A Riddle

It makes the world go round.

### Elemental

It is as fundamental an element as Carbon, and as surely a constant force as Gravity.

### Pervasive

It pervades every facet of your daily existence, individually and collectively, down to the most imperceptible of scale.

### Intangible

YET, it cannot be seen, smelled, heard, felt by the tips of fingers or tasted.
###
> ### Observable, Measurable Effects

But it can still be observed, and even measured, by its effects on the tangible world (Not unlike Gravity).

### Inescapable, Unavoidable

It cannot be set aside. It "can" be ignored. But not without consequences.

### Variable

It is malleable, non-static, manifested in varying strengths and forms.

### Malleable

It can be altered, both in intensity and polarity.

### Mind-Exclusive

It exists ONLY in your mind.

### Mind-Dependent

It requires a Mind in order TO exist.

### Mind-Symbiotic

A mind CANNOT operate without it.

### Distinct From The Mind

It is NOT the mind. Nor is it the "Spirit" of man.

### Not A "Force of Nature"

While it shares several characteristics with natural forces, it is distinct in a few ways.
Gravity (a Natural Force) is:
* Elemental
* Pervasive
* Intangible
* Observable
* Measurable
* Inescapable
But...
* Matter-Symbiotic
* Matter-*Dependent*
* Matter-Operative
* Non-Variable
* Non-Malleable

But this is:
* *Mind*-Symbiotic
* *Mind*-Dependent
* *Mind*-Operative
* Variable
* Malleable

| | Gravity | "this" |
| ------------------- | ------- | ------ |
| Elemental | ✅ | ✅ |
| Pervasive | ✅ | ✅ |
| Intangible | ✅ | ✅ |
| Observable | ✅ | ✅ |
| Variable | | ✅ |
| Malleable | | ✅ |
| Exclusive to Mind | | ✅ |
| Symbiotic with Mind | | ✅ |
| Distinct from Mind | ✅ | ✅ |
| Inescapable | ✅ | ✅ |

### Causal vs Derivative of Emotion

It is NOT love, or happiness, or fear, or jealousy, or empathy, or intelligence; though all of those intangible entities DEPEND on it for their very existence.

### Polarity Governed By Perception of External Constant

It is ++inescapable++ for the sentient. It might even be the case that it is THE element which Defines sentience.

What is it?

Belief
Every second of every day, our lives are governed by what we "believe" to be True or False.

When you get up in the morning and walk outside and down your steps, you "believe" the steps are going to support your weight and not collapse.

When you get in the car and drive, you "believe" it will veer right, and not left, when you turn the steering wheel in that direction.

When your traffic light turns green, you "believe" that cars in the other direction will see a red light, and stop.

What We Believe To Be False

When a guy at the gas station approaches you with a story about how he just needs a few dollars for gas so he can get to his dying Aunt in the hospital, either you "believe" his story...or you don't.

And that is the point. You can no more "decide" to believe his story that you can decide to believe you can jump like Michael Jordan. Either you do...or you don't.

So, let's say you don't. Can YOU, of your own free will, reach deep into the crevices of your mind, and CHOOSE, all of a sudden, to believe his story?

You can't. Just try it. You'll fail if you are able to be honest with yourself.

You CAN, however, decide to consider the "possibility" that his story might just be true. That what you "believe" might just be incorrect. Or False.

And you might desperately WISH that you had enough convincing evidence to bring you to that point. You WANT to believe him. But you just don't trust him.

[see chap on definition of "pisteuo" (a Koine Greek word translated to English as either belief, faith or trust).]

There "could be" something outside your scope of knowledge which leaves you short of necessary information. But without that information, you are right where you started (You think he's lying in order to get beer money; you're just willing to part with $20 on the off chance you're wrong.)

Here's what you "believe:"
* You believe that there is a ++chance++ the man is telling the truth.
But you are not ++convinced++ he IS (Or you would have already handed him your last $20.)

Now, you may just hand him twenty dollars anyway on the mere CHANCE that he is being truthful.

But you did NOT "change" your beliefs purely based on your own "will" to do so.

So...are you "free" to believe him? Can you, ++apart from additional input which is sourced outside of yourself++, generate (create) something which does not currently exist? How "free" is your will?

-------------

Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”
These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.

-------------

"Faith IS the evidence of things unseen." (Intangibles)."

"Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."

-------------

"You will know them by their fruits"

[New Section]

IF

• ++belief++ is created ex-nihilo,

AND IF

• we can only operate according to what we "BELIEVE"to be true,

THEN

• How we operate is a reliable indicator of what we believe.

Likewise...Love

The greatest commandment was NOT to ++believe++.

It was to ++Love++.

You cannot Love Tricherchitans. It is impossible for you. Why? Because you don't know what they are. You know absolutely nothing about them. You have no experience with them. You probably don't even ++believe++ that they exist. At Best, you are indifferent and uninterested. Thus, you have zero capacity to Love them.

What if I owned the most beautiful piece of property in the world. It was huge. Expansive. Lush and diverse. Peaceful. With numerous homes of the finest craftsmanship and ameneties. And you really wanted to go there on vacation. So you asked me what you would have to pay or do to book a week of vacation there. And I told you that "you must Love Tricherchetans with ALL your heart, soul, and strength." What would you say? Or do?

----------

There is a standard progression of things which must (and do) take place in the formation or modification of Beliefs.

Rule/Restriction/Event
Hear/See
Consider
Test
Acknowledge
Assent to
Think
Agree
Affirmation
• "Did you see that?!!"
• See what?
• "Somebody just walked across the hallway right there!"
• I didn't see anything.
• "I must be losing my mind"
Convinced
Experience
"Trust" (observable)

(See RC Sproul video on this. Man will always default to the decision which most suits his "desires" at the moment).

Man is hard-coded (bound) to operate ONLY within the bounds of what he BELIEVES to be True (or False).

(See Thomas Szasz "The Myth of Mental Illness" for reference on how belief governs behavior).

## Prioritization and the Heirarchy of Needs

It is common for man to encounter competing needs and desires.

* Desires to get an apple off a tree BUT there is a raging Pit Bull in the same yard, AND he also desires to remain safe from harm.
* Desires to sleep BUT the tornado sirens just blared, and he also desires to avoid being blown away by the storm.
* Desires to speak his mind, BUT to do so would mean opposing his boss, and he also desires to keep his job.
* Desires to have sexual intimacy with a woman, BUT it would require more than just the sexual gratification, like time and commitment, and he also desires freedom from responsibility.
* "I want to explore that mountain over there...but I NEED to eat."
* "I WANT that car over there which belongs to someone else...BUT I also WANT to stay out of jail."
* "I WANT to stay in my marriage...BUT I also want to be relieved from the Stress of constant fighting and emotional turmoil."
* "I WANT to save that person from drowning...BUT doing so would mean I would have to let my own child drown, and I want to protect my child."

Competing desires are quickly processed in the mind by way of a heirarchal filtering system.

(see Maslow's observations on 5 levels of needs: Physiological, Safety, Love & Belonging, Self Esteem, Self Actualization).

Perception
Competing needs, once processed through this filter, are prioritized in order of "perceived" importance on Maslow's scale.

Some might argue that they are merely prioritized in the order of importance (i.e. without regard to "Perception"). This is false, however, as is readily demonstrated by the records of psychosis in which false "perceptions" of reality cause a person to invert Maslow's heirarchy. And the only hope for that person to achieve what the rest of society deem "normalcy" is for him to come to a different, and more accurate, "perception" of reality (i.e. "I CANNOT fly"), or a re-ordering of the heirarchy.

Think about what that statement infers.

"Perceived" importance.

Perception is INTANGIBLE. It exists wholly within the Mind.

Furthermore, Perception is a construct of what we ++see++, ++hear++ and then...*++BELIEVE++* to be true (or false).

Side note: we tend to think that WE are completely unlike the deranged person who BELIEVES he can fly. Not so much. It is a matter of degree. The degree to which our perception of reality is misaligned with what is True, is the degree to which we are deranged. And we are about as familiar with our own derangement as we are with the back side of our own heads. Maybe less so.

Secrecy
Adam & Eve HID from God
Thieves HIDE their actions
Murderers HIDE
Adulterers HIDE
> But...they don't WANT to

Secrecy is uncomfortable.
It induces stress

But it is LESS stressful than the consequences of exposure

We are CREATED with the inclination to avoid Stress.
* Walking around a rock pile vs over it
* Keeping distance from the edge of a cliff
* Coming in out of the rain
* Drawing back from a hot iron
* Protecting your money from theft
* Hiding from a perceived threat
* Storing up reserves to mitigate the effects of a disaster
* Remaining silent in the presence of opposition with power
* Avoiding relationships which require disagreement

The Absence of Stress is REST.

We are created to avoid Stress, which means, by default, we are created to desire and seek out Rest.

So...HOW do we get it?

Common Claims About Being Welcomed To God's Kingdom
* You must keep the Sabbath (Saturday) in order to escape God's wrath
* I did...credited to my account by Jesus.
* You must follow the Torah in order to escape God's wrath.
* I did...fulfilled the law of Moses...credited to my account by Jesus.
* You must pray a certain prayer in order to escape God's wrath.
* (Sinner on cross)
* You must be baptized (and/or in a specific way or under specific words) in order to escape God's wrath.
* Sinner on cross
* You must pray for forgiveness of specific sins in order to escape God's wrath.
* Sinner on cross
* You must be obedient...
* Sinner on cross
* You must pay for unforgiven sins in pergatory.
* Sinner on cross
* "My obedience, sin, adherence to the teachings of the apostles, etc, does not matter."
* "Many will say to me in that day 'Lord, Lord, we cast out demons in your name', but I will say to them..."
* "What? Shall we sin more so that grace might abound??!"
* "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness."
* Notice..."IS still in darkness" as opposed to "will re-enter darkness." It is a method of oberservation. Observing actions which are indicative of what a person Believes, and what one Believes is indicative of familial status with the Apostles, Christ, and the Father.
*

So What's The Concern?
These are absent from the gospel preached by the apostles. Or are they? (Needs clear answer).

What WAS the message preached by the apostles?
* The Gospel of John (and the others)
* Could say all of their letters contained the message to some degree.
* Jesus of Nazareth WAS the Word, who WAS God eternal, who fulfilled the law, in whom God was FULLY pleased, who was crucified as the sacrifice for sins of others, once for all, who was raised from the dead, having overcome the power of death, who gave pardon and family status to all WHO BELIEVE.
* This was the message (confrim via scripture).
* And they expected a response from those whom the Father had drawn. A response of BELIEF.
* But belief is only observable and measurable by actions. So the "what shall we do" naturally followed (i.e. "what should we do NOW that we believe?"):
* "repent and be baptized."
* "Present yourselves a living sacrifice"
* "Love one another"
* Abstain from...
* The belief came from the drawing of the Father upon the hearing of the message.
* It was a CREATION. A new thing. Which had not previously existed. Certainly did not originate with man.
* Matthew 16:15–17 (NKJV): He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
* The actions came as an effect of that belief.
* One was Causal. Unseen. Invisible. Like the wind Jesus referred to when speaking to Nicodemus (John 3).
* The other, Effect.

Questions
* What falsehoods did the apostles have to deal with early on?
* Keeping the Sabbath
* Abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols
* Circumcision
*
* And what are the marks of a false gospel?
* How were these contrary to the message they were sent with?
* Why is "belief" something God places value on?
* How do people use verbal emphasis when reading scripture? And how does that affect their understanding of it?
* Which is more authoritative: scripture, or the church fathers' interpretation of it?
* Has a church father ever been wrong?
* Is "belief" an Act or a Response?
* How does any person come to "believe" anything? Ideas. Words communicate ideas. Is it coincidental that John opens his gospel with "In the beginning was the Word..."?
* What is the geneology of the RC papcy?
* Ditto the Orthodox church fathers?
* What is the relationship between anxio-depression and lack of consequence-laden responsibilities?
* Are these evident in the character of God?
* Warning: Something will HAPPEN when the word of truth is spoken to you and you hear it. Something WILL happen. SOMETHING will happen.
* Was John intentionally leading up to the exchange of words between Jesus and the Pharisees in chap 8?
* John 20:30–31 (NKJV): And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
* See 1 john 2

Preface
I comment as one who stands unworthy and afraid to handle the Word of Truth, yet here it is, burning in my hands.

Unworthy to stand in the presence of the Spirit of the Living God, yet here He is, consuming what remains of my own will, and holding me up, despite my weakness, my desire to hide quietly in the shadows.

Hesitant to utter anything of His Word, because as the words leave my lips, they are exposing my own sin for all to see.

It always reminds me of Isaiah, who cried out "Woe is me!! For I have seen the Living God!! But then I am moved by the rememberance that even in such a state, Isaiah was still compelled to proclaim the Grace and Mercy of...
"the One who dwells in a high and lofty place...with him who has a contrite and humble spirit...to REVIVE the spirit of the weak, and to revive the heart of the contrite."

It is with that weak, contrite, convicted spirit, my brother, that I dare even to speak to your question on baptism.

Born of water and the Spirit. An exposition of John chapter 3, in response to the question: "Is baptism required for entrance to God's Kingdom?"

Prologue
Simon bar-Jonah (Peter) was but a young, rough-handed fisherman when he was introduced to the Living God (the "Word", not coincidentally) in the person of Jesus.

After the disciples had spent some time with Him, Jesus asked them, "who do YOU say that I am?"

Of course, Peter's answer was "You are the Christ...the Son of the Living God!" This was no mere repetition of a common phrase (it IS common to our ears some 2000 years later, but it was unheard of at that time). Jesus' analysis of Peter's answer is telling (see Matthew's account in chap 16).

Jesus' response was:

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but MY FATHER who is in Heaven."

Consider also:
> "You did not choose Me, but I chose you..." (John 15:16)

And these two:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

John 12:39–40: Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”

Broad Analysis of John
How different would John's gospel look IF he had been under the impression that water-baptism was Essential, Progenerative and Effectual for welcome entrance into the kingdom of God?

IF we went through each of the stories John presents of Jesus' interaction with people, and held up as the standard a yardstick of water-baptism, what would we find?

The Samaritan woman at the well
The man on the cross beside Jesus
The rich man who went away sad

Look at the "sections" of John's presentation. Analyze. Where is he going with it? What's the point? How does this point serve to support to overall goal? Or does it?

I. Prologue
• (chap 1:1-18)
• This Jesus, was the Christ.

II. Testimony of John the Baptist
• (1:19-34)
• Others also recognized Him as the Christ, the Son of God, King of Israel.

III. The "First" Day of Christ Revealed to Men
• (1:35-43)
• This was the first day that John's disciples went and followed the Christ.
• The point was that not just "anybody" who announced (via Word) the Christ, but John the Baptist. And his disciples went away from him to follow the Christ.
• Notably, the word spread from men to their brothers.
• Jesus "names" Peter. (See Genesis for Adam's naming of the animals. And God's naming of Adam and Eve.

IV. The "Second" Day of Christ
• (1:43-51)
• Philip and Nathaniel. Jesus begins to demonstrate His transcendence of time, space and matter, evidencing His status as God.

V. The "Third" Day of Christ
• (2:1-13)
• The Beginning of "signs"
• Evidence for status as Christ
•

VI. Signs
• (2:14-25)
• σημεῖα - Sign, miracle, wonder
• G4592
##
## Interpretive Decisions

Questions Which Need Answers
* What was the impetus for Nicodemus' visit?
* Did he come at night without the knowledge of his Pharisee brothers? Or did they send him as an emissary?
* "WE know you are..."
* Was Nicodemus being sarcastic in his opening statement?
* Was Jesus, in His response,
* pointing Nicodemus to what he must DO ++in order to see++ the kingdom? or was He...
* AFFIRMING what had already been DONE which allowed Nicodemus to see it?
* Was Jesus' use of "Water" and "Spirit" conjoining those terms...
* in order to demonstrate their equivalent, non-ordered distribution? Or...
* so as to make an important distinction ++between++ the two?
*
* [distributive conjunctions]
* Order:
* "James slipped and fell down" is ++not++ the same as "James fell down and slipped." (Order-Dependent Distribution)
* But...
* "James likes his coffee with milk and sugar" IS the same as "James likes his coffee with sugar and milk." (Non-Ordered Distribution)
* Emphasis:
* "James slipped Aaaand fell down" (Emphasis of Conjunction Implies "also" - Additive Distribution, i.e. comparative to another example in which different object did NOT experience the conjunction of both verbs.)
* is not the same as "James slipped and fell DOWN." (Emphasis of adjective reduces
* The conjunction "and"

Not Of Ourselves
Even Peter's BELIEF (you could say "especially" his belief) was NOT OF HIMSELF.

Many people in that region had just heard the very same words that Peter and the disciples heard...Out of the mouth of the incarnate God of all creation! Yet...as Matthew recorded in chapter 16, they were unable to believe.

This is consistent with what John wrote of Jesus saying:

"No man comes to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him."

There, Jesus had claimed to have come down from Heaven (John chapter 6), and the Jews complained, mockingly, saying "isn't this Jeeeesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?!" (My paraphrase, of course).

This is when Jesus told them:
"don't murmur among yourselves. No man comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Then a minute later "everyone who has HEARD and LEARNED from the Father comes to me."
Everyone! As in "the sheep hear my voice".

A New Creation
This BELIEF spoken of by Jesus of Nazareth...
...you know...
"the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"...
...yeah THAT Jesus...

...who WAS the Word...
...who WAS in the beginning with God...
...who WAS God eternal...
...who fulfilled the law...
...*++in whom++ *God was FULLY pleased...

belief in THAT Jesus...was ++absolutely++ and ++unequivocally++ a new creation, from the Father...not from the believer. Where it had its origin is the point.

Later, Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee of Pharisees, persecutor of those who believed, after being confronted by the resurrected Jesus, and named "Paul", would write to the church in Corinth:

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a NEW CREATION; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."

Jesus would demonstrate this to His disciples as they witnessed someone Drawn to Him, who had Heard His voice, and Came to Him. This was what John detailed in a late-night conversation with a ruler of the Jews named Nicodemus (John chap 3).

The Example Of Nicodemus

Sincerity
Now it is important to understand here that Nicodemus was no random Jew. He was a RULER of the Pharisees. A ++devout++ man. And he was not simply a "troll" working against Jesus.

This is indicated by the fact that he sneaked out of his home to come see Jesus AT NIGHT! As with the Mosaic law in Exodus regarding a theif who came in AT NIGHT, this was an Indication that he KNEW what he was doing.

(The point here is not that he was doing something "wrong", like a thief, but that it was indicative of full knowledge of the import of his actions).

Nicodemus KNEW what he was doing could be a problem for him with regard to his Pharisee brothers...because it would, at the very least, indicate that he had some level of "belief" that Jesus WAS who He was making Himself out to be.

So, he slipped in to speak with Jesus under cover of darkness.

So here you have the disciples, just a group of regular guys, sitting there at night, probably in stunned silence, as a LEADER of the local Pharisees comes and sits down to talk to Jesus, right in front of them!

This was one of the Rulers of a group of national leaders whom they had looked up to and ++revered++ since they were little kids. I mean, how curious would YOU have been to be able to watch THAT conversation happen?! And this man of high national office and stature opens the conversation like this:

"Rabbi, we KNOW that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

There are some who have supposed that Nicodemus was being sarcastic here (as the Pharisees often were when they publicly questioned Jesus in attempts to catch Him in an error).

But this is not a public conversation. Nicodemus is alone. Outnumbered. There is no good reason in the context to indicate that his opening statement was anything other than a *sincere explanation* of where his thinking was, a CONFESSION, in fact, and, thus, WHY he was there...at night.

Aside: Apostle sees need to clarify a definition of "believe." What is it about a demon's belief which makes it not compatible with the concept of faith in James and Hebrews?
James 2
Is it even possible to believe that you are standing face to face with the incarnation of the Living God and say "no thanks" to his command to take up your cross and follow Him?

Qualifications and Expertise
One other take-away here is that the confession Nicodemus made was not an uninformed one. Of all the men in Israel at the time, he was one of the MOST qualified to know what the "signs" of God's handiwork were (see Matthew 16 again, where Jesus excoriates the Pharisees for their "inability" to read the signs of the times).

It might have been less of a story had Nicodemus been just "any other" local stopping by to see Jesus. There were thousands of others whose confessions of faith did not make the headlines in the Gospels.

But expert testimony was, and still is, worth our consideration. And we have reason to believe that John presented this for that reason. This "belief" is ++not++ something reserved for the less-learned of society. Hardly. It actually seems to be the case that this belief is something which ++transcended++ any intellectual or credential-based boundaries at the time.

This remains the case even today, contrary to what the unbelieving world regurgitates ad nauseum.

Believing not only transcends these boundaries, but smashes them to bits, precisely BECAUSE...even ++experts++ on the matters at hand often find themselves convinced. There is no ++vaccine of knowledge or expertise++ which seems to prevent the infection of Belief.

Belief: Distinct From Mere Knowledge Or Assent
There is another whole related chain of thought which could be examined here with regard to Nicodemus' use of "we know" (as opposed to the singular "I").

Without spending too much time on that, suffice it to say that this is in line with James' saying:

"even the demons believe...and tremble" (James 2:19).

But, in contrast to the other Pharisees, who "*knew*" the same things, and likely were deeply concerned by them, Nicodemus' "belief" showed itself in a distinct way: namely in the fact that he took the ++risk++ of coming to hear from Jesus in person, one-on-one, knowing the severity of the potential consequences of being caught.

So, we have a man who
a) confesses with his mouth that he believes Jesus is from God, and
b) relinquishes his grip on the single most distinguishable feature of his own life in order to come TO JESUS in search of the kingdom of God.

He did NOT simply go to his fellowship of Pharisees, by the way, to inquire as to whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. Surely, he was already quite well aware of what that majority believed about Jesus.

Distinct From What?
There was another noteworthy story of a man who came to Jesus. A rich man. And a ruler. Matthew, Mark and Luke each record this event.

Cause Vs Effect
Notice that Nicodemus does NOT open his conversation with "what must I DO to see the kingdom of God." Rather...His confession indicates that he has already SEEN it!

With that in mind, here's what happened next, according to John:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Now slow down and think about that for a second....

Nicodemus had just opened the conversation with a confession: that he believed that he had SEEN something of the kingdom of God (in what Jesus had done). In fact he said he "++knew++" that Jesus must be from God. And Jesus responds by saying something which was essentially the ++same thing++ He said to Peter ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you").

If Not Of Ourselves, Then How?

"No man comes to me unless the Father who sent me DRAWS him."

With that in mind, it becomes clear that Nicodemus was not "mistaken" about the new creation, but completely UNAWARE of it, and a bit caught off guard by Jesus' words. Nicodemus was no dumb-dumb. He was a very astute and well-studied man of God.

Allow me to paraphrase Nicodemus a bit here: "what?! What are you saying, that a man can be BORN when he is old?!? Like, enter into his mother's womb again?? I'm not grasping this!"

Now, again, just for a second, imagine Jesus with a bit of a loving smile on His face (like you do when your 4-yr old asks you something that is a little over his head). And Jesus, in love, answers:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Now, this is where we are getting closer to the subject matter of baptism you raised. This is the passage you mentioned.

Two Possibilities of Interpretation
It is worth noting here that there are sincere, serious, godly men on both sides of the interpretation of John 3:5. So, here are the possible ways to see this:

A. Water/Spirit (i.e. the two things are in UNION with each other, possibly even the same thing, occuring at the same time).

B. Water AND Spirit (i.e. the two things are separate and distinct from each other, as in "water birth" equating to physical birth, and Spiritual birth as something occuring later, and thus distinct from the former).

Things Deserving Some Study
1. Syntax:
2. Words, Definitions, Common Usages
3. Grammatical Anomalies (or lack thereof)
4. Grammatical
5. Context: immediate, referenced, broader, author.

Syntax
ἀπεκρίθη [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

answered Jesus, truly, truly, I say to you, If not someone born of water and spirit, not he is able to enter into the kingdom of God

•Is Symbolism superior to Substance?
•Is it an essential element to Substance?
•Does Symbolism Prove Substance?
•Does Symbolism Create Substance?

Nicodemus, in his quizzical response "what? is a man to enter his mother's womb again", indicates that the terms Jesus used were symbolism for something else, and he was having some difficulty in drawing lines between the dots.

IF...Jesus' use of the words "Water" and Spirit" are taken as "Divorced" from each other, then...it becomes a bit more important to extract that which "Water" birth symbolizes.
If "Physical birth", Then...
* No big deal, everyone has already met that qualification.

Here is where context is likely important.

In the preceding chapters, the subject was Water baptism, with John the Baptist testifying that One was coming who would baptize in a more significant medium: The Holy Spirit.

Then, John covers Jesus' miracle at Cana. Where He demonstrated His mastery over...Water. Turned it into wine. Coincidental? Perhaps. But, John doesn't seem to find many things purely coincidental at all.

Then the Passover is covered in chapter 2. Now this is the time, when ALL of the Jews would be performing rituals intended to be COPIES of spiritual realities (see below in Hebrews).

This is where John recorded Jesus running off the money changers. Then telling the Pharisees "destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days."

Once again, He is comparing a physical thing to its SPIRITUAL reality. He was referring to his body, of which the Jewish temple was a mere representation. "Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said."

Even more from immediate context, after the most famous scriptural passage of all time, what does John reference as the very next thing?

John 3:22 - "After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized."

In fact, the rest of chapter 3 in its entirety is spent covering baptism. And even into the beginning of chapter 4. Which THEN covers Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well...about WATER. Physical water vs Living Water "which you know nothing of."

"Give me this water" she said, so that I may not thirst!"

So...He did. It just wasn't the kind of water anyone would be expecting. But Jesus proceeded to baptize her with it. Starting with His omniscient knowledge of her entire life. And ending with "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Now, note here how John uses "spirit and truth." As virtually inseparable. NOT separate and distinct from each other. Clearly, to worship "in Spirit" IS to worship "in Truth."

Now go back and read His words to Nicodemus again. "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit." I think that John is using them as inseparable, if not synonymous in some sense. "Water and the Spirit" just like "Spirit and truth." They go together.

Jesus is introducing people, for the first time, to Living Water. With "regular water", you have to bathe over and over again. You have to go back to the well again and again to satisfy your thirst. But just like what John the Baptist had just said earlier, Jesus baptized the woman at the well with the Holy Spirit. Covered her in Living Water.

Nicodemus, as ALL of Israel at that point, was immersed in the "doing" of certain things "in order to" maintain relationship with God. And as a result, was numb to the reality that God has ALWAYS been more interested in (what we think of as) "spiritual things" than in what we think are "real" things.

Remember all the times Jesus said things like "you have heard it said you shall not commit adultery, BUT I SAY TO YOU...if you have lusted in your HEART you are guilty of adultery."

In God's eyes, the Spiritual IS the "real" world, and what WE see as "real" is in fact only a fleeting representation of that reality.

(Aside: with regard to "free will". Consider the two known realities of Physical (Tangible) and the Spiritual (Intangible), and ask
* which one is the More 'real'?
* Is the Spiritual reality confined within, even a subset of the Physical?
* Or is it the other way around?
* What did Jesus have to say on the subject, if anything?
Could it be said that the Physical is:
* A Product OF
* Exists as a Subset OF
* Is Subject TO
* Is Modified BY
* Exists FOR
* Is Held Together BY
...that which is Spiritual/Intangible?

Could any of those be debunked based on biblical texts? Or any other source?)

So Jesus continued with Nicodemus: "Don't marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (Then He follows with an example, further disclosing reality for Nicodemus' budding new eyes). "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but can't tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

This NEW birth, new CREATION, this DRAWING of us to Christ, this BELIEF, is something DONE BY THE FATHER, and is as ++invisible++ to us as the wind. It would be completely imperceptible to us if not for the effects of it. All we see are the EFFECTS of the wind.

So how do we know that the woman at the well was Drawn by the Father into Belief? Because we can observe the EFFECTS of the wind. She dropped that water pot. Flat on the ground. And high-tailed it back into town. Telling people.

John 4:42 - Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

Notably, there is no record of Jesus saying "well if you want what I have then you have to let me sprinkle some of this regular water over your head before you can have it." Nope. She ALREADY had it. It was being poured over her spirit in a flood.

[perhaps here would be the time to bring up the Temple. Physical, yet deemed a "copy" or a "representation" of the greater Spiritual reality. Did the physical temple "have" a greater, or even equivalent power to house and display the character of the Living God than did the Person of Christ?]?? Maybe too much at this point.

She was probably baptized by one of the disciples at some point. But even if that was the case, THAT baptism was not significant enough for John to write down in his gospel. At least not as significant as the fact that she dropped the water pot and went back to her people to tell them she had met the Messiah.

So, we, just like Nicodemus, even after 2,000 years of repetition, STILL find ourselves in the same position as Nicodemus was, saying "how can these things BE?!?" Don't think you're not. Here we are two thousand years later, STILL trying to wrap our brains around this.

It is no coincidence that right after this (still in John chapter 3) we have the most widely known passage of scripture of all time. (John wasn't just jotting down post-it notes, you know).

Now, as a side note, some might argue here that Jesus was actually ++faulting++ Nicodemus for his UNbelief. Chastising him as an enemy, since he was a Pharisee...Pointing out the irony of all that Nicodemus knew of the scriptures, yet his inability to comprehend the spiritual reality of it (important later with regard to baptism).

[But Jesus scolded his disciples similarly. Even referring to Peter as "Satan."]

Anyway, to those who argue that Nicodemus was just a "tire-kicker", I would ask this question: Who were the two men who came and took the body of Jesus, bloody and lifeless, off the hill, dressed Him in linen, worked to prepare it, and then buried Him properly?

(John 19): "After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. And NICODEMUS, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Then THEY took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury."

So, while Peter, the Rock upon whom the church would be built, was denying that he even KNEW Jesus...here were two leaders of the Jews, certainly afraid for their lives as well, yet secretly pouring out their love for one whom they BELIEVED to be the Son of the Living God. Nicodemus, with HIS OWN HANDS, laid the body of Jesus in the tomb. A HUNDRED POUNDS of spices! He had to spend a lot of time and effort just planning to move that much material. A cart or wagon. Probably a helper. Again, under cover of darkness, it seems.

We all think of Peter as a great man of faith. Yet even as just a common Jew, in no position of public leadership, he was denying Jesus AS Nicodemus was laying him in the tomb with his own hands. If THAT isn't a demonstration of faith, I don't know what is!

It "might" just be the case, since Nicodemus was far more studied in the scriptures than Peter and the other disciples, that he (and Joseph) were much more aware of the reality of what was going on at the time, than were the others.

So, how does all of this apply to the question "is baptism necessary for entry into God's Kingdom?" (And is this what Jesus was saying in John chap 3?)

Performing the ritual, yet denying the spiritual reality for which it stands.

The biblical record is FULL of examples of this. We could start with the immediate context which John provides.

John had 30 or 40 YEARS to think through how he wanted to write down what he had seen and heard from Jesus. This is why I don't think it is a councidence that this story about Nicodemus comes EARLY on in John's gospel, and immediately after John (the baptist) had declared:...

"I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ "

John's gospel opens with the testimony of John the Apostle. Then the testimony of John the Baptist. From there, John notes the miracle at the Cana wedding, the calling of the disciples, and the stir this all created among the Pharisees.

They had asked John the Baptist "why do you baptize if you are not Elijah or a prophet?!" He made it clear "I am NOT the Christ." John was performing the ritual which was the SIGN of something to come, not the spiritual REALITY.

It seems that the Pharisees knew a little something of the Messiah "baptizing." So, here's this bug-eating madman causing a big stir, baptizing people in the river. They were interested. Legitimately so. But their "spiritual" eyes were still blind.

UNLESS...the Father opened them.

Next John covers the miracle at Cana. Then, and not coincidentally, covers the upcoming Passover (the RITUAL they had performed for 1,400 years at that point, by which they had remembered and celebrated what God had done to save their forefathers from death in Egypt).

Now, consider this question:

Was performing the Passover rituals "necessary" to gain right standing with God? Or, was it indicative OF right standing with God?

Some would argue that both are true. Yet, God has consistently down through the ages made it clear what He was really interested in.

Isaiah Chapter 1: "I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of rams, or goats."

Psalm 50: "Will I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?!"

Hebrews 9: "But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption...Therefore it was necessary that the COPIES of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are COPIES of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."

Related note (important...this may seem unnecessarily esoteric, but it is critical, in my opinion, to a sound understanding of John's gospel, in particular):
• Language (the arrangement and use of words via syntax, repetition, etc.) is the inevitable "outflow" of Thought. While there are cases of brain malady such as global aphasia, which inhibit one's sbility to construct or comprehend structured verbal language, nonetheless, these people form thoughts which coalesce into stored data which is usable, retrievable, albeit not readily transmissable.
• It is NOT Thought itself, however.
• A Mind "can" think apart from what we see as codified "language" (see Helen Keller, for example, or see Federenko & Varley's paper on NLM), BUT...
• ...those thoughts, AS they come into existence, PRODUCE descriptors in the mind. These are "Stored" relics of thought, if you will.
• These descriptors, or circumscribed "maps" of Thought are "words", long before they are represented in any guttural form, and/or then converted to a symbolic representation on paper or stone (see Helen Keller).
• So, my argument here, which is nothing new under the sun, but simultaneously cutting against the grain of an enclave of hedonistically-directed researchers, is that...words, defined as the mapped relics of thought (as opposed to the guttural or written manifestations of themselves) just ARE.
•They enter into existence simultaneously with Thought. One does not precede the other. But, it "can" be said that words "emanate from" the mind.
• In their purest form, before any attempts at transmission, they are a necessary and inevitable by-product of a sentient Mind, by default. One doesn't exist without the other.
•But, we can say, based on the available data, that "word" does NOT precede Thought.
• (aside: It is no surprise that God had Adam "name" the animals. How could he NOT?? Their descriptors were already being mapped out in Adam's mind...the "naming" allowed for those thought-maps to be "stored" for future use and TRANSFERRED to other minds for the purpose of orderly operation.)
• This is crucial. This has all become a niche domain of research in both the neurological as well as socio-phsych fields, by the way.
•John, it seems, was WAY ahead of the curve. Of course he had a leg-up due to his Instructor.
• A Mind, which "can" think independently of any other mind, but by default maps out those thoughts (an inescapable element of sentience), will necessarily burst at the seams with a catalogue of thought-maps.
•"language is the MANIFESTATION of intelligence" - Irene R Heim, Professor and Head of Dept of Lingustics at MIT.
•those thought-maps, MANIFEST themselves in one, or both, of two ways: either words (intangible), or creations/actions (tangible). Or both.
• It is NOT a coincidence that John, who had lived with Jesus for years, likely familiar with the Greek philosophers to some degree, then, opens his gospel with...
ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
• And IF that Mind desires to Transfer those thought-maps to any other Mind, then the descriptors of those thought maps are the "packets" of data which carry the information. Or...demonstration. Or both.
•This is not dissimilar from the way DNA stores, replicates and transfers information, interestingly.
• Thought is exclusive to the pervue of the Mind (intangible).
• The Mind is a central processor for input from sensors (eyes, ears, hands) dedicated to gathering data being transmitted via Tangible means.
• Transferring Thoughts from one Mind to another in a world largely dominated by the Tangible requires the "use" of the Tangible for the PURPOSE OF demonstrating the intangible.
You are likely already aware...but in case you are not, since early childhood I have had a fascination with math. I even have a standing appointment with myself once a week for an hour of "math time." Mostly statistical analysis nowadays. Anyway, have had a side-business of building relational databases for the past 25 years. Our (I have one employee dedicated to this) latest project is a comprehensive business application (enterprise style). A few days ago we were discussing a customer's reaction to seeing the software in action for the first time.

Additional context from John's gospel.

## Psychology

Grok summation after reading all psychology books:
* your brain lies to you constantly
* (See Proverbs 28:26 "He who trust in his own heart is a fool)
* Your brain invent stories that feel true, but are often based on cognitive bias, emotional residue, and past trauma
* What you avoid controls you
* Avoidance feels like relief in the short term, but every time you dodge discomfort, you strengthen fear, resentment, procrastination, shame
* You are not who you think you are. Identity is not fixed. It is a feedback loop. of habits, beliefs, and repeated stories. Who you are is shaped by what you do over and over not by who you wish you were.
* You are wired for emotion, but created to regulated them.

Repent and Be Baptized

Are there uses of "and" as "by way of"?

Or are there instances of "and" as "so you can"

Apologies are Expressions
Repentance is Manifestation

Repentance is this observable manifestation of contrition.

One who has tried everything he knows, by his own strength and plans, but come up short, unable to achieve the goal, and then comes to another person who has greater ability and power. Humbled. Spent. In open acknowledgement of inability.

This is where God wants the hearts of His people. Why? Because it is in line with the truth.

We are corrupted and misguided by our own desires. Our hearts are bent on seeking first OUR desires. Yet they are certain to end in abject failure.

If people truly loved truth more than they feared the discomfort of dissonance, the sting of shame, or the vulnerability of exposure, relationships, societies, and even personal lives would transform dramatically. Conflicts would resolve through honest reckoning rather than evasion; justice would flow from clarity instead of power plays; healing would replace denial. It would indeed approximate something like “heaven on earth,” where truth reigns without resistance.

John 3

“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”

Here, Jesus explains the root: a preference for darkness (hiding, self-deception, unexamined sin) over light (truth, exposure, accountability). The fear isn’t abstract—it’s specifically dread of deeds being reproved or laid bare. Exposure threatens the carefully constructed self-image, the justifications we’ve built, the autonomy we cling to. People avoid truth not because it’s unclear, but because facing it demands change, humility, and often pain.

Other verses echo this pattern:
• 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 describes those who “refused to love the truth and so be saved,” leading God to send a “powerful delusion” so they believe the lie—because they delighted in wickedness instead.
• Psalm 52:3 condemns the one who “love[s] evil more than good, falsehood more than speaking the truth.”
• Proverbs 12:22 states plainly: “The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.”

Psychologically, this aligns with the fact that cognitive dissonance creates intense discomfort (guilt, shame, anxiety) when beliefs clash with reality or actions contradict values. To resolve it, people often choose avoidance, rationalization, denial, or doubling down on the lie—because the alternative (repentance, self-examination, exposure) feels too threatening to ego, identity, or security. Shame amplifies this; exposure risks not just correction but rejection or loss of status. It’s a protective mechanism, but one that entrenches deception and blocks freedom.
##
Truth, in all its forms and any amount, matters. Seemingly small falsehoods, repeated, unchallenged, and built upon with additional beliefs and actions, become persistent seed beds for errant behavior. Specifically rebellion against God.

Truth isn’t optional or scalable; every fragment matters because falsehood, no matter how seemingly insignificant, doesn’t stay isolated. When left unchallenged, repeated, and layered upon, it becomes fertile ground (“seed beds”) for misguided beliefs, justified actions, and entrenched behaviors that drift further from God’s reality.
This progression is exactly what the illusory truth effect illustrates psychologically: repetition alone boosts perceived validity, turning a small falsehood into something that feels solid and reliable. But biblically, the warning goes deeper—small deceptions compound like yeast in dough or weeds in a field, spreading until they choke out fruitfulness.

In relationships or society, this compounding is devastating:
• A small unchallenged falsehood in a family narrative becomes the foundation for resentment or rebellion.
• Repeated without pushback, it hardens into group consensus (tying back to scapegoating or mob dynamics we discussed).
• Actions built on it—decisions, habits, justifications—drift into errant behavior, often harming others while the person clings to the “truth” they’ve constructed.

Along with a person's inhibition to the internal challenges truth presents, comes a tendency to craft a mental image of "other people" sharing the same false belief. This serves to reinforce the false belief and bolster the person's confidence, leading to the "doubling down" or hardening of the heart. Safety in numbers, I guess.

internal resistance to truth (that inhibition you mentioned) doesn’t just stay private. Instead, it projects outward: the person constructs an imagined “crowd” of like-minded others who supposedly share the same false belief. This fabricated consensus provides emotional safety (“safety in numbers,”), reduces the sting of potential isolation or wrongness, and fuels greater confidence. Over time, it leads to doubling down—hardening of the position, entrenchment, and often a closed heart.
This dynamic has a clear name in psychology: the false consensus effect (also called consensus bias). It’s a pervasive cognitive bias where people overestimate how widely their own beliefs, attitudes, values, or behaviors are shared by others. They assume their views are “normal” or majority-held, even when evidence suggests otherwise. This overestimation boosts self-esteem, reduces uncertainty, and makes the belief feel more valid—because if “everyone” thinks this way, it can’t be wrong.

• Projection Mechanism: We use our own mind as the default reference point for what others think. If I believe something strongly, I project that others do too—especially if it’s tied to my identity or moral self-image.
• Reinforcement Cycle: The imagined agreement lowers the perceived risk of being challenged. It creates a mental “echo chamber” without needing real people; silence from others gets interpreted as assent (“If they disagreed, they’d say something”).
• Hardening Outcome: This bolsters confidence, leading to defensiveness or aggression when actual disagreement surfaces. It ties directly to belief perseverance (clinging to views despite contrary evidence) and can amplify group-level problems like polarization or scapegoating.
Classic research on this began with Lee Ross, David Greene, and Pamela House in 1977. In their experiments, participants estimated public opinion on issues (e.g., whether to wear a sign saying “Eat at Joe’s” or contest a traffic ticket). Those who chose one option vastly overestimated how many others would choose it too—often by 20-30 percentage points—while viewing the alternative as “deviant” or revealing of personality flaws.

In a culture that prizes self-protection, autonomy, and image-management, the percentage of people who truly exhibit non-vitriolic welcome of scrutiny is disturbingly low. This captures something profound: it’s not just tolerating feedback but embracing it as valuable, even when painful. That requires low ego-investment in being “right,” high self-validation from within (not external approval), and a Spirit-led love for truth over self-comfort.

Authority of God

For those men to whom God had given authority, that status was intentionally difficult to counterfeit. (Jesus and Paul we know. But who are you??)

* God gives authority to specific people at specific times.
* This authority is not easy to counterfeit.
* It is given in order to fulfill HIS purposes.
* The Holy Spirit is not in the business of generating questionable communication which readily counterfeits His authority.
*

There is a notable distinction in scripture between "belief" and the type of belief which God credits as righteousness. Digging deep into the NT references to OT examples, it becomes clear that when the apostles said "believe" in Jesus, there were certain elements of that belief - particularly presuppositions about who God is and man's status in regard to Him - which went without saying.

Three examples from the gospels come to mind:
• The tax collector and the Pharisee praying at the temple.
• The woman who barged uninvited into Simon's dinner party where Jesus was a guest.
• The two men on crosses next to Jesus.

Here are the assumptions these three people made about themselves and God:

• They are profoundly sinful and guilty before God.
• Their sins are direct offenses against God’s holy character and authority.
• They deserve righteous judgment and punishment for their rebellion.
• God is blameless and undeserving of their offenses.
• God has the sovereign right to condemn or banish them without appeal.
• Forgiveness is unmerited grace, not an obligation owed by God.
• Humble repentance is the only appropriate response to God’s justice and mercy.
• And lastly, prehaps most importantly, God is GOOD and compassionate, making genuine mercy possible despite deserved judgment.

Without the belief in God’s goodness/compassion, penitence collapses into fatalism or resentment. But when sinners are convinced that the Holy, Just and Angry God is, in fact FULL of compassion for His creation, then the sorrow becomes “godly sorrow” that leads to repentance and salvation (2 Cor 7:10).

The penitence of both the woman and the tax collector is not driven by despair or terror alone; it is sustained by the conviction that God is simultaneously just and good/compassionate—otherwise the appeal for mercy would be pointless.

[https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Bq9e3TiQD/?mibextid=wwXIfr](https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Bq9e3TiQD/?mibextid=wwXIfr)
JP on psycopathy