"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[LionHeart777]

Jaque D,

This is from a Q & A pg. from this site:

"Q: ‘Did the Vatican ever publish a document stating that women are not supposed to wear head veils to church anymore?’

A: A: No. Women are free to wear a head covering to church if they so desire. It’s just not required.

The document Inter Insigniores by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (October 15, 1976) stated that the 1917 *Code of Canon Law *(canon 1262.2) requiring women to wear veils on their heads was a custom of the period and that such ordinances ‘concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance.’ Thus the obligation ‘no longer has a normative value.’ But, as a sign of respect, women still are required to wear a veil when meeting the pope."

Source: (catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/women) (accessed 10/ 03/ 09)

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I actually just posted on this on another thread. I will copy and paste below:

Depends on who you ask.

1917 Code of Canon Law:

"Canon 1262:

§1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord."

In 1983, Canon 6 states:

"§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917."

The above is often used to argue that women are no longer legally obligated to wear head coverings since the code that upheld was abrogated in 1983. However…

Another argument states that although headcoverings were UPHELD in 1917, the actual focus of canon law was not on establishing their use, merely reaffirming them. Furthermore, in this same 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 26 states:

“Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.”

1983 Canon stated in Canon 21:

"“In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.”

Since headcovering have been around for almost two millenia, let alone 100 years, Canon Law by its own admission does not have the authority to abrogate it. Furthermore, the
Canon 28 says that “Unless it [the 1983 code] makes express mention of them [the issue of head covering]…a law [of the 1983 code] does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs [head coverings], nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.”

Headcoverings, according to this argument, were never meant to be the main focus, were never meant to be abrogated, and according to that same canon law CANNOT be abrogated by Canon Law. I find this argument the more compelling of the two, especially when Paul makes his appeal back to creation, not to a “cultural norm.” Thus sitting apart is not referred to in Scripture with Divine mandate, whereas head coverings are. Catholics are outside of the norm. For this reason, my wife wears a headcovering. Most countries outside of America, they are still heavily used; particularly Asian countries.

 

[LionHeart777]

hmm.

It seems like something that should be easy to answer in an organization like the CC.

To me it seems like a discipline that could be “bound or loosed.” But I am not even yet a lowly Catechumen

 

[EdOsiecki]

Hi All, John 3:5 states, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water (physical birth Flesh) and Sprit. v6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” ( emphasis added) This verse has absolutely nothing to do with baptism. That’s why Jesus reiterates in v6 Flesh gives birth to Flesh while Spirit gives birth to spirit. In v5 Jesus explains the two parts of a person physical part( flesh largest organ of a person’s body which contains 80% of water) and the spirit part of a person. People are referred to as “water” in PS 144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2 and Rev. 17:15.

One does NOT and I say again does NOT get born again by baptism. A person gets born again by BELIEVING in Jesus. Jesus confirms what I say in v18 “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, (born again) but whoever does not believe stands condemned etc.” (emphasis added) Proof of this is in Acts. 10:44 While Peter was still speaking the gospel to Cornelius and his group the Holy Spirit came upon them because they believed the gospel that Peter preached. They where later baptized. Why? To illustrate their willingness to turn (repent) to God. Exactly what John says his baptism is all about Mat3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance etc.”. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

geometer
Jesus spoke in John 3 about entering the kingdom of God by being born from above. The gospel is about the kingdom of God

I say Amen! Amen! and Amen! ED O.

 

[juliamajor]

why does chapter 3 have to be either/or? why can’t it be both/and? If scripture was as flat and without depth, and as clear as day we wouldn’t be having this discussion.But since scripture is of great depth much can be gleaned from each and every verse . since every generation interprets it according to their times and needs scripture continues to breath grow and have life.Scripture is not stagnant, it does not stand still.It moves , it enlivens , it instructs,informs,encourages growth, requires depth and pushes us on the road to salvation.

 

[PJM]

=geometer;5764889]This is just another example of how you stonewall.

Do you know why you stonewall discussions about the scriptures? And please do not answer my question with another question, there has been enough of that kind or rudeness in this thread.

Hi Friend,

My computer crashed and i’ve been off line since Thursday. If you’d care to share what is is you’re seeking, I promise a direct and chairatble responce.

Love and prayers

Pat

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

why does chapter 3 have to be either/or? why can’t it be both/and? If scripture was as flat and without depth, and as clear as day we wouldn’t be having this discussion.But since scripture is of great depth much can be gleaned from each and every verse . since every generation interprets it according to their times and needs scripture continues to breath grow and have life.Scripture is not stagnant, it does not stand still.It moves , it enlivens , it instructs,informs,encourages growth, requires depth and pushes us on the road to salvation.

There’s a story of one of the Desert Fathers who asked his students the meaning of a Text of Scripture, each one had a different answer. Except for one student who said he didn’t know. The Desert Father was very pleased with him.

(There are many levels on which to interpret a text.)

 

[wmscott]

There are a lot of personal interpretations here regarding this subject. My interpretation is that the chapter is discussing Baptism. There are those who have stated that basically you do not need baptism and all you need is to believe in Christ or any of the various fallible versions on what to believe. In the end I am going to defer to some very astute individuals who are far more qualified to provide the necessary insight regarding this subject. What I find gladdening is that my interpretation is in line with theirs. Here is what they had to say.

 

[EdOsiecki]

wmscott
There are a lot of personal interpretations here regarding this subject. My interpretation is that the chapter is discussing Baptism. There are those who have stated that basically you do not need baptism and all you need is to believe in Christ or any of the various fallible versions on what to believe. In the end I am going to defer to some very astute individuals who are far more qualified to provide the necessary insight regarding this subject. What I find gladdening is that my interpretation is in line with theirs. "Here is what they had to say.

Hi wmscott, I went where you told me to go to hear what your astute individuals had to say and I was amazed as to what I found. As for me, I prefer to read what the Bible teaches rather than to risk my eternal life on what some men wrote.

Irenaeus: misquotes Jesus,“Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kngdom of heaven.” ------ (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

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 aman 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)

This is what Jesus said in John 3:3,“Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” foot note “born from above” We know that our physical bodies cannot be reborn , so this means our Spirit has to be born again. Even Nicodemus understood that when he asked that of Jesus.

Jesus then explains what he means:“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.” (born of water physical birth flesh, NOT born AGAIN of water like all of the above men misquote. in v 6 Jesus reiterates, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.” This verse makes it very clear that the born of water means physical birth.

What really surprised me when I read all of the above comments by the astute individuals as you call them, was NOT EVEN ONE of them mentioned that we are saved by the GOSPEL of Jesus. ------- What is the gospel?------ Paul very clearily explains in 1 Cor. 15:2, By this GOSPELyou are SAVED, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you, Otherwise, you have BELIEVED in vain. ( BELIEVED and not water baptism?) v3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:Christ died for our sins----v4 that he was burried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. ------- Now compare that to Jesus in Mark 16:15, Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the GOSPEL to every creature. v16 He that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH not shall be damned.” It’s the GOSPEL that saves. Baptism is our showing of repentance and starting a new life in God. There’s nothing in the water that saves a person to become born again. It’s a righteous act like Jesus says it is Mat3:15 ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I’d very much like for you to go back in this thread, actually read the posts, then critique my lengthy treatment of this passage. Because you are ignoring all kinds of context. Not to mention the fact that there are varying manuscripts Ed, not all of which agree. Also keep in mind, that being born again DID mean believing and getting baptized to the early fathers, and so that is why the may have used the word “again.” I would take their very early interpretation over yours, simply because the apostolic fathers had access to the correct interpretation.

You ignore that the early Church understood things in a sacramental sense as well, and so Jesus’ own baptism did indeed provide the model for us to follow, with water and the Spirit. You have utterly ignored the posts of other members on this thread, while stating your own which has already been pretty adequately dealt with.

 

[panevino]

Hi wmscott, I went where you told me to go to hear what your astute individuals had to say and I was amazed as to what I found. As for me, I prefer to read what the Bible teaches rather than to risk my eternal life on what some men wrote.

Irenaeus: misquotes Jesus,“Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kngdom of heaven.” ------ (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

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 aman 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)

This is what Jesus said in John 3:3,“Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” foot note “born from above” We know that our physical bodies cannot be reborn , so this means our Spirit has to be born again. Even Nicodemus understood that when he asked that of Jesus.

Jesus then explains what he means:“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.” (born of water physical birth flesh, NOT born AGAIN of water like all of the above men misquote. in v 6 Jesus reiterates, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.” This verse makes it very clear that the born of water means physical birth.

What really surprised me when I read all of the above comments by the astute individuals as you call them, was NOT EVEN ONE of them mentioned that we are saved by the GOSPEL of Jesus. ------- What is the gospel?------ Paul very clearily explains in 1 Cor. 15:2, By this GOSPELyou are SAVED, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you, Otherwise, you have BELIEVED in vain. ( BELIEVED and not water baptism?) v3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:Christ died for our sins----v4 that he was burried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. ------- Now compare that to Jesus in Mark 16:15, Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the GOSPEL to every creature. v16 He that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH not shall be damned.” It’s the GOSPEL that saves. Baptism is our showing of repentance and starting a new life in God. There’s nothing in the water that saves a person to become born again. It’s a righteous act like Jesus says it is Mat3:15 ED O.

you have some set of corleone’s to dismiss the guys from Ambrose on. These guys were probably at the council of Rome etc ~380 and following councils that agreed on which books would be in the NT( and given the honour of being guided by the holy spirit)
I’m only a begineer here so I ma

also verse 3:6 to me is actually saying that we are not worthy following our natural birth and that we are following the 2nd birth with water and spirit. I don’t see your interpretation at all

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[EdOsiecki]

panevino
you have some set of corleone’s to dismiss the guys from Ambrose on. These guys were probably at the council of Rome etc ~380 and following councils that agreed on which books would be in the NT( and given the honour of being guided by the holy spirit)
I’m only a begineer here so I ma

Hi panevino, thanks for your response. Jesus said in Mat4:4, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’.”--------What Jesus did NOT say was," Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Ambrose and guys along with the council of Rome." ------- We are commanded to obey God’s word so that we are not deceived! ------ Acts 17:11 The Bereans checked the Scriptures to see if Paul was speaking accordingly.-------2 Tim 3:16, " All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteouness, v17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." --------Lk 16:19-31, when the rich man was being tormented by the flames in hell, he told Abraham to send someone to warn his 5 brothers of this tormenting place. He was told that the Scriptures are available to his brothers and they can read them anytime they want to. ------- It’s our own responsibility to follow and obey the Scriptures. ED O.

 

[PJM]

=LionHeart777=Regarding Catholics “rejecting” John ch. 3 (if this was meant in the literal sense), they do not as John’s Gospel including ch. 3 is in the Catholic Canon.

However, I think that whoever is making that argument is trying to say that Catholics “reject” it not in the literal sense but that Catholics “reject what it teaches.”

To that argument I would anwer that:

Catholics reject** erronious** interpretations of John ch. 3, those which contradict the unanimous consent of the Early Church Fathers. Catholics actually uphold the orthodox and historical interpretation of it.

**Actually friends, St. John Himself rejects John 3:16 in the same Book and Chapter:thumbsup: [The much valued, especially by the Protestant Community; " God gave His only Son …"]

John 3: 5 and John 3:36**

Love and prayers

 

[wmscott]

Hi wmscott, I went where you told me to go to hear what your astute individuals had to say and I was amazed as to what I found. As for me, I prefer to read what the Bible teaches rather than to risk my eternal life on what some men wrote.

Irenaeus: misquotes Jesus,“Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kngdom of heaven.” ------ (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

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 aman 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)

This is what Jesus said in John 3:3,“Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” foot note “born from above” We know that our physical bodies cannot be reborn , so this means our Spirit has to be born again. Even Nicodemus understood that when he asked that of Jesus.

Jesus then explains what he means:“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.” (born of water physical birth flesh, NOT born AGAIN of water like all of the above men misquote. in v 6 Jesus reiterates, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.” This verse makes it very clear that the born of water means physical birth.

What really surprised me when I read all of the above comments by the astute individuals as you call them, was NOT EVEN ONE of them mentioned that we are saved by the GOSPEL of Jesus. ------- What is the gospel?------ Paul very clearily explains in 1 Cor. 15:2, By this GOSPELyou are SAVED, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you, Otherwise, you have BELIEVED in vain. ( BELIEVED and not water baptism?) v3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:Christ died for our sins----v4 that he was burried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. ------- Now compare that to Jesus in Mark 16:15, Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the GOSPEL to every creature. v16 He that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH not shall be damned.” It’s the GOSPEL that saves. Baptism is our showing of repentance and starting a new life in God. There’s nothing in the water that saves a person to become born again. It’s a righteous act like Jesus says it is Mat3:15 ED O.

These astute individuals as you say are the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the church. These astute individuals are far more qualified and enlighten to speak on matters of faith far more than you or I will ever be. The problem is you are applying your own personal opinion and elevating yourself to their status. What makes you think that I would listen to you over them? In these matters I would defer to them in a heart beat if I had questions or need additional insight. You claim that all you have to do is read the Bible, what happens when you are wrong? What teaching body do you turn to when you need guidance? From your post I can that you went there with preconceived notions and really did nothing but look for fault and nit pick a word hare and there. You missed a valuable opportunity to really learn something. Instead you continue to plod on with blinders because to see the truth is to admit that the Catholic Church is right. Amazing that you can not see truth no matter where it exists. I guess truth only exists in your special views of Christianity.

 

[panevino]

you have some set of corleone’s to dismiss the guys from Ambrose on. These guys were probably at the council of Rome etc ~380 and following councils that agreed on which books would be in the NT( and given the honour of being guided by the holy spirit)
I’m only a begineer here so I ma

also verse 3:6 to me is actually saying that we are not worthy following our natural birth and that we are following the 2nd birth with water and spirit. I don’t see your interpretation at all

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Hi panevino, thanks for your response. Jesus said in Mat4:4, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’.”--------What Jesus did NOT say was," Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Ambrose and guys along with the council of Rome." ------- We are commanded to obey God’s word so that we are not deceived! ------ Acts 17:11 The Bereans checked the Scriptures to see if Paul was speaking accordingly.-------2 Tim 3:16, " All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteouness, v17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." --------Lk 16:19-31, when the rich man was being tormented by the flames in hell, he told Abraham to send someone to warn his 5 brothers of this tormenting place. He was told that the Scriptures are available to his brothers and they can read them anytime they want to. ------- It’s our own responsibility to follow and obey the Scriptures. ED O.

HI Ed,
yeah that goes without saying.
I understand the following of what you are saying.
in verse john 3:5 you seperate it as follows
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. NIV
ie: “born of water” being natural birth from the womb
& born of “spirit” being a true belief in God as in a spiritual baptism.
hope i got that right.

then you also follow that by reading john 3:6 as confirmation of this interpretation.
flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit NIV
ie: natural birth (1st birth) in the flesh is ‘born of water’ & 2nd birth is a re birth of spirit

hope i got that right.

on top of this you also consider the water component of baptism as merely a righteous act

nothing in the water that saves a person to become born again. It’s a righteous act like Jesus says it is Mat3:15 ED O.

however i note
Mat 3:15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. NIV - jesus seems to clearly say that the water baptism that will be given by John will “fulfill all righteousness”, sounds a bit more significant to me than merely a righteous act.

and then there is the versus that talk about burial with jesus in baptism and rising and washing.

• We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.* rom 6:4 NIV

*And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ * acts 22:16

• And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more* acts 8:36 - KJV

it is offically called baptism in this verse after being in the water, not after the declaration of belief.

 

[krakee]

Hi EdOsiecki, I’d just like to point out a few things in your response that maybe you haven’t considered.

Jesus said in Mat4:4, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’.”--------What Jesus did NOT say was," Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Ambrose and guys along with the council of Rome."

It also says in Jn 21:25, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

And then in 2 Thess 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

We as Catholics believe in the Word of God just as Jesus said in Mat4:4… not just what was eventually written down.

Acts 17:11 The Bereans checked the Scriptures to see if Paul was speaking accordingly

What were the Bereans checking… the Old Testament. Why were they checking it… perhaps they weren’t familiar with the Scriptures and that such claims were being made in them. Could it be they did not fully understand what was written and they needed an interpreter to help them. Again this only speaks of the Old Testament.

2 Tim 3:16, " All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteouness, v17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Amen to this but do you know what Scriptures were available at the time this was being written and to which this is referring? It was the Old Testament. Using your logic, are we to go by the Old Testament alone? I doubt that you believe that.

Lk 16:19-31, when the rich man was being tormented by the flames in hell, he told Abraham to send someone to warn his 5 brothers of this tormenting place. He was told that the Scriptures are available to his brothers and they can read them anytime they want to. ------- It’s our own responsibility to follow and obey the Scriptures.

Amen again but if we were to take this passage and apply like you’re intending, we’d be leaving out the New Testament. Perhaps you haven’t considered what you’re implying… perhaps you have.

Again, we as Catholics believe in the Word of God… not just the part that was eventually written down, decided upon and preserved by the Catholic Church throughout the ages.

 

[EdOsiecki]

wmscott
These astute individuals as you say are the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the church. These astute individuals are far more qualified and enlighten to speak on matters of faith far more than you or I will ever be. The problem is you are applying your own personal opinion and elevating yourself to their status. What makes you think that I would listen to you over them? In these matters I would defer to them in a heart beat if I had questions or need additional insight. You claim that all you have to do is read the Bible, what happens when you are wrong? What teaching body do you turn to when you need guidance? From your post I can that you went there with preconceived notions and really did nothing but look for fault and nit pick a word hare and there. You missed a valuable opportunity to really learn something. Instead you continue to plod on with blinders because to see the truth is to admit that the Catholic Church is right. Amazing that you can not see truth no matter where it exists. I guess truth only exists in your special views of Christianity

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.

 

[EdOsiecki]

panevino
HI Ed,
yeah that goes without saying.
I understand the following of what you are saying.
in verse john 3:5 you seperate it as follows
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. NIV
ie: “born of water” being natural birth from the womb
& born of “spirit” being a true belief in God as in a spiritual baptism.
hope i got that right.

then you also follow that by reading john 3:6 as confirmation of this interpretation.
flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit NIV
ie: natural birth (1st birth) in the flesh is ‘born of water’ & 2nd birth is a re birth of spirit

hope i got that right.

Hi panevino, thanks for your reply. You have it exactly right. ED O.

 

[Christian_Sr]

**Actually friends, St. John Himself rejects John 3:16 in the same Book and Chapter:thumbsup: [The much valued, especially by the Protestant Community; " God gave His only Son …"]

John 3: 5 and John 3:36**

Love and prayers

After reading your response, I went back to the scripture and re-read those two verses. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you at this point, but I would to know why you chose those particular verses. In my opinion, i may be wrong, but 3:36 seems to go along with 3:16. I’m not quite sure how to apply 3:5 though.