Should amniotic fluid be the proper interpretation for “born of water” in John 3:5?

[swordsman1]

So the woman at the well (John 4) could not be aware what would be written decades later?
Would any of Jesus' hard sayings not be understood until decades later? Strange hermenuetic.
The Rich Young Ruler went away from Jesus dejected, because he didn't understand Jesus. That was Jesus point....for us!
John's readers understood, "born of water" is not to be interpreted naturalistically because they are born from above....born from God. Of course Nicodemus believed differently than John's readers....HE WAS AN UNBELIEVER.

The difference here is that Nicodemus fully and correctly understands what Jesus is referring to in verse 3 - two births. And Jesus confirms that is indeed what he meant...only that the 2 births are not 2 natural births as Nicodemus thought, but that the 2nd birth is a spiritual birth.

Another rule of hermeneutics is that the obvious meaning is invariably the correct one, rather than performing convoluted exegetic acrobatics in order to arrive at a contrived interpretation.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Another rule of hermeneutics is that the obvious meaning is invariably the correct one, rather than performing convoluted exegetic acrobatics in order to arrive at a contrived interpretation.

I am going to stay away from that one as far as I can. As the old saying goes....anytime someone says the word "obvious" it is anything but obvious. I am out of this conversation and this thread.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The only evidence that might connect the discourse with Nicodemus and baptism would be Jewish mikveh, which was commanded by God for a wide variety of reasons. Mikveh is still practiced by Orthodox Jews to this day and, you can be quite certain that make no connection between it and Christian baptism. If Jesus had been informing Nicodemus that he needed to undergo mikveh in order to be born from above, then Nicodemus would have probably asked Jesus which reason could he cite for undergoing mikveh, since nothing in the Old Testament mikveh commandments is remotely associated with a second birth, other than the mikveh which Jewish women undergo following the birth of a child. Nicodemus, being a man, obviously could not have been subject to the stipulations of this mikveh commandment.

Therefore, it is only reasonable that the connection between water and physical birth in contrast with spiritual birth from above formed the remainder of the narrative.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The only evidence that might connect the discourse with Nicodemus and baptism would be Jewish mikveh, which was commanded by God for a wide variety of reasons.

Chapter and verse about the mikveh in the NT. Mivkveh is a biblical word when it comes to the storage of water but not when it comes to purification in the NT. Jewish proselyte baptism extra biblical and can not be used to interpret Scripture.

We do have hand washing as a purification rite (Luke 11:38/Mark 7:4)....but not full body Mikveh...no way...not even close in the NT.

Mikveh is not a precurser to John's baptism or Christian baptism. But John's baptism and Christian are of human administration to another. which starts with John the B and continues with Christian baptism.

Mikveh purification is initiated by the individual.

The NT interprets the OT. We have nothing in the NT about this usage of purificaton rites of the Mikveh, therefore I pitch the entire concept as Jewish ceremonialism forever locked down in the OT.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Chapter and verse about the mikveh in the NT. Mivkveh is a biblical word when it comes to the storage of water but not when it comes to purification in the NT. Jewish proselyte baptism extra biblical and can not be used to interpret Scripture.

We do have hand washing as a purification rite (Luke 11:38/Mark 7:4)....but not full body Mikveh...no way...not even close in the NT.

Mikveh is not a precurser to John's baptism or Christian baptism. But John's baptism and Christian are of human administration to another. which starts with John the B and continues with Christian baptism.

Mikveh purification is initiated by the individual.

The NT interprets the OT. We have nothing in the NT about this usage of purificaton rites of the Mikveh, therefore I pitch the entire concept as Jewish ceremonialism forever locked down in the OT.

Now, sir, you have no chapter or verse to support the notion that Christian baptism was taught or known by anyone other than God prior to the discussion of Nicodemus with Jesus. Thus, it is imperative for you to read into the passage a theology which is foreign to the actual discussion. It is rather like certain Christians who will assign one, and only one, meaning to a word in the Bible and then determine that the word carried only that meaning regardless of its context. Thus, one could read back into the Old Testament references to Christian baptism wherever the word "water" is found. This can be a jolly exercise in eisegesis. We could end up like Mohammed who, in the Q'ran stated quite distinctly that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, was the sister (literal, physical sister) of Moses. Because both these women shared the same name he concluded that they had to be the same individual.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Now, sir, you have no chapter or verse to support the notion that Christian baptism was taught or known by anyone other than God prior to the discussion of Nicodemus with Jesus.

John was baptizing and the Jewish leaders thought he was Christ. And this is before the conversation with Nicodemus. John 1:19ff. 24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

John's baptism is founding on Ezekiel 36:19ff. Jewish leaders knew John's baptism was of the Messianic in nature. THAT IS WHY THEY ASKED HIM. God is doing the "sprinkling of the nations." John is doing sprinkling of water FOR REPENTANCE AS A FORERUNNER TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM which of course has nothing to do with mikveh purification.

All four gospel accounts record John's baptism as a forerunner of Christian Baptism. Repentance is apart of Christian baptism (Acts 2:38). Furthermore, John's baptism was also for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4) which is also apart of Christian baptism (Acts 2:39).

And we know all these facts before Jesus talked with Nicodemus. John's baptism and Christian baptism have nothing to do with Mikveh purification rites.

 

[bbbbbbb]

John was baptizing and the Jewish leaders thought he was Christ. And this is before the conversation with Nicodemus. John 1:19ff. 24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

John's baptism is founding on Ezekiel 36:19ff. Jewish leaders knew John's baptism was of the Messianic in nature. THAT IS WHY THEY ASKED HIM. God is doing the "sprinkling of the nations." John is doing sprinkling of water FOR REPENTANCE AS A FORERUNNER TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM which of course has nothing to do with mikveh purification.

All four gospel accounts record John's baptism as a forerunner of Christian Baptism. Repentance is apart of Christian baptism (Acts 2:38). Furthermore, John's baptism was also for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4) which is also apart of Christian baptism (Acts 2:39).

And we know all these facts before Jesus talked with Nicodemus. John's baptism and Christian baptism have nothing to do with Mikveh purification rites.

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. Scripture is crystal clear about that. It was not Christian baptism. It was not the birth from above. If it was, then Jesus Christ would have been a mere mortal in subjecting Himself to John's baptism - if, and indeed if, it imparted the new birth.

Thus, to assert that John's baptism played any part in the discussion between Nicodemus and Jesus is absurd. If the "water" in the discussion was the baptism of John then Nicodemus would have quickly connected the dots. Or, better, Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself. Jesus did not say to Nicodemus, "You need to go to the Jordan and get my cousin, John, to baptize you so you can have the birth from above."

Once again, your eisegesis is embarrassingly evident.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

then Nicodemus would have quickly connected the dots. Or, better, Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself.

Really? Did Jesus connect the dots with the Rich young ruler? Nope! Did the rich young ruler connect the dots himself? Nope.

In all the passion predictions in the NT, DID THE DISCIPLES CONNECT THE DOTS? NOPE. Did Jesus connect the dots for the disciples? Nope.

Certainly this is a very immature way of interpreting Scripture. Now the hermenuetical rules is 'THE DOTS MUST BE CONNECTED.!"

You said, Jesus would have connected the dots! How do you know what Jesus would have or have not done. Where do you get such bogus beliefs?

Quoting you is best for you:

Once again, your eisegesis is embarrassingly evident.

Like Gift Quote Reply
Report

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Or, better, Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself.

I took a screen shot of this statement. And I will share it with a Bible class at church at a later date.

This is your hermenuetic: Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself.

It is an excellent example of eisegesis. You beginning with yourself knows so much about the sayings of Jesus, that you truly know when Jesus would or would not connect the dots of interpretation. Such a bold and irresponsible statement.

In my reading of the NT, Jesus doesn't choose to connect all the dots of interpretation as you do. Quite the opposite.

Take for example the hard sayings of Jesus:

• 1. Let the Dead Bury the Dead (Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60) ... Does Jesus connect the dots of interpretation here? Nope.
• 2. Whoever Divorces and Marries Another Commits Adultery (Matthew 5:27-32; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18) .....Does Jesus connect the dots of interpretation here? Nope.
• 3. You Must Hate Your Parents, Spouse, Siblings, and Children (Matthew 10:37 Luke 14:26) ...... Does Jesus connect the dots of interpretation here? Nope.
• 4. You Must Be Perfect (Matthew 5:48) ...... Does Jesus connect the dots of interpretation here? Nope.
• 5. Fear Him Who Has Power to Cast into Hell (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4-5) ...... Does Jesus connect the dots of interpretation here? Nope.

The parables: Jesus certainly does connect all the dots of interpretation of the first two parables in Matthew 13. However, all the other parables that Jesus does not give the promise you do Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself.

The best example I have ever come of eisegesis is your statement: Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself.

Thank you for this most bizarre principle for interpreting Scripture: Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself.

You will be remembered long after your death....for this most weird rule for interpreting Scripture: Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself.

 

[ralliann]

The difference here is that Nicodemus fully and correctly understands what Jesus is referring to in verse 3 - two births. And Jesus confirms that is indeed what he meant...only that the 2 births are not 2 natural births as Nicodemus thought, but that the 2nd birth is a spiritual birth.

Another rule of hermeneutics is that the obvious meaning is invariably the correct one, rather than performing convoluted exegetic acrobatics in order to arrive at a contrived interpretation.

I don't know about that?
It was prophesied parables and riddles so they would not understand.

Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mt 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings 02420 of old:

02420 חידה chiydah khee-daw’

from 02330; n f; [BDB-295a] {See TWOT on 616 @@ "616a"}

AV-riddle 9, dark sayings 3, hard question 2, dark sentence 1, proverb 1, dark speech 1; 17

1) riddle, difficult question, parable, enigmatic saying or question, perplexing saying or question
1a) riddle (dark obscure utterance)
1b) riddle, enigma (to be guessed)
1c) perplexing questions (difficult)
1d) double dealing (with ‘havin’)

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Thus, to assert that John's baptism played any part in the discussion between Nicodemus and Jesus is absurd.

Not absurd at all. In John 1:25 the Jewish authorities in a fact finding mission inquired of John's baptism if it was Messianic. This was before the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. This then leaves the possibility Nicodemus as a "leader" of Israel and a Pharisee was privy to this information about John's baptism before his conversation with Jesus. Not absurd at a all.

What is absurd is your statement:

Jesus would have connected the dots for him if he failed to do it himself.

Now this is an absolute absurdity and the purest form of eisegesis I have come across here at CF.

 

[swordsman1]

I don't know about that?
It was prophesied parables and riddles so they would not understand.

Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mt 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings 02420 of old:

02420 חידה chiydah khee-daw’

from 02330; n f; [BDB-295a] {See TWOT on 616 @@ "616a"}

AV-riddle 9, dark sayings 3, hard question 2, dark sentence 1, proverb 1, dark speech 1; 17

1) riddle, difficult question, parable, enigmatic saying or question, perplexing saying or question
1a) riddle (dark obscure utterance)
1b) riddle, enigma (to be guessed)
1c) perplexing questions (difficult)
1d) double dealing (with ‘havin’)

This is no parable or riddle here. Nicodemus fully understood what Jesus meant in v3 - that two births are required. Jesus then clearly explains that the 1st birth is a natural birth and the 2nd birth is a spiritual birth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Really? Did Jesus connect the dots with the Rich young ruler? Nope! Did the rich young ruler connect the dots himself? Nope.

In all the passion predictions in the NT, DID THE DISCIPLES CONNECT THE DOTS? NOPE. Did Jesus connect the dots for the disciples? Nope.

Certainly this is a very immature way of interpreting Scripture. Now the hermenuetical rules is 'THE DOTS MUST BE CONNECTED.!"

You said, Jesus would have connected the dots! How do you know what Jesus would have or have not done. Where do you get such bogus beliefs?

Quoting you is best for you:


Like Gift Quote Reply
Report

You do have a point. However, it is not accurate to say that Jesus never connected the dots for anyone. As you know Jesus connected plenty of dots for his disciples after presenting parables, such as the sower or the good Samaritan, leaving them with a clear understanding. Probably one of the most striking example occurs in John 6 where Jesus made some truly strange statements which caused many of His followers to leave. To those who remained He told him that His words were spirit and truth, not physical in nature.

In any event, there is nothing in the passage or its context to conclude that the water Jesus was referring to came from Abraham's well, as one could easily conclude if one were to read that into the passage. That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

 

[ralliann]

This is no parable or riddle here. Nicodemus fully understood what Jesus meant in v3 - that two births are required. Jesus then clearly explains that the 1st birth is a natural birth and the 2nd birth is a spiritual birth.

I am just speaking to your statements in post #18 quoted below.

"One of the main tenets of hermeneutic is how would the audience have understood any discourse.

Nicodemus would not have been aware of what would be written in the New Testament decades later."


He even spoke to the disciples in proverbs (not plainly)
Joh 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

 

[Jan001]

It is my understanding that this being "born of water and spirit" refers to the water baptism commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-19.

John 3:1-7 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2 He came to Jesus] by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with that person.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’

We are born from above (of water and the spirit) when we are water baptized as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-19.

Ephesians 5:26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, (baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit)

This baptismal water is the living water we partake of which makes it possible for us to enter into eternal life.

John 4:10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.

Mark 16:16a The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, Matthew 28:18-19