Are we born Spiritually "alive" or "dead"?

[here now]

What does it mean to be born again? How can you be born again if you never had life to begin with?

Hi Amy
Everyone is born of the flesh (first birth) but to be born of the spirit(second birth) is to be born again.

 

[Jedi Knight]

We are all born with a soul "spirit" but need to be born again "holy Spirit" to be connected and no longer be alienated from the life of God.

 

[Amy.G]

No one has been able to show me from scripture how a spirit can be born again without ever being born the 1st time. And Jesus was not talking about physical birth.

No one has been able to show me from scripture how Jesus can redeem something that never belonged to Him.


And with that, I will bow out of the discussion.

 

[Iconoclast]

John 3:3-4 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?


Even though Nicodemus didn't understand the spiritual application of what Jesus said, he did understand that Jesus was talking about a SECOND birth.


Born again is the correct term and the Holy Spirit knew what He was talking about when the biblical authors wrote it down.

Read and learn......or remain in ignorance

Note: Other words are rendered "again" in the AV, which the RV corrects, namely, deuteros and anothen. Deuteros signifies "a second time," John 9:24; Acts 11:9. Anothen signifies "from above, or anew." See the RV of John 3:3,7, and the AV and RV of John 3:31. Nicodemus was not puzzled about birth from Heaven; what perplexed him was that a person must be born a second time. This the context makes clear. This is really the meaning in Gal. 4:9, where it is associated with palin, "over again." The idea is "anew," for, though the bondage would be the same in essence and effect, it would be new in not being in bondage to idols but to the new Law. See also Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; John 19:23, "from the top." Anothen may mean "from the first," in Luke 1:3; Acts 26:5. For the meaning "from above," see Jas. 1:17; 3:15,17.

[QUOTEIn favor of the rendering from above, it is urged that it corresponds to John's habitual method of describing the work of spiritual regeneration as a birth from God (i. 13; 1 John iii. 9; iv. 7; v. 1, 4, 8); and further, that it is Paul, and not John, who describes it as a new birth.

In favor of the other rendering, again, it may be said:

1. that from above does not describe the fact but the nature of the new birth, which in the logical order would be stated after the fact, but which is first announced if we render from above. If we translate anew or again, the logical order is preserved, the nature of the birth being described in ver. 5.

2. That Nicodemus clearly understood the word as meaning again, since, in ver. 4, he translated it into a second time.

3. That it seems strange that Nicodemus should have been startled by the idea of a birth from heaven.

Canon Westcott calls attention to the traditional form of the saying in which the word ajnagennasqai, which can only mean reborn, is used as its equivalent. Again, however, does not give the exact force of the word, which is rather as Rev., anew, or afresh. Render, therefore, as Rev., except a man be born anew. The phrase occurs only in John's Gospel.

][/QUOTE]

Our LibraryCommentariesRobertson's Word Pictures of the New TestamentJohnJohn 3:3
John 3:3
Share this Except a man be born anew (ean mh ti gennhqh anwqen). Another condition of the third class, undetermined but with prospect of determination. First aorist passive subjunctive of gennaw. Anwqen. Originally "from above" ( Mark 15:38 ), then "from heaven" ( John 3:31 ), then "from the first" ( Luke 1:3 ), and then "again" (palin anwqen, Galatians 4:9 ). Which is the meaning here? The puzzle of Nicodemus shows (deuteron, verse 3:4 ) that he took it as "again," a second birth from the womb. The Vulgate translates it by renatus fuerit denuo. But the misapprehension of Nicodemus does not prove the meaning of Jesus. In the other passages in John ( 3:31 ; Jo 19:11 Jo 19:23 ) the meaning is "from above" (desuper) and usually so in the Synoptics. It is a second birth, to be sure, regeneration, but a birth from above by the Spirit. He cannot see the kingdom of God (ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou). To participate in it as in Luke 9:27 . For this use of idein (second aorist active infinitive of oraw) see John 8:51 ; Revelation 18:7 .

 

[Amy.G]

Read and learn......or remain in ignorance

:laugh:

..............

 

[percho]

Does the word of God describe the Word made flesh Jesus the Christ as being born more than once?

 

[Luke2427]

Read and learn......or remain in ignorance


[QUOTEIn favor of the rendering from above, it is urged that it corresponds to John's habitual method of describing the work of spiritual regeneration as a birth from God (i. 13; 1 John iii. 9; iv. 7; v. 1, 4, 8); and further, that it is Paul, and not John, who describes it as a new birth.

In favor of the other rendering, again, it may be said:

1. that from above does not describe the fact but the nature of the new birth, which in the logical order would be stated after the fact, but which is first announced if we render from above. If we translate anew or again, the logical order is preserved, the nature of the birth being described in ver. 5.

2. That Nicodemus clearly understood the word as meaning again, since, in ver. 4, he translated it into a second time.

3. That it seems strange that Nicodemus should have been startled by the idea of a birth from heaven.

Canon Westcott calls attention to the traditional form of the saying in which the word ajnagennasqai, which can only mean reborn, is used as its equivalent. Again, however, does not give the exact force of the word, which is rather as Rev., anew, or afresh. Render, therefore, as Rev., except a man be born anew. The phrase occurs only in John's Gospel.

]

[/QUOTE]

This settles it guys.

 

[Luke2427]

On this matter, I'm neither in Augustine's nor Pelagius'. I'm in that camp, but first and foremost I strive to be in God's camp.

Then you are in Augustine's camp. Cause that's the same one he was in!:thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

I see, so the Holy Spirit inspired "minneurav" (Or naur {naw-oor'}; and (feminine) nturah {neh- oo-raw'}; properly, passive participle from na'ar as denominative; (only in plural collectively or emphatic form) youth, the state (juvenility) or the persons (young people) -- childhood, youth.) which is a derivation of "naar" (boy, lad) instead of "haiyeled" (baby) by mistake.

It can be both. If it CAN be baby then it must be baby because the Bible teaches that we are born sinners all over.

That's simple enough for a child to understand. And by child I mean baby.

 

[webdog]

It can be both. If it CAN be baby then it must be baby because the Bible teaches that we are born sinners all over.

That's simple enough for a child to understand. And by child I mean baby.

...and all of the scholars and interpreters over hundreds of years got that one wrong too I guess, not to mention no usage of that phrase as "baby" anywhere. It "must" be what the context and the intent of the author intended it to be. Changing it in order to fit your preconceived notion is eisegesis. More redefining of terms to fit a theology...

...and if you think a baby can understand that, you truly hold to the science fiction view and are not cognizant of what a baby can understand.

 

[Jedi Knight]

And Jesus was not talking about physical birth.

Jesus was comparing being born spiritually to the phisical birth"flesh gives birth to flesh". Thats why Nick @ Nite was asking "how can a man enter his mothers womb when he is old?".