John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[Ferris Bueller]

It's @Ferris Bueller's argument, no one else's.

I get a lot of things from the Bible that nobody else does because very few Christians read the Bible for themselves, and if they do, they only read part of it, and they do it through the lens of their predetermined dogmas.

The Bible is like a puzzle. You have to have all the pieces to get the full picture. That is what meant by the Bible interpreting itself. Paul talks about the flesh birth in Galatians 4:29. It provides valuable insight into what Jesus was talking about when he referred to flesh giving birth to flesh. Flesh giving birth to flesh is nothing more than man's Spirit-less attempt to repent in obedience to God (example-John's baptism). It doesn't birth the spiritual man, but rather the carnal un-spiritual man. Flesh giving birth to flesh. Meanwhile, the Spirit gives birth to the spiritual man.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

...and has nothing to do with John's baptism whatsoever.

It has to do with 'repentance', of which John's baptism only represents. So it's not about the water itself. It's about what the water represents. Water is a metonymy for 'repentance". John's baptism—repentance—births natural children. Natural children who do not inherit the kingdom (Galatians 4:29). Jesus' baptism births spiritual children who do!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Paul expands on John's unwritten thought (John wasn't written yet)... in Romans... this should be "interesting".

John may have not written it yet- but Paul expanded on what was already spoken and confirmed what John was going to write about an event that was historical. For all we know the Lord could have shown it to Paul in the four years Jesus taught HIm personally in the desert

 

[GracePeace]

It has to do with 'repentance', of which John's baptism only represents. So it's not about the water itself. It's about what the water represents. Water is a metonymy for 'repentance". John's baptism—repentance—births natural children, natural children who do not inherit the kingdom (Galatians 4:29). Jesus' baptism births spiritual children who do!

"Flesh gives birth to flesh" had to do with Nicodemus's "Can a man re-enter his mother's womb and be 'born again'?" misunderstanding, nothing else.

 

[GracePeace]

John may have not written it yet- but Paul expanded on what was already spoken and confirmed what John was going to write about an event that was historical. For all we know the Lord could have shown it to Paul in the four years Jesus taught HIm personally in the desert

More empty assertions.

 

[GracePeace]

I get a lot of things from the Bible that nobody else does because very few Christians read the Bible for themselves, and if they do, they only read part of it, and they do it through the lens of their predetermined dogmas.

The Bible is like a puzzle. You have to have all the pieces to get the full picture. That is what meant by the Bible interpreting itself. Paul talks about the flesh birth in Galatians 4:29. It provides valuable insight into what Jesus was talking about when he referred to flesh giving birth to flesh. Flesh giving birth to flesh is nothing more than man's Spirit-less attempt to repent in obedience to God (example-John's baptism). It doesn't birth the spiritual man, but rather the carnal un-spiritual man. Flesh giving birth to flesh. Meanwhile, the Spirit gives birth to the spiritual man.

Well, this thing you "got" is something you need to throw back. LOL

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1. That's all well and good but you didn't show "natural birth" was referred to as "born of water" which was the consequential claim (the rest is interesting but is not really consequential).
2. No, someone who is already "naturally born" is already "naturally born" so they have already fulfilled that requirement and needn't be advised as to it as if they lacked it.

Well I can't give you anymore- so feel free to use an allegorical interpretation saying it means JOhns baptism of repentance, or water baptism or that salvation happens in two parts, born of the word and born of the spirit. That is your privilege, if I find more I will post it.

but as Jewish thought of the day was that simply by being born Jewish one entered the kingdom, and Jesus and Paul both saying that wasn't enough and with the evidence I posted and seen and heard from these teachers, I am content that born of water is natural birth which corresponds to th enext verse being born of the flesh. I know this is a Jewish connotation in a Jewish culture with a Jewish mindset.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

"Flesh gives birth to flesh" had to do with Nicodemus's "Can a man re-enter his mother's womb and be 'born again'?" misunderstanding, nothing else.

And we could leave it that if Paul had not also spoken about "the son born according to the flesh" Galatians 4:29. Jesus and Paul are talking about the same fleshly birth—the unspiritual, natural birth that occurs when a man turns to God in the power of his own flesh, like in John's baptism for repentance.

 

[GracePeace]

Well I can't give you anymore- so feel free to use an allegorical interpretation saying it means JOhns baptism of repentance, or water baptism or that salvation happens in two parts, born of the word and born of the spirit. That is your privilege, if I find more I will post it.

but as Jewish thought of the day was that simply by being born Jewish one entered the kingdom, and Jesus and Paul both saying that wasn't enough and with the evidence I posted and seen and heard from these teachers, I am content that born of water is natural birth which corresponds to th enext verse being born of the flesh. I know this is a Jewish connotation in a Jewish culture with a Jewish mindset.

No, being born of the Word and Spirit is one new birth--you receive the Spirit by receiving the Word of the Spirit. I've explained this many times yet you want to pretend for the sake of your argument (forget about truth--you have to be right) that I haven't.

You haven't shown anything from "Jewish thought of the day" that proves "born of water" was a normative way of referring to "natural birth".

 

[GracePeace]

We could leave it that if Paul had not also spoken about "the son born according to the flesh" Galatians 4:29. Jesus and Paul are talking about the same fleshly birth—the unspiritual, natural birth that occurs when a man turns to God in the power of his own flesh, like in John's baptism for repentance.

Well, again, "water... this He spoke of the Spirit" is in the same book, I don't need to go anywhere else.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You can't drink of the Spirit except by faith in the Word. Drinking the Word of the Spirit is drinking the Spirit. As Christ told the woman at the well. Then later "whoever believes from his belly will flow rivers of living water this He spoke concerning the Spirit". You're just denying the obvious--it's not working out for you.

Well Nicodemus had faith in the Word! But as we are required to have faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus alone for salvation- your argument is weak. One can be saved and reject a literal genesis and believe evolution which is not the word.

One can be saved and not know anything other than the death and resurrection of Jesus for their sin- the rest will come later. but if you want to have a tewo part salvation belief in the word- define what that means. Howmuch of the word? which parts? a literal belief or is an allegorical belief enough?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Well, this thing you "got" is something you need to throw back. LOL

No, I've gotten far too many revelations from the plain words of scripture that the church has missed, even though these revelations are right under their noses, too. Tithing is a good example. Not whether we should or not, but how tithing was actually done in the old covenant. You'd be amazed how badly the church has messed that up and deceived countless numbers of people about how to tithe. And yet the plain words of how to do it are right under our big fat denominational noses for everyone to see.....if they'll just read them for themselves.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The references you had never substantiated your claim "natural birth was normally referred to as born of water--that's how they said it in ancient Israel, you just don't understand with your Western mind".
Since you admit you're "out of ammo" though I'll take it you're admitting you have no proof. Thanks.

Other than what I wrote and the non internet references- No. If that is not enough for you- then fine! You can accept your metaphorical definition of it instead.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Well, again, "water... this He spoke of the Spirit" is in the same book, I don't need to go anywhere else.

If water was referring to the Spirit in this passage there would be no need to distinguish between being born of water and being born of Spirit.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No. I've always been a firm believer that the Bible interprets itself. Bits of history here and there is fine, though. Galatians 4 is what provided the insight to interpret John 3 for me.....

"Flesh gives birth to flesh..." John 3:6 — "...the son born according to the flesh..." Galatians 4:29

"...Spirit gives birth to spirit." John 3:6 — "...the son born by the power of the Spirit..." Galatians 4:29​

But we are not talking about flesh gives birth to flesh- we arew talking about being born of water.

Now prove it is a metynomy.

 

[GracePeace]

Other than what I wrote and the non internet references- No. If that is not enough for you- then fine! You can accept your metaphorical definition of it instead.

I invite anyone to go look at all of his citations so that you can see he offered no proof that "born of water" was a normative way of referring to "natural birth".

I go by what the author provides me with--"water... spoke of the Spirit".

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No, with the appearance of Jesus and the revelation of the gospel of faith, being water baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the all encompassing baptism commanded by Jesus. That baptism is in contrast to John's baptism which was only a baptism for repentance in preparation for the baptism of Jesus and had no promise of the Holy Spirit—the agent of the new birth—connected to it.

Sorry but the triune formula of baptism di dnot come into being until at least 3 yearts after Jesus told Nicodemus He has to be born of water and the spirit!

You were talking Johns Baptism which was another and new baptism for Israel. You can't squirm out of what you wrote previously.

 

[GracePeace]

If water was referring to the Spirit in this passage there would be no need to distinguish between being born of water and being born of Spirit.

So "He will baptize you in Spirit and fire"... is fire different from the Spirit or didn't the disciples have tongues of fire when they were baptized with the Spirit? Isn't God a consuming fire and the Spirit is the Spirit of God the consuming fire? Come on, man, it's so obvious.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is an error called "begging the question".

Well the grammar is what determines the fact they are two separate births. so it is not begging the question.

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

YOu have a compound in the second half of the statement. So the statement can be true either as a compound, using the first comp-onent or the second.

So you have a correct statement saying Unless one is born of water AND the SPirit....
You also have a correct statement Unless one is born of water.....
You also have a correct statement Unless one is born of the spirit.......
( I do mean grammatically)

So unless you are prepared to sahow how Jesus was saying one birth divided ito two parts or whatever you are trying to mean- the natural , normal grammatical way of looking at this is one has to undergo two births. One of water and one of the sapirit.

Your turn.

 

[GracePeace]

Well the grammar is what determines the fact they are two separate births. so it is not begging the question.

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

YOu have a compound in the second half of the statement. So the statement can be true either as a compound, using the first comp-onent or the second.

So you have a correct statement saying Unless one is born of water AND the SPirit....
You also have a correct statement Unless one is born of water.....
You also have a correct statement Unless one is born of the spirit.......
( I do mean grammatically)

So unless you are prepared to sahow how Jesus was saying one birth divided ito two parts or whatever you are trying to mean- the natural , normal grammatical way of looking at this is one has to undergo two births. One of water and one of the sapirit.

Your turn.

I won't lose the forest for the trees.
The entire context of the conversation, and of the book, show me "water and Spirit" refers to the new birth.

By your reasoning, "He will baptize you with Spirit and fire" isn't a single baptism--but it is.