Are Catholics and Protestants that different?

I'm not sure, jar, that I'd agree that Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutherans and other liturgical Protestants constitute "the vast majority" of Protestants. There are 40 million Baptists in the United States, and I think there's 6 to 10 million Assembly of God, besides Presbyterian churches that may be liturgical but have extreme doctrinal differences with the Roman Catholics on some pretty major issues.Also, I think Evangelical is the wrong word, because in a lot of literature I've read, "evangelical" includes many liturgical churches as well as fundamentalists.Obviously, there's not much difference in theology between the Anglicans and Episcopalians and the RCC, because the Anglicans only separated from the RCC over papal authority. The Lutherans, however, while being very liturgical and sacramental, but Luther's doctrines of predestination and salvation by faith definitely don't jive with the Roman Catholics.Either way, I think it's safe to say that the Baptists, Pentecostals, and other fundamentalists have numbers at least equal to more liturgical Protestants.

I didn't say one was wrong or right, either. And I think everyone would have to agree that some Protestants are closer to the RCC than they are to other Protestants. I didn't object to that, just to the suggestion that the "vast majority" of Protestants are closer to the RCC than they are to other Protestants.

I once read a long explanation in a book as to why John 3:3 should be translated "born from above" rather than "born again." It was all very convincing, until I told my wife about it. She said, "Then why did Nicodemus ask whether he had to enter a second time into his mother's womb?"Oh.The Greek can be translated either way, apparently, but only one makes any sense .

You're losing me here, Buz. "Again" may not be in John 3:5, but it is in John 3:3. The Greek word is "anothen," and it is in the NT 13 times. It is translated as "from above" 5 times, and it is translated as "again" 2 times (in the KJV, anyway).The context pretty much demands that "again" is chosen over "from above," because Nicodemus understood it to mean "again." Otherwise, why would he ask about entering into his mother's womb a second time? Can you imagine this conversation?Jesus: You must be born from above.Nicodemus: I don't understand, can I enter my mother's womb a second time?Jesus: I said "from above," what are you talking about? Your mother's right here on earth, why would you bring her up?No, "again" works much better, and it is there in the Greek.

For jar & Buz, A new birth that does not involve baptism in water is a difference between a segment of the Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. That particular difference can be traced back to the Pietists in the 17th century.Interestingly enough, Pietism was a Lutheran movement, but it influenced many denominations. It's emphasis on "practice over doctrine, spirit over form, a thorough-going spiritual rebirth of the individual" seems to me to be the source of the "born again" movement.I think you will find that outside of Pietism and its strong influence down to today, that everyone else has taught that baptism in water is being born again (except the Quakers, of course, that began at a similar time period). There's rather wide historical agreement on that. Pietism began with Philipp Jakob Spener in 1670(re: here and more info here and here), so separating the new birth from water baptism is a very recent doctrine.jar, I mentioned you not to disagree with anything you said, but just because I thought you'd be interested in that info.