# Debate For Christians: Born Of Water **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2001, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540 "2001-05-06T14:25:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/1 "2001-05-06T14:25:10Z")
For context, John 3:1-8… > [@](#): > > Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” > > In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” > > “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” > > Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” Water. In the chapter immediately before this one, Jesus turns water into wine for a wedding feast that has run out of wine, which prompts a guest to declare joyfully to the host that most people use their good wine first, and save the ordinary wine until everyone is too drunk to notice the difference, but this host has saved his best wine for last! And in the chapter immediately following this one, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that if she drinks the water she’s drawn from the well, she will get thirsty again, but that He offers her “living water” that will “become in [people] a spring which will provide them with life-giving water and give them eternal life.” Water-Wine. Water-Spirit. Water-Life. It’s no secret here that my own interpretation of scripture diverges enormously from traditional interpretations in many areas, for example, the Pentacost being the return of Christ. What I’m wondering is whether my interpretation of the two lines embedded in the scripture quoted above also diverges from the popular interpretation, namely, that “born of water” means being baptized. As I see it, the parallel Jesus draws is clear, simply from the construction of the sentences. In the first, “A: born of water” — “B: [born of] the Spirit”; in the second, “A: Flesh _gives birth_ to flesh” — “B: Spirit gives birth to spirit”. Born of water means born physically, as when a woman’s water breaks. Born of the spirit means born spiritually, as when a person’s comprehension changes the instant he accepts God’s Love. What is under discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus is not baptism and salvation, but two births. For those who maintain that born of water means baptism, I must ask whether you truly believe that God would make the grace of His salvation and the realization of His kingdom contingent upon a man having water poured on his head, or being dunked in a river. In my opinion, Jesus is requiring merely two things: (1) that you exist, and (2) that you accept Him. Number one is your first birth. Number two is your re-birth. Non-Christians are welcome to participate in this thread, but the purpose is not to debate validity of the scripture, but only its context and meaning. Among Non-Christians, I would especially appreciate the opinions of Chaim, Zev, and others who practice Judaism (for contextualization) and the opinions of atheists like Gaudere, Jab, and Glitch, and even people whose belief-labels I don’t know, like Jeremy (for linguistic nuance). All I ask is that participants avoid a wholesale hijack with Jesus jokes and such. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/2 "2001-05-06T15:24:42Z")
The practice of Baptism and the divergence of ritual are fundamental differences of belief for major sects of Christianity, and even more importantly (in my opinion) in the expression of faith for many Christians. For many, the rite is essential, extending the authority of the church over the member being baptized. Those who were not properly baptized are not Christians. All who were are Christians. There is a great importance placed on the legitimacy of the priest performing the act, who must have unbroken authority descending from John the Baptist. There is often importance in the amount of water, although little agreement on how much is enough. In other sects baptism is a participatory expression of Salvation. I remember hearing a woman describe how she was “Lifted up out of the water by Christ, not the minister.” The sects which value that sort of faith inducing expression as their sacrament do not favor baptism for children, since the mature participation is the point, not the symbolic extension of church membership. In these sects the “legitimacy” of the rite is entirely spiritual, not affected by historic authority. You can be baptized by any human agent, since he is only the assistant to your body, the “lifting of your spirit” is done by the Lord. Water is a symbol of your immersion into the body of the church in the world, and at the same time, a “washing away” of your sins. The sects that have this view do not accept pouring or sprinkling of water as a valid expression of their sacrament. You have to go under, all the way. Theological variations on the sacrament of baptism are part of the many differences that brought about the Reformation, and post-reformation schisms of the Church. The fact that Christ himself received baptism from another makes it unique among the Sacraments. Because humans are so profoundly affected by ritual and symbol, small differences in perception become very important to them. Unfortunately, that often results in intolerance of each other over ritual and symbol. For a religion which teaches that we are all the loved children of the Lord, that kind of squabble affirms the childishness, but ignores the Love. I have a copy of a collage showing a typical Southern Baptist Baptism celebration. A young friend of mine looked at the cutouts of robed people around the edge of a river and said. “Oh, look, angels dancing!” He got the point, even though he missed the details of theology. Whether you are washed clean, or anointed in the spirit, or born in water, or lifted up out of sin, or whatever image you use to describe it, Baptism is the birth of your faith. I bet the angels do dance. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/3 "2001-05-06T19:43:34Z")
How do you interpret the passage cited in the Opening Post in terms of whether, by “born of water”, Jesus meant baptism or physical birth? ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/4 "2001-05-06T20:53:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Post in terms of whether, by “born of water”, Jesus meant baptism or physical birth? \*\* Although much is made of it in the Gospels by the apostles, Jesus does not speak of his birth all that much. His baptism seems to be a more significant event. The symbolic importance of water is varied in the bible. When Jesus speaks of it He seems to speak of it as a symbol for the connection between God, and Man. We thirst for it, are sustained by it, it washes us, and we are even born of it. In the case of baptism, we are lifted out of it, into our salvation. In most mystic views of the world water is the very stuff of spirit. I believe Jesus spoke, as he usually did, in parables using images of the people he addressed. Keep in mind that the value of water in that society was much greater than in our own. Jesus is the incarnated physical presence of God on Earth. He submits to the ritual of Baptism by John, in the same way as any other person, over John’s specific objection. The water into which Jesus is lowered is the stuff of Earth. It cannot cleanse Him. It does not lift him up to God. It does not dedicate him to God. It is His ritual of spiritual submission to prophecy and reality of the world. It is a ritual reenactment of both death and birth. Jesus asked John to baptize Him. God spoke to Jesus, and was pleased that He did this. In His honor, to please God, I have done the same. I guess the water was just a prop, for me. But then, I am not a priest. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/5 "2001-05-06T21:14:13Z")
The meaning of Baptism gets pretty hotly debated – there’s a thread over at the Pizza Parlor right now in which people are discussing the significance of sacramental vs. believer’s baptism. One key point to me is that this whole dialogue with Nicodemus is reported by John – and John is notorious for investing everyday terms with specialized meanings. I mean, if **Stoid** told me she was the Bread of Life, or **Czarcasm** that he was the Good Shepherd, or **Esprix** informed me that if I ate of him, I would never die, I’d begin to wonder about their sanity (in two cases) and blatant seduction mode (in the other). But we have Jesus reported in John as using all these metaphoical terms. And one thing that scholars have seen John doing is focusing on sacramental theology. Story after story, Jesus dialogue after dialogue, in the gospel according to John, gets a hijack into something having to do with baptism or the eucharist. So the whole water imagery that gets thrown in here is probably pretty obviously that of baptism – especially when you take into account that the early concept of baptism was one of death (by immersion into the water) and rebirth: “born again of water and the Spirit.” Beyond that, most of what Tris says I agree with. With this exception: This is His world; He created it. What goes on physically is as much involved with Him as what happens spiritually. There is no reason He cannot work through water (or bread and wine) to convey His grace to believers, and must use some funky mystical imparting of Himself. They’re **both** His creations, and what you get from them is what He gives and you are willing to receive. That in short form is the essence of sacramental theology. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/6 "2001-05-06T21:41:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > **There is no reason He cannot work through water (or bread and wine) to convey His grace to believers, and must use some funky mystical imparting of Himself.** Well, I’m not sure how I ended up implying that He could not, but that was not my intent. I certainly don’t find any failing in the practice of ritual as an aid to faith, and means of expressing our Love of God, and His love for us. I only speak of the meaning I percieved in baptism for myself. My thoughts about the water not affecting Jesus was addressed to the fact that He is already Consecrated, already Holy. Not that the stuff of the Earth is somehow not subject to Him, or not part of His plan. But then, I am left to admit again that I fall very far short of scholarship in matters of theology. You and Libertarian, Zev, and others speak with far greater knowlege on those matters. Be assured that I do listen. Tris ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/7 "2001-05-06T22:13:17Z")
The most straight-forward interpretation – that Jesus was speaking of baptism – seems at least as likely as your interpretation, Lib. Both are plausible. Nevertheless, I would be very careful about the interpretation of such fine (or, at least, vague) points as these from English second or third hand translations of words written down, at best, fifty years after their speaker had died. > [@](#): > > For those who maintain that born of water means baptism, I must ask whether you truly believe that God would make the grace of His salvation and the realization of His kingdom contingent upon a man having water poured on his head, or being dunked in a river. In my opinion, Jesus is requiring merely two things: (1) that you exist, and (2) that you accept Him. Number one is your first birth. Number two is your re-birth. I agree. But. I’m curious as to how you would reconcile the above with your frequently stated belief that anyone who loves is a party to your religion. I’m all about love, but I doubt that I’ll ever be confused with someone who “accepts” Jesus (unless you use the term in the loosest possible sense). Like I said, I’m just curious. – Jer ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/8 "2001-05-06T22:36:41Z")
> [@](#): > > There is a great importance placed on the legitimacy of the priest performing the act, who must have unbroken authority descending from John the Baptist. **Triskadecamus,** could you fill me in on the branch of Christianity that takes this approach? my understading is that western churches with a strong sacramental theology (Roman Catholics, Anglicans etc.) recognize that any Christian can baptise, if a priest is not available and it’s an emergency (e.g. - the person desiring baptism may be close to death). ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/9 "2001-05-07T01:30:44Z")
There have been times when the authority of clergy was a very hotly contested issue in the Catholic church, although I do not know the current official doctrine on sacraments delivered by non clergy in the Roman Catholic Church. In historic times interdiction was a great threat held by Papal authority. The refusal of sacraments seems to support the contention that authority must follow the legal authority of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church under the doctrine of the Decree for the Armenians, Council of Florence 1439, by Pope Eugenius IV. Bull Exsultate Domine says: [in part] > [@](#): > > There are seven sacraments under the new law: that is to say, baptism, confirmation, the mass, penance, extreme unction, ordination, and matrimony. The Reformation led to many arguments on this subject, very much a central issue in the establishment of multiple sects of the Protestant churches. In the early part of the twentieth century there were many churches that did not consider all the rituals considered sacraments by the Catholic Church to be sacraments at all. Baptism and Holy Communion the most widely practiced as sacraments, in American Protestant sects. Some also so consider Matrimony, but many do not consider ordination sacramental in stature. If the rite of ordination is sacramental, the implication supports the position I was referring to, regarding the “legitimacy” of Baptism by lay persons. While I do not recall what the name of a specific sect which holds that only ordained ministers may baptize, I don’t believe the idea is rare. Since my own faith is that God knows the heart of every saint, and every sinner, and loves us each and all, the matter of ecclesiastical authority is of little interest to me aside from historically. In my own social history there has never been a shortage of ordained clergy in the event that someone needed baptizing in a hurry. Often the priest was closer than the nearest source of clean water. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/10 "2001-05-07T02:35:59Z")
Atheist here, but I was raised in the church of Christ and have some familiarity with this debate. There are several passages in the New Testament which seem to indicate a requirement of baptism for salvation. For example, [Acts 2:37-38](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Acts+2%3A37-38&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english): > [@](#): > > 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? > 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and **be baptized** every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ **for the remission of sins** , and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. There’s also [I Peter 3:20-22](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1PET+3:20-22&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off): > [@](#): > > 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. > 21 The like figure whereunto even **baptism doth also now save us** (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: > 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. And [Mark 16:15-16](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MARK+16:15-16&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off): > [@](#): > > 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. > 16 **He that believeth _and is baptized_ shall be saved** ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (My emphasis on all of the quotes.) ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/11 "2001-05-07T02:49:06Z")
Oh yeah, one more. [Acts 22:16](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+22:16&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off): > [@](#): > > 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. ---
**Author:** ![Mysphyt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dbc845/32.png) [@Mysphyt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mysphyt)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/12 "2001-05-07T04:30:07Z")
Okay, no cites on any of this. Unfortunately, I don’t have original text, nor do I speak the language. My pastor was discussing this passage a week or two ago, and I thought this may apply. The actual word “baptism,” evidently, is a clothier’s term in the original language. To baptize a cloth is to dip it in dye. The cloth that comes out is totally different in color than the cloth that went in. This, then, suggests that water baptism is symbolic, rather than intrinsically significant. It suggests that the use of baptism in all of the scriptures listed thus far is linked to that initial symbolism; the act of baptism isn’t necessarily the dunking of the believer in water, but rather signifies a spiritual rebirth, a changing of colors. Regarding the OP, Lib: if this is true (and even if it’s not), I’m given to believe that Jesus meant two rebirths: a rebirth of the spirit and a rebirth in the Spirit. The first rebirth, the birth of water, relates to the change in the human aspects of oneself (I know this sounds weird, but go with me), changing from one’s self serving one’s sinful nature to serving God, and changing one’s orientation from self-serving things to producing the fruits of the Spirit. The second rebirth, the birth of the Spirit, refers to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit that happened at Pentecost and since. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![dlb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@dlb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlb)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/13 "2001-05-07T13:54:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by VarlosZ \* > The most straight-forward interpretation – that Jesus was speaking of baptism – seems at least as likely as your interpretation, Lib. Both are plausible. Nevertheless, I would be very careful about the interpretation of such fine (or, at least, vague) points as these from English second or third hand translations of words written down, at best, fifty years after their speaker had died. I’m with **VarlosZ** here. Lovingly lingering over single words that appear in third hand translations is the stuff of theological masturbation. All you get is a rush and a sticky hand. For what it’s worth, even if you accept a “baptism” interpretation (and both are plausible), a sacrement is an “outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” The grace is what is important, not the sign. Assuming that “being born of water” means baptism, what counts is the washing away of sin, not the ceremony. But then, even contributing that little bit of pseudo-wisdom is entering into the arena of theological tail-chasing. What matters is the relationship, always. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/14 "2001-05-08T01:46:23Z")
> [@](#): > > For those who maintain that born of water means baptism, I must ask whether you truly believe that God would make the grace of His salvation and the realization of His kingdom contingent upon a man having water poured on his head, or being dunked in a river. Well, I wouldn’t think any self-respecting God would require belief in the Resurrection, permit sex only with those of the opposite sex or allow people to be tortured eternally for their great-great-great-grandpa’s sin, either, but no one seems to consult me when forming religions. 😉 Even for those who do believe baptism was necessary, they (IIRC) will allow the intent to do so suffice if no one is around that can baptize, and ordinary Christians can baptize anyone if they need to (as I’m sure happened to me and my bro one day when Grandma was babysitting us). So it’s not like a person might go to hell just because there was no water handy. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/15 "2001-05-08T11:44:40Z")
Thanks for the replies so far. I am still interesting in hearing from our Jewish friends, since much of what Jesus said was in the context of the Jewish culture of the time (e.g., the parable about the brides and their lamps). > [@](#): > > We thirst for it, are sustained by it, it washes us, and we are even born of it. Right. When the water breaks, that is our first birth. > [@](#): > > The most straight-forward interpretation – that Jesus was speaking of baptism – seems at least as likely as your interpretation, Lib. Both are plausible. I don’t agree that baptism is the most straightforward interpretation. I believe that physical birth is a simpler interpretation of the metaphor. Born — birth. Baptism is a ritual. When Jesus participated in ritual, it was typically for the purpose of fulfilling it, or making it whole. Rituals were made for man, not man for the rituals. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, I would be very careful about the interpretation of such fine (or, at least, vague) points as these from English second or third hand translations of words written down, at best, fifty years after their speaker had died. I don’t think the point is either fine or vague. It is discreet and clear. And I am satisfied that the translation I gave in the Opening Post is a faithful rendering of the original Greek. As to the fifty-years-after thing, I don’t think people today, with their MTV attention span, quite understand how well ancient people handed down knowledge using verse, rhyme, and song. I can tell you things my mother said _almost_ fifty years ago. > [@](#): > > I’m curious as to how you would reconcile the above with your frequently stated belief that anyone who loves is a party to your religion. I’m all about love, but I doubt that I’ll ever be confused with someone who “accepts” Jesus (unless you use the term in the loosest possible sense). Like I said, I’m just curious. Jesus _is_ Love. To accept Him is to accept God’s own Love. A Frenchman might argue that he does not accept love; he accepts amour. Fine. > [@](#): > > Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And what sins did Jesus remit with His baptism? > [@](#): > > He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Dammit, words matter, else why use them? 😉 Do not confuse “bapto” (Strongs 911) with “baptizo” (Strongs 907), which is used in this verse. From Strongs: > [@](#): > > Not to be confused with 911, bapto. > > The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. > > When used in the New Testament, **this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism**. > > e.g. > > Mark 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! (Bolding mine.) This isn’t nitpicking. Orthological similarities do not imply any fineness or vagueness any more than taxonomic similarities imply the inability to distinguish species. > [@](#): > > Regarding the OP, Lib: if this is true (and even if it’s not), I’m given to believe that Jesus meant two rebirths: a rebirth of the spirit and a rebirth in the Spirit. > > The first rebirth, the birth of water, relates to the change in the human aspects of oneself (I know this sounds weird, but go with me), changing from one’s self serving one’s sinful nature to serving God, and changing one’s orientation from self-serving things to producing the fruits of the Spirit. > > The second rebirth, the birth of the Spirit, refers to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit that happened at Pentecost and since. Hmmm. Sounds complicated to me. > [@](#): > > Lovingly lingering over single words that appear in third hand translations is the stuff of theological masturbation. All you get is a rush and a sticky hand. I’m not lingering over single words _or_ third-hand translations. The Opening Post compares whole clauses and renders their parallels in what I consider to be the most sensible, and least masturbatory, way. > [@](#): > > What matters is the relationship, always. Agreed. And that relationship requires two things only: (1) that you exist and (2) that you accept — (1) born of water and (2) born of the Spirit. > [@](#): > > Well, I wouldn’t think any self-respecting God would require belief in the Resurrection, permit sex only with those of the opposite sex or allow people to be tortured eternally for their great-great-great-grandpa’s sin, either, but no one seems to consult me when forming religions. I think perhaps my greatest epiphany of faith was when I realized that Jesus message could not be canonized. If there is even one word in that book that contradicts His simple message of Love, then that word is a lie. I do not recall Jesus requiring belief in His Resurrection (although such belief would follow logically for anyone who knows Who He is). Nor do I recall Jesus condemning a man for having sex with another man. Nor do I recall Him condemning generations solely for the sins of their ancestors. You have explained quite cogently (once again) why religion sucks and is the enemy of God. And that’s one of the reasons Edlyn and I love you so much! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/16 "2001-05-08T12:01:14Z")
Please do not think that I am minimizing the concerns of those who believe I might be hyper-analyzing word snippets. I agree that that would be the wrong thing to do, but that is not what I am doing. Scroll up, and look again at the holistic context of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. **In direct reply** to Nicodemus’ protest that a man cannot climb back **into his mother’s womb** , Jesus says that to enter the kindgom of God, a man must be **born not only of water** , but of Spirit. There is no reason to think that Jesus was ignoring what Nicodemus **had just said**. Is there? (Sorry for the bolding. I intend it not as shouting, but as mere emphasis to make associations clearer.) ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/17 "2001-05-08T12:12:34Z")
> [@](#): > > As I see it, the parallel Jesus draws is clear, simply from the construction of the sentences. In the first, “A: born of water” — “B: [born of] the Spirit”; in the second, “A: Flesh gives birth to flesh” — “B: Spirit gives birth to spirit”. But why do you assume that your “A” and “B” in the first sentence are meant to refer to different things? If that were the case, a clearer construction would have been: “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of **both** water and the Spirit.” Were I speaking these words and meant to imply what you think Jesus implied, I would emphasize the word “and.” Were I writing these words, I would include the word “both.” If the oral tradition was as strong as you suggest, then perhaps the writers knew Jesus’ meaning and presented the most logical and concise construction of the sentence that they could. If this is the case, then your interpretation is likely incorrect. If the writers did not know Jesus’ intent, then we are right back to “vague,” as I suggested. > [@](#): > > When Jesus participated in ritual, it was typically for the purpose of fulfilling it, or making it whole. Rituals were made for man, not man for the rituals. But Jesus _seems_ to imply that this particular ritual is rather important, perhaps even necessary. Your suggestion to the contrary, I believe, is informed by your preconceived notions and your expectations of Jesus. This is not to say that you’re wrong, but merely that I don’t think your argument is as logically sound as you think it is. From Preview: > [@](#): > > In direct reply to Nicodemus’ protest that a man cannot climb back into his mother’s womb, Jesus says that to enter the kindgom of God, a man must be born not only of water, but of Spirit. Like I said, I’m not all sure that he says this. Jesus’ second sentence references Nicodemus’ reply, so Jesus is not ignoring Nick. > [@](#): > > I can tell you things my mother said almost fifty years ago. Yes, but how many things that your great-grandfather (or some other person you’ve never met) said can you tell me? The gospel writers never met Jesus. Running to final, not proofread. – Jer ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/18 "2001-05-08T12:33:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Were I speaking these words and meant to imply what you think Jesus implied, I would emphasize the word “and.” He _does_. He uses the word “kai”. From Strongs: “apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force.” In my opinion, you are going to far greater lengths to avoid the simple interpretation of physical birth than I am to accept it. > [@](#): > > Were I writing these words, I would include the word “both.” I believe the use of the word “ek” and the genitive case in _both_ “hudor” and “pneuma” serves exactly this function. I don’t really think the controversy here is over whether both are required, but rather over what one of them means. I do wish Gaudere had addressed that particular issue from her frame of reference, i.e., what does “born of water” mean — when contrasted this way against “born of the Spirit” — from the perspective of someone, like her, who does not yet know that the Love in her heart is the Living Love Himself. > [@](#): > > Yes, but how many things that your great-grandfather (or some other person you’ve never met) said can you tell me? The gospel writers never met Jesus. Neither have I (in the sense you likely mean). But what we treasure most, we can recite rather well. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/19 "2001-05-08T14:17:45Z")
> [@](#): > > And I am satisfied that the translation I gave in the Opening Post is a faithful rendering of the original Greek. In light of your last post, I am less satisfied. The English was vague – that is, more than one interpretation of the grammar is entirely plausible. The Greek, as you helpfully point out, implies certain things that the English simply does not. > [@](#): > > In my opinion, you are going to far greater lengths to avoid the simple interpretation of physical birth than I am to accept it. Needless to say, I don’t think that it’s so simple. “Water” certainly could have referred to birth, but I hardly think it’s evident simply from the construction of the sentences (even once we’ve accepted the construction you provided in the OP). Look at it this way: “Born of water” refers to baptism. “Born of spirit” refers to the acceptance of Jesus. “Flesh gives birth to flesh” is a preface that refers to Nicodemus’ failure to understand Jesus’ first statement (and not to the previous sentence). “. . . but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” finally explains to Nicodemus what Jesus meant by “born again,” i.e. a spiritual rebirth (as symbolized by the ritual of baptism). How is the above any less plausible than your interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540/20 "2001-05-08T15:06:22Z")
I don’t know that it is, ipso facto. I just think it is more natural that Jesus gave Nicodemus, whom He greatly respected, direct answers to his questions rather than wrapping him around the maypole the way He did so often with the Pharisaic politicians. Thus, to paraphrase the conversation: “Frankly, Jesus, I don’t see how a man can be born twice!” “Not just born from a womb, Nicodemus, as in your first birth. A whole new _kind_ of birth is required, as in the birth I give you, the birth of the Holy Spirit of God.” (Good luck on your final, by the way!) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-for-christians-born-of-water/64540.md?page=2)