Are you deliberately not reading what you post?
Both Thayer and strong say that is is a regeneration, not a true birth, as your post indicates.
That is exactly in agreement with the Mikva, sometimes mistranslated baptism, but really a washing to bring renewal. This fully fits in with Peter’s message.
Yeshua’s comments, on the other hand, were in explanation of our actual escape from the physical universe, into the realm of the Father, an actual recreation into a different kind of body, an individual creative event for each of us, dead or alive, at the resurrection.
Yeshua was speaking to a high priest, who was in need of no explanation of the gospel of the kingdom, as he had been educated in it throughout his entire life, while Peter was evangelizing to many who had never learned such things, and needed to know how begin their life in Yeshua.
A plain Apples and Oranges situation.
Dude, are you deliberately not reading what they said? Both Thayer and strong say this is birth,
"to beget or (by extension) bear (again)," "1. to produce again, be born again, born anew - beget, (bear) X again."
And which happens in conversion by faith in the word of God,
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (Galatians 4:29)
That is exactly in agreement with the Mikva, sometimes mistranslated baptism, but really a washing to bring renewal.
Sorry, but baptizō is baptism, and the renovation it signifies is clearly that of being begotten by the Spirit as a child of God in distinction from those "born after the flesh," and placed into the family of God and His kingdom as a new creation, for whom old things are passed away.
And which is necessary to see the resurrection.
Yeshua’s comments, on the other hand, were in explanation of our actual escape from the physical universe,
Rather, your insistent imposed meaning is lost in space, as this mention of this escape from the physical universe is nowhere in the text or consistent with John, whose theme as regards mortals is being saved from sins by faith and being born of God, (Jn. 1:12) in contrast to being from below.
Thus this testimony "of heavenly things" regarding being born of the Spirit directly leads to statements of conversion, "He that believeth on him is not condemned," not the future bodily change of resurrection.
A plain Apples and Oranges situation.
Indeed. We are going to disagree, and enough has been said to expose your error, and though i do not know what sect you are bought into, but i do not want its cultic spirit. Bye