Correcting the Text
Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth, 1 Corinthians 1:1-2a NASB
To the church – Let’s make some corrections to the way that we read the letters of Paul. Let’s start by removing the anachronistic verbiage and its accompanying theological implication. Mark Nanos offers three important observations:
“It is widely recognized that the first appearance of christianos postdate Paul and that he never refers to himself or anyone else by this term or its cognates.”[1]
“ . . . the term ekklesia, from which the translation ‘church’ derived, has also come to represent something that is by definition distinguishable from ‘synagogue.’ . . . ekkelsia was a term that, if not also qualified as being specifically Christ-following, would naturally be understood to represent synagogue gatherings of Jews that were not assumed to be affiliated with Christ-followers: the ekklesia were not yet what ‘church’ came to represent. Thus it is anachronistic and unhelpful for understanding Paul in his own context to use the translation ‘church’ when reading and discussing Paul and his Jewish ‘assemblies.’”[2]
To put it bluntly, Paul was not a Christian and he did not write anything to the Church. Pauline Christianity and the Church that endorses that religion is an invention of later Gentiles who had some affiliation with the teachings of Yeshua but who deliberately attempted to remove themselves from any Jewish association including the Jewish heritage of the Messiah. Twenty centuries later, the dominance of “Church” and “Christian” is so intertwined with the culture of the West that it is nearly impossible to read the Western Bible as anything but Christian. Unfortunately, the Christian Bible was not the Scripture of Paul or of the Messiah.
This may seem bold, unsettling, even heretical. But it is heresy only if you accept the revised history of the Church. What actually happened is a matter of historical investigation. What the Church teaches is something quite different. So, who’s the heretic? Was Paul a Christian? The historical record strongly suggests that he was not, and neither were any of his compatriots. The historical record suggests that Paul never converted; he was always a Torah-observant Jew with a Jewish Messiah. The historical record recounts the creation of the Christian Church with a separate theology, Christology and ecclesiology in the mid-third and fourth centuries. So it’s time to correct the text and remove all those terms whose meaning was determined by men who never shared the faith of Paul or his Messiah.
Topical Index: history, church, ekklesia, Christian, 1 Corinthians 1:1-2
[1] Mark Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm (eds.), Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, p. 14.
[2] Ibid., p. 15.
For nearly fifty years I served the Jesus of the church. I served with my whole heart and my whole life. Somehow when confronted with the truth my entire firm foundation, or so I thought it was crumbled beneath me and left me shipwrecked.
For a time of five years or so I had to walk this very scary road into truth. I came across some articles posted by you, Skip, and the work you have done and have allowed YHVH to do through you has changed everything.
We now have a small group in our home once a month and are learning to walk in what the scriptures really say.
I had to learn not to discount the things YHVH did in my life before I knew the truth and to not attack those who don’t know what it how to escape the lies and brainwashing, yeah , that’s what I said. The life I now live is so very different and so much more challenging because I have to measure it according to the word of truth.
Thank you.
Babs: you wrote “Somehow when confronted with the truth my entire firm foundation, or so I thought it was crumbled beneath me and left me shipwrecked. For a time of five years or so I had to walk this very scary road into truth.”
I’m on that road now, and have been for some years. But it’s a lonely one! I share things like this with some of my dear Christian friends but get little or no reaction much of the time! But at least they seem to tolerate me 🙂
Thanks Babs and John. I too have been on this road for a few years. Sometimes a lonely one. As you said, when shared with close and dear friends you get an indifferent response such as do not disturb my neat world or it seems to work so it is OK to just leave it alone. I have found moments when speaking to a friend the words are powerful and comforting even when they do not know what is implied. TW is an oasis. Thanks all.
So, would the proper term be an ‘edah’? And, would you spend some time in the future opening that up to us? I did read Rabbi Sacks on this awhile back.
Pretty much true, what you say. And by and large, we know that most of the Jews of that day did not share the faith of Paul or his Messiah either! Otherwise, why do we suppose they were put to death?
Unfortunately, the “Jewish Bible” (at least how it was/is taught) was/is not completely the Scripture of Paul or the Messiah either, otherwise, why did Paul and the Messiah seek so diligently to correct their views?
And merely having “Jewish association”? That will not “save” you either.
You say, “The historical record suggests that Paul never converted; he was always a Torah-observant Jew with a Jewish Messiah.” Yes he did so convert! He converted from being a murderer of those who followed Messiah Yeshua to one who lead those who followed Messiah Yeshua, then being murdered himself by those who didn’t follow Messiah Yeshua. And the emphasis of who Paul was should be on him being a Torah-observant believer the way he was a Torah-observant believer, with a Messiah who was Yeshua and not some other Messiah to come that led to his death, not primarily being Jewish, although agreeably that too has its significance.
And it’s not just the Christians who had “a separate theology, Christology and ecclesiology in the mid-third and fourth centuries”, is it? How about that faith that was once for all handed down to the kedoshim? What have those who had been originally entrusted with the gospel of the kingdom done with it?
“”Loved ones, though very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I felt it necessary to write to you urging you to continue to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the kedoshim. For certain people have secretly slipped in—those who from long ago have been marked out for this judgment. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into indecency and deny our only Master and Lord, Yeshua the Messiah.” [Jud 1:3′
Jerry and Lisa, thank you once again for the balance.
I think people who, unfortunately, fall for the dialectic that the Jews and the Christians agreed to have (yes they did! You cannot have a fight without agreeing on common premises for that fight) can also fall for the illusion that the Jews had little to offer, and so could safely be ‘left behind’, but I think we can also miss the point that the instruction in the New Testament is also written for Jews, too, of which the believers counted themselves a part.
2 Timothy 3:16 – “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
Is not the New Testament equally Scripture NOW, and if so, don’t Jews need to know what it offers, too? Didn’t Paul tell the Jews in Antioch that “God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus” (Acts 13:23)? They need Him, too!
From what I can see, Jews AND Christians both slid off the same cliff for the same reason: they quit thinking they were both the same folks. Now they both suffer the same problems. It is not that the Jews need to get on board with the Christians, or that the Christians need to scoot over and start agreeing with where the Jews are NOW; they BOTH left “the faith that was once FOR ALL handed down to the kedoshim”, and so they both need to return. Um, that would mean that they both would need to get back together, too, and, no, I don’t mean on the popular ecumenical basis the world is crafting for them, either. The more I study it, the more I think I can see that that ecumenism is just about as far away from first century practice as you could possibly get!
Keep slogging, Skip.
I am all for being a Berean – and examine preaching (Act 17:11)
EKKLESIA comes from a root meaning “to call out” which may have special theological significance. It is used throughout the Greek Septuagint as the word for “assembly”. But the KJV and other translators did not always translate the word as “church”, only when it suited the (in) doctrine (ation). This same Greek word is used in Acts 19:32-41 to describe an unruly mob, yet here the translators suddenly translate the word as “assembly” rather than “church”.
What was Paul?
He switched from the sect of the Pharisees to the sect of the Nasareens.
He was neither from the tribe of Yahudah nor practicing Judaism.
Was Paul a Jew?
Pieter you ask the question. Was Paul a Jew? In Romans 16:11 talks about his kin the Herodion. So he had Herodion blood.
Hi,
Thanks for the information.
The popular “Bible Dictionary” explanation about Herodion is: “A Christian at Rome whom Paul salutes and calls his kinsman”.
This we know cannot be true as it was Ignatius of Antioch who started and named the sect of “Christianity” who only became Bishop / Nazi / Leader after the death of Shimeon (Jesus’ / Yashua’s youngest brother).
If Paul hear someone accuses him of having “Herodio(a)n blood” he would certainly exclaim: “Absolutely not!” (Gal.2:17; 3:21)
Because even if Herodion is related to the Herodians, it still will not make Paul a “Jew” as the Herodians were Edomites (Josephus, Antiquities, 14.15.2.) who usurped the throne of Yehuda by murdering Jesus’ great grandfather who was the rightful king and a Yahudim (It would be genetically and historically incorrect to use the terms Jew and Yahudim as synonyms) – technically, genetically, Yashua’s earthly linage was both Yahudim and Leviim: the ultimate King-Priest.
Pieter, where did you get the information about Yeshua’ lineage? That one is new to me.
It is true that the prophecies say the Messiah would show up when the sceptre had departed from Judah (Gen. 49:10) and the “land… shall be forsaken of both her kings” (Is. 7:16). (Also see Daniel 9:25; apparently not everybody heeded the rabbincal curse on that verse because both Anna and Simeon were in the temple, waiting for Messiah to show up, and a huge rash of false messiahs were springing up all over the place.) Those prophecies were fulfilled (“the time is at hand” was the signal message) when the Edomite stole the thrones. It wasn’t just the Wise Men of the East who could read Scripture, apparently. These are pretty blatant prophecies.
Will try to find it again, but Miriam’s grand father was supposed to be Hyrcanus who Herod the Great, executed in 31 BCE. Her father and mother was also killed. She was taken into the temple as an orphan to work on the front veil of the temple which was later rent (Matt 27:51). When she “became a woman” Joseph, her nearest of kin, fulfilled his roll as “kinsmen-redeemer” and start the process for her to become his wife (as Boas did with Ruth – nothing new under the sun)
It is the golden apple in the silver bowl (Prov.25:11), how in the natural, Yashua was not only the real claimant to David’s throne he was also the only one left – that is probably why the Yahudim expect him to lead a revolt and was confused and disgusted when he refused. Same with the high priest position – John the baptist was the true heir, he then baptised (instate as successor) Yashua, and had to die to allow Yashua to succeed him.
“Antigonus was not, however, the last Hasmonean. The fate of the remaining male members of the family under Herod was not a happy one. Aristobulus III, grandson of Aristobulus II through his elder son Alexander, was briefly made high priest, but was soon executed (36 BCE) due to Herod’s jealousy. His sister Mariamne was married to Herod, but fell victim to his notorious jealousy. Her sons by Herod, Aristobulus IV and Alexander, were in their adulthood also executed by their father. Hyrcanus II had been held by the Parthians since 40 BCE. For four years, until 36 BCE, he lived amid the Babylonian Jews, who paid him every mark of respect. In that year Herod, who feared that Hyrcanus might induce the Parthians to help him regain the throne, invited him to return to Jerusalem. The Babylonian Jews warned him in vain. Herod received him with every mark of respect, assigning him the first place at his table and the presidency of the state council, while awaiting an opportunity to get rid of him. As the last remaining Hasmonean, Hyrcanus was too dangerous a rival for Herod. In the year 30 BCE, charged with plotting with the King of Arabia, Hyrcanus was condemned and executed.”
Good comments and questions, indeed.
Paul indicated in Acts 23:6 (at the end of his missionary efforts) “I am a Pharisee!” He did not say “I used to be a Pharisee before I converted”. The Pharisees were a relatively small yet important leadership group in the nation. Josephus informs us that there were only a few thousand of them. So Paul lived (and died) an observant Jew and Pharisee as well I think.
Yes, Pieter, the “ekklesia” was in the wilderness after being brought out of Egypt. In the LXX it is used of the Israelites and the mixed multitude. (In Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, etc.)
Hi Leslee
– When everyone in town is CALLED to the market-place for a “town hall meeting” it is the ekklesia. Including the mixed multitude: Yahudim, Greeks, Barbarians and Scythians [/Saka = (I)sak(sons) – Saxons] – Southern kingdom; Hellenists; Goyim and Israel (Northern Kingdom) – Col.3:11
– From this ekklesia, some people CHOSE others with whom they would like to have fellowship with and form a “home group”, a bet kenesset / tefila.
If I told a story to 4 people, it would likely be re-told in 4 different ways.
And the distortion would only multiply as the story is re-told and re-told.
Given all the ravages of time, all the cultural, political and ideological impulses
over the ages, it’s amazing that the Word of God is still just that: The Word Of God!
His story has somehow endured the ages, even though your take may vary from mine.
But I do know whom I’m have believed, and how grateful to Him I am.
True, many have tried . . . but His eternal power and divine nature are
beyond our tampering.
None of us “see” with complete clarity, but to “see” something is better than to not “see” at all, and the more light that we can “see”, the better we shall be..
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” [1Co 13:12]
Tru here. great posting. thanks Skip (yes; i am still here LOL)
If called and converted is not what happened on the way to kill more people gathering for a different sect, then I am totally confused by how God called, prepares and changes. It has nothing to do with cognitive thought but only with God’s intent. Then all the defenses Paul used must not be viewed as him still being part. He was doing what all before done including Abraham… Twisted the truth to benefit the situation…
When Saul became Paul we are looking at a new assignment and that is converting in its simplest form…
Maybe a little more research would help explain why the records to the gentiles are not included in the Bible… Maybe the answer could be as simple as A new sect implying the calling into apostle ship and the records of a gathering are only intended to imply those called and not the general assemblies..
Just maybe.
It almost seems that Paul was “forced” (i.e. CHOSEN) to change (“convert”) and was not softly CALLED and given a choice.
But this maybe because Shaul, from childhood, chose TORAH and therefore was chosen by YHWH, and was now veering off course and was running the risk to be ditched and had to be rescued and yanked to safety.
TORAH is a road we walk on (to salvation) with a Rabbinic ditch on the one side and a Christian ditch on the other.
Pieter I accept Saul’s history but what happened after his change cannot be viewed as sticking to the norm…
That we are called to first accept Torah before being regenerated is found throughout the history even Yeshau made such a statement.
Maybe we should not view regeneration as a choice but truly a define intervention which we will not be able to explain here. That this seems only to happen to Torah observant individuals does appear to be the norm but not always the case…
Regeneration versus choice may be a good discussion point.
Hi Seeker
I view CALLED and CHOSEN as 2 different “processes”.
In the first you have a choice in the second you don’t.
You are called to engage in certain worship activities but if you are chosen you have no further say in the matter.
Take Jonah, called to be a prophet… chosen to deliver a message.
In the day of YHWH: The guests are called to the wedding (the first bunch declined), “the bride” is chosen.
The disciples / followers were called, 12 apostles were chosen.
It seems to apply even in the negative:
HaSatan was called to greatness, even though he / she failed, the Adversary was chosen (without given a choice) to test with oppression, deception, pride and accusation.
What may be taken from this last case is that the subject has to make a voluntary (free will) decision upon being called to qualify to be chosen… “for honour or dishonour” (Rom.9:21).
I have noticed this also, Seeker. Go through and count how many in the book of Acts who had the Messiah revealed to them were already “God-fearers” and/or Torah observant (the terms are honestly synonymous to me)
Thank you Pieter and David.
Choose to be a Nazarene in biblical terms.
Called to do a specific task. May seem similar in the choice to execute.
We choose indoctrinations and certain dogmas as guide to worshipping God with that we all seem to agree.
The called few met certain outcomes normally violent death in return for their reward. And if I read the arguments against eternal life then I wonder if there really is a reward to choose or even accept a calling.
Given the possibility of the reward associated with choice is to be part of multitude praising and worshipping forever.
The reward for called is ruling for ever so that in it self does imply a difference in process.
I will keep this one open as I think there is more involved…
But the term for “convert” is never used of Jews in the NT. It is only applied to Gentiles. And “Paul” didn’t change his name. Many people had multiple names in different languages in the first century (and still do today in the East). We must leave behind the idea that “Paul” converted. There was nothing to convert to. He simply accepted Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah. That isn’t conversion.
Define “conversion”: is it the definition of today’s evangelical Christian, or is it the Jewish definition of the first century? I need to know what we are talking about.
The way I read it, “conversion” – at least in the Bible, anyway – was about swearing allegiance to YHVH (which only Gentiles needed to do), but everybody – Jew as well as Gentile – had to undergo being “born again”, along with the baptism to signify it. Baptism was a Jewish practice already, but, judging by the reaction of Nicodemus, being “born again” may have been a new take on it.
It appears that conversion, along with born-again/baptism, can be concurrent, but not necessarily synonymous with each other, depending on where your previous allegiance had been, whether to YHVH or to false gods. Jews as well as Gentiles, then and now, need to be born again – and baptized, too – but, like Skip points out, it seems only the heathen need to be ‘converted’, depending on which definition you use. I guess Gentile converts would not see a difference between the above (and there isn’t one for them, if you think about it), but a Jew may well take offense at the suggestion of conversion. I notice the word did not come up in the conversation with Nicodemus.
“born again” isn’t even used in the John 3 text. That’s an evangelical translation of Greek terms that mean “generated from above” in all the other occurrences. Is Nicodemus confused about being “born again”? or is he asking about what it means to be generated by God, something he would have assumed to be true as a Jew?
Good point. If that was not a new concept, then he had to have been equivocating for other reasons; perhaps he was still trying to avoid looking like someone who needed to improve? Perhaps he was playing dumb to preserve his dignity? He could not have possibly misunderstood Yeshua if they were talking about boilerplate.
Which brings up the point of what exactly the Baptist was basing his call to immersion on? Was he also preaching “generation from above” as the basis for baptism, and was that why he was refusing to immerse some of the dignitaries? Could we look again at what exactly was going on over there at the Jordan?
My curiosity is truly an incurable itch! Thank you for the clarification!
John’s baptism was a baptism for repentance, typical of the prophets. A call for spiritual renewal, not conversion. The call was given to the Jews, so there was no confusion about ethnic generation. The conversation with Nicodemus takes the subject to a different level.
I get the conversion thing. My question is, is “generation from above” an introduction to something he did not recognize? And, if the repenting going on over at the Jordan was not representing a “generation from above”, why not?
The question is, was there an additional element to experience that was not there before Yeshua, and if so, what was it? We can’t say conversion is new. We can’t say baptism was new, either, but if being “generated from above” was brand new, then it wasn’t just a conversation starter: it was an introduction to an additional step for ALL, was it not? I mean, “spiritual renewal” happens every time I go from sad to happy, and retreats of all kinds are built around this theme, too. “Generation from above”, however, is about a complete reboot.
John 3:4 definitively answers your question:
Yeshua is using double entendre here, and Nicodemus fails to make the connection, obviously. The words used in 3:3 were gennēthȩ̄ anōthen, which mean “born from above/again“. Nicodemus completely missed the former (“from above”), focusing on the latter (“again”).
Or did he miss it? He could not have been that thick! I think he was trying to ride on his own good works, and didn’t want to start over. If I would have been a human in his shoes, I bet I would have done the same thing. It hurts to admit you aren’t perfect! Especially in front of a humble Galilean. Whatcha wanna bet he was just being human?
My main point is that if anōthen strictly means “from above“, then the combination of gennēthȩ̄ anōthen could not have been misconstrued as passing a second time through a mother’s womb–no matter Nicodemus’ perceived motive or state of mind–for that does not align with such a strict definition.
ADDED: In fact, Paul uses this word in a context in which “again” is the only valid translation, in combination with palin, which always means “again” (think “palindrome”), for emphasis, in Galatians 4:9: palin anōthen.
Which only makes it even more probable that he was deliberately missing the point. I am reminded of the Samaritan woman who changed the subject because she DID know what He was talking about. I think Nicodemus must have, too.
But it is not “born” from above. It is “generated.” The focus is on the father, not the birth canal.
The key to the paradigm switch generated for God’s intent not the norm of the day. I could not agree more Skip.
The difference is knowledge based choices versus generated for a purpose. Two different processes as I understand it.
“Born” (“begotten”) and “generated” mean about the same thing. In fact, in the Christian vernacular, “regeneration” is synonymous with “born again”. And, since we’re in John’s Gospel, the Gospel writer makes it clear that this is contingent upon belief in the Light’s/Son’s name–and everyone who does not believe “stands condemned” (3:18).
Yeshua Himself defines gennēthȩ̄ anōthen as being gegennēmenos ek tou pneumatos, generated of/from the S/spirit (3:8) = a spiritual regeneration.
In any case, Nicodemus specifically used the words “a second time” and “mother’s womb”.
Thank you, Craig.
I think it might be safe to say that you can be confused as to whether you have had that spiritual regeneration or not (for a while, anyway) but I don’t think I have ever met or heard of a person who has clearly been regenerated but that didn’t eventually know it to the highest degree. New life is VERY different! Conversely, I know people who have lost it, too, and they were NEVER happy, even though they might have been too deluded to be able to admit it or recognize why.
Wait! Do we really care about the “Christian vernacular? Was Yeshua speaking “Christian”? Not a chance. He was conversing in Hebrew, later translated into Greek, so generated by the Father (a very Jewish idea of lineage) is not the same as being born through a mother. Nicodemus confusion (if that’s what it really is) isn’t about being born. It’s about being conceived. That’s the father’s role. Since Nicodemus believed that being Jewish meant being one of God’s own, the idea of being conceived from above would have seemed radically contradictory. Yes, it’s spiritual regeneration, but it isn’t “Christian” born-again evangelism.
My point is that you made the charge that Christians erroneously redefined the text to mean “born again”, yet the Christian synonymous “regeneration” belies your claim. Now, debating just what that term entails is another matter. I’m simply challenging your notion that Christianity is wrong in the translation “born again”. Moreover, if one looks at the biblehub link above, one will see that a few translate the terms in question “born from above”.
I can’t possibly know what exactly was going on in Nicodemus’ head, as all we have is the text, which specifically mentions his words about passing a second time through a mother’s womb, with no mention of a F/father. Whether or not the text was translated from Hebrew (or Aramaic) into the Greek, all we have is the Greek text from which to exegete.
So, if this is the case then Nicodemus’ response “how can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb…..” is really his response about why does a ethnic Israelite need to be born above? He isn’t confused over again/above. He understands the concept. His confusion is why a ethnic Isrealite (born of a Jewish father) would need to be generated from above! And to show how ludicrous he thinks the statement is he uses the idea of a man going back into his mothers womb when his old.
Is this right Skip?
David I am with you here.
And proof of how easily we can misunderstand what we read of dialogues recorded well after they actually occurred…
In our study with Uriel he says it means , from the source, from that which is on top.
I agree. My terminological sloppiness to blame.
Not convert but revert / return (after mental / neshama understanding, accepting and repenting which should result in turning back) – get back onto the path walked by Abraham.
However Paul had to come to a new understanding (The Messiah came, was rejected, but accomplish multiple tasks anyway) and had to change his ways (spread the good news and not Pharisaic oppression – get out of the Rabbinic ditch).
Convert implies that there are multiple options when in fact there are only 2: YHWH’s way or the wrong Tora-less (Anomian) way.
Nicodemus must have been through multiple episodes of baptism – adulthood, marriage, different offices, etc. (this was usually when names are changed). It seems that he was confused by the association between born-again and baptism. I am not sure if he got it in the end – maybe he did after the resurrection. When the body is from above. Maybe “again” is misleading (? a mistranslation).
You gave me a lot of new info to think about, Pieter; you usually do. Thank you. That “association between born-again and baptism” deserves more consideration with us, I think, too. I would appreciate it if people could help me think about it. I have already gotten a lot more today. Thank you everybody.
P.S. I have read that Nicodemus was one of the few who was not afraid of the Sanhedrin. For example, he helped Joseph of Arimathea get the body of Yeshua down off the cross, and boldly asked permission to do so. Later, I understand he spent all his wealth financing the new organization and died a titleless pauper. Seems to me he got born again!
Or maybe he became a follower of the Jewish Messiah. 🙂
Nicodemus is referred to in John 3:1–21; 7:50–51; 19:39–42.
He is thought to have been Nakdimon ben Gorion one of the three leading councilors in Jerusalem at the time of Yashua. According to the Talmud Nakdimon was wealthy enough to feed the entire city of Jerusalem for ten years (b.Gittin 56a). (He is also referred to in b.Ta’anit 19b-20a). The Talmud also states that “Nakdimon” was his nick-name and that his real name was Buni and that a certain Buni was a student of Yashua and was himself martyred after Yashua’s death (b.San. 43a).
Thank you for sharing so freely Pieter.
Hi Laurita, you say, “. . . everybody – Jew as well as Gentile – had to undergo being “born again” . . . “
I think not. I can understand why Nicodemus didn’t understand what it meant to be born/generated again/from above, but it should be blatantly obvious to us who are witnesses to the resurrection of Christ. Why is there all this confusion as to what is meant by “spirit / pneuma” in this context? Didn’t Yeshua spell it out for us?
Joh 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the PNEUMA is PNEUMA.
7 “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
8 “The PNEUMA blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is EVERYONE who is born of the PNEUMA.”
Not a single one of us has been born of the PNEUMA / SPIRIT. If this is not true, can you show me someone who travels around invisible and can make himself reappear? So far, I know of only One. (John 20:19 & 26)
Yes, we have been born of water and flesh but not yet of spirit, and yet, are we not expected to know this simple lesson?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, “You are a teacher of Israel, and these things you do not know?
Daniel Kraemer
You have just answered what is implied by being regenerated… Being guided by the spirit not knowing where we are going and why. Just knowing it is right and doing it without considering the consequences… Some further thoughts will be given. Thank you.
…or in other words, faith alone.
Hi back, Dan. So you are saying that the “born again” language is code for the immortal life after death? Really? Does that then fit all the verses that talk about it? Can I just go plug in “immortal life” into all those passages and have them make sense? If the writers were talking about immortal life after death, then why didn’t they just say so?
I read eternal life not immortal. Laurita.
The whole NT is about restoring into a lifestyle God intended. Both chosen and my clan the heathens can share in this. We just need the word to take on our flesh… And that is what generated from above seems to imply. Not choosing to follow a sect or doctrine but bring guided by the spirit of truth….
Maybe a deeper look at what Saul’s calling entailed would clarify that he had to move out of his comfort zone and endure hardships that were not common amongst the believers of the era. This in my personal view indicates a change from cognitive view, learnt religious doctrine to something different…
Just my 2 cents…
While Paul may, in the historical record, not be credited with starting a “Christian” religion, his teaching in both Galatians and Romans lays the groundwork for it by giving the Gentiles a pass on Torah observance, thereby creating two sets of standards for obedience to God. I just read yesterday (Augustine or Jerome, can’t remember) that the Ebionites rejected Paul’s writings because of this.
I know some will say that Paul didn’t actually tell Gentiles not to follow Torah, but it’s hard to get around such pointed verses such as Gal. 2:21, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died for nothing.” 3:10, ” For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written….” 3:11Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith.” 3:17 ” The law, which came 430 years later, does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God and cancel the promise.” 3:19, “Why was the law given? It was added UNTIL the Seed to whom the promise was made would come.” [He came] 3:24-26, the law was our guardian UNTIL Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. But since faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”
Translation bias by the church? Hermeneutical bias? Theological bias? The 2nd-3rd century Ebionites didn’t think so. They chucked Paul’s writings altogether because they obviously saw the same problem with Paul’s double standard back then and they had the benefit of reading it in Koine Greek, without the handicap of the KJV or Constantine’s influence. I’m not advocating this radical excision of Paul, but either WE have a huge misunderstanding of the meaning of Paul’s message, or Paul was a lone ranger who didn’t think through the ramifications of his theology very well, thereby causing an unmitigated disaster for centuries thereafter.
Define “law”. We have only one definition, and so we interpreted it with that one word, but did they? And, if on the off chance that the Ebionites DID know exactly which “law(s)” Paul was writing about (and which one(s) he was not, then perhaps they were the ones deliberately obfuscating the word, not he?
There was more than one set of laws, and these multiple sets of “laws” were treated very differently by the Israelites, who knew (or were supposed to know) the differences between them quite well. Paul would have, too.
Someone correct me, I haven’t studied the Ebionites much at all.
Before you draw this conclusion, take a look at Mark Nanos’ book on Galatians. The issue is NOT what we think, but who the audience is and what they thought. Once you realize Paul is not writing about Gentiles “conversion” but rather about full rights within the synagogue community, your view of his description of the Torah might very well change.
Full rights within the community of God. Yes, I get that. But even Nanos interprets the olive tree in Romans 11 as something other than Israel. This leaves open the door for two sets of standards for Jews [Israelites] and Gentiles [believers in God from the nations], does it not (the Reformation understanding of justification notwithstanding)? Very few Messianic synagogues today would hold otherwise. In other words, it appears that Paul is saying Gentiles have full rights but not full obligations. I’ll guess I’ll wait for the definitive answer after reading Nanos on Galatians. [Doesn’t Nanos consider himself a Christian???]
No he is a Reform Jew.
New birth! The Spirit replaces the flesh.
New orientation.
New perspective.
New reality.
New everything.
The fall gets wiped away. A new door opens wide where God Himself
enters into a person as He did in the original creation. Pure Oneness.
The mind of Christ. His heart. His Spirit. His very nature.
Now yours. All yours to receive and live.
Life anew.
Born again.
Like the beginning.
I’ve been very busy of late, and I wanted to challenge this the other day, but now finally getting to it. Nanos is incorrect on his assertion regarding Christianos (footnote 1). Luke reports its earliest use in a Christian setting (“Christian” used here to differentiate from anti-Yeshua-as-Messiah Jews) in Acts 11:26, ca. 43AD. By the context, apparently the assembly (ekklēsia) at Antioch, aka the disciples (mathētēs) at Antioch, were called by this moniker by Barnabas and/or Paul. Paul may not have used Christianos in his writings, but, certainly, we cannot know what Paul used in everyday speech.