tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142569919196917789.post4375781526669396993..comments2010-12-02T16:52:07.103-05:00Comments on Mercurial Musings: Apparently, "Born Again" Christians Don't Get the Jokecastlerookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04180546720296788315noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142569919196917789.post-66329553234757435242009-04-02T10:22:00.000-04:002009-04-02T10:22:00.000-04:00Well jeez, castlerook, include all the text next t...Well jeez, castlerook, include all the text next time, wouldja?<BR/><BR/>Kidding. With that addition, I think your interpretation makes more sense.Ruby Apollinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597627449919946143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142569919196917789.post-80111542472343661102009-04-01T20:29:00.000-04:002009-04-01T20:29:00.000-04:00I'm not surprised evangelicals missed the joke. As...I'm not surprised evangelicals missed the joke. As a group, they're not noted for their sense of humour. Thanks for the alternative interpretations.<BR/><BR/>But to be honest, I've never really felt the need of an alternative interpretation to ignore them. I've simply assumed "you're talking about a text that was written by a human already at least 50 years after the event, and transcribed and translated by more humans over the following centuries... and you're trying to read deep significance into individual <EM>words</EM>? Get a grip."<BR/><BR/>Looked at in that perspective, it seems silly to focus on words like "born", which might be used in dozens of ways literal and figurative, even without allowing for puns.vethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13376500106064052491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142569919196917789.post-39605682238083421292009-04-01T16:00:00.000-04:002009-04-01T16:00:00.000-04:00Ruby,Excellent point. Certainly it would not be in...Ruby,<BR/><BR/>Excellent point. Certainly it would not be inconsistent for Jesus to have been speaking of baptism. And yes, John did baptize Jesus (though apparently not in the Gospel of John, so I'm not sure to what extent that can be applied here).<BR/><BR/>To be honest, in re-reading the last part of my post I find that it's not well-explained at all.<BR/><BR/>First of all, I didn't quote enough of the pssage. Instead of John 3:3-5, here's John 3:3-6 ...<BR/><BR/>3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.<BR/>3:4 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?<BR/>3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.<BR/>3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.<BR/><BR/>What I'm suggesting is that versus 5 and 6 are a pair here, making the same point. I'm also assuming that Jesus is actually responding to Nicodemus' question is verse 4, and not simply talking past him.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I certanly don't claim that my interpretation is the only, or "correct" interpretation.castlerookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04180546720296788315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142569919196917789.post-11623446993224310642009-04-01T09:32:00.000-04:002009-04-01T09:32:00.000-04:00Interesting. I'm not sure, though, given that John...Interesting. I'm not sure, though, given that John baptized Jesus (he did, didn't he? I'm kind of a heathen) that reading "water and Spirit" as referring to some kind of formalized ritual involving both is necessarily such a bad one. <BR/><BR/>John apparently wrangled up a whole bunch of Jews to undergo what was at the time I think a relatively common Jewish purification/bathing rite because he thought the apocalypse/Messiah was imminent. It would make sense that Jesus was referring to something like this. Something to purify sin for those who wanted to repent. Incidentally, on this read, it makes absolutely no sense to baptize babies.<BR/><BR/>If Jesus had been strongly influenced by John, he might assert (incorrectly, I believe, according to common practice at the time) that such a ritual was necessary to be a good Jew (i.e. "see the kingdom of God.")<BR/><BR/>Also, rereading the passage a few times, I wonder why Jesus even mentioned water, if it is to symbolize the womb. All humans are born out of a womb. It seems unnecessary to note it unless it means something.<BR/><BR/>And I also wonder why the first time Jesus speaks he says "see the kingdom of God" and then the second time says "enter the kingdom of God." <BR/><BR/>Sigh. Biblical exegesis is so fun.Ruby Apollinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597627449919946143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142569919196917789.post-50746525197724756972009-03-29T11:12:00.000-04:002009-03-29T11:12:00.000-04:00Of COURSE they don't get the joke. Would you think...Of COURSE they don't get the joke. Would you think it was funny if everything you believed to the very core and with every fiber of your being was the result of misinterpretation? Well would you? I didn't think so.<BR/><BR/>People who think they know it all and have set themselves up as "chosen" don't want to hear that they've been duped. <BR/><BR/>A very enjoyable post, that's what I think.Nodressrehearsalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16231287075280455381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142569919196917789.post-30560536222462624202009-03-29T10:55:00.000-04:002009-03-29T10:55:00.000-04:00Oh my. Make my head spin why don't you.I was aske...Oh my. Make my head spin why don't you.<BR/><BR/>I was asked out by a born again christian guy here in Minnesota last week. It was a little awkward. I didn't ask him what he meant by it, though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08927801100313802654noreply@blogger.com