Changes

: Your suggestion is a good one, but I'm reluctant to remove information that is in the Greek.  But certainly the reference to the third day could be clarified in some way for the reader, and I encourage you to do so by editing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: Your suggestion is a good one, but I'm reluctant to remove information that is in the Greek.  But certainly the reference to the third day could be clarified in some way for the reader, and I encourage you to do so by editing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I slid this down so it falls under the heading for 2:1, and fits more chronologically. I apologize if this is not allowed by a non-administrator. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:02, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I slid this down so it falls under the heading for 2:1, and fits more chronologically. I apologize if this is not allowed by a non-administrator. [[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 2:02, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't "''the third day''" mean "'''two''' days later" instead of "'''three''' days later" because of the custom of counting inclusively?  

Doesn't "''the third day''" mean "'''two''' days later" instead of "'''three''' days later" because of the custom of counting inclusively?  

== 2:23 ==

== 2:23 ==

It is not actually the Greek of this sentence that reveals their faith was superficial, but Jesus' reaction to their "faith" that is illuminating. Jesus understood that their faith was fleeting and transitory, which by definition means it was superficial. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:02, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

It is not actually the Greek of this sentence that reveals their faith was superficial, but Jesus' reaction to their "faith" that is illuminating. Jesus understood that their faith was fleeting and transitory, which by definition means it was superficial. [[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 2:02, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== 2:24-25 ==

== 2:24-25 ==

The Greek word translated "understood" in V24 and "knew" in V25 is "ginosko," and is deeper than just "knowing"; it means, "to perceive, to understand, to know absolutely." The point here is that Jesus was sinless and innocent, but He was NOT naive. He understood the fickleness and evil that men were capable of, no matter what they "confessed" to believe. A simple "confession of faith" did not equal true believer, and did not mean the faith was sincere. The word translated "believed" in verse 23 and "confidence" in verse 24 is pisteuo, which is the standard word in the NT for "to believe in, to have faith in." In verse 24 the construction indicates more of it's root meaning of "complete confidence, totally sure." They expressed faith in Him, but He had no confidence in them.[[User:Mback|Mback]] 3:00, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

The Greek word translated "understood" in V24 and "knew" in V25 is "ginosko," and is deeper than just "knowing"; it means, "to perceive, to understand, to know absolutely." The point here is that Jesus was sinless and innocent, but He was NOT naive. He understood the fickleness and evil that men were capable of, no matter what they "confessed" to believe. A simple "confession of faith" did not equal true believer, and did not mean the faith was sincere. The word translated "believed" in verse 23 and "confidence" in verse 24 is pisteuo, which is the standard word in the NT for "to believe in, to have faith in." In verse 24 the construction indicates more of it's root meaning of "complete confidence, totally sure." They expressed faith in Him, but He had no confidence in them.[[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 3:00, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== 3:1 ==

== 3:1 ==

Calling Nicodemus an "ανθρωπος εκ των φαρισαιων" (man from the pharisees), rather than just calling him a "pharisee" outright is another way of indicating that Nicodemus was different from most Pharisees. He might have agreed with much of their beliefs, but he was not really LIKE them, particularly in terms of his sincerity and devotion to God.[[User:Mback|Mback]] 3:19, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Calling Nicodemus an "ανθρωπος εκ των φαρισαιων" (man from the pharisees), rather than just calling him a "pharisee" outright is another way of indicating that Nicodemus was different from most Pharisees. He might have agreed with much of their beliefs, but he was not really LIKE them, particularly in terms of his sincerity and devotion to God.[[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 3:19, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== 3:2 ==

== 3:2 ==

Again, we see that when John wants to put emphasis on "this very same individual (as the previous verse)" he uses "houtos" (just as he did in 1:2).[[User:Mback|Mback]] 3:25, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Again, we see that when John wants to put emphasis on "this very same individual (as the previous verse)" he uses "houtos" (just as he did in 1:2).[[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 3:25, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== 3:3 ==

== 3:3 ==

"αμην αμην" at the start of a quote ("truly, truly" here and again in verse 5) is a Jewish idiom (originating from the Hebrew and moving into the Greek via the Aramaic) that serves as a strong admonition to pay VERY close attention to what is about to be said. It is kind of like: "if you don't hear anything else, hear this..." or "pay VERY close attention to what I am about to say," or as Matthew Quigley (from the movie "Quigley Down Under") might say, "this is for sure and for certain..."[[User:Mback|Mback]] 3:41, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

"αμην αμην" at the start of a quote ("truly, truly" here and again in verse 5) is a Jewish idiom (originating from the Hebrew and moving into the Greek via the Aramaic) that serves as a strong admonition to pay VERY close attention to what is about to be said. It is kind of like: "if you don't hear anything else, hear this..." or "pay VERY close attention to what I am about to say," or as Matthew Quigley (from the movie "Quigley Down Under") might say, "this is for sure and for certain..."[[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 3:41, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== 3:5 ==

== 3:5 ==

It is common to interpret "born of water" to mean "physical birth," meaning, unless someone has a physical birth and then a spiritual birth, they cannot enter the kingdom of God. The problem is that the construction indicates that if EITHER one is missing, you cannot enter the kingdom of God. So if either one can be missing, then the "born from water" could be the part that is missing. This would mean that physical birth is a necessity of salvation, which could be interpreted to mean that an unborn child that dies in the womb (and thus, has not been truly "born of water") is doomed to hell. It is much more likely that Jesus is using "water" as it is usually used in scripture: as a symbol of spiritual cleansing, which causes this to parallel what Jesus did for us. His death paid the penalty for our sin (water - cleansing) and His resurrection gave us new life (spirit - life). We need BOTH cleansing and new life to enter the kingdom of God; one or the other alone will not cut it.[[User:Mback|Mback]] 4:05, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

It is common to interpret "born of water" to mean "physical birth," meaning, unless someone has a physical birth and then a spiritual birth, they cannot enter the kingdom of God. The problem is that the construction indicates that if EITHER one is missing, you cannot enter the kingdom of God. So if either one can be missing, then the "born from water" could be the part that is missing. This would mean that physical birth is a necessity of salvation, which could be interpreted to mean that an unborn child that dies in the womb (and thus, has not been truly "born of water") is doomed to hell. It is much more likely that Jesus is using "water" as it is usually used in scripture: as a symbol of spiritual cleansing, which causes this to parallel what Jesus did for us. His death paid the penalty for our sin (water - cleansing) and His resurrection gave us new life (spirit - life). We need BOTH cleansing and new life to enter the kingdom of God; one or the other alone will not cut it.[[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 4:05, 19 October 2009 (EDT)