the Spirit, the Water, the Blood

[for_his_glory]

Well, let's review John 3, and what Jesus taught Nicodemus.


3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit...

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? John 3:3-6,12


Jesus teaching here in John has everything to do with birth, both natural and spiritual.

The word born is mentioned and referred to 7 times in 3 verses.


Born again, and birth is what Jesus is discussing.

He uses natural birth to illustrate spiritual birth.

that which is born of the flesh is flesh [natural birth], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit [spiritual birth]...

Nicodemus thought that because he was a natural child of Abraham, through natural child birth, that he was automatically a child of God, and God's kingdom.


Jesus is fighting that Jewish mindset that says - because I am born a natural descendant of Abraham I am a member of God's kingdom.

Jesus taught differently.


Remember what John the Baptist told the Pharisee's -

do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Luke 3:8


JLB

You said: "Nicodemus thought that because he was a natural child of Abraham, through natural child birth, that he was automatically a child of God, and God's kingdom." can you provide scripture for Nicodemus saying this to Jesus or are you just reading this into the verses of John 3.

Yes I agree Jesus is speaking of natural (carnal) birth and also Spiritual rebirth, but none of this has to do anything with being dunked/saved/born-again in water as it is only by the living word of God and the Holy Spirit that we are regenerated by the blood of the Lamb who made atonement for all to come back to Gods grace as we reconcile ourselves back to the Father.

 

[By Grace]

This was my post.

By Grace said: ↑
What you are doing is making Scripture allegorical and not literal...So while you may think that Water=Spirit and that blood=flesh" there has to be a reason for creating that sort of reference, AND there must be a clue from Scripture to warrant such a comparison.
Such a construction would create havoc with the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus because it ultimately destroys, and reduces to symbolic gestures what Jesus did on the cross. ....
No, I am not scolding you, nor am I ventilating my frustrations; I am just posting as I see things.

I have limited worry over the 'scolding' from men/women. My only concern is getting it right with my God.

Dear sister,
When I say "I am not scolding," then I am NOT scolding in any fashion. I thought that would be self evident. I wanted to apprise you of my belief, and the reasons for it, no more, no less.
I also concur in your effort to "get it right with my God". My aim is to be well-pleasing in the sight of God, and that is one reason why I attempt to construct replies so that they are based in Scripture, and in harmony with God has stated elsewhere. There are some who misconstrue that as "pride"; I assure you (and others) that is not the case. I am willing to be taught by others where I am wrong. A prideful person will not listen to others, and is essentially a fool.

No I cannot see what you are saying.

Thank you for stating this; I shall endeavor to make it clearer below. If my manner of expressing myself confused you (and others) then the fault is mine alone, and I shall attempt to remedy that later in this post.

What has works got to do with my words.

To whom were you replying in post 69? I thought it was me.

What I was attempting to do with the assertions of JLB that made the Crucifixion of Jesus, and by extension His Atonement mere symbolic acts. If both the crucifixion and the Atonement are mere symbols, then the outcome of that is a diminishing of both.

For example, if one could say, "The life of Jesus is a symbolic act of a person who shows a total devotion to God; we should do likewise." THEN we are simply referring to a series of works that Jesus did, and which we humans need to do. (Of course, it is heresy!) But the logical outcome of such a thought that the elements of the Crucifixion and Atonement are symbols of something (other than what historical Christianity believes, a full and complete requirement to fulfill the wrath of an angry God at the evil of sin) then it is surely a lessening of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is saying that Jesus did not do enough, so we have to do something to make up that gap. That was my reason for bringing in works, and the Moroni quote from the Book of Mormon.

Saying that Jesus was God/man, God manifested in the flesh and blood body of a man has absolutely nothing to do with works that we do.
I have no idea how you got there. So please point out exactly my words that lead you to your conclusion. I hate to think that I had presented what I see in this scripture so poorly that I corrupted God's Word to the extent that you believe I have. I need to know.

As I said before, I was replying more to what JLB stated than to you, so it was not as clear as it should have been, For that, I apologize. From what you posted, I have no doubt that you are NOT in error. But in honesty, I posted to you to inform you of the pitfalls of making the Crucifixion and Atonement merely symbols of something else

I have limited worry over the 'scolding' from men/women. My only concern is getting it right with my God.

Answered above

A good teacher would respond to this request, would he not?
You have not answered one of my questions, not one. A good teacher does not make statements and just expect the student to blindly agree with them. A good teacher answers the questions put to them.
So I ask again, please answer these questions.

I hope that I have answered your questions, and again I say that essentially, you are not in error. What I did was attempt to take an "if... then" approach to what JLB said

Where do you see in My original post that it has anything to do with 'works' or an example for others to follow?
Where do you see, in MY original post Not JLB's, that I have "created havoc" with the atonement?
Where do you see in My post, that there is any wording that leads to any ideas of "born again" or "soteriology"?

What I did was attempt to take an "if... then" approach to what JLB posted

If you can't or won't I will have to regard your statements as being like a couple professors I had in college. If they were challenged in their statements they were very talented at avoiding.

Hopefully, I did not do that in this post to you.

YLT

1Jn 5:6 This one is he who did come through water and blood--Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood; and the Spirit it is that is testifying, because the Spirit is the truth,
1Jn 5:7 because three are who are testifying [interpolation, D13]
1Jn 5:8 [interpolation D13], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
1Jn 5:9 If the testimony of men we receive, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that He hath testified concerning His Son.

I have taken the liberty of editing out the interpolation that Mr. Young wrote in italicized words, signed D13.
I see this scripture as being about one thing, God's testimony concerning His Son. v9
I see that the Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of who Jesus was. v6
I see that Jesus was not only water (spirit/God) v8
I see that Jesus was also blood (flesh/man) v8

When I read the context of John 1,2, and 3, I see that John is defending this truth of who Jesus was against the false teachings of some sects.
One said that Jesus was just a spirit that to men appeared to be a flesh and blood man.
One said that Jesus was a spirit that could manifest Himself in the flesh when He chose to.
One must read the writing of the church fathers to know something about these sects but Paul speaks on this same subject and names a couple of their leaders.
John says that neither of these heretical teachings were true. Jesus was God come in the flesh.
He says that to believe that Jesus did not come in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist.

Finally, we are back to the OP!
What we are doing here in looking at the Johanine Comma is technically called "Lower Textural Criticism", which holds to a high view of Scripture. That belief means that we all agree that parts of verses of 7 and 8 are not a part of the original writings of the Apostle, and are also not a part of the copies that were made from what John wrote. In fact that the first occurrence of this came as a marginal note about 390.

It is important three things about this marginal note:

1) it is a theologically correct statement
2) It changes nothing in the NT, or OT
3) The Apostle John did not write it.​

I don't teach because God has not shown me that I should be. But as a student I do expect those who proclaim themselves to be lead by God to be a teacher, teach. That means one does not confuse the statements of one students with someone else's. They point out the exact statements of the student, point by point, that they see as incorrect and Why. So I ask you to preform as the teacher you proclaim to be.

I hope that I have explained myself sufficiently, and I apologize if I offended you in any manner.
If this was insufficient, then feel free to reply.

 

[JLB]

You said: "Nicodemus thought that because he was a natural child of Abraham, through natural child birth, that he was automatically a child of God, and God's kingdom." can you provide scripture for Nicodemus saying this to Jesus or are you just reading this into the verses of John 3.

Yes I agree Jesus is speaking of natural (carnal) birth and also Spiritual rebirth, but none of this has to do anything with being dunked/saved/born-again in water as it is only by the living word of God and the Holy Spirit that we are regenerated by the blood of the Lamb who made atonement for all to come back to Gods grace as we reconcile ourselves back to the Father.

Your right John 3:5 has nothing to do with Baptism.

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:5

JLB

 

[JLB]

You said: "Nicodemus thought that because he was a natural child of Abraham, through natural child birth, that he was automatically a child of God, and God's kingdom." can you provide scripture for Nicodemus saying this to Jesus or are you just reading this into the verses of John 3.

Yes I agree Jesus is speaking of natural (carnal) birth and also Spiritual rebirth, but none of this has to do anything with being dunked/saved/born-again in water as it is only by the living word of God and the Holy Spirit that we are regenerated by the blood of the Lamb who made atonement for all to come back to Gods grace as we reconcile ourselves back to the Father.

Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 9 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Luke 3:7-9


... do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.





31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed...
36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father." 39They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. John 8:31-40


I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.

"If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.


It is these verses that are quotes from both Jesus and John the Baptist that teach us the "mindset" of the Jews were such that, because they were descendants of Abraham, that they were walking in covenant with God, ie; that they were God's children.

It is these verses as well as the teaching's of Paul that lead me in my understanding that Nicodemus, being a Pharisee was of this mindset along with the other Jews.


Can you provide a scripture that says Nicodemus was not of this mindset?

Or are you just denying what the whole counsel of scriptures teach?



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes I agree Jesus is speaking of natural (carnal) birth and also Spiritual rebirth, but none of this has to do anything with being dunked/saved/born-again in water...

Right, he's not talking about water as in literal water baptism as a legalistic requirement to see the kingdom, but referring to the water as a metonymy for repentance. Jews had the outward washing of repentance part well understood. They thought that (repentant law keeping) was enough to see the kingdom. They were oblivious to the spiritual birth part. Both are necessary to see the kingdom.

And so it is that water has nothing to do with the water in 1 John 5:6 NASB, IMO.

metonymy

 

[Deborah13]

Dear sister,
When I say "I am not scolding," then I am NOT scolding in any fashion. I thought that would be self evident. I wanted to apprise you of my belief, and the reasons for it, no more, no less.
I also concur in your effort to "get it right with my God". My aim is to be well-pleasing in the sight of God, and that is one reason why I attempt to construct replies so that they are based in Scripture, and in harmony with God has stated elsewhere. There are some who misconstrue that as "pride"; I assure you (and others) that is not the case. I am willing to be taught by others where I am wrong. A prideful person will not listen to others, and is essentially a fool.

I did not take it as scolding. You said it wasn't and I believed you. I just stated that even if I am scolded by any person, I don't let it bother me much.

To whom were you replying in post 69? I thought it was me.

No, my post wasn't to anyone specific. I didn't want to challenge anyone because it is a difficult scripture. If to someone specific I try to always either do a direct reply or a @(member) so that they will get an alert.

What I was attempting to do with the assertions of JLB that made the Crucifixion of Jesus, and by extension His Atonement mere symbolic acts. If both the crucifixion and the Atonement are mere symbols, then the outcome of that is a diminishing of both.......That was my reason for bringing in works, and the Moroni quote from the Book of Mormon. As I said before, I was replying more to what JLB stated than to you, so it was not as clear as it should have been, For that, I apologize. From what you posted, I have no doubt that you are NOT in error. But in honesty, I posted to you to inform you of the pitfalls of making the Crucifixion and Atonement merely symbols of something else.

I now understand. Thank you.

I hope that I have answered your questions, and again I say that essentially, you are not in error. What I did was attempt to take an "if... then" approach to what JLB said.
Finally, we are back to the OP!
What we are doing here in looking at the Johanine Comma is technically called "Lower Textural Criticism", which holds to a high view of Scripture. That belief means that we all agree that parts of verses of 7 and 8 are not a part of the original writings of the Apostle, and are also not a part of the copies that were made from what John wrote. In fact that the first occurrence of this came as a marginal note about 390.
It is important three things about this marginal note:

1) it is a theologically correct statement
2) It changes nothing in the NT, or OT
3) The Apostle John did not write it.
​

I hope that I have explained myself sufficiently, and I apologize if I offended you in any manner.
If this was insufficient, then feel free to reply.

This is very sufficient. The only thing I was bothered me was that you did not respond to my first return post where I asked you were I was incorrect in my post. I needed to know.
Thank you for your most thorough reply and explanation. I greatly appreciated it.
God Bless

 

[Free]

You somewhat have a point about it being a debate forum and to ask for substantiating scriptures, however, it is usually accompanied by an alternating view with backing scriptures...and with some manner of politeness rather than arrogance. have some class brother! Wow. These are your brothers and sisters here, not the enemy. Can you handle that?!

I do have a point about it being a debate forum, and in a debate, it is not arrogant nor impolite to ask for proof, it is rather the whole point. Speaking of being respectful and having class, perhaps you should worry about your own posts.

 

[Gregg]

I was interested in your answers to these questions. I don’t really have answers per se to the locations. I’m not sure that John’s so concerned about locations (Heaven vs Earth) so much as he is the timing of Jesus’ “coming”. I think John makes to point within the Epistle (as I pointed out already) that not only do believers have The Holy Spirit witness in them (on Earth) but they also have The Son witness and The Father witness in them on Earth. Even they those witnesses are in Heaven. A contradiction? No. A paradox, yes. But the location is not only an interesting study but the timing is as will.

1Jn 5:6 "This is the One having come through water and blood, Jesus Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the One witnessing, because the Spirit is the truth."

I believe 1Jn 5:6 refers to Jesus' Incarnation, the Son of God coming from heaven to earth; from the conception of His body through His Resurrection, in between appearing before the Father (as in Heb 9:11-14). But as for the blood and water, they are described in two different ways:

1. "This is the One having come through [dia] water and blood, Jesus Christ"

- dia implying a channel of an act and movement
- water and blood in the genitive case implying movement from a place [heaven]
- the absence of a definite article before 'water' and 'blood'​

2. "not in/by [ev] water only, but in/by [en] the water and the blood."

- en implying a relation of rest
- the water and the blood in the dative case
- the water and the blood each having the definite article
- "only' is not adjectival to water, but an adverb to "having come" in the preceding phrase
​

For these reasons I am wondering if the perspectives [or inferences] of the two phrases differ one from another; perhaps one phrase refers to His coming from heaven to the cross, and the other phrase refers to His Resurrection after appearing before the Father. I am perplexed, but intrigued.

There is no doubt that John at least had Jesus' Baptism and Crucifixion in mind, though I do not believe he is referring to the Baptism of Jesus directly; but as to what the water is in each phrase [water that testifies 1Jn 5:8] remains unclear to me - "through" in the first phrase and "in" according to the last phrase.

- - -

I appreciated reading your word study on Jesus' Coming. Yes, Greek is fascinating; and the Word of God is awesome.

 

[chessman]

1Jn 5:6 "This is the One having come through water and blood, Jesus Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the One witnessing, because the Spirit is the truth."

I believe 1Jn 5:6 refers to Jesus' Incarnation, the Son of God coming from heaven to earth; from the conception of His body through His Resurrection, in between appearing before the Father (as in Heb 9:11-14). But as for the blood and water, they are described in two different ways:

1. "This is the One having come through [dia] water and blood, Jesus Christ"

- dia implying a channel of an act and movement
- water and blood in the genitive case implying movement from a place [heaven]
- the absence of a definite article before 'water' and 'blood'​

2. "not in/by [ev] water only, but in/by [en] the water and the blood."

- en implying a relation of rest
- the water and the blood in the dative case
- the water and the blood each having the definite article
- "only' is not adjectival to water, but an adverb to "having come" in the preceding phrase
​

For these reasons I am wondering if the perspectives [or inferences] of the two phrases differ one from another; perhaps one phrase refers to His coming from heaven to the cross, and the other phrase refers to His Resurrection after appearing before the Father. I am perplexed, but intrigued.

There is no doubt that John at least had Jesus' Baptism and Crucifixion in mind, though I do not believe he is referring to the Baptism of Jesus directly; but as to what the water is in each phrase [water that testifies 1Jn 5:8] remains unclear to me - "through" in the first phrase and "in" according to the last phrase.

- - -

I appreciated reading your word study on Jesus' Coming. Yes, Greek is fascinating; and the Word of God is awesome.

All very informative. Especially the part about the "only" being an adverb to "having come". I had no idea of that fact. Just never thought about it. But it seems to jive with the intrigue I'd come to as well, via the verb tenses and moods, however. Which is about all I understand from Greek and that even not very well.

Anyway. Luckily John's basic point is God loves his children and we are His children.

I suppose we'll always be ever learning just how deeply He's manifested that love in the past, present and future as well as locations. In a way, it's impossible to pin-point His love for us to any one time or or one location or one event. Be it birth, baptism, death or ressurection. But pin-pointing it in three witnesses is not difficult for the believer.

Thanks again for your time/effort in posting these posts.

 

[By Grace]

The proof is the context. Most of us in North America are not familiar with the phrase born of water or came by water.

THAT is a very broad generalization and it lacks a source to back it up. It is no different than saying "Most people like Mickey Mouse."
Because you say it, that does not make it self evident, and it appears that you are using your unsubstantiated beliefs as a source of reference. That is called "circular reasoning" and as such it is a logical fallacy.

John 3 says -
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
WHY DID YOU SKIP SO MUCH SCRIPTURE HERE?
12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

That sort of skipping verses utterly violates the concept of "context" as you mentioned in your first sentence above.

There are two births that are being discussed by Jesus Christ.

I do not see that Jesus is discussing the natural birth process here, nor is He discussing the "process of salvation" e.g. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ..." what Paul says in Romans and other places. Instead He is mentioning the fact that there is a natural and a spiritual birth.

Your split into two allegories does not agree what Jesus said. Notice that there are TWO conditions here: " unless one is born of water and [of] the Spirit,"

Natural birth and Spiritual birth.

Born of water = Natural birth - that which is born of flesh is flesh.

Born again = spiritual birth - that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

John uses the phrase born of water as a reference to natural child birth.

1 John 5 uses the phrase came by water to reference natural child birth.

1 John 5 use the phrase came by water and blood to reference supernatural child birth.

No he doesn't! How on earth can you take something from one book that the Apostle wrote the Gospel bearing his name with the express purpose of revealing the many signs that Jesus used to demonstrate that He is Messiah:

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
​

with a different message in his Epistles to watch out for false prophets, and how to identify them? I am not being nasty, but that is a comparison between apples and lug nuts. Since one is organic, and the other metallic, their properties differ. So also do the properties of the Gospel of John and his Epistles differ.

Born of water is a reference to birth not Baptism.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but unless it is backed up with Scripture IN CONTEXT it remains simply unsubstantiated personal opinion

No one is born again by Baptism.

No one said differently.
You seem to be creating a straw man argument here.

People who are born again already get Baptized.

Baptism is a symbol of death, not new birth.

Not exactly. It is an identification with the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here is an explanation by a random site of a Baptist church discussing Believer's baptism: SOURCE

This term reflects an emphasis on the belief that these two acts, and these two acts only, were instituted--or ordained--by Jesus Christ.As such, the notion of an ordinance carries with it an emphasis on obedience--that is, Christians are to perform these acts because Jesus himself ordained or ordered them.Furthermore, the term ordinance is associated with a symbolic, rather than a sacramental, understanding of the nature of the rites.For Baptists, baptism and communion are not mystical rites through which the grace of God comes to human beings. Rather, they are expressions of grace that has already been received from God. And, while the grace is received by individual persons, testimony to this grace is to be made to and with other Christians; thus, these are rites to be celebrated with and by the Church.

​

Of course, you disagree with my opinion!
However, you will also notice that I looked at things in context and I supplied other sources to back up my claim. I request that you do likewise.

 

[for_his_glory]

Right, he's not talking about water as in literal water baptism as a legalistic requirement to see the kingdom, but referring to the water as a metonymy for repentance. Jews had the outward washing of repentance part well understood. They thought that (repentant law keeping) was enough to see the kingdom. They were oblivious to the spiritual birth part. Both are necessary to see the kingdom.

And so it is that water has nothing to do with the water in 1 John 5:6 NASB, IMO.

metonymy

 

[Sinthesis]

It is not a matter of me being right or wrong. Instead it is my explanation of why I believe a certain thing is as I see it. Hermeneutics is the science of Biblical interpretation; it is not an art form where free reign is permitted. Hermeneutics teaches us to compare Scripture with Scripture, look at things in the original languages, in context, and in the setting that we have a certain thing stated.

So to answer your question, if there is another interpretation that is congruent to the principles of hermeneutics, and does not contradict anything in the Bible, I can accept that. I post as I do not to say I am the only one who is correct on a matter (what gave you that idea?) but to have people look at things in a clear and systematic manner, and then to base their opinion on solid principles.

Your post #102 did a good job of elaborating the very valid concerns you identify with the misapplication of allegory. However, in that example perhaps the problem is not only built upon the poor use of symbolism, but also on a misapprehension of the nature of Christ which devalues aspects of His work that can/could only ever be accomplished through His Divinity, into simplistic cartoon examples the vain can aspire to fulfill for their own credit through their humanity, but have no salvic value.

 

[for_his_glory]

Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 9 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Luke 3:7-9


... do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.





31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed...
36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father." 39They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. John 8:31-40


I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.

"If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.


It is these verses that are quotes from both Jesus and John the Baptist that teach us the "mindset" of the Jews were such that, because they were descendants of Abraham, that they were walking in covenant with God, ie; that they were God's children.

It is these verses as well as the teaching's of Paul that lead me in my understanding that Nicodemus, being a Pharisee was of this mindset along with the other Jews.


Can you provide a scripture that says Nicodemus was not of this mindset?

Or are you just denying what the whole counsel of scriptures teach?



JLB

I never said that this was not Nicodemus mind set, but what you posted here only correlates with that of John the baptist actual water baptism and nothing to do with that of what Jesus said in John 3:5. Is it by actual water or is it by the word of God being the living water and through the Holy Spirit that we enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[JLB]

I never said that this was not Nicodemus mind set, but what you posted here only correlates with that of John the baptist actual water baptism and nothing to do with that of what Jesus said in John 3:5. Is it by actual water or is it by the word of God being the living water and through the Holy Spirit that we enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism.

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:5

Born of the spirit refers to being born again, for that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Born of water, on the other hand is not a reference to born of the Spirit.

Born of water is a reference to natural birth, for that which is born of the flesh is flesh.

There are two different birth's referred to here.

Born of the Spirit.

Born of the flesh.


JLB

 

[for_his_glory]

John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism.

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:5

Born of the spirit refers to being born again, for that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Born of water, on the other hand is not a reference to born of the Spirit.

Born of water is a reference to natural birth, for that which is born of the flesh is flesh.

There are two different birth's referred to here.

Born of the Spirit.

Born of the flesh.


JLB

Yes, there is a natural birth and a Spiritual birth as the natural is sinful, but the Spiritual rebirth reconciles our sinful nature that we stand blameless before the Father and indwelled with His Holy Spirit. This is all done by faith (Christ Jesus and what he spoke) and Gods grace. Has nothing to do with being dunked in dirty river water as that is only an outward appearance to others that you have received Christ as Lord and Savior.

 

[Gregg]

Your split into two allegories does not agree what Jesus said. Notice that there are TWO conditions here: " unless one is born of water and [of] the Spirit,"

Natural birth and Spiritual birth.
Born of water = Natural birth - that which is born of flesh is flesh.
Born again = spiritual birth - that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Ref: Jn 3:5: It is an assumption that "born of water" here is equivalent to natural birth; same as in 1Jn 5:6 where water is most likely not referring to natural birth. Nicodemus may have been thinking about natural birth, but I rather think he was humbly appealing to Jesus for His full explanation of the matter (Jn 3:4).

Jesus defined both water and Spirit here, "Do not wonder because I told you, You must receive birth from above" (Jn 3:7, see Jn 3:3 LITV), implying that both water and Spirit were "from above."

I believe "water" in 1Jn 5:6, 8 and in Jn 3:5 refer to the word of God, His testimony concerning His Son: "Our testimony" Jn 3:11b, "For God . . ." (Jn 3:16-17), "witness of God" (1Jn 5:9), and "witness/testimony" 4 times in 1Jn 5:10-11.

In the hearts of men the presence of this "water" [testimony, witness], being testified to by the Holy Spirit, that conceives faith in the believer. This is the birth by water and the Spirit; this by the will of God (Jn 1:13).

 

[By Grace]

Your post #102 did a good job of elaborating the very valid concerns you identify with the misapplication of allegory. However, in that example perhaps the problem is not only built upon the poor use of symbolism, but also on a misapprehension of the nature of Christ which devalues aspects of His work that can/could only ever be accomplished through His Divinity, into simplistic cartoon examples the vain can aspire to fulfill for their own credit through their humanity, but have no salvic value.

Thank you for the compliment! To God goes the glory.

Yes, I confess that the strength of the analogy may be weak; that may be partially due to my loathing about posting even a hypothetical that diminishes either the Crucifixion or the Atonement, and the reason for that is that removes the divinity of Jesus, and it makes Him to be a mere mortal who did good.

I believe that we both are on the same page, but if you are referring to my example of Linus and the Great Pumpkin in "Peanuts", I happen to like the comic strip, and I believed that it would demonstrate a man-made construction which had a superficially similar narrative to Christmas and Santa to demonstrate the utter vacuousness of the theology of the poster to whom I responded. It was not designed to offend Christians.

 

[Deborah13]

"...Perhaps St. John makes here a mental comparison between Christ, and Moses and Aaron; to both of whom he opposed our Lord, and shows his superior excellence. Moses came by water - all the Israelites were baptized unto him in the cloud and in the sea, and thus became his flock and his disciples; 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 Corinthians 11:2. Aaron came by blood - he entered into the holy of holies with the blood of the victim, to make atonement for sin. Moses initiated the people into the covenant of God by bringing them under the cloud and through the water. Aaron confirmed that covenant by shedding the blood, sprinkling part of it upon them, and the rest before the Lord in the holy of holies. Moses came only by water, Aaron only by blood; and both came as types. But Christ came both by water and blood, not typically, but really; not by the authority of another, but by his own. Jesus initiates his followers into the Christian covenant by the baptism of water, and confirms and seals to them the blessings of the covenant by an application of the blood of the atonement; thus purging their consciences, and purifying their souls...."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/1_john/5.htm

 

[Sinthesis]

1Jo 5:5 - Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1Jo 5:6 ¶ This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jo 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jo 5:8 - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

The context is why would anyone believe in Jesus Christ as the promised Jewish Messiah. Available for earthly consideration are three witnessing authorities:

• Spirit signifies truth, which in this case applies to what the scriptures and apostles testify about the Messiah.
• Water signifies the baptism of repentance, which testifies to our need for the Messiah.
• Blood signifies the new covenant, which testifies to our gift from the Messiah.

These three aren't proof, they are testimony. Witnesses that can be accepted or denied. For a Christian they are accepted, and they all three agree that Jesus Christ is our promised Messiah in whom we have been given eternal life.

 

[chessman]

[Three] Witnesses that can be accepted or denied. For a Christian they are accepted, [for a non-Christian they are denied].

[My comments in brackets are my way of slightly modifying your point to describe a reasonable test for other options that have been presented as follows:]

blood = Mary's hymen blood???
Is Mary's hymen blood a witness which can be a testimony either accepted or denied? For a Christian it is accepted, for a non-Christian it is denied. pass/fail? Pass. Fair enough. However, John did NOT witness it, yet his Epistle says he is writing about things he's touched and heard and has seen (1 John 1:1-4). So Biblically speaking it's a fail if one accepts what John is writing about in this Epistle.

water = Is Mary's birth water sack a witness which can be a testimony either accepted or denied? For a Christian it is accepted, for a non-Christian it is ACCEPTED. Pass/Fail? Fail. How is natural child birth a "witness" that Jesus is the Messiah to a non-Christian? It's not.
It also fails the tests since John didn't see or touch Mary's water sack.

...
one could consider each of the various options in this way and come to their own conclusions.