"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[Nathan_Wagar]

And yes, Ed, the Holy Spirit is a HE, not an It. And you are most correct that the NAB is a terrible translation (in some places). That’s why I have many Bibles, as well as the Greek, which you will be glad to know, says “He.” You also might be interested to know that I heard some rumor (so it may be just that) that the NAB wasn’t approved by the Vatican, so they are going to come out with another offical translation. Again, however, DO NOT quote me on that, because I could be full of it.

God Bless you Ed, I’m going to bed. Jujitsu kicked my butt tonight.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Yet Jesus baptized with WATER. He HAD to baptize at least one of his disciples, because He would not send unbaptized people to baptize in His name, which is BY THE HOLY SPIRIT according to John.

Nathan, since you dogged my question, let’s try it again. In Acts 8:12 Phillip preached Jesus’ message. All the people were Baptized, then in vs 15 Peter and John came down and laid hands and prayed for these people for them to receive the Holy Spirit. vs 16,“For it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In plain English it very clearly says they were baptized in the name of Jesus yet the Holy Spirit did NOT come upon them. But you say above when a person is baptize in the name of Jesus they are baptized BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. If that is so, why didn’t that take place here?

You’re stuck, Ed. By the Bible alone

Don’t be a dreamer ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Sigh. Ed. I just answered this question. I really did. Im not dogging you, you won’t see what’s right in front of your face.

I suppose you will also ignore the fact that the Israelites were baptized into Moses UNDER THE CLOUD and THROUGH THE RED SEA. Considering that Jesus is the recapitulation of Moses and Elijah, bringing about the New Exodus, I guess you would totally deny that it would make sense that Jesus’ baptism would be a greater fulfillment of this, since he is the fulfillment of Moses. And what was present there? Water and Spirit. What did Jesus baptize with? Water and Spirit. You can’t point to some verses and ignore others that shed some light on what those verses mean. I answered your question twice, and indepth. You never answer mine. This is getting pathetic. Seriously, good night Ed. Maybe somebody else will answer your questions with responses you ignore. God Bless.

 

[mandateman]

Man indeed must be born of water and the Holy Spirit. Which has something to do with our stating that in Baptism we recieve the Holy Spirit, we receive a permanent mark on our soul, and become the adopted children of God. We recieve the gift of Sanctifying Grace and in Baptism we die with Christ and are reborn with Him. A new creation a Christian. For all the Born Again protestants I tell you all catholics are born again and we were the first born again and we created the phrase.

If you are unbaptised by one of the three methods of baptism you are not born again and all of these realities are not yours to posess. Birth does not make you an adopted child of God nor do you have any rights then that of a creature. That is the reason for our Lord say “must.” So creatures come to the light a new life begun in baptism.

 

[Ginger2]

Nathan Wagar:

Yet Jesus baptized with WATER. He HAD to baptize at least one of his disciples, because He would not send unbaptized people to baptize in His name, which is BY THE HOLY SPIRIT according to John.

1. The Bible does not tell of Jesus baptizing anyone - not even a disciple.
   John 4 plainly says Jesus baptized no one - his disciples did the Baptizing.
   Many of Jesus’ disciples left John to follow Jesus, so they were already water Baptized.
   John clearly stated that he Baptized with water for repentance, but Jesus would Baptize with the** Holy Spirit and with fire** (Matthew 3:11)

Humans Baptize with water. The disciples baptized with water. Jesus Baptized upon his death and not before with ** Holy Spirit and with fire**

1. The Holy Spirit was not being given to people before Jesus’ crucifixion. They were Baptizing with water for repentance - a public declaration of their faith in Jesus. This was a demonstration of their belief.

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Matthew 3:11 )

John 3:Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John’s Baptized for repentance. People were not given the Holy Spirit before Jesus’ crucifixion.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Act 2:38 )

 

[Ginger2]

…What did Jesus baptize with? Water and Spirit…

I (John) baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Matthew 3:11 )

Please show me the verse that says Jesus Baptized people with water, because I do not find it.

 

[Tonks40]

I (John) baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Matthew 3:11 )

Please show me the verse that says Jesus Baptized people with water, because I do not find it.

John 3:22

“After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.”

Does this help?

 

[Ginger2]

John 3:22

“After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.”

Does this help?

John 4:1 The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

 

[wmscott]

Sigh. Ed. I just answered this question. I really did. Im not dogging you, you won’t see what’s right in front of your face.

I suppose you will also ignore the fact that the Israelites were baptized into Moses UNDER THE CLOUD and THROUGH THE RED SEA. Considering that Jesus is the recapitulation of Moses and Elijah, bringing about the New Exodus, I guess you would totally deny that it would make sense that Jesus’ baptism would be a greater fulfillment of this, since he is the fulfillment of Moses. And what was present there? Water and Spirit. What did Jesus baptize with? Water and Spirit. You can’t point to some verses and ignore others that shed some light on what those verses mean. I answered your question twice, and indepth. You never answer mine. This is getting pathetic. Seriously, good night Ed. Maybe somebody else will answer your questions with responses you ignore. God Bless.

Nathan, in Ed’s citations of Sacred Scripture in post 182 he cites Acts 8 but fails to see verses 29-31, I wonder why?

Acts 8:29-31

29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ginger.

Please, don’t be like Ed. Read all of what I wrote, because I covered this. It says Jesus was “not baptizing” when the pharisees found out. It does not say that he baptized NO ONE. Even liberal Protestant scholars agree Jesus had to baptize somebody in the early portion of His ministry, so you are going in the minority opinion here even in your camp just to desperately prove a point.

Do you know why, Ginger? Because he is not going to send disciples out baptizing in Jesus’ name if they themselves are not baptized. Jesus had to baptize at least one of them, otherwise they are baptizing in the name of John, not Jesus. It just so happens we have early Christian testimony that that is exactly what Jesus did. Even if you don’t accept that testimony, it doesn’t refute the argument from logic that even your Protestant brethren accept.

And what’s the difference between Jesus’ and John’s baptisms? John baptizes with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. But then Jesus and his disciples baptize with WATER. So what’s the difference? the Spirit. I would also refer you directly above to my post about the red sea, because that definitely apllies here. I would also refer you to the seeming thousands of posts littered throuought this thread, oftentimes repeated, for Ed’s benefit. I am not going to repost the same information. Any questions you have most likely have already been addressed.

In the Bible, Ginger, truth needs 2 or 3 witnesses. John the Baptist said Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. (Then Jesus baptizes with water, Ginger). Clement said that Jesus baptized with water. MANY early fathers said that Jesus baptized with water and the Sprit. JESUS HIMSELF said you need to be born of water and the spirit. Peter said baptism saves you, and presented Jesus as the new moses. As the Israelites were baptized into Moses through the Red Sea UNDER THE CLOUD, people baptized into Jesus will be batized through water with the Holy Spirit.

My interpretation has many witnesses, Ginger. Your doesn’t. God Bless.

 

[Ginger2]

…Because he is not going to send disciples out baptizing in Jesus’ name if they themselves are not baptized. Jesus had to baptize at least one of them, otherwise they are baptizing in the name of John, not Jesus…

Where in Scriptures does it say John was Baptizing in his own name before Jesus came? It doesn’t. It merely says John was Baptizing many. So where do you get the idea the disciples of JESUS would have to Baptize in John’s name if they didn’t Baptize in Jesus’ name?

The fact is** the disciples were not yet Baptizing in Jesus’ name**. Jesus did not command them to Baptize in his name until after he rose from the grave!

It was after his crucifixion that everything was made perfect. Before this there was only water Baptism for repentance. Thru Jesus’ sacrifice we were reconciled to God and only then could we regain what was lost thru the sin of Adam and Eve.

Ginger

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Wow Ginger, the burden of proof truly rests on you, that the apostles were not baptizing in Jesus’ name. Especially since the Pharisees apparently thought that Jesus was the one baptizing. Doesn’t that at least imply a difference in the Apostles’ baptizing as opposed to John’s baptizing? They can’t both be doing the exact same kind of baptism, Ginger, or Jesus would merely be looked at as one of John’s disciples. You are taking a ridiculous viewpoint to justify bad theology. You still are ignoring independent Christian testimony displaying otherwise.

Now I will point out, that my statement “in the name of John” was a bit glib to the point of being careless. Thank you for pointing that out, but it doesn’t change the main thrust of the argument.

“Before this there was only water Baptism for repentance.”

Yes Ginger, and since John’s baptism was for repentance, Jesus wouldn’t be having people go around baptizing the exact same baptism. They already had John for that. Jesus telling them to baptize in his name after his death and resurrection is a reiteration, not a first time deal. Again, the burden of prood is always resting on you, to ignore the earliest Christian testimony regarding the nature and necessity of baptism.

Again, the burden of proof is on you as to why anybody should believe your intepretation of regenerative, sacramental baptism, when your opinion is about 1800 years divorced from the earliest Christian belief. It’s even divorced from the earliest PROTESTANT belief. Your interpretation is a schism iof a schism, Ginger. How do you justify that to yourself? Your contradictory view of the Holy Spirit that believes many things about baptism?

 

[Ginger2]

… to ignore the earliest Christian testimony regarding the nature and necessity of baptism.

I agree, Baptism is necessary. The Bible says so!

What is it you think I disagree with?

We willingly engage in an act of water Baptism, publicly pronouncing our faith in Christ Jesus, repenting of our sin, and agreeing to share in his death and resurrection.

I am not denying the need for water Baptism. I am stating the Bible says the is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood - Baptism was not made perfect/ complete until Jesus died.

That is why Jesus was not performing the water Baptisms himself - Jesus Baptism is from above and we could not receive this before his sacrifice.

Ginger

 

[EdOsiecki]

Wmscott
Nathan, in Ed’s citations of Sacred Scripture in post 182 he cites Acts 8 but fails to see verses 29-31, I wonder why?

Acts 8:29-31

29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him

Hi wmscott, what you fail to see in this episode, is verse 37, Phillip said,“If you belive with all your heart, you may.” ( be baptized) The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Your putting your emphasis and the baptism, while you neglect what phillip taught about Jesus before the baptism. Phillip wouldn’t have baptized him if he didn’t BELIEVE

There’s nothing in the water that brings on the Holy Spirit. Baptism is of showing repentance. Eph. 1:13," And you also includerd in Christ when you HEARD the WORD of TRUTH, the GOSPEL of your SALVATION. (NOT water baptism) Having BELIEVED, you were marked in Him with the seal, the promised HOLY SPIRIT. ----- Nothing, zilch, zero, about water baptism. Why is it so hard for you to believe John the baptist who said, I baptized you with water for repentance." He ought to know best as to why he was sent by God. Your theology is WRONG based on the erroneous interpretation of John 3:5 which has nothing to to with baptism. ED O

 

[EdOsiecki]

To Nathan, wmscott and whomever;
It all comes back to this: John 3:5. Jesus states, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. v6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to the spirit.”

v5 born of water, I say that is physical birth, Catholics say that’s water baptism. Is there any Catholic here that can show me in Scripture that the born of water means baptism?

On my post 174, copied from the Catholic web page, it shows several of the early church Fathers in error by adding the word “again” to v 5 thus: “born again of water” which is WRONG to add to Scripture. I also showed that the Duoay/Rhiems Catholic bible does the same. WHY?---- By adding the word “again” changes the meaning of v 5 . My point is this, why are they and the Catholic bible adding to Scripture? Give me an answer? ED O.

 

[diggerdomer]

To Nathan, wmscott and whomever;
It all comes back to this: John 3:5. Jesus states, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. v6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to the spirit.”

v5 born of water, I say that is physical birth, Catholics say that’s water baptism. Is there any Catholic here that can show me in Scripture that the born of water means baptism?

On my post 174, copied from the Catholic web page, it shows several of the early church Fathers in error by adding the word “again” to v 5 thus: “born again of water” which is WRONG to add to Scripture. I also showed that the Duoay/Rhiems Catholic bible does the same. WHY?---- By adding the word “again” changes the meaning of v 5 . My point is this, why are they and the Catholic bible adding to Scripture? Give me an answer? ED O.

The page you cite does not show the early Church Fathers added anything to Scripture. It simply quotes them and says NOTHING about there being an error or addition.

You are claiming that those listed Fathers erred based on your translation of Scripture.

If you know Greek, and Latin and have access to the versions of Scripture they were using, then you might be able to persuade us they were wrong and you are right.

 

[Ginger2]

The page you cite does not show the early Church Fathers added anything to Scripture. It simply quotes them and says NOTHING about there being an error or addition.

Of course it doesn’t say they erred. It’s a Catholic source. Ed wasn’t saying the Website claimed they erred. He was stating they did erred and the evidence is the quotes referenced in the Website.

You are claiming that those listed Fathers erred based on your translation of Scripture.

Ed is right the Douay Rheims Bible added a word that is not in the original text. Several church fathers erred and their error was translated into the DR Bible.

Do you know, has this error been correct with the others, or does it still exist in the official text?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Does anyone have a list of the revisions made to the DR Bible?

I know Genesis 3:15 was corrected.

But what about 1 John 5:7, and particularly John 3:5.

I am very interested -* I intend to use this against Catholics*

Seriously, I would like to see a list of the revisions.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Concerning the “born again” issue the church fathers appear to have been associating verse three with verse five.

But Jesus doesn’t mention water in verse 3, and doesn’t mention “again” in verse 5.

It is obvious we must be born again - born of spirit. The question is what does being “born of water” refer to.

 

[EdOsiecki]

diggerdormer
the page you cite does not show the early church fathers added anything to scripture. It simply quotes them and says nothing about there being an error or addition.

You are claiming that those listed fathers erred based on your translation of scripture.

If you know greek, and latin and have access to the versions of scripture they were using, then you might be able to persuade us they were wrong and you are right./

Hi diggerdorme, you better go back and read post 174 again. Almost every one of the church Fathers mentioned there is being quoted thusly: “born AGAIN of water” The bible reads thusly: “born of water” So they are misquoting the Bible. To make matters even worse, the Douay / Rhiems bible which is considered a Catholic bible reads the same , “born AGAIN of water”. I checked more than a dozen of other bible translations and they all read,“Born of water” So I repeat, the church Fathers as well as the Duoay / Rhiems bible are WRONG. What you say about knowing Greek or Latin is NONSENSE! Are all the other versions of the bible wrong and the Duoay / Rhiems bible is the only one that is correct? You would have a hard time convincing me or any bible believer of that. That’s the problem with this forum, you never admit that your wrong, you keep on twisting, rationalizing etc. trying to convince something that is not.ED O.