This is false on its face. The context is about a second physical birth, per Nic. So Jesus used Nic's context to make the point that it takes more than just physical birth to enter the kingdom. In fact, it takes a DIFFERENT KIND OF BIRTH to enter the kingdom.
This isn't even remotely related to John 3. Jesus wasn't talking about resurrection, but about a spiriual birth to enter the kingdom.
And consider the very next verse in John 3-
6 - Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
So, after telling Nic one must be BORN OF WATER and BORN OF THE SPIRIT, He further clarifies in v.6 by DIFFERENTIATING between physical and spiritual births.
This is very clear. But you have to pay attention to the whole context.
No, you are grossly misunderstanding the Bible.
You cannot argue against the context about Nic thinking of TWO physical births. So Jesus acknowledged TWO births alright, but one was physical and one is spiritual.
Furthermore, youe insistence on water baptism for resurrection is based on an obscure verse that no commentator understands and there is NO historical record to explain the practice.
And, it is about PROXY baptism anyway, and you have already agreed that there is NO BENEFIT to proxy baptisms.
This isn't even remotely related to John 3. Jesus wasn't talking about resurrection, but about a spiriual birth to enter the kingdom.
And consider the very next verse in John 3-
6 - Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
So, after telling Nic one must be BORN OF WATER and BORN OF THE SPIRIT, He further clarifies in v.6 by DIFFERENTIATING between physical and spiritual births.
This is very clear. But you have to pay attention to the whole context.
No, you are grossly misunderstanding the Bible.
You cannot argue against the context about Nic thinking of TWO physical births. So Jesus acknowledged TWO births alright, but one was physical and one is spiritual.
Furthermore, youe insistence on water baptism for resurrection is based on an obscure verse that no commentator understands and there is NO historical record to explain the practice.
And, it is about PROXY baptism anyway, and you have already agreed that there is NO BENEFIT to proxy baptisms.
- 1
- Show all