"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
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

Hi Nathan, I hear you very clearly and I’m very familiar with what you say on post #91 but before I challenge you, to me, you seem to appear as a very proud peacock who wants be superior by intimidation. As you refer to me and state on post 134 “you really been arguing in circles”----On post 132 also as you refer to me, “better yet, lay aside your pride.” If you call that Christian love, you can keep it. In my 80 yrs. I’ve learned to respect people even if we disagree. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed, I’m not trying to be superior through intimidation. I’m trying to discuss a passage. The problem is, you do not want to discuss the passage in context, with historical/patristic witness. That’s all very well and good Ed, I even agreed to focus on JUST that passage, the way you like to argue. It goes against every rule of debate, it even goes against protestants own method of interpreting the Bible with the Bible, but I agreed to it. The simple fact is, since we are pointing out what we have “noticed” about the other person, is this: You go after people with weaker arguments. Not everybody is going to have the answer to a question on the tip of their tongue. Some people are stronger than others. For instance, my strengths are the gospels, justification, Mary, etc. My weaknesses are the Papacy, for instance. I am currently studying it and it isn’t a strength of mine. I tend to learn more when an intelligent Protestant states his case clearly. I truly appreciate a point made in opposition to mine that makes me stop, think, and re-learn what I thought I already knew even better. When I do the same to you, you conveniently ignore it, then continue to spout nonsense that has already been addressed. If you don’t like it being called nonsense, then have the ability to defend your beliefs if you are going to decry the validity of ours. What I have “noticed” about you is that you state something that is either ignorant or oversimplified, then pull the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LLALALALA I can’t hear you.” Then you proceed to continue the very same comments that have already been addressed. You ignore the careful, well constructed posts written to you, whether by myself or someone else (there are quite a few good ones), and focus on the people that give you a 1 or 2 verse response.

You make empty challenges (which in itself is rather juvenile) but don’t follow through on them. It started out with a simple post. I asked you nicely to critique my interpretation. Check my posts on other threads, Ed, I am quite capable of maintaining Christian charity. But when you pull cheap tricks and avoid solid arguments because your exegesis doesn’t stand the test, or perhaps because you simply don’t have an answer, don’t expect a lot of respect from me. You came to a Catholic forum to state your opinion about Catholic beliefs, and you said they were false. Be prepared, Ed, to expect intelligent resistance. And be prepared to back your beliefs up. You have not responded to one. single. question. You know what I do when I don’t have the answer Ed? I say I don’t have it.

I just had to ask Randy last night about Paul’s ministry, because I didn’t know (Randy is awesome by the way), and I stated on the thread I wasn’t the best person to answer the question. Ignorance isn’t a crime, if you are open to truth. You however, make ignorant statements. You don’t defend them with carefully made exegesis (and let’s face it Ed, that’s all you have as a Protestant), and you don’t acknowledge the exegesis of others. I took time out of my day to proclaim Catholic truth, very carefully and in a way that will perhaps enlighten you as to why we believe the way we do. I gave a more indepth answer because that’s called respect; you assume the other person is intelligent, and that they would want an actual answer truly explaining the belief rather than a simple proof-text that assumes too much. You ignore it, and focus on people that maybe don’t have as indepth an answer, or don’t want to waste their time answering your statements. That’s called intellectual dishonesty Ed. Some would call it cowardice. At any rate, it’s impolite. You don’t basically insult somebody by telling them they are wrong, then walk out the door. This is a forum. You should be prepared to discuss. I was charitable, now admittedly I am irritated. Anybody that has followed the flow of this thread can probably see why.

 

[chukm8]

The word “Believe” coming from the Greek connotes not only a simple belief and faith but an obedient faith. So whenever you read the word “Believe” in the bible, read it as it was meant to be read. Go back to the stories about Abraham to see what true faith and belief entailed. Abraham always believed AND obeyed God. You must be born again entails being baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. It’s belief and obedience combined.
Sola Fide is unbiblical.

God bless you!

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
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.

Hi Nathan, speaking about honesty, you picked up on the Do Penace mistranlation of the Catholic Duoay/Rhiems bible, but why did you fail to comment on the John 3:5 added word “again” which is not nitpick but violates Scripture rules and which is the topic of contention on post 138.

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?

I’m sorry that you are bothered, but I’m convinced that you can rationalize yourself out of every situation. Your a master at it. But isn’t ironic that all of the mentioned Fathers are all adding the same word “again” which is not in the Scriptures except in the faulty Duoay/Rhiems bible. And by the way, I did not quote them out of context. I quoted them verbatim as it’s being presented on the Catholic web page. IMPRIMATUR Robert H. Bron Bishop of San Diego.go to WmScott’s post 89 click on “here” and check it out for yourself.

Or perhaps are you faced with the uncomfortable fact that to the early Christians, being baptized meant being “born again?”

NO! You have it wrong “again”, I’m not uncomfortable about what the early Christians believed, I’m concerned about the correct interpretation of Scripture that effects me and others who desire salvation. You don’t add words to the Bible. Born of water, is not Born AGAIN of water. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed the definition of quoting somebody out of context is pretty much what you are doing. You take single quotes, sometimes not even the full quotes, and try to say they are quoting Scripture directly.

MY point is that perhaps they are NOT quoting Scripture directly. Perhaps they are giving a homily. Perhaps, Ed, they didn’t have access to EVERY SINGLE manuscript, as we have the luxury of doing now, and COMPARING them for that one little word you want to hold onto.

Also, I want you to look very carefully at verse 7 of John ch 3:

"Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’ "

Now the above phrase can also be translated as “born again.” Now since it can in fact be translated both ways, does it occur to you that perhaps the fathers were teaching the full, more general teaching of Jesus, instead of word for word verse 5? Is that at least possible? If the above verse can be translated “Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘you must be born again’”, and just prior to that verse he says “born of water and the spirit,” does it not at least strike you as POSSIBLE that the fathers are referring to an overarching theme of John 3, which is (what?) being born again (how?) of water and the spirit?

And as I believe I have pointed out before, your interpretation is no better than the fathers, and has many reasons for being less reliable. This is like arguing that the NIV has added to or taken away from the Bible, when I find that it consistently is less faithful to the Greek.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
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.

Hi Nathan, it doesn’t say Jesus was baptized with water and SPIRIT. John in Mat 3:11 states he baptizes with water for repentance. No Spirit. Jesus confirms it in Acts 1:5, " For John baptized with water" Jesus was baptized as a righteous act for us to follow same Mat 3:15. When Jesus came out of the water, then the dove came down on Him to show John that He will be the one who will baptize in the Spirit John 1:33.

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,

NO! Mark is not linking the tearing of the temple’s veil (CURTAIN) to baptism, that’s your imagination working again. The word schidzo for opening the heaven as well as the tearing the temple’s CURTAIN signifies that now Most Holy Room is open (schidzo) to saved born again believers Heb 10:19-20, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus v20 by a new and living way opened for us through the CURTAIN, that is, His body.”----- Prior to the tearing of the CURTAIN only the High Priest could enter the Holy Place and only annually to sprinkle blood for sins. In plain English the Old convenant is over with and the New covenant begins (opens schidzo) with Jesus as our High Priests in Heaven and we can now go directly to Him.

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.

Baptism is not linked here. It’s your imagination working again. I show the necessary Scripture above where’s your Scripture? Baptism is linked to salvation for an outward sign of repentance as a righteous act as Jesus states in Mat3;15.

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.

Jesus did not need to get saved (born again) through bapism as you preach, he sets the example as a righteous act.

I’ve 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

Jesus never told us to follow and obey what the early church Fathers believed and did. As I have already showed you on another post, they misquoted Scripture. John 16:13, Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth , is come, he will guide you into all truth." Should this verse be excluded from the Bible, so that we can rely on church Fathers? ED O.

 

[wmscott]

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:

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.

I tried, but you are not listening or seeing any ones point of view but your own. You even cherry picked my response to you to put forward to you and total missed what I was saying. You are so bent on seeing half truths I do not know what else to tell you. You were provided the ECFs and scriptural references but ignore them just to throw back some other verses out of context. Sacred Scripture must be taken in its entirety, and in context, not cherry picked verses to support your own personal fallible interpretations. I guess others will probably continue to try and put forth the truth for you. I hope that you will see it.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Ed the definition of quoting somebody out of context is pretty much what you are doing. You take single quotes, sometimes not even the full quotes, and try to say they are quoting Scripture directly.

Why are you falsely accusing me here. I told you to go to post 89 click on “here” and when the web page comes up you will see that I quoted verbatim exactly as they are being quoted. Capish. ( do you understand)

MY point is that perhaps they are NOT quoting Scripture directly. Perhaps they are giving a homily. Perhaps, Ed, they didn’t have access to EVERY SINGLE manuscript, as we have the luxury of doing now, and COMPARING them for that one little word you want to hold onto.

This, I can understand your point. But all of them making the same error by adding the word “again”? I know you can do a good job in rationalizing but let’s be reasonable.

Now the above phrase can also be translated as “born again.” Now since it can in fact be translated both ways, does it occur to you that perhaps the fathers were teaching the full, more general teaching of Jesus, instead of word for word verse 5? Is that at least possible? If the above verse can be translated “Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘you must be born again’”, and just prior to that verse he says “born of water and the spirit,” does it not at least strike you as POSSIBLE that the fathers are referring to an overarching theme of John 3, which is (what?) being born again (how?) of water and the spirit?

That’s exactly the problem with their interpretation, they are combinding v3 into v 5 making the water appear like baptism when they add the word “again” V 5 has nothing at all to do with baptism. Jesus is explaining the duality of man, physical birth and soul. Then in v 6 Jesus reiterates what he had just meant, Flesh is flesh and Sprit is spirit otherwise there’s no purpose for v 6. If v 5 means baptism it would be then logical for Jesus in verse 6 to tell Nicodemus go see John and get baptized that will get you born again…

And as I believe I have pointed out before, your interpretation is no better than the fathers, and has many reasons for being less reliable. This is like arguing that the NIV has added to or taken away from the Bible, when I find that it consistently is less faithful to the Greek

Hogwash! is that the best that you can come up with here. I’m not impressed.ED O.

 

[wmscott]

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:

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.

The other thing that I really find incredible is that you continue to accuse the ECFs ( all that you listed) of being in error, with all respect who are you, by what authority do you have to sit in judgment of these great minds of the Church. Are you claiming divine inspiration to know all of Gods truths, that you have all the divine truths above all of the Churches ECFs, Doctors of the Church, the Apostles, Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests and that the entire history of Christs Church and Christianity has gotten wrong for the last 2000 years. Because this seems exactly what you are doing.

 

[EdOsiecki]

wmscott
I tried, but you are not listening or seeing any ones point of view but your own. You even cherry picked my response to you to put forward to you and total missed what I was saying.

Hi wmscott, what your saying is not clear to me. Tell me what you mean by cherry picked?

You are so bent on seeing half truths I do not know what else to tell you.

Keep talking. I’ll listen. Give me the half truths that I missed.

You were provided the ECFs and scriptural references but ignore them just to throw back some other verses out of context Sacred Scripture must be taken in its entirety, and in context, not cherry picked verses to support your own personal fallible interpretations

.I thought we were through with cherry picking above. But go ahead give me an example.

I guess others will probably continue to try and put forth the truth for you. I hope that you will see it

I believe that you may have this backwards? ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

wmscott
The other thing that I really find incredible is that you continue to accuse the ECFs ( all that you listed) of being in error, with all respect who are you, by what authority do you have to sit in judgment of these great minds of the Church. Are you claiming divine inspiration to know all of Gods truths, that you have all the divine truths above all of the Churches ECFs, Doctors of the Church, the Apostles, Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests and that the entire history of Christs Church and Christianity has gotten wrong for the last 2000 years. Because this seems exactly what you are doing

Hi wmScott, These are nice words but no substance. Aren’t you thrilled that Jesus picked non-qualified men to be apostles like Peter, a fisherman, who Jesus once accused him of being “dull”. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan, in order for you to better understand why we can’t be born again by baptism, I put together a chronology of God’s plan of salvation for the whole human race starting with Adam and Eve. This may help you to better understand John 3:5.

              IN THE O. T. ANIMAL’S BLOOD----N. T. JESUS’ BLOOD FORGIVES SINS!

God’s salvation plan for ALL mankind is twofold. (a) Substitutionary death (b) Blood for atonement (a) Instead of people dying because of sin, in the O. T. animals were substituted. In the N. T. Jesus is substituted. (b) in the O. T. animal’s blood for atonement, N. T. Jesus’ Blood.---- AS FOLLOWS: Adam & Eve were re-clothed from leaves to with animal’s skins. WHY? Animals died/blood. From Moses’ time on same thing. N. T. Jesus our Lamb died /Blood. Mat. 26:28, Jesus said, ”This is my BLOOD of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the FORGIVENESS of sins.” ----Acts 20:28, “—church of God which He bought with His BLOOD.”----Rom. 3:25, “God presented Him as a sacrifice—through faith in His BLOOD.”----Rom. 5:9, “Since we have now been justified by His BLOOD–.”----Eph. 1:7, “In Him we have redemption through His BLOOD.”---- Eph. 2:13, “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the BLOOD of Christ.”----Col. 1:20, “—by making peace through His BLOOD shed on the cross.“ ----Heb. 9:12, Jesus, “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own BLOOD.”----Heb. 10:19, As a result, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus.”----1 Pet. 1:19, We were not redeemed by silver or gold, “but with the precious BLOOD of Christ, a Lamb without blemish or defect.”----Rev. 1:5, “To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His BLOOD.”----Rev. 7:14, “ These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the BLOOD of the Lamb.”–

PLEASE NOTE; Jesus above did not say, “This is my BLOOD and WATER BAPTISM of the new covenant, which is poured out for the FORGIVENESS of sins.---- PLEASE NOTE: the past tense we were bought, redeemed, justified, freed of sins by the BLOOD-----In the O. T. they had original sins too, where they baptized? NO! They entered the community by circumcision. In the N. T. Baptism is exactly what John says it does, he ought to know why God sent him Mat 3:11, “I baptize you with water for REPENTANCE. -----OF COURSE God wants us to be baptized, He even commands it but it’s to show our desire to start a new life in Christ repentance and our entrance to the Christian faith.----- As you can see starting with Adam & Eve, BLOOD is the ONLY atonement for sins required by God as Heb 9:22, states, “without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins. -----Why then is Peter in Acts 2:38 saying be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins? Is there a contradiction? NO and there can‘t be! Peter combines, repent, belief in Jesus and baptism all lumped together into one statement. In v41 “Those who accepted his message (what message? The gospel of Jesus) were baptized. Their sins were forgiven by the belief in the gospel not the baptism In v37 the people were cut to heart by the message.------Paul in Acts 22:16, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, CALLING ON HIS NAME. It’s the calling on His name that washes sins away. Sins aren’t physical that can be washed away, they have to be confessed an act of repentance.-----1 Pet. 3:21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the PLEDGE of a good conscience toward God.” It’s the pledge of good conscience (repentance turning to God) is what baptism does.-----TO SUMMARIZE: Nowhere in the entire Bible are sins forgiven by any other means accept through BLOOD. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Now we are getting somewhere

“Hi Nathan, it doesn’t say Jesus was baptized with water and SPIRIT. John in Mat 3:11 states he baptizes with water for repentance. No Spirit. Jesus confirms it in Acts 1:5, " For John baptized with water” Jesus was baptized as a righteous act for us to follow same Mat 3:15. When Jesus came out of the water, then the dove came down on Him to show John that He will be the one who will baptize in the Spirit John 1:33."

Response: That’s right Ed. John only baptized with water. Then when Jesus gets baptized, something special happens. He turns it into a sacrament with the presence of the Spirit. THEN he says “be born of water and the spirit,” and one must be “born again.” Then he goes out and starts baptizing people. The same as John? No because he does it with the Spirit. But he, and the apostles after him, baptize with water. John himself just said it was different. According to my belief, Jesus took literal water and and the presence of the Spirit. Then he tells us to be born of literal water and the spirit. He also says to be born again (can’t imagine why the fathers would put two and two together). Then he goes out having his apostles baptize people with more literal water. In YOUR belief, he uses literal water, doesn’t mean literal water, then goes out baptizing with literal water. Come on Ed. That wouldn’t make sense. And the thing is, he IS baptizing with the Spirit. But through water Ed. END.

“NO! Mark is not linking the tearing of the temple’s veil (CURTAIN) to baptism, that’s your imagination working again. The word schidzo for opening the heaven as well as the tearing the temple’s CURTAIN signifies that now Most Holy Room is open (schidzo) to saved born again believers Heb 10:19-20, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus v20 by a new and living way opened for us through the CURTAIN, that is, His body.”----- Prior to the tearing of the CURTAIN only the High Priest could enter the Holy Place and only annually to sprinkle blood for sins. In plain English the Old convenant is over with and the New covenant begins (opens schidzo) with Jesus as our High Priests in Heaven and we can now go directly to Him.”

Response: Correct Ed. At the EXACT MOMENT Jesus dies, the word schidzo is used. At the moment Jesus is baptized, Schidzo is used. Nowhere else. Romans 6:3-4: " Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life." So Mark makes an interesting connection (words matter) in the Greek, Paul makes an explicit connection, what more do you want? END

“Jesus did not need to get saved (born again) through bapism as you preach, he sets the example as a righteous act.”

Response: Correct, he took a righteous act and added a twist. Basically he fulfilled a type, Ed. I’m not saying he needed to be saved. END

“Jesus never told us to follow and obey what the early church Fathers believed and did. As I have already showed you on another post, they misquoted Scripture. John 16:13, Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth , is come, he will guide you into all truth.” Should this verse be excluded from the Bible, so that we can rely on church Fathers?"

Response: Jesus said that those who accept the ones that he sent accept him. So we accept the apostles, but not the bishops the apostles ordained? We have multiple Christian attestation that Ignatius was an apostle of John and then ordained by the apostles. Plus he had the option of bouncing his interpretations of John himself. Can’t say the same for you, Ed. END

“That’s exactly the problem with their interpretation, they are combinding v3 into v 5 making the water appear like baptism when they add the word “again” V 5 has nothing at all to do with baptism. Jesus is explaining the duality of man, physical birth and soul. Then in v 6 Jesus reiterates what he had just meant, Flesh is flesh and Sprit is spirit otherwise there’s no purpose for v 6. If v 5 means baptism it would be then logical for Jesus in verse 6 to tell Nicodemus go see John and get baptized that will get you born again…”

Response: Jesus says be born of water and the Spirit. Then Jesus says to be born again. Jesus said to be born again of water and the spirit. 1+1 does not equal 2 Ed? The fathers weren’t writing Scripture, they were stating what Jesus said. And you’re right, he didn’t have John baptize Nicodemus, because John doesn’t baptize with water and the Spirit. Just water Ed. But Jesus then went out using water. Hmmm, so what’s the difference? Could it be the Spirit? Considering the spirit is not used in John’s baptism, could that mean it is “of the flesh” and merely a symbol? hmmm… END

Hogwash! is that the best that you can come up with here. I’m not impressed.

Response: No it’s not the best I can do, that’s why I implied it would be a ridiculous argument.END

“Nowhere in the entire Bible are sins forgiven by any other means accept through BLOOD.”

Response: Correct. And the only way the effects of that blood is applied is through baptism, as Paul and Jesus made clear already. Believing with just mental assent don’t make it so. Ya gotsta be baptized. END

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

1 Pet. 3:21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the PLEDGE of a good conscience toward God.”

Ed. That is an absolutely horrible translation. I mean truly terrible. Get rid of that Bible immediately.

1 Peter 3:18-21: “For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the Spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the Ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

“Symbolize” isn’t the right word, and you ripped the verse from context Ed. However, even though I suspect your translation and your motives are denominationally bent, I did not accuse you of adding to Scripture as you so uncharitably did with the Apostolic fathers. The actual word that you translate as “symbolize,” in the Greek, means “fulfillment of type” in the Greek. Nice try. And baptism isn’t merely a bath. That’s what John was giving. A nice symbolic bath. Jesus baptized with water and the Spirit. That’s why Peter is telling you what baptism is not: a mere washing. What it is: it’s what saves you. It’s a pledge. The BAPTISM IS the pledge. Belief. Jesus already equates belief with obedience. Again, 1+1 = 2

Also in the gospel of Mark, Jesus says “Repent, and be baptized.” He clearly distinguishes the two. Both are necessary.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
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.

Hi Nathan, are you saying here that Jesus went out to baptize people too? If so, it’s a big NO! Concerning,“he means baptism for salvation” Another big NO! Read what I posted on 152 ED O.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Nathan, are you saying here that Jesus went out to baptize people too? If so, it’s a big NO! Concerning,“he means baptism for salvation” Another big NO! Read what I posted on 152 ED O.

The Necessity of Water Baptism Proved from Scripture

The New Testament writers indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation in the following verses of scripture.

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:37-39
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Titus 3:4-7
4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

1 Peter 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

"Hi Nathan, are you saying here that Jesus went out to baptize people too? If so, it’s a big NO! Concerning,“he means baptism for salvation” Another big NO! Read what I posted on 152 ED O. "

Response: Yes Ed. That’s EXACTLY what I am saying. The same way Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to his disciples, he gave them the power to baptize. They are doing it in HIS name. Apparently, they are so united in purpose that even though it specifies that Jesus himself did not baptize, it refers to “Jesus” as being the one responsible. John then says that Jesus does not “ration” the gift of His spirit. But oh wait, Ed, Jesus is having them baptize with WATER! That must mean He is baptizing with gasp water and the Spirit! Now I want you also to keep in mind that Scripture could be ambiguous In the first few verses of John 4 when it says Jesus isn’t baptizing anyone. Why? Well how do you know that John doesn’t mean he’s not baptizing anybody right at the instance when the Pharisees found out? It says he WAS not baptizing, it didn’t see he DID not baptize anyone. Im not hanging my whole argument on this point, but bear it in mind.

As for your resounding “no’s,” I more than addressed your points. You wishing them away doesn’t change the fact. If you’re not going to respond with anything more indepth than “NO”, then I am afraid this discussion is pointless, because you are not respecting my intelligence, when I am clearly respecting yours.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Another thing is that you seem intent on saying baptism is for repentance. And yet, aside from the fact that Jesus says “Repent, and be baptized” in Mark, Paul also rebaptizes people who were baptized by John? Paul’s explanation? That John baptized for repentance. So obviously Jesus’ baptism cant be the exact same thing, now can it Ed?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Guess what Ed? I did a little digging. See, Jesus would have to have baptized somebody, if his disciples were then going about baptizing. So Jesus would have to have at least baptized one. It just so happens that Clement of Alexandria has this to say:

“Yes, truly, the apostles were baptised, as Clement the Stromatist relates in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes. For, in explaining the apostolic statement,“I thank God that I baptised none of you,” he says, Christ is said to have baptised Peter alone, and Peter Andrew, and Andrew John, and they James and the rest.”

So my above statement was correct, Ed. Jesus wasn’t baptizing people; not when the Pharisees heard about it. But He did baptize a person. However, my original argument still stands because the apostles baptized in His name so this is a non-issue. Food for thought Ed, you really might want to do some studying.

 

[wmscott]

Hi wmScott, These are nice words but no substance. Aren’t you thrilled that Jesus picked non-qualified men to be apostles like Peter, a fisherman, who Jesus once accused him of being “dull”. ED O.

Talk about no substance, :banghead: that is all you have done here is end runs, avoidance. and diversions, all with no substance. I really do not see a point in continuing with your limited take on Sacred Scripture and Christianity. I will let others try and trudge through this. so long.