Born of water and the Spirit.

[MoreCoffee]

John 3:5 RSV Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Cambridge Bible Commentary

John 3:5

of water and of the Spirit] Christ leaves the foolish question of Nicodemus to answer itself: He goes on to explain what is the real point, and what Nicodemus has not asked, the meaning of from above: of water and (of the) Spirit. The outward sign and inward grace of Christian baptism are here clearly given, and an unbiassed mind can scarcely avoid seeing this plain fact. This becomes still more clear when we compare Joh 1:26; Joh 1:33, where the Baptist declares I baptize with water; the Messiah baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. The Fathers, both Greek and Latin, thus interpret the passage with singular unanimity. Thus once more S. John assumes without stating the primary elements of Christianity. Baptism is assumed here as well known to his reader, as the Eucharist is assumed in chap. 6. To a well-instructed Christian there was no need to explain what was meant by being born of water and the Spirit. The words therefore had a threefold meaning, past, present, and future. In the past they looked back to the time when the Spirit moved upon the water causing the birth from above of Order and Beauty out of Chaos. In the present they pointed to the divinely ordained (Joh 1:33) baptism of John: and through it in the future to that higher rite, to which John himself bore testimony.​

 

[Imalive]

Again the same thing?
It's fruit water. Told you already. The thief on the cross wasn't baptised w water and he could enter.
Nicodemus (in Dutch Nico the sparrow) asked if he had to get back in the whomb. He had to be born from the Spirit. Last verse says born from the Spirit, not from water and Spirit.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again the same thing?
It's fruit water. Told you already. The thief on the cross wasn't baptised w water and he could enter.
Nicodemus (in Dutch Nico the sparrow) asked if he had to get back in the whomb. He had to be born from the Spirit. Last verse says born from the Spirit, not from water and Spirit.

Nope, it is not amniotic fluid - fruit water as you say.

 

[Imalive]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you think it is amniotic fluid then you want the verse to say "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." That looks really weird. Why would Jesus say that instead of the far more pertenant "unless one is born into the world and then born a second time by the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Putting "amniotic fluid" into the verse makes it stupid. But leaving it as "water and the Spirit" makes sense because the water is the water used in baptism and the Spirit is the Spirit of God given in baptism.

 

[NewCreation435]

If you think it is amniotic fluid then you want the verse to say "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." That looks really weird. Why would Jesus say that instead of the far more pertenant "unless one is born into the world and then born a second time by the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Putting "amniotic fluid" into the verse makes it stupid. But leaving it as "water and the Spirit" makes sense because the water is the water used in baptism and the Spirit is the Spirit of God given in baptism.

So your going to post your beliefs and then ridicule anyone that has an opposing belief. Sorry that's not how this works. Your going to have to respect that other people have other valid opinions or me and you are going to have problems.

Any Israelites in the 1st century would have understood exactly what Jesus meant by being born of water. The women didn't go to the hospital when a child was born. They went to the birthing stool. Everyone knew what it means when a woman's water breaks and birth pangs start. They knew that there was a lot of fluid involved. To suggest that Jesus would have called it amnoitic fluid in the 1st century doesn't make sense. Nobody knew what that meant then. They did know that when a woman gave birth that water was involved

 

[MoreCoffee]

So your going to post your beliefs and then ridicule anyone that has an opposing belief.
...

Disagreeing is not ridicule. Putting "amniotic fluid" into John 3:5 does make the verse and the whole conversation somewhat ridiculous but if amniotic fluid is what is wanted then okay, those who like it can stick with it.

 

[NewCreation435]

Disagreeing is not ridicule. Putting "amniotic fluid" into John 3:5 does make the verse and the whole conversation somewhat ridiculous but if amniotic fluid is what is wanted then okay, those who like it can stick with it.

What I am saying is that people in those times were largely uneducated and would not have known to call it that or known what Jesus was talking about if he had.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What I am saying is that people in those times were largely uneducated and would not have known to call it that or known what Jesus was talking about if he had.

Neither Nicodemus nor Jesus was talking about "the waters of natural human birth". That is an interpretation that looks bizarre. I do not know when it was first put forward but it looks kind of crazy to me. As far as I know the early Church Fathers never looked on it that way.

 

[Imalive]

Neither Nicodemus not Jesus was talking about "the waters of natural human birth". That is an interpretation that looks bizarre. I do not know what it was first put forward but it looks kind of crazy to me. As far as I know the early Church Fathers never looked on it that way.

but he was talking about natural birth and if he had to do it twice. Later it says so are those who are born of the Spirit (not water).

 

[NewCreation435]

Neither Nicodemus nor Jesus was talking about "the waters of natural human birth". That is an interpretation that looks bizarre. I do not know when it was first put forward but it looks kind of crazy to me. As far as I know the early Church Fathers never looked on it that way.

Nicodemus understood Jesus initial words to mean physical birth and that is what caused the confusion with him. He asked how a person could enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born. That indicates he was thinking of a physical birth and understood the first part to mean that. I don't particularly care either what the early church father's thought. They are falliable men like me and you subject to their own error. I care what the Bible says.

 

[MoreCoffee]

but he was talking about natural birth and if he had to do it twice. Later it says so are those who are born of the Spirit (not water).

Jesus was not talking about natural human birth. Nicodemus mentioned it but his reply made Jesus express surprise that a teacher of Israel could make such an asinine remark.

John 3:1-15 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews. [2] This man came to Jesus by night and said to him,

"Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."​

[3] Jesus answered him,

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."​

[4] Nicode'mus said to him,

"How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"​

[5] Jesus answered,

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' [8] The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit."​

[9] Nicode'mus said to him,

"How can this be?"​

[10] Jesus answered him,

"Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this? [11] Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony. [12] If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? [13] No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. [14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, [15] that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."​

​

Jesus starts with being born from above (born again in some translations) he doesn't say a word about natural human birth. Only Nicodemus does that and he does it because he doesn't have a clue what Jesus is talking about despite being a teacher of Israel.

In the first post in this thread I gave an explanation of the verse from the Cambridge Bible Commentary (Anglican sponsored). It explain the verse clearly enough.

of water and of the Spirit] Christ leaves the foolish question of Nicodemus to answer itself: He goes on to explain what is the real point, and what Nicodemus has not asked, the meaning of from above: of water and (of the) Spirit. The outward sign and inward grace of Christian baptism are here clearly given, and an unbiassed mind can scarcely avoid seeing this plain fact. This becomes still more clear when we compare Joh 1:26; Joh 1:33, where the Baptist declares I baptize with water; the Messiah baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. The Fathers, both Greek and Latin, thus interpret the passage with singular unanimity. Thus once more S. John assumes without stating the primary elements of Christianity. Baptism is assumed here as well known to his reader, as the Eucharist is assumed in chap. 6. To a well-instructed Christian there was no need to explain what was meant by being born of water and the Spirit. The words therefore had a threefold meaning, past, present, and future. In the past they looked back to the time when the Spirit moved upon the water causing the birth from above of Order and Beauty out of Chaos. In the present they pointed to the divinely ordained (Joh 1:33) baptism of John: and through it in the future to that higher rite, to which John himself bore testimony.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nicodemus understood Jesus initial words to mean physical birth and that is what caused the confusion with him. He asked how a person could enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born. That indicates he was thinking of a physical birth and understood the first part to mean that. I don't particularly care either what the early church father's thought. They are falliable men like me and you subject to their own error. I care what the Bible says.

See post #12. It is a reply to [MENTION=378]Imalive[/MENTION] but it addresses the same matter that you raise.

 

[NewCreation435]

See post #12. It is a reply to [MENTION=378]Imalive[/MENTION] but it addresses the same matter that you raise.

I'm sorry, I'm done discussing this with you. I think your wrong and you think I'm wrong and we aren't getting anywhere. have a good day

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm sorry, I'm done discussing this with you. I think your wrong and you think I'm wrong and we aren't getting anywhere. have a good day

It's okay with me if you do not want to discuss the passage with me any more. If you think I need to agree with you to make discussion worthwhile that is okay too. It's odd but okay.

Another commentary from a Presbyterian also address the meaning of the verse quite well. It says.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Barnes Notes on the BIble

John 3:5

Be born of water - By water, here, is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5. Baptism was practised by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practised by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said Mar 16:16, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. It is clear from these places, and from the example of the apostles Act 2:38, Act 2:41; Act 8:12-13, Act 8:36, Act 8:38; Act 9:18; Act 10:47-48; Act 16:15, Act 16:33; Act 18:8; Act 22:16; Gal 3:27, that they considered this ordinance as binding on all who professed to love the Lord Jesus. And though it cannot be said that none who are not baptised can be saved, yet Jesus meant, undoubtedly, to be understood as affirming that this was to be the regular and uniform way of entering into his church; that it was the appropriate mode of making a profession of religion; and that a man who neglected this, when the duty was made known to him, neglected a plain command of God. It is clear, also, that any other command of God might as well be neglected or violated as this, and that it is the duty of everyone not only to love the Saviour, but to make an acknowledgement of that love by being baptised, and by devoting himself thus to his service.

But, lest Nicodemus should suppose that this was all that was meant, he added that it was necessary that he should be born of the Spirit also. This was predicted of the Saviour, that he should baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire, Mat 3:11. By this is clearly intended that the heart must be changed by the agency of the Holy Spirit; that the love of sin must be abandoned; that man must repent of crime and turn to God; that he must renounce all his evil propensities, and give himself to a life of prayer and holiness, of meekness, purity, and benevolence. This great change is in the Scripture ascribed uniformly to the Holy Spirit, Tit 3:5; 1Th 1:6; Rom 5:5; 1Pe 1:22.

Cannot enter into - This is the way, the appropriate way, of entering into the kingdom of the Messiah here and hereafter. He cannot enter into the true church here, or into heaven in the world to come, except in connection with a change of heart, and by the proper expression of that change in the ordinances appointed by the Saviour.​

​

 

[Imalive]

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
Where is water mentioned?
If it was water baptism it should have said: that which is born of water and spirit is spirit.
The spirit gets born from the Spirit.
John also showed that Jesus is man and God. The gnostics said He wasnt flesh.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
Where is water mentioned?
If it was water baptism it should have said: that which is born of water and spirit is spirit.
The spirit gets born from the Spirit.
John also showed that Jesus is man and God. The gnostics said He wasnt flesh.

Water is mentioned in verse 5. I am willing to wager that you are really asking "where is the water mentioned in verses 6, 7, and 8.

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' [8] The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.​

The answer is that there's no reason to speak of water when speaking of the Spirit's work in the faithful. Water is for baptism with water and the Spirit and the wind's mysterious influence is not about baptism it is about living as the Spirit leads. Everyone born of the Spirit is led by the Spirit. Water is connected with being born from above Jesus didn't need to repeat what he'd just said. It was enough to say "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ... Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

 

[Imalive]

I read that it was a rabbinic idiom, born by water, for natural birth. I'll try find a source.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I read that it was a rabbinic idiom, born by water, for natural birth. I'll try find a source.

If you can find a rabbi who gave a discussion of it in Jesus' times then you'll be doing something remarkable. If you can find rabbis from the centuries after Jesus taught Nicodemus then you'll be telling me how the rabbis re-interpreted Jesus' words to mean something that fits their religion but their religion is not Christianity.

 

[Imalive]

If you can find a rabbi who gave a discussion of it in Jesus' times then you'll be doing something remarkable. If you can find rabbis from the centuries after Jesus taught Nicodemus then you'll be telling me how the rabbis re-interpreted Jesus' words to mean something that fits their religion but their religion is not Christianity.

But they have all those old books, midrash or something. Can't find it yet. All those interpretations make sense tbh.