Jn. 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Notice that in the context being born of God is directly contrasted to being "born of the flesh" (Jn. 3:6). Since all mankind since Adam have been "born of the flesh" what PRACTICAL value in relationship to natural birth does being born of God have since many believe that for the past 4000 years it was non-existent and for all PRACTICAL purposes unncessary for God to have close relationships with fallen man? Why is it all of a sudden a "must" with regard to being "born of the flesh" if there is no PRACTICAL value with regard to being born of the flesh for the past 4000 years and God had no problems fellowshipping with those merely "born of the flesh" without being "born again"? What PRACTICAL necessity does it accomplish that makes it a "must" now and not then? Is there really anyone who doubts this was stated long before Pentecost according to its historical context? If this was not a "must" for Nicodemus at the moment Jesus said it, then why tell this man he "must" be born again if it were impossible for another three years or more? Moreover why scold him for not understanding something that had no existence yet or was never a "must" up to this time? Jn. 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? How could God justly scold Israel through Ezekiel for allowing the uncircumcised in heart for entering into the ministry in the present house of God if being circumcised in heart was unknown or non-existent? Moreover, how could Israel be scolded for something invisible and unseen as the human heart unless it was required as a matter of profession that their hearts had been circumcised by God? Ezek. 44:5 And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary. 6 And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, 7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. 8 And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves. 9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. Does not Paul interpret circumcision of the flesh to symbolize the new birth and thus the circumcision of the heart the act of Christ and equal to the new birth? Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; What PRACTICAL value is the new birth if the uncircumcised fallen nature of man could be dealt with PRACTICALLY apart from new birth for the past 4000 years? Why is it all of a sudden a "must" with regard to being "born of the flesh"? Furthermore, is there a third option in addition to being "in the flesh" versus "in the Spirit"? Becoming "in the flesh" is by being "born of the flesh" and becoming "in the Spirit" is by being "born of the Spirit." How does one become in a third option? Finally, does not Paul define "in the flesh" with the enmity of the fallen nature toward God in Romans 8:7-8 and the only other alternative to that unalterable condition of enmity is to be "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:9? How is a third option possible since all mankind from Adam forward are "in the flesh" in the sense that Paul defines it in Romans 8:7-8 and the only other alternative provided by Paul than to be "in the Spirit" is to be "NONE OF HIS"? Are all pre-Pentecost people "none of his" since all of them have been born "of the flesh" and have the fallen nature described as being "in the flesh"? Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Some may claim my position has some harmonizational problems with a few other passages, however, every truth has interpretational issues with a few passages but when the alternative is to have serious problems with fundamental and vital truths of scripture then my position is by far the better option. Especially is my position the better option when I can provide reasonable answers for the few problems while the opposing system cannot provide PRACTICAL APPLICATIONAL reasons for denying my position. I don't want your theoretical interpretational reasons based upon a few passages for rejecting new birth for 4000 years prior to Pentecost but your PRACTICAL APPLICATIONAL reasons why the new birth was unnecessary and not a "must" for those 4000 years but now is a "must".