John 3:5

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4aReasn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic4aReasn

Guest
Some Christians believe that the “water” in John 3:5 is a reference to amniotic fluid. Does anyone know if the Greek word used for “water” in John 3:5 was also used to mean “amniotic fluid” in 1st century Jewish culture? Likewise, in that same time and culture, was the
Aramaic word that Jesus likely spoke for “water” commonly also used to mean “amniotic fluid”?

I know that in our time and culture one often speaks of one’s “water” breaking, but was the same true of the NT languages, time and culture?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
 
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon Transliterated Word

Hudor water

  1. *]of water in rivers, in fountains, in pools
    *]of the water of the deluge
    *]of water in any of the earth’s repositories
    *]of water as the primary element, out of and through which the world that was before the deluge, arose and was compacted
    *]of the waves of the sea
    *]fig. used of many peoples
 
According to my interpretation in this verse,you see Nicodemos recognizing birth from the womb of his mother.I believe Jesus is speaking about 2 births here. One from the womb and the other from the spirit[born again experience]. We are born twice and we die once as christians. In verse 6 you see flesh begets flesh and spirit begets spirit. :confused:
 
Here’s a short answer from Father Mateo:

QUOTE:

If you read Titus 3:5 together with John 3:5 (easy to remember because they’re both 3:5!), you hear Our Lord saying, “No one can enter the kingdom of God (i.e., no one can be saved) without being born of water and the Spirit” (i.e., without being baptized). Paul in Titus 3:5 reaffirms this: “He (Christ) saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit” (i.e. through baptism, which is both rebirth of water and the Spirit and the forgiveness of sins). The bath of rebirth is baptism.

END QUOTE

The amniotic fluid interpretation is purely Protestant and comes centuries too late to accurately represent what Jesus meant when he spoke these words. And this interpretation is not universally held by all Protestants.

Many (most?) Protestants teach that baptism is not a Sacrament – i.e., that it does not wash away sin and does not confer the Holy Spirit upon the baptized – and that it is merely symbolic and some claim it is unnecessary. Therefore they couldn’t have Jesus saying that baptism is a prerequisite for heaven. The amniotic fluid idea was invented to “prove” this novel teaching. It’s called “twisting the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15).

Read everything the New Testament has to say about baptism. Read the practice of the first Christians to see how they understood the teaching of the Apostles. Baptism replaced circumcision as the rite of initiation into the People of God, the New Israel (Gal 6:16), the Catholic Church. It washes away sin and confers the Holy Spirit. It requires water, not amniotic fluid!

JMJ Jay (former Protestant)
 
In my oppinion , It is not the water that saves us ,its the BLOOD of our Lord Jesus Christ that saves us. 👍
 
40.png
Katholikos:
Here’s a short answer from Father Mateo:

QUOTE:

If you read Titus 3:5 together with John 3:5 (easy to remember because they’re both 3:5!), you hear Our Lord saying, “No one can enter the kingdom of God (i.e., no one can be saved) without being born of water and the Spirit” (i.e., without being baptized). Paul in Titus 3:5 reaffirms this: “He (Christ) saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit” (i.e. through baptism, which is both rebirth of water and the Spirit and the forgiveness of sins). The bath of rebirth is baptism.

END QUOTE

The amniotic fluid interpretation is purely Protestant and comes centuries too late to accurately represent what Jesus meant when he spoke these words. And this interpretation is not universally held by all Protestants.

Many (most?) Protestants teach that baptism is not a Sacrament – i.e., that it does not wash away sin and does not confer the Holy Spirit upon the baptized – and that it is merely symbolic and some claim it is unnecessary. Therefore they couldn’t have Jesus saying that baptism is a prerequisite for heaven. The amniotic fluid idea was invented to “prove” this novel teaching. It’s called “twisting the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15).

Read everything the New Testament has to say about baptism. Read the practice of the first Christians to see how they understood the teaching of the Apostles. Baptism replaced circumcision as the rite of initiation into the People of God, the New Israel (Gal 6:16), the Catholic Church. It washes away sin and confers the Holy Spirit. It requires water, not amniotic fluid!

JMJ Jay (former Protestant)
Click to expand...
I do believe that we do have to repent Johns baptism] of our sins and then recieve the Spirit of God to be born again. Yes water and spirit 👍
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
According to my interpretation in this verse,you see Nicodemos recognizing birth from the womb of his mother.I believe Jesus is speaking about 2 births here. One from the womb and the other from the spirit[born again experience]. We are born twice and we die once as christians. In verse 6 you see flesh begets flesh and spirit begets spirit. :confused:
Click to expand...
I’m wondering if that’s how the word “water” was commonly used in 1st century Jerusalem. I ask because according to the unanymous interpretation of the early Christians, according to their writings, “water” in John 3:5 is a reference to water baptism. Whose interpretation is correct, yours or the early Christians, and how can we be sure? When did the “amniotic fluid” interpretation come into vogue and why?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
In my oppinion , It is not the water that saves us ,its the BLOOD of our Lord Jesus Christ that saves us. 👍
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. That blood is applied to us personally and individually through the waters of baptism (1 Peter 3:21).

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
I do believe that we do have to repent Johns baptism] of our sins and then recieve the Spirit of God to be born again. Yes water and spirit 👍
Click to expand...
The early Christ writers unanymously agree that the water is not that of John’s baptism but Christ’s; the “baptism [that] now saves us (1 Peter 3:21)”.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
The early Christ writers unanymously agree that the water is not that of John’s baptism but Christ’s; the “baptism [that] now saves us (1 Peter 3:21)”.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...
Baptism of the Holy Spirit.? :confused:
 
John 3:5 .Here is an exerpt from the 1582 Douay-Rheims Bible. It is a comentary.

verse 5.The ancient Fathers and particularly S. Aug. in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ’s adding water is excluded a metaphorical baptism. Also see ActsVIII: 36.
The Acts verse shows that baptism is to be given with water.

Pardon me if I am “interpreting” the original question incorrectly, did you imply that an infant is baptised during birth due to the fact that some amniotic fluid contacts the infant; Therefore, baptism after complete birth is redundant? I had to ask.
 
40.png
Exporter:
John 3:5 .Here is an exerpt from the 1582 Douay-Rheims Bible. It is a comentary.

verse 5.The ancient Fathers and particularly S. Aug. in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ’s adding water is excluded a metaphorical baptism. Also see ActsVIII: 36.
The Acts verse shows that baptism is to be given with water.

Pardon me if I am “interpreting” the original question incorrectly, did you imply that an infant is baptised during birth due to the fact that some amniotic fluid contacts the infant; Therefore, baptism after complete birth is redundant? I had to ask.
Click to expand...
acts8vs35. Philip is preaching the good news of Jesus Christ,the message of salvation. Again in my oppinion this was a baptism of repentence[Johns baptism] and then recieving the Holy Spirit[baptism of the Holy Spirit] :confused: John baptised in water and Jesus baptized in the Holy Spirit. 👍
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
acts8vs35. Philip is preaching the good news of Jesus Christ,the message of salvation. Again in my oppinion this was a baptism of repentence[Johns baptism] and then recieving the Holy Spirit[baptism of the Holy Spirit] :confused: John baptised in water and Jesus baptized in the Holy Spirit. 👍
Click to expand...
But is your opinion, your interpretation, true? If so, how can we be infallibley certain? We need to be since it’s the truth which sets us free.

Can’t recall who said this but it holds true: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own truth.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
There are no indications whatsoever that the Jews associated child birth with the amniotic fluid in a way that would be required to affirm non-Catholic teaching on John 3:5.

Instead the Jews would have associated childbirth with blood as is shown in John 1:12-13 where we read, “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.” This and the verse from Titus 3:5 should be sufficient to refute the contention that Jesus is referring to the amniotic fluid.

The amniotic fluid idea is not based on exegesis but is, instead, based on eisegesis.
 
In my opinion, “born of water” modifies “and of the Spirit”. In other words, born of water and the Spirit refers to the same thing, namely sacramental baptism.

It cannot possibly be, in my opinion, that “born of water” refers to physical birth. The phrase referring to physical birth has always been “born of woman”. For example:

Mat 11:11 Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

The term “born of water” was introduced by Our Lord in this dialogue with Nicodemus. It does not appear previously in the scriptures, nor is it recorded that Nicodemus suggested the phrase. It just does not make sense if the phrase refers to something other than the same baptism as “born of the Spirit”.
 
Another reason we know that Jesus was talking about the water of baptism in John 3:5 is because the scriptures that immediately follow the meeting with Nicodemus say that, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea: there he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22). The subsequent verses also mention that John the Baptist was nearby baptizing because there was an abundance of water. Baptism has always been associated with water, whereas childbirth in Jewish usage was more likely associated with blood or as Ecce Homo has pointed out, “being born of woman.”
 
CD-R John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

NAB Jesus answered, Amen amen I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of god without being born of water and Spirit (3:5)
(Jn 3:3) 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”
note: Born, see Jn 1,13, From above: the Greek adverb anothen means both “from above” and “again”

As Nicodemus had no trouble seeing, this baptism would not refer to childbirth since that is being born “the first time” and “of the flesh” so it cannot refer to being born “again” or “or the Spirit”
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Which occurs through water baptism (Acts 2:38).

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...
Nancy, True, after repentence and water baptism,then you will recieve the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top