Born from Above means being born OUTSIDE of the constraints of time.
Jacob was Born from Above....known before he was born. Same with Samuel. Same with Sampson. Same with John the Baptist, same with Jesus. Same with Nicodemus.
WHAT IS THE WATER IN JOHN 3:5?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Jacob was Born from Above....known before he was born. Same with Samuel. Same with Sampson. Same with John the Baptist, same with Jesus. Same with Nicodemus.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
its still another birth. hence your still born again.
Being born from above means you have recieved Gods promise that you will never perish and you will live forever.
it is spiritual birth as apposed to physical birth..
Woah woah woah.
I did NOT say that the principle of being born anew was incorrect. Paul goes on about this concept extensively.
Not what I'm saying in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
What I'm saying is that Jesus was not discussing this concept with Nicodemus. He was discussing something completely different.
So let's try again WITHOUT adding to God's Word or mine please.
Edited to add:
Nicodemus believed in Jesus. Nicodemus did NOT believe in himself.
Last edited:
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
sorry
By what Nicodemus said in question, and by what Jesus said in response.
I must go with what I have said.. He was discussing this concept. one must be born from above (again)
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Jesus just got through saying you must be born again in verse 3. It's the same concept, he just expanded on it. A spiritual rebirth is required and so "water" here is symbolic for the cleansing. We are cleansed first (when we believe in Christ and are forgiven of sin), then spiritually made new ( baptized by the Holy Spirit).
Ok....you are reading into what is written with American/English mannerisms of speech.
That is not an originalist perspective. (Happens to most everyone, especially when taught to do just that in this section....it especially was a problem that the Pharisees and Jews had with what Jesus taught)
An originalist perspective is that the writer (John) was writing to an audience from their cultures and time periods to express thoughts they could understand in a manner they could understand them in.
First let's review some uncontested facts about this interchange.
John did not write every single word spoken between Jesus and Nicodemus. Otherwise Nicodemus's apology for waking Jesus would be included. (It wasn't) There wasn't so much as even a "Shalom " recorded.
The reason being is that paper and ink were somewhat expensive luxury items. Doodling on paper was not a habit yet. (Too expensive and considered wasteful by Jews and most of the world at this time) When parents would write letters to their children the custom was parents would include a few sheets of paper for their children to write back to them on. So, a reasonable conclusion is that John only included the absolute necessity of what was said. (What miracles did Nicodemus witness to make him believe Jesus was sent by God?)
Nicodemus did believe in Jesus. The text says that fairly plainly.
Israel had a Caste based society and social structure. Tribes and parentage determined your specific Caste inside of Jewish life and culture. It gave you a predetermined home area to live within. It gave you your career. It would suggest groups to choose a wife from. (Wasn't demanded but was only suggested unless you were a Levite....then demanded.)
Luke 17:21 is also accepted scripture too.
Any argument about these facts?
Needed basis before we can move forward without just talking at each other instead of with each other.
Last edited:
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
not sure what point your trying to make
But I just read it as written. And I think Jesus is quite clear in what he said and how it is done.
I tend to not try to read things not there.
Not trying to play a game here.
Do you agree with those above facts that are generally speaking not contested?
I'm not reading anything "extra" into the text. I'm going by strictly what scripture says. I'm suggesting that others have done as you have said and it's become a long standing tradition since it's marketing campaign for proselytizing at the turn of the century after WW1.
Look again at the uncontested facts. Let me know if you agree or disagree with them. Simple request. No game playing here. (I'm not good at games whatsoever)
I'd like @Eternally Grateful to read this too, although I already know he won't agree.
The phrase BORN AGAIN did not exist in the early church.
A SPIRITUAL birth was recognized, but not being born again as is taught these days.
I've stopped fighting this many years ago.
Many incorrect doctrine have come about that did not exist in the early church.
I wish every Christian would study church history, but it's really frowned upon.
What the early fathers taught, those taught by the Apostles....
is that we are to believe in God.
Believe in His presence, His reality.
And then we are to obey God.
This is really all they taught...everything else is details.
Now, I have read what you post here about the meaning of being BORN FROM ABOVE...
but it's pretty useless to try and communicate this to us - I include myself because I find that if I insist on
the true meaning - it become impossible to move on to the topic at hand.
I have to use the term born again, instead of spiritual birth, because it's the only way to be understood in our parlance.
This misuse of scripture causes many problems for Christianity.
It causes many to believe doctrine that is nowhere to be found in Christianity.
It's causing Christianity to become so watered down as to be unrecognizable.
It's causing division between us which JESUS DID NOT WANT.
We would need to get back to the beginning....
but who would be willing?
Not those taught by churches that teach these new ideas that we not existant in the Apostles and those they taught.
Sorry for rambling...
sometimes I just need to say this.
(even though no one listens).
@JohnDB is right EG.
I've been saying this for a long time but I know it falls on deaf ears.
You ARE reading stuff into the NT that isn't there.
How do we know it isn't there?
Because those that LIVED at that time and KNEW Jewish language and how it was used
did NOT believe what some churches have been teaching in our time.
So do we believe what WE today understand the NT to teach...
or should we believe what the church was teaching right after Jesus ascended?
It's impossible to discuss this due to the total absorbtion of these new ideas,
so I don't bring it up a lot.
Why? Not because I don't know this, but because it would make any conversation impossible to have because we'd have to
debate this first before continuing.
We've messed up Christianity.
I fear for its future.
Behold
Well-Known Member
Jesus said you must be "born...........again".
That's "born #2".
That's a 2nd Birthday..
So, the first has happened, when your mother's water broke, and out you came.
And now, to be rejoined to God, you have to have a Spiritual Birth day......which is to be ......born ...........again (Spiritually).
That birth is your 2nd Birthday, and if you dont have it, you're not going to heaven, even if you've been water baptized 34 times.
That's "born #2".
That's a 2nd Birthday..
So, the first has happened, when your mother's water broke, and out you came.
And now, to be rejoined to God, you have to have a Spiritual Birth day......which is to be ......born ...........again (Spiritually).
That birth is your 2nd Birthday, and if you dont have it, you're not going to heaven, even if you've been water baptized 34 times.
Behold
Some on this thread have brought up very good reasons for the WATER to mean baptism.
ONE baptism is sufficient and any church that requires a second one to join THEIR church is not following biblical teaching.
Personally, I tend to agree with you...although baptism also makes a lot of sense.
The reason I have difficulty is because the denominations I've attended do not agree on this...
even though they DO agree on other topics we discuss on these forums.
John 3:5 refers to water. This term, within the Nicodemus discourse, is interpreted in many ways. From as far back as the early church and the Church Fathers, most of them have indicated that when Jesus talked about water, he was referring to baptism. This point of view elevated baptism to the level of a conversion, being a precondition for entering the kingdom of God, causing the early church to make baptism a sacrament. After cursorily discussing some viewpoints on the use of the term ‘water’ in John 3:5, this article examines the structure of John 3:3, 5–7. This brings the article to the conclusion that the water in John 3:5 could be a reference to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb and is present at birth. In the light of this, two conditions are put forward in order to see and enter the kingdom of God: one must first be born of the flesh, whereupon one must also be born of the Spirit. Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: John 3:5 refers to water. Most scholars, with reference to the Church Fathers, have the conviction that it refers to baptism. According to the structure of John 3:3, 5–7, this article argues that the water refers to the amniotic fluid present at a natural birth.
source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362500702_The_water_in_John_35
Behold
Well-Known Member
Let me show you what can't work.
If we are first born by water water baptism, then our 2nd birth is by the Spirit.
That does not even work logically, much less spiritually.
So, Jn3, is talking about 2 births...........so, if we say........>"water baptism is my first birth, then spiritual baptism is my 2nd".
Sorry no.
Jesus is making the distinction between 2 BIRTHS........and one is your birth day..........and the 2nd is your spiritual birthday.
Like I said,,,I agree, but am not 100% sure I'm right. Or, at least, that my view is right.
I agree that if it's water baptism....and in water baptism we have LIFE ....
it would be like saying we have to be born of the spirit and of the spirit.
So I'm not arguing your viewpoint....
many theologians believe it's the correct one.
Behold
Well-Known Member
MaryCult type theologians are going to falsely argue the "baptismal regeneration" theology.., as their religion is built on it.
But here is a way to understand the 2 "births"
We are initually born into the Adamic nature , and we are born again OUT of the adamic nature as "IN Christ"......we are born into God and Christ, as our 2nd Birth (Spiritual).
@Behold
I don't know if you'd be interested, but I'll link this:
triablogue.blogspot.com
I don't know if you'd be interested, but I'll link this:
How Was John 3:5 Interpreted Prior To The Reformation?
Steve Hays and I have been having a discussion with Bryan Cross on some subjects related to justification, including the role of baptism. Th...
triablogue.blogspot.com
Well, we're not discussing Catholicism here. Some Protestants believe in water regeneration too.
I like to refer to the Early Church Fathers, but, in this case, I don't find much help.
Only if they agree do I seriously consider their teachings.
What you and I myself get frustrated and tired of arguing is very much similar to the very things Jesus complained about as well as Paul and Bartholomew (Author of Hebrews) and several others have been absolutely frustrated about.
And where we like to poke fun of Pharisees, Grammitons (lawyers) and ancient Rabbinic traditions....all to often in modern times these types still exist today. There was a REASON they were specifically chosen by God to frame the contents of the New Testament. Because the names/titles have been replaced with Church Elders, Pastors, Televangelist, and Etc. (We can make our own list)
We, do not want to admit that our sin today has the exact same thought processes as people from 2,000 years ago. We have not progressed whatsoever. We are not better than those "ignorant savages from 2,000 years ago" and are possibly worse.
There's only ONE manuscript that bears his name as the author. (Carefully and amusingly procured from a young page using the old scrolls as a means for lighting the coal and wood furnace)
There are no others....so without corroboration we assume it tentatively instead of definitively. (Sorry for the confusion)
But more to the point....
One of my favorite things to ponder about is this spiritual blindness. We, today, are the Pharisees, Sadducees, law experts and "Jews" prototyped in the scriptures.
But so few want to entertain the thought. We often look upon those mentioned in the scriptures with a mix of scorn and laughter. Never once doing the same to the person in the mirror and seeing the exact same characters the scriptures described as the villains in the stories.
We see only ourselves as the heroes. How on earth does this happen? How did we become blind? Where did we lose our sight? Was it sudden or so slow we didn't notice it?
When there's this huge pink and purple elephant in the room with us that we have to literally engage in all sorts of contortions to get around....but when someone points at it and says,"Maybe we should remove the elephant so we can move about easier." Everyone looks at them as if they are a either a heretic or nutjob of some sort.
And I've been that person a few times....also been blind to the elephant too often to count. (Thank God for Jesus)
So....dunno....
But I ponder it often.
No one can see the Kingdom of Heaven unless....
Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see
- Status
Similar threads
