Replies

I will always be happy to respond to a question or listen to a new argument. When the same stuff is rehashed, especially of “water is womb” variety, I tend to want to skip it in order to use my time more productively by talking to people who seem to be interested in having a dialog.

Read the context of the passage and that is exactly what Christ is referring to when He talks of 'water'.

If you read the passages without reading into it, you would see that.

ii. Some have thought that born of water refers to our physical birth, since we come forth from a sack of water. This approach is more attractive, but doesn’t it simply state the obvious? However, it does make a good parallel with the idea of that which is born of the flesh in John 3:6. http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/david_guzik/sg/Jhn_3.html

But, it would seem to me that being born of the water would be a reference to our natural birth, as the fetus is in that water sac being protected, and then there is the water bursting and the child is born. To be born of the water would refer to the natural birth, because in context then, Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which born of the Spirit is spirit." And so, He's talking about the two births: born of the water, and born of the Spirit. And that the born of the Spirit is referring to the new birth, the spiritual birth that we have, where born of the water would refer to the fleshly birth. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/chuck_smith_c2000/Jhn/Jhn003.html

Moreover, that best explains 1Jn. 5:6, that Christ came by water and blood, that is, both human and Divine.

Yet, disagreeing over verses doesn't justify your 'troll' comment.

You can dialog whomever you like to, just don't attempt to throw around RCC dogma as fact and expect it not to be challanged with the scriptures.

Ye err not knowing the scriptures...