"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[geometer]

John 3:5
“5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” [Douay-Rheims Translation]

There it is, but I guess you would call this a heretical translation, right?

Well, I think you will find that roman catholic scholars have said that the revised standard version is more accurate.

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jhn 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’

Jhn 3:8 The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit."

 

[geometer]

Paul is writing that baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you (not corresponding to those who were destroyed).

Noah and his family were saved and they did not get wet…

 

[ryanoneil]

Zach, you like many Catholics fall into the same trap, that is, everytime the words “warter” or “washing” appears in the context, to you it automatically means “water” ba[ptism. In this case Titus 3:5, it is symbolic. Nothing to do with actual water for regeneration

If Titus 3:5 meant “water” baptism, it would directly contradict 1 Peter 1:23, which states, “For you have been “born again”, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring WORD of God.”

Titus 3:5 can be compared with Eph.5:26, “to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the Word.” ED O.

to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word(Eph 5:26)

The bath of water is a reference to Baptism. The accompanying word refers to the formula spoken as baptism is administered.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit (Mt 28:19)

Baptism cleanses the soul of sin and beautifies it with grace.

**Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)

That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)

not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit (Tit 3:5)**
[/quote]

 

[SteveGC]

Noah and his family were saved and they did not get wet…

Geo, seems like you’re having difficulty comprehending the relationship between the SAVING waters of the flood (for Noah’s clan) and the SAVING waters of baptism (for Christians). It’s not the immersion that links these two things…it’s the salvific effect of the water for those who obey God.

 

[geometer]

Geo, seems like you’re having difficulty comprehending the relationship between the SAVING waters of the flood (for Noah’s clan) and the SAVING waters of baptism (for Christians). It’s not the immersion that links these two things…it’s the salvific effect of the water for those who obey God.

I know what the scripture means, so I haven’t been taking this thread very seriously. I just quoted the heart of the statement that Jesus made.

 

[onenow1]

Noah and his family were saved and they did not get wet…

onenow1:

Indeed ! Reminding us of Gensis, in the beginning The Spirit hovered over the water; And Jesus masters the waves walking on water, again, a reminder of the Spirit.

Genesis 1.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

In the NT. Jesus institutes baptism, an outward sign effected by the spirit as in the OT, the face of the deep was affected, so to the waters of baptism are affected.

Matt. 28: 19, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Peace and God Bless
onenow1,

 

[benedictus2]

To All the watchers:
I’m now in a debate with Benedictus 2. Before I comment about what he has posted on 725 which is a reply to my post 701. I would like to remind you that Benedictus2 made some foolish statements and comments.---- ( 1 ) On post 688 he claims that the speaking in tongues is mostly used by evil spirits. HOW does he know that? Did he take a survey?----

Perhaps you should start doing some research when I make these claims. .
Google “glossalalia” and you will find out that this is done by pagans, those who practice the occult, etc. Now these cannot be possibly being guided by the Holy Spirit could they?

( 2 ) There was a discussion that the apostles can’t over-ride Jesus’ statements. I sincerely believe that because it makes perfect sense. But when I asked for Scripture confirmation because I was curious if there is one, he had much fun belittling me post 623.----- ( 3 )

Are you sincerely saying that the Apostles can ACTUALLY OVERRIDE WHAT JESUS is saying? And you call yourself a Christian? Do you even really think about what you write before you write it?

Do you not realize that if you say an apostle CAN override what Jesus is saying, you are in effect saying that the apostles ARE BETTER and HIGHER than Jesus?
Simple common sense man.

All through this thread I’ve asked Nathan show me by Scripture that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, but on post 645 Benedictus2 in essence which contradicts Nathan ,he said infusion is not Catholic theology.

You can only infer that from my post IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ. NOWHERE IN MY POST DID I SAY THAT.

In defense of Nathan which I accept, Nathan then presents on post 667 that the word infusion may not be in Scripture but that it IS Catholic theology per the Catechism. I don’t want to belittle Benedictus2 but please judge his comments below accordingly.

And I agree with Nathan completely. Infusion is Catholic doctrine. What I clarified was that the Holy Spirit does NOT NECESSARILY get infused as the person is immersed in water. It happens during the RITE itself. It could happen after the immersion. It could happen during the application of the oil of chrism. But it does happen during baptism.

His reply on post 725 to my post 701 He states;
“Since you asked here is another reply to this post. I have already replied so had already “challenged” your thinking.” [/qutoe]
I suggest you pay attention and read carefully what we write.

I will reply to the rest of your post later as my lunctime is over.

Oh and by the way, I am a she.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2, I don’t want to get off the point of this thread, but here’s something for you to think about. You say that annulment means that the marriage was never valid. Then what happens to the kids? Do they just vanish.

Only because you have zilch comprehension of what validity of the marriage covenant means.

About the 33,000 denominations, I’m glad to hear that the numbers came down somewhat, it used to be 40,000. ED O.

Even if there was only 1 other denomination , that would still be 1 denomination too many because Jesus built only one Church.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Zach Dunn
John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Douay-Rheims Translation]

There it is, but I guess you would call this a heretical translation, right ?

Zach, I went through all of that in my prior posts. The Douay/Rhiems bible is a Catholic bible. It’s the only Bible that is stated that way. The New American Catholic Bible gets it right “born of water” , Is that Bible then heretical? You are contradicting yourself. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by benedictus2
Only because you have zilch comprehension of what validity of the marriage covenant means

So we don’t get off this thread, since you seemed to be such an expert would you then explain it to me per private message.

Even if there was only 1 other denomination , that would still be 1 denomination too many because Jesus built only one Church

Can you PROVE to me that it’s your denomination and only your denomination that will make it and all the rest of us will be doomed to hell. Also Eph 1:13 states,“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal the promised Holy Spirit. Who is a deposit quaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’ possession to the praise of his glory.” -----Tell me, does this verse excludes everyone from going to heaven except Catholics? ED O.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach, I went through all of that in my prior posts. The Douay/Rhiems bible is a Catholic bible. It’s the only Bible that is stated that way. The New American Catholic Bible gets it right “born of water” , Is that Bible then heretical? You are contradicting yourself. ED O.

How am I contradicting myself? That doesn’t make any sense, I never said “born of water” is wrong, you put those words into my mouth. You said that Jesus did not say “born again of water,” but the Douay-Rheims says He did; is the D-R accurate? I’d say so. Is it correct? I don’t know, the only reason I posted it is because it was semi-relevant to what you said.

Sorry Ed, I have not contradicted myself.

 

[zach_dunn]

Can you PROVE to me that it’s your denomination and only your denomination that will make it and all the rest of us will be doomed to hell. Also Eph 1:13 states,“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal the promised Holy Spirit. Who is a deposit quaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’ possession to the praise of his glory.” -----Tell me, does this verse excludes everyone from going to heaven except Catholics? ED O.

What?!?! Ed, you are very good at putting words into peoples mouth, but unfortunately, it’s not a good thing. Benedictus simply said that Jesus founded one Church, and one faith. In Matthew 16:18 Christ says, “I will build my Church.” Do you see how Church is singular? Then there is always Eph 4:5 which states, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Notice how there is one faith.

Did benedictus say that the Catholic Church and faith is the one established by Christ? No, does he believe it? Yes he does, and with good reason!

 

[zach_dunn]

Oh and by the way, I am a she.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! I’m sorry! I’ll start saying she now . . .

 

[zach_dunn]

There’s something wrong here. A quote from the Council of Trent declared: " If anyone shall say that natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born AGAIN of water and the Holy Spirit’ (John 3:5), are distorted into some sort of metaphor; let him be anathema," Do you notice in your quote it’s “born of water” and in my quote it’s “born AGAIN of water” which is not what Jesus said. ED O.

The phrase “born again” in John 3:5 comes from the Clementine Vulgate which uses renatus in verse 5 which means “born again.”

For your information, the Clementine Vulgate (arguably the closest to Jerome’s original translation) comes several hundred years before any Bible YOU use.

 

[zach_dunn]

PLEASE READ THIS EDOSIECKI

Why do you keep ignoring my posts? You have several of my posts that you have ignored, take my post number 638 for example. This, at the time, was a complete list of all of my posts that you have passed up, but now the list is much larger. If you are not going to answer my posts, will you tell me why you’ve ignored them for so long?

 

[zach_dunn]

Well, I think you will find that roman catholic scholars have said that the revised standard version is more accurate.

The Church says the Clementine Vulgate is even more accurate.

 

[adriancombe]

There is no mention at all of baptism in the first 21 verses, and this is the only part of the chapter where Jesus is speaking. He didn’t baptise anyone in that situation. He left there with the apostles and baptised people somewhere else.

In the first 21 verses, Jesus tells them what to do and why…

starting with verse 22, they do it. No problem…:yawn:

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

There is no mention at all of baptism in the first 21 verses, and this is the only part of the chapter where Jesus is speaking. He didn’t baptise anyone in that situation. He left there with the apostles and baptised people somewhere else.

*‘There is no mention at all of baptism in the first 21 verses’ *Justify your position.

‘and this is the only part of the chapter where Jesus is speaking’ Are we on the same page?

Can you give me the scripture reference to Jesus baptizing someone with water? I am having difficulty finding it. Unless you are alluding to Jesus’ crucifixion - but then not all the apostles were crucified (for a minute there hope flickered)

Maybe if we used the same translation we could have a meeting of minds…maybe not.
But your version seems a whole lot different to the one I’m reading.

 

[geometer]

*‘There is no mention at all of baptism in the first 21 verses’ *Justify your position.

The word baptism which means washing is not used in those verses. The first use of the word in that chapter occurs at verse 22. This is where the chapter should have been divided into two chapters, because the second half is about baptism.

‘and this is the only part of the chapter where Jesus is speaking’ Are we on the same page?

Can you give me the scripture reference to Jesus baptizing someone with water? I am having difficulty finding it. Unless you are alluding to Jesus’ crucifixion - but then not all the apostles were crucified (for a minute there hope flickered).

I do not know why you have asked these questions.

Maybe if we used the same translation we could have a meeting of minds…maybe not.
But your version seems a whole lot different to the one I’m reading.

I quoted from the RSV.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Bob4BVM;5922834:

Yeah, most definitely NOT symbolic.
I am so sick of people outside the Church rattling on and on and ON about how none of the Sacraments mean anything, because they are all symbolic…
Jesus did not come among us to bring us a bunch of metaphors and symbols…He came here to show us the extent of the Father’s love for us. And He had no intention of leaving us orphans when He ascended to Heaven either—that is why He establised the Sacraments- outward signs that actually effect (make present) what they represent.

'A sacramental sign is woven from signs and symbols

…In human life, signs and symbols occupy an important place. As a being once body and spirit, man expresses and perceives spiritual realities through physical signs and symbols. As a social being, man needs signs and symbols to communicate with others, through language, gestures, and actions. The same holds true for his relationship with God’ *(Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimi Potest, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1994) *

Well put… Smart Guy, that Ratzinger !