P
Pax
Guest
I’m not asking for a defense of the “amniotic fluid” thesis. All I’m asking for is a source identifying the origin of this interpretation. I’m not basically talking theology. I’m talking history.
This amniotic fluid interpretation is simply goofy. It is an incredible stretch for the sake of trying to disconnect water baptism from the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus. It makes no sense and it has absolutely no biblical foundation or Jewish cultural foundation to support it.The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
by Alfred Edersheim
My 8th edition version describes Nicodemus on pages 266-7.
No one has ever shown that the Jews referred to childbirth in the terms of the water/amniotic fluid theory proposed on this thread. It was never an idiomatic usage and it was not being referred to by Jesus or Nicodemus. In fact, scripture is the key to knowing just how the Jews did refer to child birth and it is helpful in understanding this passage. John tells us earlier in his gospel exactly how the Jews referred to child birth, and I am convinced that the reference is there to help avoid the kind of sophistry that is used by those that make the amniotic fluid claim.
In John 1:12-13 it says:
“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not **of blood **nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
The terminology associated with natural child birth has nothing to do with water. Instead, it has everything to do with blood, flesh, and will. Moreover, this passage is right at the beginning of that part of John’s gospel that starts talking about John the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus.
Immediately after Jesus conversation with Nicodemus concerning baptism the next thing we see is Jesus and the apostles baptizing people with water. Is that a coincidence? I don’t think so.