Born Again

[Mangy_Donkey]

John 3:5
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.

Is saying that our Savior means embryonic fluid when referring to water the craziest exegesis of this verse ever? While discussing the necessity of Baptism with a friend this is his explanation of what our Lord means when referring to water.

 

[WesleyF]

John 3:5
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.

Is saying that our Savior means embryonic fluid when referring to water the craziest exegesis of this verse ever? While discussing the necessity of Baptism with a friend this is his explanation of what our Lord means when referring to water.

It’s definitely the craziest exegesis of the verse ever!! I’m not sure Nicodemus even knew what embryonic fluid was.

 

[Reepicheep]

John 3:5
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.

Is saying that our Savior means embryonic fluid when referring to water the craziest exegesis of this verse ever? While discussing the necessity of Baptism with a friend this is his explanation of what our Lord means when referring to water.

…Does your friend think aborted chldren can’t go to heaven?

 

[Teresita99]

John 3:5
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.

Is saying that our Savior means embryonic fluid when referring to water the craziest exegesis of this verse ever? While discussing the necessity of Baptism with a friend this is his explanation of what our Lord means when referring to water.

Since every human being is born in embryonic fluid, this becomes a redundancy. It’s as though Jesus said, “In order for a man to be saved, first he needs to be born…”

Adventists play “move the comma” when Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “I say to you, this day you will be with me in Paradise” in order to leave wiggle room for their doctrine of soul sleep. They make Jesus say, “I say to you this day, you will be with me in Paradise”. When they do that, Jesus ends up saying a redundancy. Of course he’s talking to the thief “this day”. When scripture is twisted, sometimes people don’t care if it makes the Lord sound like a fool who flunked basic grammar.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The “embryonic fluid” interpretation is common among (some) Protestant denominations. This explanation avoids the obvious meaning of Christ’s words: to get to heaven requires water baptism (or baptism of desire or blood).

Many of these same Protestant denominations also teach that baptism is not necessary at all, and that it has no effect – it’s purely symbolic.

Jim Dandy
Former Protestant

 

[Mangy_Donkey]

Do not all non Catholic Christians, that believe baptism to be an outer sign only, without regeneration, believe that our Savior is referring to the water within the womb?

I would be interested in finding out what others that don’t believe that Baptism saves believe Jesus was referring to when he said born of water and Spirit.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Do not all non Catholic Christians, that believe baptism to be an outer sign only, without regeneration, believe that our Savior is referring to the water within the womb?

I would be interested in finding out what others that don’t believe that Baptism saves believe Jesus was referring to when he said born of water and Spirit.

I was born and bred Southern Baptist. We were taught that Baptism was unnecessary and merely symbolic. We did it only because Jesus was baptized, but we didn’t have to do it if we didn’t want to. It symbolized our acceptance of Christ. The emphasis was on the words of Jesus, “you must be born again.” And ‘born again’ had nothing to do with water and the Spirit, since water referred to amniotic fluid, not Baptism. ‘Born again’ meant the emotional experience of ‘accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.’ when you ‘asked Jesus into your heart,’

Later, much later, I regarded this interpretation as twisting of the Scriptures such as St. Peter referred to in 2 Peter 3:16:

There are some things in them [St. Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

It’s the founder’s interpretation, which is not compared with the teaching of the Apostles in historic Christianity.

I also found it strange that althrough Baptism was not regarded as necessary, there was only one “correct” way to do it: immersion only. That, too, was not a belief of the early Christians.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[Pax]

John 3:5
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.

Is saying that our Savior means embryonic fluid when referring to water the craziest exegesis of this verse ever? While discussing the necessity of Baptism with a friend this is his explanation of what our Lord means when referring to water.

I have had many discussions on this issue and must say it is whacky and of recent origins. A non-Catholic by the name of Ben Witherington, III, came up with this idea and presented it in his work*“The Waters of Birth: John 3.5 and 1 John 5.6-8,” New Testament Studies 35* (1989). I personally read every scripture and reference he attempted to use to back up the idea, and can tell you that none of them support this notion. It is a modern idea manufactured out of whole cloth.

I have developed my own presentation on John 3 as it pertain to baptism, but ran across something someone else presented that I find to be a powerful refutation. I cannot give credit to the author because it was on another forum and I do not know the author’s name. Anyway, this what she said:

This view presents some syntactical problems. The syntactical
linkage using one preposition to govern two coordinated nouns affirms
that one birth associated with “water” and “Spirit” is in view. This
syntactical linkage poses a problem if two births, natural and spiritual,
are in view. Advocates of this view circumvent this syntactical problem
and point to v. 6 to support their view, “That which is born of the flesh
is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The problem with
this is that there is a conjunctive relationship between “water” and
“Spirit” in v. 5, and a contrastive relationship between “flesh” and
“Spirit” in v. 6. Consequently, “water” in v. 5 cannot be equated with
“flesh” in v. 6.

There are additional problems other than grammar. In John’s gospel, as well as the rest of scripture, we never find child birth associated with water and that includes all of the conflations by Ben Witherington. Instead, we find things like the following in John’s gospel:

John 1:12-13
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.

John tells us in that passage, before he ever gets into describing the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus, that child birth is associated with blood, the will, and the flesh. He says nothing about water and it is an extreme stretch to head into understanding the discussion with Nicodemus without keeping those things in mind. Moreover, the entire discussion in John 3 is clearly about water baptism. The episode with Nicodemus is immediately followed by a description of Jesus and the apostles going to Judea and baptizing and mentions John the Baptist not far away. The whole narrative of belief and being born again from above is in the context of water baptism.

I hope this helps.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Pax wrote:

I have had many discussions on this issue and must say it is whacky and of recent origins. A non-Catholic by the name of Ben Witherington, III, came up with this idea and presented it in his work“The Waters of Birth: John 3.5 and 1 John 5.6-8,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989).

Pax, I doubt that the idea originated in 1989. I was taught it long before that. Thank you for your very interesting post!

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Do not all non Catholic Christians, that believe baptism to be an outer sign only, without regeneration, believe that our Savior is referring to the water within the womb?

I would be interested in finding out what others that don’t believe that Baptism saves believe Jesus was referring to when he said born of water and Spirit.

In my old church, it’s one of those verses we would have breezed past very, very quickly. Let’s move on to something that affirms us!

 

[Pax]

Pax wrote:

Pax, I doubt that the idea originated in 1989. I was taught it long before that. Thank you for your very interesting post!

I’d love to know the source from which your education sprang. I searched high and low and Witherington is the first published information on this that I could find. He gave no credit to anyone else as far as I could tell.

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Atemi]

John 3:5
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.

Is saying that our Savior means embryonic fluid when referring to water the craziest exegesis of this verse ever?

I don’t think so. The text clearly implies this.

Both before and after the verse in question, natural birth is contrasted with spiritual re-birth by both parties in the conversation:

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

If we actually listen to the conversation without bias, we can see it quite clearly.

Personally, I think one of the strangest interpretations of this text is the claim that when Jesus says no one may enter the Kingdom without being born of water and the Spirit, He really, really means people CAN enter the Kingdom without being born of water and the Spirit.

Surely that has got to be one of the greatest stretches I have seen.

…

 

[adrift]

What is also ignored is the many versus about baptism. Also Jesus said go and Baptise. It would seem obvious with the context of the rest of the Bible Jesus meant you must be baptised and confirmed water and the Spirit.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Do not all non Catholic Christians, that believe baptism to be an outer sign only, without regeneration, believe that our Savior is referring to the water within the womb?

I would be interested in finding out what others that don’t believe that Baptism saves believe Jesus was referring to when he said born of water and Spirit.

So, if they believe this is the case, then why one would have to be borne again? if they are already in the water? it doesnt make any sense.

 

[puzzleannie]

John 3:5
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.

Is saying that our Savior means embryonic fluid when referring to water the craziest exegesis of this verse ever? While discussing the necessity of Baptism with a friend this is his explanation of what our Lord means when referring to water.

this is one of the few passages of scripture that has a definite interpretation defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church, who say this definitely does not refer to amniotic fluid, but to baptism with water.

 

[Pax]

I don’t think so. The text clearly implies this.

Both before and after the verse in question, natural birth is contrasted with spiritual re-birth by both parties in the conversation:

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

If we actually listen to the conversation without bias, we can see it quite clearly.

Personally, I think one of the strangest interpretations of this text is the claim that when Jesus says no one may enter the Kingdom without being born of water and the Spirit, He really, really means people CAN enter the Kingdom without being born of water and the Spirit.

Surely that has got to be one of the greatest stretches I have seen.

…

Please read my post # 8. It explains the context, the grammar, and also how the Jews and the apostle John viewed natural child birth.

God bless.

 

[Atemi]

Please read my post # 8. It explains the context, the grammar, and also how the Jews and the apostle John viewed natural child birth.

Please read my post #12. It explains the context clearly.

There is no syntactical problem. That is a fiction.

Secondly, John 1:13 is not talking about childbirth, but lineage…the bloodline.

Jewish women saw their water break no different than any other women.

Thirdly, this thread is about far out interpretations of John 3:5.

Insisting that Jesus says no one can enter the Kingdom without being water baptised but He really, really means some may enter the Kingdom without being water baptised qualifies on its face.

Those telling us Jesus is wrong is not an interpretation.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

So Jesus was lying then when he said, "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5)

Really Atemi? If Jesus is not lying there, and no Catholic believes He was, then what does He really mean? Water and the Spirit are plainly displayed at the baptism of Our Lord in the Jordan, even though Our Lord had no need for it.

What then does he tell st. John the Baptist? (Matthew 3)
13] Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
14] John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15] But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented.
16] And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;
17] and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

 

[Rogare]

There’s an issue I have with the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5 that I’ve yet to see answered. Maybe one of you guys can clear it up.

Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus a good bit of time before His passion. It’s not until after the resurrection that Jesus establishes baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to the CCC, the sacrament consists of:

1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If Christian baptism had not been initiated yet, then how would Nicodemus have had any idea of what Jesus was talking about? It would be quite impossible for Nicodemus to understand that Jesus was talking about the sacrament of baptism if it hadn’t even been instituted yet.

Now, being a great teacher, Nicodemus would be well-versed in the Old Testament. The most plausible explanation is a cross reference to Ezekiel 36:25-27

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Essentially, unless one is cleansed by God and receives His Spirit (all a monergistic work of God), then one will not enter the kingdom of God. This interpretation seems to make the most sense- trying to incorporate baptism into the verse seems quite anachronistic.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

There’s an issue I have with the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5 that I’ve yet to see answered. Maybe one of you guys can clear it up.

Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus a good bit of time before His passion. It’s not until after the resurrection that Jesus establishes baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to the CCC, the sacrament consists of:

1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If Christian baptism had not been initiated yet, then how would Nicodemus have had any idea of what Jesus was talking about? It would be quite impossible for Nicodemus to understand that Jesus was talking about the sacrament of baptism if it hadn’t even been instituted yet.

Now, being a great teacher, Nicodemus would be well-versed in the Old Testament. The most plausible explanation is a cross reference to Ezekiel 36:25-27

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Essentially, unless one is cleansed by God and receives His Spirit (all a monergistic work of God), then one will not enter the kingdom of God. This interpretation seems to make the most sense- trying to incorporate baptism into the verse seems quite anachronistic.

John the Baptist had already been baptizing people–including Jesus himself–with water. Keep in mind the strong Trinitarian significance of Jesus coming up from the water, the descent of the dove, and the voice from the cloud. I see no reason why Nicodemus wouldn’t have been well aware of this. The baptism of John the Baptist was an immediate foreshadowing of the Christian rite in its fullness, and many people were partaking of it. Check out the 3rd chapter of Matthew.

Today is the Feast day of John the Baptist, by the way.