Being born of water and Spirit

[SomeDisciple]

Previously, while researching this topic of "born of water", I have heard it said that it's not recorded anywhere that the Jews used the term 'water' for referring to natural birth, So therefore this must refer to hydro-baptismal regeneration.

Well, I don't think people look very hard to find things they don't want to find. I might have found a reference by complete accident.

Last night I was just letting youtube videos roll for background noise, and there is Nancy Pelosi looking sad and pathetic because her archbishhop is disgusted with her position on abortion. I expected her to ramble on, one stupid thing after another- but she said something smart! Well, something that was "factual" anyway- and it reminded me that many "jews" support abortion. Triggered by the notion; my heart demanded to know why this foolishness prevailed.

The Jewish approval of abortion (which is complete garbage) is apparenty outlined in the (completely worthless in my mind up until now) Talmud. Of course the Talmud doesn't have anything of value with respect to doctrine- but it does give insight into rabbinical thought- and in the Talmud- up until 40 days after conception, an embryo is considered "mere water" without a soul. Now I dont know who they thought they were to make a ruling on when God ensouls a baby. And I am convinced beyond doubt that it is utterly false to say an embryo is "part of a womans body". But that is tangental to the fact that the embryo was referred to as "water".

Now, I don't have a Talmud, and I don't know if the words in the Talmud are correctly translated "mere water" or "mere fluid"... but I'm going to find out.

I would hate to think that someone would say "there is no historical jewish reference to natural birth/water" without having checked the most obvious references.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Previously, while researching this topic of "born of water", I have heard it said that it's not recorded anywhere that the Jews used the term 'water' for referring to natural birth, So therefore this must refer to hydro-baptismal regeneration.

Let's look at the passage in John 3-

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. ”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

v.3 Jesus tells Nic that to enter the kingdom they need to be "born again".
v.4 Nic is very confused and thinks Jesus was speaking of a second physical birth, from his comment about entering mother's womb a second time.
v.5 Jesus clarifies what He means by telling him that no one enters the kingdom unless they are "born of water and the Spirit".
v.6 Jesus further clarifies "born of water and the Spirit" by noting physical and spiritual birth.

If v.5 is a reference to water baptism, then v.6 wouldn't be needed, and is, in fact, irrelevant to the rest of the context.

John described the proof of Jesus' death in John 19:34 - Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

In fact, after death, the blood pools in the body and begins to separate. So when the spear pierced Jesus' side, John actually saw blood and SERUM. But to him, it appeared as water.

So Jesus' comment about being "born of water" is a legitimate way to describe physical birth. Which v.6 PROVES.

 

[Runningman]

Previously, while researching this topic of "born of water", I have heard it said that it's not recorded anywhere that the Jews used the term 'water' for referring to natural birth, So therefore this must refer to hydro-baptismal regeneration.

Well, I don't think people look very hard to find things they don't want to find. I might have found a reference by complete accident.

Last night I was just letting youtube videos roll for background noise, and there is Nancy Pelosi looking sad and pathetic because her archbishhop is disgusted with her position on abortion. I expected her to ramble on, one stupid thing after another- but she said something smart! Well, something that was "factual" anyway- and it reminded me that many "jews" support abortion. Triggered by the notion; my heart demanded to know why this foolishness prevailed.

The Jewish approval of abortion (which is complete garbage) is apparenty outlined in the (completely worthless in my mind up until now) Talmud. Of course the Talmud doesn't have anything of value with respect to doctrine- but it does give insight into rabbinical thought- and in the Talmud- up until 40 days after conception, an embryo is considered "mere water" without a soul. Now I dont know who they thought they were to make a ruling on when God ensouls a baby. And I am convinced beyond doubt that it is utterly false to say an embryo is "part of a womans body". But that is tangental to the fact that the embryo was referred to as "water".

Now, I don't have a Talmud, and I don't know if the words in the Talmud are correctly translated "mere water" or "mere fluid"... but I'm going to find out.

I would hate to think that someone would say "there is no historical jewish reference to natural birth/water" without having checked the most obvious references.

Following that line of thought you're presenting, plugging it into the Bible, and testing the spirits, then Jesus would have been saying "you must be an embryo to enter the kingdom of God." again the live birth angle doesn't make Biblical sense and doesn't appear to be a common usage of the word "water" one time or even two times in the scriptures.

Very interesting comment though.

 

[Runningman]

Let's look at the passage in John 3-

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. ”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

No problem quoting scripture in my thread.

v.3 Jesus tells Nic that to enter the kingdom they need to be "born again".
v.4 Nic is very confused and thinks Jesus was speaking of a second physical birth, from his comment about entering mother's womb a second time.
v.5 Jesus clarifies what He means by telling him that no one enters the kingdom unless they are "born of water and the Spirit".
v.6 Jesus further clarifies "born of water and the Spirit" by noting physical and spiritual birth.

Correct.

If v.5 is a reference to water baptism, then v.6 wouldn't be needed, and is, in fact, irrelevant to the rest of the context.

The word of God disagree with you because verse 5 and 6 are needed since they are included in the passage and it's a reference to water baptism.

John described the proof of Jesus' death in John 19:34 - Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Correct.

In fact, after death, the blood pools in the body and begins to separate.

False. Not long after death, the body undergoes a process called rigor mortis where the soft tissues harden due to blood coagulation. The blood turns to a consistency of jelly and causes the entire body to become stiff.

So when the spear pierced Jesus' side, John actually saw blood and SERUM. But to him, it appeared as water.

So Jesus' comment about being "born of water" is a legitimate way to describe physical birth. Which v.6 PROVES.

That's your fantasy. I'll continue to watch this thread until you're tired of posting heresy.

 

[SomeDisciple]

Following that line of thought you're presenting, plugging it into the Bible, and testing the spirits, then Jesus would have been saying "you must be an embryo to enter the kingdom of God." again the live birth angle doesn't make Biblical sense and doesn't appear to be a common usage of the word "water" one time or even two times in the scriptures.

Very interesting comment though.

No... he would not be saying you need to BE AN EMBRYO. He'd just be saying you have to be born as an embryo and born again spiritually to enter. Natural and spiritul birth.

I don't know how you say that doesn't make sense to you. Its pretty straightforward.

Baptism is never described as being "born of water" in the scriptures. The phrase never even appears in the bible again.

IF "born of water" meant natural birth in Jewish thought, then that's probably what Jesus meant, since he is a jew sitting there talking to a Jewish Rabbi who would have understood it that way. Unless you think Jesus was trying to trick Nicodemos, there is almost no chance it refers to water baptism.

 

[Runningman]

No... he would not be saying you need to BE AN EMBRYO. He'd just be saying you have to be born as an embryo and born again spiritually to enter. Natural and spiritul birth.

I don't know how you say that doesn't make sense to you. Its pretty straightforward.

Baptism is never described as being "born of water" in the scriptures. The phrase never even appears in the bible again.

IF "born of water" meant natural birth in Jewish thought, then that's probably what Jesus meant, since he is a jew sitting there talking to a Jewish Rabbi who would have understood it that way. Unless you think Jesus was trying to trick Nicodemos, there is almost no chance it refers to water baptism.

No...

Nicodemus thought it was a natural birth and got refuted for that. As a "master of Israel" Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus was talking about. Nicodemus thought that being "born again" meant having a second natural birth, but Jesus said those who are born of "water and Spirit" are born again. If Jesus was referring to a physical natural birth then our physical natural birth is the first birth and not an additional physical birth whereby we are born a second time. Hence the term "born again."

In other words, when you were physically born you weren't born again you were born the first time. Therefore there is almost no chance Jesus was talking about a natural birth.

Alternatively, in order to make your interpretation work for a physical birth then one would have to physically die and then be reincarnated and given birth to again. In that way it could be said someone is born again of water and Spirit, but reincarnation is not a Biblical concept.

Think critically about this. Do you see what I am trying to explain in this thread now? Water is baptism and there are plenty of verses that talk about water immersion as a symbol of death and resurrection - a kind of rebirth.

 

[SomeDisciple]

No...

Nicodemus thought it was a natural birth and got refuted for that. As a "master of Israel" Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus was talking about. Nicodemus thought that being "born again" meant having a second natural birth, but Jesus said those who are born of "water and Spirit" are born again. If Jesus was referring to a physical natural birth then our physical natural birth is the first birth and not an additional physical birth whereby we are born a second time. Hence the term "born again."

In other words, when you were physically born you weren't born again you were born the first time. Therefore there is almost no chance Jesus was talking about a natural birth.

Alternatively, in order to make your interpretation work for a physical birth then one would have to physically die and then be reincarnated and given birth to again. In that way it could be said someone is born again of water and Spirit, but reincarnation is not a Biblical concept.

Think critically about this. Do you see what I am trying to explain in this thread now? Water is baptism and there are plenty of verses that talk about water immersion as a symbol of death and resurrection - a kind of rebirth.

I know, you're trying to force "water" and "the spirit" to refer to the same birth. But in John 3:8 jesus says nothing about water; and that's because it's not the same birth.

 

[Runningman]

I know, you're trying to force "water" and "the spirit" to refer to the same birth. But in John 3:8 jesus says nothing about water; and that's because it's not the same birth.

"Water and Spirit" together are required and there's Biblical precedent for it. So I don't need to force anything. Actually you're the one trying to force water into a live birth and it just isn't going to happen here.

Water necessary to be clean from sins and a pre-requisite for a new heart and a new spirit:
Ezekiel 36:25-27
25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Water baptism and Spirit baptism required:
Matthew 3:11
11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Water baptism is part of fulfilling all righteousness:
Matthew 3:15
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.

The Holy Spirit didn't descend upon and remain on Jesus until His water baptism and it was then when God is recorded to have first said "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.":
Matthew 3:16
16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

[Franklu]

谢谢上帝

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Let's look at the passage in John 3-

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. ”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

No problem quoting scripture in my thread.

Thanks for your permission.

I said:
v.3 Jesus tells Nic that to enter the kingdom they need to be "born again".
v.4 Nic is very confused and thinks Jesus was speaking of a second physical birth, from his comment about entering mother's womb a second time.
v.5 Jesus clarifies what He means by telling him that no one enters the kingdom unless they are "born of water and the Spirit".
v.6 Jesus further clarifies "born of water and the Spirit" by noting physical and spiritual birth.

Correct.

Then why all the pushback and argument over what Jesus meant in v.5 about "born of water"????

I said;
"If v.5 is a reference to water baptism, then v.6 wouldn't be needed, and is, in fact, irrelevant to the rest of the context."

The word of God disagree with you because verse 5 and 6 are needed since they are included in the passage and it's a reference to water baptism.

See? You really DON'T agree at all with my explanation. And I continue to be amazed at your blind stubornness. There is NO water baptism in v.6. There is physical and spiritual birth in v.6. Anyone who understands English understands this.

I said:
"John described the proof of Jesus' death in John 19:34 - Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

Correct.

How can you agree?

I said:
"In fact, after death, the blood pools in the body and begins to separate."

False. Not long after death, the body undergoes a process called rigor mortis where the soft tissues harden due to blood coagulation. The blood turns to a consistency of jelly and causes the entire body to become stiff.

Well, you're just as wrong here. Yes, rigor mortis will develop eventually, but NOT within a few hours. You need to study up on physiology before answering what you are ignorant of.

I said:
"So when the spear pierced Jesus' side, John actually saw blood and SERUM. But to him, it appeared as water.

So Jesus' comment about being "born of water" is a legitimate way to describe physical birth. Which v.6 PROVES."

That's your fantasy. I'll continue to watch this thread until you're tired of posting heresy.

You are the proponent of heresy. Water baptism is a ritual only. It is the public demonstration of our faith in Christ and our union with Him. I've already shown you all the verses, which you have chosen to disregard.

1 Cor 15:23 proves that water baptism isn't required for resurrection, since the verse says "those who belong to Him" will be in that single resurrection. That means ALL believers.

Notice what it doesn't say: "those who have been water baptized". But that is what you believe.

 

[Runningman]

FreeGrace2 said:
Let's look at the passage in John 3-

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. ”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Thanks for your permission.

I said:
v.3 Jesus tells Nic that to enter the kingdom they need to be "born again".
v.4 Nic is very confused and thinks Jesus was speaking of a second physical birth, from his comment about entering mother's womb a second time.
v.5 Jesus clarifies what He means by telling him that no one enters the kingdom unless they are "born of water and the Spirit".
v.6 Jesus further clarifies "born of water and the Spirit" by noting physical and spiritual birth.

Then why all the pushback and argument over what Jesus meant in v.5 about "born of water"????

I said;
"If v.5 is a reference to water baptism, then v.6 wouldn't be needed, and is, in fact, irrelevant to the rest of the context."

See? You really DON'T agree at all with my explanation. And I continue to be amazed at your blind stubornness. There is NO water baptism in v.6. There is physical and spiritual birth in v.6. Anyone who understands English understands this.

I said:
"John described the proof of Jesus' death in John 19:34 - Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

How can you agree?

I said:
"In fact, after death, the blood pools in the body and begins to separate."

Well, you're just as wrong here. Yes, rigor mortis will develop eventually, but NOT within a few hours. You need to study up on physiology before answering what you are ignorant of.

I said:
"So when the spear pierced Jesus' side, John actually saw blood and SERUM. But to him, it appeared as water.

So Jesus' comment about being "born of water" is a legitimate way to describe physical birth. Which v.6 PROVES."

You are the proponent of heresy. Water baptism is a ritual only. It is the public demonstration of our faith in Christ and our union with Him. I've already shown you all the verses, which you have chosen to disregard.

1 Cor 15:23 proves that water baptism isn't required for resurrection, since the verse says "those who belong to Him" will be in that single resurrection. That means ALL believers.

Notice what it doesn't say: "those who have been water baptized". But that is what you believe.

John 3:5,6 is about water baptism and I’ve proved it repeatedly. You’re blind, no offense, but that’s a fact. You seem unable to understand this and i guess it’s because you’ve been indoctrinated into a belief system. It happens all the time in religion and faith.

I think rather than have pointless fruitless debates that will go no where, it’s better to just gracefully agree to disagree rather than continue your heresy comment after comment after comment. The choice is yours, but don’t keep dropping your garbage off in my thread please.

And 1 Cor. 15:23 only proves that a resurrection is coming which isn’t in question. The point in question is about water baptism and being born of water and Spirit. 1 Cor. 15:23 doesn’t prove what you’re saying it does and we’ve already gone over it anyway. Those who belong to Christ are in Christ and those who are in Christ have been baptized into Christ per Romans 6:4,5.

How about you open a thread with scripture proving how to be resurrected? Or did you not find any scripture about how to be resurrected?

 

[Live4Him3]

I’m a new Christian. Many things I have learned about the Bible have occurred within the past 3 years. I am always willing to change what I believe to be more accurate. You really know nothing about me. You just want to judge me and argue.

I take it you’re a mature Christian? What kind of example are you setting here today?

His "gift" seems to be making totally off-the-mark comments without the slightest bit of remorse. You're certainly not the first to be on the receiving end of the same.

Don't pay him any mind.

 

[FreeGrace2]

John 3:5,6 is about water baptism and I’ve proved it repeatedly.

There is NOTHING in v.6 about water baptism. Even gradeschoolers can figure out that Jesus was talking about physical and spiritual birth in v.6.

Why can't you grasp "flesh gives birth to flesh" as a physical birth? Your bias has gotten in the way of reality.

You’re blind, no offense, but that’s a fact.

Says Mr unable to read straight.

You seem unable to understand this and i guess it’s because you’ve been indoctrinated into a belief system. It happens all the time in religion and faith.

Everything you claim, belongs to YOU, not me.

It's actually laughable at your failed understanding of John 3:6, where Jesus makes clear He was differentiating between physical and spiritual birth.

And 1 Cor. 15:23 only proves that a resurrection is coming which isn’t in question.

Of course it is. Multiple verses say so. But where is the "requirement for water baptism" in this verse. The only requirement is to "belong to Him". Do you understand what that means? It means BELIEVERS. It doesn't say "believers who have been baptized in water".

The point in question is about water baptism and being born of water and Spirit.

I've answered your question. There is NOTHING in John 3 about water baptism. You need to give it up.

1 Cor. 15:23 doesn’t prove what you’re saying it does and we’ve already gone over it anyway.

That's weird. That verse SAYS exactly what I say. This only proves that you can't read straight.

Those who belong to Christ are in Christ and those who are in Christ have been baptized into Christ per Romans 6:4,5.

OK, this is where we part company. Being "baptized INTO Christ" isn't about water immersion. It's about Eph 1:13.

You know, that verse that you won't touch with a 40 foot pole. We are "baptized into Christ" by the sealing ministry of the Spirit.

How about you open a thread with scripture proving how to be resurrected?

Because I don't deal with silly threads. Every believer WILL BE resurrected/glorified.

What you still can't prove is that to be resurrected and glorified, the believer must be water baptized.

And 1 Cor 15:29 doesn't even come close. You are living a fantasy.

Or did you not find any scripture about how to be resurrected?

Why would anyone need to learn how to be resurrected? Sounds as if you think a believer needs to do something in order to be resurrected "when He comes".

Once a believer, resurrection/glorification GUARANTEED. That is the Bible.

What you peddle is entirely something else.

 

[Runningman]

There is NOTHING in v.6 about water baptism. Even gradeschoolers can figure out that Jesus was talking about physical and spiritual birth in v.6.

Why can't you grasp "flesh gives birth to flesh" as a physical birth? Your bias has gotten in the way of reality.


Says Mr unable to read straight.


Everything you claim, belongs to YOU, not me.

It's actually laughable at your failed understanding of John 3:6, where Jesus makes clear He was differentiating between physical and spiritual birth.


Of course it is. Multiple verses say so. But where is the "requirement for water baptism" in this verse. The only requirement is to "belong to Him". Do you understand what that means? It means BELIEVERS. It doesn't say "believers who have been baptized in water".


I've answered your question. There is NOTHING in John 3 about water baptism. You need to give it up.


That's weird. That verse SAYS exactly what I say. This only proves that you can't read straight.


OK, this is where we part company. Being "baptized INTO Christ" isn't about water immersion. It's about Eph 1:13.

You know, that verse that you won't touch with a 40 foot pole. We are "baptized into Christ" by the sealing ministry of the Spirit.


Because I don't deal with silly threads. Every believer WILL BE resurrected/glorified.

What you still can't prove is that to be resurrected and glorified, the believer must be water baptized.

And 1 Cor 15:29 doesn't even come close. You are living a fantasy.


Why would anyone need to learn how to be resurrected? Sounds as if you think a believer needs to do something in order to be resurrected "when He comes".

Once a believer, resurrection/glorification GUARANTEED. That is the Bible.

What you peddle is entirely something else.

Okay you seem to know everything. Which verse, verses, or passage instruct believers how to be resurrected? Resurrection is an essential doctrine in the Christian faith so surely the Bible says something about how we get resurrected. And you apparently know everything so you surely have a verse or verses that tells me know to get resurrected like Jesus was.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Okay you seem to know everything.

Thanks for noting.

Which verse, verses, or passage instruct believers how to be resurrected?

Are you blind? Didn't you read my previous posts? Why do you persist in this very silly line of questions?

You can't even quote a verse that says water baptism is required to be resurrected.

Resurrection is an essential doctrine in the Christian faith so surely the Bible says something about how we get resurrected.

Since you have noted that I seem to know everything, I am happy to inform you that the Bible has promised that those who belong to Christ WILL BE resurrected.

So, it's not about "how to be...". It is a PROMISE that will be fulfilled.

Do you comprehend the vast difference here?

And you apparently know everything so you surely have a verse or verses that tells me know to get resurrected like Jesus was.

Back up a bit and re-read my comment over and over until it actually sinks in.

And you too can begin to know more and more.

 

[Runningman]

Thanks for noting.


Are you blind? Didn't you read my previous posts? Why do you persist in this very silly line of questions?

You can't even quote a verse that says water baptism is required to be resurrected.


Since you have noted that I seem to know everything, I am happy to inform you that the Bible has promised that those who belong to Christ WILL BE resurrected.

So, it's not about "how to be...". It is a PROMISE that will be fulfilled.

Do you comprehend the vast difference here?


Back up a bit and re-read my comment over and over until it actually sinks in.

And you too can begin to know more and more.

You're a false teacher 100% proven now. You can't even quote scripture to back up your claims.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're a false teacher 100% proven now.

Thanks for your phony opinion.

You can't even quote scripture to back up your claims.

You are blind.

 

[Runningman]

Actually I relish the opportunity to shut you down publicly and thoroughly again and again and again.

Thanks for your phony opinion.


You are blind.

Ad hominem is the death howl of the defeated false teacher who cannot even provide scripture that directly refutes the OP. If you don’t have clear scripture then you don’t need to be trying to refute the OP of this thread.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually I relish the opportunity to shut you down publicly and thoroughly again and again and again.

When do you think that will happen?

FreeGrace2 said:
Thanks for your phony opinion.
You are blind.

Ad hominem is the death howl of the defeated false teacher who cannot even provide scripture that directly refutes the OP. If you don’t have clear scripture then you don’t need to be trying to refute the OP of this thread.

You don't know the meaning of ad hominem. I have described your ability to read print.

The verses I have shared are easy to read and understand. Doesn't take a "theologian" to sort them out or some fancy "commentator".

Anyone can read and understand what they mean by what they say.

Except you. I am always amazed at your explanations of verses that don't come near what you claim they mean.

Would glasses help?