When Nic tried to understand being ‘Born Again’, he went straight to the natural man explanation of being born again from his mother,
Almost. The Greek word "anothen" (as I mentioned, repeatedly) can mean at least two things, in usual usage: "again", or "from above". Neither one is the "standard" meaning for all cases; both are legitimate translations, depending on context. See my
previous comment to editor-surveyor, for more details.
in the water world exit to the air world.
:) Word to the wise, FRiend: any idea (or movie) with the phrase "water world" in it is most likely doomed to dismal failure.
But this (the previous comment) is the same mistake which editor-surveyor was making: it's assuming (without any proof at all, but relying only on personal opinion) that "water" refers primarily (or even exclusively) to "amniotic fluid"... which is a reeeeeeally big stretch, especially given the copious examples of water baptism in the Bible (along with the very definition of the Greek word "baptizo"--to wask/plunge in water), and given that the conversation with Nicodemus is "bookended" by two blatantly clear examples of baptism (John 1, and John 3:22--note the very first thing Jesus DID, after talking about this "born of water and Spirit" business, was to BAPTIZE... and John 3:23 makes it clear that the baptism was with WATER?).
from the water of birth to the Baptism of The Holy Spiritual birth. Jesus referred first to the natural man perspective —born from the mother in the water of birth—
Do me a favor? Show me where, in Scripture, it says explicitly that the "water" (from the "water and Spirit" idea) directly and definitely refers to "amniotic water"?> And no, I don't need the actual word "amniotic"--just a clear and unequivocal reference showing that it refers directly and exclusively to the "water from the biological mother's womb".
And no, answers like "It's just obvious! What else could it be? You're just spiritually blind/obtuse/faithless/deliberately trying to be contentious/brainwashed by Rome/etc." won't do. Just telling you, ahead of time, as a courtesy. :)
The passage indicates clearly that Jesus referred to the water of birth from the mother by His saying ‘that which is born of flesh is flesh’.
Er... all I see, in that sentence, is the fact that "what is born of flesh is flesh"; it doesn't attribute the type of "water" to "flesh" at all. If nothing else, do you at least see that this verse doesn't reference "water" at all? You're depending on your own personal INTERPRETATION of this verse, when you link it to the "water from the mother's body" idea.
Again: that idea would have a far easier time getting traction, if baptism were a ritual which used dry sand, or mere words, or something other than water. As it is, your interpretation is pretty insecure... and by no means "proven to be the right one, with all other explanations proven false".
Your posts have sought to focus us onto some ritual water baptism as necessary for salvation. Jesus did not do that with Nicodemus in John 3.
Given the
numerous examples of how important that "ritual water baptism" is, I think you may be mistaken.
.
>> But this (the previous comment) is the same mistake which editor-surveyor was making: it’s assuming (without any proof at all, but relying only on personal opinion) that “water” refers primarily (or even exclusively) to “amniotic fluid” <<
.
You attribute statements to me that I’ve never made. It was in a reply to me by someone else.
To me, it is very obvious that Yeshua was explaining the new incorruptible body that we will have after the first resurrection, and the solid proof of that is his equating in verse 8, our contrition to that of the wind, invisible, yet showing traces of our presence.
That is exactly how Yeshua was after his resurrection, appearing out of nowhere, and walking through solid walls. It will be a transformation of our presence to a different realm, not of time, nor material things, so our appearance when we return to Earth to rule with him will be similar, on Earth, but not a part of Earth.
That is the only way we can survive the complete destruction of the material/temporal universe that Peter described.
Yeshua was definitely not addressing Baptism. Nicodemus, being a high priest, was already familiar with it (the Mikva). Yeshua’s conversation with Nicodemus was about the absolute necessity of the change that was going to come.
.