thehomer:
The article expands on what it means to be born-again. With references from the Bible too so I have actually answered your direct question. You then decided to shift the goalposts into questions about atonement, fruits of the spirit, doctrinal issues on Calvinism and what not. If I presented you with articles addressing Christian beliefs on those issues, will you finally answer your question?

Rather than you shifting the goal posts, present your own answer, concise or verbose to your initial question on the meaning of being born-again. When you've done that, then we can assess whether or not you know what you're talking about. Shifting the goalposts is a poor tactic you know.

The burden shifted to you once I answered the question so your prediction is not needed since I have already answered the question. Since you feel unsatisfied with it, present the answer you'll be satisfied with for analysis.

And your record for evasions keeps on climbing.

Probability of 98.78% of Mr anony not answering his own questions in the next response.

My prediction was right. He tried to shift the burden again.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

I have not shifted any goalposts, I am giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your biblical knowledge. If you know what to be born again means, you should easily answer the above. They are all about what it means to be born again. Pick them one by one using the bible.

I predict 99.5% thehomer will dance some more

thehomer:
Met and surpassed. It is up to you to show whether or not you're up to scratch.

lololol, met and surpassed where? Please be serious for once

Logicboy03:
So, asking someone to define born again with all those questions there is nothing short of nonsense.

Questions that will lead to more questions. At the end, he'll tell you you don't know what it means to be born again. Then the thread will end.

Later on, probably two weeks from now, you'll open the thread and go through it.. and wonder how the OP relates to the posts that come after Anony entered the thread..

At that time, he'll be repeating the same tactics on another thread. The same accusations will be leveled against him..

The story goes on...

Logicboy03:


Everyone reading this thread can see that you are a tool. A dubious tool.


Seriously, being born again is not a sceintific theory or deeply philosophical issue. It is simply having a spiritual rebirth in which you become a true follower of christ.

The above definition is a very general one that can be agreed with by most christains. Other than that, it becomes a denominational difference in doctrine. For instance a catholic born again is simply one who is abptised and confirmed as a full catholic and lives a holy life- which you yourself are ignorant about.

So, asking someone to define born again with all those questions there is nothing short of nonsense.

You know you can take pity on him and help him meet his burden if you like him too much. Calling it nonsense has no effect here. If he can't demonstrate that he knows what he is talking about, he simply doesn't know what he is talking about. Merely pasting links is not evidence of knowledge

musKeeto:
Questions that will lead to more questions. At the end, he'll tell you you don't know what it means to be born again. Then the thread will end.

Later on, probably two weeks from now, you'll open the thread and go through it.. and wonder how the OP relates to the posts that come after Anony entered the thread..

At that time, he'll be repeating the same tactics on another thread. The same accusations will be leveled against him..

The story goes on...

interesting. Have you regained your memory now?

You know you can help them out. Surely I know that you know that those questions are as easy as moi-moi for anyone who knows what it means to be born-again

Mr anony:
interesting. Have you regained your memory now? You know you can help them out. Surely I know that you know that those questions are as easy as moi-moi for anyone who knows what it means to be born-again

And how do you know this?

musKeeto:

And how do you know this?

Lol, I know you enough to know that you know that the challenge I set before him is very simple. All I want him to do is to demonstrate that he actually knows what he is talking about and not merely posting a wikipedia link

Mr anony:
Lol, I know you enough to know that you know that the challenge I set before him is very simple. All I want him to do is to demonstrate that he actually knows what he is talking about and not merely posting a wikipedia link

We all know how it will end up. If you could fault his wikipedia posts, I don't see any reason why his answers to those questions up there won't suffer the same fate..

So why not save us time and answer the question yourself..

musKeeto:

We all know how it will end up. If you could fault his wikipedia posts, I don't see any reason why his answers to those questions up there won't suffer the same fate..

So why not save us time and answer the question yourself..

This is how it all went down.....

1. He claimed he knows what it means to be born again.
2. I asked him to demonstrate this knowledge using the bible
3. Instead of using the bible, he posted a wikipedia link and claimed he agreed with wikipedia.
4. This prompted me to ask him further questions so as to find out whether he truly knows the subject or merely posted wikipedia

If he knows what it means to be born again, those questions should be very easy for him to answer. I won't do his work for him. If he cannot demonstrate that he has the knowledge he claims to have then his claim is simply false.

So far he is still dancing.


I didn't fault his wikipedia posts all I asked is that he demonstrate a level of knowledge beyond copy and paste, anybody can post wikipedia.
For instance I can claim to a hindu that I understand the caste system and then post wikipedia but that won't be proof that I actually understand what the caste system is all about. Get my drift?

Mr anony:
My prediction was right. He tried to shift the burden again.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

I have not shifted any goalposts, I am giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your biblical knowledge. If you know what to be born again means, you should easily answer the above. They are all about what it means to be born again. Pick them one by one using the bible.

I predict 99.5% thehomer will dance some more


lololol, met and surpassed where? Please be serious for once

Met and surpassed here.

Just so you know, people actually do gain knowledge from reading. I wonder why you people are so scared about that.

After I had answered your question, like clockwork you then tried to raise even more questions when you hadn't even said whether or not you agreed with what I said or presented what you actually thought.

Once I answered your question, I met my burden of demonstrating knowledge. You on the other hand are yet to demonstrate your own knowledge. Keep in mind the fact that you're yet to even say whether or not agree with the Wikipedia article and you've not actually provided what you think it lacks in depth.

These are some of the reasons why you're such a terrible apologist. Apologists generally answer questions but you're one unable to even show you know what you claim to know.

If you're unable to answer with your next response, then I'll know that you're either ignorant of what you were asking me for and trying to hide it, or you don't know how to have a serious discussion using reason. Either way, I'll just leave you to wallow in your myths on this thread.

musKeeto:

We all know how it will end up. If you could fault his wikipedia posts, I don't see any reason why his answers to those questions up there won't suffer the same fate..

So why not save us time and answer the question yourself..

And that is the core of the problem. If he can fault the Wikipedia articles based on some arbitrary "depth" he's imposed while being unable to actually answer his question to his satisfactory "depth", what would stop him from dragging this question out to whether or not Jonah lived in a whale or a big fish?

thehomer:

And that is the core of the problem. If he can fault the Wikipedia articles based on some arbitrary "depth" he's imposed while being unable to actually answer his question to his satisfactory "depth", what would stop him from dragging this question out to whether or not Jonah lived in a whale or a big fish?

Will it be okay if Anony gives you a link to a website in response to any of your questions?

thehomer:

Met and surpassed here.

Just so you know, people actually do gain knowledge from reading. I wonder why you people are so scared about that.

After I had answered your question, like clockwork you then tried to raise even more questions when you hadn't even said whether or not you agreed with what I said or presented what you actually thought.

Once I answered your question, I met my burden of demonstrating knowledge. You on the other hand are yet to demonstrate your own knowledge. Keep in mind the fact that you're yet to even say whether or not agree with the Wikipedia article and you've not actually provided what you think it lacks in depth.

These are some of the reasons why you're such a terrible apologist. Apologists generally answer questions but you're one unable to even show you know what you claim to know.

If you're unable to answer with your next response, then I'll know that you're either ignorant of what you were asking me for and trying to hide it, or you don't know how to have a serious discussion using reason. Either way, I'll just leave you to wallow in your myths on this thread.

Mtscheew, when you said you had met and surpassed it. I jumped to the link only to see that it was the same wiki article.

Your attempts to shift your burden are futile. So is your talk on apologetics. You made a knowledge claim, show us that you know it and didn't merely copypaste wikipedia.

All you have to do is

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

Do this and I will know you have a good biblical grasp of what you are talking about and then we can begin to discuss.

striktlymi:
Will it be okay if Anony gives you a link to a website in response to any of your questions?

Abeg help me ask him oh.

Perhaps when next someone asks me to show that I know something, I'll just post a link and then ask him to show that he knows what he is asking me, I'll even go on to accuse him of being evasive for not answering the question he asked me. The ojoro this guy wants to get away with is just too much.



By the way bros, I haven't forgotten that I owe you a response on your thread

Mr anony:
Abeg help me ask him oh.



By the way bros, I haven't forgotten that I owe you a response on your thread

Lol!!!

Any time you are free...I am not in a hurry.

striktlymi:


Will it be okay if Anony gives you a link to a website in response to any of your questions?

Not a link to a website but a link to the actual article that addresses the question.

Also, it depends on the question. If it is a question like the one he's asked me, then he's welcome to do that and I will of course assume that he agrees with all that is written there unless he explicitly says otherwise. He should of course be ready to highlight the relevant portion for me to take note of. That article should also meet the full criteria he's already tacked on to the initial question.

If it is a question that requires a concise response, I see no reason why he would post a link to an article rather than give a direct and concise response unless to show the source of his summary.

Since it appears that I cannot get through to him and you've seen the bind he's in, maybe you can try asking him to back up his claims of knowledge.

thehomer:

Not a link to a website but a link to the actual article that addresses the question.

Also, it depends on the question. If it is a question like the one he's asked me, then he's welcome to do that and I will of course assume that he agrees with all that is written there unless he explicitly says otherwise. He should of course be ready to highlight the relevant portion for me to take note of. That article should also meet the full criteria he's already tacked on to the initial question.

If it is a question that requires a concise response, I see no reason why he would post a link to an article rather than give a direct and concise response unless to show the source of his summary.

I understand the above but really I don't think you are putting yourself in Anony's shoes.

I have been following the discourse for a while now and really if someone asks a question I expect the reply to be in the individual's own words.

What we have in Wiki are the thoughts of someone else and really, wiki is not exactly some 'trusted' source because it still needs to be validated before it can be trusted and this can be time consuming.

Again, even if wiki contains what is required, that still does not demonstrate your understanding. In order to demonstrate this, I believe it is only fair to give a summary of what that article is all about.

It's quite similar to an individual who is asked to demonstrate his understanding of 'romance' and the individual runs of fetch an article on romance and asks the questioner to read through and get his understanding from there.

striktlymi:

I understand the above but really I don't think you are putting yourself in Anony's shoes.

I have been following the discourse for a while now and really if someone asks a question I expect the reply to be in the individual's own words.

Based on my previous interactions with him, I didn't want to go with my usual short responses because he would have complained so rather than simply lifting the entire article that I agreed with, I sent him a link to help him understand in more detail what my views were but what did he do? He requested for even more depth and some other side issues that he felt were missing from the article. If I had responded with a summary, what do you think he would have done?

striktlymi:
What we have in Wiki are the thoughts of someone else and really, wiki is not exactly some 'trusted' source because it still needs to be validated before it can be trusted and this can be time consuming.

I think it is generally satisfactory for online discussions and informal arguments. Sure there can be problems with what it contains but that isn't his problem with it right now. Even those can be resolved with links to other sources.

striktlymi:
Again, even if wiki contains what is required, that still does not demonstrate your understanding. In order to demonstrate this, I believe it is only fair to give a summary of what that article is all about.

In fact, the best way to evaluate my understanding would be an actual test in multiple parts that would be graded but we do not have that luxury. Again, if an article isn't sufficient, how would my summary of the article be sufficient?

striktlymi:
It's quite similar to an individual who is asked to demonstrate his understanding of 'romance' and the individual runs of fetch an article on romance and asks the questioner to read through and get his understanding from there.

I don't understand what you mean here. Maybe there are some words missing.

Notice that at the same time, he has given nothing to show that he himself actually understands what he is asking for. In good faith, I've been answering his questions but he has not answered his before even coming to my own questions.

thehomer:

Based on my previous interactions with him, I didn't want to go with my usual short responses because he would have complained so rather than simply lifting the entire article that I agreed with, I sent him a link to help him understand in more detail what my views were but what did he do? He requested for even more depth and some other side issues that he felt were missing from the article. If I had responded with a summary, what do you think he would have done?



I think it is generally satisfactory for online discussions and informal arguments. Sure there can be problems with what it contains but that isn't his problem with it right now. Even those can be resolved with links to other sources.



In fact, the best way to evaluate my understanding would be an actual test in multiple parts that would be graded but we do not have that luxury. Again, if an article isn't sufficient, how would my summary of the article be sufficient?



I don't understand what you mean here. Maybe there are some words missing.

Notice that at the same time, he has given nothing to show that he himself actually understands what he is asking for. In good faith, I've been answering his questions but he has not answered his before even coming to my own questions.

The point remains: No one demonstrates an understanding of something by asking another to read up an article he agrees to.

striktlymi:

The point remains: No one demonstrates an understanding of something by asking another to read up an article he agrees to.

How do you suggest this understanding be demonstrated when communicating on an online forum? Especially when the other party desires a thesis rather than a concise response?

thehomer:

How do you suggest this understanding be demonstrated when communicating on an online forum? Especially when the other party desires a thesis rather than a concise response?

Question: What do you understand by being born again? Please support your answer with relevant scriptural backing.

Answer: Being born again is simply...the scriptural backings are...

striktlymi:

Question: What do you understand by being born again? Please support your answer with relevant scriptural backing.

Answer: Being born again is simply...the scriptural backings are...

Here you go.

To be born again is to undergo a "spiritual rebirth" (regeneration) of the human soul or spirit, contrasted with the physical birth everyone experiences. The origin of the term "born again" is the New Testament: "Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.' It is a term associated with salvation in Christianity. Individuals who profess to be born again often state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Scriptural backing: [Jn 3:3 NIV]

NIV:
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

. . .

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Now can you ask him to answer this same question?

@Homer, I hope I have your permission to do this. I'd love to hear Anony's answers to Mazaje's questions..

@Anony, e don tey I read Bible, but I'll try..

Mr anony:
Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.

Christianity claims that man is inherently evil and therefore faulty. Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden put us into turmoil and cast us away from God. The New Testament chronicles God's attempts to get back to us by sending his Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. His death frees us from the shame brought on by Adam's disobedience and into a new walk with God. We're born into sin, and become born again by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:
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.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

---

Mr anony:
what salvation is and why it is necessary

Salvation is not of works but of faith.

Romans 10:

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Salvation is the Christian's journey with God, the whole process from start to finish.

---

Mr anony:
Why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell

Mr anony:
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again

I'll skip both; they'd probably spin off another thread...

---

Mr anony:
What exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

A relationship with Christ is one in which Christ becomes Author and Publisher .. all thoughts are subject to his will and words, a life lived for his purpose.

---

I don try. Can the thread move on?

@ musKeeto.

I am thehomer and I endorse your response.

thehomer: @ musKeeto.

I am thehomer and I endorse your response.

thehomer:

Here you go.

To be born again is to undergo a "spiritual rebirth" (regeneration) of the human soul or spirit, contrasted with the physical birth everyone experiences. The origin of the term "born again" is the New Testament: "Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.' It is a term associated with salvation in Christianity. Individuals who profess to be born again often state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Scriptural backing: [Jn 3:3 NIV]



Now can you ask him to answer this same question?

Anony I believe Thehomer has taken the bull by the horn...

Your turn!

striktlymi:

Anony I believe Thehomer has taken the bull by the horn...

Your turn!

Lololol, he only copypasted from his wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_%28Christianity%29

I think Muskeeto did a much better job and apparently he endorsed it so I'm currently preparing a response for that.

musKeeto: @Homer, I hope I have your permission to do this. I'd love to hear Anony's answers to Mazaje's questions..

@Anony, e don tey I read Bible, but I'll try..



Christianity claims that man is inherently evil and therefore faulty. Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden put us into turmoil and cast us away from God. The New Testament chronicles God's attempts to get back to us by sending his Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. His death frees us from the shame brought on by Adam's disobedience and into a new walk with God. We're born into sin, and become born again by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:
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.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

---

Salvation is not of works but of faith.

Romans 10:

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Salvation is the Christian's journey with God, the whole process from start to finish.

---

I'll skip both; they'd probably spin off another thread...

---

A relationship with Christ is one in which Christ becomes Author and Finisher .. all thoughts are subject to his will and words, a life lived for his purpose.

---

I don try. Can the thread move on?

You try. Apparently Thehomer agrees too. I still hold that he is ignorant of what it means to be born again and failed to bluff his way through.


Now let us go back to the first place I asked him this question here

thehomer: How do you know there's no sickness in Heaven? If God will be accepting murderers who just "accepted Jesus" before their execution, who knows what they'll do to people they encounter in Heaven.

Mr anony: do you know what it means to be born again? or perhaps the more important question is; do you want to know?

Now why did I ask that question? Simply this: Because if thehomer really knew what it means to be born-again and what it means for a Christian to go Heaven, he will not have brought up the idea of a murderer in heaven because such a thing is simply impossible.

To be born again means to be born of God, to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh (i.e to be dead to sin). One does not earn a born again status by doing good things. One becomes born again when he completely submits to the Lordship of Christ and is transformed by Him. The Spirit of God now dwells in him, changing his desires such that he now wants the things of God and not things patterned after his selfish lusts.

Now why is it that Christians have been known to fall into sin atimes? I think the following passage explains it best:

Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
Rom 7:17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--
Rom 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"
Rom 8:16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Now what was I trying to point out with that passage? I was showing that as long as we live on earth our renewed spirit which is born of God will contend with the flesh. But when the Lord gives us a new body at His coming, when we inherit God's kingdom, we will not have the lusts of our flesh to contend with anymore but we would have been transformed in Spirit and now also in body and our desires will be in tune with God's therefore it will be impossible for us to sin in heaven.

@Mr anony

So was that why you didn't answer these questions raised by mazaje?

If the devil himself who was in heaven could sin along with a lot of angels, what makes you think that a murderer who went to heaven won't be able to sin? When you say a murderer in heaven is an impossibility, then it tells me that you've not been reading my responses because unless you can definitively tell me that Jeffrey Dahmer is not and will never be in heaven, then you're simply wrong. You see, all you've done is to ignore other parts of your Bible in order to massage out information that you didn't even provide with your highlighting.

I notice that for some reason, you never actually said what it means to be born-again and you never said whether or not you agreed with what I posted. You never added the depth of this idea of yours to be born-again finally, you've just shown that the extra questions you tacked on which you also never answered here were just you way of shifting the goalposts.

Your questions still await you whenever you're ready.

As regards the OP

thehomer: @Mr anony
So was that why you didn't answer these questions raised by mazaje?

answered here

If the devil himself who was in heaven could sin along with a lot of angels, what makes you think that a murderer who went to heaven won't be able to sin? When you say a murderer in heaven is an impossibility, then it tells me that you've not been reading my responses because unless you can definitively tell me that Jeffrey Dahmer is not and will never be in heaven, then you're simply wrong. You see, all you've done is to ignore other parts of your Bible in order to massage out information that you didn't even provide with your highlighting.

This shows you have not been paying attention.
Now that you know a bit more about what being born again is, kindly answer from scripture: Was the devil ever born again?
About Jeffrey Dahmer I answered here
What information specifically were you looking for about being born again that you feel I have "massaged out"?

I notice that for some reason, you never actually said what it means to be born-again and you never said whether or not you agreed with what I posted. You never added the depth of this idea of yours to be born-again finally, you've just shown that the extra questions you tacked on which you also never answered here were just you way of shifting the goalposts.

Are you blind? Read my post again, I explained what it means to be born again,
About whether I agreed with you or not; I told you that wikipedia was too basic for me to give my full agreement however I didn't disagree. You don't ask questions then try to force the answer you want you know.
About adding depth to what it means to be born again, I think I Muskeeto and I have done precisely that. If there is anything more you want to know about being born-again, you'll have to ask for it specifically.
The extra questions I tacked on was my way of testing if you actually knew what you were talking about. Apparently you didn't

Your questions still await you whenever you're ready.

Lol. I laugh in Aramaic

Mr anony:
You try. Apparently Thehomer agrees too. I still hold that he is ignorant of what it means to be born again and failed to bluff his way through.


Now let us go back to the first place I asked him this question here




Now why did I ask that question? Simply this: Because if thehomer really knew what it means to be born-again and what it means for a Christian to go Heaven, he will not have brought up the idea of a murderer in heaven because such a thing is simply impossible.

To be born again means to be born of God, to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh (i.e to be dead to sin). One does not earn a born again status by doing good things. One becomes born again when he completely submits to the Lordship of Christ and is transformed by Him. The Spirit of God now dwells in him, changing his desires such that he now wants the things of God and not things patterned after his selfish lusts.

Now why is it that Christians have been known to fall into sin atimes? I think the following passage explains it best:

Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
Rom 7:17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--
Rom 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"
Rom 8:16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Now what was I trying to point out with that passage? I was showing that as long as we live on earth our renewed spirit which is born of God will contend with the flesh. But when the Lord gives us a new body at His coming, when we inherit God's kingdom, we will not have the lusts of our flesh to contend with anymore but we would have been transformed in Spirit and now also in body and our desires will be in tune with God's therefore it will be impossible for us to sin in heaven.

The part in bold is completely false because NO WHERE in the verse says that a new body will be given to any body at Jesus's coming. . .The passage was just talking about how people here ON EARTH will be transformed when they accept Jesus and allow his spirit to dwell in them. . .Why are you making things up?. . .Pls show me from the verses in Romans where it says that these things will ONLY happen at Jesus coming. . .Pls show it. . .The verses are talking about people who accept Jesus and allow his spirit to dwell in them here on earth. . .If the people who accept Jesus here on earth and allow his spirit dwell in them still sin and violate god's laws then why won't they do same in heaven?. . .

mazaje: The part in bold is completely false because NO WHERE in the verse says that a new body will be given to any body at Jesus's coming. . .The passage was just talking about how people here ON EARTH will be transformed when they accept Jesus and allow his spirit to dwell in them. . .Why are you making things up?. . .Pls show me from the verses in Romans where it says that these things will ONLY happen at Jesus coming. . .Pls show it. . .The verses are talking about people who accept Jesus and allow his spirit to dwell in them here on earth. . .If the people who accept Jesus here on earth and allow his spirit dwell in them still sin and violate god's laws then why won't they do same in heaven?. . .

The point I was making from those verse was simply that our flesh is in contention with the new spirit which is in us. Paul even exclaimed in 7:24 "who will deliver me from this body of death". I went further to argue that our sinful flesh shall be discarded at the coming of our Lord and we shall put on a Heavenly body.
How do I know that we will have new bodies at the resurrection? You can study 1Corinthians 15 especially from verse 42 downwards.

Here is an excerpt:

I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. - 1Corinthians 15:50-53

Have I satisfied your query now?