"Born again" is not in the original text,

[ViaCrucis]

But NOT one single verse equates baptism with birth. That is a conclusion that is drawn by bringing disparate vss. together, as in this post.

Colossians 2:12​

(12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. c.f. Rom 6:4-5 ​

John 3:5​

(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​

(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

In this passage Jesus equates "born of water" with "born of flesh," not baptism, and "born of the spirit" with "born of the spirit."
What is the single sign which occurs at birth that signals birth is immanent? I was present at the birth of my oldest son, the birth pains had been going on for a period of time but something happened just as we were getting into cab to go to the hospital.
Please feel free to find one ancient Christian source, 2 or more would be better, which equates baptism with birth.

​

​

Jesus doesn't equate "born of water" with "born of flesh". Jesus doesn't say one is to be born of water and born of the Spirit. He says born of water and the Spirit--there's only one "born" there. And this is after Nicodemus had asked how can a man be born again, must he go back into his mother's womb?

The singular birth of John 3:5 is "of water and the Spirit". What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

You are grasping at straws friend. Instead of trying to use your doctrine to read the text, read the text and let Scripture become your doctrine.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus doesn't equate "born of water" with "born of flesh". Jesus doesn't say one is to be born of water and born of the Spirit. He says born of water and the Spirit--there's only one "born" there. And this is after Nicodemus had asked how can a man be born again, must he go back into his mother's womb?
The singular birth of John 3:5 is "of water and the Spirit". What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
You are grasping at straws friend. Instead of trying to use your doctrine to read the text, read the text and let Scripture become your doctrine.
-CryptoLutheran

You are the one reading denominational teaching to the text. Two things, the Spirit is not water and water is not the Spirit. That IMO is why Jesus equates Spirit vs. 5 with Spirit, vs. 6 and flesh vs. 5 with water vs. 6.

John 3:5
(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
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

I was present at the birth of my oldest son, talking to the Dr. on the phone and him mentioning the interval of the birth pains, so many minutes. But there was one singular undeniable occurrence which indicated that birth was about to occur. When the water broke. Water is associated with all births. As I keep saying baptism is never equated with birth, it is equated with death and resurrection.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are the one reading denominational teaching to the text. Two things, the Spirit is not water and water is not the Spirit. That IMO is why Jesus equates Spirit vs. 5 with Spirit, vs. 6 and flesh vs. 5 with water vs. 6.

John 3:5​

(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​

(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

I was present at the birth of my oldest son, talking to the Dr. on the phone and him mentioning the interval of the birth pains, so many minutes. But there was one singular undeniable occurrence which indicated that birth was about to occur. When the water broke. Water is associated with all births. As I keep saying baptism is never equated with birth, it is equated with death and resurrection.

I never said water is the Spirit. Water is water, the Spirit is the Spirit. Jesus said one is to be born of water and the Spirit. He did not say be born of water and born of the Spirit, but born of water and the Spirit.

If you can provide any examples of John 3:5 being understood to be anything other than baptism in early Christian sources, that would go a long way to bolstering your view.

What is the earliest example you can find of a non-baptismal understanding of John 3:5?

"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 61

"'And dipped himself' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in the Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication for us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" - St. Ireneaus, Fragments of the Lost Works of Irenaeus, Fragment 34

"While I was still lying in darkness and gloomy night, wavering hither and thither, tossed about on the foam of this boastful age, and uncertain of my wandering steps, knowing nothing of my real life, and remote from the truth and light, I used to regard it as a difficult matter, especially as difficult in respect of my character at that time, that a man should be capable of being born again--a truth which the divine mercy had announced for my salvation,--and that a man quickened to a new life in the laver of saving water should be able to put off what he had previously been; and although retaining all his bodily structure, should be himself changed in heart and soul." - Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle to Donatus, 3

"But the possibility of regeneration through the office rendered by the will of another, when the child is presented to receive the sacred rite, it is the work exclusively of the Spirit by whom the child thus presented is regenerated. For it is not written, 'Except a man be born again by the will of his parents, or by the faith of those presenting the child, or of those administering the ordinance.' but 'Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit.' By the water, therefore holds forth the sacrament of grace in its outward form, and by the Spirit who bestows the benefit of grace in its inward power, cancelling the bond of guilt, and restoring natural goodness, the man deriving his first birth originally from Adam alone, is regenerated in Christ alone." - Augustine, Epistle to Boniface, 2

This is, and always has been, the universal, biblical, and apostolic faith of the Christian Church.

If one wants to introduce a new and novel interpretation, there had better be darn good reason for it.

So, again, read the text for what it says. My denominational affiliation--Lutheran--did not come up with this. This is what has always been believed, everywhere, always, and by all in Christ's Church. No different than our confession of the Trinity, of Christ's Divinity, the Hypostatic Union, and that faith is the gift of God by His grace through which He freely justifies us. These are simply the truths of the Christian faith, as received from Christ and through His Apostles by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SavedByGrace3]

And I think we have to remember that most of what Jesus said was spoken in either Hebrew or Aramaic. I wonder what profit there is reading Greek when it is probably a text translated from Aramaic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And I think we have to remember that most of what Jesus said was spoken in either Hebrew or Aramaic. I wonder what profit there is reading Greek when it is probably a text translated from Aramaic.

With the possible exception of a now long lost record of logia ("sayings") in Aramaic (such as the tradition Papias attributes to St. Matthew), there's no evidence for any preceding Aramaic Gospel texts. All four of the Canonical Gospels were written originally in Greek, including Matthew's.

So the translation of Jesus' Aramaic to Greek would either be pre-Evangelist (perhaps in oral form) or done by the Evangelists themselves based on either their own personal experiences or by the witnesses of others.

But there's no evidence that any of the Four Gospels are themselves translations of anything, they are originally in Greek. All Aramaic texts we have are translations from Greek to Aramaic, such as the Peshitta.

As such it is the Greek phrase that is our earliest and only example of Jesus saying "born again"/"born from above"; any Aramaic examples would be back-translations from the Greek to Aramaic. There's no Aramaic original source to look at.

But for anyone curious for an analysis of how the Peshitta translates John 3:3, that is available online here: Analysis of Peshitta verse 'John 3:3'

And it appears that the Peshitta takes as straight-forward a translation of the Greek as it can. With an Aramaic expression that is best translated as "born anew" or "born again". Of course, we can't assume these are Jesus' actual Aramaic words, because again the Peshitta is translated from the Greek. There are no sources that contain the Lord's original spoken Aramaic except where the Aramaic is left untranslated in the Gospels. E.g. "Talitha kum" ("Little girl, get up"), "Eli, Eli, lama sebachthani" ("My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?").

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

Indeed. The word can mean either. This leads to Jesus’ listener, in this case Nicodemus, misunderstanding, hearing it as again. This kind of misunderstanding is typical in John. Jesus corrects him, saying he means being born from water and the Spirit, I.e. from above, from God. Not that there’s a lot of difference if again is understood as a different kind of birth, unlike Nicodemus’ overly literal mistake.

My problem is that it’s all too often turned into an experience. You can’t be a proper Christian unless you’ve had a born again experience. Jesus pretty clearly is concerned with whether we live in the Spirit, not whether we’ve had a born again experience. But to the extent that a specific experience is involved, there’s little question that baptism is referred to. The implication would be that every Christian is born from the Spirit.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

So the translation of Jesus' Aramaic to Greek would either be pre-Evangelist (perhaps in oral form) or done by the Evangelists themselves based on either their own personal experiences or by the witnesses of others.

This is what I was referring to.
Thanks.

 

[Der Alte]

How often have people been told, "You must be born again?" According to some Bible versions, this is what Jesus said to Nicodemus. There are a few versions that phrase it, "born anew." And other versions phrase it as "born from above." The question is, which phrase is correct? Tradition and the majority position hold that "born again" is accurate. But not all translators agree. Why is this?
"Born again" has a different meaning than "born from above." They both can't be true, which means one is wrong. Does it matter if one is wrong? Does it matter if those who choose the wrong meaning live their lives believing a lie? Does knowing the truth of what Scripture teaches matter? Far too many people don't care what Scripture teaches, basing everything they believe on how their favorite version reads, what their "pastor" says, and what they want to believe.
Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God. But the things that are revealed belong to our children and us forever so that we may do all of the words of this law." How has God revealed things to us? Through His written word, known as Scripture. We depend on English translations for those who cannot read the original languages. This means we depend upon the translation we read for our knowledge of Scripture. One would think that any English version of a bible would align with any other English version regarding theology and doctrine, especially with the words of Jesus. Alas, this is not so! There are over 50 versions of the English bible, and no two are alike. How can you know which version to trust? The one part of the study that brings the reader knowledge is finding and defining the original words. This is the only way to determine if your version is correctly translated.
In some cases, the Greek manuscript used for translating is the problem. In this case, the translators are the culprits. The phrase "born again" is found in John 3:3, 7, and 1Pet 1:23. We will look at John first.
In John 3:3, 7, we find two Greek words translated into "born again," gennao anothen. There is no problem with the word gennao. It is a verb that means "born." The word that has been incorrectly translated into "again" is anothen. Anothen means "from above." We also find the Greek word anothen in these verses, John 3:31, 8:23, 19:11, James 1:17, 3:15, 17. In each case, the word is always translated "from above." Anothen is also used in Mat 27:51, Mk 13:58, and John 19:23, translated as "from the top." Anothen has never meant "again!" The Greek word, translated 138 times into the word "again" is palin. If Jesus had said "born again" to Nicodemus, the Greek text would read gennao palin! There is no doubt about this.
In 1Pet 1:23, "born again" doesn't come from two separate Greek words but a single Greek word, anagennao. You can clearly see the word gennao. The Greek prefix ana comes from ano. Ano means "above" or "top." It does not mean again! I encourage everyone to check these things out for themselves! Is it strange that the phrase "born again" is translated from gennao anothen in John and anagennao in Peter?
I will cut the original translators of the KJV a little slack. The first KJV wasn't a new translation, as some believe, but rather a revision of the Bishop's Bible. They were limited on the number of Greek texts available and relied heavily on the Textus Receptus and Jerome's Latin Vulgate, both of which had errors. They translated it as "born again" because that is how the Vulgate read. There weren't oceans of information about the Greek language we have now. Still, when it became easier to define Greek words, every single version created since the information was available should read "born from above!" The NKJV and the KJV21 still use the phrase "born again!" They have no excuse.

The word "anothen" translated "again" in John 3:7 is translated as "again" one other time.

Galatians 4:9
(9) But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again [ἄνωθεν] to be in bondage?​

It cannot mean "anew" or "from above." in this vs.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

How often have people been told, "You must be born again?" According to some Bible versions, this is what Jesus said to Nicodemus. There are a few versions that phrase it, "born anew." And other versions phrase it as "born from above." The question is, which phrase is correct? Tradition and the majority position hold that "born again" is accurate. But not all translators agree. Why is this?
"Born again" has a different meaning than "born from above." They both can't be true, which means one is wrong. Does it matter if one is wrong? Does it matter if those who choose the wrong meaning live their lives believing a lie? Does knowing the truth of what Scripture teaches matter? Far too many people don't care what Scripture teaches, basing everything they believe on how their favorite version reads, what their "pastor" says, and what they want to believe.

Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God. But the things that are revealed belong to our children and us forever so that we may do all of the words of this law." How has God revealed things to us? Through His written word, known as Scripture. We depend on English translations for those who cannot read the original languages. This means we depend upon the translation we read for our knowledge of Scripture. One would think that any English version of a bible would align with any other English version regarding theology and doctrine, especially with the words of Jesus. Alas, this is not so! There are over 50 versions of the English bible, and no two are alike. How can you know which version to trust? The one part of the study that brings the reader knowledge is finding and defining the original words. This is the only way to determine if your version is correctly translated.

In some cases, the Greek manuscript used for translating is the problem. In this case, the translators are the culprits. The phrase "born again" is found in John 3:3, 7, and 1Pet 1:23. We will look at John first.

In John 3:3, 7, we find two Greek words translated into "born again," gennao anothen. There is no problem with the word gennao. It is a verb that means "born." The word that has been incorrectly translated into "again" is anothen. Anothen means "from above." We also find the Greek word anothen in these verses, John 3:31, 8:23, 19:11, James 1:17, 3:15, 17. In each case, the word is always translated "from above." Anothen is also used in Mat 27:51, Mk 13:58, and John 19:23, translated as "from the top." Anothen has never meant "again!" The Greek word, translated 138 times into the word "again" is palin. If Jesus had said "born again" to Nicodemus, the Greek text would read gennao palin! There is no doubt about this.

In 1Pet 1:23, "born again" doesn't come from two separate Greek words but a single Greek word, anagennao. You can clearly see the word gennao. The Greek prefix ana comes from ano. Ano means "above" or "top." It does not mean again! I encourage everyone to check these things out for themselves! Is it strange that the phrase "born again" is translated from gennao anothen in John and anagennao in Peter?

I will cut the original translators of the KJV a little slack. The first KJV wasn't a new translation, as some believe, but rather a revision of the Bishop's Bible. They were limited on the number of Greek texts available and relied heavily on the Textus Receptus and Jerome's Latin Vulgate, both of which had errors. They translated it as "born again" because that is how the Vulgate read. There weren't oceans of information about the Greek language we have now. Still, when it became easier to define Greek words, every single version created since the information was available should read "born from above!" The NKJV and the KJV21 still use the phrase "born again!" They have no excuse.

Context is King and your answer is found on the very next verse which confirms born again is correct in John 3:3

John 3:4
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

A 2nd time, born again . Words only have meaning when they are derived from their immediate context.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The word "anothen" translated "again" in John 3:7 is translated as "again" one other time.

Galatians 4:9​

(9) But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again [ἄνωθεν] to be in bondage?​

It cannot mean "anew" or "from above." in this vs.

Ditto see my previous post brother

 

[Der Alte]

I never said water is the Spirit. Water is water, the Spirit is the Spirit. Jesus said one is to be born of water and the Spirit. He did not say be born of water and born of the Spirit, but born of water and the Spirit.
***

Please show me an acknowledged grammatical rule for this assumed distinction?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Please show me an acknowledged grammatical rule for this assumed distinction?

If I told you, "Please go to the store to pick up milk and eggs" how would you understand that sentence?

Pick any of the following:

1. Go to one store to get milk, then go to another store to get eggs.
2. Go to the store to get milk, which is also eggs.
3. Go to the store, and get both milk and eggs at that store.

Now look at what Jesus says in John 3:5 again.

Did Jesus say:

1. born of water, and born of the Spirit, two births?
2. Water and spirit are the same thing?
3. There is a singular birth consisting of two things: water and the Spirit?

I don't know what "acknowledged grammatical rule" this would be, I'd just call it basic reading comprehension.

As far as the actual Greek text is concerned, the word used is γεννηθῇ, which is the Aorist Passive Subjunctive 3rd Person Singular form of γεννάω, that is "is born", that's a singular "born", not two, not three, just one. A singular birth which is ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος "of water and Spirit".

The text says what it says and means what it means. So the only relevant question is what does "born of water and Spirit" mean?

Now, there is an answer to that question, there has been a single, unanimous answer to that for the last two thousand years.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

Context is King and your answer is found on the very next verse which confirms born again is correct in John 3:3

John 3:4
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

A 2nd time, born again . Words only have meaning when they are derived from their immediate context.

hope this helps !!!

Actually this is a typical NT example of the hearer misunderstanding Jesus' point.

 

[JulieB67]

Context is King and your answer is found on the very next verse which confirms born again is correct in John 3:3

John 3:4
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

A 2nd time, born again . Words only have meaning when they are derived from their immediate context.

In this instance we can't take our context from Nicodemus since he clearly doesn't understand what Christ is talking about and Christ tells him he doesn't understand. The context comes later in the chapter when Christ asks him how if he cannot not believe earthly things how will he then believe heavenly things? So Christ is in fact talking about being born from "above" in this instance. Nicodemus doesn't understand this. We have to read the entire converstation to get the complete context.

John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

What heavenly thing has he been trying to tell him? It's in the very next verse which is exactly what he was stating to begin with in verse 3.

John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven."

He's stating no man can ascend up to heaven but he that came down from heaven -born from above. And states "even" the Son of man. Many think this is talking about only Christ. But this verse is a second witness to verse 3.

And this ties into this verse from the OT.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God Who gave it."

It's our Father that puts our spirits into the womb.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I know thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

He knew Jeremiah "before' he formed him in the belly. There's a deeper study there as well.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Actually this is a typical NT example of the hearer misunderstanding Jesus' point.

Are you disagreeing?

 

[Der Alte]

If I told you, "Please go to the store to pick up milk and eggs" how would you understand that sentence?
Pick any of the following:
1. Go to one store to get milk, then go to another store to get eggs.
2. Go to the store to get milk, which is also eggs.
3. Go to the store, and get both milk and eggs at that store.
Now look at what Jesus says in John 3:5 again.
Did Jesus say:
1. born of water, and born of the Spirit, two births?
2. Water and spirit are the same thing?
3. There is a singular birth consisting of two things: water and the Spirit?
I don't know what "acknowledged grammatical rule" this would be, I'd just call it basic reading comprehension.
As far as the actual Greek text is concerned, the word used is γεννηθῇ, which is the Aorist Passive Subjunctive 3rd Person Singular form of γεννάω, that is "is born", that's a singular "born", not two, not three, just one. A singular birth which is ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος "of water and Spirit".
The text says what it says and means what it means. So the only relevant question is what does "born of water and Spirit" mean?
Now, there is an answer to that question, there has been a single, unanimous answer to that for the last two thousand years.
-CryptoLutheran

Only if milk and eggs are the same thing. Both vss. one verb, two nouns, As I thought you cannot provide a Greek grammar rule which support your assertion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Only if milk and eggs are the same thing. Both vss. one verb, two nouns, As I thought you cannot provide a Greek grammar rule which support your assertion.

Then your assertion is that native Greek speakers don't know how to read and understand their own language.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Der Alte]

Then your assertion is that native Greek speakers don't know how to read and understand their own language.
-CryptoLutheran

I asked for a grammar rule not the opinion of some scholar.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I asked for a grammar rule not the opinion of some scholar.

You're going to have to deal with the fact that native Greek speakers understood John 3:5 to mean a single birth of water and the Spirit, which is baptism.

You are putting your privately held opinion above the word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Der Alte]

You're going to have to deal with the fact that native Greek speakers understood John 3:5 to mean a single birth of water and the Spirit, which is baptism.
You are putting your privately held opinion above the word of God.
-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for your opinion.