Well, what do you know. Billy T is right ---------------------------- again!!
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:02:22 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
I couldn't help but to whip out Zodhiates' "The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament" and look up the meaning of "again" as it is used in John 3:3. I have included a scan of the definition. It speaks specifically John 3:3 in two places.
Perry
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:50:13 -0400
>
>Footnotes in the New King James and NASV show born "from above" to be a >viable translatio n and my Brown/Comfort Greek interlinear English >translation actually uses "born from above" rather than "born again."
>
>JD
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Taylor <wmtaylor@plains.net>
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:27:34 -0600
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
>
>Bill in Black
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ShieldsFamily
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:47 PM
>Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
>
>Izzy is red:
>
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
>Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:44 PM
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
><SNIP>
>
>As it pertains to the question of "regeneration" and being "born again," >the church, and especially the "rivalist" (Revivalist) Yikes! thanks, no >offence intended. Perhaps this was one of those Freudian slips :>) church >in America since the early 19th c., has done much to shift the emphasis of >these terms away from their biblical root and source in Jesus Christ, to >the activities of individual believers. With this shift has developed a >whole new and biblically foreign way of speaking about matters pertaining >to salvation. Such as Perichoresis or Trinity? These actually find their >origin back in the 3rd and 4th centuries. But your point is well taken. >Much stress has been placed on the "new birth" as an immediate >life-changing religious experience. David touched upon this in his >discussion with you in regards to "the sinners prayer" and the vacancy of >that practice in the New Testament witness. I?m hoping you read my post on >that regarding the f act that I was referring to one praying a non-scripted >type of prayer to receive Jesus as
> Lord and Savior.
>
>The language of "regeneration" is a great case in point. Contemporary >Christians use this term to speak of the "conversion experience" and what >happens in that event, as if it were often used in the NT in this same >capacity; when in actual fact the term is used only twice and neither time >in reference to conversion or "born again" experiences. I believe I?ve read >you using that term, have I not? I probably have, if you are referring to >'regeneration.' But then again, I consider this to be an act of God as set >forth in Titus 3, so I'm not treating it as a "born again experience." I >don't recall talking in terms of being "born again," but I may have; I >would want to check the context. The truth is, the NT does not use the >term, as modern evangelicals do, for that which goes on in the "heart" of >new converts. It speaks only in terms of the great and vicarious >regeneration Book chapter and verse please? Titus 3.4-7 which took place in >Jesus Christ in his resurrection, as something which God alone in the Holy >Spirit through Christ did f
>or humanity, and it speaks to the last day when the twelve will sit in >judgment over Israel, and when all things shall be made new and rewards >granted to those who have forsaken all to follow Christ. Yet we are >accustomed to using this term in an entirely different way -- in a way that >I would suggest has minimal if any referential correspondence to our >conversion experience.
>
>Now let's talk about "born again" and what that means in the context in >which it was used. The same word that is translated as "again" in John 3.3 >and 3.7, is used also in John 3.31. But in 3.31 it is translated not as >"again" but as "from above": "He who comes from above is above all ..." I >believe that this is how John's word needs to be understood in verses 3 and >7, and this even though Nicodemus misinterprets Jesus' use of the word. How >could Nicodemus make this mistake? In the Greek this word can mean several >things; it can mean "from the beginning"; or "from the first"; or "from >above"; or "anew" or "again." Nicodemus understood Jesus to besaying that >he needed to be born "again"; therefore his question about returning a >second time to his mother's womb. But Jesus was not speaking of being born >a second time; he was speaking about being born "from above"; hence his >reply that it takes both a physical birth and a birth of the Spirit to be >one who is "born from above." Of course. However the term ?again? was >used and should
>not be swept aside as irrelevant, either. It was used as a translation of >John's word. The question is, is it the best translation? It is obvious >that "again" will not work to translate the same word in 3.31. Thus, in the >context of John 3, I think it best to stick with the idea of "from above" >throughout the entire passage; that is, unless you want to argue that John >would use the same word in his summary statement (verse 31), to mean >something other than it meant when he used it in th e main body of his >narrative.
>
><SNIP>
>
>And so, if we can gather anything through this exchange, we ought to >conclude that this "born again" phenomenon is not nearly so clear cut and >simple as we have been taught to believe. Jesus does not say exactly how it >is that the "all" were to be born from above. Those questions are addressed >more clearly in the epistles, those of Paul especially. Paul speaks >explicitly to the fact that it was "together with Christ" that his readers >were "quickened" out of death. We are quickened by the Holy Spirit when we >become born again. But not before then, right? That?s when our spiritual >eyes are opened, and our hearts are receptive to the things of God. Izzy, >maybe you can help me out here, but it seems to me that your eyes would >need to have been opened prior to this "born again" experience (that moment >when you put your fait h in Jesus Christ) or you never would have had the >ability to even have the desire to be receptive to the things of God. Do >you understand what I'm saying and can you help me out here?
>
><SNIP>
>
>How were they "regenerated" if they were not dead in the first place? They >were dead, Izzy, in the depravity of their fallen condition. That is >exactly what people mean when we use the term ?spiritually dead?, Bill. >Exactly what we mean. Oh, well, great, then you all agree with me :>) They >could do nothing of themselves to address the fact that they were doomed. >In that disparaging state Christ came and took upon himself their curse, >humanity's curse, ultimately defeating it at the cross and in resurrection. >When he rose again, he arose victorious over everything which had served to >destroy humanity: sin, death, the devil, flesh, even God's Law. Now on the >other side of all of that, he reigns in life et ernal, without the >possibility of falling captive ever again to the tyrants. This is >elementary information for anyone who is saved, Bill?even for us ?fundies? >as we are disparagingly called by some from your viewpoint. Do you think >we think otherwise? No, of course not, I was simply completing a thought.
>
>We too were raised in his resurrection. This is precisely where we diverge. > You believe ?we? to include everyone, whether they want to be included or >not. I believe ?we? mean those who are ?in Christ? through receiving His >sacrifice as their personal Lord and Savior. Yes, I am aware of that >distinction. Paul tells us that Christ re-gathered all things (Eph 1.10) >and that in him all things have their being or ontological There you go >using one of those ?nonbiblical? words, Bill. I had said something the >other day in reference to our ontological status in Christ, to which you >responded that you didn't understand what I was talking about. I used the >term here to give that first statement some context. Yes, we sometimes use >non-biblical terms to speak to biblical concepts. My gripe has never been >that we do this. My gripe is with the hypocrisy of those who do the same >but berate others when they do it.
>
><SNIP>
>
>(? Am I looking at the ontological me in the mirror, or at Izzy?s decaying >physical body? Do people get cosmetic surgery for ontological bodies? J ) >... (In the spirit-man, Bill. Meanwhile my body gets a day older every day, >and a day closer to the grave. But my spirit is renewed and growing every >day. That?s why I?ll be happy to trade in the old model of my body for a >new/improved version!) Yeah, I hear you there. I do hope God doesn't want >any brickin' done when I get to heaven though. And don't say he'll probably >stick me in the furnace! :>) I laid brick in Minnesota one winter, >replacing burned-out walls inside of taconite furnaces. If I stood in one >place too long, my boots would start on fire. Too hot for me!!
>
>Bill
>
>
>
Perry
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:50:13 -0400
>
>Footnotes in the New King James and NASV show born "from above" to be a >viable translatio n and my Brown/Comfort Greek interlinear English >translation actually uses "born from above" rather than "born again."
>
>JD
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Taylor <wmtaylor@plains.net>
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:27:34 -0600
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
>
>Bill in Black
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ShieldsFamily
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:47 PM
>Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
>
>Izzy is red:
>
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
>Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:44 PM
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
><SNIP>
>
>As it pertains to the question of "regeneration" and being "born again," >the church, and especially the "rivalist" (Revivalist) Yikes! thanks, no >offence intended. Perhaps this was one of those Freudian slips :>) church >in America since the early 19th c., has done much to shift the emphasis of >these terms away from their biblical root and source in Jesus Christ, to >the activities of individual believers. With this shift has developed a >whole new and biblically foreign way of speaking about matters pertaining >to salvation. Such as Perichoresis or Trinity? These actually find their >origin back in the 3rd and 4th centuries. But your point is well taken. >Much stress has been placed on the "new birth" as an immediate >life-changing religious experience. David touched upon this in his >discussion with you in regards to "the sinners prayer" and the vacancy of >that practice in the New Testament witness. I?m hoping you read my post on >that regarding the f act that I was referring to one praying a non-scripted >type of prayer to receive Jesus as
> Lord and Savior.
>
>The language of "regeneration" is a great case in point. Contemporary >Christians use this term to speak of the "conversion experience" and what >happens in that event, as if it were often used in the NT in this same >capacity; when in actual fact the term is used only twice and neither time >in reference to conversion or "born again" experiences. I believe I?ve read >you using that term, have I not? I probably have, if you are referring to >'regeneration.' But then again, I consider this to be an act of God as set >forth in Titus 3, so I'm not treating it as a "born again experience." I >don't recall talking in terms of being "born again," but I may have; I >would want to check the context. The truth is, the NT does not use the >term, as modern evangelicals do, for that which goes on in the "heart" of >new converts. It speaks only in terms of the great and vicarious >regeneration Book chapter and verse please? Titus 3.4-7 which took place in >Jesus Christ in his resurrection, as something which God alone in the Holy >Spirit through Christ did f
>or humanity, and it speaks to the last day when the twelve will sit in >judgment over Israel, and when all things shall be made new and rewards >granted to those who have forsaken all to follow Christ. Yet we are >accustomed to using this term in an entirely different way -- in a way that >I would suggest has minimal if any referential correspondence to our >conversion experience.
>
>Now let's talk about "born again" and what that means in the context in >which it was used. The same word that is translated as "again" in John 3.3 >and 3.7, is used also in John 3.31. But in 3.31 it is translated not as >"again" but as "from above": "He who comes from above is above all ..." I >believe that this is how John's word needs to be understood in verses 3 and >7, and this even though Nicodemus misinterprets Jesus' use of the word. How >could Nicodemus make this mistake? In the Greek this word can mean several >things; it can mean "from the beginning"; or "from the first"; or "from >above"; or "anew" or "again." Nicodemus understood Jesus to be
>not be swept aside as irrelevant, either. It was used as a translation of >John's word. The question is, is it the best translation? It is obvious >that "again" will not work to translate the same word in 3.31. Thus, in the >context of John 3, I think it best to stick with the idea of "from above" >throughout the entire passage; that is, unless you want to argue that John >would use the same word in his summary statement (verse 31), to mean >something other than it meant when he used it in th e main body of his >narrative.
>
><SNIP>
>
>And so, if we can gather anything through this exchange, we ought to >conclude that this "born again" phenomenon is not nearly so clear cut and >simple as we have been taught to believe. Jesus does not say exactly how it >is that the "all" were to be born from above. Those questions are addressed >more clearly in the epistles, those of Paul especially. Paul speaks >explicitly to the fact that it was "together with Christ" that his readers >were "quickened" out of death. We are quickened by the Holy Spirit when we >become born again. But not before then, right? That?s when our spiritual >eyes are opened, and our hearts are receptive to the things of God. Izzy, >maybe you can help me out here, but it seems to me that your eyes would >need to have been opened prior to this "born again" experience (that moment >when you put your fait h in Jesus Christ) or you never would have had the >ability to even have the desire to be receptive to the things of God. Do >you understand what I'm saying and can you help me out here?
>
><SNIP>
>
>How were they "regenerated" if they were not dead in the first place? They >were dead, Izzy, in the depravity of their fallen condition. That is >exactly what people mean when we use the term ?spiritually dead?, Bill. >Exactly what we mean. Oh, well, great, then you all agree with me :>) They >could do nothing of themselves to address the fact that they were doomed. >In that disparaging state Christ came and took upon himself their curse, >humanity's curse, ultimately defeating it at the cross and in resurrection. >When he rose again, he arose victorious over everything which had served to >destroy humanity: sin, death, the devil, flesh, even God's Law. Now on the >other side of all of that, he reigns in life et ernal, without the >possibility of falling captive ever again to the tyrants. This is >elementary information for anyone who is saved, Bill?even for us ?fundies? >as we are disparagingly called by some from your viewpoint. Do you think >we think otherwise? No, of course not, I was simply completing a thought.
>
>We too were raised in his resurrection. This is precisely where we diverge. > You believe ?we? to include everyone, whether they want to be included or >not. I believe ?we? mean those who are ?in Christ? through receiving His >sacrifice as their personal Lord and Savior. Yes, I am aware of that >distinction. Paul tells us that Christ re-gathered all things (Eph 1.10) >and that in him all things have their being or ontological There you go >using one of those ?nonbiblical? words, Bill. I had said something the >other day in reference to our ontological status in Christ, to which you >responded that you didn't understand what I was talking about. I used the >term here to give that first statement some context. Yes, we sometimes use >non-biblical terms to speak to biblical concepts. My gripe has never been >that we do this. My gripe is with the hypocrisy of those who do the same >but berate others when they do it.
>
><SNIP>
>
>(? Am I looking at the ontological me in the mirror, or at Izzy?s decaying >physical body? Do people get cosmetic surgery for ontological bodies? J ) >... (In the spirit-man, Bill. Meanwhile my body gets a day older every day, >and a day closer to the grave. But my spirit is renewed and growing every >day. That?s why I?ll be happy to trade in the old model of my body for a >new/improved version!) Yeah, I hear you there. I do hope God doesn't want >any brickin' done when I get to heaven though. And don't say he'll probably >stick me in the furnace! :>) I laid brick in Minnesota one winter, >replacing burned-out walls inside of taconite furnaces. If I stood in one >place too long, my boots would start on fire. Too hot for me!!
>
>Bill
>
>
>
Attached Image: anothen.jpg
