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

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Text: Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

Some quotations I have gather from CF and the internet.

• Of course the "water" is amniotic fluid, not plain old H2O. That verse does not include the word "again" so the word "born" can only mean your physical birth. He did not say "baptized in" water either. So you can't say he meant being baptized in a lake or river. Show me a verse where he explicitly said to be born again you must be baptized in water.
• You said, “Natural birth is the plainest interpretation and therefore correct.” “Born of water" is not a straightforward statement of anything, but is by the very words an oblique reference to... something.
• While many scholars and commentators deny, even vehemently, that there was any cultural or Old Testament background among first-century Jews about water referring to physical birth, their denials simply “don’t hold water.”
• Some have taken “born of water” to an absurd level of asserting all bodily fluids such as sperm, serves as a functional equivalent of “born of water.” "Born of bodily fluids" runs into tension with John 1:12-13 concerning regeneration and the new nature: “He gave the right to become children of God….who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

If indeed, “born of water” refers to natural biological birth, it would clearly be a hapax legomenon….a word or phrase which only occurs once in Scripture, and even stranger, this idiom is not found in Hellenistic literature as scholars inform us. It certainly is possible for “born of water” to refer to natural biological birth, but some very strong evidence should be marshaled to overcome the long historic interpretation “born of water” is water either referring to the power of the HS to cleanse us from sin or possibly baptism.

Natural birth isn’t caused by amniotic fluid and isn’t the only factor in natural birth. There are genitals, Fallopian tubes, conception, fluid in the umbilical cord, contractions, etc., of which amniotic fluid is one of the elements…. in a near-last long chain of events. Amniotic fluid or any other bodily fluid fails instrumentally as the cause of natural birth.

People are born from their mothers; they are not born from amniotic fluid. Bodily fluid isn’t what gives birth to them, their mother is. The Scriptures bears this out:

• For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. (I Cor 11:12)
• God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Gal. 4:4
• I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; (Luke 7:28)
• Man, who is born of woman, Is short-lived and full of turmoil. (Job 14:1)
• Whenever a woman is in labor she has pain, because her hour has come; but when she gives birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy that a child has been born into the world. (John 16:21)
• “How then can a man be just with God? Or how can he be clean who is born of woman? (Job 25:4)

Jesus was not talking about the difference between natural birth and spiritual birth. Furthermore, if "born of water" does refer to natural childbirth, why does Nicodemus need to be reminded he is already born? Why would anyone who has been naturally born need to be reminded of that fact? Existing is self evident and presupposed. Jesus is not speaking of the doctrine of creation. He is speaking of redemption.

There are only two types of people in the world: those who are born of the Spirit and those who are not. In the end, only those two categories matter (John 3:3). Our earthly lives are extended opportunities for us to respond to God’s call and become born of the Spirit (Hebrews 3:15).

As J.I. Packer wrote: Regeneration is a New Testament concept that grew, it seems, out of a parabolic-picture phrase that Jesus used to show Nicodemus the inwardness and depth of the change that even religious Jews must undergo if they were ever to see and enter the Kingdom of God and so have eternal life (John 3:3-15). Jesus pictured the change as being "born again". The concept is God renovating the heart, the core of a person's being, by implanting a new principle of desire, purpose, and action, a dispositional dynamic that finds expression in positive response to the gospel and its Christ. Jesus phrase, "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5) harks back to Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God is pictured as symbolically cleansing persons from sin's pollution (by water) and bestowing a "new heart" by putting His Spirit within them.

 

[swordsman1]

It is quite true that "born of water" is never used as a reference to childbirth in ancient literature. But equally the phrase is also never used to describe baptism or spiritual cleansing. So it can't be dismissed for that reason, or you have to dismiss the other 2 options as well. From the context I think childbirth is the best fit of the three options. Childbirth is certainly in the context, with Nicodemus confused by Jesus's use of the term "born again", thinking he meant 2 natural births. Jesus explained to him that Christians experience 2 births: the natural birth and Spirit birth. The next verse, verse 6, explains the previous verse .

4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”​

​

5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ​

​

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

As the phrase contains the word "born", childbirth is an obvious fit. I can't see how being "born" has any connection with water baptism or spiritual cleansing.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It is quite true that "born of water" is never used as a reference to childbirth in ancient literature. But equally the phrase is also never used to describe baptism or spiritual cleansing. So it can't be dismissed for that reason, or you have to dismiss the other 2 options as well. From the context I think childbirth is the best fit of the three options. Childbirth is certainly in the context, with Nicodemus confused by Jesus's use of the term "born again", thinking he meant 2 natural births. Jesus explained to him that Christians experience 2 births: the natural birth and Spirit birth. The next verse, verse 6, explains the previous verse .

4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”​

​

5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ​

​

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

As the phrase contains the word "born", childbirth is an obvious fit. I can't see how being "born" has any connection with water baptism or spiritual cleansing.

I agree. Once taken in context, Nicodemus speaking of birth, one can logically connect the quote from Jesus Christ of Nazareth to mean just that , born of water by a woman.
That being said, water figures prominently in creation stories, from the initial separation of waters in Genesis to the life-giving rain and rivers sustaining all beings. Water simply represents physical life as no one can enter the Kingdom of God in the flesh but is able to in the Spirit. And initially only through flesh can His Holy Spirit dwell in the believer.
Blessings.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Water simply represents physical life

What? What does Jesus mean when he speaks about LIVING WATER (John 4:10) And how about when Jesus said, "but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

Your statement is so simplistic....representing physical life....wrong! Jesus' water gives ETERNAL LIFE.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What? What does Jesus mean when he speaks about LIVING WATER (John 4:10) And how about when Jesus said, "but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

Your statement is so simplistic....representing physical life....wrong! Jesus' water gives ETERNAL LIFE.

He already spoke of "Living Waters" this is His Holy Spirit that dwells in every believer. No man can receive His Holy Spirit unless one is born of the flesh first.
I may be wrong to you. Blessings

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

No man can receive His Holy Spirit unless one is born of the flesh first.

What? I think the examples of John the Baptist and Jeremiah falsify your statement above. The Scripture clearly state John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit" from the WOMB. So was Jeremiah. Such an outrageous and absolute statement on your part.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What? I think the examples of John the Baptist and Jeremiah falsify your statement above. The Scripture clearly state John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit" from the WOMB. So was Jeremiah. Such an outrageous and absolute statement on your part.

The Holy Spirit came to dwell in every believer on the Day of Pentecost when regeneration occurred. This was the first time and now continues going forward for all believers. This miracle of the permanent "indwelling" was not available before Jesus Christ of Nazareth. We are not John the Baptist or Jeremiah where the Holy Spirit fell upon them as God willed.
I am afraid we have different theological views and I hardly think it is "outrageous".
Thanks for engaging.
Blessings

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

John the Baptist or Jeremiah where the Holy Spirit fell upon them as God willed.

The reason why John the Baptist is called the greatest is because the HS DIDN'T fall upon them as God willed in the OT. He was filled and permanently filled with the HS from the womb.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The reason why John the Baptist is called the greatest is because the HS DIDN'T fall upon them as God willed in the OT. He was filled and permanently filled with the HS from the womb.

Ok, if you say so.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Ok, if you say so.

I don't give a rat's banana what I say.....the question here is what Scripture says. If we have agreement in what Scripture says....then we have agreement.

 

[concretecamper]

The Text: Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

Some quotations I have gather from CF and the internet.

• Of course the "water" is amniotic fluid, not plain old H2O. That verse does not include the word "again" so the word "born" can only mean your physical birth. He did not say "baptized in" water either. So you can't say he meant being baptized in a lake or river. Show me a verse where he explicitly said to be born again you must be baptized in water.
• You said, “Natural birth is the plainest interpretation and therefore correct.” “Born of water" is not a straightforward statement of anything, but is by the very words an oblique reference to... something.
• While many scholars and commentators deny, even vehemently, that there was any cultural or Old Testament background among first-century Jews about water referring to physical birth, their denials simply “don’t hold water.”
• Some have taken “born of water” to an absurd level of asserting all bodily fluids such as sperm, serves as a functional equivalent of “born of water.” "Born of bodily fluids" runs into tension with John 1:12-13 concerning regeneration and the new nature: “He gave the right to become children of God….who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

If indeed, “born of water” refers to natural biological birth, it would clearly be a hapax legomenon….a word or phrase which only occurs once in Scripture, and even stranger, this idiom is not found in Hellenistic literature as scholars inform us. It certainly is possible for “born of water” to refer to natural biological birth, but some very strong evidence should be marshaled to overcome the long historic interpretation “born of water” is water either referring to the power of the HS to cleanse us from sin or possibly baptism.

Natural birth isn’t caused by amniotic fluid and isn’t the only factor in natural birth. There are genitals, Fallopian tubes, conception, fluid in the umbilical cord, contractions, etc., of which amniotic fluid is one of the elements…. in a near-last long chain of events. Amniotic fluid or any other bodily fluid fails instrumentally as the cause of natural birth.

People are born from their mothers; they are not born from amniotic fluid. Bodily fluid isn’t what gives birth to them, their mother is. The Scriptures bears this out:

• For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. (I Cor 11:12)
• God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Gal. 4:4
• I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; (Luke 7:28)
• Man, who is born of woman, Is short-lived and full of turmoil. (Job 14:1)
• Whenever a woman is in labor she has pain, because her hour has come; but when she gives birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy that a child has been born into the world. (John 16:21)
• “How then can a man be just with God? Or how can he be clean who is born of woman? (Job 25:4)

Jesus was not talking about the difference between natural birth and spiritual birth. Furthermore, if "born of water" does refer to natural childbirth, why does Nicodemus need to be reminded he is already born? Why would anyone who has been naturally born need to be reminded of that fact? Existing is self evident and presupposed. Jesus is not speaking of the doctrine of creation. He is speaking of redemption.

There are only two types of people in the world: those who are born of the Spirit and those who are not. In the end, only those two categories matter (John 3:3). Our earthly lives are extended opportunities for us to respond to God’s call and become born of the Spirit (Hebrews 3:15).

As J.I. Packer wrote: Regeneration is a New Testament concept that grew, it seems, out of a parabolic-picture phrase that Jesus used to show Nicodemus the inwardness and depth of the change that even religious Jews must undergo if they were ever to see and enter the Kingdom of God and so have eternal life (John 3:3-15). Jesus pictured the change as being "born again". The concept is God renovating the heart, the core of a person's being, by implanting a new principle of desire, purpose, and action, a dispositional dynamic that finds expression in positive response to the gospel and its Christ. Jesus phrase, "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5) harks back to Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God is pictured as symbolically cleansing persons from sin's pollution (by water) and bestowing a "new heart" by putting His Spirit within them.

What? Amniotic fluid? Being born of water? I've heard it all now.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

But equally the phrase is also never used to describe baptism or spiritual cleansing.

I agree. Once taken in context, Nicodemus speaking of birth, one can logically connect the quote from Jesus Christ of Nazareth to mean just that , born of water by a woman.

And this is where things get interesting. In my OP, at the micro level I endeavored to show being “born of water” can not be construed as amniotic fluid as there is no instrumentality with any fluid. Fluid just follows the path of least resistance via gravity.

We now will try to understand what “born of water” means in the wider context of John chapters 1-3. St. John gives us three hints.

1. In John’s prologue, he introduces the concept of being “born” of God in vs. 12-13. Here St. John assigns all humanity into two categories: Born of the world and born of God.

2. Secondly, Jesus’ inherent distrust of those who follow him specifically due to His performing signs. This would include Nicodemus. John 2:23-24.

3. Jesus’ use of two double entendres;
• the word ἄνωθεν in 3:3 for [born] from above or [born] again;
• the word πνεῦμα in 3:5-8 for Spirit or wind;

The desired effect of the double entendres in the best case scenario would be the unbelieving world would answer one way and the believing world would answer the other way.

1. The basis for understanding what being born of God means. We comment only on John 1:10-13. When the Word came into the world, there was a separation between the people who accepted him, and those who rejected him (v10). John uses the word 'world' in two ways: The wide usage would be Jesus made the physical world and his mission was to the world (3:16), but the world rejected him. The narrow usage of the “world” is the unbelieving culture that was opposed to Jesus and his disciples. He was not only rejected by the world, but also by his own people (v11). John uses the term “the Jews” as a mostly negative phrase to describe the Jewish leaders who rejected him as their Messiah. For the Jews, especially the Pharisees (like Nicodemus) believed they were children of God, due to being Children of Abraham. Towards the end of Jesus’ three year ministry, this rejection from the Jewish leadership was so profound, Jesus calls them spiritual children of the Devil for the “Devil is their father’ (John 8:44).

For believers, it is just the opposite. John tells his readers that all "who believed in His name" are given "the right to become children of God." Most of us, upon reading this, would assume that this "right to become children of God" comes through adoption. John, however, is saying much more. Here in verse 13, we find that it is not adoption that John is speaking of, but birth. This is the new birth or regeneration. John says: "Children born...". We are "born of God", given a new birth. This has staggering implications. First, a new birth implies that God is the source. Just like natural birth form parents, the new birth is of God Himself. Second, new birth implies a drastic change; New birth, however, gives rise to a new person, a new creation. As Paul wrote: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (II Cor. 5:17). Those who experience the new birth have new appetites, new desires, new strengths, new talents, new values, as they are "born of God".

2. John 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.

This is a curious passage of Scripture. Jesus had a hard time trusting some individuals who believed in him and followed him through out his three year ministry (possibly false beliefs) because of His miracles. Jesus knew their belief was thin, superficial belief. It wasn’t based on anything other than an admiration of the spectacular. Knowing this, Jesus did not entrust Himself to them. They saw great signs and on account of that had some understanding of who Jesus was, but they did not actually receive and rest upon Him for salvation. It was a primarily signs-based faith and not a primarily gospel-based faith.

Perhaps a close equivalent would be the Parable of the Sower, specifically referencing the seeds cast upon the thorns, rocks, and roadway. Also, Simon Magnus who believed and was baptized fell away due to his desire to possess supernatural gifts.

So in John 3:1, Nicodemus comes to Jesus because of his performing miracles. And John’s readers know this…Nicodemus at this point is an unbeliever.

The encounter of Jesus and Nicodemus.

As a high-ranking Pharisee, Nicodemus was the ancient equivalent of a politician and professor all rolled into one. Jesus breaks through Nicodemus’ self-reliance by showing him that he doesn’t understand religion as well as he might think. John’s readers know Nicodemus is an unbeliever as he inquired about Jesus’ miracles. Nicodemus doesn’t know Jesus is the Messiah.

Jesus’ now asserts the double entendres into the conversation as a statement of fact rather than a question: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is ἄνωθεν (either born again or born from above) he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Notice Jesus floats the double entendres and gives Nicodemus the first chance at making personal choice which birth will give him the Kingdom of God. Is it going to be a natural birth as being a descendent of Abraham?

John’s readers know immediately which category they are in: they are born from above…they are children of God and born of God (John 1:12-13). However, Nicodemus predictively as an unbeliever takes a naturalistic understanding of Jesus usage of ἄνωθεν.

Jesus now reveals he is the Messiah, but he does it cryptically by referencing the OT. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Additionally, Jesus speaks of the Spirit vs. 7-8 which should give Nicodemus a massive hint to what Jesus is speaking of. Nicodemus doesn’t understand what Jesus is speaking, so he states “How can these things be?” At which point, Jesus thunders severe criticism at him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?” Nicodemus, as a teacher of Israel should have known “born of water and the Spirit” is a major Messianic theme in the OT but completely fails to comprehend it.

When Jesus stated “one born of water and the spirit” he clearly is referring to one of the most well known Messianic prophecies of the OT.

Ezekiel 36:24-27 For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

This prophecy in the immediate context assures the exiles in Babylonia the land of Judah will be restored. It’s greater fulfillment is in the New Covenant. There will be spiritual cleansing, renewal (a new heart), and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. John’s prologue does address some of these aspects of New Covenant for all people via the new birth.

Whereas the phrase γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος alludes to being physically born a Jew , Jesus clearly states that this is not enough to become part of God’s (new) kingdom. Those, then, who are born of Israel need to also be born again of the Holy Spirit. This points to the regeneration caused by the Holy Spirit, having the salvation of God’s people in mind. It therefore indicates here that, in future, the true Israelites (people of God) will not only be the Jews, but ‘everybody’ who believes in Jesus – those who are born of the Spirit. Whereas the Jews have thought that being born a Jew was good enough for them to enter the kingdom of God, Jesus adds that ‘born of the Spirit’ or being was required in the ‘new dispensation’ to become part of God’s people.

What Jesus means here is both “water and the Spirit” is the instrumental cause of the new birth. In all probability Jesus is using a literary device called an hendiadys to express this dual aspect of the new birth. A hendiadys is a figure of speech in which two words connected by a conjunction are used to express a single notion that would normally be expressed by an adjective and a substantive, such as grace and favor instead of gracious favor. This has nothing to do with amniotic fluid. This is a naturalistic understanding of the text akin to Nicodemus' thinking.

Does John 3 speak of Christian baptism? John 3 is certainly not incompatible with Christian baptism. The Jewish expectation was the Messiah would be engage in some sort of Baptismal activity.

In John 1, just after the Prologue, the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites on a kind of a fact finding mission to inquire of John’s baptismal activities. Without directly asking the question if He was the Messiah, the topic comes up due to John’s answer. Why do they ask John is he the Christ? Because John’s administration of baptism is different than all other “washings of purification” in the OT including proselyte baptisms. All OT washings are performed and initiated by the individual. John’s baptism as well as Christian baptism is performed by another and the recipient is passive.
John assures them he is not the Messiah but pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. Even the Jewish authorities understood Ezekiel 36 as “sprinkling of water to the nations” would be apart of the mission of the Messiah and that the Messiah would do the “sprinkling” not the recipient. This is why they inquired of him.

And just after Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus and the disciples go to be with John and participate in his baptismal activities. Jesus and the disciples being apart of John’s baptismal activities certain fulfills apart of Ezekiel’s prophecies…however, it is fully realized as Messanic until the Great Commission (Mt. 28).

 

[swordsman1]

That's a stretch and a half.

Jesus would not have spoken those words "born of water" to Nicodemus unless He expected him to understand what he meant. Christian baptism hadn't even been instituted at that point, so Nicodemus would never have understood it to be that. The natural flow of the conversation indicates that childbirth is what Jesus was referring to, and that is how Nicodemus understood it:

Jesus originally said to Nicodemus you have to be born twice to see the kingdom of God.....

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”​

Nicodemus understands what Jesus saying but is confused about being born twice....

“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”​

Jesus then explains what the 2 births are....

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.​

And clarifies it with his next statement.....

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."​

The 2 births are being born of the flesh (born of water) and being born of the Spirit.
The first is natural birth, the second is spiritual birth.

Why did Jesus use "born OF WATER" to describe childbirth? Because water is often associated with childbirth. Even today we use the term "her waters have broken". And in ancient times also.....

The ancient Greek word προχοή means flowing water, the streams of a river, and discharge of amniotic fluid

προχοή - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

ἡ, (προχέω) poet. noun, almost always pl., flowing waters, streams of a river, ἐπὶ προχοῇσι διιπετέος ποταμοῖο Il.17.263; ἐς ποταμοῦ προχοάς Od.5.453; ἐν προχοῇς ποταμοῦ 11.242; ἐν προχοῇς .. Ὠκεανοῖο 20.65; Τριτωνίδος ἐν προχοαῖς λίμνας Pi.P.4.20, cf. Anacr.28 codd., B.6.3, A.Supp.1025 (lyr.)...

lsj.gr

Chrysostom writes.

'that we are born again of the waters, just as of the womb'​

Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 2.9 on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7,​

Clearly he has John 3:4 in mind here.


In the apocryphal book of Ezra we see the embryo in the womb being referred to as being preserved in water.

4 Ezra 8.8 And because thou dost give life to the body which is now fashioned in the womb, and dost furnish it with members, what thou hast created is preserved in fire and water, and for nine months the womb which thou has formed endures thy creation which has been created in it.​

The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to a newborn child as being "kneaded in water"

What is he that is born of woman in the midst of all Thy terrible [works]?​

He is but an edifice of dust, and a thing kneaded with water, whose beginning [is sinful iniquity] and shameful nakedness, [and a fount of uncleanness],​

Dead Sea Scrolls (Hymns Scroll IQH, Hymns 3)​

An Ancient Assyrian Lamashtu Incantation says....

She intercepts the running youth, she disposes of the hurrying son,​

she utterly smashes the tiny ones,​

she makes the mature ones drink fetal water (i.e., amniotic fluid)​

The Lamashtu Amulet: A Portrait of the Caregiver as a Demoness*

Chalcedony amulet depicting the Lamashtu demoness, probably ca. second millenium BCE Harvard Museum of the Ancient Near East (HMANE) no. SM 1949.03.002. Accession no. 08985 (SM catalogue: 3178). Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI) no. P408053.

harvardlibrarybulletin.org

​

In many Tibetan languages the amniotic fluid is referred to simply by the word for WATER
e.g. Maru ɣək³¹ ‘water; amniotic fluid’ (< (164) *rəy WATER / LIQUID, below), Baima ʃuɛ³⁵ ‘amniotic ɻuid’ (< Chinese; cf. Mand. 水 shuǐ ‘water’).

https://escholarship.org/content/qt3c40r8jv/qt3c40r8jv_noSplash_88d4c4aa213bdb64ae6fb685fb571c32.pdf?t=lnqq9i

The term for amniotic fluid in German is Fruchtwasser (“fruit water”)

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33826130/THEODORE-DOCUMENT-2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Jesus would not have spoken those words "born of water" to Nicodemus unless He expected him to understand what he meant.

What? Then why does Jesus severely criticism Nicodemus for not understanding what he said. Clearly Jesus did expect him to know what he said....but didn't. The text is clear here and just the opposite what you posit.

Major hermenuetical rule: Clear passages of Scripture interpret obscure. Clear passages refer to all believers as apart of being born of God, not born of man. John prologue is key: he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

John is clearly not articulating a naturalistic understanding standing of the text.

The ancient Greek word προχοή means flowing water, the streams of a river, and discharge of amniotic fluid

προχοή - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

ἡ, (προχέω) poet. noun, almost always pl., flowing waters, streams of a river, ἐπὶ προχοῇσι διιπετέος ποταμοῖο Il.17.263; ἐς ποταμοῦ προχοάς Od.5.453; ἐν προχοῇς ποταμοῦ 11.242; ἐν προχοῇς .. Ὠκεανοῖο 20.65; Τριτωνίδος ἐν προχοαῖς λίμνας Pi.P.4.20, cf. Anacr.28 codd., B.6.3, A.Supp.1025 (lyr.)...

lsj.gr

Chrysostom writes.
'that we are born again of the waters, just as of the womb'Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 2.9 on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7,Clearly he has John 3:4 in mind here.


In the apocryphal book of Ezra we see the embryo in the womb being referred to as being preserved in water.
4 Ezra 8.8 And because thou dost give life to the body which is now fashioned in the womb, and dost furnish it with members, what thou hast created is preserved in fire and water, and for nine months the womb which thou has formed endures thy creation which has been created in it.
The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to a newborn child as being "kneaded in water"
What is he that is born of woman in the midst of all Thy terrible [works]?He is but an edifice of dust, and a thing kneaded with water, whose beginning [is sinful iniquity] and shameful nakedness, [and a fount of uncleanness],Dead Sea Scrolls (Hymns Scroll IQH, Hymns 3)

An Ancient Assyrian Lamashtu Incantation says....
She intercepts the running youth, she disposes of the hurrying son,she utterly smashes the tiny ones,she makes the mature ones drink fetal water (i.e., amniotic fluid)

The Lamashtu Amulet: A Portrait of the Caregiver as a Demoness*

Chalcedony amulet depicting the Lamashtu demoness, probably ca. second millenium BCE Harvard Museum of the Ancient Near East (HMANE) no. SM 1949.03.002. Accession no. 08985 (SM catalogue: 3178). Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI) no. P408053.

harvardlibrarybulletin.org

In many Tibetan languages the amniotic fluid is referred to simply by the word for WATER
e.g. Maru ɣək³¹ ‘water; amniotic fluid’ (< (164) *rəy WATER / LIQUID, below), Baima ʃuɛ³⁵ ‘amniotic ɻuid’ (< Chinese; cf. Mand. 水 shuǐ ‘water’).
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3c40r8jv/qt3c40r8jv_noSplash_88d4c4aa213bdb64ae6fb685fb571c32.pdf?t=lnqq9i
The term for amniotic fluid in German is Fruchtwasser (“fruit water”)
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/...DORE-DOCUMENT-2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Extra biblical material that obscure the clear meaning of John 1:13 "13 children born not of natural descent.

 

[swordsman1]

What? Then why does Jesus severely criticism Nicodemus for not understanding what he said. Clearly Jesus did expect him to know what he said....but didn't. The text is clear here and just the opposite what you posit.

Jesus doesn't rebuke Nicodemus in John 3:3-6.

He only rebukes him for not understanding his statements in v7-9, about the Spirit being compared to air and wind, which is contained in the Old Testament eg Genesis 1:2 , Ezekiel 37:9-10, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:29-30, etc

Major hermenuetical rule: Clear passages of Scripture interpret obscure. Clear passages refer to all believers as apart of being born of God, not born of man. John prologue is key: he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

John is clearly not articulating a naturalistic understanding standing of the text.

John 3:3-6 is clear. The plain reading is that the 2 births are natural birth, and spiritual birth.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit"

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

about the Spirit being compared to air and wind, which is contained in the Old Testament eg Genesis 1:2 , Ezekiel 37:9-10, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:29-30, etc

What? No. Jesus statement is a continuation of a huge motif in Scripture about the two categories of humanity....1) John's prologue describes humanity as the born of the world for born of God, 2) Paul in Romans 5 describes those in Adam and those in Christ 3) I Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 4) Jesus in John 3 is describing born of flesh or born of Spirit. 5) Parables of the Wheat and Tares, Sheep and Goats, Parable of the Dagnet (separating the good fish from bad, Matthew 13), The two sons, Wise and Foolish Virgins, Wise and Foolish Builders, Marriage Feast And many other parables are two point comparisons.

The usage of the "spirit" is also a double entendres....which you interpreted naturalistically........rather than spiritually as clearly stated.... The desired effect of the double entendres in the best case scenario would be the unbelieving world would answer one way and the believing world would answer the other way.

Jesus uses this same kind of speech with the woman at the well (John 4)....speaking of living water that gives eternal life....she believes Jesus and gets the spiritual meaning whereas Nicodemus as a highly educated man doesn't.

 

[swordsman1]

What? No. Jesus statement is a continuation of a huge motif in Scripture about the two categories of humanity....1) John's prologue describes humanity as the born of the world for born of God, 2) Paul in Romans 5 describes those in Adam and those in Christ 3) I Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 4) Jesus in John 3 is describing born of flesh or born of Spirit. 5) Parables of the Wheat and Tares, Sheep and Goats, Parable of the Dagnet (separating the good fish from bad, Matthew 13), The two sons, Wise and Foolish Virgins, Wise and Foolish Builders, Marriage Feast And many other parables are two point comparisons.

The usage of the "spirit" is also a double entendres....which you interpreted naturalistically........rather than spiritually as clearly stated.... The desired effect of the double entendres in the best case scenario would be the unbelieving world would answer one way and the believing world would answer the other way.

Jesus uses this same kind of speech with the woman at the well (John 4)....speaking of living water that gives eternal life....she believes Jesus and gets the spiritual meaning whereas Nicodemus as a highly educated man doesn't.

There is no prologue with Nicodemus discourse, apart from the introduction in John 3:1-2.

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.

From his reply it is patently obvious that Nicodemus understands that Jesus is referring to 2 births, and Jesus himself is crystal clear in his explanation that is exactly what he meant.

Trying to force baptism into this passage is reading a preconceived idea into the text - the fallacy of eisegesis.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is no prologue with Nicodemus discourse, apart from the introduction in John 3:1-2.

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.

From his reply it is patently obvious that Nicodemus understands that Jesus is referring to 2 births, and Jesus himself is crystal clear in his explanation that is exactly what he meant.

Trying to force baptism into this passage is reading a preconceived idea into the text - the fallacy of eisegesis.

Quite true. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

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.

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.