What does it mean to be "born again"?

[Judge Hardcastle]

And this is the key point you still haven’t addressed:

If “born of flesh” does not refer to natural birth, what birth is Nicodemus talking about when he asks whether a man can enter his mother’s womb a second time?

We know from Nicodums' reply to Jesus' statement that he thought Jesus was talking about physical birth. Nicodemus didn't get that being born again/from above wasn't about literal physical birth, so it should not be a surprise that he also didn't get that Jesus was not necessarily talking about physical birth when he referred to being born of water.

Nicodemus did not recognize the scriptural precedent of the waters of Noah's flood and Israel passing through the Red Sea as a kind of baptism/birth by water. Many also miss that to this day and immediately think in terms of amniotic fluid when Jesus refers to being born of water rather than the scriptural precedent of baptism and birth by water in the old testament scriptures, and which both Paul and Peter make reference to.

John’s contrast only makes sense if “flesh” refers to natural birth and “Spirit” refers to supernatural birth. If you replace John’s categories with Paul’s and Luke’s, the dialogue collapses.

Your interpretation that 'born of water/flesh births flesh' means natural physical birth is not the only one that makes sense. Surely, there is the teaching about men being born according to the adamic nature and the requirement to be born 'again' according to the divine nature of God, but to say that is the only interpretation that makes sense and fits what Jesus is saying is simply false. When you take the whole context of the scriptures into consideration you can see the depth of what Jesus is saying. And it helps that Paul plainly explains what it means, metaphorically, to birth a son according to and by the flesh vs. birthing a son by the Spirit.

 

[Moonwood]

We know from Nicodums' reply to Jesus' statement that he thought Jesus was talking about physical birth. Nicodemus didn't get that being born again/from above wasn't about literal physical birth, so it should not be a surprise that he also didn't get that Jesus was not necessarily talking about physical birth when he referred to being born of water.

Nicodemus did not recognize the scriptural precedent of the waters of Noah's flood and Israel passing through the Red Sea as a kind of baptism/birth by water. Many also miss that to this day and immediately think in terms of amniotic fluid when Jesus refers to being born of water rather than the scriptural precedent of baptism and birth by water in the old testament scriptures, and which both Paul and Peter make reference to.

Your interpretation that 'born of water/flesh births flesh' means natural physical birth is not the only one that makes sense. Surely, there is the teaching about men being born according to the adamic nature and the requirement to be born 'again' according to the divine nature of God, but to say that is the only interpretation that makes sense and fits what Jesus is saying is simply false. When you take the whole context of the scriptures into consideration you can see the depth of what Jesus is saying. And it helps that Paul plainly explains what it means, metaphorically, to birth a son according to and by the flesh vs. birthing a son by the Spirit.

In the first sentence of your reply you’ve actually conceded the decisive point: Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about physical birth. That means the dialogue begins with a literal misunderstanding about natural birth, not about repentance, covenant effort, or Old Testament typology. Jesus’s correction only makes sense if He is clarifying that misunderstanding — the contrast He gives is between natural birth (“flesh”) and supernatural birth (“Spirit”).

And just to be clear again: I have never said “born of water = physical birth.” In John 3, the category for natural birth is flesh, not water. Jesus defines His own terms: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” You keep attributing to me an interpretation I have explicitly rejected.

Appealing to Noah, the Red Sea, Luke, Peter, or Paul cannot override the narrative logic of John 3. Nicodemus is not confused about typology — he is confused about physical birth. His question is literal: “Can a man enter his mother’s womb a second time?” If “born of flesh” does not refer to natural birth, then Nicodemus’s question becomes unintelligible and Jesus’s correction becomes incoherent.

And this is the key point you still haven’t addressed:

If “born of flesh” does not refer to natural birth, what birth is Nicodemus talking about when he asks whether a man can enter his mother’s womb a second time?

Jesus’s correction only works if “born of flesh” refers to natural birth and “born of Spirit” refers to supernatural birth. If “water” is repentance and “flesh” is covenant‑life, then Nicodemus’s question makes no sense, Jesus’s correction makes no sense, and the dialogue collapses — because neither category addresses the physical‑birth misunderstanding Nicodemus just expressed.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

And just to be clear again: I have never said “born of water = physical birth.” In John 3, the category for natural birth is flesh, not water. Jesus defines His own terms: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” You keep attributing to me an interpretation I have explicitly rejected.

If you don't mind being a little patient and understanding with me can you refresh my memory as to what you say the water represents in your understanding of John 3:5?

5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

Thank you.

 

[Moonwood]

If you don't mind being a little patient and understanding with me can you refresh my memory as to what you say the water represents in your understanding of John 3:5?

5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

Thank you.

Sure — here’s the refresh, stated as simply as possible.

In John’s Gospel, “water and Spirit” is a single reality of supernatural rebirth. “Water” refers to the cleansing and renewal God gives, and “Spirit” refers to the divine life God imparts. It is one rebirth with two inseparable aspects.

It does not refer to physical birth, and it does not refer to repentance‑effort, covenant‑effort, or Old Testament water‑typology. John never uses “water” that way. And Jesus Himself defines the contrast in the passage: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” In John’s Gospel, “flesh” means natural human life — the life that comes from human birth. “Spirit” means the supernatural life God gives — the life that comes from divine birth. These are Johannine categories, not Pauline ones. (And Nicodemus confirms "flesh" is about natural birth when he asks, “Can a man enter his mother’s womb a second time?”)

So in my understanding of John 3:5:

• “Flesh” = natural birth
• “Water” = the cleansing God gives in the act of rebirth
• “Spirit” = the divine life God gives in the act of rebirth
• “Water and Spirit” = one supernatural birth from God

In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently signifies cleansing, renewal, and life — never physical birth, never repentance‑effort, and never covenant‑effort.

That’s the Johannine meaning, and it fits the dialogue’s logic without importing categories from Luke, Paul, Peter, Noah, or the Red Sea.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

“That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” In John’s Gospel, “flesh” means natural human life — the life that comes from human birth.

Okay. Can you make the connection for me in your theology between flesh ("natural human life that comes from human birth") and water ("the cleansing God gives in the act of rebirth") in John 3:5,6?

 

[Hillsage]

I’m using Johannine categories, not the later “spirit vs. soul” distinction. John never divides the human person that way. In John 3, “born of the Spirit” refers to the origin of the new life — it comes from the Holy Spirit — not to a specific component of the human person being regenerated.

I'm obviously not using "Johannine categories" and don't plan to, I believe all scripture was 'originally' inspired by God. And John was just one of them who contributed to the NT.

Having said that, I believe that the spirit is the animating life source to all bodies. Jesus died AFTER his soul "was sorrowful unto death" and his body "sweat blood" from physical stress. On the cross Jesus told his spirit to go back to its Father "into your hands I commit my spirit". And in Luke 9 when Jesus raised the little girl from death "her spirit returned" and then they gave her resurrected BODY "something to eat". After Jesus died His spirit went to the father and His body and soul went to hell/hades (Gr def. the place for departed souls). His body never saw "corruption". That's my opinion based upon scriptural backing, as I understand the scriptures. Unfortunately for you none of these come from John.

I'm curious, do you have a favorite translation that goes with your Johannine anthropology? I study many different translations, knowing that no translation is without errors IMO. I use KJV because the computer bible program I bought keys Strong's Heb. Gr. dictionary with the KJV and NIV only. The other six translations I bought for the program do not.

Johannine anthropology treats ψυχή as the whole interior life of the person. So when Jesus speaks of rebirth, He is describing the divine life given to the whole person, not only to the human spirit. This is why John 1:13, John 3:3-8, and 1 John 5:1 all describe rebirth as a transformation of the person, not of one part.

As I have testified, I obviously am not in to Johannine anthropology as much as I am the 1Joh 2:27 anointing which my spirit received when it was 'born again'.

But can you apply your anthropology, for me if you would, to the 7 times that your SRN 5590 root word for soul ψυχή is interpreted as "LIFE" in the gospel of John.

JOH 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life/ψυχή for the sheep.
JOH 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life/ψυχή for the sheep.
JOH 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life/ψυχή, that I might take it again.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life/ψυχή for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall
not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 12:25 He that loveth his life/ψυχή shall lose it; and he that hateth his life/ψυχή in this world/kosmw/kosmos
shall keep it unto life/ZOE eternal/aionian.
JOH 12:27 Now is my soul/ψυχή troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came
I unto this hour shall keep it unto life/ζωή/zoe eternal.

John and Paul are not in disagreement; they simply use different anthropological vocabularies.

Paul sometimes speaks in a tripartite way (body–soul–spirit), but John does not use that framework. When John contrasts “flesh” and “Spirit,” he is contrasting natural origin with supernatural origin, not dividing the human person into components.

Can you share a verse which you believe illustrates what you just said concerning "natural origin with supernatural"?

So “born of the Spirit” in John 3 refers to the divine source of the new life, not to the regeneration of only the human spirit.

I agree with "divine source" but disagree with it not applying "to the regeneration of only the human spirit". I do apply OSAS to the spirit only concerning the progressive salvation from spirit to soul to body

Regarding John 10:35, Jesus is quoting Psalm 82, where “gods” refers to human judges acting as representatives of God. It is not a statement about human spirits being divine in essence.

John and Paul agree on the reality of the new birth — they simply describe it using different categories.

 

[JimKnox]

I'm obviously not using "Johannine categories" and don't plan to, I believe all scripture was 'originally' inspired by God. And John was just one of them who contributed to the NT.

Having said that, I believe that the spirit is the animating life source to all bodies. Jesus died AFTER his soul "was sorrowful unto death" and his body "sweat blood" from physical stress. On the cross Jesus told his spirit to go back to its Father "into your hands I commit my spirit". And in Luke 9 when Jesus raised the little girl from death "her spirit returned" and then they gave her resurrected BODY "something to eat". After Jesus died His spirit went to the father and His body and soul went to hell/hades (Gr def. the place for departed souls). His body never saw "corruption". That's my opinion based upon scriptural backing, as I understand the scriptures. Unfortunately for you none of these come from John.

I'm curious, do you have a favorite translation that goes with your Johannine anthropology? I study many different translations, knowing that no translation is without errors IMO. I use KJV because the computer bible program I bought keys Strong's Heb. Gr. dictionary with the KJV and NIV only. The other six translations I bought for the program do not.



As I have testified, I obviously am not in to Johannine anthropology as much as I am the 1Joh 2:27 anointing which my spirit received when it was 'born again'.

But can you apply your anthropology, for me if you would, to the 7 times that your SRN 5590 root word for soul ψυχή is interpreted as "LIFE" in the gospel of John.

JOH 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life/ψυχή for the sheep.
JOH 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life/ψυχή for the sheep.
JOH 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life/ψυχή, that I might take it again.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life/ψυχή for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall
not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 12:25 He that loveth his life/ψυχή shall lose it; and he that hateth his life/ψυχή in this world/kosmw/kosmos
shall keep it unto life/ZOE eternal/aionian.
JOH 12:27 Now is my soul/ψυχή troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came
I unto this hour shall keep it unto life/ζωή/zoe eternal.





Can you share a verse which you believe illustrates what you just said concerning "natural origin with supernatural"?


I agree with "divine source" but disagree with it not applying "to the regeneration of only the human spirit". I do apply OSAS to the spirit only concerning the progressive salvation from spirit to soul to body

I see your problem now.
You think God was so careless as to inspire the mythical 'originals' but was powerless to preserve Scripture error-free after that.
Right?

 

[Hillsage]

I see your problem now.
You think God was so careless as to inspire the mythical 'originals' but was powerless to preserve Scripture error-free after that.
Right?

No, I don't think God is powerless to have done that. From my studies, I just believe the church if dumb to believe He did. I''m not trying to offend with that statement, that's just how I honestly believe. Can you prove what you believe?

 

[JimKnox]

No, I don't think God is powerless to have done that. From my studies, I just believe the church if dumb to believe He did. I''m not trying to offend with that statement, that's just how I honestly believe. Can you prove what you believe?

Can I prove it?
Yes.
How many verses and books do you need?

 

[Moonwood]

Okay. Can you make the connection for me in your theology between flesh ("natural human life that comes from human birth") and water ("the cleansing God gives in the act of rebirth") in John 3:5,6?

The connection between “flesh” and “water” in John 3:5-6 isn’t a component‑based connection and it isn’t a repentance‑based connection. John isn’t pairing “flesh = natural birth” with “water = repentance.” He’s pairing two different origins.

• “Born of flesh” = the life that comes from natural human generation
• “Born of water and Spirit” = the life that comes from God’s supernatural action

In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently signifies the cleansing and renewal God gives when He brings someone into new life, and “Spirit” signifies the divine life God imparts. These are not two births and not two human actions. They are two inseparable aspects of one supernatural birth.

So the connection is simply this:

“Flesh” describes the origin of natural life; “water and Spirit” describe the origin of supernatural life.

John is contrasting origins, not repentance versus faith, and not different internal parts of a human being. That’s why Jesus immediately explains the contrast Himself: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” The point is natural life versus Spirit‑given life — not natural life versus repentance.

And this is why “water = repentance” cannot fit the dialogue: Nicodemus’s misunderstanding is about physical birth, not repentance. Jesus’s correction only works if “flesh” refers to natural birth and “water and Spirit” refer to supernatural birth.

 

[Moonwood]

I'm obviously not using "Johannine categories" and don't plan to, I believe all scripture was 'originally' inspired by God. And John was just one of them who contributed to the NT.

Having said that, I believe that the spirit is the animating life source to all bodies. Jesus died AFTER his soul "was sorrowful unto death" and his body "sweat blood" from physical stress. On the cross Jesus told his spirit to go back to its Father "into your hands I commit my spirit". And in Luke 9 when Jesus raised the little girl from death "her spirit returned" and then they gave her resurrected BODY "something to eat". After Jesus died His spirit went to the father and His body and soul went to hell/hades (Gr def. the place for departed souls). His body never saw "corruption". That's my opinion based upon scriptural backing, as I understand the scriptures. Unfortunately for you none of these come from John.

I'm curious, do you have a favorite translation that goes with your Johannine anthropology? I study many different translations, knowing that no translation is without errors IMO. I use KJV because the computer bible program I bought keys Strong's Heb. Gr. dictionary with the KJV and NIV only. The other six translations I bought for the program do not.

As I have testified, I obviously am not in to Johannine anthropology as much as I am the 1Joh 2:27 anointing which my spirit received when it was 'born again'.

But can you apply your anthropology, for me if you would, to the 7 times that your SRN 5590 root word for soul ψυχή is interpreted as "LIFE" in the gospel of John.

JOH 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life/ψυχή for the sheep.
JOH 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life/ψυχή for the sheep.
JOH 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life/ψυχή, that I might take it again.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life/ψυχή for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall
not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 12:25 He that loveth his life/ψυχή shall lose it; and he that hateth his life/ψυχή in this world/kosmw/kosmos
shall keep it unto life/ZOE eternal/aionian.
JOH 12:27 Now is my soul/ψυχή troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came
I unto this hour shall keep it unto life/ζωή/zoe eternal.

Can you share a verse which you believe illustrates what you just said concerning "natural origin with supernatural"?

I agree with "divine source" but disagree with it not applying "to the regeneration of only the human spirit". I do apply OSAS to the spirit only concerning the progressive salvation from spirit to soul to body

You’re right that you’re not using Johannine categories — and that’s actually the core issue. I’m not saying your tripartite model is wrong in a broader theological sense; I’m saying that John does not use that model, and therefore John 3 cannot be interpreted through it. Inspiration doesn’t mean every biblical author uses the same anthropological vocabulary. Paul sometimes uses body–soul–spirit language; John simply doesn’t.

In John’s Gospel, ψυχή never functions as a separable “soul‑component.” It means the interior life, the self, the life one lays down or keeps. That’s why in every verse you listed, ψυχή is translated as “life.” When Jesus lays down His ψυχή, He is laying down His life, not a metaphysical part. When His ψυχή is troubled, it is His inner life, not a distinct entity alongside πνεῦμα.

So Johannine anthropology treats ψυχή as the whole interior life of the person, not as a separate component. That’s why rebirth in John is the transformation of the person, not of one internal part.

This is also why John 3:6 cannot be read as “only the human spirit is regenerated.” When John contrasts σάρξ and πνεῦμα, he is contrasting natural origin with supernatural origin.

• Born of σάρξ = the life that comes from human birth
• Born of πνεῦμα = the life that comes from God

The contrast is between origins, not between components.

Regarding the verses you cited:

• John 10:11, 15, 17; 13:38 — ψυχή = “life,” the life Jesus lays down
• John 12:25 — ψυχή = the life one clings to or surrenders
• John 12:27 — ψυχή = Jesus’s inner life being troubled

None of these passages treat ψυχή as a metaphysical “soul‑part.” They all treat it as the interior life of the person.

As for a verse illustrating the natural/supernatural contrast: John 1:13 is explicit — believers are born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” That is the same contrast John uses in John 3: natural origin vs. divine origin.

So John and Paul agree on the reality of the new birth — they simply describe it using different categories. Paul sometimes uses tripartite language; John does not. John’s vocabulary is σάρξ, ψυχή, and πνεῦμα— and his contrast in John 3 is between natural life and Spirit‑given life, not between different internal parts of the human person.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

• “Born of flesh” = the life that comes from natural human generation
• “Born of water and Spirit” = the life that comes from God’s supernatural action

In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently signifies the cleansing and renewal God gives when He brings someone into new life, and “Spirit” signifies the divine life God imparts. These are not two births and not two human actions. They are two inseparable aspects of one supernatural birth.

What is the water, specifically, in the "two Inseparable aspects of one supernatural birth?" We know what the Spirit is. What is the water? Are you teaching baptismal regeneration? Does Hebrews 10:22 represent this washing with water?

22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

And this is why “water = repentance” cannot fit the dialogue: Nicodemus’s misunderstanding is about physical birth, not repentance. Jesus’s correction only works if “flesh” refers to natural birth and “water and Spirit” refer to supernatural birth.

Nicodemus' misunderstanding is about the new birth being literal - "4“Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” John 3:4. That is what he is being corrected about. Assuming water did refer to physical birth (it's doesn't) there is no misunderstanding on his part about that. His error lies in the nature of the new birth. The new birth you say is by water and Spirit, and what I say is by the Spirit.

 

[Moonwood]

What is the water, specifically, in the "two Inseparable aspects of one supernatural birth?" We know what the Spirit is. What is the water? Are you teaching baptismal regeneration? Does Hebrews 10:22 represent this washing with water?

22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

Nicodemus' misunderstanding is about the new birth being literal - "4“Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” John 3:4. That is what he is being corrected about. Assuming water did refer to physical birth (it's doesn't) there is no misunderstanding on his part about that. His error lies in the nature of the new birth. The new birth you say is by water and Spirit, and what I say is by the Spirit.

You’re asking what the “water” specifically is in the one supernatural birth Jesus describes. In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently signifies the cleansing and renewal God gives when He brings someone into new life. It is the purifying aspect of the Spirit’s work — not a separate action, not a human ritual, and not a physical birth category.

So no, I’m not teaching baptismal regeneration. And Hebrews 10:22 isn’t defining John 3; it’s using priestly imagery to describe the cleansing God gives. John’s Gospel has its own symbolic vocabulary, and “water” in John always points to cleansing, renewal, and life — never to repentance‑effort, never to covenant‑effort, and never to physical birth.

The contrast Jesus gives is the key: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” In John’s Gospel, “flesh” means natural human life — the life that comes from human birth. “Spirit” means the supernatural life God gives — the life that comes from divine birth. (And Nicodemus confirms “flesh” is about natural birth when he asks, “Can a man enter his mother’s womb a second time?”)

So the connection between “flesh” and “water” is simply this:

• “flesh” describes the origin of natural life
• “water and Spirit” describe the origin of supernatural life

John is contrasting origins, not repentance versus faith, and not baptism versus Spirit. That’s why “water = repentance” cannot fit the dialogue: Nicodemus’s misunderstanding is about physical birth, not repentance. Jesus’s correction only works if “flesh” refers to natural birth and “water and Spirit” refer to supernatural birth.

 

[Hillsage]

You’re right that you’re not using Johannine categories — and that’s actually the core issue. I’m not saying your tripartite model is wrong in a broader theological sense; I’m saying that John does not use that model, and therefore John 3 cannot be interpreted through it. Inspiration doesn’t mean every biblical author uses the same anthropological vocabulary. Paul sometimes uses body–soul–spirit language; John simply doesn’t.

I think we are pretty much agreeable with what I 'think' you're saying here.

In John’s Gospel, ψυχή never functions as a separable “soul‑component.” It means the interior life, the self, the life one lays down or keeps. That’s why in every verse you listed, ψυχή is translated as “life.” When Jesus lays down His ψυχή, He is laying down His life, not a metaphysical part. When His ψυχή is troubled, it is His inner life, not a distinct entity alongside πνεῦμα.

I would agree, believing that Jesus laid down his 'ZAO SOUL life' without dying bodily in the Gospel verses quoted. But he did not lay down his ZOE SPIRIT life, until the cross. I believe ZOE life overcomes ZAO life. Jesus could have 'bled out' and still lived on that cross because the first death/NEKROS had no hold on his sinless breathing soul and body.

But Jesus gave up immortal body life/ZAO for our sake....for 3 days in the tomb. And while his spirit was out of his body,
"being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;"
1st Peter anthropology 3:18-19. just having some fun sister.

So Johannine anthropology treats ψυχή as the whole interior life of the person, not as a separate component. That’s why rebirth in John is the transformation of the person, not of one internal part.

My brief testimony; I was born, baptized, confirmed, wed....and then divorced as a Roman Catholic. Since meeting you here, they kind of taught a Peternine (sic) anthropology. more fun; After all, Peter was the 'first' chosen of Jesus, not John.

But at age 22, I decided one night, that "the church" bragging about how their roots went all the way back to Peter, was wrong. That was the night that my 'first' "born again" spiritual roots went farther back....to Jesus the cornerstone, and not Peter a "living stone".

This is also why John 3:6 cannot be read as “only the human spirit is regenerated.” When John contrasts σάρξ and πνεῦμα, he is contrasting natural origin with supernatural origin.

• Born of σάρξ = the life that comes from human birth
• Born of πνεῦμα = the life that comes from God

The "natural origin" life that comes from a "human birth" comes from two seeds. One is a sperma from father's sperm, and the other seed is a spora from the mother's egg. The fetuses spirit comes from neither mom or dad, but from God.

And the life that comes from mother/father is ZAO life, or soul life. And the life that comes from the spirit from God is ZOE life.

But it is the spirit which comes out FROM the Holy Spirit of God which gives that fetus animating life in the womb and after birth. But that fetus is not a 'breathing creature' or 'living soul' or 'breathing soul' (3 churchy vocabulary terms). But the fetuses oxygen comes from the blood and breathing creature, of the mother.

The contrast is between origins, not between components.

Regarding the verses you cited:

• John 10:11, 15, 17; 13:38 — ψυχή = “life,” the life Jesus lays down
• John 12:25 — ψυχή = the life one clings to or surrenders
• John 12:27 — ψυχή = Jesus’s inner life being troubled

None of these passages treat ψυχή as a metaphysical “soul‑part.” They all treat it as the interior life of the person.

I still believe 'one' interior ' "part" of a 3 part triune person. We'll just have to wait until the bema judgment seat of Christ to find out who is right. I 'hope' I am.

As for a verse illustrating the natural/supernatural contrast: John 1:13 is explicit — believers are born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” That is the same contrast John uses in John 3: natural origin vs. divine origin.

So John and Paul agree on the reality of the new birth — they simply describe it using different categories. Paul sometimes uses tripartite language; John does not. John’s vocabulary is σάρξ, ψυχή, and πνεῦμα— and his contrast in John 3 is between natural life and Spirit‑given life, not between different internal parts of the human person.

You never answered my question as to what translation you prefer? Why not?

I'm going to assume ESV or NAS. And if it's the NAS it would have to be the infallible translation of 1971 and not the newest infallible NAS translation of 2020, which adds a 'little' word which really affects your position too IMO.

The NEW NAS puts an indefinite article before 'man'. And then v 13 reads as; 'nor of the will of the FLESH/body, nor of the will of A man'. So, if "man"-kind or "a man" have no "internal parts" according to you, which can even make a decision to "receive Him" vs 12; then 'how one gets born again according to anthropology thinking?

I actually use verse 12,13 a lot, in disproving the opinion of most of the church, that ''free will to believe' is another just another churchy opinion I don't believe.

I hope you appreciate my Johnnine verse here below.

NAS RSV JOH 8:36* So if the Son makes you free/1659 eleutheroo, you will be free/1658 eleutheros indeed.

I believe the first "free" (Gr definition (TO EXEMPT (FROM moral, cereremonial or MORTAL LIABILITY)) pertains to John addressing the soul's life as opposed to the spirit's life, which is different, I think.

ROM 2:6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal/aionios life; (but not adios/eternal life).

And even the apostles thought John was going to obtain 'immortality' and not "PERISH/DIE" first, only to wait for eternal life to come....like pretty much the whole church dies the first death and ignores that Jesus saved us from that death/nekros first
JOH 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die:




I have truly enjoyed dialoguing with you @Moonwood but it's probably time for me to sit back for a bit. I don't care if you even address this 'too long' post. I have loved your 'character' in dealing with what you disagree with me on, it is truly refreshing here.

But please do answer your favorite bible translation as well as a brief description of your "Moonwood" name's inspiration?

 

[Moonwood]

Part I.

I would agree, believing that Jesus laid down his 'ZAO SOUL life' without dying bodily in the Gospel verses quoted. But he did not lay down his ZOE SPIRIT life, until the cross. I believe ZOE life overcomes ZAO life. Jesus could have 'bled out' and still lived on that cross because the first death/NEKROS had no hold on his sinless breathing soul and body.

But Jesus gave up immortal body life/ZAO for our sake....for 3 days in the tomb. And while his spirit was out of his body,
"being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;"
1st Peter anthropology 3:18-19. just having some fun sister.

I think we’re actually agreeing on the key point about ψυχή: in the Gospel of John, ψυχή never functions as a separable “soul‑component.” It means life, the self, the interior life — the life one lays down or keeps. That’s why every verse you listed translates ψυχή as “life.” When Jesus lays down His ψυχή, He is laying down His life, not a metaphysical part. When His ψυχή is troubled, it is His inner life, not a distinct entity alongside πνεῦμα.

Where we currently differ is that you’re now introducing a system of ZAO‑life, ZOE‑life, NEKROS‑death, and a tripartite anthropology that John never uses. John does not distinguish between “ZAO soul‑life” and “ZOE spirit‑life,” and he never teaches that Jesus could “bleed out and still live” because His ZOE‑life was untouched. That entire framework comes from your own metaphysical system, not from Johannine usage.

My brief testimony; I was born, baptized, confirmed, wed....and then divorced as a Roman Catholic. Since meeting you here, they kind of taught a Peternine (sic) anthropology. more fun; After all, Peter was the 'first' chosen of Jesus, not John.

But at age 22, I decided one night, that "the church" bragging about how their roots went all the way back to Peter, was wrong. That was the night that my 'first' "born again" spiritual roots went farther back....to Jesus the cornerstone, and not Peter a "living stone".

Thanks for sharing that — I appreciate the background. But the point I’m making about Johannine anthropology isn’t about Peter, denominational roots, or who was “first chosen.” It’s simply about how John uses his own vocabulary.

In John’s Gospel, ψυχή never functions as a separable “soul‑component.” It always means life, the self, the interior life. When Jesus lays down His ψυχή, He lays down His life. When His ψυχή is troubled, it is His inner life. John never divides the human person into ZAO‑life, ZOE‑life, or multiple internal entities.

That’s why rebirth in John is the transformation of the whole person, not of one internal part. John’s categories are:

• σάρξ — natural human life
• πνεῦμα — Spirit‑given life
• ψυχή — the interior life, the self
• σῶμα — the body

And Jesus’s own contrast in John 3 is exactly the one He states: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” Natural life vs. Spirit‑given life — not ZAO vs. ZOE, and not soul‑life vs. spirit‑life.

So I’m not building a system on Peter or John or denominational history. I’m simply following the categories John actually uses.

The "natural origin" life that comes from a "human birth" comes from two seeds. One is a sperma from father's sperm, and the other seed is a spora from the mother's egg. The fetuses spirit comes from neither mom or dad, but from God.

And the life that comes from mother/father is ZAO life, or soul life. And the life that comes from the spirit from God is ZOE life.

But it is the spirit which comes out FROM the Holy Spirit of God which gives that fetus animating life in the womb and after birth. But that fetus is not a 'breathing creature' or 'living soul' or 'breathing soul' (3 churchy vocabulary terms). But the fetuses oxygen comes from the blood and breathing creature, of the mother.

I see what you’re trying to do, but none of the categories you’re introducing here — sperma/spora origins, ZAO‑life vs. ZOE‑life, fetal oxygen, or a tripartite “spirit‑from‑God / soul‑from‑parents / body‑from‑parents” model — come from John’s Gospel. They’re part of a metaphysical system you’re building, not part of Johannine usage.

John’s contrast in 3:6 is exactly the one Jesus states:

• “born of flesh” = the life that comes from natural human birth
• “born of Spirit” = the life that comes from God

That’s the contrast Jesus Himself gives. It’s about origin, not about multiple kinds of “life” operating inside a fetus or distinctions between ZAO and ZOE. John never uses ZAO‑life and ZOE‑life to describe different internal components of a human being, and he never teaches that the human spirit is a separate entity that comes “out from” the Holy Spirit at conception.

Likewise, John never divides the human person into:

• a spirit that comes from God,
• a soul that comes from parents,
• and a body that comes from biology.

Those categories simply aren’t Johannine.

John’s anthropology is much simpler:

• σάρξ — natural human life
• πνεῦμα — Spirit‑given life
• ψυχή — the interior life, the self
• σῶμα — the body

And rebirth in John is the transformation of the whole person, not of one internal part. That’s why Jesus says:

“That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.”

He is contrasting natural origin with supernatural origin, not ZAO‑life with ZOE‑life, and not soul‑life with spirit‑life.

So while your biological and metaphysical model is interesting, it’s not the framework John uses. John stays with his own categories, and those are the categories I’m following.

I still believe 'one' interior ' "part" of a 3 part triune person. We'll just have to wait until the bema judgment seat of Christ to find out who is right. I 'hope' I am.

I understand that you hold a tripartite model of the human person, but that’s precisely where our approaches differ. John simply doesn’t use that framework. In the passages we’re discussing, ψυχή never functions as one “part” of a three‑part person. It always means life, the self, the interior life — the life one lays down or keeps, the life that can be troubled, the life one clings to or surrenders.

Nothing in John 10, 12, or 13 treats ψυχή as a metaphysical component alongside a separate “spirit‑part.” And nothing in John 3 treats rebirth as the regeneration of one internal part. John’s contrast is the one Jesus states: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” Natural origin vs. divine origin — not a three‑part anthropology.

So while you’re free to hold your model, it isn’t the one John uses, and it isn’t the one Jesus uses in the dialogue with Nicodemus. I’m simply staying within Johannine categories.

 

[Moonwood]

Part II.

I hope you appreciate my Johnnine verse here below.

NAS RSV JOH 8:36* So if the Son makes you free/1659 eleutheroo, you will be free/1658 eleutheros indeed.

I believe the first "free" (Gr definition (TO EXEMPT (FROM moral, cereremonial or MORTAL LIABILITY)) pertains to John addressing the soul's life as opposed to the spirit's life, which is different, I think.

ROM 2:6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal/aionios life; (but not adios/eternal life).

And even the apostles thought John was going to obtain 'immortality' and not "PERISH/DIE" first, only to wait for eternal life to come....like pretty much the whole church dies the first death and ignores that Jesus saved us from that death/nekros first
JOH 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die:

John 8:36 is a beautiful verse, but it isn’t making the kind of anthropological distinction you’re describing. In John’s Gospel, ἐλευθερόω and ἐλεύθερος refer to liberation from sin’s power, not to a division between “soul‑life” and “spirit‑life.” John simply doesn’t use ZAO‑life vs. ZOE‑life as separate internal entities, and he never builds a system where the soul has one kind of life and the spirit has another.

Likewise, the apostles’ misunderstanding in John 21:23 wasn’t about “immortality” versus “eternal life,” or about John escaping the “first death.” It was a misunderstanding of Jesus’s words, not a metaphysical statement about different kinds of life within a person.

John’s categories remain consistent:

• σάρξ — natural human life
• πνεῦμα — Spirit‑given life
• ψυχή — the interior life, the self
• σῶμα — the body

And his contrast in John 1:13 and John 3:6 is the same: natural origin vs. divine origin. That’s the framework John uses, and it’s the one I’m following.

So while your ZAO/ZOE/immortality model is part of your own theological system, it isn’t the vocabulary John uses, and it isn’t the contrast Jesus makes in the Nicodemus dialogue.

You never answered my question as to what translation you prefer? Why not?

But please do answer your favorite bible translation as well as a brief description of your "Moonwood" name's inspiration?

Apologies, I forgot. So thank you for reminding me. I don’t have a single “preferred” English translation. I’ll use any translation that’s based directly on the original languages of Scripture—Hebrew (and Aramaic where appropriate) for the Old Testament, and Koine Greek for the New Testament. As long as the translators are working from those primary texts rather than paraphrasing another English version, I’m comfortable using it.

And Moonwood the Hare is a character from The Chronicles of Narnia. His hearing is so keen that he can hear and detect what’s happening all the way at Cair Paravel on the far eastern side of Narnia, which makes him a vital messenger through whom news and warnings travel across the endangered kingdom.

His character resonated with me because I have a condition called misophonia, which makes me sensitive to certain sounds. While it can trigger discomfort or irritation, it has also sharpened my hearing and contributes to a kind of hyper‑awareness. And, like Moonwood, I share news—particularly about Who God is and the wealth of knowledge He’s given us and continues to give.

I have truly enjoyed dialoguing with you @Moonwood but it's probably time for me to sit back for a bit. I don't care if you even address this 'too long' post. I have loved your 'character' in dealing with what you disagree with me on, it is truly refreshing here.

I’ve enjoyed our discussion as well, and I’m always glad to continue them anytime. I genuinely appreciate people who take the time to craft thoughtful, extended posts. Topics related to God, the earthly life of God the Son, His friends and family, the history of the Church, and so on simply can’t be captured in a single sentence or a short paragraph. In that sense, even a “long” post online is only a small glimpse of what could be explored in a deeper, offline conversation.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

John is contrasting origins, not repentance versus faith

The better way to say it is he's distinguishing water baptism for repentance from the Spirit in the unified experience of water and Spirit in salvation. Repentance (via the waters of John's baptism) cleanses the outer man. The Spirit cleanses the inner man. Repentance (John's baptism) isn't enough for that reason. As required as repentance is, it only cleanses and renews a person outwardly. The Spirit cleanses and renews a man inwardly. That's why a person must be "born of water AND the Spirit" (John 3:5 emphasis mine). This is a much more fitting understanding of the passage because it brings the context of the time in which Jesus is teaching this, the person he is talking to, and the overall teaching about salvation in the scriptures into consideration and unity.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

Nicodemus’s misunderstanding is about physical birth, not repentance. Jesus’s correction only works if “flesh” refers to natural birth and “water and Spirit” refer to supernatural birth.

Surely, when Jesus says "flesh gives birth to flesh" (John 3:6) he is addressing Nicodemus' misguided focus on natural birth. But, scripturally, there's no reason Jesus is not also speaking metaphorically, and more importantly, that repentance to the law via John's baptism of water 'births' a man born according to/by the flesh, which is not good enough to see and enter the kingdom of God. This is the exact message Paul delivers in Galatians 4:21-31. The link between the two teachings being the matter of flesh birthing flesh, not the matter of the water of baptism for repentance through which that fleshly outward 'birth' occurs.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

John’s Gospel has its own symbolic vocabulary, and “water” in John always points to cleansing, renewal, and life — never to repentance‑effort

Not always. Water also means water baptism for repentance in the gospel of John. So you can't dismiss the water representing baptism/repentance on an argument that water in John never points to repentance.

While I respect your argument, you'd have a better argument that unifies Spirit and water by saying 'water' in John 3:5 means the word of God. That is also a way John uses water as a metaphor. As it is now, your argument doesn't qualify 'water' in any meaningful way.

 

[Moonwood]

The better way to say it is he's distinguishing water baptism for repentance from the Spirit in the unified experience of water and Spirit in salvation. Repentance (via the waters of John's baptism) cleanses the outer man. The Spirit cleanses the inner man. Repentance (John's baptism) isn't enough for that reason. As required as repentance is, it only cleanses and renews a person outwardly. The Spirit cleanses and renews a man inwardly. That's why a person must be "born of water AND the Spirit" (John 3:5 emphasis mine). This is a much more fitting understanding of the passage because it brings the context of the time in which Jesus is teaching this, the person he is talking to, and the overall teaching about salvation in the scriptures into consideration and unity.

Surely, when Jesus says "flesh gives birth to flesh" (John 3:6) he is addressing Nicodemus' misguided focus on natural birth. But, scripturally, there's no reason Jesus is not also speaking metaphorically, and more importantly, that repentance to the law via John's baptism of water 'births' a man born according to/by the flesh, which is not good enough to see and enter the kingdom of God. This is the exact message Paul delivers in Galatians 4:21-31. The link between the two teachings being the matter of flesh birthing flesh, not the matter of the water of baptism for repentance through which that fleshly outward 'birth' occurs.

Not always. Water also means water baptism for repentance in the gospel of John. So you can't dismiss the water representing baptism/repentance on an argument that water in John never points to repentance.

While I respect your argument, you'd have a better argument that unifies Spirit and water by saying 'water' in John 3:5 means the word of God. That is also a way John uses water as a metaphor. As it is now, your argument doesn't qualify 'water' in any meaningful way.

I understand the reading you’re proposing, but it doesn’t fit John’s own categories or the logic of the Nicodemus dialogue.

John never uses “water” to mean repentance or John’s baptism. In the Gospel of John, “water” consistently signifies the cleansing, renewal, and life God gives — the same symbolism we see in John 2, 4, 7, and 13. It is always divine cleansing, never human repentance‑effort. And Jesus never contrasts “outer cleansing” with “inner cleansing” in John 3. He contrasts natural origin with divine origin.

That’s why Jesus immediately explains His own terms: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” He is not contrasting repentance vs. Spirit. He is contrasting natural birth vs. Spirit‑given birth. And Nicodemus confirms the category when he asks, “Can a man enter his mother’s womb a second time?”

If “water” meant repentance or John’s baptism, Jesus’s correction would make no sense. Nicodemus is not confused about repentance; he is confused about birth. Jesus answers the confusion directly by contrasting flesh‑birth with Spirit‑birth.

So the connection is simply this:

• “flesh” = natural origin
• “water and Spirit” = divine origin

Two origins, not two rituals, not two human actions, and not two internal parts of a person.

As for Galatians 4, Paul is using an allegory about covenants, not defining Johannine symbolism. John and Paul agree on the reality of new birth, but they describe it using different categories. John’s vocabulary is σάρξ, ψυχή, and πνεῦμα, and his contrast in John 3 is between natural life and Spirit‑given life, not between repentance and Spirit.

So I’m not dismissing repentance; I’m simply keeping John’s categories inside John’s Gospel. And within John’s Gospel, “water” never functions as a symbol for repentance or John’s baptism.