Search results

Sounds good.

You and I have expressed our views so we can let the readers decide from here on out.

I did engage by shooting the whole argument down with one easy verse. "Work smarter not harder." :) Why draw a distinction between what is necessary for others versus ourselves? Isn't being productive in the knowledge of the Lord necessary for salvation?

It's irreducibly complex : Nicodemus is still thinking of natural birth (out of a woman's womb), and Jesus corrects him : "No, spiritual birth." At no point is the issue of "baptism" raised. "Flesh births flesh" is a woman's womb giving birth to a child. There's nothing left to say. If you...

You have nothing to say. You want to have something to say. Anyway... Jesus talks with Nicodemus about Nicodemus's misunderstanding about going back into his mother's womb. Sorry you can't accept plain Scripture because you want to be a praiseworthy "innovator".

No, that must be yourself You're already tripped up over Scripture now you're tripped up over your own misunderstandings of Scripture. Stop. Just stop.

As I said before, it's complete nonsense, and there's nothing really to talk about concerning it other than waste my time reiterating the context of the conversation from John's Gospel.

Yeah, good for you, and you're wrong and you don't want to accept it in spite of the illogicity of it.

You're arguing against it now. LOL You're trying to say the ECFs thought "water" in "water and Spirit" of John 3 referred to John's baptism not New Testament baptism whereby they said people were "born again".

Again, I often reject the ECFs and I reject their interpretation (ie, they interpret "water" in "water and Spirit" as meaning "baptism in the Name of the Father the Son and the Spirit" not "John's baptism") here as well.

Not in the slightest. You are obsessed with being "special" for having "discovered" a new doctrine. It is not godly.

I'm pretty sure I've heard that the ECFs interpreted "water and Spirit" as referring to "water baptism in the Name of Jesus is the instrument by which we are reborn spiritually" not "John's water baptism, which only births natural men, and then the Spirit birth)".

Irenaeus, the one who invented that rubbish, was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciples of John. Right there. Nothing to do with 3rd century anything. Nothing to do with Catholic Church.

No, Jesus is conversing with Nicodemus, and what Nicodemus misunderstands is that he does not need to climb back into his mother's womb and come back out again to be "born again" he needs a spiritual birth. That's the context.

BTW the ECFs didn't take "water baptism" there as "John's baptism". Before you were making a distinction between the two of them. Now you're conflating them? Again, if you want to say "ECFs are right--it's baptism" you'd be condemning "water baptism in the Name of Jesus" as an "accursed false...

Yeah, they also taught that Mary was the "New Eve" and that's been debunked. LOL Their understandings aren't definitive.

So, according to you, when Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus, He wasn't addressing Nicodemus's statements, He was addressing Paul's. All right, gotcha. I reject it of course but I understand.

You realize there're people who don't even believe in God (eg, Buddhists) who eventually get saved?

So, this Gospel was purposefully designed so as to be unintelligible to the person who only has it--it was designed so as only to be intelligible to people who have another book? We can't reliably obtain its understanding from itself?

You're trying to reinvent the wheel. You're trying to solve a problem where there is no problem. Jesus is simply correcting Nicodemus's misunderstanding. You know that Jesus is just correcting Nicodemus's misunderstanding.