James' Teaching On Justification: Before Men Or Before God?

[Titus]

then you must believe you are saved before you are water baptized because you had living faith.

and you MUST believe your salvation is secure no matter how many works you may do.

Lasst I heard. you do not believe this

Again, I cannot think for you.
It is not my problem that you are incapable of logical reasoning.

The above shows you do not make logical sense when you reason in your mind.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

eis never means because of. That is lying about Bible words.

Saying you looked at only two meanings in strongs exposes your ignorance.
Its foolishness to argue from a position of ignorance.
I dont go around arguing about rocket science because I dont know rocket science.
Likewise I dont go around arguing about Chinese language because I dont know Chinese language.
I agrue about what I am learned in.
You are trying to argue from Greek when you are ignorant of greek.

this is where some study would help.

here is something you should read that may help you

Two bits of misinformation are used in an attempt to salvage baptism as a requirement for salvation. First, the misnomer that some have propagated, " eis never means "because of." This is emphatically proven wrong by the use of eis in Matt. 12:41. The other false claim is, "the word "eis" never looks backwards." Once again, this is proven to be patently false according to Matt. 12:41.
Matt 12: 41
The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

Look at the example of Scripture they say never "looks backwards."

Luke 11: 7 " My children are with me in (eis) bed."

They were already with him in bed, there is not any reference to the future.

The argument which claims that eis in Acts 2:38 can only mean that baptism is required for salvation, is clearly a false, and is either propagated out of ignorance, or by deliberate deception. It only takes one example to prove their assertion is false! and here we have 2

The argument is made that the term cannot be used as "reference to," or "with reference to." In Romans 6: 3 we read, "that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Christ were baptized into (eis) his death..." 1 Corinthians 10: 2, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." "And that "baptized unto Moses" again uses the little preposition eis, so the Bible says, "baptized eis Jesus Christ," " baptized eis his death," and "baptized eis Moses." So if baptism puts the penitent sinner into Christ, then all the nation of Israel were put into Moses. If the one is literally put into, then the other is literally put into." False Doctrines, John R. Rice, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Page 92. The meaning of eis is clearly used as a term of being "in reference to"; a legitimate meaning of the word. So to argue that eis cannot mean "reference to" or "with reference to" in many passages of Scripture, and it cannot hold the same meaning in Acts 2:38, is to dodge reality.

"In reference to" can be seen in another example, this time in the English usage of the word. Here are a few expressions that show that there can be more than just one justifiable use of the word. We can "take an aspirin for a headache," and we can “get paid for our work.” We do not take aspirin “for the purpose of ” getting a headache anymore than we get paid “in order to obtain ”our work. The meaning of "because" or "on account of" makes more sense in these examples, just as on account of the remission of sins does in Acts 2:38.

We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing.

Luke 5: 13 Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him. 14 And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for (eis) your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.”

”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!

again we only need one example to prove false. here we have 3.

 

[Titus]

then you must believe you are saved before you are water baptized because you had living faith.

and you MUST believe your salvation is secure no matter how many works you may do.

Lasst I heard. you do not believe this

Living faith does not save apart from Grace.
You are projecting your understanding of salvation on to me.
I dont believe anything alone saves!!!
That's your belief not mine.
My faith cannot save me apart from Gods grace and Gods grace is only obtained through obedience to the gospel.
Baptism is a direct commandment in Jesus' gospel therefore obedient faith is not living, complete if one rejects submission to the gospel.

Rejecting baptism is rejecting the gospel. No living perfect faith rejects obedience to the gospel of Christ.

Also, you are using human reasoning.
All that matters is what saith the scriptures not human reasoning.
Romans 4:3,
- for what saith the scripture....

That is what you need to be reasoning about not trying to come up with some imaginary faith that disproves my beliefs.
My faith is not an invention of my mind.
It is learned from the scriptures.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Again, I cannot think for you.
It is not my problem that you are incapable of logical reasoning.

The above shows you do not make logical sense when you reason in your mind.

No

what it shows is that if you would actually answer me, you would prove yourself to be in error and prove that I am right.

don't attack us as not answering like you always do. when as we see right here. You refuse to answer.

 

[Titus]

this is where some study would help.

here is something you should read that may help you

Two bits of misinformation are used in an attempt to salvage baptism as a requirement for salvation. First, the misnomer that some have propagated, " eis never means "because of." This is emphatically proven wrong by the use of eis in Matt. 12:41. The other false claim is, "the word "eis" never looks backwards." Once again, this is proven to be patently false according to Matt. 12:41.
Matt 12: 41
The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

Look at the example of Scripture they say never "looks backwards."

Luke 11: 7 " My children are with me in (eis) bed."

They were already with him in bed, there is not any reference to the future.

The argument which claims that eis in Acts 2:38 can only mean that baptism is required for salvation, is clearly a false, and is either propagated out of ignorance, or by deliberate deception. It only takes one example to prove their assertion is false! and here we have 2

The argument is made that the term cannot be used as "reference to," or "with reference to." In Romans 6: 3 we read, "that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Christ were baptized into (eis) his death..." 1 Corinthians 10: 2, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." "And that "baptized unto Moses" again uses the little preposition eis, so the Bible says, "baptized eis Jesus Christ," " baptized eis his death," and "baptized eis Moses." So if baptism puts the penitent sinner into Christ, then all the nation of Israel were put into Moses. If the one is literally put into, then the other is literally put into." False Doctrines, John R. Rice, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Page 92. The meaning of eis is clearly used as a term of being "in reference to"; a legitimate meaning of the word. So to argue that eis cannot mean "reference to" or "with reference to" in many passages of Scripture, and it cannot hold the same meaning in Acts 2:38, is to dodge reality.

"In reference to" can be seen in another example, this time in the English usage of the word. Here are a few expressions that show that there can be more than just one justifiable use of the word. We can "take an aspirin for a headache," and we can “get paid for our work.” We do not take aspirin “for the purpose of ” getting a headache anymore than we get paid “in order to obtain ”our work. The meaning of "because" or "on account of" makes more sense in these examples, just as on account of the remission of sins does in Acts 2:38.

We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing.

Luke 5: 13 Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him. 14 And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for (eis) your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.”

”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!

again we only need one example to prove false. here we have 3.

Fine I'll take your advice.
Acts 2:38,
Peter told them to repent and be baptized because they were already forgiven of their sins.

I will also apply your perversion to other scriptures using eis,

Matthew 26:28,
- for this is My blood of the new testament which is shed for many
for(because of) the forgiveness of sins

So according to Baptist theologians Jesus shed His blood because peoples sins were already forgiven.

 

[Titus]

No

what it shows is that if you would actually answer me, you would prove yourself to be in error and prove that I am right.

don't attack us as not answering like you always do. when as we see right here. You refuse to answer.

Ask any question you like.

 

[Titus]

Luke 5: 13 Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him. 14 And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for (eis) your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded

The Greek word eis is not found in Luke 5:13.
You treat the scriptures with such carelessness.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Living faith does not save apart from Grace.

You mean what I have told you for months now

for it is buy GRACE we HAVE BEEN SAVED through FAITH?

why would you try to say this to me in response when you should know at any cost. this is the very thing I preach.. (unless your not listening?)

You are projecting your understanding of salvation on to me.

No. I am presenting the plan of salvation according to the bible

I dont believe anything alone saves!!!
That's your belief not mine.

Again, For it is by grace we are saved period. but God does not force it. he wants us to recieve it in faith.

do I need to go back and repost every time I have told you this and you have completely ignored me?

My faith cannot save me apart from Gods grace and Gods grace is only obtained through obedience to the gospel.
Baptism is a direct commandment in Jesus' gospel therefore obedient faith is not living, complete if one rejects submission to the gospel.

There you go

Your teaching works. You God baptized to MERIT your salvation.

I Got baptized out of obedeince to Gods command, and did nto expect anythign in return, i did it out of love and respect.

That is what separates us

Rejecting baptism is rejecting the gospel.

Paul seperated baptism from the gospel

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

If baptism was part of the gospel. Then Christ would have sent Paul to baptize AND give the word.

No living perfect faith rejects obedience to the gospel of Christ.

I never once ever said it did.

again, you bear false witness. don;t you get sick of being called out as a slanderer?

Also, you are using human reasoning.
All that matters is what saith the scriptures not human reasoning.
Romans 4:3,
- for what saith the scripture....

Human reason

at one point does the words "TO HIM WHO WORKS, THE WAGES ARE NOT COUNTED AS GRACE BUT DEBT (Works cancels out grace. and makes it a wage) 5 But TO HIM WHO DOES NOT WORK but BELIEVES ON HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGOLDY , his HIS FAITH IS ACCOUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS

do we ignore these verses because they do not fit our belief system?

Its good your brough up verse 3. Paul quoted the same OT passage James did

Not resolve the conflict you cause with your interpretation of james and at the same time, show where paul even allows for 1 work to be counted as grace and not debt

That is what you need to be reasoning about not trying to come up with some imaginary faith that disproves my beliefs.
My faith is not an invention of my mind.
It is learned from the scriptures.

Your faith is faith in yourself. Not in God. and certainly not in the scripture.. one could say you faith is what you have been taught..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Nicodemus made the mistake that Jesus was speaking of natural birth.
You are making the same mistake.

Jesus corrected Nicodemus explaining to him that born of water and the Spirit is spiritual birth not physical.

When you teach others how to be saved.
Do you first tell them they need to be physically born from their mothers womb to be saved?

Does that make logical sense to tell a person to be born again they must be physically born?
Have you ever taught someone that?
If so what's the reason?
Why does the person need to know this?

please show the word baptize in John 3 in Jesus discussion with nicodemus

show us how you add to the word of God something not there

 

[Titus]

please show the word baptize in John 3 in Jesus discussion with nicodemus

show us how you add to the word of God something not there

John 3:5,
- verily, verily I say u to thee except a man be born of water(baptism of John is in water) and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God,
John 3:22-23,
- after these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judea and there He tarried with them and baptized (baptism in water)

- and John also was baptizing (in water) in Enon near Salim because there was much water there and they cam and were baptized (in water)

Now use your logical reasoning power in your God given brain.
Remove all of your beliefs out of your brain.
Going strictly by the context of what is taking place when Jesus is teaching Nicodemus how to be saved.
What is the logical conclusion that necessarily infers John 3:5 is John's baptism?
Why would there be a more logical conclusion other than its baptism since these are the times of John's water baptism and this is what Jesus and John the Baptist are doing in chapter 3 of John?

Mark 1:4,
- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins(born again by cleansing of all sin)

Jesus was preaching this message in John 3.
- Jesus answered, verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

We have many other passages that teach the same thing.
Ephesians 5:26,
- that Jesus might sanctify and cleanse it(church/kingdom) with the washing of water by the word(Revelation of the Spirit)

Mark 16:16,
- he that believeth and is baptized(water baptism) shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be danmed

Acts 2:38,
- repent be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Acts 22:16,
- and now why are you waiting Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord


Too much evidence water baptism saves and adds one to the church.
The context proves what Jesus is teaching as those were the times of John the Baptist water baptism and in the very chapter they both Jesus and John were baptizing in water.

 

[Titus]

please show the word baptize in John 3 in Jesus discussion with nicodemus

show us how you add to the word of God something not there

Now you show me a mothers birthing fluid.
Something the word of God in John 3:5 never says.
Quote those words out of Jesus' mouth to Nicodemus.

You are adding to Jesus' word putting words in Jesus' mouth.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

John 3:5,
- verily, verily I say u to thee except a man be born of water(baptism of John is in water) and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God,

see. You just added the word. that is not there

John 3:22-23,
- after these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judea and there He tarried with them and baptized (baptism in water)

- and John also was baptizing (in water) in Enon near Salim because there was much water there and they cam and were baptized (in water)

I asked for Jesus discussion with nicodemus

You failed to produce the word (you added 1) so you failed to prove your point.

Thank you

Now use your logical reasoning power in your God given brain.
Remove all of your beliefs out of your brain.
Going strictly by the context of what is taking place when Jesus is teaching Nicodemus how to be saved.
What is the logical conclusion that necessarily infers John 3:5 is John's baptism?
Why would there be a more logical conclusion other than its baptism since these are the times of John's water baptism and this is what Jesus and John the Baptist are doing in chapter 3 of John?

I agree, lets put everything our of our minds. (this includes you) and lets just see what jesus said.

After this, Nicodmus asked the question. HOW CAN THIS BE (he basically asked Jesus how can we be born again, born of water and spirit

John 3: 9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

literally in the greek. how do these things take place

Here is Jesus answer.

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

first he questions Nicodemus, and tells him he should know this answer already.


11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

then he tells him (AND us) How

Now comes my challenge to you. Show me the word baptize. if baptism was so important. why did Jesus leave it out?

Mark 1:4,
- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins(born again by cleansing of all sin)

For. on account of.. lol.. You just do not get it.

Jesus was preaching this message in John 3.
- Jesus answered, verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

We have many other passages that teach the same thing.
Ephesians 5:26,
- that Jesus might sanctify and cleanse it(church/kingdom) with the washing of water by the word(Revelation of the Spirit)

Washing of water by what?? THE WORD (NOT WATER BAPTISM)

Mark 16:16,
- he that believeth and is baptized(water baptism) shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be danmed

Acts 2:38,
- repent be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Acts 22:16,
- and now why are you waiting Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord


Too much evidence water baptism saves and adds one to the church.
The context proves what Jesus is teaching as those were the times of John the Baptist water baptism and in the very chapter they both Jesus and John were baptizing in water.

lol..

Again, you make water baptism a work of merit. Not a work of love..

yet you attack me for saying this very thing, that you make water baptism a work of merit

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Now you show me a mothers birthing fluid.
Something the word of God in John 3:5 never says.
Quote those words out of Jesus' mouth to Nicodemus.

You are adding to Jesus' word putting words in Jesus' mouth.

Who said anything about mothers birth fluid. could it not be the word? "washing of water by the word"

here is one thing we do know.. The word baptism is never found. So since birth in mentioned, it is not out of line to mention birth water. and since faith is mentioned by jesus it is not out of line to add the word (water) The HS is actually called living water in John 4 right before this.

any of these three interpretation of water would be far better suited and believable. than baptism..

 

[Complete]

'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'
(Joh 3:5)

There is a figure of speech in this verse in which two things are mentioned, but only one thing meant. What it is saying is,' ... ... ... except a man be born of water, yes, spiritual water too, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' This is therefore referring to spiritual water, which is by the operation of the Spirit.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'
(Joh 3:5)

There is a figure of speech in this verse in which two things are mentioned, but only one thing meant. What it is saying is,' ... ... ... except a man be born of water, yes, spiritual water too, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' This is therefore referring to spiritual water, which is by the operation of the Spirit.

this is a possibility, amen and yes.

 

[Doug Brents]

'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'
(Joh 3:5)

There is a figure of speech in this verse in which two things are mentioned, but only one thing meant. What it is saying is,' ... ... ... except a man be born of water, yes, spiritual water too, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' This is therefore referring to spiritual water, which is by the operation of the Spirit.

That is a good explanation, except it ignores the fact that Peter said that baptism requires water and has the action of the Holy Spirit in 1 Pet 3:21. And Philip demonstrates that baptism was with water in the first years after the start of the Church in Acts 8:36. So your argument that this is "just a figure of speech" is erroneous.

 

[Titus]

Who said anything about mothers birth fluid. could it not be the word? "washing of water by the word"

here is one thing we do know.. The word baptism is never found. So since birth in mentioned, it is not out of line to mention birth water. and since faith is mentioned by jesus it is not out of line to add the word (water) The HS is actually called living water in John 4 right before this.

any of these three interpretation of water would be far better suited and believable. than baptism..

If you completely ignore the context, then yes you could come up with birthing fluid.

But if you actually studied what Jesus is teaching Nicodemus you cannot come to that conclusion and be correct.

Do you not know Jesus corrected Nicodemus' mistake?
Nicodemus thought Jesus was taking about physically being born.

JESUS WAS TEACHING ON BEING BORN AGAIN not physical birth.

John 3:6-7,
- that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.

Jesus just taught Nicodemus there is a distinction between physical birth and spiritual birth.
What is the context?
Is Jesus preaching about being physically born to the jews?
Or is .He preaching about being born again?

Next verse,
- Marvel not that I said unto thee Ye must be born again(that only means spiritually born)
You never get physically born again, lol.

Notice what Jesus is preaching to Nicodemus the very first thing he says to Nicodemus is what?
1. Must be born ?
2. Must be born again?

If Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again then THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICAL BIRTH!!!
If you dont understand that simple fact I cannot help you.

Nicodemus did not understand the phrase born again means spiritual birth.
That is why he asked Jesus the silly question, - can a man enter his mothers womb a second time?

Be honest.
Admit that born again means spiritual birth.

Now carefully read the text.
John 3:1-3,
- there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus
- the same came to Jesus by night and said unto Him,
Rabbi, we know thou art a teacher come from God for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with Him

- Jesus answered and said to him,
- Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God

There it is!!! JESUS taught Nicodemus he must be spiritually born again.
Nicodemus had no clue what Jesus was teaching him so next verse,

- Nicodemus saith unto Him, can a man be born when be is old?
Can he enter the second time into his mothers womb?

Nicodemus thought Jesus was teaching about physical birth!!!
Next verse Jesus tells him again how he must be spiritually born again.

John 3:5,
- Jesus answered,
- verily, verily I say unto thee Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

If you think Jesus just taught Nicodemus he must be physically born of birthing fluid then,

YOU ARE JUST AS CONFUSED AS NICODEMUS!!!!

 

[dwight92070]

Now you show me a mothers birthing fluid.
Something the word of God in John 3:5 never says.
Quote those words out of Jesus' mouth to Nicodemus.

You are adding to Jesus' word putting words in Jesus' mouth.

Close to 98% of the amniotic fluid is water, so it's okay, you can call it water. Obviously you don't want to because Jesus mentions being born of water, but He doesn't mention amniotic fluid. Did you ever hear someone say, "Her amniotic fluid broke."? No, it's always "Her water broke." Jesus is using it the same way in John 3.

We always hear what is paramount in interpreting the meaning of Scripture: Context, Context, Context.

In John 3 Jesus set the context with "unless one is born again ...". So whatever else He said, a reference is made here to natural childbirth.
Nicodemus' question, therefore, was about natural childbirth.
Jesus' answer continues the theme of natural childbirth: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit ..." Verse 5
He again continues the theme in Verse 6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.", equating being born of water to being born of the flesh.
Then in verse 7, He once again speaks of natural childbirth, "You must be born again."

Nowhere in this meeting with Nicodemus, is baptism mentioned. Nor does the Scripture ever equate water baptism with being "born of water."

You are the one who is adding baptism to this meeting, when it it not there. You are putting words in Jesus' mouth.

 

[Titus]

Close to 98% of the amniotic fluid is water, so it's okay, you can call it water

Who says its ok?
You are using modern day language and trying to claim they talked that way in their ancient language.
Who gives you the right to make such wild speculation?
Why should anyone who takes the language of the new testament seriously take your explanation seriously?

It has nothing to do with what Jesus is teaching.
It also makes no sense to tell someone to be physically born to be saved.
That is so obvious it is foolish to tell someone.

Might as well tell them,
You must be a human not a dog to be saved.
Must be physically alive to be saved.
Must be physically born to be saved.

That's silly.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

If you completely ignore the context, then yes you could come up with birthing fluid.

Context is seen in vs 10 - 18. When nicodemus asked HOW..

Baptism is no where in site.

But if you actually studied what Jesus is teaching Nicodemus you cannot come to that conclusion and be correct.

I have, and under no circumstance is baptism even remotely any possibility

Do you not know Jesus corrected Nicodemus' mistake?
Nicodemus thought Jesus was taking about physically being born.

JESUS WAS TEACHING ON BEING BORN AGAIN not physical birth.

In order to be born again, you must have had 2 births

Ones being physical ( that which is flesh is flesh) and one spiritual (that spirit is spirit)

John 3:6-7,
- that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.

This is two births.. one physical and one spiritual

Jesus just taught Nicodemus there is a distinction between physical birth and spiritual birth.
What is the context?

No the context is being physically alive if great, but unless your born again, your lost.

Is Jesus preaching about being physically born to the jews?
Or is .He preaching about being born again?

Next verse,
- Marvel not that I said unto thee Ye must be born again(that only means spiritually born)
You never get physically born again, lol.

Notice what Jesus is preaching to Nicodemus the very first thing he says to Nicodemus is what?
1. Must be born ?
2. Must be born again?

If Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again then THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICAL BIRTH!!!
If you dont understand that simple fact I cannot help you.

Nicodemus did not understand the phrase born again means spiritual birth.
That is why he asked Jesus the silly question, - can a man enter his mothers womb a second time?

Be honest.
Admit that born again means spiritual birth.

I never said otherwise. Once again you show your complete lack of understanding what people tell you.

Open your eyes

Now carefully read the text.
John 3:1-3,
- there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus
- the same came to Jesus by night and said unto Him,
Rabbi, we know thou art a teacher come from God for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with Him

- Jesus answered and said to him,
- Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God

There it is!!! JESUS taught Nicodemus he must be spiritually born again.
Nicodemus had no clue what Jesus was teaching him so next verse,

- Nicodemus saith unto Him, can a man be born when be is old?
Can he enter the second time into his mothers womb?

Nicodemus thought Jesus was teaching about physical birth!!!
Next verse Jesus tells him again how he must be spiritually born again.

John 3:5,
- Jesus answered,
- verily, verily I say unto thee Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

If you think Jesus just taught Nicodemus he must be physically born of birthing fluid then,

YOU ARE JUST AS CONFUSED AS NICODEMUS!!!!

WHY DO YOU IGNORE WHAT JESUS SAID IN RESPONSE TO NICODEMUS ANSWER OF HOW.

Is it because you know it would totally refute your water baptism senerio?

again you hurt yourself. You prove you do not listen to any of us (you act as if we do not know what Jesus was talking about) then you totally ignore what Jesus said about How these things (being born again) occurs.