Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

If Christ states "No man hath ascended into Heaven," that's good enough for me.

Christ did not ascend into Heaven to receive truth, He descended from Heaven with truth, and according to John, to declare God to Man.

And if you deny that men went into Sheol/Hades, what exactly do you do with Luke 16?

And if you don't mind, comments such as...

...have nothing to do with the topic and are unbefitting one sitting in a position of leadership such as you are. If we do not see mature interaction on the part of the Moderation, why would we expect anything different from the membership?

While there is controversy surrounding the issue of whether "Who is in Heaven" should be included, seeing it is not found in all available manuscripts, that does not detract from the fact we can, in red letters even, know that Christ has said "John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."

There is no way we can construe that to mean anything but what it states. If no man hath ascended to Heaven according to Christ, then no man hath ascended to Heaven.

Christ said it, that settles it.


God bless.

 

And Nicodemus is rebuked for viewing "Ye must be born again" as a reference to the physical. Hence the reply:


John 3

King James Version (KJV)

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


Nicodemus "marveled," and was told not to. And we ask, why would someone who is presented in a public setting as a great teacher, or someone knowledgeable about spiritual truth...be so undiscerning?

Now, I agree that the first birth can be said to refer to man's physical condition, and that this is of course general knowledge. However, the birth in view is one which cannot be witnessed, again pointing to Nicodemus' error in applying a physicality to what Christ has just stated.

Hence, as in the example of "Speaking to the Chair," we recognize the multiple meanings of words, and can reasonably conclude that this is what happened here. How Christ defines this birth further leads us, I believe, to conclude that in view is simply "Ye must be born of God." The equivalent phrase is "Ye must be born from above," or, Ye must be born of the Spirit," all of which correlate to Christ's teaching, whereas being born physically has nothing to do with it, for all men are born, and there is no Old Testament parallel that even hints to a concept of entering the mother's womb a second time and being born again.

Again, Christ expects Nicodemus to know what He is referring to, and again, what should have come to mind, in a context that involves a Teacher of Israel presumed to understand the First Principles of the Oracles of God...would have been the restoration of Israel which was expected when God did in fact send the Messiah.

The Valley of dry bones pictures that which is dead coming to life again, and any physical quality that Nicodemus would have ascribed to Christ's statement would have still had it's root in something performed by God.


God bless.

 

So John is recounting himself speaking to the people?

Then we would have to conclude that John also said this:


John 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Seeing that the issue in view was about men going to Heaven, this...

...implied that you believed that men went into Heaven, rather than Sheol/Hades.

This was your response to my statement...

So perhaps you can understand why I would assume you deny that men went into Sheol/Hades.

While I would agree a connotation of Purgatory is not found in Sheol/Hades, and agree with everything you say here (with the exception of equating Sheol as translated, meaning, there is a difference contextually about it's use, where we distinguish between a literal grave and the place of the dead), the focal issue was whether men went to Heaven when they died or not.

In Luke 16, Both Lazarus and the rich man die, and we do not see Lazarus with God, nor the rich man's brother exhorted to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but, we see Lazarus with another dead Old Testament Saint, and the brothers having a provision of the Law and the Prophets.

Clearly distinctive to the Age of Law.

They did not go to Heaven.

I am not going to even entertain this argument. It is simply ridiculous.

John is not the One speaking. I am amazed you would even offer this argument.

The problem with that is that there is a difference between Moses going up the mountain and the serpent being raised.

Moses going up the mountain did nothing to alleviate the condition of the state of man, as did the serpent and the Cross.

Secondly, Christ does not correlate Moses going up the Mountain to the Cross, nor does He correlate His ascension to the Cross.

This too is a poor argument.

And we find that in the passage...

...where exactly?

There is not even a reference to it.

Moses brought down judgment, not salvation.

Christ removed this judgment...


Colossians 2:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;


...by being lifted up as the serpent lifted up brought healing.

Your correlation is not in the passage, so I would suggest you rethink your reasoning.


God bless.

 

I am focusing on your suggestion that Nicodemus verifies a translation of "again" based on his response.

His response altogether misses the mark of what Christ states. Nothing in his response is correct or applies to what Christ is teaching, which is basically a man must be born of God to see and enter the Kingdom.

Now, let's look at the/an underlying issue, which is, does this passage teach us that being born again was something that did or could take place at the very moment of this teaching?

That is the argument offered by many, and they base this on a view that "The Lord expected Nicodemus to know what He meant, thus it must have been possible."


God bless.

 

This...


Matthew 24:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)


...is an editorial comment.

John 3 is not. Could you produce one Theologian that agrees with you, and states that this is John speaking within the text?


God bless.

 

It is also, as you posted, translated several other ways, with varying meaning. It is not just a matter of it meaning or being the grave. Hell is not a grave where a physical body resides, it is the abode of departed spirits, such as we see in Luke 16.


God bless.

 

And both of us know that Moses going up the mountain and Moses lifting up the Serpent are two entirely different events, only one of which found in the passage in view, which is not the one you draw on.

You impose a meaning of correlation to Moses going up the Mountain to obtain truth, when this is not in the text.

If more people followed this rule Hebrews would be understood by more people.

Still, there is no relevance to what I have said, and ignores the fact that I have already pointed out a very simple fact: the argument aforementioned is weak because of course this Teacher of Israel should have understood the context and meaning of Christ's statement.

Long story short, what Nicodemus was expected to know would be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, not the revelation provided to the Church in the New Testament.

We understand the concept of "again" based on later revelation, Nicodemus would have been limited to what was revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Now, if you can present one thing I have said that violates this rule, please, point it out.

And that is the very reason for the posts, lol.

The context defines the meaning, and again, it is my view that Nicodemus grasped a meaning and imposed it into Christ's statement, and was then rebuked for making such an idiotic response.

So tell me, exactly how many times is anōthen translated "again? in the New Testament"


God bless.

 

Again, this is hardly a strong argument, because there is no agreement that "Who is in Heaven" should be in there at all, as it is not found in all manuscripts, and is an insertion into later manuscripts, which would actually cater to your argument, but, does not make your case.

Nor does it nullify what we do not dispute the Lord said.

Perhaps you should write this fellow and remind him that the Lord states "No man has," lol, effectively nullifying the need for the grammatical confusion.

If it never happened, it is moot whether it is a completed action or not.

John recounts the Lord statements at the time, and introducing it as commentary of John is, as I said, utterly ridiculous. We know it is recounted at a later date, but, that does not change the fact that all statements refer to statements by Christ, not John.

If it always refers to Christ being human then you have just cancelled out your argument.

And I would ask you, do you really take a view that Christ was not in Heaven from a perspective of His Deity?

Do the disciples actually see the Father?


John 14

King James Version (KJV)


8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.


Are you saying that you do not believe that the Son was in the Father and the Father in the Son? Do you really separate GOd in this manner?

And about out of time, so hope you will return a speedy response.


God bless.

 

Nice dodge but you are ignoring that Moses going up the mountain is not in the text, which makes your view something imposed into the text.

That is true. I will never understand anyone ascribing validity to Nicodemus' response.

There is no "He was partly right" perspective to glean from the Lord's response, which is one that reflects amazement at someone who should have been at the top of their game giving such an absurd response.

""A...The...Teacher of Israel?

"And you do not know these things?"


God bless.