus, but you manifest his wounds. I guess that means that not all wounds are evidential manifestations of the person themselves. If you can have a mark, but I can think of a couple of natural theses. If parents are in on this, and I don't mean necessarily nastily in on it, but the way Christians manipulate things sometimes to make it look like their version of Christianity is more true or more than yours. Or I've got this gift or I've got you know, I'm not picking

on anybody. I believe sign gifts are here, etcetera. But how could what if the parents, you know how in that culture fathers choose brides for their daughters. Okay, what if the parent works with the other parent. Sam's parent works with Peter's all right, to bring him over to Peter's house. And the kid we've told him it's the bedroom is the one of the room on the right, last room on the right. Okay, So I got this

kid down. He passes all the tests and everything else, he goes, he goes in there, but his parents, oh, well, you got to you got to mark here. What if one of the marks is real but the other mark is kind of imagine but the parents make it look up that it's it's contrived. What if the wounds are contrived? But but I like I like the one about the the signs of the cross. The people bleeding have signs

of the Cross. Nobody says they're Jesus, they're you know, so signs don't Again, here's the phrase, uh, similarities do not produce sameness. And even if it were true, even if it were true, I think the marks on the body are one of the least of the evidences. Notice I have it down at the end I don't because I don't want to answer it. It's because I almost think it's not a really good objection. But I'm gonna put it any there anyway because they say it's good.

I just don't find it as an evidence or anything.

In some cases, yeah, the closest might be. You know, maybe I'm not telling you that I have a mark on my shoulder like you did, but I also have one of those on my left knee and one of them on the top of my I just have these kind of mark What I mean is to me, they're just natural theses all over the place. Now, if you have a really good one, like he's I don't know what a really good one would be. But here's my other question from the greater picture that we've been developing. Here,

can demons make marks on bodies and duplicate? And could a discardate personality? I don't know. I'm not as sure about the discarnate personality, but I'm sure demons can do that. Demons do miracles, right, and Jesus said they would deceive the very elect if they could, they would try to deceive the elect. Do you think they could try to put a mark on your shoulder? I just I just think if you get demon in here and Stevenson goes fifty to fifty and our Taga goes no, it's that's

just better. You've let the you let the cat out of the bag on this one, because there's no stop in it. You've got a supernatural person inside you, uh, you know, demon and again the god of this world. You know, Jesus said watch out for the miracles, book a revelation, watch out for the miracles. I just think that I think it could be about anything. That's why

I don't think the marks are very strong. I think on the Christian world view, the marks are could be duplicated a lot easier if it's a demon.

could do that. And by the way, if somebody's watched this they don't believe in demons or reincarnation, they're going to think that two of us are crazy, And that's completely fine. All we're trying to show is the evidence for reincarnation has another explanation that can account for the data, namely demon possession or oppression. So this uniquely doesn't count

as evidence for the supernatural. And for you and I who believe in demons and believe there are liars, like Jesus says in the Gospel of John chapter eight, specifically,

Satan is a liar. Well, if resurrection is as central to the Christian faith, as you and I have been arguing, and the chief sign that Jesus gave that the Son a Man would be in the belly of Jonah for three days, then there would be incentive for demons to lie about this and convince people who've had supernatural experiences to go to the direction of reincarnation rather than resurrection.

So my point is that I just think it fits now before we wrap up anything else that I didn't ask you about a critique of reincarnation that you want to bring in here, or did we cover We ended a pretty decent death.

resurrection guy. Your fourth volumes coming on any time. It's almost four thousand pages of work on the resurrection. What do you think about the hallucination theory? You got great, big chapter on it, and you handle it a bunch of other places. I'd say, hmm, Sean, that's probably the toughest naturalistic theory to deal with. I acknowledge it's kind of tough. You go, hey, on a world religious question, what do you think about reincarnation, I'd say, Sean, in

my view, not close. I don't think they're comparable arguments. I think that's something to be said. And one of the biggest problems is my baseball or football illustration, your puzzle illustration. When the whole when the whole world view is at odds with each other, and you start talking about which world view is right, we're only doing reincarnation. On reincarnation, I don't think it's anything to worry about. But if you're gonna do big picture on world views,

don't even start me. You're gonna lose before you start. I mean the source over here's to my left by a Buddhist PhD. English professor, British professor. He says, we don't he's a Buddhist. He says, we don't even know what Buddha taught. The earliest sources that I'm in favor of are six hundred to eight hundred years after Buddha died. Wow, we don't. That's not history. But if that's the source you're going to use, we say, you're not even the ballgame.

And you admitted it. You said you don't have any evidences too, Okay on that level, I don't think it's a good objection. Here's my last one that we haven't really mentioned. I've said this all my life because I'm not proud of this, But in my twenty years of doubting, I got involved in the occult more than I should have. Then I had a leading occult expert who was converted from the occult. He was not a Christian. He was a leader in a non Christian group. So I thought, oh,

here's the guy who can answer my questions. And I wasn't looking at that time for evidence for christian I wish I knew indies in those days, because that's a blowaway on almost everything. But I thought the occult might give some evidence is for and after life, not necessarily for Christianity. So I was asking everything because I wanted evidence wherever it could be found. I should never have gone there. But this guy scared me to death one

time because I kept writing letters to him. He was a European and he kept answering my objections, and one day I wrote him five more questions after I've probably written twenty to him over the years. And he was at the top of his craft. He could do things spiritistically that would make him the apex, one of the apex people in the whole world. But he wrote sent the letter back to me. I still have it, it's in my file, and it scared me to death. Here's what he said to me this time, I am not

going to answer your five questions. I'm not going to answer any more of your questions. This guy was converted. Remember, he was acting more Christianly than I was. I was a pastor Sean and at the time, and he wrote back to me and he goes, I will not answer questions, and in this sentence you are playing with fire. Oh hear me to death. And that letter is in my file to this day. Happened thirty years ago, but it's

in my file, all right. Here's my point. This kind of argument, to me, is a backdoor argument for the truth of Christianity, just like evidence is for the occult. Are backdoor arguments for the Christian worldview. If Satan could do the things that Jesus says he can, I e. Deceive the very elect if he can do it. If Satan does that, and we find out there Satan, we find out Satan exists, or we find out that occult phenomena exists, and they have compared to reincarnation the occultic stuff.

I want to talk. I'll give a testimony once a while and say stay away from it. It's a page turner. But I won't tell you what I was asking. I won't tell you what I'm doing because you're too easy to get sucked into it. Christians. I don't talk about my classes. I just say stay away from it, like that guy told me. But it is a backdoor evidence for Christianity. If there's a pile of really supernatural evidence

I don't think reincarnation fits that bill. But if there's really backdoor and you start going, whoa Spiritism, it's a little more inclusive than Christianity, be a little nicer. But that doesn't follow from this stuff. It follows that Satan is not God and he's going to be judged. But however, it does say that this world is a supernatural world. It does say there's spirits, It does say that the general Hebrew, even Muslim, that the Islamic, Jewish, Christian worldview

is generally true with demons and so on. It evidences Christianity. And that's the last thing I'd say. If this argument is even in the ballpark, and you want to make an argument for Hinduism, but you've got data. You know, this little fellow tell you whereas the person's buried in which room is his? If this is really evidence, he didn't learn it from his parents, and we can't explain it any other way. But you don't have any other ballplayers on your team or puzzle pieces that fit. I

think that favorites Christianity by a mile. But it is a backdoor evidence for Christianity, because in scripture the occult exists. That's why in Act sixteen, that's why Paul casts the spirit out of the little girl that was doing supernatural things. What she was doing was an evidence for Christianity, but not because her beliefs were her religion was true. So I think that was last thing I'd say things about

spiritism and Eastern thought. Thank you for giving us one more evidence for our position, but it doesn't it doesn't challenge us on any kind of evidence that anyway, you're legal anywhere near equal.

But this video is important because on a popular level, so many people in America, some who claim to be Christians and worldwide, embrace recarnation. So some of you're watching this and saying, hey, Ian Stevenson has passed away. He used to be the expert, there is new evidence for reincarnation. You guys have not considered tag a blow. We will take a look at it. I'll talk with Gary and maybe we'll do a response to that. So if you think there's other pieces of evidence, don't tag a dissertation,

send us quick articles or points. All take a look and if it's there and we need to revisit this, I'd be happy to come back. And before you click away and make sure you hit subscribe, we've got some other shows cut up on resurrection. Near death experience is the scientific evidence for God and some of the leading Christian scholars and beyond coming on for conversation. You won't want to miss it. If you thought about studying poljeics, we'd love to have you at Top School Theology online

or in person. Information below and Gary's you know, we have a certificate program. We offer a BIOLA. We've just completely updated that and there's this significant discount below. If you kind of want to formally study apologetics, aren't ready for a masterss with me or a PhD at Liberty, take a look at the certificate program. Gary, thanks for coming on, and when your next volume four is out,

we will do a show on that for sure. Always appreciate you coming on, and thanks for being a friend as well.

Every review helps. Thanks for listening to The Sean McDowell Show, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, where we have on campus and online programs and apologetic spiritual firmation, marriage and family Bible, and so much more. We would love to train you to more effectively live, teach, and defend the Christian faith today and we will see you when the next episode drops. This