Kardecians arguing against Catholic understanding of John 3:5

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Kardecian spiritists say that the Catholic understanding of John 3:5 is wrong, that it does not refer to baptism. They offer the following explanation: that to the Jews water was a symbol of physical matter (they cite the part about “the waters” in Genesis as an example), that the Jews concieved that life actually came from water. Thus, according to the Kardecians, to be born of water and the Spirit means that one must be born of body and soul again: i.e., one must re-incarnate (obviously to them the Spirit means “one’s soul and not the Holy Spirit”).

Is there any truth to this claim tha Jews viewed water as the source of all life? How do I explain to a Kardecian that their interpretation of John is wrong?

 

[Benadam]

Water is the primordial element of life. That makes it an appropriate conduit of new life if one believes that jesus is God and made all things new. Like in the first creation water is the primordial element of life, it is in the new through baptism.

The Kardecian view does not include a revelation of renewed life. It seems to offer a cyclic view of repeated life. The first creation presented a creation. What is created in the Kardecian view of rebirth? What does it reveal as new?

The Catholic perspective presents earthly life being raised up into divine life with a refined Christology. The Church brought the world something it had never known before.

There is scriptural evidence to show that John wasnot conceptualizing thesoul when he wrote of the Spirit.
Fro instance:

33 And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

32 And John gave testimony, saying: I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven, and he remained upon him.

If these examples were conceptualized as the soul of Jesus it would imply He didn’t have one untill then.