What did Jesus mean?

[Marcia]

Rightfromwrong, thanks for responding to my explanations.

I see your point about being born of water, but this is not how people think of being born. If I don't think being born "of water" means physical birth, why would Nicodemus? Do we commonly talk about birth as being born of "water?" Nobody I know does.

I don't think that just because he asked how someone could enter the womb a 2nd time it means he was equating the water with physical birth. He was reacting to Jesus saying he had to be "born" again, so he thought of physical birth.

Why would Jesus say we have to be born physically when we already are? It doesn't make sense.

As for responding to the Ch of Christ about the thief, there are passages to show them that baptism is not salvific, but that's another discussion and another thread.

 

[RightFromWrong]

Your right Marcia I too think Nicodemus was responding to the word BORN not water. But Jesus didn't correct him, but went on to explain what he meant. If Nicodemus was totally wrong don't you think he would have corrected him ? But he didn't he expanded........

I think Jesus was trying to explain the best he knew how something that no one had ever experenced before a NEW BIRTH. What better way than to refer to our physical birth, best analogy he could give don't you think ? Then he went on to explain the difference between how one was solid and the other you couldn't see. makes sense to me

[ August 31, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: RightFromWrong ]

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
I've notice NNE is able to find FLAW with the answer BORN OF WATER meaning PHYSICAL BIRTH.

There is none. "Born of water" referrs to the amniotic fluid (water) that accompanies the birth of a baby. In fact, when the amniotic sac ruptures prior to birth, we still refer to is as "water breaking", a carryover from ancient days.

In fact, Jesus first says "born of water and the spirit", and then recaps by saying "flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit". </font>[/QUOTE]That is why I myself have argued the same thing with Catholics on other boards that insist that 'water' in the verse refers to baptism.

And as I have pointed out previously in my post; the word "and" in that verse automatically rules out baptism or the Holy Spirit for the term 'water' in the text.

So then the only two possibilities that I can see is either RFW's physical birth. Or a metaphor for repentance.

Can anyone here come up with another possibility?

 

[RightFromWrong]

Thank you

 

[Craigbythesea]

DHK posted,

I don't know what Robertson or Beasley believes on this subject, nor do I care.

Did you really mean to say this?

Why should anyone bother to read your interpretation of the Word of God if you haven't bothered to read what others have written and you don't even care? Surely this is NOT really what you meant to say!

If the opinions of the wise and educated mean nothing to you, surely the opinions of the foolish and the uneducated should mean nothing to you. And if nothing but the Bible, Strong’s concordance, and a layman’s lexicon is all that we are to use in studying and interpreting the Bible, why should anyone bother to participate in this forum? Surely we all have a Bible, Strong’s concordance, and a layman’s lexicon for they are available for download at no cost at several websites.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
DHK posted,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I don't know what Robertson or Beasley believes on this subject, nor do I care.

Did you really mean to say this?

Why should anyone bother to read your interpretation of the Word of God if you haven't bothered to read what others have written and you don't even care? Surely this is NOT really what you meant to say!

If the opinions of the wise and educated mean nothing to you, surely the opinions of the foolish and the uneducated should mean nothing to you. And if nothing but the Bible, Strong’s concordance, and a layman’s lexicon is all that we are to use in studying and interpreting the Bible, why should anyone bother to participate in this forum? Surely we all have a Bible, Strong’s concordance, and a layman’s lexicon for they are available for download at no cost at several websites.

</font>[/QUOTE]Craig,
Yes, I meant what I said. I don't care.
I'll give you an example why. There is an SDA poster in the Other Christian Denominations Forum. She continues to post, one after another, lengthy cut and paste posts from "The Great Controversy" by Ellen G. White. I sometimes skim them, but rarely do I carefully read them. I have the book in my library, as I do Robertson's. I also have all the church fathers on my computer. I have easy access to all of these sources and more. I don't have to debate A.T. Robertson. My debate is with you, and your thoughts on any given subject. If you would like to quote Ellen G. White or A.T. Robertson, then do so. But their opinions will remain just opinions, and that is all. I will ocnsider what they say in the light of Scripture, and that is all. The Bible is my final authority in all matters pertaining to faith and doctrine.

So, to answer your question:
"why should anyone bother to participate in this forum?"
We participate to discuss our own beliefs on any given subject, not as that SDA continues to do--copy and paste, copy and paste, etc. Participation is active interaction that requires some thought, and not just the copy and paste click of a mouse. So tell me your beliefs and then back it up with Scripture, not necessarily with Robertson, or E.G. White. Or at least use them sparingly. I really don't care what they say. I care what the Bible says.
DHK

 

[Craigbythesea]

So tell me your beliefs and then back it up with Scripture, not necessarily with Robertson, or E.G. White. Or at least use them sparingly. I really don't care what they say. I care what the Bible says.
DHK

I believe that Seventh-day Adventist Ellen G. White was a liar and a false prophet, and to include her in any way in the same category or group as A.T. Robertson is highly inappropriate. A.T. Robertson was not only a Baptist, but a man of God who contributed enormously to the Christian faith.

A.T. Robertson cared what the Bible says and so do I. A.T. Robertson knew the difference between what the Bible says and his personal interpretation of the Bible; and like A.T. Robertson, I know the difference between what the Bible says and my personal interpretation of the Bible. I also know that A.T. Robertson and I spent many years studying the Bible and studying what others have learned about what the Bible says because the very same Holy Spirit was both their teacher and ours. And like A.T. Robertson, I find it VERY unfortunate that some people confuse their personal interpretation of what the Bible says with what the Bible actually does say. And of course the less one has studied the Bible, the more likely one is to confuse the two.

Charles Spurgeon, one of our very own Baptist brothers, expressed the matter as follows:

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is true there are a number of expositions of the whole Bible which are hardly worth shelf room; they aim at too much and fail altogether; the authors have spread a little learning over a vast surface, and have badly attempted for the entire Scriptures what they might have accomplished for one book with tolerable success; but who will deny the preeminent value of such expositions as those of Calvin, Ness, Henry, Trapp, Poole, and Bengel, which are as deep as they are broad? and yet further, who can pretend to biblical learning who has not made himself familiar with the great writers who spent a life in explaining some one sacred book? Caryl on Job will not exhaust the patience of a student who loves every letter of the Word; even Collinges, with his nine hundred and nine pages upon one chapter of the Song, will not be too full for the preacher's use; nor will Manton's long metre edition of the hundred and nineteenth Psalm (Psalm 119:1-176) be too profuse. No stranger could imagine the vast amount of real learning to be found in old commentaries like the following:—Durham on Solomon's Song, Wilcocks on Psalms and Proverbs, Jermin on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, Greenhill on Ezekiel, Burroughs on Hosea, Ainsworth on the Pentateuch, King on Jonah, Hutcheson on John, Peter Martyr on Romans, &c., and in Willett, Sibbes, Bayne, Elton, Byfield, Daille, Adams, Taylor, Barlow, Goodwin, and others on the various epistles. Without attempting to give in detail the names of all, I intend in a familiar talk to mention the more notable, who wrote upon the whole Bible, or on either Testament, and I especially direct your attention to the titles, which in Puritan writers generally give in brief the run of the work.

But, of course, if a person does not care what A.T. Robertson had to say, that person probably does not care what Spurgeon had to say either. Nor is he likely to care at all about what I have to say, so I shall now make it my habit to avoid sharing with such people and share only with those individuals who do care.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
But, of course, if a person does not care what A.T. Robertson had to say, that person probably does not care what Spurgeon had to say either. Nor is he likely to care at all about what I have to say, so I shall now make it my habit to avoid sharing with such people and share only with those individuals who do care.

Actually I agree with your position more than you think. I have a library of more than 2,000 books, and that is not counting all the books and resources that I have on my computer, and all that is made available to me on the internet. I do read commentaries, and I do use other resource materials, and I have great respect for them. I use them especially in my study of the Scriptures in sermon preparation and like work. But this is a message board and we are in a debate board. When I am advised or told to go and debate Robertson's point of view I resent it, because I am not debating with Robertson, I am debating you. I used the SDA as an example. I know full well that you do not use her material or put her on the same level as Robertson. It was an example and that is all. You asked me a number of times to prove that Robertson is wrong. I don't care to prove any theologian wrong or right. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to engage in discussion with you, not with your commentaries. I hope now that you see where I am coming from. Yes, I certainly use commentaries, and as much material as I can get my hands on. But I also try to use as little as possible in my presentation in the truth in what I post to others. The Scripture is my final authority. My arguments must be based on them, not on what others say (even though they may help my understanding at times).
DHK

 

[UZThD]

I would like point out that I in this thread do not back up my opinions with Robertson or the church fathers etc. Examine those places I mention these and you will, I believe, find that I use these just to indicate the varied opinions and/or reasons for them.

NOWHERE did I say "I am right because that is what Robertson (etc) says"!!

But I do not believe that I know more about the Scripture , eg Jo 3:5, than either Robertson who thinks water there =WB or Leon Morris who thinks it does not.

Using these two as only examples, because I look at many, I evaluate the evidence each man presents (or in Marcia's case , who seems to have her head on straight, a woman presents) . Then I make a tentative decision subject to revision as convincing counters are made.

Since my Greek is so bad I look at Grammars as Robertson or Wallace or Dana and Mantey and at lexicons as BAG, TDNT, or NIDNTT in order to determine relevant grammaticisms and word meaning. Again, where they disagree, I examine the evidence or argument and make a tentative conclusion. Occasionally I a feel required to do research on my own on the Greek text.

Someone may accuse me of depending on scholars. In a way I do, but I rather look at it as weighing the evidence these scholars present.

[ September 01, 2005, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

DHK wrote,

You asked me a number of times to prove that Robertson is wrong. I don't care to prove any theologian wrong or right. That is not my purpose.

I have never asked you to prove that Robertson is wrong, nor have I ever asked you to prove that any theologian is wrong. I do, however, quote theologians who are specialists in their specific fields to illustrate what scholars believe about specific interpretations of the Bible, and I don't quote only the scholars that agree with my position, but also those who do not.

Robertson really was not a theologian but a scholar of Greek grammar, and most unfortunately his weak theology sometimes got in the way of his grammar. In this particular thread I have posted very little and I have not quoted any theologians, but I did state the relevant position of one of the foremost scholars of the Gospel According to John, Raymond E. Brown, that position being that we should not be dogmatic about Jesus’ teaching regarding the use of the word “water.” And, of course, the vast majority of the scholars of the Gospel According to John share that view, and Brown provides his readers with several pages of data showing them the multitude of problems that need to be resolved before on can be dogmatic on this issue. If you would read these pages by Brown you would see for yourself that a number of different interpretations are possible from the text and that the Greek text itself raises more questions than it answers.

I could, of course, post the multitude of problems that need to be resolved before one can be dogmatic on this issue, but they are so very many and so very complex that it makes much better sense, in my opinion, to point the interested reader to those pages in Brown’s commentary on John’s gospel because Brown’s commentary is so readily accessible. And, unlike you, there are some who are posting in this thread who know absolutely nothing about the details involved and who believe that 21st century Christians who know nothing about the Greek language, the thinking of the Pharisees and other 1st century Jews, or the theological chronology of Jesus’ teachings can simply read John’s Gospel in their favorite translation of the Bible and perfectly understand it, and further believe that those who believe differently than they do don’t believer what the Bible teaches.

 

[RightFromWrong]

Craig..... my first pastor of 8 years. Dr. Bill Whitaker who at the time of his death had over 70 pastors attend his funeral. That is how well respected he was all the way from California to NY.

Anyway he MAJORED in Hemaneutics and had studied 6 years of GREEK. He went to Russia every year after the walls came down and TAUGHT pastors over there how to study Gods word. When he went through a book in the Bible he didn't skim through it. He would study the passgae along with the old testiment tying them together and giving a life application and a salvation message. Most thorough preaching I HAVE EVER HEARD YET. ROMANS ( my favorite since everything in a nut shell is right there ) took him over 4 years to preach through. the book of REVELATION took 5 years. I was under his ministry as a brand new Christian.

I thank God I had been put under sound teaching as a new believer. I could be so screwed up today if God had allowed me to stay in the Penticostal church where I was first saved ( not in the church itself but by a Penticostal man )
I honestly believe alot of the type of preaching you have been taught is by those who are afraid of losing their members and want to hold onto them. This is one reason teaching on losing your salvation and other legalism teachings go on. Preachers are afraid to allow the Holy Spirit to do the work of God to lead his people so they feel they need to control them.

I think that is Sad Sad Sad

 

[Salamander]

While yall would love to continue to argue, (yeah, now I"M lecturing!!), Jesus would have looked rather foolish to be telling Nicodemus that he had to be born of the "flesh/ meaning water", then to be born of the Spirit.

The reasoning would go like this: It would be redundent of Jesus to be telling one such as Nicodemus, a student of the Law, that first he must be born to be reborn, that goes along with the saying that explains, "Ye must be born again".

Jesus was dealing with an intelligent man, htus the need to relate to "teachings" as "water", thus a "doctrine", thus that DOCTRINE Jesus was so rightly accused of TEACHING.

It would be considered an insult to tell some one of Jewish descent they must be first born of flesh to their intelligence, simply because it is common knowledge we are ALL born of the flesh.

Jesus put the emphasis on the conjunction of water and Spirit necessary for one to be born again.

No one could NOT be born of the flesh, then reborn of the Spirit separate from the Word of God/ water. That is why the following verse in John specfically states the difference: He wouldn't have referred to the flesh being water two sentences later, thus making Him look less than intelligent.

Lecture over.

 

[RightFromWrong]

The problem with your "LECTURE" Salamander.....

Is Jesus NEVER told Nicodemus he HAD to be born of the flesh.

Jesus told him he must be BORN AGAIN !

It was Nicodemus who brought up the FLESH issue.He said how can a man enter his mothers womb a second time ? So Jesus answered his QUESTION, he didn't correct him he answered him. " Unless a man be born of water AND the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God "

Jesus went on to explain the difference between the TWO so Nicodemus would understand what it meant to be BORN AGAIN. He needed something to help Nicodemus understand a NEW BIRTH.

GET IT ! it really isn't that hard to understand !

 

[RightFromWrong]

PS. the problem people are having is that they are thinking Jesus was teaching Nicodemus and us that we must be born of water and the spirit.

When in reality all Jesus was doing when he said " you must be born of the water and the spirit " was ANSWERING Nicodemus's question and expanding on it. That was it, his MAIN teaching was a NEW BIRTH which involved the Holy Spirit. That is why Jesus came in the first place to give us new life.

If people can get that through their head it isn't that hard of a verse.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Unless a man be born of water AND the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God "

Your emphasis on AND is not implicit in the text. I understand what YOU are saying but I think that Salamander's position is better representative of the context.

 

[RightFromWrong]

Well sorry your wrong. You are taking one verse totally out of context. Thats what the cults and false religions do. You have to take what was written before and after a verse to properly understand it. Again I do not know how much clearer it can be ?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Well sorry your wrong. You are taking one verse totally out of context.

No I don't think I am.

I understand the context quite well. I concede that there is certainly room for debate here but I think that seeing water and NOT pertaining to physical birth is to be preferred.

If you fail to see any possibility other than your own here then you probably need to do a lot more study. Further interaction with you on this topic is pointless since you do not seem to want to learn.

 

[RightFromWrong]

I don't need to study it any further I have studied it 20 years ago and then some. I looked at the other view of washing of the word but there are flaws with that view, which I have already pointed out. Its a simple verse. I take it you didn't read the comentary article I posted how do you refute that article ?

YOU CAN'T !

 

[RightFromWrong]

Here it is again in case you didn't read it


John 3:3-8

Enter means literally "to go inside of," as one would enter a building, not an ethereal or abstract concept.

Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" ( 1 COR. 15:50 ), which agrees perfectly with Jesus' statement. When combined with Jesus being the pattern for the entire new creation, and that He did not go through a conversion process and yet was born again by a resurrection from the dead, John 3:3-8 must refer to the end of the process.

Otherwise, we have to try to explain away verses like "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" (verse 6). It is perfectly clear on its own; it needs no explanation. We are still confined to the earth. But the birth Jesus is speaking about occurs later: "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit"!

The old "hat pin test" still works. We still bleed and feel pain. We are still flesh. We are not spirit yet, so we have not been born again.

It becomes even clearer:

Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again." The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (verse 7-8)

If we—proven to be fleshly beings—can still see each other coming and going, we are not yet spirit. It is so plain!

The process that ends in being born again begins at begettal. Throughout the entire process, however, there are types, symbolic actions, that represent later realities. Repentance and baptism typify a death ( Romans 6: 1-11 ). We have died to sin, and when a person dies, he is buried. Likewise, we are buried in water and are raised up out of it (typifying a resurrection) to begin a new life.

But we are not born again yet; we are still flesh and blood. God imparts His Spirit to us at the laying on of hands, but we are not spirit. We have the Spirit in a small measure as a down payment, an earnest, a guarantee, of our future, complete endowment ( 11 COR. 1:22, 5:5 ) It has begotten us to begin the process.

We go through these types but the reality is still future. And it will not occur until we literally die, our bodies decay, and we are resurrected by the power of God. Only then will we be spirit. Then we will be like the wind. The process will have been completed. We will be born again!

John 3:1-8

Nicodemus was a high-ranking Pharisee—one of the rulers of the Jews. He knew Jesus was a miracle-working Prophet sent by God, and was deeply interested in His teachings. But because Nicodemus did not want to be seen speaking with this man the other Pharisees called a "heretic" and a "deceiver of the people," he came to Jesus secretly at night.

Jesus told Nicodemus a profound truth—something that completely mystified the man. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," said Jesus ( John 3:3 ).

Nicodemus was totally perplexed. He asked Jesus: "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (Verse 4.)

Jesus told him: "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (verse 7). But Nicodemus simply did not comprehend what Jesus was talking about (verses 9-12). How like so many people today! They, too, are baffled by these simple words of Christ.

Most professing Christians think they were "born again" when they "accepted Christ" and were "baptized." From that time, supposedly, they received the Holy Spirit and have been living a new life in Christ. True, a real Christian has received the Spirit of God, and is indeed living a new life in Christ ( Ephesians 4:22-24 ). But is this what it means to be "born again"? The new birth described in the Bible is far more than most professing Christians have assumed. When Jesus spoke of being "born again," He did not mean what most people think.

Nicodemus was familiar only with the process of physical birth. Therefore he understood when Jesus said to him, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." But then Jesus explained we must be born again—not again of the flesh—not again entering our mother's womb, as Nicodemus thought He meant. He explained that we must be born of the spirit—born of God! God must be our Father this time! As we were born of the flesh through fleshly human parents, even so we must be born of the Spirit of our spiritual heavenly Father.

Here are two different kinds of birth—one physical, the other spiritual. When you were born of your fleshly parents, you were composed of flesh, but "that which is born of the spirit is spirit" ( John 3:6 ) no longer composed of flesh but spirit!

There will be no blood in the body of one "born of the Spirit." He will not have to breathe air to exist. He will be literally composed of spirit, declared Jesus. That is the plain teaching of the Bible! The new birth is not an emotional experience, but a literal birth!

So Nicodemus would not mistake the true meaning of being born of the Spirit, Jesus explained to him: "The wind bloweth where it listeth [where it wills], and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (verse 8).

Notice that carefully. When you are "born again," born of the Spirit of God, you will be invisible to mortal eyes like the wind (unless you choose to manifest yourself). The effects of the wind may be easily discernible, but the wind itself cannot be seen.

Clearly, Jesus compared the spiritual birth to the physical birth. The latter is a type of the former. Human parents pass on a physical nature at birth to their children, so when we are born of our heavenly Father, we will possess His spiritual nature in its fullness!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ September 02, 2005, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: RightFromWrong ]

 

[Bluefalcon]

Source?