
Amniotic fluid is a rather modern term.
Since the beginning of mankind....any female having birthed a child, or anyone having assisted birthing a child....can plainly see the a gush of water and child come forth from the sac (placenta) inside the womb, and have the sense to know, that is a child being born!
Taken: "Natural birth IS one being born out of a water sac.
Jesus simplified it saying; BORN OF WATER."
You just unwittingly conceded my point: to repeat, you can provide no example of the use of "born of water" as a reference to amniotic fluid or its equivalent. So you brazenly eisegete into the text!
Taken: "Jesus said more than simply: BORN OF WATER, Jesus expressly revealed that a MAN had to “ BE BORN OF WATER
AND BORN OF the HOLY SPIRIT “ to enter the Kingdom of “GOD”.
As Catholics recognize, you again brazenly miss the point: Jesus is identifying 2 conditions that must be met to "enter the kingdom of heaven."
Natural birth is no such condition because all humans experience it.
Taken: "John the Baptists baptism was for repentance of sin...NOT a WATER BIRTH!
Matt 3:[
11] I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:"
First, Christian baptism, not John's baptism, is the point at issue in John 3:3, 5.
Second, if you actually read my post carefully, you'd realize that. according to Peter, divine forgiveness requires both repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38) and that is why Peter can proceed to say, "Baptism...now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)." Interesting how you freeze like Bambi in the headlights before these texts from God's Word. All doubt about "born of water" as a baptismal reference is removed by Jesus' identification of faith and baptism as a condition for salvation: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16)."