Womb Water, Huh?
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mayim is waters....plurality of various bodies of water.
Yam is the sea.
Mayim is plural waters.
Hashamayim is waters of waters or more colloquially the sky.
Hashamayim hashamayim is waters of waters of waters of waters or the "highest heavens".....where God lives.
But....
There are types of waters too as well as their symbolic and metaphorical meanings
The Sea is always tossing and turning. Always in Chaos and never at rest. (Surf never stops)
Dew and rain are gifts from God....dew can be quite heavy in Israel as they are below sea level.
Rivers or springs that are flowing "living" water....
Stored water is brackish and nasty...necessary at times to drink to stay alive....but nasty.
Stolen water is sweet but still doesn't satisfy....drink from your own well is the proverb.
If you ever see or visit the wilderness areas there in those deserts....water is everything. Water is life. Without water there arent even any bugs. But the second there is water....vegetation, bugs, birds and etc begin to exist. Most wilderness areas there are full of rock....ankle and leg breaking rock.
The idea of baptism is not in the text. When Jesus says that a man must be born of water, he is talking about natural childbirth. However, when Jesus talks about being born of the flesh, he is no longer talking about natural childbirth in the general sense of the word; he is talking about being born Jewish.
This reading of Johh 3 is possible if we track Jesus’ language the way Nicodemus would have heard it, and it actually produces a coherent flow in the conversation. In the first statement—“born of water”—Jesus is speaking in the ordinary, physical sense of human birth. Water was a common Jewish idiom for childbirth (the breaking of the waters), and Nicodemus’ response shows he is thinking in exactly those terms. But when Jesus shifts to “born of flesh,” the meaning narrows: he is no longer talking about *generic* human birth but Jewish birth specifically, the covenant identity Nicodemus is relying on. “Flesh gives birth to flesh” means that natural descent—being born Jewish—cannot produce entrance into the kingdom. What is needed is a second birth, one produced by the Spirit. In other words, Jesus tells Nicodemus that **physical birth (water)** and **ethnic covenant birth (flesh)** are insufficient; only Spirit‑birth grants the ability to *see* and *enter* God’s kingdom. This reading fits the context: Jesus is dismantling Nicodemus’ reliance on Jewish lineage and calling him to the new, Spirit‑created life of the coming age.
No....
"Born of water" is a reference to Law....God's laws as in the Torah.
God is the author of all law....and in my post above I clearly delineate out why. It's a word game reflective of their specific culture.
"Born from above" is a title....a label. A group of people in a caste based society. Duh....
Its amazing to me how so many people make a complete disaster out if this passage just to support some lame worthless theology they want to hold onto. What is so wrong with the God who is instead of the god they want to make him out to be?
What Jesus actually taught is that unless we are saved we are not baptized (Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 16:15-16, John 3:16, 16:13).
Agreement is good. Hopefully we agree Jesus taught that unless we are saved via faith, we are not SB
(Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 16:15-16, John 3:16, 16:13).
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In regard to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels water with being born out of a mother’s womb and with flesh based on the answer of Nicodemus to Jesus. Simply stated in that case, two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth accompanied by amniotic "water" and the second is Spirit.
There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.
Now if "water" is defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again. So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.
Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, and we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)
There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.
Now if "water" is defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again. So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.
Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, and we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)
Anyone who professes faith but is not baptized for the remission of sins is confused and his or her profession is a empty one.
Do not be deceived, any profession of faith without the baptism for the remission of sins is a dead faith.
Hence the reason for Jesus to add baptism when He spoke in Mark 16:16.
I strongly suspect that Jesus said this because He knew people like you would come.
Mark 16:16 is not in the better manuscripts and I doubt you handle asps or drink poison or your faith would be dead.
Scripture couldn't be any clearer as to what Jesus meant by water and Spirit. Both water and Spirit are documented as essential in all detailed conversion accounts. (Acts 2:4-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7)
Scripture couldn't be any clearer as to what Jesus meant by water and Spirit. Both water and Spirit are documented as essential in all detailed conversion accounts. (Acts 2:4-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7)
Actually, Scripture could be clearer, because the early historic Acts accounts were superseded by the later Pauline doctrinal teachings that indicated only SB is essential for salvation (Eph. 4:5, 1Cor. 12:13, Rome. 8:9, Gal. 5:6, etc.), although (like SIT) WB was not forbidden.
Scripture reveals all believers are required to repent, be water baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin, and must receive the Holy Ghost as well in order to acquire the NT rebirth.Agreement is good. Hopefully we agree Jesus taught that unless we are saved via faith, we are not SB
(Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 16:15-16, John 3:16, 16:13).
The scripture references you note do not change the requirements revealed concerning the NT rebirth. They just touch on one of the essential elements.
Also, the idea that Paul preached a different gospel than the other apostles cannot be reconciled with Paul's own words.
Paul had a unique calling as the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13), but he never claimed to proclaim a different message of salvation. In fact, he went out of his way to demonstrate that his gospel was in complete harmony with the other apostles.
In Galatians 2, Paul met with Peter, James, and John to ensure there was unity in the gospel being preached. They recognized God's grace in Paul's ministry and extended to him "the right hands of fellowship." They did not correct his gospel because it was the same gospel, simply preached to a different audience.
Paul also wrote:
Notice that Paul does not say, "I preach one gospel and they preach another." He says, "so we preach." The message was one, even though the audiences differed.
Likewise, Paul taught that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20), not upon one apostle standing in opposition to the others.
The difference was not the gospel but the mission field. Peter was primarily entrusted with preaching to the circumcision, while Paul was entrusted with preaching to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7–9). Different audiences did not require different gospels. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one body.
Furthermore, Paul himself appealed to the historical events recorded in Acts as the defense of his ministry. Luke's record repeatedly shows Paul preaching the same message of repentance, faith in Jesus Christ, water baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost that the other apostles preached. If Luke's account were not doctrinally reliable, then much of what we know about Paul's ministry—including his own conversions of Jews and Gentiles, his missionary journeys, and his defense before governors and kings—would be called into question. Paul never distanced himself from the ministry of Peter or the other apostles; the inspired record consistently presents them as proclaiming one unified gospel.
To argue that Paul taught a different gospel than the apostles is also to ignore Paul's strongest warning:
Paul did not present himself as the source of a new or competing gospel. He condemned any different gospel—including one that might supposedly come from himself if it contradicted what had already been revealed.
The New Testament presents one gospel, preached by many apostles, to different audiences, under the inspiration of one Holy Spirit. The messenger varied, the audience varied, but the message of salvation remained the same.
Yes, in this verse (John 3:5) “water” just means baptism. A quick glance at an online concordance suggests that this may br the only verse in the whole of the NT where the word “water” is used as a metonym in this way.
IOW, you do NOT agree with Scripture teaching that faith in Christ is God's condition for salvation,
including Matt. 3:11, 4:17, 7:7, 16:15-16, John 3:16, 16:13, Acts 16:31, Gal. 5:6, Phil. 3:1-9, Rom. 3:21-5:10, 1Cor. 1:21, etc.
That's on you, no matter how many baths you take.
Stop focusing on the flesh/physical!
No—“born of water” never refers to the Law. In Scripture, water can symbolize cleansing, renewal, childbirth, or prophetic restoration, but it is never used as a metaphor for the Mosaic Law.