Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Again, you are the denier. Reposting the information for Israel and doing so incorrectly only establishes the fact that you are blind.
Go to your link. Search for the term "Kingdom of God". You will see "No matches found".
And your reposting of the verse, highlights the fact that rebirth is the center of discussion since it talks about seed
What "seed" (sperma) would that be?
Amen!
Yes, that's also Jacob's name. Please see #3434.
The word Israel has always meant Prince of God. As far as assuming Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born of the Spirit to enter Israel is what makes no sense.
Precisely my point.
Source?
Missed the point. It was not that John made a mistake in retelling what Jesus told Nicodemus, just that even if Jesus spoke to him in Hebrew or Aramaic, it was written in Greek.
Verse 3 and 5 show that there is nothing to indicate that a man must be born the second time. It simply says unless or except.
What would be the difference in saying a man MUST be born again/from above to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and unless or except he is born again/from above to enter? Either way a spiritual rebirth takes place in order for entrance into the kingdom.
That argument falls through simply by the fact that even as early as AD 250 Church officials thought John's Gospel was written by two authors (Dinoysius of Alexandria, a bishop), and modern scholarship clearly shows that john's Gospel is heavily interpolated and edited by someone else, and is full of non-sequential interpolations.
Some church officials but certainly not enough that the book was omitted from the recognized canon. No Christian denomination today either rejects the Gospel of John from their Bible. Modern scholarship does NOT clearly show anything of the kind. More like personal opinion, and biased at that. Besides, why would anyone be permitted to add to the revealed words? To be interpolated would mean someone added to the text at a later date and there is no evidence - convincing evidence - that any new doctrines or changed teaching entered into the text later. There are many earlier manuscripts of the book to compare with later ones. Where is the proof the book was modified in any substantial way?
Supposing there were such documents purporting to have been written by a member or members of the Sanhedrin, and/or Pilate himself, you wouldn't question or doubt the provenance and authenticity of such documents??
Cordially,
Stein asks Dawkins where he thinks life started, he answered that maybe aliens came and "seeded" the planet. I watched it about a year or so ago so I don't recall his exact words. It was a good film, you should watch it.
I agree, in fact God said, "Come and let us reason together..". So the God of creation is not an enemy to reason nor to knowledge or intellect. And he has NOT left us to accept things "blindly" at all. He told the Jewish people during the Old Testament times that he would tell them things through his prophets before those things happened so that when they happened exactly like he said they would, they could then trust him. He said that the idols they worshiped were unable to do such things. Through some of these prophets he performed miracles that not only the children of Israel saw but even the enemies of God observed - and were terrified. He has left us the written revelations that told of historical events as well as future times - some we are experiencing in part only now. All these things prove that God did not expect us to blindly believe. Faith is still what he expects of us but it is not a blind faith at all.
I am not prideful. I claim no knowledge from "above' or "vertically" or via some special divine tractor beam. I am asking those who do and they tell me I am prideful for asking! Your own Bible says that those who believe have the "mind of Christ". Why is it pride if I ask why?
I don't know your heart, but I read your arguments over the years and do not see a person who has budged an inch towards the truth of God. It is NOT prideful to ask, of course not, but to ask and then respond with derision and childish sounding arguing every time someone dares try to give you answers sure can be interpreted as pride. You demand proof but then never define what kind of proof counts to you. I can prove I went to Bible college, but would you just take my word for it? I think the kind of pride God despises is the kind that refuses to trust in him and accept what he has seen fit to reveal about himself. It is a kind of stubbornness that stomps its feet at God hardening their hearts unless he responds to them on their terms or not at all. I am absolutely sure that if anyone surrenders in humility before God he will lift them up and give them every reason to be as sure of him as others have been. I have no doubts today at all about God. I may not understand all that he permits in my life and the world but I trust him completely. I know him in a personal way that is not even possible to adequately relay. It just must be experienced individually. I pray for you often and hope one day you will be able to say, "I know as I am known."
You can't use translational error as athe reason because it was written supposedly under "inspiration", boatbums, and therefore free from any error, incluidng translational errors. And yet, we know some OT verses are misquoted in the NT. How's that possible?
The problem with John 3 is that you have Jesus saying one thing (one has to be born [not re-born!] from above or from heaven) and Nicodemus talking about man crawling back into his mother's womb! It doesn't follow. To which Jesus responds "except one must be born [not re-born!] of the water and the spirit...flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit" clearly saying that those born [not re-born!] of the spirit are not flesh! This is not what Jews believed or taught nor is it anything that is in the Torah. No observant Jew would say such a thing.
There are many earlier manuscripts of the book to compare with later ones. Where is the proof the book was modified in any substantial way?
I provided you with a very serious and respectable link.
“Where is the proof the book was modified in any substantial way?”
Don’t hold your breath. Every guy with a web site is a “Scholar” and as long as he is critical of the Scriptures he’s to be taken at face value.
Sure I would. We have several verisons of Jospehus. Forgeries are rampant, which is another reason why all historical documents must be taken with a grain of salt. Which is permitted, it seems, except when it comes to the Bible.
Nevertheless, documents that could be corroborated and coming from converted Sanhedrin and Pilate would greatly enhance the Christian story.
Good points!
Was Dawkins joking? If he wasn't he seems unsure. That's a far cry form being dogmatic about something. I will look it up to see his expressions and mannerisms.
So far, all you have complained about are what PEOPLE have done. No mention of what God has done and what people were unable to mess up. What will you do with Jesus? Who do you say he is? A lot more will fall into place once you resolve these two questions.
And who are you? We don't even know what you believe in, except that Jesus is not your God. The specific link I gave boatbums on john's Gospel is of a well known, published, nationally reptuted University Bible scholar at the University of Chircago, with over 30 years of academic experience in Bibe study.
Amen. Thank you.
If you don't understand what is being said of course it doesn't make sense.
As long as he's critical of the Scriptures....He surely must be taken at face value, right?
Interesting discussion about the meaning of "word" logos found in the Strongs concordance:
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
Note: A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe.
It is sad to note that so many people fall prey to liberal thought in the realm of religious studies. How many universities today have conservative Christians heading up their theology programs? How many college students come home from their first year totally disillusioned and doubting everything they were ever taught about their Christian faith? Don't get me wrong, I think we should all be challenged on what we believe and why we believe it but certainly we should know that there IS truth to be known out there. Nobody should just blindly follow a faith. We are told to study God's word and to meditate on it night and day. I just wish people were more picky on who they allow to season their belief systems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.