Replies

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...

Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again...

...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.

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

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

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.

So it refers to something else...

That doesn't follow, at all.

Jesus is talking about two births...One of water and one of Spirit...

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.

Nicodemus understands the first birth (water) to be a normal, human birth...And so do I...

Did you miss the fact that Jesus didn't APPROVE of that answer?