Serious Faith Question

[okegold]

My name is Olaide Okeniyi a Christian, Church planter, Pastor/ Evangelist serving at Miracle Ground Evangelistic Minstry and Mission inc. Also Retired civil servant at Oyo State Government of Nigeria. Love winning soul for Christ.

 

[aiki]

Do a study of the use of the conjunction “and” in the first century Greek language

What makes you think I haven't? In investigating John 3:5-6 many years ago, I came across an explanation of the verses in a commentary that pointed out that the word rendered "and" in verse 5 ("born of water and the Spirit") could be rendered "even" which changes the sense of the verse significantly. It would read, "born of water even the Spirit," making the water and the Spirit one and the same thing. Verse 6, though, seems to weaken this interpretation by emphasizing two different and distinct births: a fleshly birth and a spiritual one. In any case, I am aware that the conjunction "and" may have both a copulative and a cumulative force.

What I have found is “and” is not used like we sometimes use it to refer to the same thing for emphasis, but refers to two separate actions, nouns or groups.

Yes, this is very evident in the verses in question.

Amniotic fluid would not be considered by the first century Jews to be “water” and is really the baby’s urine. Urine was not ever referred to as “water” either.

I don't think Christ referring to amniotic fluid as "water" was intended as a literal description of the fluid. It seems pretty obvious to me he was speaking figuratively when he referred to "water" in John 3:5. He wasn't giving Nicodemus a lesson in the chemistry of amniotic fluid, so a figurative reference to the fluid as "water" would be perfectly all right - and apt.

Being “born again” is what Jesus told Nicodemus he need to do. This requires some thinking, because Jesus does not address the questions or comments that are verbalized, but directs his comments to the persons next step in their personal spiritual development (what is on their heart spiritually). Jesus is not making some general philosophical statement (like Buddha might make) but is always addressing the audience He is talking to. We have to get into the context.

This is an...odd way to assess John 3:5-6 and its context. When I look at the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus, the question Nicodemus asked is very clear and Jesus' response to his question is also clear (and direct). It seems to me, then, that Jesus did address the question Nicodemus verbalized.

What did Nicodemus need to do next in his spiritual development?

To answer this with any accuracy you would have to have a very good idea of where Nicodemus was in his understanding and practice of Judaism, what his understanding of the teachings of Christ was, and what his attitude toward Jesus was, too. You don't have this information so, it seems to me, any conclusions you come to in answer to your question above are at best educated guesses and at worst blind assumptions. It is never a good idea, I think, to assess Scripture from such poor bases.

The first thing Nicodemus might do at least is what he already knows he should do? Is that not where you would start? So what is that?

Why not avoid all this speculation and simply take what the text offers? I am very wary of the sort of loose extrapolation in which you're engaging. It's a path that can quickly lead you off into lah-lah land.

Since Nicodemus is still part of the Sanhedrin, he would not have been immersed baptized by John’s baptism. That would have got him thrown out of the Sanhedrin, but being smart Nicodemus would know he should be baptized.

How does being smart have anything to do with whether or not Nicodemus knows he should be baptized? And why should Nicodemus have any particular ideas about baptism at all?

John’s baptism would have been a hot topic among the religious scholars,

You have no concrete idea whether it was a "hot topic" or not. This is sheer speculation you're indulging in here. This is not a good way to approach understanding God's word.

Jesus is not going to hand out the answer to Nicodemus, since Nicodemus knows the answer, but he will make Nicodemus think about it hard, since it would already be on his mind.

??? If it was already on the mind of Nicodemus, why would he have to think hard about it? And how do you know it was on his mind at all? The text gives you no ground whatever for thinking it was.

 

[rockytopva]

Simply believing on the Lord Jesus is enough for salvation....

8 ... The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. - Romans 10

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. - 1 John 5:4

Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. - Acts 16:30-31

 

[JohnB445]

Once you get baptized, I think it will no longer be something to worry about regarding whether it was a condition for salvation or not. (Although it would be very odd for someone to never be baptized or not have the desire to be baptized).

It is good you are planning on getting baptized, and showing all these fruits goes to show faith. It shows your love for the Lord that you do them out of obedience and not out of dreaded obligation of law.

 

[Danielwright2311]

If a person has true faith, but has not been baptized.
Are they born again?

If your answer is yes, then explain where the "born of water" part fits into the persons faith.

If you have faith you would be baptized, or plan to get baptized. But faith is one thing and belief is another and if a person has belief they belive in what Jesus said to get baptized.

So GET BAPTIZED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

 

[Wordkeeper]

There are many verses in the NT which say that if we believe in, look to and accept the Son we have eternal life.
I am not accepting any "impoverished interpretation" - and I am almost certain that stating that certain churches are producing "sons of Satan" counts as flaming.

Okay, offer up text that supports your claim.

Don't forget that the Pharisees taught that having Abraham as their father, following the minor points of the Law which identified a person as a Jew, guaranteed that proselytes would become blessings to the world, with eternal rewards accruing as a result. This absolved the convert from observing the weightier matters of the Law: justice, mercy and loyalty to God. They even left behind basic teachings like honoring parents, saying that what would be invested in looking after parents was better invested in giving to the Temple, with great show. Some even found Judaism a great way to sin by stealing the property of widows and orphans, making the Temple a den of thieves. That's how they became lawbreakers, became even worse, ethically and morally, than the Pharisees.

That is a great resemblance to the easy believism being taught today. Freedom to divorce spouses, embezzle, use the church to gather funds for private jets, to sin freely, so that grace may abound.

 

[Thess]

If a person has true faith, but has not been baptized.
Are they born again?

If your answer is yes, then explain where the "born of water" part fits into the persons faith.

I assure you that our great, Almighty and Powerful God is not irrational. Through Christ, God has paved a way for us to come to Him no matter where we are in the world. If we are in the desert and there is no water for miles and miles, God will not abandon us if we give him our entire hearts, but it has to be our whole heart.

 

[Strong in Him]

Okay, offer up text that supports your claim.

John 3:16 - God gave his Son and whoever believes in him has eternal life.
John 3:36 - whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.
John 6:40 - it is God's will that whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.
John 6:54 - whoever eats and drinks Jesus' body and blood has eternal life.
John 8:51 - if anyone keeps Jesus' word they will never see death.
John 10:10 - Jesus came to give us life.
John 10:28 - Jesus gives us eternal life.
John 11:25 - Jesus is the resurrection and the life.
John 14:6 - Jesus is the Way, the truth and the life and the only way to the Father.
Acts of the Apostles 4:12 - Salvation is found in no one else, but Jesus.
Romans 5:9-11 - we have been saved through Christ and reconciled to God.
Romans 6:23 - the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:17 - if anyone is in Christ they are a new creation.
2 Corinthians 5:18-20 - reconciled to God through Christ.
Galatians 3:11 - no one is justified by the law.
Galatians 4:5 - redeemed from the law by Jesus, so we could become sons.
1 John 5:12 - whoever has the Son of God has life; whoever does not, doesn't have life.

Note - eternal life not through Jesus + baptism, Jesus + the law or Jesus + anything else.
The Son alone gives salvation and eternal life.

 

[DamianWarS]

If a person has true faith, but has not been baptized.
Are they born again?

If your answer is yes, then explain where the "born of water" part fits into the persons faith.

John 3 is a classic eastern honor/shame dialog between someone who doesn't really want to commit and is playing dumb to save face. Nicodemus doesn't want to get baptised but instead of rejecting Jesus he just says stuff like "How can these things be?" this is why Jesus scolds him because he knew he wasn't interested in putting some skin in, and skin is what he needed which for him is baptism.

I think the references of "water and spirit" is baptism (for the water part) but it is not meant to be universal command that all require baptism but instead a contextual remark for Nicodemus, that Nicodemus needed to be baptised it order to show he was serious.

Baptism is still highly stressed and there is no reason why it should be delayed and belivers should seek it but I really don't see Jesus saying if you're not baptised you're not born again. Instead he was saying to a leader of the law and the Jews that was playing dumb with Jesus that HE needed to get baptised. This is not to say that baptism is optional, which is the wrong focus, but more to say for Nicodemus it was required.

 

[112358]

John 3:16 - God gave his Son and whoever believes in him has eternal life.
John 3:36 - whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.
John 6:40 - it is God's will that whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.
John 6:54 - whoever eats and drinks Jesus' body and blood has eternal life.
John 8:51 - if anyone keeps Jesus' word they will never see death.
John 10:10 - Jesus came to give us life.
John 10:28 - Jesus gives us eternal life.
John 11:25 - Jesus is the resurrection and the life.
John 14:6 - Jesus is the Way, the truth and the life and the only way to the Father.
Acts of the Apostles 4:12 - Salvation is found in no one else, but Jesus.
Romans 5:9-11 - we have been saved through Christ and reconciled to God.
Romans 6:23 - the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:17 - if anyone is in Christ they are a new creation.
2 Corinthians 5:18-20 - reconciled to God through Christ.
Galatians 3:11 - no one is justified by the law.
Galatians 4:5 - redeemed from the law by Jesus, so we could become sons.
1 John 5:12 - whoever has the Son of God has life; whoever does not, doesn't have life.

Note - eternal life not through Jesus + baptism, Jesus + the law or Jesus + anything else.
The Son alone gives salvation and eternal life.

I don't believe anyone has stated that salvation and eternal life are given by anyone or anything other than the Son. But the fact that these scriptures do not mention baptism is not proof that baptism is not necessary for salvation. I can quote as many examples of Christian conversions from the NT where baptism is specifically mentioned. "Faith alone" just leaves them out.

 

[Neostarwcc]

If a person has true faith, but has not been baptized.
Are they born again?

If your answer is yes, then explain where the "born of water" part fits into the persons faith.

Hello. It is a common interpretation today that the answer is yes. I also hold to this belief. I believe Jesus was talking about our physical birth when he said being born of water. Due to what he says in verse 4 and 6. Plus it makes sense because we are all born of water when we are born into this world. I hope that answers your question.

 

[bling]

What makes you think I haven't? In investigating John 3:5-6 many years ago, I came across an explanation of the verses in a commentary that pointed out that the word rendered "and" in verse 5 ("born of water and the Spirit") could be rendered "even" which changes the sense of the verse significantly. It would read, "born of water even the Spirit," making the water and the Spirit one and the same thing. Verse 6, though, seems to weaken this interpretation, however, by emphasizing two different and distinct births: a fleshly birth and a spiritual one. In any case, I am aware that the conjunction "and" may have both a copulative and a cumulative force.

Yes good study, sorry for insinuating you had not, but few do.

I don't think Christ referring to amniotic fluid as "water" was intended as a literal description of the fluid. It seems pretty obvious to me he was speaking figuratively when he referred to "water" in John 3:5. He wasn't giving Nicodemus a lesson in the chemistry of amniotic fluid, so a figurative reference to the fluid as "water" would be perfectly all right - and apt.

Nicodemus is not having any problem understanding the first birth, but he is questioning what the second birth is, since it cannot be reentering your mother’s womb. There is no reason for Christ to bring up the natural physical first birth. I have not found any reference to the natural first birth being called a “water” birth, but have you?

Water baptism was practiced for women converts to Judaism as a “birth”. Water baptized the earth for Noah, making it new. The people leaving Egypt were water “baptized” in the Red Sea.

For Nicodemus to submit to John’s baptism would have been a huge change of life for him. Everything Nicodemus had work for to become would become worthless (dead) and he would have to virtually start again like being born again, under these uneducated commoners call apostles who had been considered by all his friends and himself to be way below them.

This is an...odd way to assess John 3:5-6 and its context. When I look at the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus, the question Nicodemus asked is very clear and Jesus' response to his question is also clear (and direct). It seems to me, then, that Jesus did address the question Nicodemus verbalized.

Nicodemus’ first addresses Jesus with: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

And Jesus responds with: “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

How, where, and why did Jesus come up with that response? There is nothing in Nicodemus’ greeting that would suggest such a response. It is not anything like a simple exchange.

Look at other one on one exchanges Jesus had, especially where the agenda of the person approaching Jesus is not known and see how the comments a Jesus are anything but a simple exchange.

Nicodemus as a Pharisee had all the answers and could talk a lot about the “Kingdom of God”, but he was not prepared for Jesus’ line of questioning, so did Jesus make this statement to everyone he came up to or just Nicodemus?

Jesus is not out making general philosophical statements to go into some book, but focuses on the individual being addressed (or the small group) and really what is on their heart.

To understand the comment Jesus made to Nicodemus we need to get into Nicodemus’ head at that particular moment, because Jesus is communicating directly to Nicodemus and for Nicodemus.

If Nicodemus is willing (not publicly willing, he is coming at night) to acknowledge: “you are a teacher who has come from God”, then he would also be acknowledging John the Baptist was from God (but again not publicly). “Everyone” believed John the Baptist was from God:

Matt. 21:32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

John 12:42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved human praise more than praise from God

Nicodemus did not come saying “You are the Messiah”, which he would probably would be considering, but John’s baptism was unquestionably seen as being from God, but again something the pharisees could not publicly acknowledge because: “They had not been baptized by John’s baptism”, which is where Nicodemus resided. Nicodemus knew he should be baptized by John but had to refuse since: “they loved human praise more than praise from God”.

Jesus would not go past what Nicodemus already knew he should be doing, if your not going to do what you already know to do, why go further?

To answer this with any accuracy you would have to have a very good idea of where Nicodemus was in his understanding and practice of Judaism, what his understanding of the teachings of Christ was, and what his attitude toward Jesus was, too. You don't have this information so, it seems to me, any conclusions you come to in answer to your question above are at best educated guesses and at worst blind assumptions. It is never a good idea, I think, to assess Scripture from such poor bases.

We know Nicodemus was a Pharisee, part of the religious leaders in Jerusalem, was coming at night, later did speak up but to timid to follow through, seem to believe something very positive about Christ in the end (burying Him), he would not have submitted to John’s baptism, Jesus just “spoken to you of earthly things” which could include John’s baptism (not of spiritual things), will leave his encounter with Christ uncommitted, and remained part of the Sanhedrin up to Christ’s death.

I do not see it that hard to put ourselves in Nicodemus’ shoes.

Why not avoid all this speculation and simply take what the text offers? I am very wary of the sort of loose extrapolation in which you're engaging. It's a path that can quickly lead you off into lah-lah land.

The first two comments by Nicodemus and Christ show this is not a normal conversation and we are going to have to think beyond just the words.

The “why” something is said is very significant.

How does being smart have anything to do with whether or not Nicodemus knows he should be baptized? And why should Nicodemus have any particular ideas about baptism at all?

Nicodemus knew OT scripture and could easily realize what John was saying was consistent with OT prophets. People not familiar with scripture might not be able to put the prophecies together.

Matt 21: 23 Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”

24 Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

“All had gone out to be baptized by John”, yet the Pharisees could not belittled John, but for their own prestige could not acknowledge John as a prophet so to save face and retain their pride say “we do not know” but that is a lie, since Christ did not accept that answer, so they did know!

You have no concrete idea whether it was a "hot topic" or not. This is sheer speculation you're indulging in here. This is not a good way to approach understanding God's word.

All the people when out to be baptized by John.

??? If it was already on the mind of Nicodemus, why would he have to think hard about it? And how do you know it was on his mind at all? The text gives you no ground whatever for thinking it was.

When I know, I have to do something, yet because of a false since of “pride” I refuse to do it, that something weighs on me extremely hard.

People will do almost anything to avoid humbly accepting charity (help) from a sacrificial giver even when they really need the help. Nicodemus really needed John’s help (God’s help) to repent (change his ways) and accept a new formula of for salvation (repenting and depending on God’s Love (forgiveness).

Nicodemus like all of us suppress our burdens of sin all kinds of ways, but Christ would be bringing the sin to the forefront. We might think if Nicodemus needed to be baptized, why did Jesus not first say: “Nicodemus have one of my disciples baptize you right now?”

The problem with that is: it is Christ’s choice for Nicodemus and not Nicodemus’ free will choice. With that Nicodemus can say: “I was baptized because a person I thought to be a prophet told me to be baptized, so I had no choice but to obey”, suggesting it was not really his personal choice. There would have been no “counting of the cost” to the Nicodemus’ choice to be baptized. If Nicodemus decides personally, he needs to be baptized by John’s baptism, can he say Jesus made me do it? Those are not the actual words Christ said, but Christ through figurative language went around the subject and let Nicodemus think it out.

We today might have a hard time figuring out what Jesus was trying to get Nicodemus to do from Jesus’ words, but placing myself in Nicodemus’ shoes it all seems logical.

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't believe anyone has stated that salvation and eternal life are given by anyone or anything other than the Son.

I was answering a post which talked about the need to produce fruit of repentance. I think the actual words were that salvation is conditional - on producing this fruit.
I said that salvation is not conditional and that there are a number of verses which say that if we come to, and accept, Jesus, we have eternal life.
I was then told to produce verses to support my view.

But the fact that these scriptures do not mention baptism is not proof that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Exactly. My argument is that Jesus saves; Jesus alone. On the cross he said "it is finished", not "it is partially finished but you need baptism to complete your salvation."

I've been baptised as an adult, agree with baptism and think it is highly desirable.
But if someone is not able to be baptised - through illness, for another reason or because they die before they can do this; they are still saved. Baptism is a public testimony to God's grace and salvation, not something that needs to be done before God can fully save us.

 

[112358]

I was answering a post which talked about the need to produce fruit of repentance. I think the actual words were that salvation is conditional - on producing this fruit.
I said that salvation is not conditional and that there are a number of verses which say that if we come to, and accept, Jesus, we have eternal life.
I was then told to produce verses to support my view.



Exactly. My argument is that Jesus saves; Jesus alone. On the cross he said "it is finished", not "it is partially finished but you need baptism to complete your salvation."

I've been baptised as an adult, agree with baptism and think it is highly desirable.
But if someone is not able to be baptised - through illness, for another reason or because they die before they can do this; they are still saved. Baptism is a public testimony to God's grace and salvation, not something that needs to be done before God can fully save us.

Respectfully, your argument is flawed. I could use the same argument to say that on the cross Christ said, "it is finished", not "it is partially finished but you need belief, to come to, to accept Me, to complete your salvation."

This is my problem with "faith alone". It rejects all else except "believe" as a work, but at the same time accepts and demands belief as a requirement. You can't have it both ways. Either God established belief (among others including baptism) as a condition or everyone is saved no matter what they think or do.

The fact is that Jesus Christ said "he who believes and baptized will be saved...". He was baptized (albeit for a different purpose) Himself. He commanded the apostles to do it. They proceeded to carry out that command by baptizing everyone in sight starting at Pentecost. The book of Acts is chock full of examples where people who were obeying the gospel and becoming Christians were being baptized. In several cases those who had been baptized into John's baptism needed to be baptized again! Cornelius, even AFTER he received the Holy Spirit, still needed to be baptized. Paul was baptized and expounded at length regarding it's significance and meaning. Peter commanded it to those who would be the very first Christians in Acts 2 "for the remission of sins". He later said that it "now saves us", just like Noah was saved "through water" (not the ark!).

Nowhere in scripture is there even a hint that baptism is a public testimony to God's grace. It's just not there. Peter explains that it is not the washing of filth from the flesh, but the answer of a clear conscience toward God. That is internal/inward, not external/public. The eunuch was baptized in the presence of Phillip alone. Certainly not in public. So either he was not baptized according to God's will, or its purpose is not to be a public testimony!

People can (and do) do all the exegetical gymnastics necessary to remove water baptism from the NT and the Christian conversion experience, but that does not remove it from God's Word, His everlasting truth.

I hope my comments are not received as offensive. I hope they might encourage someone to take a closer look at baptism in the NT.

 

[danielmears]

Perhaps Jesus was speaking of the same, water, he was speaking of when he talked to the woman at the well, the living water, from God, the very fountain!

 

[rockytopva]

Paul also seems to downplay baptism here...

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. - 1 Corinthians 1

 

[112358]

Paul also seems to downplay baptism here...


11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. - 1 Corinthians 1

No. He does not downplay baptism here at all. He downplays the importance of who does the baptizing, and the factions that misunderstanding apparently had caused in the church. I would suggest that the implication here is that everyone he is addressing had obviously been baptized...like it was a given, understood as something every Christian had done.

 

[corinth77777]

If a person has true faith, but has not been baptized.
Are they born again?

If your answer is yes, then explain where the "born of water" part fits into the persons faith.

One is first born through his mother after the water burst....they are born if water...

Since He seems to be answering Nics question.....of reentering his mother's womb.
It seems to me he saying the first birth is physical and second spiritual....
Now what is true faith?

 

[lsume]

If a person has true faith, but has not been baptized.
Are they born again?

If your answer is yes, then explain where the "born of water" part fits into the persons faith.

Born of the water means that you have to be born as a human being. In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, Lazarus upon death was in bosom of Abraham while the rich man was in hell. The divide that separated the two cannot be crossed once in the spiritual form all humans exist in after death. The born again experience is when Christ carries the one born again across the divide. However, the experience is Spiritual. Those predestined to live in The Kingdom with Christ are aliens on this earth. Christ is man’s only hope for living in eternity with Him. The Word Speaks of two places that man in his spiritual form will live forever in

Dan.12

1. 
   [2] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

This wisp of time on earth sets your destiny for eternity. To live an eternity in shame and everlasting contempt is not where we as Christians want anyone to spend eternity. Also, some on earth today Truly understand The Word Spoken in 2 Corinthians 5:11 and are motivated to share The Gospel to prevent some from having to face the terror of The Lord.

2Cor.5

1. [11] Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

The fallen are terrified by what is coming as shown in James 2:19. There is a unique judgement coming for the fallen.

Jas.2

1. [19] Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

To live in eternity with Christ, one must first be born as a human and next must be born of The Holy Spirit and of fire.

Matt.3

1. 
   [11] I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

There is one Truth in The Word of God and One Teacher. When one is first called by God The Father Who Hands that one to Christ Who Teaches that one The Word and The Mysteries. There is no division amongst those who have gone through this Way and are of the same understanding because they have all had The Same Teacher.

Mal.3 Verses 1 to 3

1. 
   [1] Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to this temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
   [2] But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
   [3] And he shall sit as a refiner and purifer of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

No one will stand in the day of their visitation. Christ is The Firstborn among many Brethren.

Rom.8

1. [29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

[aiki]

Nicodemus is not having any problem understanding the first birth, but he is questioning what the second birth is, since it cannot be reentering your mother’s womb. There is no reason for Christ to bring up the natural physical first birth. I have not found any reference to the natural first birth being called a “water” birth, but have you?

Christ's own words to Nicodemus make it clear that he is distinguishing between different kinds of birth: physical and spiritual. He had just told Nicodemus of the necessity of a second birth and in reply to Nicodemus's natural confusion (vs. 4), he gives a brief explanation of what distinguishes the two births from each other. Verses 5 and 6, then, constitute this explanation, as is very evident in what Jesus says:

John 3:5-6
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.

There was, then, a very good reason for Jesus to go into the matter of physical birth. In doing so, he was directly responding to Nicodemus's confusion about what Jesus meant about being born a second time.

Have I found an instance of physical birth being described as "born of water"? Well, yes, in the passage in question.

For Nicodemus to submit to John’s baptism would have been a huge change of life for him.

What does this have to do with the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus in John 3? Neither of them mentioned John the Baptist.

Everything Nicodemus had work for to become would become worthless (dead) and he would have to virtually start again like being born again, under these uneducated commoners call apostles who had been considered by all his friends and himself to be way below them.

None of this is even hinted at by Nicodemus in his conversation with Jesus. It's interesting speculation but, as far as I can see, this is all it is.

Nicodemus’ first addresses Jesus with: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

And Jesus responds with: “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

How, where, and why did Jesus come up with that response? There is nothing in Nicodemus’ greeting that would suggest such a response. It is not anything like a simple exchange.

Seems pretty simple to me... We aren't told why Jesus responded as he did and I am very reluctant to speculate as to why. If it was important for us to know, the passage would tell us (which it doesn't). I don't think it is at all wise to add my own imaginings to God's word.

Nicodemus as a Pharisee had all the answers and could talk a lot about the “Kingdom of God”, but he was not prepared for Jesus’ line of questioning, so did Jesus make this statement to everyone he came up to or just Nicodemus?

How do you know Nicodemus had "all the answers," or felt that he did? This is a guess you're making about Nicodemus's state of mind, and as such adds to Scripture. Did Nicodemus "talk a lot about the kingdom of God"? How would you know this with any certainty? Again, this seems like guesswork to me and as such shouldn't be given any serious weight. We don't know how Jesus spoke to everyone who came up to him, so, again, we ought not to speculate about it with any dogmatism.

Jesus is not out making general philosophical statements to go into some book, but focuses on the individual being addressed (or the small group) and really what is on their heart.

Well, I can't agree here. I think Jesus, being God, likely knew his words would echo down to us through the ages in the form of the Bible. He was, after all, the One who inspired the Bible.

To understand the comment Jesus made to Nicodemus we need to get into Nicodemus’ head at that particular moment, because Jesus is communicating directly to Nicodemus and for Nicodemus.

It doesn't follow that because Jesus is speaking directly to Nicodemus we need to "get into Nicodemus's head" in order to understand what Jesus was saying to him. Jesus seems very clear to me in his comments about the two kinds of birth. If it was important to know Nicodemus's thoughts, Scripture would have revealed them to us as in the case of Christ and Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7:39.

If Nicodemus is willing (not publicly willing, he is coming at night) to acknowledge: “you are a teacher who has come from God”, then he would also be acknowledging John the Baptist was from God (but again not publicly).

Again, John the Baptist does not come into the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus at all.

John 12:42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved human praise more than praise from God

Nicodemus did not come saying “You are the Messiah”, which he would probably would be considering, but John’s baptism was unquestionably seen as being from God,

"Probably would be" is not certainty. These are qualifications made for speculations.

Nicodemus knew he should be baptized by John but had to refuse since: “they loved human praise more than praise from God”.

But the very fact that this was Nicodemus's attitude suggests strongly that he would not have believed he needed to be baptized by John. And the phrase about loving the praise of men more than the praise of God was made in reference to acknowledging Christ as Messiah, not John the Baptist.

Jesus would not go past what Nicodemus already knew he should be doing, if your not going to do what you already know to do, why go further?

This is a tenuously held-together conclusion that is resting upon a framework of imaginative speculation. Not a good way to handle God's word, it seems to me.

We know Nicodemus was a Pharisee, part of the religious leaders in Jerusalem, was coming at night, later did speak up but to timid to follow through, seem to believe something very positive about Christ in the end (burying Him), he would not have submitted to John’s baptism, Jesus just “spoken to you of earthly things” which could include John’s baptism (not of spiritual things), will leave his encounter with Christ uncommitted, and remained part of the Sanhedrin up to Christ’s death.

I do not see it that hard to put ourselves in Nicodemus’ shoes.

But all that you've noted here is all you can concretely assert about Nicodemus. His innermost thoughts are closed to you no matter how "Sherlock Holmes" you get on the few details Scripture gives us about Nicodemus.

The first two comments by Nicodemus and Christ show this is not a normal conversation and we are going to have to think beyond just the words.

The “why” something is said is very significant.

"Normal conversation"? By whose standard? I've never thought their conversation was particularly unusual.

I think what is most important in their exchange is what is made evident in the content of their words. If God wanted us to know the inner thoughts and motivations of Nicodemus, he would have made them apparent to us in His word.

Nicodemus knew OT scripture and could easily realize what John was saying was consistent with OT prophets.

"Could" not "did." Not good ground to build any dogmatically-held point upon.

24 Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

“All had gone out to be baptized by John”, yet the Pharisees could not belittled John, but for their own prestige could not acknowledge John as a prophet so to save face and retain their pride say “we do not know” but that is a lie, since Christ did not accept that answer, so they did know!

The Pharisees knew what "the people" were thinking and saying about John the Bapist but this doesn't mean the Pharisees themselves believed the same. Clearly, they didn't.

When I know, I have to do something, yet because of a false since of “pride” I refuse to do it, that something weighs on me extremely hard.

Okay. But why should what is true of you be true of anyone else in this regard? And you're assuming Nicodemus knew he ought to have been baptized but was resisting this knowledge. No where in any place in any of the Gospels is this stated - or even clearly implied.

People will do almost anything to avoid humbly accepting charity (help) from a sacrificial giver even when they really need the help. Nicodemus really needed John’s help (God’s help) to repent (change his ways) and accept a new formula of for salvation (repenting and depending on God’s Love (forgiveness).

Perhaps. But you have no certain way of knowing what Nicodemus actually thought or felt in regards to John the Baptist and the matter of baptism. What you've stated here is all basically loose conjecture. And the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus certainly offers you no ground for suggesting Christ meant "water baptism" when he spoke of "born of water." Especially, when in the very next verse, Christ explained that he meant "born of the flesh."

The problem with that is: it is Christ’s choice for Nicodemus and not Nicodemus’ free will choice. With that Nicodemus can say: “I was baptized because a person I thought to be a prophet told me to be baptized, so I had no choice but to obey”, suggesting it was not really his personal choice. There would have been no “counting of the cost” to the Nicodemus’ choice to be baptized. If Nicodemus decides personally, he needs to be baptized by John’s baptism, can he say Jesus made me do it? Those are not the actual words Christ said, but Christ through figurative language went around the subject and let Nicodemus think it out.

Yikes! Surely some part of you must recognize that this degree of speculation and extrapolation reveals the faultiness of what you are saying about what Christ meant by "born of water." Certainly, nothing you've imagined here defeats a more natural, straightforward reading of his words.

We today might have a hard time figuring out what Jesus was trying to get Nicodemus to do from Jesus’ words, but placing myself in Nicodemus’ shoes it all seems logical.

Um, from where I stand your thinking doesn't seem logical at all. I would urge you to think on the Occam's Razor principle.