Born Again

[Rogare]

You’re making an incredibly unwarranted assumption - that Nicodemus would have been aware of the Trinitarian significance of Jesus’ baptism. There is absolutely no reason to believe he was there, heard about it, or would have grasped the significance of it if he heard it.

Hopefully there’s an answer out there that deals with the text and doesn’t rely on outrageous assumptions.

 

[Brywan]

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 was an evangelical Christian until I became Catholic at age 44–and yes, this was the interpretation I was taught, and I swallowed it whole–

In retrospect, I can see that no ordinary person–Catholic OR Protestant would come up with that interpretation unless it had been taught to him (an example of oral “tradition” in the Protestant camp) The plain sense of the passage is water baptism–since before and after this passage (John chapters 1-4) John is talking about water baptism…(“Context is King” in interpretation I was always taught)

In fact, if there is anyone out there who came up with the “amniotic fluid” interpretation on their own–without reading it somewhere else or being taught it by another person I’d love to hear your testimony…

 

[Rogare]

I was an evangelical Christian until I became Catholic at age 44–and yes, this was the interpretation I was taught, and I swallowed it whole–

In retrospect, I can see that no ordinary person–Catholic OR Protestant would come up with that interpretation unless it had been taught to him (an example of oral “tradition” in the Protestant camp) The plain sense of the passage is water baptism–since before and after this passage (John chapters 1-4) John is talking about water baptism…(“Context is King” in interpretation I was always taught)

In fact, if there is anyone out there who came up with the “amniotic fluid” interpretation on their own–without reading it somewhere else or being taught it by another person I’d love to hear your testimony…

Once again, I would like to point you to the conversation itself. Christian baptism had not been instituted yet so Nicodemus would have had no idea what Jesus was referring to. As a high ranking Jew, well versed in the Old Testament, it seems entirely natural to assume that Jesus was references Ezekiel 36 as I said earlier. This is an allusion that Nicodemus would have understood. I still maintain that it is anachronistic to read Christian baptism back into John 3:5.

 

[adrift]

Once again, I would like to point you to the conversation itself. Christian baptism had not been instituted yet so Nicodemus would have had no idea what Jesus was referring to. As a high ranking Jew, well versed in the Old Testament, it seems entirely natural to assume that Jesus was references Ezekiel 36 as I said earlier. This is an allusion that Nicodemus would have understood. I still maintain that it is anachronistic to read Christian baptism back into John 3:5.

The conversation is not what you decide it to be. It is based on the OP which he is answering.

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 is O.K. for you to ask a related question but not O.K. for you to demand that be the only subject discussed. Start your own thread if you want only that discussed.

When Jesus told the Apostles He had to die. They didn’t understand Him. Much of His teachings were not understood until after Pentecost when the Spirit descended on them. Furthermore if Nicodemus understood Jesus was referencing Old Testament it would make his quesion strange.

Nicodemus saith unto 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?

 

[Rogare]

The conversation is not what you decide it to be. It is based on the OP which he is answering.

It is O.K. for you to ask a related question but not O.K. for you to demand that be the only subject discussed. Start your own thread if you want only that discussed.

When Jesus told the Apostles He had to die. They didn’t understand Him. Much of His teachings were not understood until after Pentecost when the Spirit descended on them. Furthermore if Nicodemus understood Jesus was referencing Old Testament it would make his quesion strange.

Sorry for bringing up John 3 during a discussion about John 3…did you even attempt to read what I wrote? My point was still centered on John 3:5 which is what the original poster brought up. I fail to see how I tried to change the topic from John 3. Is there another instance in which Jesus has this conversation with Nicodemus?

Secondly, Jesus plainly told his followers that he would die and be resurrected. He did not clearly tell Nicodemus that to see the kingdom of God he must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, your quotation of Nicodemus, which is John 3:4 comes before John 3:5, which is what we were discussing. Your point doesn’t really apply to anything we’re talking about.

 

[adrift]

Check out John 3:22 4: 1-2 It was well known that Jesus’ disciples were baptizing. Nicodemus would have been aware of it.

 

[adrift]

In fact, if there is anyone out there who came up with the “amniotic fluid” interpretation on their own–without reading it somewhere else or being taught it by another person I’d love to hear your testimony…

Once again, I would like to point you to the conversation itself. :5.

He was on point you are not. You are the one who said I would like to point you to the coversation itself. He was on converstaion point.

The OP

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.

So what does your comment have to do with the interpretation of water being embryonic fluid?

Christian baptism had not been instituted yet so Nicodemus would have had no idea what Jesus was referring to. As a high ranking Jew, well versed in the Old Testament, it seems entirely natural to assume that Jesus was references Ezekiel 36 as I said earlier. This is an allusion that Nicodemus would have understood. I still maintain that it is anachronistic to read Christian baptism back into John 3:5.

Your on point

Furthermore, your quotation of Nicodemus, which is John 3:4 comes before John 3:5, which is what we were discussing. Your point doesn’t really apply to anything we’re talking about.

You are making the claim that it refers to Ezekiel 36 which by your rules shouldn’t be mentioned because that is not the verse in discussion.:bowdown: You can mention other versus but no one else can:shrug: Of course it has everything to do with your contentions because it makes your propostion week. John 3:5 is spoken as a response to John 3:4 and it has nothing to do with what you are talking about? It has everything to do with the context.

 

[Rogare]

He was on point you are not. You are the one who said I would like to point you to the coversation itself. He was on converstaion point.

The OP

So what does your comment have to do with the interpretation of water being embryonic fluid?

Your on point

You are making the claim that it refers to Ezekiel 36 which by your rules shouldn’t be mentioned because that is not the verse in discussion.:bowdown: You can mention other versus but no one else can:shrug: Of course it has everything to do with your contentions because it makes your propostion week. John 3:5 is spoken as a response to John 3:4 and it has nothing to do with what you are talking about? It has everything to do with the context.

The OP asked about the embryonic fluid interpretation. The Catholic members pointed him to Rome’s interpretation of this verse regarding baptism. I then came along and offered an alternative answer to the baptism one. How is that off topic? It’s related to John 3:5, the theory he asked about, AND baptism - all elements of this thread.

When I said “the conversation itself,” I was referring to the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, which was taking place in John 3.

I made no prohibition against using other Bible verses. Let me clarify why I think you are making a mistake in citing John 3:4. My suggestion was that John 3:5 was referring to an Old Testament passage (Ezekiel 36). You then came along and questioned that by using John 3:4. Nicodemus asked the silly question before John 3:5 was stated, so I don’t see what John 3:4 has to do with Nicodemus not understanding John 3:5. Sorry if I confused you.

 

[Rogare]

Let me add one thing - I am a Protestant actively looking to be convinced of the truth of Roman Catholicism. I am strongly moving toward the Church, I just have a few stumbling stones. I am a Reformed Baptist so baptismal regeneration is probably the hardest pill for me to swallow. I am just looking for a well-read apologist to explain why the Ezekiel 36 reference doesn’t fly. I don’t want to start another thread over John 3:5 when we already have one going right here. Please don’t take offense at my words

 

[valentino]

I,ve never heard a better one.

 

[skeyes]

Rogare,

I’ve been in your shoes. I was always trying to catch the Catholic Church in an “I got you there moment”. Being Catholic is not like that. Ezekiel 36 doesn’t fit not because I know some long explanation for why it doesn’t. It doesn’t fit because that is not what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

You see as I have moved along on my conversion road, I have found it universally true that when I quit trying to prove the teachings of the Church wrong, then the Holy Spirit reveals to me the truth of the Churches teaching.

There has to be an introduction into the Covenant. In the old covenant that was circumcision. What Jesus established in the new Covenant was Baptism or “by water”. Now once we are members of the Covenant it is our responsibility to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Early in my walk, someone told me to quit trying to believe everything the Church taught and to begin to do the things the Church taught. By doing thus it became obvious why the Church teaches as she does.

I know this isn’t what you are looking for, but I would urge you, if you are truly looking at the Church as a possibility, quit trying to prove Her wrong and trust that truly “the gates of hell have not prevailed against her”. God bless you on your journey.

In Christ,
Stan

 

[Rogare]

I appreciate the kind words. However, I disagree with your approach. You are essentially asking me to embrace sola ecclesia. I have a really hard time with the idea of mindlessly following Mother Rome. My effort here is not to prover her wrong, but rather have her prove me wrong which is why I brought up my question in this thread. I’m not going to give up my years of Reformed belief because the Pope says to. If Rome holds the truth then she should be able to stand up to any scrutiny. If she can’t, then I should probably look elsewhere for the truth.

 

[skeyes]

Rogare,

Oh but she can stand up to any scutiny, but what I am requesting you do if your journey is leading you to “swim the Tiber” is to quit digging your heels in. I can tell you from experience that all the things you think you know about Catholicism are probably incorrect. There is not anyone telling you what to do except Jesus when he gives the “keys” to St Peter. Peacefully look at the things that you agree with Catholics on. There are many. Salvation is through Christ alone, virign birth, sanctity of life. and on and on.

Write these down. Concentrate on them. Where did you arrive at the same views as Catholicism? Was it not from the 2000 years of influence to the world? You see the things which you don’t want “some Pope” telling you what to do are the same as the ones you agree on. You just have a bias from attending a communion which does not have the whole truth and have found some ways to satisfy their own shortcomings.

When I humbly realized that my Baptist upbringing was so full of holes that I couldn’t find enough fingers to put in those holes the rush of the truth of the Jesus handed down by the catholic Church just became more than I could resist. It is not the Church that has to prove anything to me. It was me that had to humbly accept what I knew was the Church Jesus established. I am not asking you to blindly forever go along with what the Church teaches.

I would suggest a couple of things. The first is not really challenging. Attend an RCIA class. No commitments, no promises to join the Church, just a chance to hear Catholicism.

The second thing I would suggest is much tougher for a Baptist. Find a Catholic Church that has an Adoration chapel. Go for a visit. They are very quiet, people praying, people reading or my favorite, people just sitting quietly. Try this out. You can PM me if you are interested and need help finding such a chapel.

As you can tell I am not an apologist. Tried it didn’t like the intensity. I do love Jesus and His Church enough to step in here and say “whoa”. You have the cart before the horse. Learn the truth, not what you think is the truth. Try to rid yourself of your prejudices that have come from your religious experience. Try it out. It may fit. If it doesn’t then you can return to requesting answers to your questions on this forum.

Have a great weekend.

Stan

PS: I love your sceen name.

 

[TimothyH]

Check out John 3:22 4: 1-2 It was well known that Jesus’ disciples were baptizing. Nicodemus would have been aware of it.

That’s what I was gonna say. Referring to John the Baptist, Matthew’s Gospel has this to say…

***At that time Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole region **around the Jordan were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins. (Matthew 3:5-6) *

Matthew states that all of Judea was aware of John’s baptizing in the Jordan and that Pharisees even came out, at a minimum, to see what he was doing, if not to be baptized themselves. Nicodemus himself was a Pharisee, so his knowledge of the practice of baptism would have been almost certain.

Baptism was clearly an established practice and was done simultaneously with the person being baptized making a public acknowledgement of sins. I guess the real question is, regarding reading baptism back into John 3 and Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus is, what was the nature of baptism in Jesus’ time? Can anyone explain baptism in the first century BC?

I also note that Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God with Nicodumus and John preaches that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

***In those days John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert of Judea (and) saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven *is at hand!" (Matthew 3:1-2)

Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." (John 3:3)

They both mention the kingdom. You can say it is a stretch, but you can’t say that Nicodemus could not possibly have made a connection. It is possibility.

I think the Catholic position on Baptism fits scripture more naturally than a symbolic baptism, especially in light of 1) Jesus turning water into wine, 2) water and blood flowing from Christ’s side as he hung dead on the cross and, 3) Jesus himself being baptized in water. When taken in the totality of the whole Bible, including Noah’s Ark and the Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, and stopping of the flooded Jordan River when Joshua and Israel crossed into the promised land, the fit is even more natural.

And then there is .1 Peter 3:20-21 It’s difficult to get spiritual or symbolic baptism around this verse.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

It also occurs to me that the Jews cleansed their hands ritually with water before they ate. Also I recall that the Levites cleansed themselves by sprinkling with water (Numbers 8:6) so that they would be ritually clean before they offered sacrifices to God. I suspect that the Baptism of John had some basis in Jewish ritual washing but have to do some research.

But as I think about it, it comes down to this…

If Baptism is only symbolic, then Baptism into the Body of Christ, which is clear in the New Testament, is symbolic as well. If the Body of Christ is only symbolic (and invisible and spiritual), then many Churches are possible. But if baptism is real and manifests a very real change, then Baptism into the Body of Christ is real. And there is only one real, physical, visible Body of Christ, ergo only one Church is possible.

-Tim-

 

[AlwaysCurious]

You’re making an incredibly unwarranted assumption - that Nicodemus would have been aware of the Trinitarian significance of Jesus’ baptism. There is absolutely no reason to believe he was there, heard about it, or would have grasped the significance of it if he heard it.

Hopefully there’s an answer out there that deals with the text and doesn’t rely on outrageous assumptions.

After rereading my post, I realized how confusing the structure was. Mea culpa. I meant to suggest that Nicodemus could easily have been aware of Jesus’ baptism and the extraordinary signs accompanying it, as well as the rather widespread baptism of John. I did not mean to imply that Nicodemus would have grasped any of the Trinitarian implications (although the groundwork for a later understanding had been laid). But other posters have already demonstrated that John and even Jesus and his disciples were baptizing people. Nicodemus was already quite fascinated by Jesus and was a member of the council (John 3:1-2). That Nicodemus should have at least known about the baptism of John, and probably had heard of Jesus’ baptism, are hardly outrageous assumptions.

More to the point, I think you are confusing the “Catholic interpretation of John 3:5” with the full-fledged doctrine of Trinitarian baptism. Here is the Church’s infallible interpretation of John 3:5, from the Council of Trent:
“If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit [John 3:5]’ are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session VII, “On Baptism” Canon II).

Bottom line: Christian baptism must involve physical (“real and natural”) water. That’s as much as the Church dogmatically draws from the verse. Thus we don’t need to stack the Catechism against John 3:5 and ask how Nicodemus could have figured out the whole theology of baptism. The rest of it can be gleaned from other Scriptures and the Fathers.

With this in mind, does it matter what Scriptures Nicodemus was contemplating? How would we know? Whatever it was, Jesus didn’t seem too impressed based on his rebuke in John 3:10. He could have been thinking of any number of the biblical foreshadowings of baptism in the OT (the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the crossing of the Jordan, etc.), or none of them. Who knows?

I think the only question left in this verse is: what was Nicodemus supposed to do, since the fullness of the rite of Christian baptism was not yet available? Based on his conversation with Jesus, it would seem that the most logical answer would be to undergo the baptism of John–in other words, something that involved real, not merely symbolic, water. Based on the Church’s understanding of the verse, that’s as much as Jesus said at the time.

 

[Rogare]

After rereading my post, I realized how confusing the structure was. Mea culpa. I meant to suggest that Nicodemus could easily have been aware of Jesus’ baptism and the extraordinary signs accompanying it, as well as the rather widespread baptism of John. I did not mean to imply that Nicodemus would have grasped any of the Trinitarian implications (although the groundwork for a later understanding had been laid). But other posters have already demonstrated that John and even Jesus and his disciples were baptizing people. Nicodemus was already quite fascinated by Jesus and was a member of the council (John 3:1-2). That Nicodemus should have at least known about the baptism of John, and probably had heard of Jesus’ baptism, are hardly outrageous assumptions.

More to the point, I think you are confusing the “Catholic interpretation of John 3:5” with the full-fledged doctrine of Trinitarian baptism. Here is the Church’s infallible interpretation of John 3:5, from the Council of Trent:
“If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit [John 3:5]’ are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session VII, “On Baptism” Canon II).

Bottom line: Christian baptism must involve physical (“real and natural”) water. That’s as much as the Church dogmatically draws from the verse. Thus we don’t need to stack the Catechism against John 3:5 and ask how Nicodemus could have figured out the whole theology of baptism. The rest of it can be gleaned from other Scriptures and the Fathers.

With this in mind, does it matter what Scriptures Nicodemus was contemplating? How would we know? Whatever it was, Jesus didn’t seem too impressed based on his rebuke in John 3:10. He could have been thinking of any number of the biblical foreshadowings of baptism in the OT (the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the crossing of the Jordan, etc.), or none of them. Who knows?

I think the only question left in this verse is: what was Nicodemus supposed to do, since the fullness of the rite of Christian baptism was not yet available? Based on his conversation with Jesus, it would seem that the most logical answer would be to undergo the baptism of John–in other words, something that involved real, not merely symbolic, water. Based on the Church’s understanding of the verse, that’s as much as Jesus said at the time.

Excellent reply! Thank you for the thoughtful response I certainly see your point!

 

[Pax]

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.

…

Atemi,

I was a school teacher at one time and my wife recently retired as a school teacher. I can assure you that there is a problem with the grammar and syntax for your view. It is not a fiction, and you can’t slip the noose by making a false claim that it is. Furthermore, you did not establish, as you claim, anything for context that supposedly supports your position. The entire context is water baptism, and the subsequent passages speak directly of John baptizing as well as Jesus and the disciples baptizing nearby.

You are wrong about John 1:13. It refers to how man is naturally born through the actions of man and not simply blood lines. That is one of the silliest things I’ve heard as a deflection in ages. That verse is a clear contrast to being born “again” of water and Spirit.

Jewish women saw their water break just like all women? Of course that’s true, but how does that establish your interpretation in John 3? Let me tell you why it does not do so. Although water breaking is part of child birth it is not child birth. Many, many hours elapse between the water breaking and the actual birth of the baby. Today, just as in the Jewish OT understandings, child birth is associated much more strongly with labor pains associated with the actual delivery. This comes through in our own culture and it comes through very strongly in scripture.

Scripture supports scripture, and you will not find any evidence in scripture that associates child birth with amniotic fluid. It simply isn’t there. If you can show it to me by scripture, I might begin to think that your view is worth considering. Trust me that when you do your search for the evidence…you’ll come up empty. That understanding is made up from whole cloth and has absolutely no scriptural support.

Yes, the thread is about far out teachings on John 3 and baptism, and your view is the “far out teaching” under discussion. If you think that an exception to salvation that does not happen to include water baptism somehow sets the rule, then you need to take a course in logic. Water baptism is necessary as the norm. God in his mercy and kindness will make exceptions as outlined by the Church. An exception, however, does not change a truth and does not establish the rule.

God bless.

 

[Nita]

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’m wondering if there is anything that shows the expression “born of water” was a Jewish expression used to refer to the birth of a child. It would be an unusual expression, that’s for sure.
The phrase"born of woman" does appear to be a Jewish expression. If Jesus intended to be referring to one’s natural physical birth it just seems to me He would have said “Unless one be born of woman and the Spirit…”

The second obvious point/question would be – why would he make reference to a natural birth at all. He is talking about humans who obviously had been born. Why wouldn’t He just have said we must be born anew/again of the Spirit?

 

[Atemi]

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)

I am not the one that interprets this to mean that one can enter the kingdom of God if they are not born of water and the Spirit.

Like I said, that has got to be the most unbelievable interpretations of all.

Really Atemi? If Jesus is not lying there, and no Catholic believes He was, then what does He really mean?

What he obviously does not mean is anything about the ritual of water baptism, even according to Catholic doctrine that says one can indeed enter the kingdom of God without being water baptised.

…