John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[CadyandZoe]

Let's take your comments in RED one-by-one . . .

In post #169 - YOU stated emphatically:
"Unlike you, some of us aren't subject to human authority"

Now, you're back-pedaling from that statement and claiming you never said it. If you're going to continue to LIE - just tell me now and we'll stop having this conversation.
As for "no human authority" regarding the Gospel - you're WRONG again. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, let his readers know that they indeed had those who are "above" them in Christ:

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, FIRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

Secondly, your historically-bankrupt claim that the Catholic Church kept the Bible away from "everyone but a few" shows me that, like every other ignorant anti-Catholic - you didn't do your homework. For centuries before the invention of the printing press, Bibles were chained to pulpits to protect them from being stolen. It took several years to hand-copy a single Bible - and at great expense.

Some, who were rich enough would hire people to have their own unauthorized Bibles copied - which were FULL of errors. It got even worse when they tried to translate them into their vernacular languages - and THIS was the reason that the Church forbade the unauthorized copying and translating of Bibles in the 13th century. It might ALSO interest you to know that until the dawn of the 20th century - MOST of the world was functionally illiterate and had ZERO use for a copy of the Bible. In any given 3-year period, virtually the ENTIRE Bible is read aloud and sermonized on - so the Bible was "withheld" from NO ONE.

Thirdly - your moronic claim that factions are "par for the course" among humans completely rejects the Biblical prohibition of factions.
The entire 3rd Chapter of 1 Corinthians, speaks out AGAINST factions. At the Last Supper - Jesus prayed fervently that His Church remain ONE - as He and the Father are ONE and in complete unity (John 17:20-23).
Tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant factions thumbs its nose at this prayer . . .

Finally - as to 2 Thess. 2:15, Paul is absolutely talking about ORAL Tradition being ON PAR with Scripture. This was the same for the Jews in the OT. YOUR problem is that you are trying to redefine what "Tradition" means in a Biblical context. Tradition ISN'T simply the way a person acts of what he does - but what is TAUGHT ORALLY. This is the Biblical context of Tradition - and that's why Paul says:
.
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Notice that it says, "You were TAUGHT" - not, "which you observed".
And, by the way - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.

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

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So, again, "He will baptize with Spirit and fire" refers to just one baptism--just because "and" is there doesn't mean "Spirit and fire" refers to "two".

But when you add a preposition it does

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Correction : 1 John not only says "Spirit of Truth" but even "the Spirit is the Truth".

Thanks.

Well I looked at two Greek NT's and there is no definite article sorry.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So, yes, we are born of the Word of God, according to Peter, and, yes, "My Word is Spirit", so they are tightly bound together, and Jesus says "I am the Truth" and 1 John says "the Spirit is the Truth".

You have disproven precisely nothing of what I've asserted.

But you forget this is Jesus a Jew speaking to a Jewish rabbi of rabbi's, in a Jewish culture with a Jewish mindset. He is not speaking to gentiles. Jesus used the word baptism many times. The only time Jesus used water metaphorically or symbolically was in John 4 with the woman at teh well to contrast the regular water. He used it as a physical lesson to teach spiritual truths.

As I said, I have full confidence in Fruchtenbaum and Eddersheim when they say in Pharasiac Judaism like this scene is, born of water was a euphemism for natural birth.

1. Jews thought they wre in the kingdom by reason of flesh birth.
2. This is a cxonversation inlight of Jewish understanding
3. You need to show that water here is used symolically to mean the Spirit for the water is never called THE Word but is used as a metaphor to describe what teh word does (i.e. washing of the water of the word in contrast to water baptism)

I still hold my opnion. you can hold yours.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence to your accusation that I mishandle SCriptures.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If you do not believe being born of water is referring to flesh giving birth to flesh there is nothing to talk about.

I have been arguing exactly this and everyone here has tolds me I am full of prunes! being born of water is a euphemism for natural or flesh birth!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I was not suggesting in any way shape or form that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he had to be baptized by Jesus in that moment for him to be born again, or anew, so he could see and enter into the kingdom.

Well it was you who said water meant baptism, and I am just trying to figure out which baptism you are referring to. Nicodemus had been baptozed many times as per Jewish pharasaic Judaism

 

[GracePeace]

Agreed.
John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

Or, it's a person repenting to the law via John' baptism for repentance and being born 'according to the flesh' like the legalist in Galatians....

"...the son born according to the flesh..." Galatians 4:29​

And as a result, not being able to see or enter into the kingdom of God....

"...the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son." Galatians 4:30​

At least not until they are born again by water AND Spirit in Jesus' baptism....

3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them... Acts 19:3-6​

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

 

[GracePeace]

Okay, I get it. You don't have a sound argument so you think I will be impressed by sarcasm.

Sounds good.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ya'll are taking this way too far.
Does the Holy Spirit even have a name? Not to my knowledge....He is a representative of God and Jesus.
He represents every aspect about them and promotes the Truth of His Word to us.
Jesus said this:
John 16 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹² I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
¹³ Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
¹⁴ He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
¹⁵ All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

I agree. But we who are gentiles have this tendency to forget that Jesus was Jewish, lived in a jewish culture and fully understood the Jewish mindset and until the blasphemy of the Spirit in Matthew 12 was proclaiming the Jewish Messianic Kingdom. so way too many people mysticize, allegorize and look at Jesus words to Israel in a mystical magical way and reinterpret them to fit the church.

they forget a cardinal rule: All SCripture is equally inspired, but not all scripture is equally applicable.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Now you're confusing me. Didn't you say that 'born of water' is referring to being born from the womb, and that is flesh giving birth to flesh?

Yes but you aresaying being born of water is not the same as being born flesh or splitting the womb. I say that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that it wasn't enough to simply be born a Jew (water/flesh) but He had to become what we now call a spiritual Jew which is the circumcision of the heart.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

....but it's also the Word, too, right?

Yes when it is used symbolically. But no lone has given any real reson to demand that water here be taken symbolically. Though There writings on it I have not found online, two Jewish believers who were devout jews and well learned in 1st century Judaism both agree "being born of water" was a euphemism for natural birth. I am content. both these men have proved their spiritual merit not just by many books, but lives well lived.

 

[GracePeace]

Well I looked at two Greek NT's and there is no definite article sorry.

So it's wrong for them to translate "he" (1 Jn 5:6) as "the"?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So it's wrong for them to translate "he" (1 Jn 5:6) as "the"?

he is a form of the definite article "the", what manuscript are you using?

also another problem is this passage is one of the contested passages of 1 John. All the oldest manuscripts do not have 6-8 and the textus receptus used manuscripts (if I remember correctly) that had these as sidenotes. They are true but not in the oldest manuscripts.

 

[GracePeace]

But you forget this is Jesus a Jew speaking to a Jewish rabbi of rabbi's, in a Jewish culture with a Jewish mindset. He is not speaking to gentiles. Jesus used the word baptism many times. The only time Jesus used water metaphorically or symbolically was in John 4 with the woman at teh well to contrast the regular water. He used it as a physical lesson to teach spiritual truths.

As I said, I have full confidence in Fruchtenbaum and Eddersheim when they say in Pharasiac Judaism like this scene is, born of water was a euphemism for natural birth.

1. Jews thought they wre in the kingdom by reason of flesh birth.
2. This is a cxonversation inlight of Jewish understanding
3. You need to show that water here is used symolically to mean the Spirit for the water is never called THE Word but is used as a metaphor to describe what teh word does (i.e. washing of the water of the word in contrast to water baptism)

I still hold my opnion. you can hold yours.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence to your accusation that I mishandle SCriptures.

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

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Yes but you aresaying being born of water is not the same as being born flesh or splitting the womb.

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

I say that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that it wasn't enough to simply be born a Jew (water/flesh) but He had to become what we now call a spiritual Jew which is the circumcision of the heart.

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.

 

[GracePeace]

he is a form of the definite article "the", what manuscript are you using?

also another problem is this passage is one of the contested passages of 1 John. All the oldest manuscripts do not have 6-8 and the textus receptus used manuscripts (if I remember correctly) that had these as sidenotes. They are true but not in the oldest manuscripts.

That was the current NA.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

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

I'm good with that. That's what we're ultimately to do. That's how I learned the things that I have learned on line.

 

[GracePeace]

also another problem is this passage is one of the contested passages of 1 John. All the oldest manuscripts do not have 6-8 and the textus receptus used manuscripts (if I remember correctly) that had these as sidenotes. They are true but not in the oldest manuscripts.

Johannine Comma doesn't include 1 John 5:6 it's 7-8.

 

[GracePeace]

But when you add a preposition it does

Well "Spirit and fire" has a preposition.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Yes when it is used symbolically. But no lone has given any real reson to demand that water here be taken symbolically.

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.