There is too much to untangle here…and don’t quote me on Howard Thurman to misunderstand his words and misrepresent them and Him.
Maybe Kp can respond to this post
No problem, I would appreciate if @KPuff can respond in your behalf @Corlove13
J.
As I see it, “rebirth” is technically a doctrine of Eastern religions, particularly in Hinduism and Buddhism. Some who adhere to his doctrine speak of rebirth as being literal (reincarnation) while others take a more metaphorical view, an expression of constant change and transformation within a single lifetime. It is in this metaphorical sense that @Corlove13 seems to have been using it.
When The bible speaks of regeneration (palingenesia) it is not speaking of the same event happening multiple times (rebirth). Jesus and the Apostles taught salvation as a single new event, a “new birth” that was quite different from the original, not replacing the original, but fulfilling it (born anew from above).
We are correct to hold that our own “New Birth” is singular; that regeneration happens only once; reconciliation to God Is Immediate; and progressive sanctification Is not multiple rebirths. But, after I asked for clarification, I didn’t understand @Corlove 13 to have been denying, or challenging these truths.
I think @Corlove13 was using this metaphor, borrowed from Thurman, to help explain our having to put off the old man, and put on the new; in Thurman’s metaphor, renewing the mind “is often like giving birth to a new self”. I wouldn’t put it this way myself, but I try to hear and understand what the other person is trying to convey. Here, I think, @Corlove13 is saying the process of God’s growth in our lives can sometimes feel like we are starting over and over again; our experience of sanctification can feel like many trips back to the drawing board. I have experienced this feeling myself; I get the metaphor.
Peace
KP
1 Like
Read Thurman’s biography @KPuff, but notice how truth gets twisted when biblical language is abandoned, and instead of grounding arguments in Scripture, it turns into a human rant with no word of God to anchor it.
Interfaith openness
In 1944 he co-founded the Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples in San Francisco, which was deliberately interracial and interfaith. He interacted with Hindu thought (through his meeting with Gandhi), Buddhist wisdom, and other traditions, believing that truth and spiritual vitality could be found beyond Christianity. While he did not deny Christ, he sought a religious fellowship broader than strict Christian boundaries.
- Nonviolence and civil rights theology
After meeting Gandhi in 1935–36, Thurman became convinced that nonviolent resistance was not only a political strategy but a spiritual mandate. He taught that love, forgiveness, and reconciliation are the true weapons of God’s kingdom. This directly shaped Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders, who leaned on Thurman’s theology of nonviolent love.
@Corlove13 can verify if this is the same “Thurman”
J.
Well put, Being born again happens once, but another way to see or define regeneration is renewal.
A baby may fall and get back up several times before He learns to walk…Walk without falling.
God wants to save the whole body, soul, and Spirit.
That means getting rid of actual sin in our lives. [D.W.]
Sin gives us a guilty conscience before God.
Get rid of the sin, gets rid of the guilt- Hence we walk after the Spirit and we do not fulfill the lust of the flesh. And if we walk in the Spirit we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness.
Now I’m going to throw 1st Peter 3:21 out there even though there are many interpretations- Let me note: that this means I am trying this on.
For it’s not all the time we can [not] say everything we don’t mean- or everything we do mean by what we write, speak or think.
So I do appreciate kp for asking for clarification and pursuing the peace.
Anyway I mention this under the baptism thread; That maybe the baptism that was prefigured was “quickened by the Spirit.”
I said that this didn’t seem like a one time event, for it seemed to be compared to ritual washings, “washing the dirt from the skin”.
The baptism (immersion, surrounding) in this since having nothing exactly to do with water but the Spirit. [ Although there are 3 that testify, that’s what I mesnt by not exactly]
Hence, the immersion or surrounding (baptism) that saves us now is an answer of a clear conscience before God. While it could be your committment, I’m submitting an alternative view to disprove or prove.
It’s Christ Jesus’s who is committed, “ who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God.
So the immersion (baptism) is into His life.
And one thing in asking what is “His life” but the work He did to further the kingdom.
Therefore, one might say being caught up in His work amounts to righteousness, peace and Joy in the Holyghost, which is what the kingdom is said to be.
So where can one be immersed over and over again?
So where can one be renewed in the spirit of your mind…..having a good conscience before man and Ultimately God?
Jesus did come that we may have life and have it, moreeeeee abundantly.
Somewhere in Galatians it says: Even we have believed in Him in order that we might be Justified by the faith of Him and not the works of the Law.
Note faith of Him could mean Christ’s Faithfulness.
Or His belief that God is in controll.
Here’s another passage that I like: Romans 5:10
It goes something like this: if we been reconciled by His death, How much more shall we be saved by His life.
This also shows what I was trying to explain earlier that you can be saved from many things. Saved much of the time means deliver (ed, ence, er etc)
1st saved (deliverence) mention here is…..from being apart from God……for now you are reconciled.
So we are not talking about being born again which happens once. Because you can’t live by the Spirit until you first receive the Spirit.
So the 2nd saved could mean from many other things in this life. Like the wrath of man or Joyful peace around hateful people and so much more, like our present circumstances.
But now the reward of life ( zoe, or quality of life) is based on rather you will live by what you received.
These are my thoughts.. always open to correction…
Peace and blessings
A suggestion to myself by what you just did is to get wisdom and with all thy getting, get an understanding. I dare put down one of God’s annoited.
This was not meant to be about Thurman who one knows little about to make judgements, Rather about kp’s response.
I’ll give @KPuff the chance to respond to you.
J.
When you going to respond to Him… He spoke for me very well…what’s your take after you read His response.
And yet you quoted him, the one who many knows little about, right @Corlove13
As to your out of context quotation
The verse itself
Psalm 105:15 and its parallel in 1 Chronicles 16:22 say, “Touch not mine anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm.”
-
Context of Psalm 105
Psalm 105 is a historical psalm recounting God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel. Beginning at verse 7 it declares the Lord’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Verses 12–15 recall when the patriarchs wandered from nation to nation. During that time God protected them, warning kings for their sake, saying “Do not touch my anointed ones, do my prophets no harm.” -
Who are the “anointed” here?
The “anointed ones” are not kings, pastors, or modern leaders. In this psalm it refers to the patriarchs, Abraham and his descendants, who were chosen and set apart by God. They are called “prophets” in the sense that they bore God’s word and covenant promises. Genesis 20:7 shows Abraham called a prophet when God warned Abimelech in a dream, “Now therefore restore the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live.” That is exactly the historical moment Psalm 105 recalls. -
Misuse today
When preachers or leaders quote “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” to silence correction, they misuse the verse. Scripture never teaches that God’s servants are above rebuke. Paul opposed Peter to his face when he was in the wrong, Galatians 2:11. Elders who sin are to be rebuked in the presence of all, 1 Timothy 5:20. Prophets are to be tested, 1 Thessalonians 5:20–21. The church is commanded to discern truth from error, 1 John 4:1. -
The true meaning
The verse in its original setting is God’s declaration of His covenant protection over the patriarchs as they wandered, assuring that no king or nation could destroy them because His plan of redemption was being carried forward through them. It is not a shield for leaders to avoid accountability, but a reminder that God’s chosen people were preserved for the sake of His promises.
So the context is the patriarchs under God’s covenant protection, not modern pastors avoiding critique. The real lesson is that God guards His redemptive plan, not that His servants are untouchable by correction.
No offense, your posts are incoherent.
J.
Who’s response? @KPuff?
J.
Lol Johann -do you, brother.
I think you go so literal at times that you don’t see what’s behind the words.
So do you! I don’t have issue with you. I have issue with myself and how I handled your first response. And for that I asked for forgiveness.
Peace and Blessings
And if you have something to say about me..I can already say, you are probably right.
Just read what you wrote: “No offense, your posts are incoherent”
And you are right, I probably shouldnt be here. Tks
I go literal because Scripture is our authority. God’s Word is precise, and taking it lightly or guessing at meanings opens the door to error. Understanding what’s behind the words is important, but it must be tested against the text itself, 2 Timothy 3:16–17.
Interpretation apart from careful attention to Scripture leads to human ideas, not truth.
So do I do what @Corlove13 ?
And for the record, I have nothing against you, so no need to ask for forgiveness, you are already forgiven.
The problem I see is that many put a philosophical spin on Scripture, which turns God’s clear Word into human speculation.
This leads to misunderstandings and chaos, for 2 Peter 1:20–21 warns, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Scripture must guide the conversation, not human reasoning.
Correct?
J.
Here again you have went literal.
You are implying that because you post a scripture that the scripture should not be interpreted.
We learn through mistakes, and holding views. You are implying that all the views you hold are correct because you find another scripture to support it.
Well if we don’t interpret from context correctly or misapply scripture that won’ t work either.
God gives us a brain to think and He is judge over how we think and the motive not you or I.
“Do you”…means do what you do best.
But to judge others that they dont speak from scripture because they use their own words calculated by many scriptures downs the importance of God’s talents to men. Do you! MEAN JUST THAT….
Anyway I am done with being insulted…and misunderstood by you! Next time if a post is incoherent to you, asked for clarification.
All this aggression is too much for me….Anything or anybody trying to disturb, or disturbing my peace is too expensive.
As:”And yet you quoted him, the one who many knows little about, right @Corlove13”
I’m not talking down about Him.
I was inserting what I thought He meant.
And usually write “note” to self when someone’ words come to me.
Guess this is the end of our conversation.
Shalom sorella.
J.
For now.
I believe we learn about ourselves and things we need to change in interactions with others.
None of us are perfect.
I love your zeal for holding to scripture, that is wonderful. But when I say literal- That means you look at the words and can’t see beyond them.
For example some people can’t move on in reading a passage, for the intent behind it because they are caught on a misspelled word.
When I quoted [ H T.] and KP asked for clarification
I explain that his quote came to me at the end of something I had written in a post, thereby me getting an understanding of what He meant by it.
But you were so stuck on the average meaning of baptism you could not see the poetic aspect, which was endowed as a metaphor and therefore the meaning behind it.
Not everyone is going to come from the same background you do, And there are those who will see from a wider spectrum or differrnt lens; like many that God has truly called to the Ministry.
Even when I said don’t mess with God’s annoited.
You could not see what I was saying; Whoever God has his hand on. You missed the purpose behind my words and went on to argue annoiting.
AI got it right:
“It essentially means that God protects those He has chosen for a specific purpose and that harming or disrespecting them is akin to harming God Himself. “
You were quick to search a little on Howard Thurman and quickly judge by that little you read.
All this, and much like this, has got us off the topic and got me frustrated.
It’s true, I admit I can speak imcoherently and I will practice trying to do better. And I am sure I do a lot more worse in many other areas that hopefully someone may note in Love and not tit for tat, in order to help me grow.
So yes we will give it a break for now and let us both evaluate ourselves…
peace out 
Cheers-I’ll leave you with this since you are very emotional.
The core verse
“Iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17, NIV).
Hebrew: Bֶar-ḥamēr maḥrūf be-ḥad maḥrūf – literally “Iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens his companion.”
Key verbs
ḥarash (חָרַשׁ) – to sharpen, to work metal
maḥrūf – sharpened, refined
Context, The proverb is part of a series (Proverbs 27) emphasizing wisdom, counsel, and friendship. The sharpening metaphor illustrates mutual growth, refinement, and accountability. Just as iron is honed against iron to cut better, people refine one another through interaction, correction, and encouragement.
In your “late edits” you portray me very negatively, so I agree, we should give each other time to reflect and reevaluate ourselves.
J.
@Johann
I’d like to hear your educated argument for your rendering of the oft-quoted paraphrase of Proverbs 27:17; which is usually cited as a Godly recipe for mutual spiritual edification. You may have to do it off-thread if you think it does not relate to this topic.
“As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.” Proverbs 27:17
It does not seem to me that Solomon is offering this phrase as an admonishment; he does not seem to be suggesting this is something we should practice, or even that it is a good thing. (I know I am in the great minority for thinking this way.) To me this proverb reads more as an astute observation, or maybe even a warning. As if to say: “Be careful, just like one piece of iron can make another piece of iron even sharper, so one man can cause another to become sharp in his deportment (fierce in the face, or visibly agitated) I appreciate the metaphor as a clever way of saying two equals make each other better. I think I read your usage of the phrase in this way; no problem; I get what you are saying, most say it this way (even most commentaries). However, the way this this proverb is used (possibly abused), especially in Christian men’s circles, seems to completely ignore what the Solomon was saying (IMHO). Here’s why. First, let’s consider the context.
This particular proverbial warning comes nested within a list of other dire warnings to watch-out for; serious cautions concerning life’s manifold irritations; “loud-voiced egotistic blessings”, “continual dripping”, “grasping oil”, “waiting patiently while serving others”, “being unsatisfied”, “grinding fools in a mortar” etc. Here, a sharp face is fierce (see Hab. 1:8 below), severe, austere, or stern. A “sharp” or fierce countenance is noted by squinted eye, downturned brow, hardened cheeks, cocked head, tightened fists, and possibly clenched teeth. Having my face sharpened by my companion does not sound like a blessing, but an irritation. Iron sharpening iron sounds harsh, fierce, as metals clash sparks fly, tearing slivery shards off the other,readying both for confrontation. To me, I read Solomon saying something more like: “listen, your stern etched face will rasps at and harden the face of whoever is standing close to you.”
Ezekiel 21:9-10
“A sword, a sword is sharpened and also polished! Sharpened to make a dreadful slaughter, Polished to flash like lightning! Should we then make mirth? It despises the scepter of My Son, As it does all wood."
Habakkuk 1:6-10
For indeed I am raising up the Chaldeans, A bitter and hasty nation Which marches through the breadth of the earth, To possess dwelling places that are not theirs.
They are terrible and dreadful; Their judgment and their dignity proceed from themselves.
Their horses also are swifter than leopards, And more fierce (sharper) than evening wolves. Their chargers charge ahead; Their cavalry comes from afar; They fly as the eagle that hastens to eat.
"They all come for violence; Their faces are set like the east wind. They gather captives like sand.
They scoff at kings, And princes are scorned by them. They deride every stronghold, For they heap up earthen mounds and seize it.
I sure love the image of a friend strengthening and edifying another in Jesus, but does your excellent exegesis allow us to use this proverb to say that? I am open to your correction.
KP
Hi,
There’s a joy after going through a process that you would not get from bypassing it. Going through it will make you more confident in God to get you through the next problem.
Psalms 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. KJV
What gives David the confidence to say that?
1 Samuel 17:34-36 And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God. KJV
God prepared David for Goliath through the lion and the bear. So he knew God would be with David.
If God had not taken it slow, David might have been scared instead of confident.
So let God work His process in your life and see what happens.
Blessings
If you don’t mind, not here @KPuff -this forum is “deader than a do-do”
Looking for other forums where there is a lively interaction without constant friction.
J.
Brother, the Hebrew verb behind ‘sharpens’ is ḥādad, used in Deuteronomy 6:7 for diligently impressing God’s words on children, in Ecclesiastes 10:10 for whetting a blade to make it effective, in Ezekiel 21:9 for preparing a sword, and in Psalm 64:3 for sharpening tongues like weapons.
In every case it means to make keen, to prepare, to intensify, never to rasp or dull. The ‘face’ in Proverbs 27:17 is the outward expression of a man, his countenance, so the proverb pictures friends making one another sharper, more resolute, more ready.
Sparks may fly, but the outcome is not mere irritation, it is preparation. The Hebrew will not let us translate it as hardening the face in irritation, but as sharpening the presence and readiness of a companion. That is why Christian men rightly see in it a call to edifying engagement, for in Christ we sharpen one another for faith, witness, and endurance.
When the Masora reads יָחַד, Ewald remarks, it interprets the word as denoting “at the same time,” and the further meaning of the proverb must then accord therewith. Accordingly he translates: “iron together with iron! and one together with the face of another!” But then the prep. ב or עם is wanting after the second יחד - for יַחַד is, in spite of Ewald, §217h, never a prep. - and the “face,” 17b, would be a perplexing superfluity. Hitzig already replies, but without doing homage to the traditional text-punctuation, that such a violence to the use of language, and such a darkening of the thought, is not at all to be accepted. He suggests four ways of interpreting יחד: (1) the adverb יַחַד, united, properly (taken accusat.) union; (2) יַחֵד, Psa_86:11, imper. of the Piel יִחֵד, unite; (3) יִחַדְּ, Job_3:6, jussive of the Kal חָדָה, gaudeat; and (4) as Kimchi, in Michlol 126a, jussive of the Kal חָדָה (= חָדַד) acuere, after the form תַחַז, Mic_4:11. וַיַּחַץ, Gen_32:8, etc. in p. יָחַד, after the form אָחַז, Job_23:9. וַיָּחַל, 2Ki_1:2 (= וַיֶּֽחֱלָא, 2Ch_16:12). If we take יחד with בַּרְזֶל, then it is à priori to be supposed that in יחד the idea of sharpening lies; in the Arab. iron is simply called hadyda = חָדוּד, that which is sharpened, sharp; and a current Arab. proverb says: alḥadyd balḥadyd yuflah = ferrum ferro diffinditur (vid., Freytag under the word falah). But is the traditional text-punctuation thus understood to be rightly maintained? It may be easily changed in conformity with the meaning, but not so that with Böttcher we read יֵחָד and יֵחַד, the fut. Kal of חָדַד: “iron sharpeneth itself on iron, and a man sharpeneth himself over against his neighbour” - for פני after a verb to be understood actively, has to be regarded as the object - but since יָחַד is changed into יֻחָד (fut. Hiph. of חָדַד), and יַחַד into יָחֵד or יַחֵד (fut. Hiph. of חָדַד, after the form אָחֵל, incipiam, Deu_2:25, or אַחֵל, profanabo, Ezk_39:7; Num_30:3). The passive rendering of the idea 17a and the active of 17b thus more distinctly appear, and the unsuitable jussive forms are set aside: ferrum ferro exacuitur, et homo exacuit faciem amici sui (Jerome, Targ., the Venet.). But that is not necessary. As וַיַּעַל may be the fut. of the Hiph. (he brought up) as well as of the Kal (he went up), so יָחַד may be regarded as fut. Kal, and יַחַד as fut. Hiph. Fleischer prefers to render יָחַד also as Hiph.: aciem exhibet, like יַֽעֲשִׁיר, divitias acquirit, and the like; but the jussive is not favourable to this supposition of an intransitive (inwardly transitive) Hiph. It may indeed be said that the two jussives appear to be used, according to poetic licence, with the force of indicatives (cf. under Pro_12:26), but the repetition opposes it. Thus we explain: iron is sharpened [gewetzt, Luther uses this appropriate word] by iron (ב of the means, not of the object, which was rather to be expected in 17b after Pro_20:30), and a man whets פני, the appearance, the deportment, the nature, and manner of the conduct of his neighbour. The proverb requires that the intercourse of man with man operate in the way of sharpening the manner and forming the habits and character; that one help another to culture and polish of manner, rub off his ruggedness, round his corners, as one has to make use of iron when he sharpens iron and seeks to make it bright. The jussive form is the oratorical form of the expression of that which is done, but also of that which is to be done.
So here–your paraphrase — “your stern etched face rasps at and hardens the face of whoever is standing close to you” — does not quite fit the Hebrew. The verb will not allow “rasp” or “harden” in that sense.
It consistently carries the force of “make keen,” “whet,” “prepare.” The question is not whether sharpening is positive or negative, but what the sharpening is for. That is why the proverb, though observational, easily lends itself to positive application in covenant fellowship, as Christian men sharpening one another in the Lord (cf. Heb 10:24, Col 3:16).
Thus Aben Ezra. The Septuagint perhaps supports this notion by rendering, Ἀνὴρ δὲ παροξύνει πρόσωπον ἑταίρου. But the best commentators understand the maxim to say that intercourse with other men influences the manner, appearance, deportment, and character of a man, sharpens his wits, controls his conduct, and brightens his very face. Horace uses the same figure of speech, ’Ars Poet.,’ 304—
“Fungar vice cotis, acutum
Reddere quae ferrum valet, exsors ipsa secaudi.”
On the subject of mutual intercourse Euripides says, ’Androm.,’ 683—
Ἡ δ ὁμυλία
Πάντων βροτοῖσι γίγνεται διδάσκαλος
“Companionship
Is that which teaches mortals everything.”
Just how I read it @KPuff and there will always be disagreements.
J.