How is it possible you don't know this? (Jesus and Nicodemus)

In an argument with Nicodemus, JGJ (John-Gospel-Jesus) says "You are Israel's teacher, yet you do not know these things?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203%3A1-21

I had this mentioned to me the other day as evidence of Jesus' divinity in John's gospel.  To which I said in return, that the ability to point out someone's positional status, and that they don't know what you mean is "snarky".  No, I didn't say it was snarky.  Someone else pointed out that it was snarky, to me.

What does it mean here when JGJ says "Born Again"?  This is very nonspecific what he's saying.  Rather open to interpretation.  However, instead of providing a solid answer to explain his meaning, JGJ impugns the integrity of the questioner.  "Born of water and the spirit" does not add any particular clarity.  "The spirit gives birth to spirit" doesn't add any particular clarity.  "The wind blows wherever it pleases" isn't clearly shown to be an analogy for the other terms here.  The words "we" and "our" are not clearly labeled as to what group is meant.

Finally, the only moment of clarity that seems to come from this passage "The Son of Man must be lifted up... like the snake in the wilderness."  Which is what I'm doing here... Showing this nonsense for what it is.

Finally the end of the passage is not in quotations at all.  Jesus did not say them.  JGJ did not say them.  Rather, John himself, the author of John's gospel put these words, unattributed, into the text.  The most quoted verse in the Bible:  John 3:16, was apparently invented by John.

While many people, I'm sure, have found positive interpretation of these ideas of being born again, and having their spirit born of the spirit, I do not feel that the essence of the argument lies in this passage.  The process of being born again through baptism by water certainly was practiced by John the Baptist, but it is not at all clear that this is the process to which JGJ is referring.

3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to (JGJ) at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 (JGJ) replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 (JGJ) 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[b] gives birth to spirit.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] 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.”[d]

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said (JGJ), “and do you not understand these things? 11 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. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 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.

Fact vs. Opinion; Truth vs Goodnes

Does our truth change with time? Or is that what's called hypocrisy?

I have recently had a conversation with my friend about relations and love and the kind of opinions we have about them. Then it suddenly struck me, I did not hold this belief or did not think that is the truth few years back and may not hold the same belief few years later. Is this being an hypocrite? or growing up? Dont we change the truth as we grow?

Re-Ask

Unfollow17

Comment1

Share

Downvote

Jonathan's Answer

View 15 Other Answers

Jonathan Doolin, generator of hypotheses

277 Views

I think we tend to make a false equivalency between the true vs. false spectrum and the good vs. evil spectrum.

It's a fairly well established that there are true and false statements.  When you say something happened, it either did or it didn't.  When you say something will happen, it either will or it won't.  Insofar as truth changes regarding matters of fact, anything in the past is an unchangeable truth.  Anything we say about the future is a changeable truth.

On the other hand, regarding what is good and evil, this is generally agreeed to be a matter of opinion, and societal values.  There are a few who believe in some kind of "absolute" good.  Actually, I would say MOST people believe in an "absolute" good and "absolute" evil.  For instance, it is generally regarded that slavery, child molestation, and murder are all criminal activities, and would be wrong even if the laws allowed them.  That is, it isn't a matter of societal conformity that we don't murder each other, but because it is a matter of universal human rights.

So do these universal human rights exist as fundamental self-evident principles, or are they simply arbitrary, and continually changing constructions, adapting to the societies by which they are affirmed? 

I think as science improves, we are continually moving toward greater knowledge and truth, even with greater and greater complexity of our understanding.  Using the scientific method, we are able to move forward in a clear direction truthward. 

On the other hand, I'm not sure if such a clear methodology to approach moral righteousness has been established.  We still have major disagreement, for instance, on whether it is right and just for a CEO to make hundreds of times as much money as his employees do, or whether pre-emptive strikes are appropriate in warfare, or sanctions, or whether torture should be used in dire circumstances, or whether assisted suicide is okay, or abortion is okay, or killing and eating animals, or looking at pornography, or divorce, or public nudity, or wearing a shirt with pictures of pretty women, or many thousands of other issues where there is a moral disagreement.  Despite the strong opinions that people have on both sides of the issue, there does not seem to be a way to make a true/false call on any of these things.

All we can do is ask ourselves what kind of world we want to live in?  And then try to make guidelines to bring about the positive changes we desire.