John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[CadyandZoe]

Sounds good.


Well, the, very same book tells you "water... spoke of the Spirit" but yeah just throw that in the trash so you can insert any meaning you please. Sounds good man. Enjoy.

You need to defend your presupposition that an item such as "water" can ONLY be used metaphorically to represent the Spirit. This isn't true. You need to PROVE that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Once again, your insults reveal to me that your arguments are weak and you place little confidence in them.

In other words - you cannot argue with the facts.
Like so many other uninformed people on this forum - YOU are used to spewing your anti-Catholic manure with impunity - and without checking your history.

So, instead of getting angry - just do your homework . . .

 

[Enoch111]

You need to defend your presupposition that an item such as "water" can ONLY be used metaphorically to represent the Spirit. This isn't true. You need to PROVE that.

The issue is not whether water can ONLY be used metaphorically to represent the Spirit. Both water and oil are metaphors for the Holy Spirit. But since Christ said "water AND Spirit" He was certainly not being redundant. He did not mean "Spirit and Spirit". There was something beside the Holy Spirit that was required for the New Birth. And Peter already told us that it was the water of the Word of God -- the Gospel (1 Pet 1:23-25). Except he used the metaphor of an "incorruptible seed":

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.

The problem with both Calvinists and Catholics is that they simply do not understand nor acknowledge the power of the Gospel in bringing about the New Birth. Yet it is the Gospel which generates saving faith, and it is saving faith which not only justifies the sinner, but gives him or her the gift of the Holy Spirit. And it is only the Holy Spirit who supernaturally regenerates the believer to become a child of God. The New Birth is "the washing of regeneration" by the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with ordinary water.

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)

 

[GracePeace]

You need to defend your presupposition that an item such as "water" can ONLY be used metaphorically to represent the Spirit. This isn't true. You need to PROVE that.

1. I thought you were just rejecting it, so I was prepared to accept that. lol
2. To be clear, it is not my view that the word "water" can only ever refer to a spiritual reality, only that it seems to here, because Jesus is countering Nicodemus's misunderstanding of what "born again" meant ("Not 'born' out of a physical womb 'again', 'born' spiritually--a different creature altogether.").
It's not complicated it's simple.
And we see "The one who believes in Me, out of his inner being will flow rivers of living water (this He spoke concerning the Spirit)", and then with the woman at the well again "Whoever drinks the water I give will never thirst again but that water will become in him a well springing up into everlasting life" so this "water-Spirit" picture is frequently employed in John's Gospel so that you will get the hint.
Again, very simple. Not complicated. Not esoteric. Straightforward. Of all that is in John's Gospel I would think this would be the least controversial. LOL

 

[CadyandZoe]

In other words - you cannot argue with the facts.
Like so many other uninformed people on this forum - YOU are used to spewing your anti-Catholic manure with impunity - and without checking your history.

So, instead of getting angry - just do your homework . . .

You are projecting. I'm not the one who is angry. But you seem to be. You are the one throwing insults. You are the one who can't stand to hear the truth about the RCC. Why? Because it's your religion. Religious people affirm dogma, which was not the product of sound argument, which is why dogma isn't defended with rational argument. And because they can't defend their conclusions through rational argument, when the truth is presented to them, they strike out, attacking the man, rather than his arguments.

This must be frustrating to you, especially when you encounter a free-thinker like me. Among Catholics, all you need to do is quote dogma and among your fellow Catholics, that is enough. Why? Dogma isn't the conclusion to a rational argument; dogma is a set of ideas that one must affirm in order to be a member in good standing with the Catholic church. For Catholics, "tradition" answers to the question, "Isn't this what we have always affirmed?" Without tradition and the Catholic dogma that comes with it, one cannot be a Catholic.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura has jettisoned Catholic dogma altogether, which is a threat to the Catholic religion. For this reason, Catholic Apologists resort to "proof-texting", taking verses out of context, and a bit of equivocation, in an attempt to convince Christians that a rejection of "tradition" is a rejection of God's truth. In fact, a rejection of Catholic dogma means nothing more than freedom from the Catholic religion, which is another form of slavery, bondage, and a system of control.

Yes, I am against Catholicism, which is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am against all religion, but especially Catholicism because it remains a pagan religion pretending to be Christian. On the other hand, I am not against all those who claim to be Catholics because the Lord has planted many good men and women in those churches where mass is held. Some stay to evangelize the lost, many leave having come to a more complete knowledge of the truth.

I gave you good arguments for what I believe. Since religious people are unaccustomed to evaluating arguments to see whether they are good arguments or those that fail, some of them can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one. Perhaps you are out of practice?

 

[CadyandZoe]

The issue is not whether water can ONLY be used metaphorically to represent the Spirit. Both water and oil are metaphors for the Holy Spirit. But since Christ said "water AND Spirit" He was certainly not being redundant. He did not mean "Spirit and Spirit". There was something beside the Holy Spirit that was required for the New Birth. And Peter already told us that it was the water of the Word of God -- the Gospel (1 Pet 1:23-25). Except he used the metaphor of an "incorruptible seed":

Fine. But you are dodging the question. Even if water or oil were once used metaphorically to represent the Holy Spirit, this does not mean that water or oil must always represent the Holy Spirit everywhere it is used.

As Bible students, we must not fall victim to bad hermeneutical techniques, which lead us down the wrong path. The hermeneutical practice on display in this thread is not helpful in coming to know what Jesus actually meant to say. As tempting as it is, and I have fallen victim to such temptation also, we do well to find the meaning of "water" within the immediate context and avoid rushing to other passages of the New Testament to find other places where "water" is used metaphorically. The Bible is not written in code, a document than relies on hidden meanings of words.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1. I thought you were just rejecting it, so I was prepared to accept that. lol
2. To be clear, it is not my view that the word "water" can only ever refer to a spiritual reality, only that it seems to here, because Jesus is countering Nicodemus's misunderstanding of what "born again" meant ("Not 'born' out of a physical womb 'again', 'born' spiritually--a different creature altogether.").
It's not complicated it's simple.
And we see "The one who believes in Me, out of his inner being will flow rivers of living water (this He spoke concerning the Spirit)", and then with the woman at the well again "Whoever drinks the water I give will never thirst again but that water will become in him a well springing up into everlasting life" so this "water-Spirit" picture is frequently employed in John's Gospel so that you will get the hint.
Again, very simple. Not complicated. Not esoteric. Straightforward. Of all that is in John's Gospel I would think this would be the least controversial. LOL

In each case you cite, water is clearly being used metaphorically. I see no evidence from John 3 itself, however, that Jesus has employed water as an analogy unless Jesus meant to say "wind" rather than spirit in verse 5 as illustrated below.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and wind he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Generally speaking, when writers or speakers use metaphorical language, they seek to draw a contrast or a comparison between the analog and the target idea. And typically the analog is given in very close proximity to the target idea.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that Jesus employed both water and wind metaphorically in this passage, then one would expect the target idea to be close at hand. And indeed, verse 6 is where Jesus makes his analogy explicit. Being born of flesh and spirit are in some way like being born of water and wind. He goes on to compare the spirit to the wind in verse 8.

The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”​

I also take note of the fact that Jesus doesn't give a similar explanation regarding the water. If Jesus meant to include water as something significant, wouldn't we expect him to provide Nicodemus with an explanation of what the water means also?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are projecting. I'm not the one who is angry. But you seem to be. You are the one throwing insults. You are the one who can't stand to hear the truth about the RCC. Why? Because it's your religion. Religious people affirm dogma, which was not the product of sound argument, which is why dogma isn't defended with rational argument. And because they can't defend their conclusions through rational argument, when the truth is presented to them, they strike out, attacking the man, rather than his arguments.

This must be frustrating to you, especially when you encounter a free-thinker like me. Among Catholics, all you need to do is quote dogma and among your fellow Catholics, that is enough. Why? Dogma isn't the conclusion to a rational argument; dogma is a set of ideas that one must affirm in order to be a member in good standing with the Catholic church. For Catholics, "tradition" answers to the question, "Isn't this what we have always affirmed?" Without tradition and the Catholic dogma that comes with it, one cannot be a Catholic.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura has jettisoned Catholic dogma altogether, which is a threat to the Catholic religion. For this reason, Catholic Apologists resort to "proof-texting", taking verses out of context, and a bit of equivocation, in an attempt to convince Christians that a rejection of "tradition" is a rejection of God's truth. In fact, a rejection of Catholic dogma means nothing more than freedom from the Catholic religion, which is another form of slavery, bondage, and a system of control.

Yes, I am against Catholicism, which is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am against all religion, but especially Catholicism because it remains a pagan religion pretending to be Christian. On the other hand, I am not against all those who claim to be Catholics because the Lord has planted many good men and women in those churches where mass is held. Some stay to evangelize the lost, many leave having come to a more complete knowledge of the truth.

I gave you good arguments for what I believe. Since religious people are unaccustomed to evaluating arguments to see whether they are good arguments or those that fail, some of them can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one. Perhaps you are out of practice?

Once again - I'll address your main points above in RED.

First off, if by "RCC", you mean "Roman Catholic Church" - I don't know what that is. I belong to the Catholic Church - and there is only ONE. "Roman" or Latin, simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - of which there are some TWENTY that comprise the ONE Catholic Church. Melkite, Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic are ALL additional Liturgical rites that make up this ONE Church. So - if you're going to be an anti-Catholic - at least TRY not to be an ignorant one.

As to your charge that I "can't defend" my arguments - not only have I defended them - I SUNK all of your arguments in the process because you didn't do your homework.

Thirdly - you decry Catholic dogma and Tradition as being man-made - yet you make the asinine statement that "Sola Scriptura has jettisoned Catholic dogma altogether". As I pointed out earlier - Sola Scriptura is not only a self-defeating, anti-Biblical doctrine - it is a 100% invention of men. The very Scriptures YOU purport to be our "Sole" Authority do NOT support this false belief. In fact - the Scriptures tell us emphatically that Christ's CHURCH s our final earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, Jon 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Additionally, you make the preposterous claim that the Catholic Church is a "pagan religion" yet you offer ZERO evidence for this nonsense.
And YOU say I can't defend any of MY arguments . . .

finally - I see NO reason to comment further on your last remark in RED, as I've pretty much proven it to be patently FALSE . . .

 

[CadyandZoe]

Once again - I'll address your main points above in RED.

First off, if by "RCC", you mean "Roman Catholic Church" - I don't know what that is. I belong to the Catholic Church - and there is only ONE. "Roman" or Latin, simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - of which there are some TWENTY that comprise the ONE Catholic Church. Melkite, Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic are ALL additional Liturgical rites that make up this ONE Church. So - if you're going to be an anti-Catholic - at least TRY not to be an ignorant one.

As to your charge that I "can't defend" my arguments - not only have I defended them - I SUNK all of your arguments in the process because you didn't do your homework.

Thirdly - you decry Catholic dogma and Tradition as being man-made - yet you make the asinine statement that "Sola Scriptura has jettisoned Catholic dogma altogether". As I pointed out earlier - Sola Scriptura is not only a self-defeating, anti-Biblical doctrine - it is a 100% invention of men. The very Scriptures YOU purport to be our "Sole" Authority do NOT support this false belief. In fact - the Scriptures tell us emphatically that Christ's CHURCH s our final earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, Jon 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Additionally, you make the preposterous claim that the Catholic Church is a "pagan religion" yet you offer ZERO evidence for this nonsense.
And YOU say I can't defend any of MY arguments . . .

finally - I see NO reason to comment further on your last remark in RED, as I've pretty much proven it to be patently FALSE . . .

You haven't proven anything. As I say, typical of religious people, you simply assert dogma as if it were true. I already showed you that your definition of "tradition" is erroneous. But you didn't consider my argument or give a rebuttal. All you did was insult me. You can't argue anything from scripture because scripture defeats your point of view. This is why you insist on tradition because tradition is where your religion has stuffed all kinds of false teaching. You can't seem to recognize a sound argument from scripture. Perhaps you have never had to make an argument from scripture since your religion supplies you with "interpretations."

I have not provided YOU with evidence that your religion is a mixture of Greek philosophy, paganism, and polytheism because you aren't ready to hear the evidence. Your mind and ears are closed. If I gave you more arguments, I have no expectation that your response to me would be anything other than, "silly", "ignorant" and bla, bla, bla. I don't think you know how to read me or anyone else sympathetically and consider whether you might actually be wrong. So what's the point here?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves who they will believe based on our discussion thanks.

so be it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The two ways that the water would be literal and not symbolic is 1) water means Jewish amniotic fluid, and 2) water means literal baptismal water. #1 means no gentile can be born again (water AND Spirit), so that's out. And #2 is reasonable because receiving the Spirit is connected with being baptized in the name of the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit. But I suggest it's more than just the act of being water baptized. It's the repentance that water baptism represents. For that is the NT message of salvation—repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

no that is you forcing an false understanding to the passage.

Jesus said one must be born of the flesh and the spirit.

If you read any of the Pauline epistles, you would not have answered the way you did on #1

as for 2 you are saying Jesus was commanding something that had not even come to be yet and that that is symbolic. without identofying what kind of baptism was required, would have left Nicodemus just as mystified as to teh bortn again. Jews had many baptisms and Nicodemus would have been baptized all the ways he could!

3. Repentance (the change of mind) comes before one is baptized! One changes their mind about Jesus (repent) in order to be saved! Water baptism does not save.

4. In Acts to the Jews yes it is repentance and faith. they had to repent (change thewir mind ) as to who Jesus is and then trust His death and resurrection.

But after teh book of acts, to the gentiles you do not see repent and believe as a formula for salvation!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That was the current NA.

Well we have an impasse here then. I use much older manuscripts. I do not know which manuscripts this newere version comes from so I cannot determine its accuracy.

But once again this passage is part of the contested passages in 1 JOhn 5. got anything else?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well "Spirit and fire" has a preposition.

double preposition- difference in meaning.

1. John did not know of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
2. John did know of the trials of being a follower
3.
Matthew 20:21-23
King James Version

21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.


Fire is not equated with the Holy Spirit- even with the sign of the spirit was cloven tongues LIKE fire descending on Pentecost. It is far more natural to the context to mean tribulation. Acts 2 is a metaphor as the language clearly shows.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Okay, good. You saw that. I was going to point that out to you.


The reason I rejected that belief is it is not required to be a Jew to see and enter into the kingdom of God. For Jesus is not discarding the 'water' alone part that won't let a person see the kingdom. Spiritual rebirth is both water and Spirit. If water means being a Jew that instantly rules all the gentiles out from seeing and entering into the kingdom of God in a born again experience.

But you neglect the fact that simply being born Jewish was enough to enter the kingdom in the minds of Jews! It was a common teaching handed down for generations by the time jesus came! He was disavowing that belief. Paul did the same as well.

 

[GracePeace]

I also take note of the fact that Jesus doesn't give a similar explanation regarding the water. If Jesus meant to include water as something significant, wouldn't we expect him to provide Nicodemus with an explanation of what the water means also?

1. It's a good point, but a) the book is written for the reader, and the reader is given the "legend" for understanding these things, and b) Jesus often says things in John's Gospel that leave the hearers scratching their heads (eg, John 16:18).
2. If you don't want to accept it it's fine with me. I put the information out so that any reasonable person can make of it what they will.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You haven't proven anything. As I say, typical of religious people, you simply assert dogma as if it were true. I already showed you that your definition of "tradition" is erroneous. But you didn't consider my argument or give a rebuttal. All you did was insult me. You can't argue anything from scripture because scripture defeats your point of view. This is why you insist on tradition because tradition is where your religion has stuffed all kinds of false teaching. You can't seem to recognize a sound argument from scripture. Perhaps you have never had to make an argument from scripture since your religion supplies you with "interpretations."

I have not provided YOU with evidence that your religion is a mixture of Greek philosophy, paganism, and polytheism because you aren't ready to hear the evidence. Your mind and ears are closed. If I gave you more arguments, I have no expectation that your response to me would be anything other than, "silly", "ignorant" and bla, bla, bla. I don't think you know how to read me or anyone else sympathetically and consider whether you might actually be wrong. So what's the point here?

Your claim above in RED is a flat-our LIE.

Not only did you FAIL to prove that Paul's definition of "Tradition" was ONLY confined to his physical examples - I destroyed that false notion in post #400 by showing you that he placed ORAL Tradition ON PAR with Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15).
In other words - I obliterated your position with Scripture, despite your claim that I can't argue from Scripture.

As to your last statement in RED - it's just another cowardly way out of having to prove your points, which so far - you have FAILED to to . . .

 

[GracePeace]

Well we have an impasse here then. I use much older manuscripts. I do not know which manuscripts this newere version comes from so I cannot determine its accuracy.

But once again this passage is part of the contested passages in 1 JOhn 5. got anything else?

1. Who says it is contested? Please share some articles.
2. Which manuscripts are you using, which do you reject, and why?

 

[GracePeace]

double preposition- difference in meaning.

1. John did not know of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
2. John did know of the trials of being a follower
3.
Matthew 20:21-23
King James Version

21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.


Fire is not equated with the Holy Spirit- even with the sign of the spirit was cloven tongues LIKE fire descending on Pentecost. It is far more natural to the context to mean tribulation. Acts 2 is a metaphor as the language clearly shows.

1. The Spirit is compared with elements--water, wind and fire.
2. John said He would baptize in Spirit and fire, and fire fell on them when the Spirit came.
You take that as a "coincidence". That's unbelief in my book.
3. When Aaron's sons disobeyed fire came out from the Tabernacle and consumed them--"our God is a consuming fire", and Isaiah 4:4 "spirit of burning".

 

[GracePeace]

double preposition- difference in meaning.

Please clarify.

1. John did not know of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
2. John did know of the trials of being a follower
3.
Matthew 20:21-23
King James Version

21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.


Fire is not equated with the Holy Spirit- even with the sign of the spirit was cloven tongues LIKE fire descending on Pentecost. It is far more natural to the context to mean tribulation. Acts 2 is a metaphor as the language clearly shows.

Yeah, the baptism Jesus is speaking of in Matthew 20 clearly isn't "Spirit and fire" because He says "it's not Mine to give but shall only be given to them for whom it is prepared of My Father"--but John says "Jesus baptizes in Spirit and fire", meaning just as John's mission was to come and baptize all in water, so also it is Jesus's to baptize all in fire.

You're grasping at straws.

"What else ya got?"

 

[GracePeace]

@Ronald Nolette

1. Who says it is contested? Please share some articles.
2. Which manuscripts are you using, which do you reject, and why?

Keep in mind that my point (Word and Spirit are tightly bound together--eg, "My Words are Spirit") doesn't hinge on this verse.