Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 67

Thread: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    4,264

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    From Nicodemus' point of view, of course. Christ was using the metaphor to get his attention.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    110

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    And you know this because...

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    2,993
    Blog Entries
    58

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    And you know this because...
    It obvious from the text...

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    And you know this because...
    It obvious from the text...
    A cannot be A & not A at the same time.

    מקום כניעה סך הכל

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    2,993
    Blog Entries
    58

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    I'm very impressed with your precision! Do you keep score day to day on an abacus?

    For me, I could just about flip your pancake and go with it, putting baptism at the bottom of the pile.

    But how do you reckon "born of the Spirit"? And "you must be born again"? Obviously the meanings are not to be highlighted in intellectual Christianity.
    I would flip the pancake as well.

    David, why do you put so much weight in the baptism interpretation?
    A cannot be A & not A at the same time.

    מקום כניעה סך הכל

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    110

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    'Obvious from the text' is what every holder of an interpretation other than yours would also say.

    Jesus seems to have been somewhat amiss if his message of being 'born again' or 'born from above' was of major importance, as he used a term which myriad readers have taken as a reference to a practice that happened shortly beforehand in the same gospel, others have taken as a reference to Christianity being part of the original covenant, others have seen as harmonious with other parts of the New Testament and others still have found to mean one of the weirdest instructions to give someone, i.e. giving 'being born' as an actual instruction, as if Jesus had another ministry in which he preached to foetuses.

    On the other hand, the message has to be revealed to an individual as it is hidden, i.e. occult, which in turn makes little or nothing that Jesus said all that relevant in the first place. He may just as well have said 'Nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven unless they eat half a tonne of spaghetti every day', as only those who have the necessary revelation would know what he really meant.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    4,264

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    NICODEMUS said it ... It's not written in code David. The text says clearly that it's so.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    110

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Nicodemus' question precedes Jesus' use of the words 'born of water'. It does not follow it.

    Jesus never explains what 'born of water' means and the phrase is not used anywhere else before the fourth gospel. The term does not have a clear, concrete, unambiguous meaning.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,966
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    Nicodemus' question precedes Jesus' use of the words 'born of water'. It does not follow it.

    Jesus never explains what 'born of water' means and the phrase is not used anywhere else before the fourth gospel. The term does not have a clear, concrete, unambiguous meaning.
    It has for Nicodemus, a Jew. Jesus was talking to Jews that is what most forget. Besides that the translation isn't quite correct the text actually reads a man be born of spiritual water , which points to the O.T. Washing was a purificational act according to the Law as plenty of texts say in Exodus for example Exo. 30:20 ... they shall wash with water, that they die not ... . Spiritual water is the ultimate washing.

    Aristarkos

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    110

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Are you suggesting that Nicodemus understood the term which is translated into English 'born of water' as something other than physical birth?

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,966
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    Are you suggesting that Nicodemus understood the term which is translated into English 'born of water' as something other than physical birth?
    Have you actually read my reply? I'll repeat the it here for you:

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos
    It has for Nicodemus, a Jew. Jesus was talking to Jews that is what most forget. Besides that the translation isn't quite correct the text actually reads a man be born of spiritual water , which points to the O.T. Washing was a purificational act according to the Law as plenty of texts say in Exodus for example Exo. 30:20 ... they shall wash with water, that they die not ... . Spiritual water is the ultimate washing.
    So if he didn't understood, it's because he didn't believe Moses and the Prophets.

    Aristarkos

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    110

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    It is a civil question. You can give a civil answer.

    I am not asking you if you can repeat the same thing with highlighting.

    Is it an accurate representation of your position to say that you believe Nicodemus understood the term which English translations give as 'born of water' as something other than physical birth or is it a misrepresentation of your position?

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,966
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    It is a civil question. You can give a civil answer.

    I am not asking you if you can repeat the same thing with highlighting.

    Is it an accurate representation of your position to say that you believe Nicodemus understood the term which English translations give as 'born of water' as something other than physical birth or is it a misrepresentation of your position?
    Wasn't I civil? The problem is that Nicodemus didn't know what translators would make for mistakes. So he heard the Lord say spiritual water , not born of water . Since Nicodemus was Jew — a Pharisee — he was well acquainted with the Law and the washings in the O.T.. However we also know that the Pharisee had a bunch of statutes that were not given by God. The Lord says in John 3:10 ... Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? , so he should know, if he believed Moses and the Prophets. So this has nothing to do with my position .

    Aristarkos

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    110

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Which does not really answer the question.

    Do you think that Nicodemus believed that 'being physically born' was one of the preconditions that Jesus of Nazareth was presenting him with when describing how to enter the kingdom of heaven?

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,966
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    Which does not really answer the question.

    Do you think that Nicodemus believed that 'being physically born' was one of the preconditions that Jesus of Nazareth was presenting him with when describing how to enter the kingdom of heaven?
    No which is clear from the text I'll quote it here for you:

    John 3:1 10 1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 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. 4 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? (so he didn't believe this nobody believes a grown many can enter the womb again) 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of spiritual water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (so the Lord acknowledge what Nicodemus just said) 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (So the Lord further elaborates) 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The Spirit (not wind) breathed (Not bloweth) where He willith (not it listeth), and thou hearest His voice (not the sound thereof), but knowest not (not canst not tell) whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that has begotten (not is born) of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (so he should have known)

    Aristarkos

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    110

    Re: Intellectual versus occult Christianity

    This is my point. Although for you and me it doesn't read as a reference to physical birth, for at least one person on this thread it is 'obvious from the text'.

    For the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches, baptism is the obvious meaning.

    For someone who reckons that a strange sensation they had at an evangelistic meeting is what 'being born of again' is, and who hasn't been baptised, 'not baptism, whatever else it might mean' is also obvious.

    This suggests that it might not be as important a part of Jesus' teachings as many Christians make it out to be, or that Jesus was not particularly good at putting his message across, or that some extra factor has to be brought into the equation to settle it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Discussion Does God care more about the Intellectual or The Spiritual?
    By poochie in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Feb 7th 2009, 12:33 AM
  2. Good sermon on the occult
    By daughter in forum Apologetics and Evangelism
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Oct 20th 2008, 12:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •