i am merely saying that if he will not recognize the logical conclusions in regard to life and dying then I will not discuss this with him any longer.
Logical conclusions require the same starting point or same foundation or else they are not logical at all. Your starting point is not his starting point and so what you demand is logical he denies is logical. One must accept your starting point in order for your conclusion to be logical. So threatening to stop discussing with him because he does not accept your logical conclusions is demanding that he first accept your starting point? Thus you are demanding he accept your position or you will not continue speaking to him! Again, how stupid is that?
Are you willing to argue that one does not have to be alive spiritually in order to die spiritually?
Again, you are presuming your starting point in this question. Original sin acknowleges previous spiritual life of the HUMAN NATURE as created in Adam and then lost in the fall and every one DERIVED from Adam are DERIVED from that spiritually dead human nature. Hence, to be "renewed" in the image of God is to have restored what was lost "in Adam." Hence, original sin is based upon the unity of humanity as ONE HUMAN NATURE existing in one person - Adam - and other humans being DERIVED from that same human nature by natural generation.
the only reason he dealt with two verses is because nicodemus thought that when the Lord spoke of being born again he falsely assumed that He was saying that a person must be born of flesh again.
You are putting words in the mouth of Christ he did not say! Jesus did not acknowledge three births but only two. He did not claim that Nicodemus had already been born of the flesh and Spirit but needed to be born of the Spirit "again."
He only acknolwedged one previous birth not two! Jesus acknowledged the truth of being born "of the flesh" as the first birth man experiences but then desribed a second birth that Nicodemus needed to experience "of the Spirit" and it is this second birth as contrasted to the first birth that Jesus says "born AGAIN."
So there is nothing in that exchange between the two men that even hints that the Lord Jesus was saying that when he referred to being born AGAIN that the first birth was of the flesh.
There is nothing in that exchange between the two men that even hints that the Lord Jesus inferred THREE births instead of two. He is simply claiming that another birth besides human birth is needed and thus he must be born "again."
So, it is not inability on our part to use reason and common sense, we simply do not ADD a third birth to this passage when only TWO are declared by the text. Hence, our line of logic is just fine. However, you line of logic rests upon soemthing the text and context NEVER SAYS, never INCLUDES but YOU ADD!
Last edited by a moderator: