Born again?

[McCulloch]

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

Jesus said

• Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
  Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
  Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

In what sense do Christians claim to have become born anew? Do the foolish become wise? Does the person get a new personality? What?

[Cathar1950]

In your "other" words, not mine. You could tell the difference if you could discern spirit.

I question your discernment.

Spirit and the law.

What the unknown author of the Gospel of John was thinking when he or she wrote about being “Born Again” seems different than what is being claimed by modern concepts of being “Born Again”. Today we even have born again virgins.
Koester has a number of books on the development of the various gospels. According to him baptism by water was the ritual and where being born again took place where there would be no distinction between water or spirit baptism and that the inclusion of spirit as a separated category was a later development.
If you look at the Hebrew writings concerning how the spirit work and compare it to the NT you will see that the NT is a rereading or interpretation of the Hebrew writings and not some much an extension but a highly Greek imposition.

If you mean agape then you are talking about being a servant or even slavery. It is a word used for the relationship between a servant and their masters not love as in affection.
What ever would be non-ordinary joy?

You cannot always tell the difference, especially right away. The "Spirit" is not a visible force by itself. It does take some discernment sometimes. . But someone who is motivated by the spirit, and one not can become clear. Born again, etc, all hinges on the spirit. I believe that without it one can run through the motions and even be sincere about it, but if it's not spirit, it's not via God. (not by might, but by my Spirit" Zechariah). Maybe, now that I think about it, the difference is whether the love is by might or by spirit....

So discernment is developed. How do you discern the difference between spirit and the results of successful brain washing?
How do you discern love and what do you even mean by the word “love”.
It all sounds rather circular and arbitrary and can hardly be discerned from self justification and rationalizations.
Your use of Zechariah is interesting as it taken out of context to support you relusive use of such words as “Spirit”, “Love” and “Born Again”.
Read what the Lord is saying to Zerubbabel. It is not the definition of spirit nor is it talking about being “born again”.
It is addressed to Zerubbabel and has nothing to do with the fiction of “Acts” or the powers mentioned by Paul and al the gifts.

Zechariah
Chapter 4
4:1 And the angel that talked with me came again, and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep.
4:2 And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof: 4:3 And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.
4:4 So I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, saying, What are these, my lord? 4:5 Then the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
4:7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.
4:8 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 4:9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you.
4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.
4:11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? 4:12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves? 4:13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
4:14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.

So tell use how starting and finishing a temple or the two Messiahs relate to your being born again?
At least poor old Zerubbabel dream state and the prophet’s hope for him to be the kingly messiah and desire for the temple didn’t understand the messenger’s symbolisms but at least you have the messenger’s explanation which you don’t seem to understand as you spiritualize it to conform to you rather modern pop concept of being born again.

I can understand your need to have some spirit tell you what it means because you can’t seem to even read what the text is saying and there is little reason to interpret it with you bible-believing doctrines. They are not proof or evidence they are your misreading which you enjoy claiming it is someone’s lack of spirit is the reason others question your reading and interpretation. You are reading into the writings as you project your beliefs upon the material concepts not normally found in the writings.

What you call spiritual I find cultic.

How does one go through the motions and be sincere and still not have the spirit?
What do you think is the difference?
Please don’t bother telling me I can’t see spiritual thing as I understand what you are talking about, I do question that you know what you are talking about.
I can’t help but think you believe you have the spirit and will use any rationalization, apologetics or writings to justify your belief. There simply is not way of discerning the difference that isn’t a human quality as you present the doctrine.

[OnceConvinced]

I can't see how it changes a person's personality. I can see how it would change their way of thinking. They may behave differently due to their new look on life, but I don't believe it changes their personality. To change one's personality, takes time if it is possible at all.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, and hopefully can say this respectfully, but I guess when you ask this, it is one of the reasons I wonder about your past "Christian" experience. ("Unless a man be born again......). True Christianity depends on this rebirth.

Having been brought up in a Christian home and becoming born again at the age of 7 years old makes it impossible for me to tell how much conversion influenced my life. I was always living the Christian life. All I can go by is what I see through others and what I know about personality types. And I have done some study on personality types.

From my perspective now, being born again is more a "turning over a new leaf" than anything else. It's taking a fresh approach at life and adopting new values. I don't see it as any different to say a drug addict or alcoholic deciding they have had enough of the person they are and making a firm decision to change their ways.

Be careful 2bits not to judge me based on what I believe now. As a Christian I had a totally different perspective and looked at things a lot differently.

[twobitsmedia]

From my perspective now, being born again is more a "turning over a new leaf" than anything else. It's taking a fresh approach at life and adopting new values. I don't see it as any different to say a drug addict or alcoholic deciding they have had enough of the person they are and making a firm decision to change their ways.

Being born again requires a rebirth via the sprit. "Turning over a new leaf" can be done with psychological might and some positve thinking. .

Be careful 2bits not to judge me based on what I believe now.

As a Christian I had a totally different perspective and looked at things a lot differently.

Either you had a Christian experience or religious one.

[twobitsmedia]

I question your discernment.

Knock yourself out.

Spirit and the law.

What the unknown author of the Gospel of John was thinking when he or she wrote about being “Born Again” seems different than what is being claimed by modern concepts of being “Born Again”. Today we even have born again virgins.
Koester has a number of books on the development of the various gospels. According to him baptism by water was the ritual and where being born again took place where there would be no distinction between water or spirit baptism and that the inclusion of spirit as a separated category was a later development.
If you look at the Hebrew writings concerning how the spirit work and compare it to the NT you will see that the NT is a rereading or interpretation of the Hebrew writings and not some much an extension but a highly Greek imposition.

If you mean agape then you are talking about being a servant or even slavery. It is a word used for the relationship between a servant and their masters not love as in affection.
What ever would be non-ordinary joy?

Is that your question? I don't know what it has to do with discernment.

You cannot always tell the difference, especially right away. The "Spirit" is not a visible force by itself. It does take some discernment sometimes. . But someone who is motivated by the spirit, and one not can become clear. Born again, etc, all hinges on the spirit. I believe that without it one can run through the motions and even be sincere about it, but if it's not spirit, it's not via God. (not by might, but by my Spirit" Zechariah). Maybe, now that I think about it, the difference is whether the love is by might or by spirit....

So discernment is developed. How do you discern the difference between spirit and the results of successful brain washing?
How do you discern love and what do you even mean by the word “love”.
It all sounds rather circular and arbitrary and can hardly be discerned from self justification and rationalizations.

For you it is probably a great big blur. But that is your position: a blurred one.

Your use of Zechariah is interesting as it taken out of context to support you relusive use of such words as “Spirit”, “Love” and “Born Again”.
Read what the Lord is saying to Zerubbabel. It is not the definition of spirit nor is it talking about being “born again”.
It is addressed to Zerubbabel and has nothing to do with the fiction of “Acts” or the powers mentioned by Paul and al the gifts.

Zechariah
Chapter 4
4:1 And the angel that talked with me came again, and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep.
4:2 And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof: 4:3 And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.
4:4 So I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, saying, What are these, my lord? 4:5 Then the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
4:7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.
4:8 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 4:9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you.
4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.
4:11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? 4:12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves? 4:13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
4:14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.

So tell use how starting and finishing a temple or the two Messiahs relate to your being born again?

I have no idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with born again.

At least poor old Zerubbabel dream state and the prophet’s hope for him to be the kingly messiah and desire for the temple didn’t understand the messenger’s symbolisms but at least you have the messenger’s explanation which you don’t seem to understand as you spiritualize it to conform to you rather modern pop concept of being born again.

I don't know what a modern pop concept of born again is either.

I can understand your need to have some spirit tell you what it means because you can’t seem to even read what the text is saying and there is little reason to interpret it with you bible-believing doctrines.

They are not proof or evidence they are your misreading which you enjoy claiming it is someone’s lack of spirit is the reason others question your reading and interpretation. You are reading into the writings as you project your beliefs upon the material concepts not normally found in the writings.

You create a defense for something I did not assert.

What you call spiritual I find cultic.

If I used your definition of all the terms, I probably would to.

How does one go through the motions and be sincere and still not have the spirit?
What do you think is the difference?

One has spirit, the other not.

Please don’t bother telling me I can’t see spiritual thing as I understand what you are talking about,

If you do, you are not telling stuff that has nothing to do with it.

I do question that you know what you are talking about.

You just said you understood.

I can’t help but think you believe you have the spirit and will use any rationalization, apologetics or writings to justify your belief.

If I belivee I have it, then why do I need to justify anything?

There simply is not way of discerning the difference that isn’t a human quality as you present the doctrine.

?

[Cathar1950]

I question your discernment.

Knock yourself out.

Spirit and the law.

What the unknown author of the Gospel of John was thinking when he or she wrote about being “Born Again” seems different than what is being claimed by modern concepts of being “Born Again”. Today we even have born again virgins.
Koester has a number of books on the development of the various gospels. According to him baptism by water was the ritual and where being born again took place where there would be no distinction between water or spirit baptism and that the inclusion of spirit as a separated category was a later development.
If you look at the Hebrew writings concerning how the spirit work and compare it to the NT you will see that the NT is a rereading or interpretation of the Hebrew writings and not some much an extension but a highly Greek imposition.

If you mean agape then you are talking about being a servant or even slavery. It is a word used for the relationship between a servant and their masters not love as in affection.
What ever would be non-ordinary joy?

Is that your question? I don't know what it has to do with discernment.

You cannot always tell the difference, especially right away. The "Spirit" is not a visible force by itself. It does take some discernment sometimes. . But someone who is motivated by the spirit, and one not can become clear. Born again, etc, all hinges on the spirit. I believe that without it one can run through the motions and even be sincere about it, but if it's not spirit, it's not via God. (not by might, but by my Spirit" Zechariah). Maybe, now that I think about it, the difference is whether the love is by might or by spirit....

So discernment is developed. How do you discern the difference between spirit and the results of successful brain washing?
How do you discern love and what do you even mean by the word “love”.
It all sounds rather circular and arbitrary and can hardly be discerned from self justification and rationalizations.

For you it is probably a great big blur. But that is your position: a blurred one.

Your use of Zechariah is interesting as it taken out of context to support you relusive use of such words as “Spirit”, “Love” and “Born Again”.
Read what the Lord is saying to Zerubbabel. It is not the definition of spirit nor is it talking about being “born again”.
It is addressed to Zerubbabel and has nothing to do with the fiction of “Acts” or the powers mentioned by Paul and al the gifts.

Zechariah
Chapter 4
4:1 And the angel that talked with me came again, and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep.
4:2 And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof: 4:3 And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.
4:4 So I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, saying, What are these, my lord? 4:5 Then the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
4:7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.
4:8 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 4:9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you.
4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.
4:11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? 4:12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves? 4:13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
4:14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.

So tell use how starting and finishing a temple or the two Messiahs relate to your being born again?

I have no idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with born again.

At least poor old Zerubbabel dream state and the prophet’s hope for him to be the kingly messiah and desire for the temple didn’t understand the messenger’s symbolisms but at least you have the messenger’s explanation which you don’t seem to understand as you spiritualize it to conform to you rather modern pop concept of being born again.

I don't know what a modern pop concept of born again is either.

I can understand your need to have some spirit tell you what it means because you can’t seem to even read what the text is saying and there is little reason to interpret it with you bible-believing doctrines.

They are not proof or evidence they are your misreading which you enjoy claiming it is someone’s lack of spirit is the reason others question your reading and interpretation. You are reading into the writings as you project your beliefs upon the material concepts not normally found in the writings.

You create a defense for something I did not assert.

What you call spiritual I find cultic.

If I used your definition of all the terms, I probably would to.

How does one go through the motions and be sincere and still not have the spirit?
What do you think is the difference?

One has spirit, the other not.

Please don’t bother telling me I can’t see spiritual thing as I understand what you are talking about,

If you do, you are not telling stuff that has nothing to do with it.

I do question that you know what you are talking about.

You just said you understood.

I can’t help but think you believe you have the spirit and will use any rationalization, apologetics or writings to justify your belief.

If I belivee I have it, then why do I need to justify anything?

There simply is not way of discerning the difference that isn’t a human quality as you present the doctrine.

?

I have not see any evidence you know what you are talking about and you are correct, you don't assert anything.
Some Christian experiences are religious experiences but not all religious experiences are Christian. Some Christian experiences could be something akin to mental disease or other psychological phenomina. I don’t know you cold actually claim it wasn’t both psychological and social. Obviously the Christian experience varies and seems to depend on the doctrines and beliefs of those experiencing their religious experience.
I see no reason why onceconvinced’s experience was not any less Christian then yours or mine. You claim that Christianity is not a religion is not supportable as even your claim to a personal relationship is how you define your religion and doesn’t make it something different. Your ideas are illusive and esoteric.

[OnceConvinced]

From my perspective now, being born again is more a "turning over a new leaf" than anything else. It's taking a fresh approach at life and adopting new values. I don't see it as any different to say a drug addict or alcoholic deciding they have had enough of the person they are and making a firm decision to change their ways.

Being born again requires a rebirth via the sprit. "Turning over a new leaf" can be done with psychological might and some positve thinking. .

That's what I used to believe to, but it's very easy to say it requires a rebirth via the spirit, but there is no obvious difference.

Be careful 2bits not to judge me based on what I believe now.

As a Christian I had a totally different perspective and looked at things a lot differently.

Either you had a Christian experience or religious one.

It's obvious to me now that a Christian experience and a religious experience are exactly the same thing.

What we have here with both of your arguments is a view from a differing perspective to me. But in reality there is no difference. All you are using is different terminology.

[OnceConvinced]

I see no reason why onceconvinced’s experience was not any less Christian then yours or mine. You claim that Christianity is not a religion is not supportable as even your claim to a personal relationship is how you define your religion and doesn’t make it something different. Your ideas are illusive and esoteric.

Absolutely!

As for Christianity not being a religion, it as religious as any other. I'm sure 2bits practices many religious rituals in his daily life, as does every Christian.

As a Christian I had exactly the same philosophies as 2bits. He is so similar to me, to how I was, it's disturbing. But he just does not want to believe that. He can't allow himself to believe that, because then that would risk undermining his own faith.

[twobitsmedia]

From my perspective now, being born again is more a "turning over a new leaf" than anything else. It's taking a fresh approach at life and adopting new values. I don't see it as any different to say a drug addict or alcoholic deciding they have had enough of the person they are and making a firm decision to change their ways.

Being born again requires a rebirth via the sprit. "Turning over a new leaf" can be done with psychological might and some positve thinking. .

That's what I used to believe to, but it's very easy to say it requires a rebirth via the spirit, but there is no obvious difference.

It's easy to say anything. But the difference is spirit vs none.

Be careful 2bits not to judge me based on what I believe now.

As a Christian I had a totally different perspective and looked at things a lot differently.

Either you had a Christian experience or religious one.

It's obvious to me now that a Christian experience and a religious experience are exactly the same thing.

That's where I have a problem with understanding whatever you experienced. There is a difference. One is via spirit (Holy Spirit) and one is not.

What we have here with both of your arguments is a view from a differing perspective to me. But in reality there is no difference. All you are using is different terminology.

Same language (I think). The Holy Spirit does the rebirth, though.

[twobitsmedia]

I have not see any evidence you know what you are talking about and you are correct, you don't assert anything.

And there will be no evidence for you because you don't know what evidence there should be. And if you missed the assertions, you need to re-read.

Some Christian experiences are religious experiences but not all religious experiences are Christian.

I don't know what this means. It sounds cliche.

I see no reason why onceconvinced’s experience was not any less Christian then yours or mine.

"experience" or "born again"?

You claim that Christianity is not a religion is not supportable as even your claim to a personal relationship is how you define your religion and doesn’t make it something different.

I have not made any such claim about Christianity. I have told you that I am not religous. "Christianity" is an ambiguous term in modern vernacular.

Your ideas are illusive and esoteric.

And to you they will remain blurred.. I presume. It is your safe-place to not believe in anything and everything at the same time.

[Cathar1950]

I have to say Twobits you get more elusive as you write.
It seems you are not capable of going beyond your rather cultic or group use of your personal terms to communicate beyond saying “it is the spirit”, “born again” and you concept of a “personal relationship” that hardly sounds like you know what a personal relationship with another human might actually be.
You seem to have taken a ritual such as baptism and tuned it into some quasi-spiritual experience which is religious in nature, at least anyway we would be talking about religion is a meaningful manner between humans.
I can’t help but feel you say less each time you post.

A previous poster has explained that being born again is much like turning over a new leaf or starting over. You turn it into a religious experience and then claim it isn’t.
You are largely objectifying metaphor and analogy with little or no explanation or ability to express anything beyond your esoteric use of word or phrase.

I have not see any evidence you know what you are talking about and you are correct, you don't assert anything.

And there will be no evidence for you because you don't know what evidence there should be. And if you missed the assertions, you need to re-read.

I don’t need to re-read. There is no evidence because you have not presented any. I didn’t miss your assertions, I question them. What makes you think I don’t know what the evidence should be? This is another assertion on your part that is an unsupported assertion that has neither validity nor coherence.

Some Christian experiences are religious experiences but not all religious experiences are Christian.

I don't know what this means. It sounds cliche.

I really waned to say that all Christian spiritual experiences such as being born again, a personal relationship or being saved are religious experiences but I realized some could be faking. But not all religious experiences are Christian.
It doesn’t surprise me you don’t understand and I doubt you understand what you write.

I see no reason why onceconvinced’s experience was not any less Christian then yours or mine.

"experience" or "born again"?

Do you know the difference or similarities?
Maybe it is just some pretty words the group taught you to use.

You claim that Christianity is not a religion is not supportable as even your claim to a personal relationship is how you define your religion and doesn’t make it something different.

I have not made any such claim about Christianity. I have told you that I am not religous. "Christianity" is an ambiguous term in modern vernacular.

I think you could have fooled everyone and maybe you’re not religious.
I don’t see where anything you have written is not ambiguous. You just keep claiming otherwise and have not desire or ability to explain. Maybe you should go beyond your ancient vernacular that fails to speak to us moderns.

Your ideas are illusive and esoteric.

And to you they will remain blurred.. I presume. It is your safe-place to not believe in anything and everything at the same time.

That hardly describes me Twobits but it does describe your methods of debate.
I am having trouble distinguishing you from some blowhard. You are doing the blurring; I am trying to point that out to you.