Born Again?

[JLB]

If the topics that are the actual focus of the thread are discussed I am good with that.

You have done so. You don't have any proofs but you disagree. I can respect that. I may not understand it but it's a respectable position to hold.

It's when the topic is ignored and other topics are discussed it gets annoying.

Ok.


So a person must be born of the law of the Torah and the Spirit ?


How does a person become born of the law of the Torah?




JLB

 

[stovebolts]

Is Hillel writings inspired, Jeff ?


Why are you so caught up with Jewish commentary from those who may not have been believers, while ignoring what the text of the New Testament says?


Makes zero sense.


What are you promoting by this attitude?


What’s the point of talking about Hillel when the discussion is about what Jesus taught concerning being born again ?




JLB

Good morning JLB,
I don't expect you to understand. As a result, I actually have reservations in answering you.
I enjoy studying the historical backdrop to the culture in which Jesus taught. It is in our nature to hear what we want to hear based on our beliefs and understanding of the world around us. Point in case, baptism. Depending on your understanding and background it would be very easy for one person to misunderstand another persons words and even put words into the mouth of another that the other did not say based on what they themselves thought they heard, but in reality it was their own understanding which they erroneously imposed on another.

As far as Hillel, I don't think you will understand. I don't think you understand the historical crisis Jerusalem was in nor the impact Harod had on the Sanhedrin. As a result, you won't understand the impact Hillel had on Jewish law nor his opposition that came through Shammai.

These two great schools of thought were shaping the theological landscape of national Israel. One school of thought would be considered liberal while the other conservative. It would be like me asking you what you felt about the Trump wall. Your allegiance to your school of thought would be immediately known by your response.

When I read scripture, I am privileged to enter into a conversation, and I want to know what was being heard as much as what is being said. In regard to the wall, Jesus always sided with Hillel with the exception of divorce. Put another way, Hillel was generally closer to the words of Jesus than Shammai. Because Nicodemus was of the school of Hillel, I am interested in what he heard.

BTW, I do believe that water is a reference to baptism, but not the baptism you ascribe to since you and I speak of different baptisms.

 

[GodsGrace]

Your facts are commentary from other people.

Why ignore what the scripture says.


Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:5-6


Do you believe born of the Spirit refers to spiritual birth?


Do you believe born of water refers to natural birth?



To me, verse 5, explains verse 6.


Born of water refers to “that which is born of the flesh is flesh”.


Born of the Spirit refers to “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”.


To me, it seems simple.



How about you?




JLB

HI,,,
I've always pondered this...
Is the water baptism or the water of birth...amneotic fluid.

I, as you, have come to the conclusion that it must surely be amneotic fluid. It makes more sense for the reasons you posted.

Flesh is flesh.... natural birth.
Spirit is spirit....spiritual birth.

 

[GodsGrace]

Good morning JLB,
I don't expect you to understand. As a result, I actually have reservations in answering you.
I enjoy studying the historical backdrop to the culture in which Jesus taught. It is in our nature to hear what we want to hear based on our beliefs and understanding of the world around us. Point in case, baptism. Depending on your understanding and background it would be very easy for one person to misunderstand another persons words and even put words into the mouth of another that the other did not say based on what they themselves thought they heard, but in reality it was their own understanding which they erroneously imposed on another.

As far as Hillel, I don't think you will understand. I don't think you understand the historical crisis Jerusalem was in nor the impact Harod had on the Sanhedrin. As a result, you won't understand the impact Hillel had on Jewish law nor his opposition that came through Shammai.

These two great schools of thought were shaping the theological landscape of national Israel. One school of thought would be considered liberal while the other conservative. It would be like me asking you what you felt about the Trump wall. Your allegiance to your school of thought would be immediately known by your response.

When I read scripture, I am privileged to enter into a conversation, and I want to know what was being heard as much as what is being said. In regard to the wall, Jesus always sided with Hillel with the exception of divorce. Put another way, Hillel was generally closer to the words of Jesus than Shammai. Because Nicodemus was of the school of Hillel, I am interested in what he heard.

BTW, I do believe that water is a reference to baptism, but not the baptism you ascribe to since you and I speak of different baptisms.

You're breaking forum rules!!

But I'm writing to ask you WHY you think the water in John 3 is baptismal water.....

Would the:
flesh is flesh and
spirit is spirit refer to natural birth and spiritual birth?

I'm not understanding JohnDB very well because of the time it would take to go through this really well and I'm sorry about that because it's interesting.

Can we know for sure what it means?
I was taught by two different churches:
one says baptism (catholic)
one says natrl brth (Nazarene)

??

 

[stovebolts]

You're breaking forum rules!!

But I'm writing to ask you WHY you think the water in John 3 is baptismal water.....

Would the:
flesh is flesh and
spirit is spirit refer to natural birth and spiritual birth?

I'm not understanding JohnDB very well because of the time it would take to go through this really well and I'm sorry about that because it's interesting.

Can we know for sure what it means?
I was taught by two different churches:
one says baptism (catholic)
one says natrl brth (Nazarene)

??

I think the important thing to keep in mind is this.
Neither the RCC nor Nazarene, let alone Protestants, Calvinists or any other schools of thought were being challenged or discussed when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus.

Have you ever wondered why the Jews put their utensils through Mikvah prior to using them? What portion of scripture did they use to support that requirement? Was the Mikvah simply a means of outwardly cleanliness or did it have a spiritual aspect to it?

When Moses was given instruction on the Tabernacle, it was a copy of heavenly things. In other words, it brought spiritual things to the physical realm.

Most people get caught up in opposing modern day doctrinal differences. I understand my bias and those modern day differences do not concern me enough to discuss them when I would rather spend my time learning more of the cultural norms of Jesus day and what specifically drove those norms.

When you hear the words baptism, you filter it through RCC and Nazarene. Others filter it differently. I simply want to know how Nicodemus filtered it.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think the important thing to keep in mind is this.
Neither the RCC nor Nazarene, let alone Protestants, Calvinists or any other schools of thought were being challenged or discussed when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus.

Have you ever wondered why the Jews put their utensils through Mikvah prior to using them? What portion of scripture did they use to support that requirement? Was the Mikvah simply a means of outwardly cleanliness or did it have a spiritual aspect to it?

When Moses was given instruction on the Tabernacle, it was a copy of heavenly things. In other words, it brought spiritual things to the physical realm.

Most people get caught up in opposing modern day doctrinal differences. I understand my bias and those modern day differences do not concern me enough to discuss them when I would rather spend my time learning more of the cultural norms of Jesus day and what specifically drove those norms.

When you hear the words baptism, you filter it through RCC and Nazarene. Others filter it differently. I simply want to know how Nicodemus filtered it.

Yes, well I also am very interested in history.

So you believe the water in John 3 is baptismal water?
Water is portrayed all throughout the O.T.
Bread was placed on the altar in the tabernacle.
Most of the laws were spiritual in nature...I also believe some of the laws were man-made and not given by God. Go ahead...put me in jail. This is obvious,,,with divorce, for instance.

TTYTT SB,,,,seeing what's going on in Christianity today, I'm very concerned for the souls of persons. Let's let the dead horse lie....but some teachers/preachers and churches are NOT teaching Christianity the way Jesus, the Apostles, or the early fathers understood it.

I do wonder what the Jews thought about this "born again" idea at Jesus' tiime. I've often said that Jesus DID NOT mean being born again the way we understand it today...and this idea is what is changing Christianity.

Nuff said I guess...Confirm about the water being baptism....
Thanks.

 

[Randy]

Food for thought
Jesus Himself never baptized anyone in water and He is the way to the Father.

 

[JohnDB]

Torah....the Book of The Law...the 5 books of Moses.
Tehorah... spiritually/ceremonially clean.
The word play on the two words said together was a common reference.

It's one of those things that Jeff keeps discussing...actions cause thoughts and not words alone.

Following the Torah by actions will cleanse you of unrighteousness.
And by that I mean the way Jesus talked about the Law in that it was more about your heart than empty rituals.

 

[JohnDB]

Where Jeff or others see the "born of water" as baptism I do not.

Today when we talk about children addicted to playing in the pool we refer to them as "water babies".
Imagine what something similar could be said about someone who was "addicted" in the same fashion to God's word.

 

[GodsGrace]

Food for thought
Jesus Himself never baptized anyone in water and He is the way to the Father.

Because something is NOT mentioned in scripture does not mean it did not happen.

 

[GodsGrace]

Where Jeff or others see the "born of water" as baptism I do not.

Today when we talk about children addicted to playing in the pool we refer to them as "water babies".
Imagine what something similar could be said about someone who was "addicted" in the same fashion to God's word.

God's word?

Aren't the choices baptism or natural birth?
I have to read your O.P. again....

 

[stovebolts]

Yes, well I also am very interested in history.

So you believe the water in John 3 is baptismal water?
Water is portrayed all throughout the O.T.
Bread was placed on the altar in the tabernacle.
Most of the laws were spiritual in nature...I also believe some of the laws were man-made and not given by God. Go ahead...put me in jail. This is obvious,,,with divorce, for instance.

TTYTT SB,,,,seeing what's going on in Christianity today, I'm very concerned for the souls of persons. Let's let the dead horse lie....but some teachers/preachers and churches are NOT teaching Christianity the way Jesus, the Apostles, or the early fathers understood it.

I do wonder what the Jews thought about this "born again" idea at Jesus' tiime. I've often said that Jesus DID NOT mean being born again the way we understand it today...and this idea is what is changing Christianity.

Nuff said I guess...Confirm about the water being baptism....
Thanks.

The idea of born again / born from above were not / are not foreign to Jewish thought. I believe Hillel was close to the truth which is why Nicodemus sought out Jesus and also why Saul was chosen.

From a high level, the Torah is broken into two sets of laws. The law of God and the law of Moses. Divorce came from Moses. The "laws of men" as you put it are simply man's way of living out the commandments. For example, it is easy to say no work on the sabbath and it is a requirement of the law. But what does that mean? What does that look like? Does one sit on the couch all day?

 

[stovebolts]

Where Jeff or others see the "born of water" as baptism I do not.

And I'm good with that. But I want to know what Nicodemus heard since Mikvah is closely related in Jewish thought to rebirth. This is why I want to know what Hillel taught on Mikvah... I see another $37 book being purchased lol!

 

[JohnDB]

God's word?

Aren't the choices baptism or natural birth?
I have to read your O.P. again....

It's not in the OP...it's several posts down taking three posts including one to Now_Not_Soon.

 

[GodsGrace]

The idea of born again / born from above were not / are not foreign to Jewish thought. I believe Hillel was close to the truth which is why Nicodemus sought out Jesus and also why Saul was chosen.

From a high level, the Torah is broken into two sets of laws. The law of God and the law of Moses. Divorce came from Moses. The "laws of men" as you put it are simply man's way of living out the commandments. For example, it is easy to say no work on the sabbath and it is a requirement of the law. But what does that mean? What does that look like? Does one sit on the couch all day?

I know what you mean....the idea of being born again was present in Jesus' time...this is why he called the Pharisees hypocrites...
Mathew 23:25, 27

The scribes and pharisees were clean on the outside but rotten on the inside...This is a form of being born again....from the inside, from the heart - and then also the outside will be clean.

I mean that we think of being born again in a different way today....I hear say "I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior"...
well, what does that mean exactly? What did the person accept? Is it that easy? And Jesus is a personal savior...is He something different to each of us,,,or is He the same?

I hear that all that is required is to believe....but they don't know what believe means.

Born again....We have a spirit in us that needs to be woken up....that needs to respond to God's call or we're only half human...something important is missing. We're made in the image of God so we need to aspire to something higher than what we know as merely being human -- we are also spirit,,,an image of God. We need to tap into that. How is just as important as "accepting Jesus".

 

[JohnDB]

I know what you mean....the idea of being born again was present in Jesus' time...this is why he called the Pharisees hypocrites...
Mathew 23:25, 27

The scribes and pharisees were clean on the outside but rotten on the inside...This is a form of being born again....from the inside, from the heart - and then also the outside will be clean.

I mean that we think of being born again in a different way today....I hear say "I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior"...
well, what does that mean exactly? What did the person accept? Is it that easy? And Jesus is a personal savior...is He something different to each of us,,,or is He the same?

I hear that all that is required is to believe....but they don't know what believe means.

Born again....We have a spirit in us that needs to be woken up....that needs to respond to God's call or we're only half human...something important is missing. We're made in the image of God so we need to aspire to something higher than what we know as merely being human -- we are also spirit,,,an image of God. We need to tap into that. How is just as important as "accepting Jesus".

I explained that "born again" was not something Jesus said. (In the posts I'm referring to)
Jesus said something completely different than what is commonly believed. The motives for changing it were pure but it's still wrong.

 

[Randy]

Because something is NOT mentioned in scripture does not mean it did not happen.

That's your reasoning? You pondered it then assumed that absence was valid?
John 4:2 -although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
The absence certainly doesn't mean that it did happen especially anything related as important to salvation.
Jesus proclaimed coming to Him and believing in Him. He did not add being baptized in water in His ministry. Therefore the two valid schools of thought are in regard to born of water are physical birth into the world or that born of water and spirit are one and the same thing as in the washing of rebirth or living water .

Born anew of the Spirit is a act of God not man. Born of God.

Jesus is the only way to the Father. .

 

[for_his_glory]

I agree.


What is alarming, that no one discusses, is the fact that Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand about spiritual birth, to the point that He was shocked that Nicodemus didn’t know.


Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? John 3:10




JLB

John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Things of the earth are earthly in understanding and things from above are Spiritual things we need to understand. Not with a carnal mind of knowledge,but a Spiritual mind as the Holy Spirit gives us Spiritual understanding.

We need to be seeking Spiritual wisdom and Spiritual understanding from above as we are Spiritually born again from above where God sits on His throne and Jesus sits at His right hand.

 

[for_his_glory]

i have said i disagree and i do sounds like your taking it personal .

Could you address the name of who you are speaking to? It get's confusing. Thank you.

 

[JLB]

HI,,,
I've always pondered this...
Is the water baptism or the water of birth...amneotic fluid.

I, as you, have come to the conclusion that it must surely be amneotic fluid. It makes more sense for the reasons you posted.

Flesh is flesh.... natural birth.
Spirit is spirit....spiritual birth.

Born of water is a reference to natural birth; “water of birth”


Born of the Spirit refers to Spiritual birth.


IOW, a person must be born, in order to be born again.


Pretty simple.




John uses the water reference again in 1 John to indicate that Jesus didn’t come into the world just natural birth but supernatural birth as witnessed by the Spirit.



This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6

• This is He who came by water and blood.

• not only by water, but by water and blood.

Can you see what John is saying here?


He is talking about the virgin birth of Christ.




JLB