Replies

Did you simply need something to disagree about?

No. It was simply a lame argument (no disrespect meant to the author), and I was pointing that out. The commenter in question was making a doubly-unsupported claim: that "born of water" was somehow "undeniably referring to natural birth with the 'water' of the amniotic sac" (which is a stretch by any standard, and certainly far from self-evident, and absolutely not proven with any certainty), and that he was somehow "not interpreting" John 3:5 when he was making this claim... which is ludicrous.

The context was Jesus own words when He explained that being born of the water was being born of the flesh.

He didn't say that. Honest. Go check, again. Nowhere does He say, "Being born of water is being born of the flesh." I'd also like to hear an explanation as to what gives you (or anyone who claims that he/she "doesn't interpret") the right to paraphrase anything--since a paraphrase is, by definition, an interpretation. (Honestly: don't fundamentalist dictionaries have the word "interpret" in them? They also seem to lack the word "mediator", as well... but I digress.)

John 3: 1-6

(1) There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: (2)The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
(3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(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?
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Call it 'interpreting' if you wish, but it is clear that the verses 5 and 6 belong together as Jesus answered Nic's question. Abortion in our age is cutting off untold millions from being born of water so they can be born of the Spirit. A sure indication that we are in the great falling away.

Craftier folks than you have tried to argue that a man is not born , only babies are born of water, so the 'water' reference cannot be in relation to the water of birth. But you should note, if you decide to take that path, that Jesus answers Nicodemus on the level of reasoning Nicodemus brought to the discussion. Jesus often used this tactic when those who challenged Him tried to trip Him up, as no doubt you have discovered in reading the Four Gospels. Jesus started His message for Nicodemus telling Nic A MAN must be born again. Nic shot back his human reasoning satanically arranged to refute the Word of God. So Jesus came right back at Nic with his own illogical path and brought him to a new way of looking at The Gospel. [See 1 Cor 3:19]

No. It was simply a lame argument (no disrespect meant to the author), and I was pointing that out. The commenter in question was making a doubly-unsupported claim: that "born of water" was somehow "undeniably referring to natural birth with the 'water' of the amniotic sac" (which is a stretch by any standard, and certainly far from self-evident, and absolutely not proven with any certainty), and that he was somehow "not interpreting" John 3:5 when he was making this claim... which is ludicrous.

Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again...Jesus says he must be born of water and of the Spirit...

So nah...We certainly know it isn't referring to baptism since born and water do not mean baptism...

So it refers to something else...Jesus is talking about two births...One of water and one of Spirit...Nicodemus understands the first birth (water) to be a normal, human birth...And so do I...