E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi Nathan, Why do you read the Bible?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
No Ed, you can’t be intellectually dishonest here. Several valid points were made. It’s not considered polite to dodge pertinent information for an entire thread, and (unless you’re Jesus) proceed to answer a question with a question.
Prove, to me, that you can take apart my argument. An argument made with logic, historical facts, and 2,000 years of Church tradition. Show why YOUR interpretation rules the day. Or just admit that you can’t. You really don’t know, but you made a good guess.
Prove, to me, that you can take apart my argument. An argument made with logic, historical facts, and 2,000 years of Church tradition. Show why YOUR interpretation rules the day. Or just admit that you can’t. You really don’t know, but you made a good guess.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi panevino, The Holy Spirit isn’t present in a sinful person. The only atonement for sins is Jesus’ Blood. When they believed on Jesus, Jesus then was made sin and they were made righteous by His blood. When a person is made righteous that person is saved. Then yes, they were baptized to show repentance and start a new life in Christ. It’s the belief in Jesus’ shed Blood on the cross is what saves a person. Rev. 1:5, " To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His Blood." ED O.Panevino
it says the holy spirit came upon them, it does not necessarily say they got saved, thats how i read it anyway, as you say they were later baptised, in verse 48 peter orders it. notice how they are not considered baptised yet. they believed, they recvieved the holy spirit, but they are not yet considered baptised. see mark 16:15-16 above on being saved, which requires belief and baptism
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Yes Ed, and we are baptized into his death, according to Paul, we are not believed (in the sense you mean) into his death. Respond to some of my points please. Jesus equates belief with obedience all through the gospels, and baptism is not for repentance because Mark said repent AND be baptized.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
AFTER you respond to the MANY points made about your interpretation of the passage and baptism in general, I am VERY interested in what your understanding of Christ being “made sin” is in the above post. But first thing’s first…
D
diggerdomer
Guest
What? I thought all humans are sinners. Do you mean no humans have been graced by the presence of the Holy Spirit? Thanks for any clarification.Hi panevino, The Holy Spirit isn’t present in a sinful person.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Nathyan Wagar
No Ed, you can’t be intellectually dishonest here. Several valid points were made. It’s not considered polite to dodge pertinent information for an entire thread, and (unless you’re Jesus) proceed to answer a question with a question.
Nathan, I’m not being dishonest as you say, I’m not here to discuss 2000 yrs of history. If you want to discuss what this thread is all about, and that is John 3;5 then I challenge you, if not don’t waste my time. ED O.Prove, to me, that you can take apart my argument. An argument made with logic, historical facts, and 2,000 years of Church tradition. Show why YOUR interpretation rules the day. Or just admit that you can’t. You really don’t know, but you made a good guess
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
But here’s the thing Ed, I already did, and you are skirting the issue. I gave you MANY reasons why my interpretation could be correct. And not being interested in 2,000 years of history is a bit ignorant considering you are talking about the Church of Christ. I guess you’re “not interested” in what Christians believed? The Bible fell out of the sky like in a cheesy Steve Ray video and whacked you in the head? You cannot divorce a Bible from its historical interpretation when Christianity by its very nature makes historical claims.
According to logic and fairness, the onus is now on YOU, my dear Ed, to prove WHY your interpretation is correct, as opposed to anybody else’s. Don’t tell me the Holy Scripture is the truth either, I know it is. But your interpretation might not be. Why is your denomination correct on the meaning of this passage? Why you, and not the fathers one generation away? Why yours, and not the Lutherans? Or the Catholics?
According to logic and fairness, the onus is now on YOU, my dear Ed, to prove WHY your interpretation is correct, as opposed to anybody else’s. Don’t tell me the Holy Scripture is the truth either, I know it is. But your interpretation might not be. Why is your denomination correct on the meaning of this passage? Why you, and not the fathers one generation away? Why yours, and not the Lutherans? Or the Catholics?
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi diggerdormer, what I’m saying is that in order for the Holy Spirit to become present within a person’s body, their sins has to be atoned for and that happens only by believing in Jesus. The Holy Spirit will not reside in a sinful body. 2 Cor. 6:14-16 ED O.diggerdormer
What? I thought all humans are sinners. Do you mean no humans have been graced by the presence of the Holy Spirit? Thanks for any clarification
P
panevino
Guest
are you sure?, so why the burial/washing in the water after teh declaration if there is no sin?Hi panevino, The Holy Spirit isn’t present in a sinful person. The only atonement for sins is Jesus’ Blood. When they believed on Jesus, Jesus then was made sin and they were made righteous by His blood. When a person is made righteous that person is saved. Then yes, they were baptized to show repentance and start a new life in Christ. It’s the belief in Jesus’ shed Blood on the cross is what saves a person. Rev. 1:5, " To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His Blood." ED O.
during baptism we recieve the holy spirit, does that mean we lose it when we then sin after baptism? then reconciliation/confession to get it back
also interested in your response to acts 8:36-39 & mark 16:15-16 as discussed in post#114, though can see you probably have a bit on your hands.
anyway, I am enjoying the discussion.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Nathan Wagar
But here’s the thing Ed, I already did, and you are skirting the issue. I gave you MANY reasons why my interpretation could be correct. And not being interested in 2,000 years of history is a bit ignorant considering you are talking about the Church of Christ. I guess you’re “not interested” in what Christians believed? The Bible fell out of the sky like in a cheesy Steve Ray video and whacked you in the head? You cannot divorce a Bible from its historical interpretation when Christianity by its very nature makes historical claims.
Are you afraid to take the challenge about John 3:5? If so, say so. Jesus said let your light shine not Steve Ray video and wacked you in the head. ED O.According to logic and fairness, the onus is now on YOU, my dear Ed, to prove WHY your interpretation is correct, as opposed to anybody else’s. Don’t tell me the Holy Scripture is the truth either, I know it is. But your interpretation might not be. Why is your denomination correct on the meaning of this passage? Why you, and not the fathers one generation away? Why yours, and not the Lutherans? Or the Catholics
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Ed I already posted about 6 times earlier in this thread. It was your choice not to respond to any of them. All of them regarded the proper way to interpret the passage. Heck, one of the quotes from the fathers even discussed it. I went into OT and NT exegesis of the issue so that you could understand why. I even showed why your interpretation would NOT work. Would you please be polite and go back and read them, or are you really going to make me copy and paste all over again?
Better yet, lay aside your pride and say you don’t have the answer. I just did it on another thread. I said I was not the best one to answer a particular area of the papacy. As it stands, you have not responded to ONE SINGLE ASPECT of my MANY posts, and now you are making an empty challenge. I accepted awhile back bud. Now it’s your turn to critique my arguments. They are all there.
Better yet, lay aside your pride and say you don’t have the answer. I just did it on another thread. I said I was not the best one to answer a particular area of the papacy. As it stands, you have not responded to ONE SINGLE ASPECT of my MANY posts, and now you are making an empty challenge. I accepted awhile back bud. Now it’s your turn to critique my arguments. They are all there.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi panevino, I’m not sure what you are asking here?panevino
are you sure?, so why the burial/washing in the water after teh declaration if there is no sin?
You don’t receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. Read what goes on in Acts 19:1-6during baptism we recieve the holy spirit, does that mean we lose it when we then sin after baptism? then reconciliation/confession to get it back
. My response to Acts 8:36-39 If you read starting at v 30 Phillip is explaining about Jesus in v35 Phillip explains the gospel about Jesus, in v36 the Eunuch asked to be baptized when they came upon water, in v37 Phillip says he can be baptized if he “believes in Jesus” he said he did. Here again, it’s the belief in Jesus that saves and baptism for repentance.also interested in your response to acts 8:36-39 & mark 16:15-16 as discussed in post#114, though can see you probably have a bit on your hands
I’ll have to go back and read post 114 but not anymore tonight. I’m tired Have a good night panevino. ED O.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Hi Ed, it’s me again. I went back and checked, and I actually challenged YOU to critique MY post specifically on the passage in John way back in post 91. You really have been arguing in circles that long. But I’m going to be nice. I am frustrated with your “debating techniques” but I also don’t want to come off as a cyber-jerk. I am going to copy and paste my original post below, and allow you to critique the points you wish. We will take the discussion from there. Deal? Good night and God Bless you until tomorrow:
I believe these quotes are from the NAB, so they may not match your translation in the way the verses are divided up.
John 3:3-5: " Jesus answered and said to him ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can see the Kindom of God without being born from above.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?’ Jesus answered, 'Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
Protestants will often translate the above verse as “born again” instead of “from above.” They and we are not wrong, but our translation does less funkiness with the text. Allow me to explain. In Greek the word “anothen” can mean either “from above” or “again.” Both translations are correct. I believe this is why Nicodemus was confused, because he thought Jesus said “born again” when Jesus meant “from above.” That is why Nicodemus asked how a man can be born again. When Jesus saw he was confused, he was more specific and said you must be born of water and the spirit in order to clarify things to Nicodemus.
To put this in context, in chapter 1 Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit came down as a dove (from above). So He was baptized with water and the Spirit. This makes sense of both of Jesus’ responses to Nicodemus. Then immediately after this conversation he goes out baptizing people with the disciples, so it would seem he means baptism for salvation, not simply mental assent.
In Mark 1:10, after Jesus walks up from the water, heaven opens up and the Spirit comes down upon Him. The word Mark uses for the heavens opening up is schidzo, which is the same word used when the temple veil tore from top to bottom as he breathed His last on the cross in Mark 15:37-38. In fact, these are the only two places in the gospel of Mark this word is used. Mark would seem to be linking baptism directly with Christ’s death on the Cross, as Paul points out later in his letters. Baptism is us following his death by dying to sin with water, the symbol of death, that ironically becomes our symbol for life. The thing is, if baptism is linked directly with the cross which is our salvation, then that just makes its sacramental importance for salvation that much more serious. Because if the baptism is equated by Mark with the cross, then not to be baptized is not to be a part of the redemption.
Repeatedly in John 3 Jesus makes mention of believing in him, but his contrast of belief with disobedience in John 3:36, as well as in John 3:20 where in the same context he talks about works preventing one from the Light ( i.e; Jesus, since earlier in the gospel Jesus is referred to as the Light) strongly imply that what Jesus means by “belief” (and this is borne out by other Scriptures) is not merely mental assent, but obedience. And what does obeying Jesus mean? Obviously, all the things mentioned in the verses following, but also to get baptized.
This whole gospel of John would demonstrate to the Catholic mind quite clearly how Jesus sets a precedent (His own baptism), preaches about it and then carries out the newly instrumented Sacrament.
I have tried to keep my post focused on just this chapter in John so the thread doesn’t go somewhere else, but honestly, if you go just based off this chapter, Protestants have a case. There are varying Protestant positions on water baptism based off of just this passage, and many make sense. The only way to know for sure based off of only this passage would be to go “John, what is the meaning of that passage in the gospel you wrote.” Obviously we can’t do that, but the thing is, John had friends, and his friends had friends. Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, etc. And we can read what these people wrote about what the early Church believed regarding baptism.That’s why it is most helpful to look at the anti-nicene fathers and other early Church writings such as the Didache (which some have even dated as early as AD 48) for some perspective on how the text was to be “interpreted.”
I believe these quotes are from the NAB, so they may not match your translation in the way the verses are divided up.
John 3:3-5: " Jesus answered and said to him ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can see the Kindom of God without being born from above.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?’ Jesus answered, 'Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
Protestants will often translate the above verse as “born again” instead of “from above.” They and we are not wrong, but our translation does less funkiness with the text. Allow me to explain. In Greek the word “anothen” can mean either “from above” or “again.” Both translations are correct. I believe this is why Nicodemus was confused, because he thought Jesus said “born again” when Jesus meant “from above.” That is why Nicodemus asked how a man can be born again. When Jesus saw he was confused, he was more specific and said you must be born of water and the spirit in order to clarify things to Nicodemus.
To put this in context, in chapter 1 Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit came down as a dove (from above). So He was baptized with water and the Spirit. This makes sense of both of Jesus’ responses to Nicodemus. Then immediately after this conversation he goes out baptizing people with the disciples, so it would seem he means baptism for salvation, not simply mental assent.
In Mark 1:10, after Jesus walks up from the water, heaven opens up and the Spirit comes down upon Him. The word Mark uses for the heavens opening up is schidzo, which is the same word used when the temple veil tore from top to bottom as he breathed His last on the cross in Mark 15:37-38. In fact, these are the only two places in the gospel of Mark this word is used. Mark would seem to be linking baptism directly with Christ’s death on the Cross, as Paul points out later in his letters. Baptism is us following his death by dying to sin with water, the symbol of death, that ironically becomes our symbol for life. The thing is, if baptism is linked directly with the cross which is our salvation, then that just makes its sacramental importance for salvation that much more serious. Because if the baptism is equated by Mark with the cross, then not to be baptized is not to be a part of the redemption.
Repeatedly in John 3 Jesus makes mention of believing in him, but his contrast of belief with disobedience in John 3:36, as well as in John 3:20 where in the same context he talks about works preventing one from the Light ( i.e; Jesus, since earlier in the gospel Jesus is referred to as the Light) strongly imply that what Jesus means by “belief” (and this is borne out by other Scriptures) is not merely mental assent, but obedience. And what does obeying Jesus mean? Obviously, all the things mentioned in the verses following, but also to get baptized.
This whole gospel of John would demonstrate to the Catholic mind quite clearly how Jesus sets a precedent (His own baptism), preaches about it and then carries out the newly instrumented Sacrament.
I have tried to keep my post focused on just this chapter in John so the thread doesn’t go somewhere else, but honestly, if you go just based off this chapter, Protestants have a case. There are varying Protestant positions on water baptism based off of just this passage, and many make sense. The only way to know for sure based off of only this passage would be to go “John, what is the meaning of that passage in the gospel you wrote.” Obviously we can’t do that, but the thing is, John had friends, and his friends had friends. Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, etc. And we can read what these people wrote about what the early Church believed regarding baptism.That’s why it is most helpful to look at the anti-nicene fathers and other early Church writings such as the Didache (which some have even dated as early as AD 48) for some perspective on how the text was to be “interpreted.”
D
diggerdomer
Guest
So if we don’t have God’s presence within us (e.g. the Holy Spirit) how could we possibly recognize and atone for our sins? Would that, then, be a purely human effort?Hi diggerdormer, what I’m saying is that in order for the Holy Spirit to become present within a person’s body, their sins has to be atoned for and that happens only by believing in Jesus. The Holy Spirit will not reside in a sinful body. 2 Cor. 6:14-16 ED O.
C
Cbailey2
Guest
After having read this entire thread, I don’t think anyone should respond to Ed O until he responds to Nathan Wagar’s repeated and open question.
Ed, stop ignoring Nathan’s legitimate question!!! He has asked it several times but you are giving him the digital equivalent of the ‘cold shoulder.’ His tone has been charitable and straightforward, and yet you completely ignore him.
Societies change. Cultures change. What is “common sense” changes. That is why 2000 years of history has a central role in discussion a correct interpretation of John 3 or anything else in a book with a 2000 year history. I hope you don’t think our Supreme Court should be composed of people with no knowledge of U.S. history as they sit and interpret the Constitution!
If your interpretation is right, you should easily be able to cite why, above all others, it should be followed. At some point you will realize how hollow it is to say “I’m right because the Bible says so” because all Christians are saying this exact same thing, even as they completely disagree. Your only recourse to this is to insist that other Christians a) are less intelligent than yourself or b) have graver sins on their conscience than you. I hope you realize how unsatisfying those two options are.
Ed, stop ignoring Nathan’s legitimate question!!! He has asked it several times but you are giving him the digital equivalent of the ‘cold shoulder.’ His tone has been charitable and straightforward, and yet you completely ignore him.
Societies change. Cultures change. What is “common sense” changes. That is why 2000 years of history has a central role in discussion a correct interpretation of John 3 or anything else in a book with a 2000 year history. I hope you don’t think our Supreme Court should be composed of people with no knowledge of U.S. history as they sit and interpret the Constitution!
If your interpretation is right, you should easily be able to cite why, above all others, it should be followed. At some point you will realize how hollow it is to say “I’m right because the Bible says so” because all Christians are saying this exact same thing, even as they completely disagree. Your only recourse to this is to insist that other Christians a) are less intelligent than yourself or b) have graver sins on their conscience than you. I hope you realize how unsatisfying those two options are.
W
wmscott
Guest
Ed, if it seemed that I was chastising you it was not my intent to do it in a way that was counterproductive or offensive, rather to point out that you have preconceived beliefs that do not allow you to see truth where truth exists. You state that you believe in Sola Scriptura, yet Sacred Scripture itself disproves this belief system as cited in the very same Bible you are probably holding right now. The true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.Hi wmscott, thanks for your reply. You did a good job of chastising me but without any substance. I’m not disappointed that you would rather believe the church Father than me. I showed you that they added to Scripture which is a violation of Scripture so take it or leave. ED O.
Here are some references, however there is much more if you like: Jn 21:25 - not everything is in the Bible. 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 - Paul speaks of oral tradition. Acts 2:42 - early Christians followed apostolic tradition. 2 Pet 3:16 - Bible hard to understand, get distorted. 2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 - more oral tradition. 2 Pet 1:20-21 - against personal interpretation. Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12 - guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Now when you see the word tradition, please do not confuse or equate it to manmade tradition. The tradition referenced here is Sacred Tradition. You need to recognize that there is a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. To the successors of the apostles, Sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. These successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.
What you read was what the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church had to say regarding this very subject, and who are part of the teaching authority of the Church (Scriptural). Even from the beginning there were questions regarding Sacred Scripture, the Church, and Christianity. Christ, or Lord, in his infinite wisdom knew we need these individuals as Fathers, Doctors, and teachers of the Church and Christian faith. What you read was their wisdom on matters and Sacred Scripture that far exceeds you and me. Yes, some paraphrases are not verbatim or word for word from Sacred Scripture. Does that really matter as long as they are conveying the truth as Christ wanted it to be?
You stated I showed you that they added to Scripture which is a violation of Scripture so take it or leave” Therefore, I ask you just what the Early Church Fathers added to the Sacred Scriptures. Using two Catholic Bibles and two Protestant Bibles this is what I come up with:
The NAB (Catholic) John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit”.
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) John 3:5 Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit;
The NASB (Protestant) John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The KJV (Protestant) John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
I fail to see where any of the Church Fathers added the word “AGAIN” to Sacred Scripture. As you will notice, all four of these translations have some sentence structure and wording differences, does this change the truth contained within?
My final point is to be open to the truth, allow yourself to understand it, know it, and to grow in it.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
wmscott
You stated I showed you that they added to Scripture which is a violation of Scripture so take it or leave” Therefore, I ask you just what the Early Church Fathers added to the Sacred Scriptures. Using two Catholic Bibles and two Protestant Bibles this is what I come up with:
The NAB (Catholic) John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit”.
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) John 3:5 Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit;
The NASB (Protestant) John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The KJV (Protestant) John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Hi wmscott, thanks for your reply. I have much to say in rebuttal concerning Sola Scripture/ Traditions but I’ll deal with that later. In one of your prior post, you sent me to a web site concerning early church Fathers. I went there with honest intentions to see what they had to say. After viewing that site, I was surprised to learn what they have said. When I reported back to you, you falsely accused me of nick picking or something to that effect. This is what they had to say: Quote:I fail to see where any of the Church Fathers added the word “AGAIN” to Sacred Scripture. As you will notice, all four of these translations have some sentence structure and wording differences, does this change the truth contained within?
.
Irenaeus: misquotes Jesus, “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” ((again is added)
Tertullian; misquotes Jesus, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life.”
Hippolytus: “If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God.” ???
Clement: misquotes Jesus, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (again is added)
Cyprian of Carthage: misquotes Jesus, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (again is added)
Council of Carthage VII: misquotes Jesus, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (again is added)
Cyril of Jerusalem: He makes one verse out of two. He combines Jh 3:3 with 3;5. which is basically what all of the above are doing also.
Basil the Great: misquotes Jesus, This then is what it means to be “born again of water and Spirit.” (again is added)
Ambrose of Milan: misquotes Jesus, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (again is added)
Gregory of Nyssa: "in the birth by water and the Spirit(Jesus) himself led the way in this birth etc, etc. In essence what he is saying since Jesus was baptized as the firstborn so then shall we be. ( Yes we are to be baptized but not to count on it to save us)
Augustine: misquotes Jesus, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” (again is added)
As you can see, many of them added the word “again” to John 3:5, (Jesus said born of water not born AGAIN of water) We are warned not to add to or subtract from Scriptures per Prov. 30:6, Duet 4:2 & 12:32, 1Cor 4:6,Rev 22:19
In addition to what I say here, The Catholic Duoay/ Rhiems bible says this:Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born AGAIN of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." That’s not the only error in that version of the bible in Acts 2:38, “Do penance” which wrong. It’s been corrected tp “repent” imn The New American Catholic bible. So are the Catholic translators or interpreters always right? NO! So there you have it. Ed O.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Ed please respond to my post. I was nice enough to repost it, and I want you to critique my points. Let’s discuss this. Don’t ignore me. You “re-challenged” me. Let’s share our exegesis. Please go over my above post, read every single bit of it, and deconstruct my interpretation.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
And just as a point, when Jesus commends the man who righted his wrongs and paid those he cheated four times over (something along those lines), he seems to be condoning the fact that repentance involves more than just “I’m sorry.” Hence “do penance” is not nessarily an erroneous translation. But I nitpick. What really bothers me is the fact that you quote fathers very briefly, out of context, and possibly during a homily, in which case perhaps you should give them a bit of poetic liscence? Do you ALWAYS quote word for word when you say Jesus said or did something? Did I not just now commit this “grievous sin” in this very post when referring to Christ? Does it also bother you that that the writer of the gospel of Matthew refers to words by Old Testament prophets, but actually combines the words in a form that neither actually said? Was he wrong for doing this? Or perhaps are you faced with the uncomfortable fact that to the early Christians, being baptized meant being “born again?” But I digress, Ed. What I really want for you to do is have a little intellectual honesty, stop going after the “easy targets” on this thread that let you scatter-blast them with random verses, and deconstruct my post above. Pretty please.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.