Born Again

Theodoric,You need to stop comparing yourself with me. And I need to not compare myself with you.We all have to stand in the light of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.In your complaint there is the flavor of "I can do a lot of good things. Probably even better things then you Christians can do."We are not up against the standard of one another. We are all up against the standard of PERFECTION in the sinless One, the Rigthteous One - the Son of God.To this present moment, I am good only to be damned. If I have to answer to God for one sin apart from the washing of the blood of Jesus, I'll never make it. For God is PERFECT in holiness.Can anyone grasp this ? Behind the universe stands a Creator God. He is not just good. He is not just pretty good. He is not just very good.God is Perfect.Okay, from this day forward Theodoric really buckles down and tries to live the very best human life that he can. That is from this day forward.What about the sins of yesterday ? Make no mention of the failures that are likely to come in the heat of temptation from this day onward. What about the sins, transgressions, iniquities of the former days from your youth?If you live very good, even to put jaywill to shame, from today onward - what about the sins of yesterday, of last week, of last year, of your whole life up until last night.He's PERFECT Theodoric. He is perfection in righteousness and in holiness.He has not overlooked man's sins. He has instead JUDGED man's sins in the death of the Righteous One the Son of God.God wants Christ. God wants Christ to live on the earth again. but this time He wants Christ to live in those who received Him that Christ is mingled into them "organically".Take an evening just to meditate on this one thing. God is eternal perfection.On this side of the fall of Adam we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Even if you grit your humanistic teeth and live a real good life from this day onward, you STILL need an eternal redemption through the vicarious death of Jesus Christ for your sins.Now for a little quote mining to get you all convinced.Paul was really a good jew. He boasts that he really had a reputation of being learned and good according to the law and the practices of the Pharisees.Listen to Paul after he discovers his need for Jesus Christ in his life. Read this aloud and slowly: This was Paul's pedigree. These are things he could be exeedingly proud of . These are his righteous attainments. No one could blame him for his practice of the law. This was a really good guy. As a logical extension of his being a devoted practicing Pharisee, he took the initiative to try to wipe out this new Jesus cult. He persecuted the church which taught other things from the universal truths he learned as a Pharisee. Paul is saying, that compared to the excellency of knowing Christ as His indwelling life, all other things he knew are dog food, refuse, like dung. THERE IS NO COMPARISON to his zealous good religious life and blending organically with the Son of God.His past attainments he now counts as having no possibility of comparing with what he has found in living through Christ. Paul was not as Peter. Peter begged Jesus to depart from him because he was a sinful man. Paul was a really good and pious keeper of the law of Moses.But he found something higher, something better, something better to live for. He wanted now to be found by others in Christ. That is not a doctrinal Christ. That is he wants to be found living and enjoying Christ who has been dispensed "organically" into his being. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If I want a sermon I would go see a preacher. Take you sermons to someone else. All it is is mumbo-jumbo.All your evidence to support YOUR bible is YOUR bible itself. Very circular. Who decided what books got into this bible?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Few, if any, of jaywill's so-far-mentioned beliefs are supported by anything in the Bible he's been quoting.

---

Love your enemies!

Well, let's see.I probably said that to be born again was to receive Christ. Is that supported in the Bible ? To be begotten of God is to receive Christ. That is supported in the Bible I quote, or any other reasonable well translated English version of the NT.I probably also said that to receive Christ today is to receive the Holy Spirit. Is that supported in the Bible I quoted ? Sure it is.The chapter dealing so much with Christ's resurrection is First Corinthians 15. And in that chapter Paul writes: "the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) Christ, in resurrection, became a divine [zoe] life GIVING Spirit. This should be the Holy Spirit. And the act of GIVING LIFE must be being born of God, born again, born anew. "It is the Spirit who gives life ... (John 6:63)

​

" .. for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6) You are still ignorant. These major points about being born anew are supported by the bible I quoted.You see, Christ came that man might have divine life and have it abundantly - "The thief does not come exept to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly." (John 10:10) In order to fulfill His mission of supplying man with divine life and abundantly, He died a redemptive death on the cross, and in resurrection He "became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) .So to be born anew is the receive Christ in His form today as "a life giving Spirit". "Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) You have no case to say these points are not supported in the Bible. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's what is so great about the Bible. You can support any position at all by simply taking quotes out of context. When you add in the contradictions and factual errors that are in the Bible it's possible to use it to support both sides of almost anything.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Here are a few out of context quotes supporting your position:The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.
[1596 Shakespeare Merchant of Venice i. iii. 93]Is any one surprised at Mr. Jonas making such a reference to such a book for such a purpose? Does any one doubt the old saw that the Devil (being a layman) quotes Scripture for his own ends.
[1843 Dickens Martin Chuzzlewit xi.]The devil can quote Scripture, as we all know, so why not a politician?
[1997 Washington Times 25 July A4]Source: Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's QuestionsNot for your edification, as you are likely already familiar, but rather for the general audience.Just thought I'd add my two schillings worth.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

No you cannot support "any" position. You tried and have been refuted.I supported a position (immediately above your post) and you have not refuted it yet.Rather what seems "so great" to you is that you can now retreat back into a far more general complaint about alledged factual errors and alledged contradictions rather than successfully deal with the specifics of the new birth in the Gospel of John.And I am beginning to understand "out of context" to you really seems to mean in disagreement with your opinion of unbelief.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Oh come on jay, get serious.The factual errors are not alleged, they are real.The Biblical Flood never happened, the Exodus never happened, the Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah never happened, and the author of John was a revisionist who was totally changing the story of the life and mission of Jesus.It really is that simple.And the audience can decide whether or not I have supported my position.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This thread is on Born Again. John was not changing the the story of the life and mission of Jesus, simply because he decided to emphasize things that others did not.John's presentation standing somewhat alone from the other three synoptic gospels is not necessarily proof that he changed the story.That assumption on your part is skeptical wishful thinking. There is no rule demanding that the four evangelists repeat verbatim the same sayings, teachings, parables, and incidents in the life of Jesus.There is no rule that three could not share certain aspects and one could not hone in its focus on previously underdeveloped themes.A design of TWO and TWO, or THREE and ONE, or ONE, TWO, THREE, and FOUR could all be true.It so happens that there are the three synoptic presentations and John highlghting aspects which for his own reasons, he felt needed more emphasis.Exploiting this scheme to prove John invalid is not something we have to accept.

I said the author of John was a revisionist.You yourself say the same thing when you say " It so happens that there are the three synoptic presentations and John highlghting aspects which for his own reasons, he felt needed more emphasis."He was revising the story, changing the emphasis.I brought up the factual errors to show that your claim that the errors and contradictions were alleged when you said "Rather what seems "so great" to you is that you can now retreat back into a far more general complaint about alledged factual errors and alledged contradictions rather than successfully deal with the specifics of the new birth in the Gospel of John. "I have presented my case, you are free to present your best support for your position and the reading audience can make up their own minds.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Aspects of the Gospel of John can be found in the synoptics as well.If you think you have some aspects which cannot be located somewhere in the synoptics, list them. What I say is probably not what you mean at all. John's reasons were not simply a matter his pet peeves. He recognized the need to bring the degrading church to the beginning. The most foundational truths of the church life are his burden to stress.It is to live Christ Who is the divine life and God Himself. You still have God incarnated as a man in all four Gospels. Mark 2:6,7: 'But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts. Why is this man speaking this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except One, God ?" Jesus does nothing to correct any "misunderstanding" on their part that He stands in the position of God in a Man on the earth.John develops the truth more. It is not a change or a revision as you imagine it. I see your boast. But I would have to go back over the discussion to see what "errors" you think you pointed out.At any rate, Christ is profound, extensive, all-inclusive. And that there are FOUR biographies with somewhat different emphasis is understandable.You wish them to fight against each other for reasons of your own need for a rational to remain in unbelief of the Gospel. If you think that there is something in John which the essence of cannot be found in Matthew or Mark or Luke or the messages of the Apostles in the book of Acts, what is it ?That a man could be a Slave and a King demonstrates how RICH His character is. That a man could be a Human yet God Himself also indicates how rich, versatile and profound the nature of this Person is. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If Jesus was human yet God while living among us then the whole story is just a worthless farce anyway.

What do you have which is worth more than Jesus Christ ?Actually, nevermind about that. I know you have nothing which compares to Christ.But what you could do is enumerate what is found only in John which I could not find in the synoptics. Give it a try. I might have to agree.Then again you might be shown to be in error. Matthew, Mark, and Luke may also touch the proposed matter too.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Did you read what I wrote? I'll repeat it for you.If Jesus was human yet God while living among us then the whole story is just a worthless farce anyway.If the above is true then pond scum is worth more than Jesus was to humans.

Was it suppose to be more effective the second or third time around ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.