Author Topic: When was/is the the first resurrection  (Read 5136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10503
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #70 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 07:32:05 »
4WD  -  Your comment is spot on for "born of water" not being equal to our physical birth.  If that were true, as I have noted before, then we cannot expect Adam or Eve to make it to heaven, since technically neither of them passed through a natural water-birth process.  And you might as well eliminate any aborted children as well since technically they don't qualify either as being born....
Our Lord DID NOT make being born of water a prerequisite of being born again, so you point again does not qualify as an argumentive point for Adam and Eve and children who do not see the light of day. He used water only as a reference to Nicodemus' question of re-entering his mother's womb and NOTHING MORE.
RB,

Our Lord DID MOST CERTAINLY make being born of water a prerequisite of being born again.  Jesus tells Nicodemus in verse 3, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."  Nicodemus then asks (v.4) Jesus how that can be.  Jesus then proceeds to tell Nicodemus (v.5) what "born again" means.  He says, "unless one is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  Clearly Jesus has defined specifically what "born again" means.  Jesus then defined being born again [from above] to being born of water and Spirit.  "Born again" means being "born of water and Spirit". Born of water and Spirit is what born again means.  So yes He did make being born of water a prerequisite to being born again.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #70 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 07:32:05 »

Offline dpr

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Protestant Huguenot
Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #71 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 11:54:19 »
When I commented on agreeing with 4WD, then go here and see his comments that he posted today Reply #97:
Quote
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/john-3-revisited-our-spiritual-births/msg1055060702/#msg1055060702



I agree exactly how you interpreted John 3. It's about two different births, one of the flesh through woman's womb, and the other to our spirit by The Holy Spirit (i.e., "born again", which is actually 'born from above' in the Greek).


As I noted on another topic, "born of water" has never been used as a euphemism for physical birth before or since except for a few misguided commentarians trying to explain away the obvious in John 3.  Making physical birth a requirement for entering the kingdom of God is a non-requirement. It excludes no one. The idea that Jesus would seem to make it so is preposterous.


So, you think simply being submersed in water is what saves us? That's not what saves us, for the water is only symbolic for a cleansing of our spirit inside our flesh. The act of our confessing Christ Jesus as our Savior and believing on Him with two or more witnesses present is what saves us. There exists NT examples of believers baptized by The Holy Spirit prior to their water baptism (Acts 10).

The water Nicodemus understood to be about the water of woman's womb, and flesh birth. And it is... a fact, only those born through woman's womb in this world can saved by Jesus Christ. God's angels don't need saving, they are already there. And Satan's angels are already assigned to perish with him. So there's that.


Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10503
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #72 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 13:10:51 »
When I commented on agreeing with 4WD, then go here and see his comments that he posted today Reply #97:
Quote
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/john-3-revisited-our-spiritual-births/msg1055060702/#msg1055060702



I agree exactly how you interpreted John 3. It's about two different births, one of the flesh through woman's womb, and the other to our spirit by The Holy Spirit (i.e., "born again", which is actually 'born from above' in the Greek).


As I noted on another topic, "born of water" has never been used as a euphemism for physical birth before or since except for a few misguided commentarians trying to explain away the obvious in John 3.  Making physical birth a requirement for entering the kingdom of God is a non-requirement. It excludes no one. The idea that Jesus would seem to make it so is preposterous.


So, you think simply being submersed in water is what saves us? That's not what saves us, for the water is only symbolic for a cleansing of our spirit inside our flesh. The act of our confessing Christ Jesus as our Savior and believing on Him with two or more witnesses present is what saves us. There exists NT examples of believers baptized by The Holy Spirit prior to their water baptism (Acts 10).

No, I don't think simply being submersed in water is what saves us.  I think what Peter said was the truth when he said to those who believed him about Jesus that if they repented and were baptized that their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  I think that there are many other passages that would confirm the truth of what Peter said.  You might want to listen to him. And I have no doubt whatever, that unless one has their sins forgiven and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit there is no salvation. Shoot even John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins.  I really don't know how you could consider that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ would produce any less.
Quote
The water Nicodemus understood to be about the water of woman's womb, and flesh birth.

Neither Nicodemus nor anyone else understood water to be about physical birth.  You can't find a reference for that anywhere in the Bible or anywhere else in the early literature.  No one today would think that.  Such an expression is never used even today outside of some faith alone types or other monergists who are trying to get around the obvious connection of baptism and salvation.  And quite frankly it is really a stupid argument.
Quote
And it is... a fact, only those born through woman's womb in this world can saved by Jesus Christ. God's angels don't need saving, they are already there. And Satan's angels are already assigned to perish with him. So there's that.

Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus had any thoughts about angels entering the kingdom of heaven.  Another really bogus comment.

And for what it is worth, your comment about baptism in the Holy Spirit before their water baptism in Acts 10 is wrong in a couple of ways, but I'll leave that for another time.

Offline dpr

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Protestant Huguenot
Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #73 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 13:30:24 »


So, you think simply being submersed in water is what saves us? That's not what saves us, for the water is only symbolic for a cleansing of our spirit inside our flesh. The act of our confessing Christ Jesus as our Savior and believing on Him with two or more witnesses present is what saves us. There exists NT examples of believers baptized by The Holy Spirit prior to their water baptism (Acts 10).
No, I don't think simply being submersed in water is what saves us.  I think what Peter said was the truth when he said to those who believed him about Jesus that if they repented and were baptized that their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  I think that there are many other passages that would confirm the truth of what Peter said.  You might want to listen to him. And I have no doubt whatever, that unless one has their sins forgiven and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit there is no salvation. Shoot even John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins.  I really don't know how you could consider that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ would produce any less.
Quote
The water Nicodemus understood to be about the water of woman's womb, and flesh birth.
Neither Nicodemus nor anyone else understood water to be about physical birth.  You can't find a reference for that anywhere in the Bible or anywhere else in the early literature.  No one today would think that.  Such an expression is never used even today outside of some faith alone types or other monergists who are trying to get around the obvious connection of baptism and salvation.  And quite frankly it is really a stupid argument.
Quote
And it is... a fact, only those born through woman's womb in this world can saved by Jesus Christ. God's angels don't need saving, they are already there. And Satan's angels are already assigned to perish with him. So there's that.
Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus had any thoughts about angels entering the kingdom of heaven.  Another really bogus comment.

And for what it is worth, your comment about baptism in the Holy Spirit before their water baptism in Acts 10 is wrong in a couple of ways, but I'll leave that for another time.

Those Gentiles that hear Peter preaching spoke by The Holy Spirit PRIOR to their being baptized of water:

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
KJV


You clearly have not even read... that Acts 10 Scripture, and instead just called what I said about it as "bogus", showing you don't really know what you're talking about.

So your remarks on John 3 are actually just as much from your "bogus" thinking, and really don't prove anything at all.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #73 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 13:30:24 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10503
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #74 on: Tue Feb 14, 2017 - 05:34:36 »


So, you think simply being submersed in water is what saves us? That's not what saves us, for the water is only symbolic for a cleansing of our spirit inside our flesh. The act of our confessing Christ Jesus as our Savior and believing on Him with two or more witnesses present is what saves us. There exists NT examples of believers baptized by The Holy Spirit prior to their water baptism (Acts 10).
No, I don't think simply being submersed in water is what saves us.  I think what Peter said was the truth when he said to those who believed him about Jesus that if they repented and were baptized that their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  I think that there are many other passages that would confirm the truth of what Peter said.  You might want to listen to him. And I have no doubt whatever, that unless one has their sins forgiven and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit there is no salvation. Shoot even John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins.  I really don't know how you could consider that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ would produce any less.
Quote
The water Nicodemus understood to be about the water of woman's womb, and flesh birth.
Neither Nicodemus nor anyone else understood water to be about physical birth.  You can't find a reference for that anywhere in the Bible or anywhere else in the early literature.  No one today would think that.  Such an expression is never used even today outside of some faith alone types or other monergists who are trying to get around the obvious connection of baptism and salvation.  And quite frankly it is really a stupid argument.
Quote
And it is... a fact, only those born through woman's womb in this world can saved by Jesus Christ. God's angels don't need saving, they are already there. And Satan's angels are already assigned to perish with him. So there's that.
Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus had any thoughts about angels entering the kingdom of heaven.  Another really bogus comment.

And for what it is worth, your comment about baptism in the Holy Spirit before their water baptism in Acts 10 is wrong in a couple of ways, but I'll leave that for another time.

Those Gentiles that hear Peter preaching spoke by The Holy Spirit PRIOR to their being baptized of water:

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
KJV


You clearly have not even read... that Acts 10 Scripture, and instead just called what I said about it as "bogus", showing you don't really know what you're talking about.

So your remarks on John 3 are actually just as much from your "bogus" thinking, and really don't prove anything at all.
The action of the Holy Spirit "falling upon the Gentiles" is not a case of baptism with/in the Holy Spirit.  As I have pointed out here many times baptism with/in the Holy Spirit is clearly an activity by Jesus unique to the New Covenant.  However the Holly Spirit coming/falling upon specific individuals giving them power to perform miracles is not unique to the New Covenant at all.  A very similar situation that took place many hundreds of years is recorded in Numbers 11:25. And for your information the action of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 is not the baptism with/in the Holy Spirit either. 

And "born of water" in John 3 has nothing to do with physical birth.  As I said, it is really stupid to think that Jesus would make physical birth a requirement to enter the kingdom of God.  And besides born of water is not now nor has it ever been a euphemism for physical birth.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #74 on: Tue Feb 14, 2017 - 05:34:36 »



Offline dpr

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Protestant Huguenot
Re: When was/is the the first resurrection
« Reply #75 on: Tue Feb 14, 2017 - 09:46:07 »


So, you think simply being submersed in water is what saves us? That's not what saves us, for the water is only symbolic for a cleansing of our spirit inside our flesh. The act of our confessing Christ Jesus as our Savior and believing on Him with two or more witnesses present is what saves us. There exists NT examples of believers baptized by The Holy Spirit prior to their water baptism (Acts 10).
No, I don't think simply being submersed in water is what saves us.  I think what Peter said was the truth when he said to those who believed him about Jesus that if they repented and were baptized that their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  I think that there are many other passages that would confirm the truth of what Peter said.  You might want to listen to him. And I have no doubt whatever, that unless one has their sins forgiven and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit there is no salvation. Shoot even John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins.  I really don't know how you could consider that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ would produce any less.
Quote
The water Nicodemus understood to be about the water of woman's womb, and flesh birth.
Neither Nicodemus nor anyone else understood water to be about physical birth.  You can't find a reference for that anywhere in the Bible or anywhere else in the early literature.  No one today would think that.  Such an expression is never used even today outside of some faith alone types or other monergists who are trying to get around the obvious connection of baptism and salvation.  And quite frankly it is really a stupid argument.
Quote
And it is... a fact, only those born through woman's womb in this world can saved by Jesus Christ. God's angels don't need saving, they are already there. And Satan's angels are already assigned to perish with him. So there's that.
Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus had any thoughts about angels entering the kingdom of heaven.  Another really bogus comment.

And for what it is worth, your comment about baptism in the Holy Spirit before their water baptism in Acts 10 is wrong in a couple of ways, but I'll leave that for another time.

Those Gentiles that hear Peter preaching spoke by The Holy Spirit PRIOR to their being baptized of water:

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
KJV


You clearly have not even read... that Acts 10 Scripture, and instead just called what I said about it as "bogus", showing you don't really know what you're talking about.

So your remarks on John 3 are actually just as much from your "bogus" thinking, and really don't prove anything at all.
The action of the Holy Spirit "falling upon the Gentiles" is not a case of baptism with/in the Holy Spirit.  As I have pointed out here many times baptism with/in the Holy Spirit is clearly an activity by Jesus unique to the New Covenant.  However the Holly Spirit coming/falling upon specific individuals giving them power to perform miracles is not unique to the New Covenant at all.  A very similar situation that took place many hundreds of years is recorded in Numbers 11:25. And for your information the action of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 is not the baptism with/in the Holy Spirit either. 

And "born of water" in John 3 has nothing to do with physical birth.  As I said, it is really stupid to think that Jesus would make physical birth a requirement to enter the kingdom of God.  And besides born of water is not now nor has it ever been a euphemism for physical birth.

Being baptized by The Holy Spirit when hearing The Gospel of Jesus Christ most definitely is... a unique thing involving the New Covenant. There's no hiding that, and that's exactly what happened when Peter preached Christ to them in Acts 10.

Physical birth is exactly what Jesus was talking about John 3 with "born of water", which is why Nicodemus asked how one could be born through the womb again. When Jesus was talking about being "born again", in the Greek it means born from 'above', which He was pointing to one's spirit being born of The Holy Spirit. To further prove that He was referring to flesh birth with "born of water" vs. 'born from above', He gave the comparison of that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. In other words, a direct comparison between flesh and spirit. It just doesn't get any more plain.

 

     
anything