Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 09-18-2004, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I will be looking at this verse more closely when I turn to the Gospel of John, chapter three, in the group discussion of John that I am leading. Why not join in?

Thanks for the reminder. I keep forgetting to check that discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't really understand the logic here. Is it that when you are born, you are either born from above, ie born of the spirit, or you're not and you don't get a chance to change the situation...

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, this interpretation is what is offered against the concept of getting a second chance (ie born again). It is argued as supporting the notion that Jesus preached a predestinationist (is that a real word?) theology.

Personally, it isn't that clear to me what the author means by "born of the spirit" though, as I've indicated, it seems more consistent with "from above" than "again".

spin · 09-18-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, this interpretation is what is offered against the concept of getting a second chance (ie born again). It is argued as supporting the notion that Jesus preached a predestinationist (is that a real word?) theology.

Personally, it isn't that clear to me what the author means by "born of the spirit" though, as I've indicated, it seems more consistent with "from above" than "again".

A spiritual being, a good guy, a true believer, etc., is someone who has stopped his/her association with worldly ways, has been born "over again, anew, afresh" to cite one definition from Liddell and Scott. That's how Nicodemus takes it, ie literally, "can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus explains the notion, no-one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit."

spin

Angyson · 09-30-2004, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you can't, then why do you believe someone else can?

spin

I do not even belong to a church, let alone a congregation. It takes a Chtistian with authority.

Angyson · 09-30-2004, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It would be helpful if, in the future, you provided the specific biblical passage(s) you are addressing.

The 12th post (and a couple subsequent posts) from this thread argue that the phrase "born again" is a mistranslation of "born from above".

As I explained, I do not have a Lamsa bible, and they are difficult to come by. If someone has a link, I would appreciate it over my memory.

Mathetes · 10-01-2004, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, this interpretation is what is offered against the concept of getting a second chance (ie born again). It is argued as supporting the notion that Jesus preached a predestinationist (is that a real word?) theology.

Personally, it isn't that clear to me what the author means by "born of the spirit" though, as I've indicated, it seems more consistent with "from above" than "again".

Yes, this is how I see it.

Jesus: "You have to be born ἄνωθεν"

Nicodemus: "Do you mean that I have to be born again?"

Jesus: "No, stupid. I mean that you have to be born from above - from the spirit."

Not that it is terrible clear what Jesus means anyway.

spin · 10-01-2004, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

Yes, this is how I see it.

Jesus: "You have to be born ἄνωθεν"

Nicodemus: "Do you mean that I have to be born again?"

Jesus: "No, stupid. I mean that you have to be born from above - from the spirit."

Not that it is terrible clear what Jesus means anyway.

However you package it, the outcome is either 1) forget it, you're not born of the spirit, or 2) yes, you've gotta be born again -- from the spirit.

spin

Perry5 · 10-01-2004, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angyson

George Lamsa, in a footnote to his translation of the Aramaic bible, explains away this idiomatic expression as meaning one must change one's thoughts and habits.

The evangelical movement worldwide is founded on the lie that this passage means a third form of baptism, namely : baptism by water, baptism by fire and baptism by joining their movement.

I am hoping someone with credibility comes along to expose these scoundrels for the fraudsters they really are.

(Born again,)

A christian pseudonym for reincarnation.

(Reincarnation,)

I did not believe in reincarnation the first couple of times that i was here either.

Angyson · 10-01-2004, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Malaka is a single entendre.

There are Greek words that have a double entendre which you will not find in any text. Greeks laugh at the notion that a foreigher could ever master the language cause of this.

doc58 · 10-01-2004, 07:54 AM

Bart Ehrman explains why this conversation could not have occurred as it is written.
The entire argument is based on the fact that Jesus is talking about being born from above, or spiritually born. Nicodemus misunderstands and thinks Jesus is talking about being born again. So the author's account of the conversation between Nic and Jesus is based on the Nic's misunderstanding of Jesus due to the ambiguous meaning of born from above in Greek.
The problem is this: Jesus and Nic would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek. And the words in Aramaic are not ambiguous, born from above does not mean born again.
So, according to Ehrman, this conversation is not historical as written.

Angyson · 10-01-2004, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perry5

(Born again,)

A christian pseudonym for reincarnation.

(Reincarnation,)

I did not believe in reincarnation the first couple of times that i was here either.

This is a fascinating explanation. Until i READ IT, I simply concluded that Jesus, according to Lamsa, simply said : you must change your thoughts and habits. But perhaps he was saying you must first be reincarnated.

10-01-2004, 07:54 AM	#19
doc58 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 101	Bart Ehrman on this passage Bart Ehrman explains why this conversation could not have occurred as it is written. The entire argument is based on the fact that Jesus is talking about being born from above, or spiritually born. Nicodemus misunderstands and thinks Jesus is talking about being born again. So the author's account of the conversation between Nic and Jesus is based on the Nic's misunderstanding of Jesus due to the ambiguous meaning of born from above in Greek. The problem is this: Jesus and Nic would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek. And the words in Aramaic are not ambiguous, born from above does not mean born again. So, according to Ehrman, this conversation is not historical as written.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.