jen-o

sirguess, are you trying to pull one over on me? either that or you don't know how to use your own bible tool site that you linked to... ?? work with me here... i'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt... i did go and check the word for "born"... and what i found was no different that what the link you provided says... which is that the word for "born" is "gennao" while the word for "conceived" is "sullambano" (both are in the verb form, not the noun "conception") and the passage you cite in john chapter 3 (regarding the conversation with nicodemus) uses the word "gennao" for born (in every word that you highlighted, the word is gennao)... "gennao" clearly means BORN and NOT CONCEIVED (or the noun - conception) again, in 1 Pet. 1:23, the word for born is "anagennao" (obviously a form of the word "gennao" (i.e. born, NOT conceived/conception) [i'm not really sure if you are trying to mislead me just to prove your stage theory or not] ?? but according to strong's (which was also contained in your link), "gennao" means: to be born, to be begotten... and "sullambano" means: to conceive there is only a handful of times that the word "sullambano" is used (four times), and in very limited circumstances - as when elisabeth conceived john the babtist (obviously prior to his birth/being born)... while the word "gennao" (born) is used approximately 50 times... this does not a stage theory make! further, it is clear from the biblical context in many different places that the word means BORN and not conceived/conception... as in john 9:2: the man BORN blind, not conceived blind or in acts 2:8: where they heard them speak in the tongues wherein they were BORN (not tongues wherein they were conceived)... and the cities of their BIRTH are listed, not the cities they were conceived in... or in acts 22:3: where paul speaks of the city he was BORN in (again, he wasn't telling people about the city he was conceived in) or in acts 22:28: where paul speaks about being free BORN (he wasn't talking about being free "conceived") or in john 16:21: which speaks of a woman (who after delivering her child) has joy because a man is BORN into the world... she doesn't deliver a child and then have joy that a man is conceived... (that's backwards)... anyway, i could go on... context after context shows that the word means BORN and NOT CONCEIVED/CONCEPTION... sooo... i don't know what to make of your post... Jesus and peter were NOT speaking about the point of "conception", they were speaking about the point of BIRTH! this conclusion of yours is an outright error, not supported by facts... i'm not even sure how you arrived at this conclusion, except that you are so determined to prove your stage theory is valid... as for your last line about Jesus being "elitist", i will have to deal with that another time... suffice to say (for now) that Jesus was NOT elitist, the same way that the word for born is NOT the word for conception in john chapter 3 or in 1 peter 1:23... anyway, nice chatting with you... peace, jen-o

dear sirguess, i don't need to defend anything, i don't need to convince anyone of anything, and i don't care if anyone agrees with me... i am telling you MY opinion based on what i know about God and the bible... i do not need to study other religious texts (although i have)... i do not need to study other global worldviews (although i have)... but neither false religious texts or counterfeit worldviews (and a comparitive study of these things) brings one unto a knowledge of the truth (for the world by wisdom did NOT know God)... it is the Holy Spirit which leads a person into all truth... so i do not care if you analyse me according to the world's wisdom (i find the world's wisdom very lacking in this area)... and i don't expect you to agree with me... btw, being born again does NOT occur in stages... peace, jen-o

hi sirguess and lindy, i'm not really able to post a lengthy reply right now... but i will say a few things... sirguess, good to see you (and i don't mind being singled out) :~) my reference to "the measure of faith" comes from romans 12:3, and i won't apologize for having a biblical worldview... neither do i pretend to have all the answers... however, this i know - that God does not like spiritual elitism...and Jesus states that he HATES it... so anything that looks like spiritual elitism, i will speak out against... todd, i fail to see how i have set up a 2-stage "faith" system by referencing scripture... in what way does this put me at the top of a hierarchy??... what i am saying is that EVERY man has been given the measure of faith BY GOD, and it is not something that one aquires in stages... it is A GIFT (a complete package)... so i do not think that "faith" can be compared to "trees"... i do not think that "faith" grows the way that trees grow and develop... so although there are stages of development for many different things in the world (as you have noted: pregnancy, etc.), i do think that FAITH is in a different category... like i said, it is A GIFT, one that is GIVEN to us BY GOD, and therefore not something that we "develop" or can improve upon... afterall, all we need is faith the size of a mustard seed, so all this striving to develop "faith" makes no sense to me... i certainly do NOT believe that gurus, sages, etc. have any more faith than the rest of us!... and how does all of this put me at the top of a spiritual hierarchy when what i am saying is that EVERY PERSON on earth has been given the same thing... the same MEASURE (as in the same DOSE) of faith, the same GIFT... so that NO ONE can BOAST that they have more or are better than another person... i am not proposing a "2-stage" anything... there are NO STAGES of development regarding GIFTS... this kind of language does not apply to GIFTS... i will write more later... peace, jen-o

quite frankly, i think this stage theory is a bunch of crock! any theory that proposes that all humans grow in faith (according to stages of development) fosters spiritual elitism, imo... (with a few "enlightened" ones at the top) this really isn't anything new... eastern religions promote the same thing... it's just another way to set up a hierarchal system... and in the most extreme form, it develops into a caste system... but God has given to EVERY man the MEASURE of FAITH...

well, i've only had my chocolate lab puppy for a little over 3 days... and she has lots of her own toys (balls, stuffed animals, and puppy bones), but she likes to steal our cat's toys (especially the ones with catnip in them)... today, she almost chewed a hole thru a little bag of catnip... has anyone ever heard of puppies liking catnip?? :~) jen-o

thanks for sharing your stories and some awesome names with me... :~) i've got 3 teenage boys, so whatever i come up with has to be approved of by them... LOL we had tossed some of these names around, but could never come up with a consensus.. i had originally wanted to name her Cocoa, but oldest son said that name sounded like it was for an old poodle... LOL... (i don't know where he came up with that)... i had also considered "Cioccolata" (the italian word for chocolate), but it is kinda long... oldest son's first thought was to name her Hershey... we also tossed around the names: Snickers/Snickerdoodle, Twix/Twixie, Truffles, Toffee, Tootsie Roll, Ebony, Sienna, Hannah, Sandy, Fudge, Brownie, and of course, Mocha/Mocha Latte... currently, i think it is a toss up between Mocha and Hershey... maybe we will see which name she responds to better, and let her pick between the 2 names... LOL jim, i wish i knew how to do the upload picture thingie... she is the most adorable cutest little thing! :~) (maybe one of my kids can help me to put a picture on here) thank you all for all of your suggestions! peace, jen-o

wow... three folks coming up with the same name at the same time... i'm gonna have to give the name "mocha" some serious thought... actually i love the name!... and her full name could be mocha latte (ya know, for the vet records and stuff) :~) what do the rest of you think? peace, jen-o

hi ghost, you never need to divulge any information about yourself or your mother... (imo, it's none of anyone's business) i, myself, prefer to remain incognito at all times on the world wide web... :~) you may have given out a little more information than you intended to when you stated that your father has put his teachings on tapes (evidently, not just a few)... not that it makes any difference to me... nor probably to the majority of folks here... like shell said, there is a great diversity of people on this site... and most of us like it that way... :~) peace, jen-o

i just got a new puppy... a chocolate lab... she is 8 weeks old and adorable! :wub: ... but i can't come up with a good name for her... so i thought i would ask all ya'all if you guys had any suggestions for me... i would love to get a name that reflected her chocolatey brown color, but any suggestions would be greatly appreciated... thanks, :) jen-o

hey oak! so you did 2 stints in the joint, too... LOL and i thought i was the only one who served time twice in twi... LOL i originally got involved in the spring of 1981... and continued involvement thru the spring of 1987... at which point, everyone in my area disbanned and left twi (due to events that i was totally unaware of), but making it very easy for me to leave since for all intents and purposes, twi no longer existed in my area... i then became re-involved in early 1994 which lasted until i was unceremoniously dismissed (for not following the program) via a mock trial in 1997... personally, i never tried to fix anything because i didn't know anything was broken at the time... and basically, i had never pledged allegiance to twi or any mogfot... so my time "in" twi consisted of my living in my own bubble (so to speak) and making my own decisions... which drove the "leadership" crazy (evidently) because i never did consider them "leadership" and was unaware that i was suppose to follow their advice, um, orders... LOL... being a grown adult, i lived my life the way i saw fit... and i've got to say: i was oblivious to the fact that they saw themselves as "better" or more intelligent or more spiritual that me... i was oblivious right up until the "mock trial" they held to condemn me for my "rebellion" against them... looking back, i must admit that it was pretty funny... they didn't quite know what to do with me... they were just wringing their hands in frustration over the fact that i didn't follow their "orders" while i cluelessly went about my business, totally unaware that they held a worldview that consisted of them being "in charge"... LOLOL they really thought more highly of themselves than they should have... peace, jen-o

well... i have a success story! i have only known about freecycle for about a week (thanks to twinky, who posted something about it on another thread) :~) but already i have used it, and found a nice dining room table with 6 chairs for a family in my church... actually, i volunteer with the homeless ministry at my church, and we just met this family a couple of months ago... but last month we set them up in an apartment, and i went to freecycle to find them some of the furniture they still needed... and voila, i found them the table & chairs... and i also found them a desk... so now i am a big freecycle fan!... and i will be using the site from time to time to help the folks that we meet thru the homeless ministry... thanks again, twinky, for sharing this information with everyone! peace, jen-o

what i'd like to know is: what happened to my and excie's posts (which were right after yanagisawa"s post)... wherein we declared: who cares! i mean, who really cares what walter said in a footnote of some obscure book about "literals according to usage" or some such term that no one else uses in the real world... whitedove, you dissected a quote from a footnote as if it really means anything in the big picture... so what if john didn't remember the footnote verbatim... the essence of the meaning is the same... you are really hung up on the words "a researcher" being replaced by "vpw"... you strain at a gnat! the point is a researcher (NAMED VPW) used some kind of "translation" and often made no sense when he did so... which i'm not quoting verbatim, and who cares! peace, jen-o

well, i think the pope looks like yoda... everytime i see the pope, he reminds me of that strange little yoda creature from star wars... btw, the pope is NOT a "decent fellow".... he signed the "criminale solicitacciones" which is a vatican directive that instructs the RC hierarchy to protect and shield pedophile priests and nuns, even threatening excommunication of the victims if they divulged the identities of the perpetrators... this pope has put his signature to a document that protects criminal pedophiles (at the expense of the children)... instead, the RC church transferred pedophile priests to other parishes, allowing further horrendous acts to be committed against children... in the U.S., 177 out of 179 dioceses and archdioceses have been found guilty and liable in court (and were ordered to pay major damages)... litigation is still pending in the other 2 dioceses... but i doubt that they will escape unscathed... as you can see, this is not some minor problem... pedophilia is widespread in the RC Church, of which the pope is the head... and the pope has done nothing to stop it, but rather prefers to protect the pedophiles... so, i don't think he is such a decent fellow... not only that... but he claims to represent God on earth, and speak for God (in the place of God) hmmm... i think that's the definition of "anti-christ"... and there are many "anti-christs" on earth...

i'm with batcave... oprah IS a cult! and evidently, a very wealthy cult leader... what cult leader wouldn't love to have such resources and multiple outlets to get their message out to the masses... bramble, it looks like you are complaining about folks making comments over at oprah's book forum... you say that you don't want to waste your time trying to change those folks, but then you come here and complain to us about them... are you just venting about what is going on over at oprah's book forum? peace, jen-o

even a broken clock is right twice a day...

hi twinky! gee, i thought the "temple dogs with fleas" remark was funny... LOL but bride put a no-no face next to it... maybe she knows something i don't... anyway, twinky, i wanted to thank you again for turning me on to "freecycle"... i was able to get a dining room table with chairs for the apartment for the homeless family (that is no longer homeless) :~) i know this is totally off-topic, but i have no idea where that thread is (LOL) and i wanted to thank you for the info! God Bless, jen-o

hi oak, it's not really a lack of consistency in the bible... the problem is one of human logic... the bible consistently teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine... (and that is a hard concept to grasp logically) so people like to pick one over the other, and focus on one to the exclusion of the other... as wordwolf pointed out, we cannot fully understand the nature of God (it is beyond our intellect)... however, the bible does reveal the nature of God (and the nature of Jesus)... i think the problem is that people have a hard time accepting all of what God has revealed about His nature... (becuz it is beyond their logic) so people pick and choose parts that make the most sense to them, and form various sects around their own ideas... personally, i accept the fact that i cannot fully comprehend the nature of God, and i am quite content to believe that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine... hey... and i'm not gonna form a sect around that either... LOL peace, jen-o

johnj, you is one smart cookie... :~) vpw is a prime example of the "itching ears" of that verse... i wonder if he was ever born again... peace, jen-o

kimberly? HUH? what bible are you reading? Christ is mentioned 3 times in that passage (in verses 15, 16, & 18)... just who do you think Christ refers to?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (((socks))) (((waysider))) thanks! :~)

well, since we are sharing songs that are in the "goosebump" category... here's mine... i left twi in the spring of 1997... and i did quite a bit of church-hopping after that... i would always sit in the front row, and analyze (and critique) everything that went on during the service, to the point of taking copious notes about every detail... well, in the fall of 1999, i found myself in a little church in a rented out room of a charter school... a little band was playing music (actually a great band)... and they were playing various songs (of the hillsong variety)... and i was standing in the front row (as usual) and everything was all good... when they started playing a song called "heart of worship"... the words were on a big screen right in front of me... and i began singing along, until they got to the refrain: "it's all about you Jesus"... and then, i don't know what the heck happened... my eyes began to water, and i could not hold back the tears... i began to sob those heart-wrenching sobs that come from the innermost part of your being... my body became so weak i wanted to fall to my knees... i still have no idea how i remained standing... my heart was absolutely pierced with the simple words of that song... and i continued to tremble and sob, barely able to stand with eyes blurred with tears, all the way thru that song... if there were any vestiges of twi "mentality" left in me, they were cleared away with that song... if anyone knows how to post a youtube version of the song here, that would be nice... waysider? :) anyway, here are the lyrics:

hmmm... this is a very interesting thread... thanks for starting this topic, little white bunny... i had never really thought about this before, but i'm getting the impression that vpw made this one of his most important doctrines just for effect... a calculated, marketing move... probably based on some jehovah's witness stuff he read... hmmmm... the thing i find most sad about all of this is that people still cling to the JCNG doctrine (without taking a second look at it) because "scripture build-up" would indeed show that Jesus is God... thanks for the thread, folks... :)

socks, you is funny! :~) i hope your poor daughter recovered... LOL just for the record...i LIKE this song, and i like hillsong's music, in general... whitedove, you used a lot of words to explain what a parable is... but none of that changes the fact that Jesus referred to Himself as "good"... if anything, a parable is used to EMPHASIZE, not NEGATE this fact... and what do you do with the fact that EVERY knee will BOW to Jesus... oops... ex10, am i hijacking the thread again?... i'm a little confused myself about this hijacking thing... cuz afterall the song is entitled: shout to the... Lord... and i guess we are just trying to discuss who the Lord is... :~)

ex10, i didn't say it was a conspiracy... i said it was a sign of the times... and i apologize for hijacking your thread by getting involved in the "Jesus is/is not God" debate... whitedove, i suppose you will have to meet me over in the doctrinal section to continue this conversation... peace, jen-o

kimberly, that's all well and good, as long as it is JESUS that is being preached... and not another Jesus of another gospel... (2 Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:6-7) peace, jen-o waysider, good point! twi did have a habit of inventing its own definitions... maybe that's why i won't get fooled again... :D

whitedove, there is plenty of sciptural evidence to support that Jesus is God, the Son... you have misinterpreted matthew 19:16-17 in the context, this passage is about a rich young ruler who recognized there was something far above the ordinary about Jesus, because he knelt before Jesus and asked Him what he could do to obtain eternal life (obviously, the rich ruler recognized that Jesus had the answer to this)... we know also that "money" was the rich ruler's "god", because he refused to part with it in order to follow Jesus (v.22)... Jesus asked him a question (to get the guy to think) i.e. "why are you calling me "good"?... Jesus did NOT say, "I am not good" or "don't call me good"... Jesus simply asked a question... why did Jesus ask the man this question?... Jesus asked this to get the man to think and realize that what he had seen and recognized in Jesus WAS God!... (he who hath seen Me hath seen the Father)... just like peter recognized it when he said "thou art the Christ"... this man recognized it, too, but did not want to give up his money to follow Christ... there can only be 2 ways to interpret this scripture... Jesus is either saying: I am NOT good... OR Jesus is saying: I am God... Jesus cannot possibly be saying "I am not good" because Jesus calls Himself good twice in the book of john... (john 10:11 and john 10:14) so i conclude that Jesus is asking a rhetorical question... and is, indeed, saying "I am God" in this passage... shalom, jen-o