Jn 3:5

[Paul Timothy]

Why can't the Spirit, the water, and the blood, all be one, like 1 John 5:8 says?
Does Jesus need to bleed every time a new convert is sanctified by His blood?

The three are not one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The three distinct witnesses agree in one... point to one... indicate one.
Not are one.

Small differences make all the difference.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No it doesn't.

Agreed, in John 3.

No, Jesus is talking about one new birth - born again by water and spirit

I disagree.
Jesus is pointing out both the initial birth of a man by water, and then the rebirth of a man by the Spirit afterwards.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The three are not one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The three distinct witnesses agree in one... point to one... indicate one.
Not are one.

Small differences make all the difference.

I will stick with what I see to be true.
All three elements of baptism into Christ are used in 1 John 5:8.
However, not all are mentioned in every baptism.
Just as the gift of the Holy Ghost, (Spirit baptism), doesn't destroy the old man of sin, (Rom 6:6), or provide the blood for remission of past sins or sanctification, (Acts 2:38, 22:16), neither does water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins provide the Holy Spirit to the repentant.
They must all work together for rebirth to occur.
Both Spirit and water are evident in 1 Cor 6:11..."And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, AND by the Spirit of our God."

 

[Free]

Your point is lost at sea.

Let's paraphrase the conversation.
Jesus says "be born again"
Nic says "how... I can't be naturally born twice." (note the idea of twice... or born another time)
Jesus says "be born of water then of Spirit"(Jesus addresses the again question that is stumping Nic)
Nic looks confused.
Jesus says "flesh gives birth to flesh"(that is one birth) "Spirit gives birth to spirit"(that is second birth)


Now you are re-writing Jesus words.
You are reading your ideology into the passage.

Jesus's whole point is in verse 3--that a person must be born again in order to see and enter the kingdom of God. To say that a person must be born naturally goes without saying and it would be a meaningless statement if that's what Jesus meant.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
...
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (ESV)

Notice how the verses are almost identical, with the main exception being "born again" and "born of water and the Spirit," and an immaterial difference of "see" and "enter." Jesus is saying the same thing in verse 5, but bringing further clarification as to what it means to be born again.

I have given the most plain, natural reading.

Now you are starting to understand what Jesus was saying.
That is a very accurate restating of the John 3 discussion with Nicodemus.
Physical birth is of no big deal(being a son of Abraham is not salvational).
Spiritual birth is the very idea Jesus was trying to communicate.
Very well put.

Except that that does not fit well with what Jesus was saying.

That is what the entire discussion is about.
Please read past posts to get up to speed.

I am up to speed. I don't think you understood what I said. Being born of water has to do with water baptism in the spiritual sense of repentance and cleansing from sin. Water baptism is necessary even if only out of obedience to the command of Christ (Matt 28:19), but it is the Holy Spirit that does the work through water baptism and as the separate act of regeneration.

And, again, stop with the snide remarks.

More extra Biblical teaches will not help our discussion.
People misinterpret the Bible all the time and then write a book about it.
The fastest way for you to lose respect in a discussion is to appeal to authority that is not authoritative.

They will help the discussion when they are authoritative, being experts in the Greek and can understand it far better than you and I put together.

When did Matt28:19 enter into the conversation.
Please stick to the topic at hand.
John 3:4-6.

Nice dodge. Where does Matt 28:19 refer to baptism only being a symbol?

So you say baptism does nothing.

Please quote where I said that.

This is not the direction the original thread was going in.
You are doing a Prov 26:17.
And no it does not support the argument.

Nice dodge, again. You asked for references for my claim that throughout the book of Acts people come to faith and the first thing they do is get baptized in water," and I delievered. They very much support what I said.

You can stop with your silly arguments. The language of the verses in question do not support your position.
I see you have the same understanding as Nicodemus.

Again, stop with the snide remarks and personal attacks. I will not warn you again.

Now you think I am God?

Is that what I said or even implied? It's interesting how you always get upset when people don't ask you questions, but when they do, you don't answer.

 

[Paul Timothy]

Jesus's whole point is in verse 3--that a person must be born again in order to see and enter the kingdom of God. To say that a person must be born naturally goes without saying and it would be a meaningless statement if that's what Jesus meant.

You know what Jesus wanted to say better than Jesus?
OK.
If the person must be born naturally goes without saying... but then Jesus goes on to explain that a person must be born naturally. John 3:6

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
...

You pass over Nicodemus being confused and Nicodemus brings up the question of "are you talking about natural birth?".
So for Nicodemus the question of natural birth does not go without question.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (ESV)

Why are you passing over John 3:6?
John 3:6 argues against your position and you know it so you pass over it.
Shady editing of the Bible is a risky call.

Notice how the verses are almost identical, with the main exception being "born again" and "born of water and the Spirit," and an immaterial difference of "see" and "enter." Jesus is saying the same thing in verse 5, but bringing further clarification as to what it means to be born again.

Now read John 3:6 in the light of what you just said.
John 3:6 brings further clarification to this entire passage.

I have given the most plain, natural reading.

Sorry... no you have not. Just reading the conversation as a conversation is the plain natural reading.
You are inserting baptism into a passage that only just mentions water.

Except that that does not fit well with what Jesus was saying.

Jesus is talking about spiritual new birth and you say that is not what Jesus is talking about?
You may need to reread the posts to make sure you didn't confuse the point.

I am up to speed. I don't think you understood what I said. Being born of water has to do with water baptism in the spiritual sense of repentance and cleansing from sin. Water baptism is necessary even if only out of obedience to the command of Christ (Matt 28:19), but it is the Holy Spirit that does the work through water baptism and as the separate act of regeneration.

I am not talking about Matthew.
Please keep to the passages in contention.
I have explained many times that the water in John 3:1-21 does NOT mean baptism.
So I emphatically disagree with your above statement.

And, again, stop with the snide remarks.

There was no snide remark.
Please stop accusing me of something I have not done.
I say to reread past posts because you are entering this conversation at the half way point and sometimes a crucial point can be missed.
Not snide but thoughtful advise.

They will help the discussion when they are authoritative, being experts in the Greek and can understand it far better than you and I put together.

You have a great faith in persons who are not in the Bible.
I have a tendency to doubt Biblical truths when not presented from the Bible.
You can trust who you want but the Bible warns against following "experts". Blind leading the blind.

Nice dodge. Where does Matt 28:19 refer to baptism only being a symbol?

Not a dodge. I am discussing a particular passage... not the entire idea of baptism.

Please quote where I said that.

"whether or not baptism actually does something"... this allows for baptism to be something or not.
So you said it within the context of a possibility.

Nice dodge, again. You asked for references for my claim that throughout the book of Acts people come to faith and the first thing they do is get baptized in water," and I delievered. They very much support what I said.

Good for you... but the passages you quoted still do not apply to the John 3 question.
Thanks for the references but they are still irrelevant to the larger discussion.

Again, stop with the snide remarks and personal attacks. I will not warn you again.

Nothing snide about my remarks.
I was being 100% sincere.
You appear to be very emotionaly sensitive so I will try to self censor when dealing with you.

Is that what I said or even implied? It's interesting how you always get upset when people don't ask you questions, but when they do, you don't answer.

You told me to explain/pass eternal judgement on souls.
So yes you implied that I could speak on behalf of God in relation to the eternal destination of certain souls.

And what do you think I am doing here?
You have asked a great number of questions and I am answering them.
Why would you say I don't answer questions when I am answering all your questions?
That sounds like a classic case of gaslighting.

 

[Free]

You know what Jesus wanted to say better than Jesus?
OK.

It's no different than what you're saying he's saying.

If the person must be born naturally goes without saying... but then Jesus goes on to explain that a person must be born naturally. John 3:6

Where in verse 6 does Jesus "explain that a person must be born naturally"? It seems as though you are confusing prescriptive with descriptive. He simply says "That which is born of flesh is flesh." I don't see where he says that "a person must be born naturally."

You pass over Nicodemus being confused and Nicodemus brings up the question of "are you talking about natural birth?".
So for Nicodemus the question of natural birth does not go without question.

Why are you passing over John 3:6?
John 3:6 argues against your position and you know it so you pass over it.
Shady editing of the Bible is a risky call.

Now read John 3:6 in the light of what you just said.
John 3:6 brings further clarification to this entire passage.

I haven't passed over anything. Yes, Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus meant by being "born again," so Jesus clarified it by saying that it means "to be born of water and the Spirit." Jesus repeats what he said in verse 3 with further clarification. So, he was addressing Nicodemus's question and in that sense I was incorrect, but verse 6 is not equating "born of flesh" with "born of water," since "born of water," together with born of "the Spirit," constitute the whole of being "born again."

Sorry... no you have not. Just reading the conversation as a conversation is the plain natural reading.
You are inserting baptism into a passage that only just mentions water.

You inserted amniotic fluid.

Jesus is talking about spiritual new birth and you say that is not what Jesus is talking about?
You may need to reread the posts to make sure you didn't confuse the point.

I'm not at all confused. I have been consistent that the passage is about spiritual new birth and not physical birth.

I am not talking about Matthew.
Please keep to the passages in contention.
I have explained many times that the water in John 3:1-21 does NOT mean baptism.
So I emphatically disagree with your above statement.

I know you're not talking about Matt 28:19, apart from the statement you made when I first brought it up. You do understand that I'm appealing to Matt 28:19 to support my assertion that Jesus is referring to water baptism in John 3:5, yes?

You have a great faith in persons who are not in the Bible.
I have a tendency to doubt Biblical truths when not presented from the Bible.
You can trust who you want but the Bible warns against following "experts". Blind leading the blind.

Well, one either follows experts or they follow themself when they aren't an expert. One is better than the other. To say that you "have a tendency to doubt Biblical truths when not presented from the Bible," is just begging the question.

Not a dodge. I am discussing a particular passage... not the entire idea of baptism.

It is a dodge and you just did it again. Remember back when you said, "Sure baptize disciples but there is no reference to baptism doing anything... other than be a symbol," in direct response to me quoting Matt 28:19?

So, I have twice asked and will do so again, where does Matt 28:19 refer to baptism only being a symbol?

"whether or not baptism actually does something"... this allows for baptism to be something or not.
So you said it within the context of a possibility.

You said that I said: "So you say baptism does nothing." And now you're saying that I said: "whether or not baptism actually does something." So, I clearly didn't say what you first said I said. You do realize that my point was that whether or not baptism does something wasn't relevant the specific point I was making about Matt 28:19, yes?

Good for you... but the passages you quoted still do not apply to the John 3 question.
Thanks for the references but they are still irrelevant to the larger discussion.

They strongly suggest that the early church saw water baptism as part of what Jesus meant by being born again. Get saved (born of the Spirit) and get baptized (born of water).

You appear to be very emotionaly sensitive so I will try to self censor when dealing with you.

Not at all sensitive. Just upholding the ToS which you seem intent on pushing, just as with this dig at me.

You told me to explain/pass eternal judgement on souls.
So yes you implied that I could speak on behalf of God in relation to the eternal destination of certain souls.

No, I asked for your opinion, since, according to your position, one must be physically born to enter the kingdom of heaven. There are only two places that I know of where souls go for eternity.

And what do you think I am doing here?
You have asked a great number of questions and I am answering them.
Why would you say I don't answer questions when I am answering all your questions?
That sounds like a classic case of gaslighting.

Remember this question: "Where does Matt 28:19 refer to baptism only being a symbol?" And this one: "All unborn human persons who fail to be born by water will not enter the kingdom of God. So, where do they go?"

By my count, I asked four questions. One was rhetorical and doesn't matter, one you answered, and two you have yet to answer. One out of three. No gaslighting on my part.

 

[Free]

With that, I’m going to bow out. I see no reason to believe Jesus was talking about physical birth; it just doesn’t fit, states the obvious, and means that all the unborn who never had the chance to be born can never enter the kingdom of God.

 

[Paul Timothy]

It's no different than what you're saying he's saying.

Your opinion.

Where in verse 6 does Jesus "explain that a person must be born naturally"? It seems as though you are confusing prescriptive with descriptive. He simply says "That which is born of flesh is flesh." I don't see where he says that "a person must be born naturally."

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh"... In light of Nicodemus asking if he must enter his mothers womb again.
Just read the story and stop trying to force your theology onto it.
I would have to pass on Jesus words to you.
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

I haven't passed over anything. Yes, Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus meant by being "born again," so Jesus clarified it by saying that it means "to be born of water and the Spirit." Jesus repeats what he said in verse 3 with further clarification. So, he was addressing Nicodemus's question and in that sense I was incorrect, but verse 6 is not equating "born of flesh" with "born of water," since "born of water," together with born of "the Spirit," constitute the whole of being "born again."

Incorrect. Just apply logic and basic language skills.
You are being blinded by your ideology.
I have explained myself and this passage many times. And your response is just to repeat your view points.
Not really getting anywhere.

You inserted amniotic fluid.

Yes. Because it is the water of birth. Amniotic fluid was not a word in Greek. Baptism was a word in Greek... but Jesus never included it in the passage.

I'm not at all confused. I have been consistent that the passage is about spiritual new birth and not physical birth.

It is about both. That is the point of confusion that I believe you suffer from.

I know you're not talking about Matt 28:19, apart from the statement you made when I first brought it up. You do understand that I'm appealing to Matt 28:19 to support my assertion that Jesus is referring to water baptism in John 3:5, yes?

No I don't understand that at all.
I have never noticed that you were using a unrelated passage to support your position.

Well, one either follows experts or they follow themself when they aren't an expert. One is better than the other. To say that you "have a tendency to doubt Biblical truths when not presented from the Bible," is just begging the question.

And what question would I be begging?
Are experts always correct?
Do experts always agree on everything?

It is a dodge and you just did it again. Remember back when you said, "Sure baptize disciples but there is no reference to baptism doing anything... other than be a symbol," in direct response to me quoting Matt 28:19?

So, I have twice asked and will do so again, where does Matt 28:19 refer to baptism only being a symbol?

I put in my own thoughts just as you are doing all throughout this post.
I am not concerned about baptism.
I am concerneed about proper interpretation of John 3.

You said that I said: "So you say baptism does nothing." And now you're saying that I said: "whether or not baptism actually does something."

I am not saying that... YOU LIE!!!!!
I quoted you as you asked.

So, I clearly didn't say what you first said I said. You do realize that my point was that whether or not baptism does something wasn't relevant the specific point I was making about Matt 28:19, yes?

Implied.
No. I don't realize your point.
You assume a lot about others.

They strongly suggest that the early church saw water baptism as part of what Jesus meant by being born again. Get saved (born of the Spirit) and get baptized (born of water).

Baptism is not being born of water.
Natural human birth is being born of water.
Can you show that people never associated water with natural birth?
I know, trying to prove a negative... not ideal.
But Job associated water with the womb. And if Job is held to be the oldest book of the Bible... then I think that water being associated with natural birth would be logical.

Not at all sensitive. Just upholding the ToS which you seem intent on pushing, just as with this dig at me.

Not a dig... See you calling it a dig demonstrates your sensitivity.
Do you know my intentions?
If you do not know my thoughts then you are making assumptions.
And instead of making a positive assumption you are making negative assumptions.

No, I asked for your opinion, since, according to your position, one must be physically born to enter the kingdom of heaven. There are only two places that I know of where souls go for eternity.

Was the word opinion in your original post? (asking for an opinion)
Or did you ask me where the soul would go if not born naturally? (asking to make a judgement call)

Remember this question: "Where does Matt 28:19 refer to baptism only being a symbol?" And this one: "All unborn human persons who fail to be born by water will not enter the kingdom of God. So, where do they go?"

So the word opinion is not present.
You are not asking my opinion.
You are asking me to make a judgement call.
That is not something I can do... unless you are calling me equal to God.
Are you doing that?

By my count, I asked four questions. One was rhetorical and doesn't matter, one you answered, and two you have yet to answer. One out of three. No gaslighting on my part.

How many question marks are in your posts?
Do you only have four or are you referring to the questions that you want answered.
I don't recall your four questions... I have tried to answer every question... You may not like my answers (you insult me by calling them a dodge) but I have answered you.
So come at me with another few questions.

 

[Paul Timothy]

With that, I’m going to bow out.

I approve.

I see no reason to believe Jesus was talking about physical birth;

I think you gave your game away there. You see no reason... I have provided reasons... but you don't want to see them.
The reason exists (you can believe it or not) but instead of saying you don't agree you say you do not see.

it just doesn’t fit,

Into your theology. It does fit with the conversation.

states the obvious,

I think you again did a mistake of grammar... because you are right... it does state the obvious.
If you did not have an idea of what baptism is (don't even know the word exists) would you think Jesus was talking about taking a mikvah?

and means that all the unborn who never had the chance to be born can never enter the kingdom of God.

This is your own theology.
You pulled this one out of your hat and tried to pin it on me.
John 3 does not mention the unborn.
I have not put forth an opinion on the topic.
I have an opinion... but why share an opinion in an hostile environment.

 

[Hopeful 2]

With that, I’m going to bow out. I see no reason to believe Jesus was talking about physical birth; it just doesn’t fit, states the obvious, and means that all the unborn who never had the chance to be born can never enter the kingdom of God.

All the unborn were in utero, in the water of John 3:5.
Even the aborted, murdered, babies had the sac in which they were developing, opened.
The birth of those who walk after the flesh is by water.
The birth of those who walk after the Spirit is by the Spirit.

All men were born of water, but few are reborn of the Spirit.

 

[Free]

All the unborn were in utero, in the water of John 3:5.
Even the aborted, murdered, babies had the sac in which they were developing, opened.
The birth of those who walk after the flesh is by water.
The birth of those who walk after the Spirit is by the Spirit.

All men were born of water, but few are reborn of the Spirit.

Which makes Jesus’s statement that one must be born of water completely pointless. It would be like saying a person must be human. The whole context is the need to be born again and what that means. Jesus is expanding on his point in verse 3, which is that to be "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit." So, that also shows that the idea of every human having been in amniotic fluid simply does not fit the context.

 

[Paul Timothy]

Which makes Jesus’s statement that one must be born of water completely pointless. It would be like saying a person must be human.

Now you get it.

The whole context is the need to be born again and what that means.

By the Spirit. Yes.

Jesus is expanding on his point in verse 3, which is that to be "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit."

Water and the Spirit is to point out the difference between natural and spiritual birth.

So, that also shows that the idea of every human having been in amniotic fluid simply does not fit the context.

You would have to explain that... because it fits context perfectly.
Just does not fit into your theology. So you say it does not fit context because of your preconceived bias.
Or are you just ignoring verse 6? Is it intentional blindness or willful deception or are you simply brainwashed?

 

[Fastfredy0]

So, that also shows that the idea of every human having been in amniotic fluid simply does not fit the context.

Might be a good concept in regards to universalism though ... *giggle*

 

[Free]

Now you get it.

It's pointless in regards to being born again, which is the whole context.

Water and the Spirit is to point out the difference between natural and spiritual birth.

You would have to explain that... because it fits context perfectly.
Just does not fit into your theology. So you say it does not fit context because of your preconceived bias.
Or are you just ignoring verse 6?

I've dealt with and explained it all, and I have no preconceived bias, I am simply letting the text speak for itself. Jesus is expanding verse 3 in verse 5, so his use of "born again" in verse 3 is further explained as "born of water and the Spirit." Both of those things together constitute being born again. Verse 6 is Jesus simply explaining the error of Nicodemus in thinking of a second physical birth.

Is it intentional blindness or willful deception or are you simply brainwashed?

You were warned.

 

[Fastfredy0]

are you simply brainwashed?

I hope I am .. hopefully "brainwashed" by truth. Guess we'll have to find out someday.
God knows all so He's keeping score. Wonder how each of each is doing?

 

[Hopeful 2]

Which makes Jesus’s statement that one must be born of water completely pointless.

Not at all, as the water birth was the one before the rebirth

It would be like saying a person must be human. The whole context is the need to be born again and what that means.

Where was our first birth from?
Mom's water filled womb.
Our rebirth is from God.

Jesus is expanding on his point in verse 3, which is that to be "born again" is to be "born of water and the Spirit." So, that also shows that the idea of every human having been in amniotic fluid simply does not fit the context.

I wonder why you can't see that it does "fit".
"To be born twice, you must be born of water and of Spirit."
You are following a third birth.
Mom, water, and then Spirit.

 

[gordon777]

Agreed, in John 3.

I disagree.
Jesus is pointing out both the initial birth of a man by water, and then the rebirth of a man by the Spirit afterwards.

Jesus is doing more than pointing out as you state.

Jesus is the life we live by, the body, the blood, the water.

Everything before Jesus is death, everything through Jesus is life.

To those who believe in Him, in His name, they are NOT BORN OF BLOOD, ( nor water for that matter) but are born of God..


John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

 

[Free]

Not at all, as the water birth was the one before the rebirth

Where was our first birth from?
Mom's water filled womb.
Our rebirth is from God.

I wonder why you can't see that it does "fit".
"To be born twice, you must be born of water and of Spirit."
You are following a third birth.
Mom, water, and then Spirit.

Jesus isn’t answering where our first birth was from and so wasn’t addressing that. Again, that would be an utterly pointless point to make. The context of of being born again and verse 5 is expanding on verse 3 on what Jesus meant by “born again,” which is to be “born of water and the Spirit.”

I’m going to bow out again. There simply is no reason to believe Jesus is talking about physical birth by “born of water.”

 

[Hopeful 2]

Jesus is doing more than pointing out as you state.

It is all He was illustrating to Nicodemus.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Jesus isn’t answering where our first birth was from and so wasn’t addressing that.

I feel that He was indeed using both births in His exchange with Nicodemus.

Again, that would be an utterly pointless point to make. The context of of being born again and verse 5 is expanding on verse 3 on what Jesus meant by “born again,” which is to be “born of water and the Spirit.”

"Before", and "after".