Search results

You said "there were 6 ways a person could be born again". Maybe you misspoke. 1. You said there "were 6 says a born could be born again in Israel"--meaning you were referring to life back then, which means there would not have been any "rebbe". 2. Hillel had long been dead by "Jesus's day"...

"Rebbe" is Yiddish for "rabbi", or a leader of a Hasidic sect (Hasidism being relatively recent development)--the word wouldn't have had influence on customs in ancient Israel because it didn't exist.

A Jew is "born again" when he is circumcised!? A Jewish boy is circumcised the 8th day after he was just born! He needs another birth already!? Where are you getting all of this nonsense?

You have no bases for referring to OT water baptisms as "born again" experiences. Says who? By referring to "one" you've already assumed "natural birth" so there would be no mention of any "need" to be "naturally born" to an already "naturally born" person.

No, not "words" but "Christ's Words".

I've explained it. "My Words are Spirit and life".

Actually, those Jews of Galatians 4 still exist today--and they don't accept John's Baptism. John's Baptism has nothing to do with natural men being born.

I'm not going to quarrel with you. You don't know what you're saying, at all, period, end of story. Hopefully that will be as clear to the readers as it has been to me from the first comment you made here. Now we can get back to the point rather than spend an eternity correcting someone who...

Without a physical death, he and his Jewish cohorts who believed in Christ would still be "under Law"--as it is, having died, they are Lawfully exempted, as it states... "...through the Law, I died to the Law..." The Law commands the Jews' liberation from Itself when ever it is that they...

In case you want to quarrel about whether Paul meant we literally physically die with Christ, Paul was a Pharisee, and we have preserved in the Talmud an identical Pharisaic tradition (and again Paul assumed these Jewish Christian readers in the Roman Church he was addressing were aware of the...

Please show even one verse teaching John's water baptism unto repentance (not the New Covenant rite of water baptism in Christ's Name) wrought a birth of any sort.

It's better to consider how to make Jesus look great than how to make people think you're smart. I don't want to stray too far from the topic, so please let's bring it back to the topic.

No, read Romans 6:6, Romans 7:24-25, and take other relevant verses into consideration (eg, "I have been crucified with Christ" "through which I've been crucified to the world" "the Jew is only obligated to the Law as long as he lives... you also died through the body of Christ", etc, etc, etc).

They meant they were only in town while John preached, and somehow (easily explained--John baptized for some time before Christ began baptizing anyone--and certainly before the New Covenant was inaugurated) never were baptized into Christ. I didn't know you were drawing a distinction between...

The context of Romans 6:6 is one (the body of sin is destroyed just as the clay vessel must be destroyed after it is defiled--it cannot be cleansed or improved or reformed); the context of Jeremiah (God is trying to avert destroying them, so he's trying to give them another chance--and he says...

...it doesn't--there is no correlation between water baptism and Galatians 4 which condemns putting people "under Law" Galatians 4:21 which obviously cannot include "water baptism" since that is an integral part of Christianity. Impossible, as it is required by the New Covenant, which...

No, the carnal mind can only be destroyed Romans 6:6. The Law says a clay vessel once defiled cannot be cleansed it must be destroyed. It is better to be simple not complicated.

When you use Galatians 4, you take the entire argument there and use it--you denounce baptism as "under Law" "works of Law" and "false Gospel".

Not sure what purpose this comment serves, as that had already been granted... Please clarify. EDIT : I reread your claim--apparently you meant "Sarah allegorically signifies grace" not "Sarah's name means grace".