I do.
I have read it in scripture but don't fully understand it.Do you know what a glorified resurrected body is?
I have read it in scripture but don't fully understand it.
You believe baptism in this flesh has something to do with the glorified body?Flesh and blood won't inherit the kingdom of heaven, which is not what resurrected bodies are, but rather glorified resurrected, immortal, incorruptible, bodies will inherit the kingdom of heaven. There's more on that in 1 Cor. 15.
Thank you for posting it, I like reading that!Here's a bit about it. There's so much more too.
Luke 20:34-38
34Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
You believe baptism in this flesh has something to do with the glorified body?
That's awesome to read that!That's what Romans 6:4,5 says
Rom. 6:4,5
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
If you are united with Christ "in the likeness" (water baptism) in His death you will be united with Him in His literal resurrection.
That's awesome to read that!
Remember that in the 1st Century, there wasn't much "science". When the fuid would gush out during a birth, it was seen at water.Womb fluid is not water. (scientific)
No, your reliance on science is wrong, because no one of that day would have known any different from "water".Wrong.
As a symbol of being in union with Christ. It is a ritual that does NOT save.Baptism is Required
I just can't believe your dishonesty by leaving out the first part of the verse, which actually REFUTES your claims.Peter 3: 21.... whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...
See above. Jesus WAS noting a physical and spiritual birth, since confused Nic thought Jesus meant a SECOND physical birth in v.4, after Jesus noted in v.3 that ol' Nic needed to be born again. Context is king, and this context REFUTES your opinions.John 3:5 .......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.
I believe being saved and being born again (regenerated) mean the same thing. At least, they go together.Hello,
I’m pondering if there is a difference between being SAVED and being BORN AGAIN….
SAVED by the Blood and Body of Jesus Christ; and
BORN AGAIN by Water Baptism and Holy Spirit Baptism.
What are your thoughts?![]()
So you believe we have to be baptized to secure the Salvation of the glorified body?That's what Romans 6:4,5 says
Rom. 6:4,5
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
If you are united with Christ "in the likeness" (water baptism) in His death you will be united with Him in His literal resurrection.
So you believe we have to be baptized to secure the Salvation of the glorified body?
True.First century people were not aware then as we are now regarding what we term as science.Remember that in the 1st Century, there wasn't much "science". When the fuid would gush out during a birth, it was seen at water.
Even when our Lord was speared, it was described as "water" coming out, even though it was serum.
No, your reliance on science is wrong, because no one of that day would have known any different from "water".
And the context refutes you.
John 3
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. ”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
In v.3 Jesus tells Nic he needs to be born again.
In v.4 confused Nic thought Jesus was referring to a second physical birth, by "entering a SECOND time into their mother's womb". That is a physical birth.
In v.5 Jesus clarifies by clearly stating the difference between the physical birth and the spiritual birth. iow, to be "born again" is a spiritual birth, something Nic knew nothing about.
As a symbol of being in union with Christ. It is a ritual that does NOT save.
Proof of being a symbol is found in Romans 6
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.
v.3 shows that being "baptized into Christ" is symbolically being identified into His death.
v.4 shows more symbolizing and identification. Because believers are in union with Christ (Eph 1:13) they are identified "with Him into death". Did you die when Christ died? No. When you were born, you were already dead. But water baptism is a symbol of "dying with Him".
v.5 shows that because believers ARE united with Him in death, they will "certainly also be unityed with Him in a resurrection like His".
Very clear.
I just can't believe your dishonesty by leaving out the first part of the verse, which actually REFUTES your claims.
See above. Jesus WAS noting a physical and spiritual birth, since confused Nic thought Jesus meant a SECOND physical birth in v.4, after Jesus noted in v.3 that ol' Nic needed to be born again. Context is king, and this context REFUTES your opinions.
True.First century people were not aware then as we are now regarding what we term as science.
When a woman's water broke then as now it appeared as if water gushes forth from her body. And as innocent as people were then, it remains true. Amniotic fluid is mostly water.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Amniotic+fluid+98%+water&search=&form=QBLH
If that's what you believe, OK.Exactly. Salvation of the glorified body.
And you nailed the whole point, when you said "when a woman's WATER broke".True.First century people were not aware then as we are now regarding what we term as science.
When a woman's water broke then as now it appeared as if water gushes forth from her body. And as innocent as people were then, it remains true. Amniotic fluid is mostly water.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Amniotic+fluid+98%+water&search=&form=QBLH
I think if we believe baptism with water is mandatory to secure our Salvation, we're then ignoring the teaching that we are saved by faith through God's grace.
I think if we believe baptism saves then John the Baptizer in John 1 was saving people, including Jesus himself when Jesus was baptized by John.
We are appointed once to die. After that the judgement.
We are born spiritually dead. But are made alive through Christ.
Born of water, we are layer baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Born of water and spirit. But we are saved by grace through faith. And those are the gifts of God, that we not boast we accomplished this ourselves.
Then you just aren't paying attention to the context.John 1:12,13 says that being born physically via flesh and blood has no apparent benefit so it isn't even worth mentioning as far as being born again goes.
So, it's "must" eh? The context totally refutes your demands. Ol' Nic was confused about a SECOND physical birth, and Jesus corrected him by pointing to the 2 births, one physical and one spiritual. It is very clear.Being “born of water and Spirit” must be a reference to water baptism and spiritual rebirth.
Well, of course!! And that is the exact point. Jesus had to correct him, which He did in v.5 about the 2 births, the FIRST being physical and the SECOND being spiritual.Another clue is that even Nicodemus was wrong about a man being born a second time from a mother.
Actually, you are correct. The physical birth has NO BEARING on being born again. And that was Jesus' point to Nic.If being “born of water” is a reference to live birth amniotic fluid then that’s only the first birth and couldn’t have any bearing on being “born again” (as in born a second time spiritually) as John 3 says.
The FIRST birth IS a live physical birth. The SECOND birth is spiritual, which was Jesus' explanation to Nic.“Water and Spirit” is definitely not live birth.
No, therefore your logic is flawed. The context screams 2 births, the first one physical and the second one spiritual.Therefore it's water baptism.