Ok, speculative but could be I suppose.
It isn't speculative that "in the day" doesn't have to mean "during a 24 hour (or less) period".
And once you see that, adding another meaning for "death" becomes the speculation, though it's harder to detect because it is deeply entrenched in Christian thought.
Yes, that's how I took this:
My point was to argue from your point of view and still allow for my conclusion.
Yes, that's the idea, and the reason a living man must be born again now in order to truly have life, which relates to Nicodemus's question in John 3:4.
Did you notice that Jesus didn't correct Nicodemus when he asked, "can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Instead He said, "Truly". David considered the womb to equate to the lowest parts of the earth, something we would think of as "Hades".
Psalm 139:15 KJV — My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
It's the same place Jesus said He would be for 3 days.
Matthew 12:40 KJV — For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
So it makes sense if Jesus was saying we need to be resurrected to be in His kingdom, which is not of this world.
Well, Col 2 tells us that they were dead but now "God made you alive with Christ".
I agree that can be read as you say, but it doesn't have to be. It can also be read as "you were as good as dead in your sins..." I.e., you were going to die with no hope, but now you have hope. It's explained in the next chapter
Colossians 3:3-4 KJV — For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
They weren't really dead, and definitely not "spiritually dead", in that verse. But they could consider themselves as dead, knowing they didn't need to worry about the physical things of the world, nor the traditions and commandments of men.
And Eph 4 speaks of the Gentiles as being "separated from the life of God".
Yes, because life was to come through the Jews.
And I'll submit that that life is the only one truly worthy of the name, the only life worth living or existing for. Anything else is empty, dead, relatively speaking.
Yes, I agree. This is the use of "dead" in Col 3:3--relatively speaking, but not actually.
Remember that the wages of sin is death, and that death surrounds us and operates
Does death operate? Death only does so in corrupting and decaying. That's why Paul talks about us mortals putting on immortality and corruption putting on incorruption.
1 Corinthians 15:53 KJV — For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
within us all now as we participate in that sin. Sin opposes and tends to separate from God by its nature as it's inherently opposed to His nature. Anyway, that's my take on it, and pretty much the historic understanding as well as I've seen in my studies on the matter.
It's easy to just take the historic view. The Reformers risked their lives to do otherwise, as did other groups of Christians throughout church history (even against the Reformers).
And yet how can a living person be born again,
He can die and be resurrected, something we should be focusing on, since it was such an important part of Christ's mission in Earth.
and why does a living person need to be born again?
Because the living person is dying, mortal, corruptible.
And how does a living person die with Christ in baptism?
Symbolically, recognising that with our resurrection assured, we can mortify our flesh (which still wants to sin) and the deeds of this world.
A person who lacks communion with/knowledge of God does not yet have life.
Yet they are alive and active. You can tell because they are breathing. They don't have the abundant life Jesus promised us, nor the assurance of life with Him forever. Those assurances allow us to have joy despite trials and in the face of death.
