What Does It Really Mean to Be “Born Again”?

[Musicman1228]

Jesus defined being 'born again' in different terms than Paul uses. Paul actually uses the term 'adoption', as sons (and I guess also daughters) of God (Rom. 8:15, 23. Rom. 9:4, Gal.4:5, Eph. 1:5). Jesus NEVER used the term adoption. Jesus spoke ONLY of being "born of the Spirit". The most easily recognizable passage about being 'born of the Spirit' is found in John 3, yet there is another place in Scripture that identifies in no uncertain terms as WHO the Mother of these 'born again' offspring really are, and what their characteristic are that define them. This is found in Revelation 12:

Rev 12:1  A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;

Rev 12:2  and she was with child; and she *cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

The first identifier in this passage is that this Woman is a 'sign' or symbol that is seen 'in heaven'. So this Woman IS NOT a literal woman/female of earth. And since this Woman is a symbol, this also means that this Woman exists in the SPIRITUAL realm. The next identifier is what SHE is wearing; clothed with the sun, moon under feet, crown of 12 stars. This would indicate ROYALTY, a Queen of a kingdom that is not of this earth; a SPIRITUAL kingdom-the Kingdom of the Heavens. 

The next identifier is very important; she is pregnant. This defines some very important issues that involve being 'born again'. The fact that she is seen as a Woman, and she is pregnant, indicates that she MUST be a WIFE, legally married to her husband. This means that the child to be born has a heritage, and parents, and is not a bastard child of parents that are not married. She is also seen as a Queen, so there must also be a King who is Her husband. God does not 'shack up', or get any woman pregnant that is not HIS wife.

Rev 12:5  And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.

Her child is MALE, and as the heir of his parents will RULE all nations, and he was 'caught up to God', meaning that this Son lived on earth, and then, at some point in time, was 'caught up to God and His throne'; indicating that this child is also a member of the Royal family in the heavens. This is Jesus, the Son of God.

Therefore, this Woman CANNOT be the Mary that gave physical birth to Jesus, Mary did not give birth to Jesus 'in heaven', and also because God the Father did not marry Mary. Mary was simply a surrogate mother (in modern terms) that carried to term a zygote that God the Father and God the Mother, who is the Holy Spirit, implanted into a young human female, so that Their Son could be born as a human being, just as prophecy indicated would happen. From this we can deduce that this Woman could not be 'the Church' as is commonly thought, because 'the church' could not, and indeed did not, give birth to Jesus. If anything, Jesus would have 'given birth' to the church-although THAT is a contradiction in terms.

So we see the spiritual identity of a FAMILY in HEAVEN; God the FATHER Almighty, God the Mother the Holy Spirit, and God the Son, Jesus Christ the Son of God. 

Rev 12:17  So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

In verse 9 and 13 Satan is 'cast down' to the earth, so therefore even thought Satan was 'enraged' with this Woman (the Holy Spirit) he could not get to her, because She was IN HEAVEN and he was sentenced to live only on earth. So Satan decided to 'make war' with the 'rest of Her offspring'. Since these people are 'offspring' of the Holy Spirit, they also are 'born' of the same parents as was their elder brother, Jesus. They are also ROYALTY, just as is their brother, Jesus. There is NO adoption recognized in this process, so Paul was wrong. This means that Paul did not get his information from the same God that gave John this Revelation. Significantly, these 'OFFSPRING' of this same Woman themselves have two identifiers that separates them from all others that simply claim to have been 'born again'. The way that you (personally) KNOW without a doubt that you have been 'born again' of the EXACT SAME MOTHER as was JESUS is that you "keep the commandments of God, and hold to the testimony of Jesus." This indicates the 10 Commandments and the very words of Jesus as recorded by His own eyewitness disciples. If you don't do this then you have not yet been born again. So the very fact that Paul has stated categorically that the Commandments (the 10) of God are no longer a significant factor in becoming righteous (teaching lawlessness), and also that the words that he (Paul) received in vision in fact supersede the very words of Jesus that HE gave to His own eyewitness disciples while He was here on earth, demonstrate that the being that Paul saw and heard in vision could not have been the same Jesus that came to this earth 'in the flesh'.

It is evident that Jesus did not 'change His mind' about how salvation works after HIS resurrection. The idea that being 'born again' does not involve the process of Sanctification through the words of Jesus, but is simply a function of the self-declaration that you have been 'born again', without demonstrating that fact by applying the test in Rev. 12:17, shows that you 'have not been born again' at all. 

[Buzzards]

21 minutes ago, Musicman1228 said:

Jesus defined being 'born again' in different terms than Paul uses. 

<Snip>

So the very fact that Paul has stated categorically that the Commandments (the 10) of God are no longer a significant factor in becoming righteous (teaching lawlessness), and also that the words that he (Paul) received in vision in fact supersede the very words of Jesus that HE gave to His own eyewitness disciples while He was here on earth, demonstrate that the being that Paul saw and heard in vision could not have been the same Jesus that came to this earth 'in the flesh'.

It is evident that Jesus did not 'change His mind' about how salvation works after HIS resurrection. The idea that being 'born again' does not involve the process of Sanctification through the words of Jesus, but is simply a function of the self-declaration that you have been 'born again', without demonstrating that fact by applying the test in Rev. 12:17, shows that you 'have not been born again' at all. 

And the children of Israel set forward,
and pitched in Oboth.

Oboth.
H178
Hebrew:אובTransliteration:'ôbPronunciation-obe
Definition:
From the same as H1 (apparently through the idea of prattling a father´ s name);
properly a {mumble} that {is} a water skin (from its hollow sound);
hence a necromancer (**ventriloquist} as from a jar):- {bottle} familiar spirit.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Musicman posted:
---- "Jesus defined being 'born again' in different terms than Paul uses" -----

Da Babbler Babbles:

No way Musicman; Paul is in Perfect Harmony with Christ, its the "Puppets" of the Egyptian Gods that are out of step with Paul

and have taught  a different Gospel than Paul received

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Musicman posted:

----- " So the very fact that Paul has stated categorically that the Commandments (the 10) of God are no longer a significant factor in becoming righteous (teaching lawlessness), " ----

Da Babbler Babbles:

No way Musicman;  Paul teaches a Gospel that DEMANDS without fail; perfect obedience to the Laws of The Most High, even the very thoughts and intentions of the Heart of Man must be brought into harmony of the will of the Father, we must be Born into the Heavenly Jerusalem

If you are basing your conclusions on Galations;  I would love to discuss it with you ????

 

[Buzzards]

Dt.9:24
 

Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you.
Thus I fell down before the LORD forty days and forty nights,
as I fell down at the first; because the LORD had said he would destroy you.

I prayed therefore unto the LORD, and said,
 

O Lord GOD, destroy not thy people and thine inheritance,
which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness,
which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
Remember thy servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;
look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:
Lest the land whence thou broughtest us out say,

For this reason; the Gods of Egypt will say -----
 

Because the LORD was not able to bring them into the land which he promised them,
and because he hated them, he hath brought them out to slay them in the wilderness.
Yet they are thy people and thine inheritance,
which thou broughtest out by thy mighty power and by thy stretched out arm.

My Christ is full well capable of preforming his Promises to his chosen

 

[Samie]

3 hours ago, Robert said:

Hitler did not place his faith in Christ.  Hence he did not avail himself of the righteousness of Christ.

Hitler can never avail of it, in accord with your brand of gospel.  You require Hitler while APART from Christ to do SOMETHING - place his faith in Christ and avail himself of righteousness, when Christ Himself said man can do NOTHING while yet apart from Him.

[Robert]

39 minutes ago, jackson said:

.... no one can be born a sinner.

We are born knowing only self-love, not agape.  We are born self-centered, at no fault of our own.  We received this nature from Adam.  We are sinners because we are born "bent-to-self".  

[Robert]

49 minutes ago, Samie said:

You require Hitler while APART from Christ to do SOMETHING - place his faith in Christ and avail himself of righteousness, when Christ Himself said man can do NOTHING while yet apart from Him.

No, we can believe....Besides, the context is about good works, not faith in Christ.  Try to remain honest to the context.

[Robert]

3 hours ago, Samie said:

Robert appears to limit qadash to God's appointing Jeremiah as prophet, and turns a blind eye to His making him holy, just like God's making us holy through Christ:

If Jeremiah was born holy then both Christ and Paul are liars for they said, respectively:

"there is none good, but one - that is God".

"there is none righteous, no, not even one" 

Clearly the falsehood is elsewhere and not with these two men.

[Robert]

Quote

 

NASB Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

NIV Hebrews 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

Who is the "we"?

We as children of Adam born after the fall

or

Our new creation that resides in Christ" in the heavenly places?

 

[Samie]

11 minutes ago, Robert said:

If Jeremiah was born holy then both Christ and Paul are liars for they said, respectively:

"there is none good, but one - that is God".

"there is none righteous, no, not even one" 

Clearly the falsehood is elsewhere and not with these two men.

To be unrighteous occurs AFTER one has done unrighteous deeds. DOING something wrong occurs AFTER one is born, NOT before or during one's birth. God made people upright, remember? Surely Solomon, just like Jesus and Paul, did not speak falsehood.

[Samie]

3 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

God the Mother, who is the Holy Spirit

Ohh, really? Then the following MUST be the correct rendition of the verse:

Quote

Musicman KJV John 16:13 Howbeit when she, the Spirit of truth, is come, she will guide you into all truth: for she shall not speak of herself; but whatsoever she shall hear, that shall she speak: and she will shew you things to come.

Am I wasting my time in this issue?

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

To be unrighteous occurs AFTER one has done unrighteous deeds. DOING something wrong occurs AFTER one is born....

Sin is at the thought level.  The only thing an infant, even in its mother's womb, knows is the love of self.  Self-love is in reality a u-turn agape.  It's agape, but bent back to self. 

Infants are sinners.  If not, then they do not need the righteousness of Christ.

Infants are not transgressors because transgression requires a knowledge of the law.  They do not stand condemned under law.

 

[Musicman1228]

 

2 hours ago, Samie said:

Ohh, really? Then the following MUST be the correct rendition of the verse:

Am I wasting my time in this issue?

Wow, Samie, you got it right the first time! Yes, the Holy Spirit IS the feminine characteristic of God. Gen. 1:27 says that God 'created mankind (H120-as in the species) in THEIR image, after THEIR likeness, male and FEMALE He/She/They created them'. God has BOTH male and female characteristics. So you are correct in saying that the Holy Spirit is a SHE. Cool, isn't it?

 

[aka]

This morning came in my e-box a mail about this topic of being born-again.

I think too much legitimacy has been given to the argument of "Imputed" vs "Imparted" righteousness.  It's as if some either forget or try to neglect the very basic premise that Christ emphasized when He told Nicodemus that no one who is not born again will ever see the kingdom.  It is spiritually (and theologically) impossible to divorce the "mind of Christ" in you via the new birth and imparted righteousness.  Impossible.  He who tries to "get into" the kingdom by either trying to earn it or claiming Christ's blood while remaining unconverted and not born again is attempting an impossibility.  This should be known and taught at the most basic, elementary levels of Christian growth.  If we would be less like Nicodemus who forgot even the most BASIC tenants of the Christian faith and grace and the gospel and more like a little child, learning at the foot of Christ, we would be able to lay this debate into the grave once and for all.  

The good news of the gospel is that Christ can live IN us and that this is the means to our salvation.  If we loved Him we would rejoice about this amazing grace.

Share this simple truth the next time someone wants to debate "Imparted" vs "Imputed" righteousness.  There is absolutely no such thing as a separation of the two, nor a new birth without both.

God bless,
CM

[Samie]

13 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

 

Wow, Samie, you got it right the first time! Yes, the Holy Spirit IS the feminine characteristic of God. Gen. 1:27 says that God 'created mankind (H120-as in the species) in THEIR image, after THEIR likeness, male and FEMALE He/She/They created them'. God has BOTH male and female characteristics.

Ohh, really? So Jesus had it wrong and you right, when He referred to the HS as a HE instead of a SHE as you do?

 

14 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

So you are correct in saying that the Holy Spirit is a SHE. Cool, isn't it?

Excuse me, brother. NOT me saying it; it's you who did.

Jesus referred to the HS as a HE; You referred to the HS as a SHE. Since Jesus cannot be wrong, then Jesus is correct. If you can't even believe Jesus in referring to the HS as a HE, how can you convince people that you only believe and teach what Jesus Himself told His disciples? Jesus told His disciples the HS is a HE but you teach that the HS is a SHE.

[Samie]

8 hours ago, aka said:

It is spiritually (and theologically) impossible to divorce the "mind of Christ" in you via the new birth and imparted righteousness.  Impossible.  He who tries to "get into" the kingdom by either trying to earn it or claiming Christ's blood while remaining unconverted and not born again is attempting an impossibility.  This should be known and taught at the most basic, elementary levels of Christian growth.

The problem comes when people are taught that for one to be born again entails a decision one has to make. This, for me, is not in accord with Scriptures:

NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

That it was God Who caused us to be born again is, I think, a Bible truth overlooked by many.

[Samie]

15 hours ago, Robert said:

The only thing an infant, even in its mother's womb, knows is the love of self.

Contrary to Scriptures, Robert.

Scriptures tell us of little children who know neither right nor wrong:

NKJ Deuteronomy 1:39 'Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

[Samie]

51 minutes ago, jackson said:

Instead of imputed and imparted, one can substitute justified and sanctified. They are on a continuum, but not all who are justified go on to be sanctified.

NAS Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[Musicman1228]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

Ohh, really? So Jesus had it wrong and you right, when He referred to the HS as a HE instead of a SHE as you do?

 

Excuse me, brother. NOT me saying it; it's you who did.

Jesus referred to the HS as a HE; You referred to the HS as a SHE. Since Jesus cannot be wrong, then Jesus is correct. If you can't even believe Jesus in referring to the HS as a HE, how can you convince people that you only believe and teach what Jesus Himself told His disciples? Jesus told His disciples the HS is a HE but you teach that the HS is a SHE.

Samie,

There are two words in the OT that are translated as 'Spirit of God' or 'Holy Spirit'. One is ruach - Strong's H7307 which translates 'wind; by resemblance breath', and 'by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions)'. The other is n'shamah - Strong's H5397, 'by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions)'. It will be interesting to you to note that both of these words are always used in the FEMININE GENDER. 

In the New Testament the Greek word for Holy Spirit is Stong's G40 - hagios - properly clean, that is, (figuratively) innocent, modest, perfect: - chaste, clean, pure. And Stong's G4151 - pneuma - a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. 

Now Greek is a language that is anarthrous, meaning 'without articles'. Words such as HE, SHE, THEY THEM, A, AND, BUT, IF and so one are not written in the original texts, and are supplied by the translators to make the sentences read more smoothly. Rarely is gender specified in Greek when linked to a noun. 

Rev 13:11  Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon.

So this text in the Greek without the supplied articles would sound like: 'Then I saw another beast coming up out of earth, he had two horns like lamb, and he spoke like dragon.'

This text could just as easily have been translated as: Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like THE lamb, and he spoke like THE dragon.

This would make this text refer backward in the prophecy to the last time the words 'lamb' and 'dragon' were used, which would refer back the the LAMB as seen in Rev. 5, and the DRAGON, as seen in Rev. 12: 17. This would specify not just any lamb but THE LAMB (Jesus Christ), and not just any dragon but THE DRAGON, that is, Satan, the Devil.

Using this same principle between the New Testament and the Old Testament, and given the reverence with which Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, and the names He uses to describe the function of the Holy Spirit (comforter, teacher), ex. Matt 12:32, it can, without too much effort, be understood that the Holy Spirit of the feminine characteristic as MOTHER, of God. 

And now understand the fact the documents we have in our modern Bible were  initially translated by male priests and/or scribes  from the ancient original languages into (first) Latin, and then into modern languages, you can see that they would automatically translate any gender based issue to reflect a MALE perspective, not a female one. 

A strictly MALE perspective in translation is due to the misogyny that was rampant in the Roman Catholic Church, and matriculated over into the Reformed Christian church especially due to the writings of Paul, who himself was a misogynist. Jesus never spoke in any way that denigrated women, and in fact had a number of His original disciples that were women, and equal in all aspects to His male disciples. We don't see any of the female disciples writings in the New Testament principally because (again) the early church was dominated by males that did not want to give up any power to the 'weaker sex'. The Council of Leodicea in ca. 325 CE had only male priests and bishops involved in putting together the compendium of texts that we now see in the New Testament. Emperor Constantine (Roman Empire) put this council together to try to establish a canon of Scripture that would be able to keep his fracturing empire together FOR POLITICAL REASONS, otherwise we might very well have seen some of the writings of the female disciples actually in the canon of Scripture today.

 

[Robert]

6 hours ago, Samie said:

Contrary to Scriptures, Robert.

Scriptures tell us of little children who know neither right nor wrong:

NKJ Deuteronomy 1:39 'Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

You misinterpreted my comment.  I didn't mean "little ones" are self-aware of their thoughts and actions. What I am saying is everything they think and do is predicated on their love of self.

[Robert]

18 hours ago, jackson said:

All born of the seed of Abraham inherit a fallen/carnal  nature, but that does not make one a sinner

Sure it does..., but first let's back up.

Let's read Romans 7:20 "Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

What does Paul call our human nature?  "Sin living in me".  That nature in you is "sin" and it disqualifies you for heaven.  That's why "flesh (Sarx) and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God".

In Romans 5:18 Paul tells us that "one trespass (Adam's) resulted in condemnation for all people"...  Why?  Because all of us share Adam's fallen nature, which Paul calls "sin living in me".  

Christ, as the Son of Man, took upon His Divinity a condemned humanity.  Christ as the Son of Man could not take "flesh and blood" to heaven - thus it had to die. So Christ shared in our condemnation. However, Christ was conceived with God's indwelling Spirit.  Thus Christ's mind was never a slave to our fallen nature!

We, on the other hand, were born "slaves to sin".  This simply means we were born with our natures and minds in complete harmony. Thus we automatically sinned at some primal level. Remember sin is anything outside agape love.  

[Samie]

4 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

There are two words in the OT that are translated as 'Spirit of God' or 'Holy Spirit'. One is ruach - Strong's H7307 which translates 'wind; by resemblance breath', and 'by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions)'. The other is n'shamah - Strong's H5397, 'by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions)'. It will be interesting to you to note that both of these words are always used in the FEMININE GENDER. 

Ohh really? Can you cite just one verse, please?

While waiting for you, here are two verses that the Spirit of the LORD is masculine:

KJV 2 Samuel 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

KJV Isaiah 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?

 

[Samie]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

You misinterpreted my comment.  I didn't mean "little ones" are self-aware of their thoughts and actions. What I am saying is everything they think and do is predicated on their love of self.

How can the little ones - who the Bible says have no knowledge of good and evil - think and do unrighteous acts like you said they can while yet in their mother's womb?

NKJ Deuteronomy 1:39 'Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

[Robert]

29 minutes ago, Samie said:

How can the little ones - who the Bible says have no knowledge of good and evil - think and do unrighteous acts like you said they can while yet in their mother's womb?

NKJ Deuteronomy 1:39 'Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Having no knowledge of good in evil doesn't mean one isn't a sinner.  Knowing that you are a sinner makes you a transgressor.  Learn the difference.  You might wish to read Romans 5:12, 13

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

To infants there is no law.  So then, they can't be consider transgressors.  However, they are sinners by what drives them - i.e., the love of self. 

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Thus we automatically sinned at some primal level. Remember sin is anything outside agape love.  

Let me rephrase:

Thus we all, automatically, sinned at some primal level during our development in our mothers' womb. Remember sin is anything outside agape love.  

 

[Robert]

30 minutes ago, Samie said:

... think and do unrighteous acts

Acts?  Not so much....It's what drives them...i.e, the love of self.