The Bible and an Ancient Earth

I have said nothing hypocritical,
for example. I work with people in need, for example.

Then you are a good man - like Nicodemus of John chapter 3. In the eyes of other men you are a good man.

I respect that. John the gospel writer wanted people like you to know that Jesus said -"you must be born again".

John wants people - good people, like you to know that Christ did teach that way.

Don't grumble. He was being faithful to let you know. The Master said to a very good man Nicodemus - "you must be born again".

Why not be thankful that John was FAITHFUL to record this and pass it on to us.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think the people who talk about "blind faith" are people who have no experience with the Holy Spirit and are themselves blinded by their unbelief.

Here's the rub, Jaywill: I firmly believe in the presence of what is commonly called the Holy Spirit,
and She tells me that you are wrong. She tells me that you, in fact, have 'blind' faith and that
the Spirit has yet to open your eyes.

Ironically, you feel the same way about me. And, since we have no way of definitively polling her,
we have only the material things to discuss: the texts at hand, our experiences, the way in which
we introduce agape into the world, and so forth.

You see, you call me 'unbeliever,' and you do so because I do not adopt the specific theological
hermeneutic that you have. I do it because the Spirit within me tells me that you are wrong, and
tells me this within my conscience, within my heart, and within my mind.

Your fear-based intimidation -- of hell, of Satan, of Pharisees -- do not compel me, as well they
shouldn't. No true Christian would try to compel a person to a point of view with fear, but with love.
And, yes, you'll justify the fear-instilling by saying it's motivated by love, but it is still predicated on
fear, and this is the shame.

But I think you have a common enemy - Jesus.

I have not spent a lifetime of detailed study of the man because He is my enemy. I, however, am
opened, unchallenged by, and unfearful of the idea that the Gospel writers may have reported things
inaccurately, or even put things that they genuinely thought was Jesus-like into Jesus' mouth, that,
as people influenced by their Jewish literary heritage, that they interpreted Jesus' life and teachings
through the vessel of their own theological mindsets -- Saint Matthew through Isaiah, Saint Luke
through Elijah, for example. I have liberated the Bible from idolatry; you have relegated it to the
status of the Golden Calf. And, in so doing, I am opened to new revelation -- revelation through
my brothers and sisters, theist and atheist alike.

You've put me in a box of 'unbelievers' and 'enemy of Christ' and in so doing have blinded yourself
to any way in which the Spirit might communicate to you through me, and this is how you, and not
me, are like the Pharisees. You presume that you are right, and cloister yourself amongst the so-
called elect, and you point at the tax collector beating his breast and thank God you have 'the Truth'
and are not like him.

That is the real tragedy.

But if you attack my faith and I defend it - if you count that as parading faith around as a banner, so be it.

You have confused my expression of faith -- that Saint John's Gospel is a fantastical, beautiful,
elegant presentation based loosely on the life of a very spiritual man or that I don't believe that
certain passages in Saint Mark's Gospel accurately reflect what Jesus said -- as an attack on your
faith. Don't you find that sad?

Your term "Disciples of Disciples" carries with it the assumption that the Master and Teacher - Jesus is gone. Well, we do not believe that the Master of the disciples is dead and gone.

I had no such term. I said the 'disciples of the Disciples.' This means, that after Jesus' departure,
the best witnesses we had were the ones closes to Jesus. And so, I tend to trust the earlier theological
notions rather than, say 19th-century notions (like 'Born Again' which is a mistranslation I've
addressed numerous times in this forum). And so, when I see people adopting a 19th-century
mindset in contrast with an early 2nd-century one, I say, 'These people have misunderstood Jesus.'
When people say, 'The Bible MUST be inerrant,' when the Disciples said no such thing, I say, 'These
people have misunderstood Jesus.' When people say, 'Look at that unbeliever, that sinner, that
enemy of Jesus; he shall burn in hell,' when New Testament's main theme is unconditional compassion,
I say, 'These people have misunderstood Jesus.'

And so, to you I say, 'You have misunderstood Jesus' through your idolatry, your security-blanket
clutching, your fear-based desire to be comforted by personifications of virtue. Such a thing makes
me sad, but I've come to understand that I'm wasting my time by trying to compel you to open your
eyes and be unafraid.

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
Is it possible to be a good humanitarian and not feel it necessary to call the Evangelists liars?

I did not call them liars. When you study 1st-century Jewish literary styles, you will come to understand
that mythologizing was a Spirit-driven effort. You are tragically viewing these texts through eyes
2000 years older than the authors. Until you understand this, you will never understand Christian
Scripture.

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
John the gospel writer wanted people like you to know that Jesus said -[b]"you must be born again".[/b]

He did not say that. The author of the Gospel took great literary pains to get you to understand
that it is not 'born again,' but born from above. This is why you and I cannot communicate.
You insist that your lousy translation must be right. I look to the Greek and translation aids to
abet my Scripture study.

John wants people - good people, like you to know that Christ did teach that way.

The author wanted people to understand his interpretation of Jesus' message. Unlike you, I
don't care that it was or wasn't Jesus' actual message, because I think the Gospel's message is in
no small part well-inspired. Even rwingett, a staunch atheist, has found passages (like the woman
caught in adultery) to be worthy of study. Would that all of the so-called 'Christians' adopt such a
mindset atheists like him and theists like myself would be able to hold hands with them.

Nemesio

He did not say that.

That's your word against the Apostle John's. I think the Apostle John is the one I should trust. Meaning no disrespect.


The author of the Gospel took great literary pains to get you to understand that it is not 'born again,' but born from above.


Nemesio,

Whether it is "born from above" OR "born again" it ... is..... a .... BIRTH. And those thus BIRTHED necessarily have already been BORN once.

Whatever you wish to call it, it occurs to those who have been physically already born. So it has to be a second birth and therefore, as the text says - born again or born anew.

Therefore it of necessity a second birth - born again.

It is Christ the Person BORN into your innermost being. I have experienced this.


This is why you and I cannot communicate.

Possibly so. But the subject of regeneration is all over the New Testament. It is clear that it is Christ the Person born into a man or woman. I have experienced this second birth, which is a birth from above, which is also being born again.

Paul wrote to those who had the experience of having Jesus Christ the resurrected and living Person born into their spirit. He told the Corinthians:

"Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you noty realize this about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved" (2 Cor. 13:5)

The Apostle wants to Corinthian disciples to test their experience and realize that Jesus Christ is in them. When HE came into them, at that time, they were born from above - a second birth.

The Apostle also tells the Galatians that he labored like a woman in travail so that Christ would be formed in them:

"My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ be formed in you ..." (Gal. 4:19)

They received Christ in the new birth. Now the embryonic Christ must be formed and take shape within them. Paul labored for this. That is having been born again, the Galatians would mature in this new life.

We must open up ourselves and receive the living Lord Jesus into our being. Then the deadened human spirit undergoes a new birth. The human spirit is divine ZOE life because of the touch of the Righteous One Christ.

"The spirit [human spirit] is LIFE because of righteuosness" (Romans 8:10)

We need JUSTIFICATION by faith. When we are justified then we are born of God and the comatose human spirit becomes life because of righteousness.

There is a whole dimension of human life missing without our spirit being born of God. We are like three dimensional creatures living in a two dimensional world. To complete the human experience we need that birth. We need our spirit to be life because of righteousness.

1.) Jesus Christ is ALIVE.

2.) Jesus Christ is in a form in which He can enter into your being.

3.) When You allow Him to enter into your being you undergo regeneration a new birth. That is RE - generation. The RE is the "again" in being "born again".

It is most definetly also a being born from above. I agree. For God is the source. He is "above". He wants to be "within". So since the fall of Adam we all need to be born from above through the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Here is a good website on REGENERATION - www.regenerated.net.

Christ - the righteous resurrected Lord and Savior must be BORN within you.

I look to the Greek and translation aids to
abet my Scripture study.


Are you fluent in reading and writing Koina Greek language?

I have lexicons, word studies, and tools to look up these things also.

I am not fluent in Greek. I have had tutoring in Greek. But I am not a fluent reader and writer in the original language of the NT.



The author wanted people to understand his interpretation of Jesus' message. Unlike you, I don't care that it was or wasn't Jesus' actual message, because I think the Gospel's message is in
no small part well-inspired.

I thought it was booo John and hooray for Mark with you.

I thought you found Mark to be a kinder and gentlier gospel of Jesus.

The Lord said "Truly, truly ...". He really wants you and I to be clear. It is Truly and Truly. But you are still suspicious !!

"Truly, truly, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3)

Truly truly ... it is true. Even to apprehend, even to understand the kingdom of God you must be born again.

Then latter He says to not marvel at this. You disregard the "truly, truly" and also want to marvel just the same.

He said do not marvel at this. "Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew." (John 3:7)


You seem to be out of step with the whole chapter. Do not marvel. Say AMEN to the word from Jesus - it is truly, truly.

Originally posted by jaywill
I thought it was [b]booo John and hooray for Mark with you.[/b]

You should really study english before you try to tackle Greek. I never
said 'boooo' to Saint John and 'horray' to Saint Mark. I said that it is
compelling to believe that the biographical details reported in Saint
Mark's Gospel over those reported in Saint John's Gospel. Saint John's
Gospel is rife with powerful allegory.

The Lord said [b]"Truly, truly ...". He really wants you and I to be clear. It is Truly and Truly. But you are still suspicious !![/b]

Saint John's Gospel reports that Jesus said 'Truly, truly....' Do you
understand the difference?

Even to apprehend, even to understand the kingdom of God you must be born again.

Look up apprehend. Next try to understand what 'Born from above'
means as distinct from being merely 'Born again.' It is obvious
that my pointing this out repeatedly is not going to help you.

I thought you found Mark to be a kinder and gentlier gospel of Jesus.

Quote my words where I said this. The fact that you cannot read what
I precisely wrote should raise some flags about your own NT study.

He said do not marvel at this. [b]"Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew." (John 3:7)[/b]

You are insisting on a misreading of the text. How can we possibly
have a discussion when you are knowingly and repeatedly mistranslating
it?


Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
That's your word against the Apostle John's. I think the Apostle John is the one I should trust. Meaning no disrespect.

No. It's your incorrect translation's 'word' against a proper reading
based on a careful study of the author's text.

Nemesio

You should really study english before you try to tackle Greek. I never

You should learn some basic theology and know that every saved person is a saint.

Your calling John Saint John and Mark Saint Mark shows just how religious you are underneath all this supposed more astute interpretation.


I said that it is compelling to believe that the biographical details reported in Saint Mark's Gospel over those reported in Saint John's Gospel. Saint John's Gospel is rife with powerful allegory.

Powerful allegories which you are powerfully dead set against or powerfully twist.


Saint John's Gospel reports that Jesus said 'Truly, truly....' Do you
understand the difference?

I understand that behind your facade of more careful textural analysis lurks your desire to call the Apostles liars.


Look up apprehend. Next try to understand what 'Born from above'
means as distinct from being merely 'Born again.' It is obvious
that my pointing this out repeatedly is not going to help you.

The NIV Greek - English Intenear does have from above in the English in verse three. Granted some MSS have above there.

The RcV based on the Nestle Greek text has born anew there. But in the margin below it says "Or, born from above".

So I am willing to do some more research. However, from Nicodemus's complaint that a man CANNOT go into his mom's womb and be born a second time - it is EVIDENT from the conversation, that what was HEARD by Nicodemus he interpreted as being born over again.

There is no argument about this. That is what Nicodemus understood. And that is what some of the MSS have written, albiet "from above" is in some MSS.

So you still have no case that born from above is different from being spiritually born all over again.

"How CAN A MAN BE BORN WHEN HE IS OLD?"

You may insist that Jesus didn't say born again. But Nicodemus would have said "That's sure what I heard him say, one way or another."

Now you have a preference to the MSS that have above there in verse 3 and verse 7. But the 1901 American Standard Bible has born anew in verse 3. And it is a good translation which has a reputation of being "wooden". In other words the translators sacrifice good sounding English to derive the most accurate rendering of the Greek.

So I don't think born again is the result of some conspiracy of Evangelicals.

And also your logic does not convince me that being born from above is NOT actually being born again.

Originally posted by jaywill
You should learn some basic theology and know that every saved person is a [b]saint.[/b]

Yes, but tradition holds that some titles are appropriate for some
people. I like and am comforted by tradition. It gives a sense of elegance
and respect due to the supposed authors of the texts that I think they
deserve.

Powerful allegories which you are powerfully dead set against or powerfully twist.

Um. What? Where can you find a single instance where I am dead
set against an allegory in Saint John's Gospel? I've been posting here
for 4 years, largely on theological topics. Find one.

I understand that behind your facade of more careful textural analysis lurks your desire to call the Apostles liars.

Now you're paranoid. You think in black and white, idolatrous terms. You
are failing to adopt the perspective of a 1st-century reader and are thus
doomed to flawed and perverse interpretations of these texts.

"How CAN A MAN BE BORN WHEN HE IS OLD?"

The whole point is that Nicodemus misunderstood. That's what makes
the pun remarkable. You'll notice that after he mistunderstands, Jesus
takes great pains to clarify this error.

Do you understand that being 'born from above' means something
specifically more than simply being 'born again?'

So I don't think born again is the result of some conspiracy of Evangelicals.

Hey, bud: Check your paranoia at the door. If you want to make an
argument, fine. But stop with your intentional misrepresentation of
my position. I'm sure that Jesus wouldn't want you doing that.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]You should learn some basic theology and know that every saved person is a [b]saint.[/b]

Yes, but tradition holds that some titles are appropriate for some
people. I like and am comforted by tradition. It gives a sense of elegance
and respect due to the supposed authors of the texts that I think they
deser on of
my position. I'm sure that Jesus wouldn't want you doing that.

Nemesio[/b]

+++++++++++++++++++
Um. What? Where can you find a single instance where I am dead
set against an allegory in Saint John's Gospel? I've been posting here
for 4 years, largely on theological topics. Find one.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One of your main ways of opposing is to assert that Jesus never said something. That is your method of opposition, to deny that it was said by Jesus.

In this thread, I believe, you argued that you didn't think Jesus spoke any of the words in John chapters 14 through 17.

So you are dead set against the allegories He uses there.
You also were against the parable in Mark 12:1-12.

At the end of that parable Mark says:

"And they sought to seize Him, ... for they perceived that it was with them in view that He spoke the parable."

Your modern day negative reaction is not that much different. It is just as much an adverse reaction, but cloaked in liturary criticism which you hope will impress people.


+++++++++++++++
Now you're paranoid.
+++++++++++++++++++

No, I'm not paranoid.
I recognize "the spirit of antichrist" when I encounter it.

++++++++++++++++++++++
You think in black and white, idolatrous terms. You are failing to adopt the perspective of a 1st-century reader and are thus doomed to flawed and perverse interpretations of these texts.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't think you could even get past the first verse of the Gospel of Mark without objection:

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"

Twist that one away for us - "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"


++++++++++++++++++++++++
me:
"How CAN A MAN BE BORN WHEN HE IS OLD?"

you:

The whole point is that Nicodemus misunderstood. That's what makes
the pun remarkable. You'll notice that after he mistunderstands, Jesus takes great pains to clarify this error.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where does Jesus DENY that He is speaking of being "born" a second time?

Clarify yes, deny a second birth - emphatically no. That is you reading into the account your unbelief in regeneration. The one taking great pains to twist the passage is you.


++++++++++++++++++
Do you understand that being 'born from above' means something
specifically more than simply being 'born again?'
++++++++++++++++++++++

First discribe what being born again is and then I'll decide how much you understand about regeneration.

And secondly you can tell us whether you personally have been born from above or not.

And if so when, if you remember.

What was it like to be born from above?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey, bud: Check your paranoia at the door. If you want to make an
argument, fine. But stop with your intentional misrepresentation of
my position. I'm sure that Jesus wouldn't want you doing that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Who is the liar if not he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22,23)

Originally posted by jaywill
One of your main ways of opposing is to assert that Jesus never said something. That is your method of opposition, to deny that it was said by Jesus.

You have this problem where I write one thing and you hear another. You see, you equate my
believing Jesus didn't say something with my opposition to it. Simply because Jesus didn't say it
doesn't matter to me, if it is of itself inspired.

Answering yes or no, do you understand this?

Your modern day negative reaction is not that much different. It is just as much an adverse reaction, but cloaked in liturary criticism which you hope will impress people.

Actually, it's totally different because, unlike you, I am liberated from the requirement of believing
in literality which leads to contradiction (consider: who was at Jesus' tomb on the 'third' day?). Simply
because I don't believe Jesus said it has no impact on whether or not I find a passage 'inspired.'

Answering yes or no, do you understand this?

No, I'm not paranoid.
I recognize [b]"the spirit of antichrist" when I encounter it.[/b]

Otherwise known as paranoia. Theological difference equals heresy equals antiChrist equals the
bizarre out-of-proportion reactions that you have offered in the past three or four posts.

I don't think you could even get past the first verse of the Gospel of Mark without objection

I think Saint Mark believed this. So what? I believe that Saint Mark understood 'Son of God'
differently than Saint John did. So what? I believe that Jesus understood this title differently than
Saint Mark did. So what? I think you understand it differently than KellyJay or Ivanhoe. So what?

Why are you so excited about this? For you, it's either YES or NO, and not how. It's in the
'so whats' that it matters.

Where does Jesus [b]DENY that He is speaking of being "born" a second time?

Clarify yes, deny a second birth - emphatically no. That is you reading into the account your unbelief in regeneration. The one taking great pains to twist the passage is you.[/b]

It is in clarifying that He emphasizes why 'born again' is an insufficient and immature understanding
of what He is talking about. The tie-in comes later in the chapter, with verses 31 ff.. Why would
you perpetuate the immature understanding Nicodemus had when Jesus clearly clarified and elaborated
for your theological benefit?

First discribe what being born again is and then I'll decide how much you understand about regeneration.

And secondly you can tell us whether you personally have been born from above or not.

If you are asking if I have been baptized, then yes, I have, when I was a baby. If you are asking if
I have undergone a spiritual transformation, an enlightenment, an engaging with the 'Holy Spirit,' a
dialogue with the 'Divine Consciousness,' a relationship with the 'Ground of All Being,' then the answer
is: Yes, I'm on a path undergoing, enlightening, engaging, dialoging, and relating. I do not consider
it a 'destination' as much as a journey, and I believe Revelation comes from all sources. If
you are asking whether I have 'been saved' or some such vapid question, then the answer is: No clue.

And if so when, if you remember.

What was it like to be born from above?

I don't believe that there is a discrete moment that can be identified, but a series of moments after
which I was a different person than I was before.

"Who is the liar if not he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22,23)[/b]

What do you think the author of this text means when he writes 'denies that Jesus is the Christ?'
Before you answer, read what he wrote in chapters 3 and 4.

Nemesio

+++++++++++++++++++++
You have this problem where I write one thing and you hear another. You see, you equate my believing Jesus didn't say something with my opposition to it. Simply because Jesus didn't say it doesn't matter to me, if it is of itself inspired.

Answering yes or no, do you understand this?
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes. You are using the word "inspired" but you have something different in mind from what most orthodox Christians mean.

I think you mean a text is inspiring the way one might find a piece of music inspiring or a poem inspiring.

ie. " I found this chapter of John's gospel very inspiring. So it is inspired. "

Same theological word but a slightly different definition some how. I think possibly the word you may mean is illuminating. You don't believe it is true that Jesus spoke something but you find it illuminating anyway. It is however not the "God breathed" word of God.

But its late and I would have to review the typical usage of these words by scholars whom I trust. You can bet I won't run to the "Jesus Seminar" to get help.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, it's totally different because, unlike you, I am liberated from the requirement of believing in literality which leads to contradiction (consider: who was at Jesus' tomb on the 'third' day?). Simply
because I don't believe Jesus said it has no impact on whether or not I find a passage 'inspired.'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That's interesting. I find your approach much more restrictive rather than liberating.

So you believe in some amount of days Jesus physically and spiritually resurrected from the dead and that today He lives?

You can answer Yes or No now.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think Saint Mark believed this. So what? I believe that Saint Mark understood 'Son of God'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++


You patronizingly believed that Mark believed this.
Generous but useless as a teaching of the Gospel.

So Mark believed it. But you don't believe it?
Then, plan and simple, you don't believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Wouldn't it be more honest for you to just come right out and say that you don't believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Why are you trying to "cash in" on something you obviously have contempt for?


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe that Jesus understood this title differently than
Saint Mark did. So what? I think you understand it differently than KellyJay or Ivanhoe. So what?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So approach one is to deny that Jesus said this or that in the Gospels.

And approach two is that if He did say it He really meant something else which conforms to your modernistic philosophy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why are you so excited about this? For you, it's either YES or NO, and not how. It's in the 'so whats' that it matters.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Excited? It's like eating cold left to me.

I was raised in modernistic Prebyterianism of the "higher criticism" sort. Then I came to realize that many people talking abut Jesus had little or no experience of the Jesus they were talking about.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is in clarifying that He emphasizes why 'born again' is an insufficient and immature understanding of what He is talking about. The tie-in comes later in the chapter, with verses 31 ff.. Why would
you perpetuate the immature understanding Nicodemus had when Jesus clearly clarified and elaborated for your theological benefit?
++++++++++++++++++

Had Nicodemus been born once? Yes or No?

If He had a need to be born from above now that he had been born once, is that being born a second time?

Yes or No?

The first birth is one of flesh. The second birth or the birth from above is of the human spirit. That is why Jesus said:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6)

First a man or woman is physically born "of the flesh". Some time afterward if they want to enter into the kingdom of God they must be born from above. And that birth is not of the flesh but of the human spirit- "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit"

So this birth of the Spirit of God in the human spirit HAS to be a second birth.

The second birth takes place when the Holy Spirit unites with the deadened and comatose human spirit of the fallen Adamic man. She or he is then "joined to the Lord". The two spirits - the Holy Spirit which is God Himself, and the human spirit become "one spirit".

"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)[/b]

The JOINING of the Holy Spirit with the human spirit resurrects the human spirit and unites it with God the eternal Spirit. Born of the Spirit is the result. And this is a spiritual birth which takes place after the flesh has been born.

When one is joined to the Lord to be "one spirit" with the Lord then it comes to pass that the Lord Jesus is with the person's regenerated spirit. So Paul's last written word in the New Testament -

"The Lord be with your spirit" (2 Tim 4:23)

Because the Spirit is joined to the believer's spirit to become "one spirit" the Lord is now with their spirit. And the Spirit bears witness internally that the believer is a child of God:

"The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are the children of God" (Romans 8:16)

So to be born from above is to be born a SECOND TIME AFTER ONE HAS BEEN PHYSICALLY BORN.

In this second birth the comatose human spirit is resurrected by it being touched and even joined to the Holy Spirit. Actually, the resurrection to glory of the believer starts with the REGENERATION of his deadened human spirit. The new birth is really a resurrection of part of the person's being.

Since the new birth is, for all intents and purposes, a resurrection from the dead of the human spirit, Paul says that the unbelievers were dead in offenses and sins:

"And you, though dead in your offenses and sins, ... even when you were dead in offenses, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (See Ephesians 2:1-5)


The unbeliever is dead in sins and offenses. Since the body and the soul are quit active and alive, the death that Paul speaks of must be the death of the innermost human spirit. Therefore the human spirit needs to be born again. It needs to be born from above. And it needs to be joined to the Lord as one spirit.

If the sinner is in need of being made alive with Christ then of necessity he has already been born physically once. How could he be a sinner if he had not been born? Having been born once he now needs to be born again.

Jesus did speak further on what He meant to NIcodemus. But He did not deny that being born from above was being being born again. What he CLARIFIED, was that this second birth was SPIRITUAL not PHYSYCAL -

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit"

His clarification was to emphazive that He did not mean that a man should crawl into his mother's womb and be physically reborn. Rather He clarlified that He meant the second birth was a birth of the deadened human spirit.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
If you are asking if I have been baptized, then yes, I have, when I was a baby.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not talking about that. Had I meant that then I would have asked that.

You should consider that just maybe you have never been born from above and born again. And you certainly can if you ask the Lord Jesus to cause you to undergo such a second birth.

But if don't believe that Jesus is resurrected and alive it is hard for you to ask Jesus, isn't it? To you He is not real. So why ask anything of someone who is not?

This is why the RESURRECTION of Jesus is to closely tied up with REGENERATION. As Peter writes:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" ( 1 Pet. 1:3)


Our regeneration, our being born again, is intrinsically related to Jesus Christ having been resurrected from the dead. His resurrection is really the catalyst for your regeneration.

So I would encourage you to drop immediatly any notion that Jesus is dead. You cannot be regenerated confessing that you believe that Jesus is dead.

His resurrection and being alive is the power of His ability to cause you to be born again. Once again Paul unites the faith that Jesus rose with your confession and salvation:

"That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9)

++++++++++++++++++++
If you are asking if I have undergone a spiritual transformation, an enlightenment, an engaging with the 'Holy Spirit,' a dialogue with the 'Divine Consciousness,' a relationship with the 'Ground of All Being,' then the answer is: Yes, I'm on a path undergoing, enlightening, engaging, dialoging, and relating. I do not consider
it a 'destination' as much as a journey, and I believe Revelation comes from all sources. If you are asking whether I have 'been saved' or some such vapid question, then the answer is: No clue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead?

Or do you just believe that Paul believed that, and derive some sort of "inspiration"....

Originally posted by jaywill
In this thread I would discuss with other readers of the Bible why some of us believe in an earth which is older than 6,000 years.

I don't know about the posts of others but my reasons will be primarily theological. I have nothing to mention about dating methods. My approach here is why some of us Bible students have theological reasons for believing t ...[text shortened]... (older than 6,000 years). I have nothing to say about science dating methods in this thread.

This thread started with one idea and then got lost. To get back to it, I too am wrestling with the age of the earth dilemma. I've always been on the side of a really old earth (4.5 billion yrs or so), and still tend to that belief. I am also a Christian. I'm currently listening to a series of lectures on The Earth as Center of the Universe and while I find plenty to question in the views expressed by the speaker, his point about the population of the earth did give me pause. Tje claim seems to be that, if the earth were billions of years old, the population would surely be far more than the 6-7 billion we currently have. Now, I'm not a sociologist, anthropologist, or any other -ologist; maybe that is a bogus argument. But I found it interesting nonetheless.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
This thread started with one idea and then got lost. To get back to it, I too am wrestling with the age of the earth dilemma. I've always been on the side of a really old earth (4.5 billion yrs or so), and still tend to that belief. I am also a Christian. I'm currently listening to a series of lectures on The Earth as Center of the Universe and while I ...[text shortened]... any other -ologist; maybe that is a bogus argument. But I found it interesting nonetheless.

How fast can rats multiply? If they kept it up for 2000 years (at least everyone must agree that the earth is that old) then why aren't we overrun by rats?

Have a quick look the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth.
Now if we look at the population of the earth over the last 200 years and project backwards using your reasoning we would conclude that the earth could not possibly be more than 500 years old.

In the past there were no medicines and many other aids to survival such as the ability to grow / find enough food, good sanitation etc. Also war was common place. So population would fluctuate based on the limits imposed by those factors.
1. When a population exceeds its food supply the result is competition for food (war), hunger resulting in death due to malnutrition / disease etc.
2. A large population is more susceptible to disease.

In fact you will find that all large societies in the past only managed to get so large because they had solved some of the basic problems including food sources and sanitation.