I said "water" (not Spirit) is also used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God.So...Spirit could be an emblem of the word of God.
How would that work??
But when He applied the mud to his eyes the man first saw trees as men walking around or some such, so He applies again. Sounds like it’s factual rather than symbolic of sanctification. That was the only time Jesus used anything but instantaneous healing of disease. Blindness is a process when spiritual things are involved it would seem.Every sacrament uses physical properties in order to convey the spiritual meaning. Similarly, Jesus made mud with spittle to apply to the blind man's eyes. He could more easily have said a few words and cured him, right? (John 9:6)
Because cleansing is involved and the Holy Spirit is the source of living water.so why even say water? why not just spirit?
I'm not dismissing it but rather challenging it as the word is not unpacked so I want it to be clear. Water and the Spirit to you seem to be the union of the physical and the spiritual... sacrament and the Spirit... am I right?Every sacrament uses physical properties in order to convey the spiritual meaning. Similarly, Jesus made mud with spittle to apply to the blind man's eyes. He could more easily have said a few words and cured him, right? (John 9:6)
I know. My comment was a rebuttal to Damian's idea, not yours. I included your post only in order to show readers the sequence of remarks leading up to that and where the "emblem" comment entered into the discussion.I said "water" (not Spirit) is also used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God.
*See the scriptures I posted in post #114.
I'm not dismissing it but rather challenging it as the word is not unpacked so I want it to be clear.
Yes. That is the perspective of the Church since Ancient times. Or if it is best to put it in other words, that is the nature of a sacrament, any sacrament.Water and the Spirit to you seem to be the union of the physical and the spiritual... sacrament and the Spirit... am I right?
The spiritual aspect of this issue is, I think, accepted by all here. It is the physical that was in question with the water vs spirit claims.But when He applied the mud to his eyes the man first saw trees as men walking around or some such, so He applies again. Sounds like it’s factual rather than symbolic of sanctification.
That was the only time Jesus used anything but instantaneous healing of disease.
1) Net Bible and World English Bible do not capitalise 'spirit' in John 3:5. The original texts do not capitalise 'spirit'.by most, you must mean all. why is your interpretation better than the rest?
The original texts do not capitalise, so it would have to be 'born of spirit and spirit'. Try to work that out!so why even say water? why not just spirit?
When Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’” (John 3:5-7)...
The context of the water in this statement is not a reference to “baptism,” but is a reference to the "water" through which a person is born into the world naturally the first time (aka: amniotic fluid).
So it is your contention that - since life begins at conception - that all whose babies whose mothers miscarry prior to the filling of the amniotic sac with fluid go to hell?
So it is your contention that - since life begins at conception - that all whose babies whose mothers miscarry prior to the filling of the amniotic sac with fluid go to hell?
No, not at all. God's grace covers those who are before the "age of accountability." (2 Samuel 12:19-23)
Hi Kris, I agree. The other thing is this, on what basis would God judge and condemn an infant or an unborn childGod's grace covers those who are before the "age of accountability." (2 Samuel 12:19-23)
At best, this is a theological stretch. The most we can say with any accuracy is that we do not know.
That is a question that has been pondered by Christians for many centuries. However, it has nothing to do with denying children the sacrament that God--not we ourselves--instituted, and did so for the benefit of all mankind.No, what we can say is that God is a holy, just, righteous God and an infant or unborn child who never had the capacity to understand much of anything is not going to suffer for eternity in hell as a result. We trust God to judge rightly...always.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?