A true christian is one who is BORN AGAIN. There is NO other kind of christian.

The So called "christians" you speak about Abra, were NEVER christians to begin with...meaning they were NEVER BORN AGAIN.... including you.
They had head knowledge, not heart knowlwdge..and their spirit never was born again.

Once someone is truly born again, one cannot EVER become UNBORN..no more than a child born in the natural, can become suddenly unborn on this earth.
Same difference.

And futhermore, a true child of God does NOT desire to EVER want to not be a child of God!!

In answer to the question asked earlier ,above ..about how we know we are born again?

God's Spirit bears WITNESS with our spirit, thus letting us KNOW that we KNOW that we KNOW that we KNOW.... that we are truly Born again.

God thru His Holy Spirit, comes to dwell in us .....and we KNOW!!!

And We His Sheep, KNOW the Voice of Our Shepherd, and FLEE from the Voice of a Stranger.

Well morningsong, if you are happy then I am truly happy for you. I am sure your faith will not fail you as long as you keep it always. Belief alone will save you from whatever you need saving from.

JB

(((((((JeannieBean)))))))

Truly MorningSong, if you feel that you need to be saved from something I'm sure God will save you.

No problem. You have my blessings.

Jesus did say that he came for the sinners and not for the righteous. Maybe he just ignores the righteous folk because he knows they don't need to be saved from anything.

That would explain a lot.

Abra..Thank You for your Blessings..that was Kind of You Abra.


God is Not Done With Any of Us....
and Loves Us All..So Very Much.
So Do I...

Be Blessed Now Too ,Abra....

Sorry, but that doesn't seem of whole logic.

And... this Voice of a Stranger that you refer to... Does that include anyone who won't agree?

It's almost like The Emperor's New Cloths. All who agree to agree are received?

Splendidlife...God is Spirit.
Not logic.

And Because God is Spirit, the things of the spirit are not going to make logical sense.

To be born again makes no logical sense....cause it happens in the spirit...and is of the Spirit.

And when we are born again, the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us, and leads us and guides us into all truth..and Yes..when we are born again, we recognize and KNOW God's Voice....and flee from the voice of a stranger( someone twisting God's Word, for instance).

Yeah you can say that again. The bible is probably the most illogical document I have ever seen. Its a good thing the ability to rationalize is not a requirement to join this exclusive club house you've got going. You should be able to discern right from wrong as it relates to your own personal life with or without the "lord's" assistance. Just that term "lord" makes my skin crawl. Its so feudal.

Still the general Messianic promises made to the house of David cannot be frustrated: "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good. For before the child know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of the face of her two kings." Without answering a number of questions connected with the explanation of the prophecy, we must confine ourselves here to the bare proof that the virgin mentioned by the prophet is Mary the Mother of Christ. The argument is based on the premises that the prophet's virgin is the mother of Emmanuel, and that Emmanuel is Christ. The relation of the virgin to Emmanuel is clearly expressed in the inspired words; the same indicate also the identity of Emmanuel with the Christ.

The connection of Emmanuel with the extraordinary Divine sign which was to be given to Achaz predisposes one to see in the child more than a common boy. In 8:8, the prophet ascribes to him the ownership of the land of Juda: "the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Emmanuel". In 9:6, the government of the house of David is said to be upon his shoulders, and he is described as being endowed with more than human qualities: "a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the World to Come, and the Prince of Peace". Finally, the prophet calls Emmanuel "a rod out of the root of Jesse" endowed with "the spirit of the Lord. . .the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of godliness"; his advent shall be followed by the general signs of the Messianic era, and the remnant of the chosen people shall be again the people of God (11:1-16).

Whatever obscurity or ambiguity there may be in the prophetic text itself is removed by St. Matthew (1:18-25). After narrating the doubt of St. Joseph and the angel's assurance, "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost", the Evangelist proceeds: "now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." We need not repeat the exposition of the passage given by Catholic commentators who answer the exceptions raised against the obvious meaning of the Evangelist. We may infer from all this that Mary is mentioned in the prophecy of Isaias as mother of Jesus Christ; in the light of St. Matthew's reference to the prophecy, we may add that the prophecy predicted also Mary's virginity untarnished by the conception of the Emmanuel [7].

for further reading as a general knowledge, please visit:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

TWO PROBLEMS —TRANSLATION AND CONTEXT

The Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament says the birth of Jesus fulfilled a prophecy:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet, saying, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:22-23 King James Bible)


The prophecy is in Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the LORD Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (King James Version)


Dean Dowling, a skeptic and former university lecturer, writes:

But the myth that Mary was "semper virgo" is also mainly due to a translation error…

The Hebrew used the word "alma" which means young (unmarried?) woman. But when the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into the famous Greek Septuagint in 270 B.C. "almah" was erroneously translated into the Greek "parthenos" (our "virgin").

The Greek gospellers Matthew (1:22ff) and Luke (1:27ff) read the Greek Old Testament and wishing fulfilment of prophecy recorded a virgin birth…

Christians try to slip out of this by saying "almah" can also mean "virgin". But the Hebrews have an explicit word for "virgin" which is "bethulah". Isaiah uses "bethulah" five times elsewhere when referring to virgin and presumed virgin. So why didn’t the Hebrews use their explicit word for virgin instead of "almah"? (Dowling 2000)

Another objection is that Isaiah 7 seemingly implies the "young woman" was alive in Isaiah’s day. Matthew apparently not only substituted "virgin" for "maiden" but also took Isaiah 7:14 out of context by applying it to Jesus.

Many Christians get around this problem by claiming that parts of Isaiah have two fulfilments:

It is more likely that this prophecy had a double fulfillment.
(The Life Application Study Bible 1996, Footnote on p. 1057)

The controversial Hebrew word used here sometimes means "virgin" and sometimes "young woman." Its immediate use here refers to Isaiah’s young wife and her newborn son (Isaiah 8:1-4). This, of course, was not a virgin birth. God’s sign was that before this child was old enough to talk (verse 14) the two invading kings would be destroyed. However, the Gospel of Matthew (1:23) tells us that there was a further fulfillment of this prophecy, in that a virgin (Mary) conceived and bore a son, Immanuel, the Christ.
(The Way The Living Bible Illustrated 1971—Footnote)

Huge mistake here: Matthew was not written in greek, but in arameic.

Well wasn't it a huge misinterpretation of the word "alma" to begin with? I think my point was that this was but one reason the Jews did not and could not endorse Jesus as Messiah.

misinterpretation??????
hmmm???
well it depends upon what are the biases of the people interpreting.
if the individual interpreting is trying to deny the divinity of my Lord, well I guess you are right.

The ancient Holy scriptures, the Tanakh (sometimes called the "Old Testament,") from which the following prophecies are taken, were all written from 400 years to 2,000 years before Christ (B.C.) and were later translated from the Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish priests and scholars who were brought together sometime around 270 B.C. So, these prophecies were in writing and being translated from Hebrew into Greek almost three hundred years before Jesus-Yeshua was even born in Bethlehem ... the city of King David!

Hey I already told you that I feel this is irrelevant to this thread. I am not a Christian, nor a Catholic so I could not care less. All Im saying is I feel the Hebrews made a point here. I cant really blame them.

I was refering to the statement which says: "The greek gospellers Mathew....."
Yes, ofcourse your assertion of the Old Testament is true.
However, I was not arguing that.

then I'm glad for them.
My only point is that this point about the jews rejecting the Holy Virgin is minor compared to the important reason why they rejected my Lord.
Again it's a reason mainly used by fundies to rest importance to the blessed virgin.
A friendly reminder my dear friend you were the one who made me a question about the virgin.
Initially we were talking about serpents and trees.

Well I just showed you the validity of the statement and that seems somewhat off base anyway. What you would want to address here is the word "alma" and the incorrect translation of that term. That was one of the issues that the Hebrews had with Jesus. They had a many of course but thats not really insignificant. I would hardly call it nit pickery.

Isnt that what I just said? There are many reasons why Jesus was rejected as being the true Messiah by the Jews. My point was that it is clearly understandable. If you want to argue that continuously because it infringes on your belief system in some respect, leave me out of it. I have told you that to me, it is of no consequence one way or another.

As every other intelligent person who is against christianity.

Assertions such as all christians are delusional or foolish are fifth grade statements which I don't pay attention.

Yours are very intelligent and the seem well researched, that is why I take the time to dialogue with you.

However, my point is very simple the fact that the Jews could not understand a Mesiah born from woman (we already know how they regarded women generally) does not mean that my Lord is not who He is.

It's interesting how in this point fundies and non-christians think very alike.