“All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead … we too might walk in newness of life.”

Steefen:

I don't think the baptisms done by John the Baptist were about being buried with Jesus and rising from the dead with Jesus.

Paul expresses essentially the same transformation in several different ways, and importantly, he applies it to Gentiles as well as Jews.

The strongest parallels are these:

1. Paul calls Gentile believers a “new creation”

Paul says:

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”
— 2 Corinthians 5:17

And even more pointedly in Galatians:

“For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”
— Galatians 6:15

Galatians is particularly important because Paul is addressing the question of Gentiles entering the Christ movement without becoming Jews through circumcision.

So where Jesus says:

“You must be born from above”

Paul says:

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.”

Those are very close conceptual equivalents.

2. Paul explicitly describes a transformation involving the Spirit

Paul tells the Romans:

“But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.”

— Romans 8:9

And in Titus 3:5 he describes salvation as:

“the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”

That word “regeneration” (palingenesia) is particularly interesting because it denotes new birth/new beginning. Paul therefore has a vocabulary for the same general idea even though he doesn't reproduce John's anōthen terminology.

3. Paul connects this transformation with baptism

This gets especially interesting when you put John 3:5 beside Paul's Romans 6.

Jesus says:

“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Paul says:

“All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead ... we too might walk in newness of life.”

— Romans 6:3–4

And in Galatians 3:27:

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Thus Paul's Gentile converts undergo a transition from an old existence into a new existence in Christ, associated with baptism and the Spirit.

4. Paul actually uses “new birth” language in a striking place

There is an especially important passage in Galatians 4:19. Paul says:

“My little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!”

Paul is speaking to the Galatians, including Gentile Christians, and describes Christ being formed in them.

That is not merely an ethical improvement. It is imagery of formation/new existence.

The important distinction

There is nevertheless a significant difference between John and Paul.

John 3 explicitly says:

You must be born from above to see/enter the kingdom of God.

Paul doesn't write to Gentiles, “You must be born from above.” Instead, his language is:

• “new creation” — 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15
• “renewal of the Holy Spirit” — Titus 3:5
• “newness of life” — Rom. 6:4
• “renewed in the spirit of your minds” — Eph. 4:23
• “put on the new self” — Eph. 4:24
• “Christ formed in you” — Gal. 4:19

So, yes, Paul does teach Gentiles that they must undergo the kind of transformation Jesus describes to Nicodemus—but he normally expresses it through his own “new creation / new life / Spirit / Christ in you” terminology rather than John's “born from above.”

And there is an interesting historical-literary question underneath your question: whether Paul's “new creation” language represents an independent formulation of the same concept, or whether Paul and John are drawing on a common earlier Jewish/Christian tradition about eschatological rebirth. That distinction becomes important if you're comparing the chronology or development of Paul's theology with the Gospel of John.

= = =

A-HA. The Jesus-Nicodemus exchange only appears in the Gospel of John.

So, with this, Paul comes after Gospel of John or before the Gospel of John?

Solomon had an Egyptian wife.

David and Solomon were not White like Netanyahu.
If they were not Black, they could have been brown-skinned like Palestinians or Ancient Egyptians.

= = = =

The King James Bible was not a neutral academic exercise. It was a state project.

p/u at 20:34

Erik the Red didn't have Ba-lack children.

Genesis 25:

Essau was red.
David was well-colored.

Brown came from Germany. Luther wrote brownish.

Judas had red-hair for Luther and David could not have the same red color as Judas.

Earth-colored, sun-lived Middle Eastern Shepherd, David.

Look at the map ! ! !

Cushites were dark- to brown-skinned.

Song of Songs Chapter 1, v 5

[David's Son is dark-skinned.] Dark am I yet lovely, daughters of Jerusalem, dark like the tents of Kedar, like the tent curtains of Solomon.

NET Bible
I am dark but lovely, O maidens of Jerusalem, dark like the tents of Qedar, lovely like the tent curtains of Salmah.

New Revised Standard Version
I am black and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon.

= = =

Black BUT lovely or Black AND lovely/beautiful?

CUT TO THE CHASE. King David had a Black son.

“And he was browne, and of an excellent bewtye, & well fauored in syght.”

So where did “brown” come from?

This is where the history of English vocabulary becomes important.

In Middle English and Early Modern English, brown had a considerably broader color range than our modern use of “brown.” It could refer to dark, dusky, sun-darkened, or somewhat reddish/dark coloration, rather than exclusively the modern brown color.

That makes “brown” a plausible sixteenth-century English rendering of a person's complexion or coloring, even though it isn't the most literal translation of ’admoni.

The Latin Vulgate is very clear. Jerome translates the Hebrew ’admoni with:

erat autem rufus
“he was rufus”

So the Vulgate does not say brown. It says rufus.

What does rufus mean?

Latin rufus means red, reddish, ruddy, or reddish-haired. It is the normal Latin adjective for a reddish coloration and can describe red/auburn hair as well.

And the Vulgate uses the same word again in 1 Samuel 17:42, when Goliath sees David:

Erat enim adolescens, rufus, et pulcher aspectu.
“For he was a young man, rufus, and beautiful in appearance.”

Chaka Khan's was a lead singer for Rufus and most of them were brown.

This could explain why the Great Bible's “brown” and the KJV's later “ruddy” are not necessarily as far apart as they look to a modern reader.

1535 Coverdale Bible David was "well colored"

1537 Matthew's Bible David was "brown"

1539 Great Bible David was "brown"

1560 Geneva Bible David was "ruddy"

1568 Bishops' Bible David was "ruddy"

1611 Kim James Bible David was "ruddy"

’admoni → “ruddy/reddish” = strongest
“well-colored/glowing” = interpretive but reasonable
“brown” = possible only as an interpretive description, not the direct meaning

In my book, King David borrowed biography from an Egyptian pharaoh.

Now see this documentary:

YouTube Channel: History Morsels
Video: Coverdale Wrote It in 1535: King David Was Black - The KJV Buried the Verse

Up to 3:39, Kind David was brown-skinned.

p/u at 5:05

The goal was to make the text feel native to English speakers.

Amen isn't the Egyptian god, it is Aleph mem nun--truth faithfulness certainty.

= = = = =

The English Colonial Project Expanded

1520s The Tyndale Bible

1524 - Gian Giorgio Trissino - The letter J is being established

1560 - The Geneva Bible

1604 - The King James Bible is commissioned

1611 - The King James Bible is completed

The Second Video