What is born again?

[Andy 998]

The Gospels didn't appear in a vacuum. They are the products of an already well-established oral tradition. The Synoptics are one expression of that tradition, the Gospel of John another. John's Gospel is unique, largely because it is out of order compared to the Synoptics, and seems far less focused on the telling of the Jesus Story itself and on expounding upon the theology about Jesus.

The Gospel of John in sense comes across as a polemic against early proto-Gnostic sentiments that were floating around the end of the 1st century/start of the 2nd. Chiefly of relevance seems to be Docetic teachings where Jesus was said to have only been an apparition, not a real human being. John's Gospel takes great pains to express that Jesus is real flesh, He is the Logos Ensarkos, the Incarnate Word.

The Gospels do not need to be written by journalists sitting around Jesus with a notepad. They just need to be faithful remembrances and the Story as the Apostolic Church taught and told--and what Christians had received already. And there is every reason to believe that is exactly what they are. As we can see in the Pauline Corpus, which are the earliest Christian writings we have.

So yes, I've thought about this.

But it's not particularly relevant to the topic as-is.

-CryptoLutheran

It's my topic.

The fact that everything in the Bible supposed to be said by Jesus is really only hearsay doesn't bother you, I see.
Does it bother any of you other guys?

 

[hedrick]

It's my topic.

The fact that everything in the Bible supposed to be said by Jesus is really only hearsay doesn't bother you, I see.
Does it bother any of you other guys?

I don’t know that bothers me is quite right. But when you read the Gospels you do have to realize that it’s not based on video tapes or short-hand. ViaCrucis gave a summary. There’s been a lot of work on this issue over the last hundred years or so. I think we have a pretty good sense of Jesus’ main teaching. I wouldn’t place too much weight on a single saying though, and particularly not from John.

Did Jesus really say John 3:3? I wouldn't bet too heavily on any one saying. But when interpreted as Via Crucis did it's consistent with his message as we know it.

That particular verse actually has a better claim than much of John to be original. Quoting the comment on it from the Word commentary on John:

"Frequently v 3 is viewed as a Johannine development of Matt 18:3 (cf. Mark 10:15), or a logion similar to it but independent of it (Dodd, Historical Tradition, 359). Yet a saying similar to vv 3 and 5 was cited by Justin: ἂν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν (Apol 61); since Justin shows no other knowledge of our Gospel, the logion evidently circulated freely. It is likely that the Evangelist found the saying in an earlier source (Becker thinks that both vv 3 and 5 were current before the Evangelist, who commented on v 3 in v 7 and on v 5 in v 8, Johannes, 134). The concept of being begotten from above is not a simple translation of becoming as a child, but an adaptation of the Jewish hope of a new creation. The Jews became familiar with the application of this concept to people, even in noneschatological contexts (e.g. God is said to make men “new creatures” when he heals them of their infirmities; Str-B, Matthäus, 420–23), but in the tradition stemming back to Jesus the eschatological element was constant. In Matt 19:28 the familiar βασιλεία is replaced by παλινγενεσία, “regeneration,” Matthew’s equivalent of “new world” or “new age.” The LXX renders Job 14:14, “All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come,” ὑπομενῶ ἓως ἂν πάλιν γένωμαι, literally, “I will endure till I ‘become again,’[bless and do not curse]” i.e. until I live again through resurrection; πάλιν γίνεσθαι is a verbal form of the noun παλινγενεσία. While 1 Pet 1:23 repeats the verb “begotten anew” of Christians (ἀναγεγεννημένο&#953, Paul prefers the category of new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). Titus 3:5 combines the two images; “He saved us through the washing characterized by the παλινγενεσία and ἀνακαίνωσις that the Holy Spirit effects.” The saying in v 3 declares that it is those whom God makes new who will “see” (= experience) the new age. Naturally this saving sovereignty of God will be thought of as coming in the future, as in the Beatitudes of Matt 5:3–12. In the perspective of the Gospel, however, the saving sovereignty has come into being through the redemptive activity of the Redeemer (cf. vv 13–16), and those whom God renews experience it now."

What's being said here is that this verse or something similar appears in a number of different versions of the Christian tradition, at least some of which seem to be fairly independent, and it's consistent with the rest of Jesus message. So even if the wording isn't exact it's reasonable to take it as representing Jesus.

What the commentary doesn't note is that it speaks of entry to the Kingdom of God. That's not language normally used in the Gospel of John. Indeed this is the only passage in John where "Kingdom of God" appears. However that is a key concept in the Synoptic Gospels. That strongly suggests that this isn't something John wrote or found in his own church's tradition, but that it goes back to an earlier source.

 

[Andy 998]

I don’t know that bothers me is quite right. But when you read the Gospels you do have to realize that it’s not based on video tapes or short-hand. ViaCrucis gave a summary. There’s been a lot of work on this issue over the last hundred years or so. I think we have a pretty good sense of Jesus’ main teaching. I wouldn’t place too much weight on a single saying though, and particularly not from John.

Well I really think it should bother you because it seems the number of words that are credited to Jesus is 41,071.
Knowing that every recorded word of Jesus is hearsay (remembered) it's an awful lot of people adding their own words, then we have words and meanings that were lost in translation and the words left out or added because of the times it was all being done.
All in all it sure doesn't instil confidence, unless of course the Bible is just an excuse for people to believe in something that gives them a nice warm feeling, it most certainly shouldn't cause the fanaticism that it does.

 

[Steeno7]

Well I really think it should bother you because it seems the number of words that are credited to Jesus is 41,071.
Knowing that every recorded word of Jesus is hearsay (remembered) it's an awful lot of people adding their own words, then we have words and meanings that were lost in translation and the words left out or added because of the times it was all being done.
All in all it sure doesn't instil confidence, unless of course the Bible is just an excuse for people to believe in something that gives them a nice warm feeling, it most certainly shouldn't cause the fanaticism that it does.

It's not hearsay, it's eye witness accounts. We accept as truth eye witness accounts in our courts of law even today.

 

[bling]

Well I really think it should bother you because it seems the number of words that are credited to Jesus is 41,071.
Knowing that every recorded word of Jesus is hearsay (remembered) it's an awful lot of people adding their own words, then we have words and meanings that were lost in translation and the words left out or added because of the times it was all being done.
All in all it sure doesn't instil confidence, unless of course the Bible is just an excuse for people to believe in something that gives them a nice warm feeling, it most certainly shouldn't cause the fanaticism that it does.

We start having written copies of the New Testament letters 20 years after Christ and all were completed by 110 AD at the latest, so when and how did this “corruption” of the New Testament take place?
If these writers start out from different locations writing to different locations there would be contradictions in the messages if they were not all being led by the same Spirit?

If you limit a book to one language, in one area, under one autocratic ruler, that ruler might be able to dictate what the official authorized version will be and virtually maintain it that way. This does allow for the single ruler to present one corrupt copy to the world.

There were lots of works (books/letters) produced in the first century in the Roman Empire and all of which showed obvious corruption, since there is drastic differences between copies. Anytime multi hand copies are reproduced without concern for accuracy so there will be corruption. If someone or some group wants to corrupt a letter/book they can do so when making a copying, but if there is even a small number of copies of that same letter/book in circulation there will be multi versions (obvious corruption).

If the New Testament letters where intentionally corrupted, by even a powerful group, it would be impossible to collect and destroy all the correct copies, since the letters as they arrival at the churches they were written to, would start making copies and memorizing (which a person good in memorizing could memorize anyone of these letters with just three readings) so the original was immediately reproduced written or memorized, this was for both personal use and to send on to other churches. No one felt these letters where dictated by God, so there was no problem copying them even poorly and translating them into other languages. So if corruption took place you would expect to find huge differences between at least some copies of the letter.

That is not what we find. We have over 23,000 hand written manuscripts in 16 different languages, over 8000 manuscripts are in the original Greek language. So with all these different copies you would expect to see lots of variation signaling lots of corruption, but they are all 96%+ word for word consistent and 100% consistent in content (they present the same message). Even if one of the authors was trying to corrupt the New Testament, he would have to show some contradiction to the other letters which is not what we fine (everything can be reconciled). To have corrupted the New Testament you would have been a huge conspiracy between lots of people in different countries at different times, but that is just not possible (most of these people led hard lives and died as martyrs to the cause) and there would be no good reason to do such a thing.

 

[Andy 998]

It's not hearsay, it's eye witness accounts. We accept as truth eye witness accounts in our courts of law even today.

Then you should have no trouble in telling us who the eyes witnesses were and which books they wrote in the Bible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's my topic.

The fact that everything in the Bible supposed to be said by Jesus is really only hearsay doesn't bother you, I see.

That's how history works.

Prior to the invention of modern video and sound recording devices, people, events, and anything said was put into writing or shared by word of mouth.

So no, pre-20th century historical transmission doesn't bother me. It's the only way we have knowledge of anything that happened before the invention of video and sound recording devices.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andy 998]

Well I really think it should bother you because it seems the number of words that are credited to Jesus is 41,071.
Knowing that every recorded word of Jesus is hearsay (remembered) it's an awful lot of people adding their own words, then we have words and meanings that were lost in translation and the words left out or added because of the times it was all being done.
All in all it sure doesn't instil confidence, unless of course the Bible is just an excuse for people to believe in something that gives them a nice warm feeling, it most certainly shouldn't cause the fanaticism that it does.

We start having written copies of the New Testament letters 20 years after Christ and all were completed by 110 AD at the latest, so when and how did this “corruption” of the New Testament take place?

Who said anything about the N/T being "corrupt"? I was talking about the words Jesus is supposed to have spoken,
you said that the N/T was written 20 years after Christ had died so everything we are told Jesus said had to be hearsay.

 

[Andy 998]

It's my topic.

The fact that everything in the Bible supposed to be said by Jesus is really only hearsay doesn't bother you, I see.
Does it bother any of you other guys?

That's how history works.

Sadly no it's not, we don't credit people with saying things they did not say that's why if we don't know who said it we write "Anon" along side of it.

Prior to the invention of modern video and sound recording devices, people, events, and anything said was put into writing or shared by word of mouth.

Yes it was written down.
People have been writing accounts of history since around 3,000 BC and writing was probably invented by the Sumerians.
BTW no accounts of Jesus exist outside of the Bible.

People would have you believe that everything written in the N/T supposedly said by Jesus was actually said by Jesus,
we both know that is not true.

 

[Steeno7]

Then you should have no trouble in telling us who the eyes witnesses were and which books they wrote in the Bible.

Sure. Start a thread on "your topic" in the appropriate place, and I will gladly contribute.

 

[Andy 998]

Then you should have no trouble in telling us who the eyes witnesses were and which books they wrote in the Bible.

Sure. Start a thread on "your topic" in the appropriate place, and I will gladly contribute.

Just as I thought.

 

[Steeno7]

Just as I thought.

No, not just as you thought.....

 

[Steeno7]

Just as I thought.

.....You apparently thought this was the forum for apologetics or debate, it is not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sadly no it's not, we don't credit people with saying things they did not say that's why if we don't know who said it we write "Anon" along side of it.

So when presenting the quote "Veni, vidi, vici" we should not attribute this quote to Julius Caesar, but to "Anonymous" because we don't know who actually said it, or if anyone said it at all, we just have the hearsay that Julius Caesar said it.

Would that be an accurate depiction of how you treat historical material?

Yes it was written down.
People have been writing accounts of history since around 3,000 BC and writing was probably invented by the Sumerians.

The Sumerians are credited with coming up with cuneiform, and the oldest written records are Sumerian. But different forms of writing have developed independently. Mesoamerican glyphs, such as those utilized by the Maya, did not originate from the Sumerians; likewise writing evolved independently in China.

BTW no accounts of Jesus exist outside of the Bible.

That's one argument. But even assuming this statement is true, it hardly adds anything to whatever point you might be trying to make.

People would have you believe that everything written in the N/T supposedly said by Jesus was actually said by Jesus,
we both know that is not true.

You need to actually offer some sort of rationale as to why the historical record concerning Jesus of Nazareth and the things He said are unreliable and thus sayings ascribed to Him in the Gospels should be dismissed prima facie.

Also: What does any of this have to do with the original post's inquiry concerning the Christian doctrine of regeneration?

If you wanted to discuss the historical veracity/integrity of the Canonical Gospels then you should have introduced that as your initial question.

Because from where I'm sitting this is degenerating rather quickly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Could someone please explain exactly what it means to be born again?

When a Person chooses to surrender their life to Christ and ask him for forgiveness which includes trusting that Christs atonement on Calvary was totally sufficient to cancel out all ones many sins which is evidenced by a willful choice and action to turn from any known lifestyle sins such as sexual immorality , etc... the Person takes on a NEW NATURE. This new Nature is the very likeness of Christ in the way One thinks, behaves, acts, chooses to live his life ; it is Gods very nature and presence actually living in the Persons Soul which brings about this new creation . The new dispels the old self centered nature.

When this becomes a reality in a Person (starting at receiving Christ into Ones life) ..... the Person is/has been, Born Again. The Person is now partaking in the kind of life that pleases God and the Person is fully reconciled to God --- he has been Born anew in Christ and is/has become a vastly different person to the way he used to be from following the philosophies of the world (culture) .

Jesus said in John chapter 3 that You MUST be born again indicating that a person has to get Christ living in him before he physically dies to this earthly life, in order to make it to heaven. And there is no other way to heaven but by this means . It requires a sincere faith that Jesus paid the price for that persons sins , that the person has abandoned the former lifestyles, and that he is now proactively living for God . Getting the Born Again nature and status, is a completely free gift of God and its not something we can earn by trying to be good , for, its dependent on what Jesus DID for the person and the acceptance of THAT alone .

For further reading, take a look at : Romans 10:8-14 on what to do to be Born Again. Then go to Ephesians 2:8-10 to tell you what your decision was fully based on. Then finish by going to 1 John 5:13 for the assurance God wants you to have based on your decision. Once youre Born Again in Christ, the next step is to find a good BIble honoring Evangelical Church to grow in God and to get water baptized at which is a proclamation to others that you have been Born Again in Christ.

How does this sound to you ? Is it something youd like to proceed with doing ? Regards, Dave

 

[Andy 998]

The fact that everything in the Bible supposed to be said by Jesus is really only hearsay doesn't bother you, I see.

It's not hearsay, it's eye witness accounts. We accept as truth eye witness accounts in our courts of law even today.

Then you should have no trouble in telling us who the eyes witnesses were and which books they wrote in the Bible.

Just as I thought.

No, not just as you thought.....

.....You apparently thought this was the forum for apologetics or debate, it is not.

You made a statement all I asked was that you backed it up but as everyone can see you can't so you're using excuses.

No one who knew Jesus or heard Jesus speak wrote anything in the Bible, if that's OK with you it's OK with me.

 

[Steeno7]

No one who knew Jesus or heard Jesus speak wrote anything in the Bible.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Andy 998]

When a Person chooses to surrender their life to Christ and ask him for forgiveness which includes trusting that Christs atonement on Calvary was totally sufficient to cancel out all ones many sins which is evidenced by a willful choice and action to turn from any known lifestyle sins such as sexual immorality , etc... the Person takes on a NEW NATURE. This new Nature is the very likeness of Christ in the way One thinks, behaves, acts, chooses to live his life ; it is Gods very nature and presence actually living in the Persons Soul which brings about this new creation . The new dispels the old self centered nature.

When this becomes a reality in a Person (starting at receiving Christ into Ones life) ..... the Person is/has been, Born Again. The Person is now partaking in the kind of life that pleases God and the Person is fully reconciled to God --- he has been Born anew in Christ and is/has become a vastly different person to the way he used to be from following the philosophies of the world (culture) .

Jesus said in John chapter 3 that You MUST be born again indicating that a person has to get Christ living in him before he physically dies to this earthly life, in order to make it to heaven. And there is no other way to heaven but by this means . It requires a sincere faith that Jesus paid the price for that persons sins , that the person has abandoned the former lifestyles, and that he is now proactively living for God . Getting the Born Again nature and status, is a completely free gift of God and its not something we can earn by trying to be good , for, its dependent on what Jesus DID for the person and the acceptance of THAT alone .

For further reading, take a look at : Romans 10:8-14 on what to do to be Born Again. Then go to Ephesians 2:8-10 to tell you what your decision was fully based on. Then finish by going to 1 John 5:13 for the assurance God wants you to have based on your decision. Once youre Born Again in Christ, the next step is to find a good BIble honoring Evangelical Church to grow in God and to get water baptized at which is a proclamation to others that you have been Born Again in Christ.

How does this sound to you ? Is it something youd like to proceed with doing ? Regards, Dave

Thank you very much that explained it perfectly.

As you can see I am an atheist so religion plays no part in my life and never has.

Every weekday I walk past the entrance to a Cathedral that was finished being built in the year 1054 [they have the records, they even know how much each stonemason was paid] and I see the wear in the entrance where millions and millions of frightened people have walked, for what? to keep them in line and ensure they were satisfied with their lot and stayed in their place.

 

[Andy 998]

No one who knew Jesus or heard Jesus speak wrote anything in the Bible.

Utter nonsense.

You keep telling yourself that, don't check to see if it's true just keep telling yourself it's utter nonsense.

 

[Steeno7]

You keep telling yourself that, don't check to see if it's true just keep telling yourself it's utter nonsense.

Check it? LOL. Do you actually presume to think you are the first to try these kinds of attacks upon Christianity? We’ve been at this for 2000 years, ya know. There is nothing new under the Sun, nothing.