John 3:3

[Apotheose]

What is your interpretation of John 3:3?

 

John 3:3 - “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again”

 

Is “birth” here metaphorical or literal?

[snowymountains]

57 minutes ago, Apotheose said:

What is your interpretation of John 3:3?

 

John 3:3 - “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again”

 

Is “birth” here metaphorical or literal?

 

He expands on this right after, ie look 3:4-3:21. Though more expansive tbh don't see anything crystal clear there either.

 

Tbh the way to tackle these things is text+commentary+teacher.

The teacher would be probably be a priest in the case of the bible or a monastic.

It's more difficult to work on a text-only basis.

[Apotheose]

55 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

He expands on this right after, ie look 3:4-3:21. Though more expansive tbh don't see anything crystal clear there either.

 

Tbh the way to tackle these things is text+commentary+teacher.

The teacher would be probably be a priest in the case of the bible or a monastic.

It's more difficult to work on a text-only basis.

 

Thank you!

 

It was more of a rhetorical question. In my view it is purely metaphorical. In 3:5 Jesus says “born of water and the Spirit”, referring to the baptism.

 

I am familiar to the idea that - in the baptism - one is ‘renovated’ by the Spirit. It indeed symbolizes a resurrection. That’s the esoteric meaning of INRI, which was put above Jesus’ head in the crucifixion.

 

But most rituals - although alchemical - are just symbolic. In my view, one is not ACTUALLY resurrected by the Spirit’s Fire in the baptism. Baptism would be a ritual to symbolize that process of internal purification and ultimate Illumination.

 

In John 3:3, I interpreted it as though Jesus is talking about the actual Redemption, instead of its symbolic meaning in the baptism ritual (John 3:5).

[Cobie]

“water & fire” (John 3:5) cf “yin & yang” (DDJ Ch 42)

萬 物 負 陰 而 抱 陽 wàn wù fù yīn ér bào yáng  All turn their backs on the yin, and embrace the yang; 

中 氣 以 為 和 zhōng qì yǐ wéi hé   blend the two primordial essences to create harmony.

 

 

Edited February 4 by Cobie

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Apotheose said:

What is your interpretation of John 3:3?

 

John 3:3 - “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again”

 

Is “birth” here metaphorical or literal?

 

Whichever you prefer . 

 

or both .

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Apotheose said:

 

Thank you!

 

It was more of a rhetorical question. In my view it is purely metaphorical. In 3:5 Jesus says “born of water and the Spirit”, referring to the baptism.

 

I am familiar to the idea that - in the baptism - one is ‘renovated’ by the Spirit. It indeed symbolizes a resurrection. That’s the esoteric meaning of INRI, which was put above Jesus’ head in the crucifixion.

 

But most rituals - although alchemical - are just symbolic. In my view, one is not ACTUALLY resurrected by the Spirit’s Fire in the baptism. Baptism would be a ritual to symbolize that process of internal purification and ultimate Illumination.

 

Thats how I see it ; John was acknowledging Jesus  as Christ through ritual , not  'making him Christ' with the ritual . Such initiation rituals can operate two ways IME ; one is as above , a ritualized acknowledgment  and teachings to put things in perspective and help you understand and integrate what has already happened to you  OR  an ritual enactment of what has not happened , and leads one towards it happening  ( if so ... look out !  )

 

In John 3:3, I interpreted it as though Jesus is talking about the actual Redemption, instead of its symbolic meaning in the baptism ritual (John 3:5).

 

[Daniel]

5 hours ago, Apotheose said:

What is your interpretation of John 3:3?

 

John 3:3:

 

"Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ"

 

5 hours ago, Apotheose said:

John 3:3 - “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again”

 

Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν - "Amen, Amen" ( very truly )

λέγω σοι, - "Lego soi" ( I say to you )

ἐὰν μή τις - "ean me tis" ( if lest/not anyone )

γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν - "genethe anothen" ( be born from above )

οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν - "ou dynatai idein" ( not will be able to see )

τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ - "ten basileian tou Theous" ( the kingdom of God )

 

5 hours ago, Apotheose said:

Is “birth” here metaphorical or literal?

 

The Greek word for "be born" in the verse is "γεννηθῇ", "genethe", like genesis, like genealogy.  The root is "γέννᾰ" "genna - origin".  The verb form is γεννάω, aorist/perfect/completed-action.  Here, it is conjugated with the suffix "θῇ" indicating the passive-casual:  to be born, or begotten, complete, but without any active participation from the subject.

 

The root "γέννᾰ" is very often, in the majority, literal.  The most concentrated cluster of occurances is the the first chapter of Matthew, the geneology of Jesus.

 

Matthew 1 NIV:

 

1 This is the genealogy ("γενέσεως") of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Isaac, Isaac [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Jacob, Jacob [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Judah and his brothers,

3 Judah [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Hezron, Hezron [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Ram ... ... ...

 

The geneology recorded in Luke uses simpler language, a construct relationship, possessive "τοῦ".

 

Luke 3 literal translation:

 

23 ... He was the son of, so it was thought, Joseph of ("τοῦ") Heli, 

24 of ("τοῦ") Matthat, of ("τοῦ") Levi, of ("τοῦ") Melki, of ("τοῦ") Jannai, of ("τοῦ") Joseph,

25 of ("τοῦ") Mattathias, of ("τοῦ") Amos, of ("τοῦ") Nahum, of ("τοῦ") Esli ... ... ...

 

In all 3 of the synoptic Gospels every occurance ( 50 in total ) are all literal births from a physical womb.  Examples:

 

Matthew 19:12 NIV:

 

For there are eunuchs who were born ("ἐγεννήθησαν") that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

 

Mark 14:21 NIV:

 

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born ("ἐγεννήθη").”

 

Luke 1:57 NIV:

 

When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth ("ἐγέννησεν") to a son.

 

The book of John departs from this consistent literal usage of γέννᾰ as a literal birth.  The word occurs 18 times in the book of John.  The departure from an exclusively literal birth from a physical womb is introduced immediately in chapter 1.

 

John 1:10-13 NIV:

 

10 He [the true light / the word made flesh] was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

13 children [born] not of natural descent ( literally "of blood" ), nor of human decision ( literally "of will of flesh" ) or a husband’s will ( literally "of the will of man" ), but born ("ἐγεννήθησαν") of God.

 

Skipping John 3 for a moment, the other occurances of γέννᾰ in the book of John are all literal, birth from a physical womb:  8:41, 9:2,19, 20, 32, 34, 16:21, 18:37.  Since, John 1 is clearly not literal, it's certainly possible that John 3 is also not literal.  Let's look at John 3.

 

The book of John begins with a reference to the creation event in Gen 1, In the beginning... creation via divine fiat.  Then the scene is set, foreshadowing the conflict between Jesus and the jewish establishment with the story of the confrontation of John the baptist by the priests.  John has a vision acknowleging Jesus' divine station.  John's disciples are transferred over to Jesus.  The chapter ends with Jesus referring Nathaniel to having a vision of "Jacob's ladder" ( Gen 28 ), but adds the very important detail about the Son-of-Man as the mercavah, the divine chariot.

 

Chapter two is an interlude which continues, follows on, and developes the "Son-of-man" "mercavah" concept.  Jesus is able to work wonders with vessels.  Water to wine in a vessel... the temple is a vessel, a dwelling place.  He is a master of "vessels", building, filling, and transmuting.

 

Chapter three:

 

Nocodemus comes to Jesus and says, "you must be from God because of the wonders you are working."  Jesus interprets the statement as a question, Nicodemus is asking, "are you from God?"  This is a bit of a dangerous question.  Nicodemus is a pharisee in the "ruling council".  Jesus dodges and distracts and also tests Nicodemus.

 

"Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born from above.” 

 

“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!”

 

( Note:  Nicodemus responded in frustration which is a form of anger, and is focused on the physical womb which is below. )

 

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are 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.”

 

In verse 1, Nicodemus comes to Jesus as a "Rabbi", literally.  in the Greek it's written "Ῥαββί". As a Rabbi, Jesus is, in some ways, obligated to answer the question.  Nicodemus is frustrated and confused.  Jesus tries to sooth him.  The key to understanding this is in the phrase: "You should not be surprised at my saying."  Why shouldn't Nicodemus be surprised?  Because Jesus is quoting scripture to him referring to the mystery school of which Nocodemus is a member as a pharisee.

 

John 1 refers the reader to Gen 1:1.  John 3 is referring the reader to Gen 1:2.

 

1:1
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2
והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And "ורוח אלהים" /  "ruach-elohim" / "divine spirit" fluttered upon the face of the waters.

 

Jesus answers:  "you can hear it, but you cannot see it.  You don't know where it is going.  So it is with all those who are born of spirit."  Jesus says Nicodemus s born of spirit, so, what's missing?  Water.  Jesus is teaching, both water and spirit are needed in order to see the kingdom of God which is present right in front of his face, technically, since the "beginning".  From spirit above... but then it descends like water... and then, it rises again to reunion seeing the Kingdom of God and receiving eternal life..

 

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

 

( Nicodemus has settled a bit. )

 

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” 

 

OK.  Jesus reminds Nicodemus he is a teacher.  A Talmudai-Torah.  A teacher of Torah.  This is a Talmudic teaching.  Let's see if I can find it...

 

Got it.   Ah.  Technically it's a Mishnah which is older than the Talmud.  Certainly a Pharisee should know this.

 

Talmud Rosh-Hashanna 29a:6-7

 

מַתְנִי׳ ״וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״, וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם — הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים, וְאִם לָאו — הָיוּ נוֹפְלִים.

 

MISHNA:  “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Exodus 17:11). Did the hands of Moses make war or break war? Rather, it's telling you that as long as the Jewish people turned their faces upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, but if not, they fell.
 

כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אוֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כׇּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אוֹתוֹ וָחָי״, וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה? אֶלָּא: בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם — הָיוּ מִתְרַפְּאִין, וְאִם לָאו הָיוּ נִימּוֹקִים

 

Similarly, you can say: The verse states: “Make for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their faces upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed but if not, they rotted.

 

OK.

 

Jesus is teaching, just as Moses lifted, the Son-of-Man (the mercavah, the divine chariot) must be lifted.  Thos who believe, truly believe will turn, te'shuvah, their faces upward, their hearts will be subjected downward, and this creates the "loft" for the chariot.  Those who are passengers will ascend to see the Kingdom of God and receive eternal life.

 

The remainder of the Nicodemus episode, verses 16-21, are flagged as commentary in the NIV not direct qoutes of Jesus, so, I'll stop there.  The mystery of the divine chariot is taught in Jewish mysticsm.  It's the oldest form of authentic "kabbalah" which means "receiving".  The idea is the mystic builds a chariot, a mercavah.  But all of authentic kabalah is about making and working with vessels.  In this case Jesus intends to save the world, more or less, by making himself into a mercavah, a divine vessel, which is just another word for an angel.  The Son-Of-Man is a specific sort of angel, divine vessel.  The vessel has not will of its own, so, it really is a revelation of God.  But it requires the jewish people to turn there faces upward, and subjegate their hearts to their (our) heavenly father to create the loft for the mercavah to "rise" (in quotes because it doesn't actually go anywhere.  Spirit is omnipresent.) 

 

Edited February 5 by Daniel

[Cobie]

TL;DR

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, Apotheose said:

I am familiar to the idea that - in the baptism

 

It's a mikvah.  There is a physical mikvah and a spiritual mikvah.

[Apotheose]

4 hours ago, Cobie said:

“water & fire” (John 3:5) cf “yin & yang” (DDJ Ch 42)

萬 物 負 陰 而 抱 陽 wàn wù fù yīn ér bào yáng  All turn their backs on the yin, and embrace the yang; 

中 氣 以 為 和 zhōng qì yǐ wéi hé   blend the two primordial essences to create harmony.

 

 

 

Perfect!!!

[Apotheose]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

John 3:3:

 

"Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ"

 

 

Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν - "Amen, Amen" ( very truly )

λέγω σοι, - "Lego soi" ( I say to you )

ἐὰν μή τις - "ean me tis" ( if lest/not anyone )

γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν - "genethe anothen" ( be born from above )

οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν - "ou dynatai idein" ( not will be able to see )

τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ - "ten basileian tou Theous" ( the kingdom of God )

 

 

The Greek word for "be born" in the verse is "γεννηθῇ", "genethe", like genesis, like genealogy.  The root is "γέννᾰ" "genna - origin".  The verb form is γεννάω, aorist/perfect/completed-action.  Here, it is conjugated with the suffix "θῇ" indicating the passive-casual:  to be born, or begotten, complete, but without any active participation from the subject.

 

The root "γέννᾰ" is very often, in the majority, literal.  The most concentrated cluster of occurances is the the first chapter of Matthew, the geneology of Jesus.

 

Matthew 1 NIV:

 

1 This is the genealogy ("γενέσεως") of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Isaac, Isaac [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Jacob, Jacob [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Judah and his brothers,

3 Judah [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Hezron, Hezron [was]-the-father-of ("ἐγέννησεν" / "begat" ) Ram ... ... ...

 

The geneology recorded in Luke uses simpler language, a construct relationship, possessive "τοῦ".

 

Luke 3 literal translation:

 

23 ... He was the son of, so it was thought, Joseph of ("τοῦ") Heli, 

24 of ("τοῦ") Matthat, of ("τοῦ") Levi, of ("τοῦ") Melki, of ("τοῦ") Jannai, of ("τοῦ") Joseph,

25 of ("τοῦ") Mattathias, of ("τοῦ") Amos, of ("τοῦ") Nahum, of ("τοῦ") Esli ... ... ...

 

In all 3 of the synoptic Gospels every occurance ( 50 in total ) are all literal births from a physical womb.  Examples:

 

Matthew 19:12 NIV:

 

For there are eunuchs who were born ("ἐγεννήθησαν") that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

 

Mark 14:21 NIV:

 

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born ("ἐγεννήθη").”

 

Luke 1:57 NIV:

 

When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth ("ἐγέννησεν") to a son.

 

The book of John departs from this consistent literal usage of γέννᾰ as a literal birth.  The word occurs 18 times in the book of John.  The departure from an exclusively literal birth from a physical womb is introduced immediately in chapter 1.

 

John 1:10-13 NIV:

 

10 He [the true light / the word made flesh] was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

13 children [born] not of natural descent ( literally "of blood" ), nor of human decision ( literally "of will of flesh" ) or a husband’s will ( literally "of the will of man" ), but born ("ἐγεννήθησαν") of God.

 

Skipping John 3 for a moment, the other occurances of γέννᾰ in the book of John are all literal, birth from a physical womb:  8:41, 9:2,19, 20, 32, 34, 16:21, 18:37.  Since, John 1 is clearly not literal, it's certainly possible that John 3 is also not literal.  Let's look at John 3.

 

The book of John begins with a reference to the creation event in Gen 1, In the beginning... creation via divine fiat.  Then the scene is set, foreshadowing the conflict between Jesus and the jewish establishment with the story of the confrontation of John the baptist by the priests.  John has a vision acknowleging Jesus' divine station.  John's disciples are transferred over to Jesus.  The chapter ends with Jesus referring Nathaniel to having a vision of "Jacob's ladder" ( Gen 28 ), but adds the very important detail about the Son-of-Man as the mercavah, the divine chariot.

 

Chapter two is an interlude which continues, follows on, and developes the "Son-of-man" "mercavah" concept.  Jesus is able to work wonders with vessels.  Water to wine in a vessel... the temple is a vessel, a dwelling place.  He is a master of "vessels", building, filling, and transmuting.

 

Chapter three:

 

Nocodemus comes to Jesus and says, "you must be from God because of the wonders you are working."  Jesus interprets the statement as a question, Nicodemus is asking, "are you from God?"  This is a bit of a dangerous question.  Nicodemus is a pharisee in the "ruling council".  Jesus dodges and distracts and also tests Nicodemus.

 

"Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born from above.” 

 

“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!”

 

( Note:  Nicodemus responded in frustration which is a form of anger, and is focused on the physical womb which is below. )

 

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are 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.”

 

In verse 1, Nicodemus comes to Jesus as a "Rabbi", literally.  in the Greek it's written "Ῥαββί". As a Rabbi, Jesus is, in some ways, obligated to answer the question.  Nicodemus is frustrated and confused.  Jesus tries to sooth him.  The key to understanding this is in the phrase: "You should not be surprised at my saying."  Why shouldn't Nicodemus be surprised?  Because Jesus is quoting scripture to him referring to the mystery school of which Nocodemus is a member as a pharisee.

 

John 1 refers the reader to Gen 1:1.  John 3 is referring the reader to Gen 1:2.

 

1:1
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2
והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And "ורוח אלהים" /  "ruach-elohim" / "divine spirit" fluttered upon the face of the waters.

 

Jesus answers:  "you can hear it, but you cannot see it.  You don't know where it is going.  So it is with all those who are born of spirit."  Jesus says Nicodemus s born of spirit, so, what's missing?  Water.  Jesus is teaching, both water and spirit are needed in order to see the kingdom of God which is present right in front of his face, technically, since the "beginning".  From spirit above... but then it descends like water... and then, it rises again to reunion seeing the Kingdom of God and receiving eternal life..

 

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

 

( Nicodemus has settled a bit. )

 

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” 

 

OK.  Jesus reminds Nicodemus he is a teacher.  A Talmudai-Torah.  A teacher of Torah.  This is a Talmudic teaching.  Let's see if I can find it...

 

Got it.   Ah.  Technically it's a Mishnah which is older than the Talmud.  Certainly a Pharisee should know this.

 

Talmud Rosh-Hashanna 29a:6-7

 

מַתְנִי׳ ״וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״, וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם — הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים, וְאִם לָאו — הָיוּ נוֹפְלִים.

 

MISHNA:  “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Exodus 17:11). Did the hands of Moses make war or break war? Rather, it's telling you that as long as the Jewish people turned their faces upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, but if not, they fell.
 

כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אוֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כׇּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אוֹתוֹ וָחָי״, וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה? אֶלָּא: בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם — הָיוּ מִתְרַפְּאִין, וְאִם לָאו הָיוּ נִימּוֹקִים

 

Similarly, you can say: The verse states: “Make for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their faces upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed but if not, they rotted.

 

OK.

 

Jesus is teaching, just as Moses lifted, the Son-of-Man (the mercavah, the divine chariot) must be lifted.  Thos who believe, truly believe will turn, te'shuvah, their faces upward, their hearts will be subjected downward, and this creates the "loft" for the chariot.  Those who are passengers will ascend to see the Kingdom of God and receive eternal life.

 

The remainder of the Nicodemus episode, verses 16-21, are flagged as commentary in the NIV not direct qoutes of Jesus, so, I'll stop there.  The mystery of the divine chariot is taught in Jewish mysticsm.  It's the oldest form of authentic "kabbalah" which means "receiving".  The idea is the mystic builds a chariot, a mercavah.  But all of authentic kabalah is about making and working with vessels.  In this case Jesus intends to save the world, more or less, by making himself into a mercavah, a divine vessel, which is just another word for an angel.  The Son-Of-Man is a specific sort of angel, divine vessel.  The vessel has not will of its own, so, it really is a revelation of God.  But it requires the jewish people to turn there faces upward, and subjegate their hearts to their (our) heavenly father to create the loft for the mercavah to "rise" (in quotes because it doesn't actually go anywhere.  Spirit is omnipresent.) 

 

 

Thank you very much for that, Daniel! 

[Apotheose]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

It's a mikvah.  There is a physical mikvah and a spiritual mikvah.

 

Just to correct myself… I don’t think I made my point of view clear:

 

I don’t think that, in John 3:5, Jesus refers exactly to the baptism ritual. That wouldn’t make sense in the context. But, rather, I meant he was referring to the generic internal process which is symbolized by the mikvah/baptism: water + Spirit (fire).

[idiot_stimpy]

15 hours ago, Apotheose said:

John 3:3 - “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again”

 

In my opinion the Christ represents the enlightened mind. The dying of the old self and being born again now in union with the divine. 

 

We can see in the story of Jesus's death and rising. 

 

The mind was crucified on the cross, and after a period of time it was reborn. 

 

I believe the esoteric meaning is for those to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, by not literally being crucified, but a mental cleansing through deep meditation.  

 

I can see parallels with this in the dark night of the soul.

 

Quote

The Dark Night of the Soul (La noche oscura del alma) is a phase of passive purification of the spirit in the mystical development, as described by the 16th-century Spanish mystic and poet St. John of the Cross in his treatise Dark Night (Noche Oscura), a commentary on his poem with the same name.

 

The active purgation of the senses comprises the first of the classical three stages of the mystical journey, followed by those of illumination and then union. The passive purgation of the spirit takes place between illumination and full union, when the presence of God has already been felt but is not stable.^[6]

 

At the beginning of the commentary Dark Night, John wrote: "In this first verse, the soul tells the mode and manner in which it departs, as to its affection, from itself and from all things, dying through a true mortification to all of them and to itself, to arrive at a sweet and delicious life with God."

 

The dark night of the soul is a stage of final and complete purification, and is marked by confusion, helplessness, stagnation of the will, and a sense of the withdrawal of God's presence.^{[note 1]} It is the period of final "unselfing" and the surrender to the hidden purposes of the divine will. The final stage is union with the object of love, the one Reality, God. Here the self has been permanently established on a transcendental level and liberated for a new purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul

 

[blue eyed snake]

12 hours ago, Apotheose said:

 

Perfect!!!

 

i do agree with Cobie here,

 

the yin chi rises, the yangchi descends and standing inbetween/in their meetingpoint the person transforms/gets reborn

 

line 8 tells us how the people born of the spirit have become boundless.

 

 

Quote

 

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.

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’

8 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.”

 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

23 hours ago, Apotheose said:

What is your interpretation of John 3:3?

 

John 3:3 - “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again”

 

Is “birth” here metaphorical or literal?

I feel 100% certain that birth is metaphorical. You are born again when you find christ. Think water/baptism has similar symbolism. How can you literally be born again?

Edited February 5 by NaturaNaturans

[Cobie]

.

Edited February 6 by Cobie

[old3bob]

7 hours ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

i do agree with Cobie here,

 

the yin chi rises, the yangchi descends and standing inbetween/in their meetingpoint the person transforms/gets reborn

 

line 8 tells us how the people born of the spirit have become boundless.

 

 

Not a single being of any kind exists without Spirit/cause, Christianity does have not corner on Spirit...

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, blue eyed snake said:

line 8 tells us how the people born of the spirit have become boundless.

 

Boundless?  I'm seeing the opposite.

 

I think Line 8 describes one who is limited not boundless.  They cannot tell from where the wind blows, nor can they tell where it is going.  That's a limitation of awareness.

 

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you [Nicodemus], no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7 You [Nicodemus] should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You [Nicodemus] must be born again.’
8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

 

Those who are born of only Spirit are limited in their awareness.  They can hear "wind" but cannot chart its course.  Wind is in quotes because there is a double meaning here. 

 

Edited February 6 by Daniel

[Daniel]

Regarding the double meaning I mentioned above, in both Greek and hebrew, the words for wind and spirit are connected.  In hebrew, the word for wind and spirit are the same word.  If Jesus is speaking hebrew it would sound like this.

 

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you [Nicodemus], no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and "ruach". ( pronounced with the harsh "h" sound like a cat coughing up a hairball; spelled "ch" or "kh" )
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the "ruach" gives birth to "ruach".
7 You [Nicodemus] should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You [Nicodemus] must be born again.’
8 The "ruach" blows wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

 

The word choice here in the Greek is facinating as well because the word for "blows" is also another variation of the same word which means both wind and spirit.

 

John 3:8

 

Τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.

 

The πνεῦμα (wind/spirit) πνεῖ (winds/spirits) wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the πνεύματος (wind/spirit).

 

"Wind/spirit" is both noun and verb.  It is what it's doing.  It's like "bicycling" in english.  The verb is nothing more than the noun in action.  It's true for both wind and spirit as well, isn't it?  For wind this is translated in english as "blows".  But for spirit, what is a in english that describes it?  There is no word for it.  It's unique.  The spirit.. spirits.  The same is happening to a lesser degree in the hebrew of the verse I referred to previously.

 

Genesis 1:2

 

והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And ruach-elohim m'rachefes toward the face of the waters.
 

Often the english translators choose to translate this as a "wind moving".  But that's not what it actually says.  Moving on the face of the water would be "tailech ("moved") al p'nei hamayim", like Noah's ark in Gen 7:18.  Here, the spirit is "spiriting" or "fluttering", or "pulsating", or "vibrating"...  It's very similar linguistically to what Jesus is saying in John 3:8.  He's reminding Nicodemus of what he is suppossed to already have learned.

 

Deut 32:11

 

כנשר יעיר קנו על־גוזליו ירחף יפרש כנפיו יקחהו ישאהו על־אברתו׃
As an eagle stirs up its nest, flutters ("y'rachef") over its young, spreads out its wings, takes them, bears them on its pinions;
 

Jeremiah 23:9

 

לנבאים נשבר לבי בקרבי רחפו כל־עצמותי הייתי כאיש שכור וכגבר עברו יין מפני יהוה ומפני דברי קדשו׃
My heart inside me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones shake ("rachafu"; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine has overcome, because of the Lord, and because of his holy words.

 

Edited February 6 by Daniel

[blue eyed snake]

12 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

Not a single being of any kind exists without Spirit/cause, Christianity does have not corner on Spirit...

 

Did not mean that, is just my interpretation of this bit of text.

 

[blue eyed snake]

9 hours ago, Daniel said:

Regarding the double meaning I mentioned above, in both Greek and hebrew, the words for wind and spirit are connected.  In hebrew, the word for wind and spirit are the same word.  If Jesus is speaking hebrew it would sound like this.

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you [Nicodemus], no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and "ruach". ( pronounced with the harsh "h" sound like a cat coughing up a hairball; spelled "ch" or "kh" )
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the "ruach" gives birth to "ruach".
7 You [Nicodemus] should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You [Nicodemus] must be born again.’
8 The "ruach" blows wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

 

 

The word choice here in the Greek is facinating as well because the word for "blows" is also another variation of the same word which means both wind and spirit.

 

John 3:8

 

Τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.

 

The πνεῦμα (wind/spirit) πνεῖ (winds/spirits) wherever it pleases. You [Nicodemus] hear its sound, but you [Nicodemus] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the πνεύματος (wind/spirit).

 

"Wind/spirit" is both noun and verb.  It is what it's doing.  It's like "bicycling" in english.  The verb is nothing more than the noun in action.  It's true for both wind and spirit as well, isn't it?  For wind this is translated in english as "blows".  But for spirit, what is a in english that describes it?  There is no word for it.  It's unique.  The spirit.. spirits.  The same is happening to a lesser degree in the hebrew of the verse I referred to previously.

 

Genesis 1:2

 

והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And ruach-elohim m'rachefes toward the face of the waters.
 

Often the english translators choose to translate this as a "wind moving".  But that's not what it actually says.  Moving on the face of the water would be "tailech ("moved") al p'nei hamayim", like Noah's ark in Gen 7:18.  Here, the spirit is "spiriting" or "fluttering", or "pulsating", or "vibrating"...  It's very similar linguistically to what Jesus is saying in John 3:8.  He's reminding Nicodemus of what he is suppossed to already have learned.

 

Deut 32:11

 

כנשר יעיר קנו על־גוזליו ירחף יפרש כנפיו יקחהו ישאהו על־אברתו׃
As an eagle stirs up its nest, flutters ("y'rachef") over its young, spreads out its wings, takes them, bears them on its pinions;
 

Jeremiah 23:9

 

לנבאים נשבר לבי בקרבי רחפו כל־עצמותי הייתי כאיש שכור וכגבר עברו יין מפני יהוה ומפני דברי קדשו׃
My heart inside me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones shake ("rachafu"; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine has overcome, because of the Lord, and because of his holy words.

 

 

thank you, this is fascinating,

 

 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

 

20 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Think water/baptism has similar symbolism

somewhat related to this, according to «the immortality key» blood refers to the wine of dionysys, drinken in various greek and near eastern mystery traditions.

 

A little off topic, I know, but If i got the right sense of you, you wouldnt mind some trivia.
 

kykeon

[SirPalomides]

2 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

 

somewhat related to this, according to «the immortality key» blood refers to the wine of dionysys, drinken in various greek and near eastern mystery traditions.

 

A little off topic, I know, but If i got the right sense of you, you wouldnt mind some trivia.
 

kykeon

 

Christianity was consciously a mystery religion. Baptism and the eucharist are still officially called "mysteries" in Greek and for a long time unbaptized people were not even allowed to witness the eucharistic rite. There is still a vestige of this in the liturgy of John Chrysostom and other eastern liturgies where the deacon proclaims "Catechumens depart!" (catechumens= Christian disciples not yet baptized) before the eucharistic consecration. Baptism is regarded explicitly as a mystery initiation. 

 

Cyril of Jerusalem's catechetical lectures are a classic exposition of this thinking, eg https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310103.htm. It's fortunate that so many Patristic writings in English are available for free online, so if you want to see an ancient commentary on a passage of scripture it's fairly easy to find one or several by various writers.

 

I find debates about what Jesus really meant about x, y, z to be pretty irresolvable and arbitrary. The history of the composition and editing of the New Testament texts is obscure and sorting out authorial intent is basically impossible. More relevant, and more demonstrable, are how these texts were received and interpreted by various schools through the ages. 

[NaturaNaturans]

17 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

Christianity was consciously a mystery religion. Baptism and the eucharist are still officially called "mysteries" in Greek and for a long time unbaptized people were not even allowed to witness the eucharistic rite. There is still a vestige of this in the liturgy of John Chrysostom and other eastern liturgies where the deacon proclaims "Catechumens depart!" (catechumens= Christian disciples not yet baptized) before the eucharistic consecration. Baptism is regarded explicitly as a mystery initiation. 

 

Cyril of Jerusalem's catechetical lectures are a classic exposition of this thinking, eg https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310103.htm. It's fortunate that so many Patristic writings in English are available for free online, so if you want to see an ancient commentary on a passage of scripture it's fairly easy to find one or several by various writers.

 

I find debates about what Jesus really meant about x, y, z to be pretty irresolvable and arbitrary. The history of the composition and editing of the New Testament texts is obscure and sorting out authorial intent is basically impossible. More relevant, and more demonstrable, are how these texts were received and interpreted by various schools through the ages. 

Fascinating stuff, will look deeper into it!

 

I know you are not a lexucion, but there is something about this excerpt from havamal (Words of the high one), that very much seems like an initiation ritual in my opinion. Mithraic maybe, they where present from Irland to Iran, so does seen plausible to me. I wanted to Ask you, do you have any thoughts on this:

 

Spoiler

I know that I hung on a windy tree
nine long nights,
wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin,
myself to myself,
on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots run.

No bread did they give me nor a drink from a horn,
downwards I peered;
I took up the runes,
screaming I took them,
then I fell back from there.

 

[SirPalomides]

21 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I wanted to Ask you, do you have any thoughts on this:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I know that I hung on a windy tree
nine long nights,
wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin,
myself to myself,
on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots run.

No bread did they give me nor a drink from a horn,
downwards I peered;
I took up the runes,
screaming I took them,
then I fell back from there.

 

 

My first thought is, I would definitely expect to find lines like this in a book of Norse poetry that had been edited by Christian clergy. I'm not saying it's definitely an interpolation, I'm just raising an eyebrow here. Christian apologists tend to take two different approaches to "pagan" lore- one is the obvious solution of demonizing it; the other is to read foreshadowings of the Gospel into it, just as they do with the Old Testament. For all I know, it could also be perfectly authentic.