John 3:5

  • Thread starter Thread starter Valtiel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Valtiel

Guest
I had my brother with this one over the salvation through baptism, but then he went to the water=womb. I said that was absurd, that if christ meant that then he word have used the greek word “mitri” or “hudos”. He then goes on to these passages. John3:6-7 "What is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, “you must be born from abaove”, How do I combat this???
 
Jesus Christ didn’t speak Greek, so what Greek word he would’ve used isn’t terribly relevant.

The use of water as an analogy for amniotic fluid doesn’t occur in Jewish writings of the first century. Ever. As an idiom, it didn’t exist in Jesus’ time and culture.

No early Christian writer interpreted the passage as reference to anything other than baptism.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Myself, I’m not sure what the question is. Sounds like there is disagreement over a Greek translation, and it sounds like you have some understanding of that language. The substance of John 3 seems fairly clear to me ( I THINK I agree with you). I’m no expert, though. Someone with more understanding will likely jump in. Maybe re-phrase the question??

Jim
 
40.png
Valtiel:
I had my brother with this one over the salvation through baptism, but then he went to the water=womb. I said that was absurd, that if christ meant that then he word have used the greek word “mitri” or “hudos”. He then goes on to these passages. John3:6-7 "What is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, “you must be born from abaove”, How do I combat this???
Click to expand...
That’s his personal interpretation. He has no basis to say his personal interpretation holds any weight at all. All of the earliest Christian writings talk about baptism by water. The idea that Baptism isn’t necessary is a relatively new doctrine of men.
 
40.png
LtTony:
Myself, I’m not sure what the question is. Sounds like there is disagreement over a Greek translation, and it sounds like you have some understanding of that language. The substance of John 3 seems fairly clear to me ( I THINK I agree with you). I’m no expert, though. Someone with more understanding will likely jump in. Maybe re-phrase the question??

Jim
Click to expand...
He is essentially saying with the rest of the passage that “unless you areborn of the flesh and then of the spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God”

I say original greek because that’s what was written in it’s place, it was written in greek and the greek words do not support it, yet supposedly the two passages after confirm what my brother is saying…
 
40.png
Valtiel:
Are you telling me, catholics have no responce to this???
Click to expand...
No, just that I didn’t connect until a very short time ago.

Let’s see … is your brother saying that the word “water” is referring to the first birth, the literal physical birth, the physical separation of a baby from his mother? Someone else on this thread just noted that none of the early Christians in their writings made this interpretation. I would add that telling an older man that he first has to be born (physically) in order to do something is pretty ridiculous. After all, he and everybody else with whom he is concerned has already fulfilled that requirement. (Well, maybe not any more given the rate of abortion in our society, but it used to be that way.) I don’t think your brother’s argument passes the “straight face” test.

I am reminded of a story about a group of sages who were debating whether or not it was better never to have been born. They concluded that it was indeed better never to have been born, and then one of them said, “But who among us is so lucky?”
  • Liberian
 
It’s only been two hours since you posted your question: perhaps you should have more patience? 🙂

In the NT the contrast between “flesh” and the “spirit” is refering to the contrast of the ways of “the world” and the ways of God (do a concordance search on these terms and you’ll/he’ll get the idea). Suffice to say, the verses in question, especially within the context of the passage in question, have nothing to do with amniotic fluid. Your brother, in fact, is making the same mistake as Nicodemus when he asked “How can a person once grow old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again?” (Jn 3:4)

From an article in *This Rock * magazine:
Some argue that the phrase “water and spirit” does not refer to baptism, but rather to the natural birth in water (amniotic fluid) and the supernatural birth in the spirit. This interpretation has several flaws: For one, the context of the passage clearly points towards baptism, and there is no evidence that the Greek word for water (hudor) represents amniotic fluid. If St. John had wished to show a dichotomy between water and the spirit, he would have said, “born of water and of the spirit,” thus indicating two births. When John speaks of being born of water and the spirit, he mentions them as being a part of the same spiritual rebirth that takes place at baptism (Tit. 3:5). All of the early Christian writers understood John to be speaking in this way, and they unanimously agreed that John 3:5 referred to baptism (online see catholic.com/answers/tracts/bornagn.htm)).
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0012sbs.asp
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Valtiel:
I had my brother with this one over the salvation through baptism, but then he went to the water=womb. I said that was absurd, that if christ meant that then he word have used the greek word “mitri” or “hudos”. He then goes on to these passages. John3:6-7 "What is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, “you must be born from abaove”, How do I combat this???
Click to expand...
This would suggest that every human being born would be automatically Baptized. No need for anything else, right!
 
40.png
Valtiel:
I had my brother with this one over the salvation through baptism, but then he went to the water=womb. I said that was absurd, that if christ meant that then he word have used the greek word “mitri” or “hudos”. He then goes on to these passages. John3:6-7 "What is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, “you must be born from abaove”, How do I combat this??? Are you telling me Catholics have no response to this?
Click to expand...
I have struggled with this passage as well, but have come to the conclusion that the Catholic position is stronger on a number of levels. There are several things to address:
  1. What is the context of John 3:5-7?
  2. What are the possible interpretations of John 3:5-7? Are there any unreasonable interpretations?
  3. Are there any relevant “parallel” verses?
  4. What does the rest of the Gospel message say?
  5. What do the “big boys” - aka ECFs - have to say?
  6. What is the context of John 3:5-7?
    May I provide you with a brief summary of the Gospel of John? Here goes:
  7. What is the context of John 3:5-7?
    Chapter 1
    Intro of characters:
    a) Jesus Christ, the Word
    b) John** the Baptist **
    c) The first disciples
Chapter 2
a) The miracle at Cana …miracle involving…** water**
b)The cleansing of the Temple.…metaphor of water

Chapter 3
a) Nicodemus and “the discussion”
b) John 3:22 “After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.”

Chapter 4
a) More talk about baptizing
b) The Samaritan woman near the…well “Give me this water”

OK. I see a lot of water/baptizing/miracles going on. A large part of the emphasis leading up to and following the discussion with Nicodemus is specifically baptismal. John 3:22 is extremely significant. In addition there are the other figurative representations of water involving miracles (cana), cleansing (the temple) and everlasting life (living water/samaritan woman). The context for baptism is undeniable.
  1. What are the possible interpretations of John 3:5-7?
    Ok, so the whole crux of the discussion centers around Nicodemus’ misunderstanding of the word “anothen” which can mean “again” OR “from above” - Jesus meant the latter, Nic thought he meant the former. Lets start with John 3:5 …“no one can enter the kingdom…without being born of water and Spirit”
    I firmly agree with others that to insert the meaning of “born of woman/womb” without a single precedent either biblical or otherwise is the weakest of arguments. It is simply pulling a rabbit out of a hat, in my opinion. This one fact alone is very significant - you are not allowed to invent meanings! This is even more evident when all the other terms for natural birth which are used in the bible are considered - born of blood, etc. In addition, it is, technically, a redundancy on Christ’s part: once he uses the term “no one” we all know he’s talking about a person, ie some one who has already been born of a woman - there’s no logical need to add the “born of water” if it’s already been implicated in the term “no one”. Its like if I said to you, " I love my mother " You know we’re talking about a human woman without me saying so. The same is true in John 3:5 when He says “no one” - you already know he’s talking about some one who was born of a woman - there would be no reason to say it again. Now on to John 3:6-7. I have to tell you that you didn’t exactly explain what your brothers argument was regarding the verses - you just said that he “went to them”. Well I will explain it: He believes that the term “whatever is born of flesh is flesh” from John 3:6-7 is meant to relate to, and is equivalent to “born of water” from John3:5, and that “what is born of spirit is spirit” is meant to relate to “born of …the Spirit” in the same manner. This is certainly a reasonable interpretation, but it is not the only one. I happen to believe that Jesus was responding to the context of Nicodemus’ statement," How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely He cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can He?"John 3:4 When you focus on this context the intent of Jesus’ “whatever is born of flesh is flesh” becomes clearer. I think Jesus was trying to say that even if you could somehow re-enter the womb and be reborn of flesh (what happened to “born of water”!? - see how weak it is!) you remain flesh. That’s the point of “flesh is flesh” - its a response to Nicodemus’ silly question. Christ goes on to teach that it is only by being born of the spirit you become spiritual. Ahhh- the bible just aint so clear now is it?
con’d
 
Wow that was a workout- and Im not done! I told you I struggled with this…

3) Are there any relevant “parallel” verses?

I thank Jay Damien for this next tidbit - review Titus 3:5: "Not because of any righteous deeds we had done, but because of His mercy He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit" Take a look at how this lines up with John 3:5

“…He saved through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit”
“no one can enter heaven w/o born of water and…the holy Spirit”

I really like putting these verses together like this. Since salvation is essentially equal to entering the Kingdom of God, being renewed by the holy Spirit becomes equal to being born of the holy Spirit. And guess what else happens logically? “born of water” becomes equal to the bath of rebirth! That doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with being born of woman. And who is going to deny what the “bath of rebirth” is especially when renewal by the Holy Spirit follows it? The house of cards is crumbling…this verse is speaking about BAPTISM.
  1. What does the rest of the Gospel message say?
Do you know how many verses speak of the necessity of baptism? Lots. I’ll let others post more. Peter says to the Jews in Jerusalem when they ask him what they should do…“Repent and be baptized …for the forgiveness of sins” and also later says “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” from Acts, and Christ himself said in Matt 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of every nation; baptizing them…” I bring this up because many Protestants try to fend off the above persuasive arguments by saying that the Gospel of John is all about faith. I agree, but baptism is a part of “the faith”, not simply a symbol as they might suppose. Always has been, and always will be.
And finally,…
5) What do the “big boys” - aka ECFs - have to say?

catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

Check out this link from the catholicanswers homepage. The final straw of “being subject to the presbyters” 1Peter 5:5-6 again lands on the side of Catholicism. John 3:5 is even referred to as pertaining to baptism as is the regenerative nature of baptism as the usual way for obtaining initiation into christianity through the “washing of ones sins”.

I hope this helps…

Phil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top