[Iscool]
So nah...We certainly know it isn't referring to baptism since born and water do not mean baptism...
[paladinan]
Aside from raw opinion, why would you say that? I've yet to see even a beginning of a proof for that claim... and please do look at my previous post, re: your confusion about the words, and my use of them.
[Iscool]
It is well established by the Greek texts as well as any dictionary in existence in the world that 'water' nor 'born' means baptism...
I really and truly fail to understand how anyone could have
a clear answer handed to them, REPEATEDLY, but then continue to ignore that answer and resume repeating the mistaken (and--forgive me--silly) statement which started the mess in the first place.
You have admitted that yourself yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim you fail to see any proof for that claim...
Just checking: are you actually talking to the commenter named "paladinan"? That statement of yours has about as much connection to reality as does the statement, "Nuclear-powered penguins are demanding voting rights, paladinan, and you've done nothing in this conversation to prove that!" Of COURSE, I "admitted" that baptism =/= water... because you were the one who wrote that bizarre and false idea, in the first place! It's a bit strange for you to say that I "admitted" that your false attribution to me was... well... wrong. As I said earlier. Repeatedly.
Say it again, with me: ...WITH water. WITH water. WITH water. Repetition is the mother of learning. Keep going. :)
Jesus is talking about two births...One of water and one of the Spirit...Count 'em...
Yessir... and the Bible talks about three Gods... the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Count 'em. :) Unless, of course, you might simply be mistaken?
[paladinan]
I see nothing in the text which requires that, much less proves that. Baptism is the way by which one is born "of water and the Spirit" in one and the same instance... and you've shown nothing to counter that idea, at all.
[Iscool]
The first reason is because of the word 'and'...Water AND the Spirit are two separate things...
Um... that makes no sense, FRiend. The word "OR" might have implied two different things... but "AND" usually implies that the two things come together, as a package-deal, so to speak. As I said, earlier. Right?
[Iscool]
Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again...
[paladinan]
...born "anothen" (which can mean "again", or "from above")--Jesus obviously meant the latter, since He chides Nicodemus for assuming that it meant the former.
[Iscool]
Oh brother!!! So according to you, Jesus says to Nicodemus, 'You must be born from above'...And Nicodemus responds, Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Yes. Did you catch the Greek word, "anothen"? For someone who was talking earlier about things being "well-established in the Greek texts", you're certainly not using those texts very much, here; get your Greek lexicon and look up the word "anothen"--even Strong's gets it relatively right. It has a double-meaning, depending on the context: it CAN mean "again", but it also CAN mean "from above". Is that a bit more clear? That's called "an ambiguous word"... a bit like the word "fresh" (which can mean "cool and rejuvinated", or it can also mean "crude and socially pushy, especially in sexual ways"). When Nicodemus chose the wrong meaning, Jesus went on to clarify.
But by following the text, we can see that when Jesus said 'born again', it would be natural to assume Jesus was speaking of a natural birth, the second time....
What "text" are you following? The English translation which you happen to use? Don't you see what you've just done? You've abandoned the "Greek texts" which you thought were so useful, earlier, and you're running off with some idea of, "Well, Jesus obviously said 'born AGAIN'!". The Greek text uses the very same word--"anothen"--in all three occurrences in the Gospel of John. If Jesus meant "born from above" in the first occurrence, then it's eminently reasonable to conclude that He meant the same thing in repeat occurrences; and when St. John the Baptist uses it in John 3:31, it's painfully clear that it's being used in the sense of "from above":
"He who comes from above [Gk: anothen] is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; He who comes from heaven is above all."
Do you see how the text clearly contrasts "from above" with "belonging to earth"? And do you also see how the text clearly matches "from above" with "above all"? The next sentence is an even stronger restatement of the previous one: "He who comes from Heaven (which is "above", in the spitual sense) is ABOVE all".
Baptism is NOT being born of water...
St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47), St. Paul (Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, etc.), St. Philip (Acts 8:36-38) St. Ananias (Acts 9:18), and every last Greek dictionary on earth disagree with you, FRiend (to say nothing of Church history). Acts 10:47 is especially clear: ""Can any one forbid
water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
So... can you admit that Baptism INVOLVES water, at least? And no, you aren't compelled to believe that Baptism EQUALS water, any more than a kiss EQUALS my wife. You just need to believe that baptism, which saves us (1 Peter 3:21), is done WITH water.
No one was ever born of water by being baptized in water...
(*sigh*) Not if you don't count the billions of people throughout the ages and throughout the world who have been reborn that way, I guess...
>
Only in the minds of Catholics, I guess...
...and Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans, and most Lutherans, and Methodists, and most members of the Reformed traditions, and others which add up to outnumber your view by at least four to one. Yep. :)
(*sigh*) Not if you don't count the billions of people throughout the ages and throughout the world who have been reborn that way, I guess...No they were not "born again" in baptism ...but they did get a good shampoo
As you know this scripture has been bandied about for generations.. But seeing the thief on the cross was saved..as were all the saints of the OT without being baptized ...I think we an rule out the fallible RC interpretation
I present one that seems to present an interesting view of the scripture ...
Bengel's Gnomen John 3:5. Ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος, of water and the Spirit) Jesus renders His speech the more difficult, in order to try [discipline] Nicodemus, and at the same time declares the difference between birth from above, and birth from a mother: and He defines birth from above by communion with [the partaking of] Himself and with [of] the Spirit (for He speaks concerning Himself and concerning the Spirit also at John 3:11, “we speak that we do know”). Comp. 1 Corinthians 6:11, “Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” No one can enjoy God without the Son and His Spirit. Water denotes the baptism of John into [preparing for] Christ Jesus, John 3:22-23 [Jesus tarried in the land of Judæa with His disciples, and baptized: “John was also baptizing in Ænon,” etc.]; which baptism the colleagues of Nicodemus, by omitting, John 3:1, despised the counsel of God: Luke 7:30, “The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John;” when nevertheless the Jews were accustomed to baptisms: Hebrews 9:10, “divers washings.” And Nicodemus himself appears to have entertained not sufficiently exalted views of John and his baptism, as being one who had wrought no miracle. Comp. John 3:2 [where he emphasises the ‘miracles’ of Jesus; thus forming a contrast to John]. Nor is communion needful with Christ only, but also with His Spirit: Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized—in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” And because the same Spirit glorifies Christ, for this reason, the mention of water being presently after omitted, mention is made of the Spirit alone, of whom we are to be born again: nor does He say at John 3:6, that which is born of water is water. Therefore the necessity of regeneration primarily, and of baptism secondarily, is here confirmed (comp. a similar καί, and, ch. John 6:40, every one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him): otherwise there would be but little hope of infants dying without baptism. Comp. as to water and the Spirit, Titus 3:5, “Not by works which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”—εἰσελθεῖν, enter) Answering to the word enter [a second time into his mother’s womb] of the previous verse. The severity of His expression increases: comp. see, John 3:3. He cannot even enter, much less see. He must enter a house, whoever wishes to see thoroughly its internal structure. That which is not born, uses neither eyes nor feet.