Gerry Palo wrote that there is nothing in Christianity that excludes
the theory of a succession of lives.

I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as
choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of
anything that either child had done, since they had not been born
yet.

Clearly, Paul does not believe that they had had previous lives, nor
does he suppose that his readers will believe it. For if they had
had previous lives, it would not make sense to say, "Neither of them
has done anything good or bad as yet, since they are not yet born."

Daniel Cossack writes to ask whether it is fair for God to hate
Easau when Esau has done nothing bad?

I reply that in Hebrew it is standard usage to speak of hating when
what is meant is simply putting in second place. As an example,
consider the saying in Matthew 6:24

 + No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one
 + and love the other, or....

Now, it is obviously false that a man with two masters must hate one
of them. But it is obviously true that he must put one of them in
second place. A dog that always comes when either Billy or Bobby
calls will have a problem if they stand in different places and call
simultaneously. It cannot give first priority to both. One must take
second place. In our original example, second place means that
Jacob, not Esau, is chosen to bear the covenant blessing and
obligation, and to be the ancestor of Christ.

     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

Eugene Bigelow mentions Matthew 11:14 which says of John the
Baptist:

 + And if ye will receive it, this is ELijah, who was to come.

I take this to mean that John was an Elijah-like figure, dressing
and living like Elijah, preaching like Elijah, and fulfilling the
prediction that Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah.  I do
not think that he was Elijah in a literal sense, and, appareently,
neither did he (John 1:21).