First of all, there are passages in the New Testament which clearly support reincarnation. So the omission of these passages (which fundamentalists know are in the Bible but give fantastical explanations* for) in this presentation is intellectually dishonest. Secondly, implicit in this presentation are the twin assumptions that the Bible is a unified document, and the assumption that it has not been edited, added to, subtracted from, or distorted. Both assuptions are erroneous. The Bible as it has come down to us is a compilation, and it has been edited. While some of the writings contained therein are clearly inspired and speak with spiritual authority, I do not believe that any such claim can be made for the document as a whole (or any of its versions).

Secondly, Jesus physically survived the crucifixion, which is why he showed his hands and feet to the disciples and disclaimed being a spirit (see links below under "Related Sites" for more information).

Thirdly, I consider Paul, the writer of Hebrews, to have been a commentator, whose writings by no stretch of the imagination should be given the same weight as Jesus' teachings. (Note that it is in conversation between Jesus and the direct disciples where the subject of reincarnation comes up in passing--exactly as one would expect it to if it were taken for granted, most notably in John 9:1--while it is Paul who says there is only one life.) Paul may indeed have had the revelatory experience on the road to Damascus, but that does not necessarily mean that he left behind all his previous ideas and theology (which he espoused during the time he was denouncing Jesus' teachings). In fact I believe what he taught afterwards was an amalgam, a mixture of what he understood before and what he accepted afterwards of Jesus' teachings. I have a strong suspicion that not all the early Christians agreed with him, nor felt that his work was an unmitigated blessing. (A second theory regarding Paul has also occurred to me more recently--see second page of Graham response link, below.)

Lastly, it is dangerous to draw hard and fast lines in the sand, assuming that one thing precludes another. Reincarnation itself is a kind of resurrection. The question is not whether a body can be restored, or even whether the same body can be restored (since some people look very similar physically to their previous incarnations--see Jeff Keene). The question is whether it happens only once, and the manner in which it happens. It is not necessarily an either/or question, and this is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist thinking, that it tends to be simplistic and see things in terms of rigid divisions of "yes or no," while it cannot entertain the possibility of "both/and."

See also Response to recent Billy Graham column addressing a question about reincarnation.

*Regarding the passage found in John 9:1, wherein the disciples put a question of karmic law to Jesus as to what caused a man to be born blind, his own sins or that of his parents, a well-educated Christian theologian wrote me that the disciples were referring to the then-current belief that the man could have sinned in the womb. Well, I guess this explanation rescued the theologian from having to face the obvious, that reincarnation was taken for granted by the disciples. However, this interpretation is tantamount to accusing the disciples of being metaphysical morons, because obviously they put to Jesus the two theories which they held to be most plausible. It also accuses the disciples of believing God to be a horrifically cruel tyrant, Who would punish a fetus for doing--what--touching himself?--what else could he have done in the womb?--with a lifetime of congenital blindness. I, for one, do not believe that the disciples, who had the benefit of Jesus' direct teachings and company, could have been this ignorant or could have thought so little of God.

Also see the Gospel of Thomas from the Nag Hammadi documents, passage #109:
Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a man who had a hidden treasure in his field without knowing it. And after he died, he left it to his son. The son did not know (about the treasure). He inherited the field and sold it. And the one who bought it went plowing and found the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished." (Thomas O. Lambdin translation)
Unless I miss my guess, this is a clear reference to reincarnation. The hidden treasure is the true Self or Atman, which is essentially One with God. "Without knowing it" means that the man is not conscious of this Self. Inheriting and selling the field means, reincarnating, reinheriting the body and the physical world of experience. We have three incarnations represented here for purposes of illustration, but of course the actual process takes many more lifetimes. "Plowing" means directing consciousness inward, seeking within oneself. Finding the treasure means finding the Self, becoming consciously aware of the Self within. "Lending with interest" means teaching and spiritual work after attaining Realization.