Javaman

The problem with that is the "strict definition" used is a mistranslation. I think there was a fairly recent discussion on this but all I can find quickly is an older one from the missed Doctor X. Posts 26 and 28 are the relevant ones.

Chili

Nice try but I don't think so. :rolling:

The very reason that modern Christians worship the historic Junior is evidence that they themselves are not "junior" (= son-of-man = born of God) but are the pharisees that have been "born from below."

The final difference between these two kinds of rebirth is elaborated on in Rev. 13, where the first beast was born from above and the second beast from below. The first beast came from the [celestial] sea and the second from the [old] earth. First one is celestial and second one is carnal, etc.

Javaman

So you are saying the correct translation is "born again"? I don't follow. If you think "born from above" in John 3:3 is incorrect, please elaborate.

Chili

"Born from above" is correct but so is "born again" with the only difference that one can be born again from above or from below (but not both).

He therefore goes on with "flesh beget flesh" and "spirit begets spirit" and begotten of water and spirit with water being the celestial see which is the home of "above" (and hence the second beast came from the sea).

Let me take you to Jn.1:13 where the distinction is made very clear: "these are those who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it [b]but[]/b] by God," with the former being from below and the "by God" being from above.

Javaman

I'm really not trying to play stupid here. What then does being "born again" entail? And I still don't know how you get "again" in the first place yet. Perhaps just beyond my ken.

Chili

Now you sound like Nicodemus!

If you are not familar with it it is beyond your ken but I will try to explain it anyway.

To understand this you must accept that we have two natures (ego and self) and two minds. One is our subconscious and the other is our conscious mind and as rational beings do we use our conscious mind for the most part. In our subconscious mind we are non-rational but incarnate (or eternal) and is where we have a soul from where our intuition emerges.

Our original self identity is contained in our soul (subconscious mind if you don't think you have a soul) and to be born again is to have our knowledge of this heavily subdued self identity reborn in our conscious mind (mystical experiences will prove this to be true).

To be born again can happen for two reason and one of these is self awakening based on mental trickery and the other is through the natural flow of events in real life.

So "again" entails that the same identity that was left behind when our faculty of reason gained dominance in our life is born again in our conscious mind. So yes, "again" is the right word because there is really only one of you with your ego being the illusion in life.

Edited to add that your ego was never born but was conjectured in your conscious mind for the purpose of gaining a self worth.

Javaman

While I appreciate your explanation, I should have made it clearer that I was looking for an opposing linguistic explanation.

0

Mod hat: Let's keep this topic focused on the OP and not each other, shall we? Civil, respectful discussion is advised.
Carry on.
Tangie

Javaman

If that was directed at me/chili, the argument is that Catholics are not christians because they are not "born again" but I understand that is a mistranslation. I don't fully understand chili's point but I also don't see any uncivility. I see this interaction as neither off topic nor disrespectful. Am I missing something?

Chili

No you're not and I wondered about the same thing.

What I would like to know is what you see as a mistranslation?