Search results

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.

Are Gentiles, who've never heard of John, "born of the will of man" and in need of being "born of the Spirit" to enter God's spiritual Kingdom?

It's not even relevant.

Again, you're solving a non-existent problem : "not of flesh, nor the will man, but of God". The Gentiles need to be born of the Spirit to enter the Kingdom, too, meaning they also are born of flesh, and yet they hadn't submitted to John's baptism--it's got nothing to do with that issue over...

You can fly all the way over to Galatians for your interpretation, but it's really not the point. Nicodemus thought he had to get back into his mother's womb to be "born again". Jesus says "No, born spiritually." The difference is between being born of the will of men, sexually, and being born...

They were baptized in Spirit and fire. They didn't get blue unicorns over their heads. They got fire. Did the fire remain? Sure. Just the miracle of seeing the fire isn't always present. Remember Jesus says the 5 wise virgins have the lamps? Remember it says "be continually filled with the...

Of all the things in John's Gospel that are coded language, they want THIS to be code... my gosh, there're so many actual mysteries.

What "births natural men" is... ipso facto... natural birth. "Flesh gives birth to flesh." "No, Nicodemus, you don't climb back into your mother's womb." LOL It's got nothing to do with Galatians 4, which is part of a denunciation of false a Gospel of going back "Under Law" so as to "work the...