John 3:5 simple meaning

[SB81848889]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Is it possible that Catholics have been taught by their church that this verse implies baptism as a requirement to get into heaven to instill a works salvation. when the more realistic and simple interpretation is that Jesus was simply talking with nicodemus is a way that he could understand. They were talking about being born.

Nicodemus was astonished at Jesus words about being born again, and asked him how could a man craw back into his mothers womb.

Jesus is talking about a natural birth (water) and a spiritual birth (spirit).

To take the interpretation that water means baptism does not even enter into the context of their discussion. It seem the Catholic church is teaching this verse means more than what Jesus said. Something that you would never assume without another telling you thats what it meant.

I was just wondering what a Catholic says about this.

 

[passus]

References to a natural birth “by water,” in the sense you have described here, would not have been made by Jesus or His apostles at that time.

catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

 

[Luke65]

It seem the Catholic church is teaching this verse means more than what Jesus said. Something that you would never assume without another telling you thats what it meant.

I was just wondering what a Catholic says about this.

Well, you may be right about that. If we didn’t have our first Pope, Peter, tell us, infallibly, that Baptism “saves” us (1 Peter 3:21), along with the other Catholic authors of the NT, and 2000 years of Catholic teaching, then maybe we wouldn’t have understood our Lord.

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

 

[SB81848889]

Well, you may be right about that. If we didn’t have our first Pope, Peter, tell us, infallibly, that Baptism “saves” us (1 Peter 3:21), along with the other Catholic authors of the NT, and 2000 years of Catholic teaching, then maybe we wouldn’t have understood our Lord.

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Lets look at 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

If we take the simple meaning here without trying to defend a belief you can see Peter is saying exactly the opposite as you are saying. Peter says that Baptism saves but not the washing of flesh (water) but the resurrection of Jesus (spirit). Hes actually making a distinction between the two. He saying in other words the water isnt saving you, but the thing that it symbolizes does. It symbolizes the resurrection.

 

[nsper7]

Lets look at 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

If we take the simple meaning here without trying to defend a belief you can see Peter is saying exactly the opposite as you are saying. Peter says that Baptism saves but not the washing of flesh (water) but the resurrection of Jesus (spirit). Hes actually making a distinction between the two. He saying in other words the water isnt saving you, but the thing that it symbolizes does. It symbolizes the resurrection.

Who gave you the authority to interpret Scripture? It has been the doctrine of the Catholic Church from the beginning that Baptism is regenerative, not merely symbolic. The Church Fathers, writing over a millennium before Martin Luther was a gleam in his father’s eye, affirmed this view as well. And, heck, Martin Luther affirmed the regenerative, as opposed to merely symbolic, nature of Baptism.

Sorry. The idea of Baptism as merely ‘symbolic’ is a new invention in Christianity. Not even the early Protestants accepted it (Luther was quite relentless in his pursuit of Anabaptists; with one of the only confirmed historical cases of a local Lutheran leader and a Catholic Bishop being when Anabaptists seized the German town Munster).

 

[SB81848889]

Who gave you the authority to interpret Scripture? It has been the doctrine of the Catholic Church from the beginning that Baptism is regenerative, not merely symbolic. The Church Fathers, writing over a millennium before Martin Luther was a gleam in his father’s eye, affirmed this view as well. And, heck, Martin Luther affirmed the regenerative, as opposed to merely symbolic, nature of Baptism.

Sorry. The idea of Baptism as merely ‘symbolic’ is a new invention in Christianity. Not even the early Protestants accepted it (Luther was quite relentless in his pursuit of Anabaptists; with one of the only confirmed historical cases of a local Lutheran leader and a Catholic Bishop being when Anabaptists seized the German town Munster).

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

This passage is my authority if there is such a thing. If we can look past your devotion to the church and just look at what scripture says you still have not given me an answer to my question on what the passage simply says.

I am not a Martin Luther expert, and I do not necessarily agree with all his theology, but the point is whats the scripture saying very plainly.

If your only argument is going to be your church told you different then your authority is in men and their superstitions and not the Bible, is it not. Is God the author of confusion so that only a special man can determine that scripture means something opposite then what it says.

All I am asking is if its possible that these passages just mean what they say in their context.

 

[NHInsider]

The meanings are not mutually exclusive - as with so many of the statements of Jesus and passages of Scripture, there is both-and.

It is clear that even in New Testament times, baptism was not considered purely symbolic, otherwise Paul would not have had the conversation we see in Acts 19.

To turn the conversation around, however - how is it, OP, that you reject the plain meaning of John 6:54 and 55? Who told you that they were meant “only symbolically?”

 

[Luke65]

Is God the author of confusion so that only a special man can determine that scripture means something opposite then what it says.

Can you not see that you’re speaking about yourself here? When the Holy Spirit told us, through St. Peter, that Baptism saves us, you turned it 180 degrees and said it means that Baptism does not save us! No doubt you do the same thing with “faith alone”, “My flesh is real food”, “Obey your leaders”, and on and on. So I repeat our brother’s question to you: on what authority do you interpret the Scriptures? And are you infallible? Are you “the pillar and foundation of the truth”? Why do you think it is that the Church was one until the schism with the Orthodox, who still held onto Tradition, but when Luther split the Church, saying that everyone can interpret the Scriptures for themselves, all of a sudden one third of the Church has split into thousands of denominations with different teachings? Is God the Author of confusion? Is this what God wants? No, He wants us to “all be one” - one Church, with one faith. We don’t get to pick and choose what we will believe and obey, and what we won’t.

And the Scriptures warned us about this; St. Peter told us that they are not open to personal interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). And he also warned us about distorting St. Paul’s letters (2 Peter 3:15-16) - and do you think its just an incredible coincidence that the faith alone theology is based mostly on those very letters? :nope: You know that the Word is a sharp double-edged sword, right? Which means that you can not only cut off the head of your opponent with it, but you can also cut off your own head! Handle with care!

St. Gregory of Nyssa: “For since Christ is the head of every man, as says the Apostle [1 Corinthians 11:2], and it is only reasonable that the believer alone should be so termed (for Christ, I take it, cannot be the head of the unbelieving also), it follows that he who is severed from the saving faith must be headless like Goliath, being severed from the true head by his own sword which he had whetted against the truth; which head it shall be our task not to cut off, but to show that it is cut off.” (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book)

That’s a fun read. But I strongly urge you to look at the website I linked to, Scripture Catholic, to see how the Church has always interpreted the Scriptures. For, as Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.” God bless.

 

[Third_Day]

]John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

WHy not just accept Christ’s words? Why try to interpret them differently than his simple literal words?

Jesus is talking about a natural birth (water) and a spiritual birth (spirit).

How is that possible? You are saying that what Christ really said was " unless a man be born of embryonic fluid and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Everyone is born of embryonic fluid. So who is Christ talking about when he says " unless one is born of embryonic fluid?"

 

[Third_Day]

=SB81848889;5559966]Lets look at 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

You are totally missing Peter’s point. He says that the flood where only eight persons were saved corresponds to baptism. How? In the flood all sin was washed away and destroyed by the waters of the flood.
Baptism corresponds to this in that the waters of Baptism wash away and destroy all sin and give us a clear conscience. Therefore Baptism “now saves you”. It is the beginning process in our salvation. Through Baptism we become children of God.

 

[zach_dunn]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Is it possible that Catholics have been taught by their church that this verse implies baptism as a requirement to get into heaven to instill a works salvation. when the more realistic and simple interpretation is that Jesus was simply talking with nicodemus is a way that he could understand. They were talking about being born.

Nicodemus was astonished at Jesus words about being born again, and asked him how could a man craw back into his mothers womb.

Jesus is talking about a natural birth (water) and a spiritual birth (spirit).

To take the interpretation that water means baptism does not even enter into the context of their discussion. It seem the Catholic church is teaching this verse means more than what Jesus said. Something that you would never assume without another telling you thats what it meant.

I was just wondering what a Catholic says about this.

There are many reasons to believe that Jesus is reverring to the sacrament of Baptism. First of all, it’s not just the water that signifies Baptism, it’s water AND the Spirit. Water alone is John’s Baptism which was Just a preperation for Christ’s Baptism.

The reasons for believing Jesus was referring to Baptism are these:

1) John makes a close connection between water and the Spirit elsewhere in his Gospel (7:38-39; 1 Jn 5:8), this helps show that Jesus wasn’t talking about two seperate births, but one. This is shown most explicitly in Jesus’ own Baptism, where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus at the moment of His Baptism of water.

2) Many other passages in the New Testament depict Baptism as a sacrament of salvation through water and the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11; Tit 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21).

3) Immediately after this episode Jesus and His disciples go on a Baptismal ministry (Jn 3:22), not an “accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour” ministry.

I believe these reasons provide considerable evidence for the idea that Jesus was talking about Baptism in John 3:5. What do you think OP?

*Props to Scott Haun and Curtis Mitch, those guys really know what they’re talking about.

Zach

 

[juliamajor]

First misconception is-Simple meaning. John is not a Gospel of simple meanings. It is theology from start to finish with layers of meaning -not just one .That is a simplistic point of view not in line with John’s sophisticated use of image, language, and advanced theology.John’s gospel is well thought out ,planned to get mileage out of every syllable-not one word is wasted in giving believers the image of the Logos that goes above and beyond much of the other gospels.So don’t ever look for one simple meaning in john. you won’t find it. What will find is a plethora of meaning and enough insight to last a lifetime of study.A gospel verse doesn’t have to be either/or but can be both/and which is very much in line with John’s technique.

 

[SB81848889]

The meanings are not mutually exclusive - as with so many of the statements of Jesus and passages of Scripture, there is both-and.

It is clear that even in New Testament times, baptism was not considered purely symbolic, otherwise Paul would not have had the conversation we see in Acts 19.

To turn the conversation around, however - how is it, OP, that you reject the plain meaning of John 6:54 and 55? Who told you that they were meant “only symbolically?”

All Paul is saying is these people did not know about Jesus, because no one told them, they had not recieved the gospel. All they knew about was John and thats why they had not recieved the Holy Ghost. Just as soon as they were told to believe on Jesus Christ they were then baptized with the Holy Ghost. There is no mention of water at all, the entire conversation is about the baptism of the holy Spirit. You are adding water to the context because thats what your church needs to prove their doctrine, but it simply doesnt exist.

As far as John 6 you need to read on to verse 63 where Jesus plainly says that he is speaking about spirit not the flesh, Jesus again is trying to explain to these followers who are seeking him for food and drink instead of eternal life. And he is using an analogy to get them to understand. If these people were following Jesus for money he would have used an anaolgy for them about money not food. He would have said something like I am the money you spend, whoever buys and sells me will have everlasting life, then you would be trying to do that for your religion. And I never said that this was only symbolic, I think that the text is very simple here and your adding the complexity, remember the unlearned can understand the bible also it not just for the educated and religious.

Thats the problem with religion, God has only given out one religion and that was on the mountain to moses, man has been holding on too their superstitions and priests and sacraments and rituals ever since the cross, and they are relying on them for their salvation instead of Jesus himself.

 

[SB81848889]

Can you not see that you’re speaking about yourself here? When the Holy Spirit told us, through St. Peter, that Baptism saves us, you turned it 180 degrees and said it means that Baptism does not save us! No doubt you do the same thing with “faith alone”, “My flesh is real food”, “Obey your leaders”, and on and on. So I repeat our brother’s question to you: on what authority do you interpret the Scriptures? And are you infallible? Are you “the pillar and foundation of the truth”? Why do you think it is that the Church was one until the schism with the Orthodox, who still held onto Tradition, but when Luther split the Church, saying that everyone can interpret the Scriptures for themselves, all of a sudden one third of the Church has split into thousands of denominations with different teachings? Is God the Author of confusion? Is this what God wants? No, He wants us to “all be one” - one Church, with one faith. We don’t get to pick and choose what we will believe and obey, and what we won’t.

And the Scriptures warned us about this; St. Peter told us that they are not open to personal interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). And he also warned us about distorting St. Paul’s letters (2 Peter 3:15-16) - and do you think its just an incredible coincidence that the faith alone theology is based mostly on those very letters? :nope: You know that the Word is a sharp double-edged sword, right? Which means that you can not only cut off the head of your opponent with it, but you can also cut off your own head! Handle with care!

St. Gregory of Nyssa: “For since Christ is the head of every man, as says the Apostle [1 Corinthians 11:2], and it is only reasonable that the believer alone should be so termed (for Christ, I take it, cannot be the head of the unbelieving also), it follows that he who is severed from the saving faith must be headless like Goliath, being severed from the true head by his own sword which he had whetted against the truth; which head it shall be our task not to cut off, but to show that it is cut off.” (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book)

That’s a fun read. But I strongly urge you to look at the website I linked to, Scripture Catholic, to see how the Church has always interpreted the Scriptures. For, as Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.” God bless.

What I meant was that the plain meaning of this passage says one thing and you are saying it means the opposite, you don’t need to be special to understand simple English, its the same thing as if a different passage said the sky is blue, but you tell me that it could only be blue if it is reflected off of water, so you need water to be saved. But all the author was trying to say is the sky was simply blue.

No I am of course not infallible, but that’s my point neither is every other man on this earth including the Pope, and if you and I don’t agree on a particular interpretation of scripture then the word of God is not the problem its you or me or both of us. But for a man to claim full knowledge of the meaning of scripture thats why the church is now split. Its better that we have disagreements about the meaning of some passages then to all be lied to and forced to believe that lie by a so called special person.

Your right I am not the interpreter of scripture, but I am trying to show that neither is any other man. Only the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scripture.

You don’t seem to have a problem playing with a double edged sword, your not taking your own medicine.

 

[SB81848889]

WHy not just accept Christ’s words? Why try to interpret them differently than his simple literal words?

How is that possible? You are saying that what Christ really said was " unless a man be born of embryonic fluid and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Everyone is born of embryonic fluid. So who is Christ talking about when he says " unless one is born of embryonic fluid?"

Yes that’s exactly what he is saying, Only man is a candidate for salvation, not angels or demons or whatever else God had created. Nicodemus is talking about natural birth ( embryonic fluid if you must ) and that’s how Jesus is explaining it to him. God is not trying to put a secret water baptism message in here he is desperately trying to help a man understand being born again in a way that will work.

 

[SB81848889]

You are totally missing Peter’s point. He says that the flood where only eight persons were saved corresponds to baptism. How? In the flood all sin was washed away and destroyed by the waters of the flood.
Baptism corresponds to this in that the waters of Baptism wash away and destroy all sin and give us a clear conscience. Therefore Baptism “now saves you”. It is the beginning process in our salvation. Through Baptism we become children of God.

Why did Noah sin right after he got off the ark if all sin was washed away. God knew sin was still with man, flood water or any other kind of water has nothing to do with sin.

We are saved by the baptism of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that’s what the verse says does it not.

We become children of God through Baptism of the blood.

 

[Zenas]

Only the unlearned contend that John 3:5 refers to natural birth and spiritual birth. The syntax of this Greek sentence just doesn’t acommodate such an interpretation. Here is what Dr. Thomas Constable of the Dallas Theological Seminary says about it:

Another view proposed by many scholars is that “water” is an allusion to
the amniotic fluid in which a fetus develops in its mother’s womb. Other
scholars see it as a euphemistic reference to the semen without which
natural birth is impossible. In either case “water” refers to physical or
natural birth while “spirit” refers to spiritual or supernatural birth. They
claim that Jesus was saying that natural birth is not enough. One must also
experience supernatural birth to enter the kingdom. However this use of
“water” is unique in Scripture. Moreover it assumes that two births are in
view whereas the construction of the Greek phrase favors one birth rather
than two. If two were in view, there would normally be a repetition of the
preposition before the second noun.

Dr. Constable is an Egangelical Protestant and thus could not take the position that this verse refers to water baptism, although he has difficuly getting around it. Rather he takes the position that Jesus uses the word “water” metaphorically to symbolize spritual cleaning and renewal as is sometimes seen in the Old Testament.

 

[SB81848889]

There are many reasons to believe that Jesus is reverring to the sacrament of Baptism. First of all, it’s not just the water that signifies Baptism, it’s water AND the Spirit. Water alone is John’s Baptism which was Just a preperation for Christ’s Baptism.

The reasons for believing Jesus was referring to Baptism are these:

1) John makes a close connection between water and the Spirit elsewhere in his Gospel (7:38-39; 1 Jn 5:8), this helps show that Jesus wasn’t talking about two seperate births, but one. This is shown most explicitly in Jesus’ own Baptism, where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus at the moment of His Baptism of water.

2) Many other passages in the New Testament depict Baptism as a sacrament of salvation through water and the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11; Tit 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21).

3) Immediately after this episode Jesus and His disciples go on a Baptismal ministry (Jn 3:22), not an “accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour” ministry.

I believe these reasons provide considerable evidence for the idea that Jesus was talking about Baptism in John 3:5. What do you think OP?

*Props to Scott Haun and Curtis Mitch, those guys really know what they’re talking about.

Zach

Ok I’ll go along with the ( water ) baptism of John is necessary. What was the baptism of John? It was the baptism unto repentance. So you need to be born of repentance and the spirit to see the kingdom of God. I agree. But again where is the water here?

The only discussion about births you will find is in John 3:5, and that’s because Jesus and Nicodemus are talking about BIRTHS to each other. Not all scripture is to us, but all scripture is for us.

Your right about not needing 2 births, we all have had the first one, we now need the Spirit one. Im am pretty sure that Jesus was walking with God and had eternal life before his Baptism by John.

Are you saying Jesus needed to have his sins washed away, of course not, so unless his baptism meant something else your argument doesn’t work. Jesus was and needed to identify with mankind and that’s why he was baptized. The water was symbolic, and God sent the Holy Spirit.

There are many passages that have salvation with no mention of baptism as well. You cannot contradict these, but they all do say you need to believe to have salvation. Maybe your adding water baptism because your church teachings said to, and not from the Bible.

Well how else can you be saved if its not personal. God wants your love and obedience, not your religion.

 

[SB81848889]

First misconception is-Simple meaning. John is not a Gospel of simple meanings. It is theology from start to finish with layers of meaning -not just one .That is a simplistic point of view not in line with John’s sophisticated use of image, language, and advanced theology.John’s gospel is well thought out ,planned to get mileage out of every syllable-not one word is wasted in giving believers the image of the Logos that goes above and beyond much of the other gospels.So don’t ever look for one simple meaning in john. you won’t find it. What will find is a plethora of meaning and enough insight to last a lifetime of study.A gospel verse doesn’t have to be either/or but can be both/and which is very much in line with John’s technique.

There is a difference between depth of meaning and taking out of context. But I agree with you John’s gospel I believe is the most profound and grand book of the Bible.

 

[SB81848889]

Only the unlearned contend that John 3:5 refers to natural birth and spiritual birth. The syntax of this Greek sentence just doesn’t acommodate such an interpretation. Here is what Dr. Thomas Constable of the Dallas Theological Seminary says about it: Dr. Constable is an Egangelical Protestant and thus could not take the position that this verse refers to water baptism, although he has difficuly getting around it. Rather he takes the position that Jesus uses the word “water” metaphorically to symbolize spritual cleaning and renewal as is sometimes seen in the Old Testament.

Well I disagree with him, and he will have to provide a much better explanation than that one to convince me. Just look at the context and it really is pretty simple, but hey If someone can convince me otherwise with scripture then I will recant.

I am PROUD to be unlearned. 1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;