Guest Judas Machabeus Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I'm not reading anything into the text. I'm reading the text. Jesus said to be born of water and spirit. John 1:31-32 31I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with WATER, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32And John bore witness, "I saw the SPIRIT descend as a dove from heaven and remain on him. Two chapters later John 3:5 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the SPIRIT, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Where in the bible does it says Jesus is talking about amniotic fluid when he says water. This has nnothing to do with any Church theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted September 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.71 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2014 Verses must be taken in context. So, you must take the verse surrounding John 3:5 to understand the context. John 3:4 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?” Nicodemus understood the term born again to mean he must be physically born again, and said, how can this be? So Jesus explains with John 3:5 and also John 3:6 John 3:6 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Now to take John 3:5 and go to the further explanation. unless one is born of water (born of the flesh is flesh) and the Spirit (born of the Spirit is spirit), Being born of the water is equated with being born of the flesh and Spirit is equate with being born of the Spirit. Now, the Jewish OT ritual bath is only required by the Mosaic law in certain circumstances. So, it is not a requirement for every sin. When a person is deemed ritually unclean, the first thing that must happen is whatever caused the ritual uncleanness must be gone. Only after the ritual unclean cause is resolved, can a person go to the ritual bath. The ritual bath is a requirement before someone can re-enter the assembly. But if a person has not done what is needed to be clean or been certified by the Levitical Priest as being clean, and they went to a ritual bath, when they come out, they are still ritually unclean. The ritual bath directly allows a person to re-enter the assembly, but not if they are still ritually unclean. The bath does not make them clean. They go to the bath, because the situation which made them unclean is resolved and they are recognizing they are re-entering the assembly or the Levitical priest has said they are no longer unclean, and may go to the ritual bath and then re-enter the assembly. In this context, the assembly would be to be among the children of Israel. In the context of the New Covenant, a person first must have had their uncleanness removed before they are baptized. A Christian needs to recognize the person as having been made clean prior to the baptism. Often that person is a pastor, but any Christian is a priest, and has the authority to recognize a person who has been make clean by Jesus as a Christian, baptize in recognition of their new state, welcoming them into the assembly of believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I'm not reading anything into the text. I'm reading the text. Jesus said to be born of water and spirit. John 1:31-32 31I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with WATER, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32And John bore witness, "I saw the SPIRIT descend as a dove from heaven and remain on him. Two chapters later John 3:5 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the SPIRIT, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Where in the bible does it says Jesus is talking about amniotic fluid when he says water. This has nnothing to do with any Church theology. You are reading Christian baptism into the text. Not only that, but you are mixing contexts. John 1 has no bearing on what water means in John 3. You see "water" and you assume baptism, so yes you are reading into the text, what you haven't really proven is there. I am not saying it has anything to do with ambiotic fluid. I am seeing if you can actually prove that "water" can only mean baptism. So far, you haven't been able to do that. All you can do is read into the text what you want it to mean. You keep making the same assertions and have no solid exegesis to back it up. The reason being, you have no exegesis for your assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The same can be said about the water being flesh. You guys are doing the same thing. You are reading your theology into the text. Where does it say flesh is water and water is flesh. You are guilty of what you are accusing me of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The same can be said about the water being flesh. You guys are doing the same thing. You are reading your theology into the text. Where does it say flesh is water and water is flesh. You are guilty of what you are accusing me of.Im I didn't say that. Maybe you need to respond to what I said, and actually provide solid exegesis instead of trying to assign arguments I never raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The same can be said about the water being flesh. You guys are doing the same thing. You are reading your theology into the text. Where does it say flesh is water and water is flesh. You are guilty of what you are accusing me of. Shiloh this comment was in response to Qnt2. About in the middle of his post he says the water is flesh, in on my phone and it's not easy to quote but I just checked and he does make that connection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The same can be said about the water being flesh. You guys are doing the same thing. You are reading your theology into the text. Where does it say flesh is water and water is flesh. You are guilty of what you are accusing me of. Shiloh this comment was in response to Qnt2. About in the middle of his post he says the water is flesh, in on my phone and it's not easy to quote but I just checked and he does make that connection okay, it would help if you indicate who you are responding to a thread with multiple respondents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Robinson Posted September 25, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 903 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 516 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/01/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/03/1952 Share Posted September 25, 2014 A buddy of mine once told me he'd witnessed many times to guy he knew in his platoon during the Vietnam war, but with no result. This went on for weeks, until one day their position was overrun by NVA. The fight was fierce, and its end there were plenty of dead and dying on both sides ... this unsaved guy among them. As my buddy frantically worked on him, the unsaved guy, fearful and knowing he was dying, begged my buddy to show him how to get saved. He led him a simple prayer, and a few minutes later he was gone. Baptism was never mentioned; and in a free-fire zone, it would have been impossible anyway. I have no doubt in my mind that soldier is in heaven today, and has been since he died in that blood-soaked rice paddy in 1970. I could go on. What about the people in those planes on 9/11? Or the ones in the towers? Or the FDNY firefighters trapped in the pitch darkness as they waited for those same towers to fall on them and crush them? No, I believe God IS able to save to the uttermost those that call on Him for salvation. All that to say, I totally reject the idea that baptism is a requirement for this. Too many times in some very dire circumstances it simply cannot be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 A buddy of mine once told me he'd witnessed many times to guy he knew in his platoon during the Vietnam war, but with no result. This went on for weeks, until one day their position was overrun by NVA. The fight was fierce, and its end there were plenty of dead and dying on both sides ... this unsaved guy among them. As my buddy frantically worked on him, the unsaved guy, fearful and knowing he was dying, begged my buddy to show him how to get saved. He led him a simple prayer, and a few minutes later he was gone. Baptism was never mentioned; and in a free-fire zone, it would have been impossible anyway. I have no doubt in my mind that soldier is in heaven today, and has been since he died in that blood-soaked rice paddy in 1970. I could go on. What about the people in those planes on 9/11? Or the ones in the towers? Or the FDNY firefighters trapped in the pitch darkness as they waited for those same towers to fall on them and crush them? No, I believe God IS able to save to the uttermost those that call on Him for salvation. All that to say, I totally reject the idea that baptism is a requirement for this. Too many times in some very dire circumstances it simply cannot be done. This was discussed earily... my position is that we are bound to do as Jesus taught us. He is not bound by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 A buddy of mine once told me he'd witnessed many times to guy he knew in his platoon during the Vietnam war, but with no result. This went on for weeks, until one day their position was overrun by NVA. The fight was fierce, and its end there were plenty of dead and dying on both sides ... this unsaved guy among them. As my buddy frantically worked on him, the unsaved guy, fearful and knowing he was dying, begged my buddy to show him how to get saved. He led him a simple prayer, and a few minutes later he was gone. Baptism was never mentioned; and in a free-fire zone, it would have been impossible anyway. I have no doubt in my mind that soldier is in heaven today, and has been since he died in that blood-soaked rice paddy in 1970. I could go on. What about the people in those planes on 9/11? Or the ones in the towers? Or the FDNY firefighters trapped in the pitch darkness as they waited for those same towers to fall on them and crush them? No, I believe God IS able to save to the uttermost those that call on Him for salvation. All that to say, I totally reject the idea that baptism is a requirement for this. Too many times in some very dire circumstances it simply cannot be done. This was discussed earily... my position is that we are bound to do as Jesus taught us. He is not bound by that. Which makes no sense, theologically. We are supposed to be able to trust what the Bible says, but according to you, that isn't really the case. God amends what He says whenever He wants. By that logic, none of God's promises can ultimately be trusted because God isn't bound by His Word to do what He promises. Either baptism is required or it's not required. You don't have any biblical ground to say it's required sometimes but not all of the time. Your theology is rather incoherent in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts