"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tonks40
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Geometer, that is a HIGHLY unorthodox interpretation, and does pretzels with the text. I think you would find yourself in the Protestant minority there.
No, this is the only way to resolve all of the pretzels in the first 21 verses. Baptism can not do that, this is why everyone in the thread except for me, and a few others have not one word of explanation for the text, other than to beg the question about “born of water” to mean baptism.

I am not a member of any protestant denomination…
 
I just gave you an explanation, would you care to respond to that?
 
Don’t worry, Geometer, I will not be so disrespectful as to blow off your interpretation with a wave of the hand.

John 3:8 is what you seem to base a great deal of your unorthodox interpretation on. Let’s look at the context a bit. I will be using the NIV for this passage:

John 3:7-9: “You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘you must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. Your hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” “How can this be be?” Nicodemus asked. “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and you do not understand these things?”

The english words “wind” and the “Spirit” in the NT are the same Greek word: pneuma. So when we read “wind” and “spirit” in this passage, we do so because translators have made the distinction for us based on context. The original readers would have only read one word: pneuma. So why does Jesus engage in this wordplay with Nicodemus? It’s because the grace of the Spirit is free, and mysterious in action, but nonetheless real, and men must believe in its reality. It is unseen and comes from an unseen God, but its presence may be recognized by its fruits.
Ok, perhaps wind is the better word, if it gets the point accross. The text is about the metaphysics of existence. All physical things come forth from spirit, which is sometimes perceived as wind, water, or fire. This triple nature is known as Amsh, Aleph Mem Shin.
There is no difference between being “born anew” and being “born of water and the Spirit,” but Jesus’ way of phrasing it was worded with Old Testament phraseology, most likely calculated to ring a bell in Nicodemus’ mind. If he thought it impossible to gain a new nature later in life, Jesus reminds him that God promised to do this very thing:
You are guessing, because you have not been reborn. You can not discern spiritual things, without being reborn(recreated) of spirit(wind).
Ezekial 36:24-27: “For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.”

As you can see, this new Spirit/wind is *God’s *Spirit/wind, and would immediately pop into Nicodemus’ mind as a teacher of Israel. Jesus implies he should understand already, and if he does not understand these earthly prefigurements even though they spoke of cleansing water, how would he accept the heavenly words of Christ regarding the water and the Spirit?
No, I do not think that your speculations are justified.
At this point, the entire tone shifts away from a teaching to Nicodemus about baptism and focuses on Christ himself.
Wrong, baptism was never discussed. The meaning of his name was being discussed.
I’m afraid I would have to strongly disagree with your novel approach to the text.
Perfect love casts out all fear…
 
You managed to disagree with my points without actually addressing them. You made generalized statements without proving your point. That’s not good argumentation.
 
You managed to disagree with my points without actually addressing them. You made generalized statements without proving your point. That’s not good argumentation.
Look the meaning of the text is in the text. You are to enter into the reign of God, by being born of spirit(wind). This the meaning of his name, his gospel.
 
You are guessing, because you have not been reborn. You can not discern spiritual things, without being reborn(recreated) of spirit(wind).

Quote=onenow1 Above is presumption on your part geo, only God knows mens hearts.

John 3: is not rejected by Catholics geo, Catholic rendering is rejected by you.

Peace and God Bless
onenow1:popcorn:🙂
 
First off, in verse 12 he indicates that he just spoke to Nicodemus about earthly things in the verses prior, which covers a passage reeking of baptism, directly calling to mind OT passages also speaking of a messianic prophecy dealing with sprinkling clean water and giving the Spirit.

Your interpretation is way off here. AFTER verse 12, he ceases speaking of the “earthly things” he just spoke of, and begins speaking of himself. We can’t be “born from above” in the whacky way you mean. Jesus wasn’t born, first off, he was begotten. And he descended, not ascended then descended like the two examples you mentioned. For your interpretation to be even slightly correct, everybody would have to have assumed into heaven to see God. Jesus IS God, geometer. They saw him face to face in human flesh, and the only way to enter his kingdom is water and the Spirit. Every possible context sandwhiching the passage, including the OT allusions of the passage itself, refer to PHYSICAL WATER.

The kindom of heaven has come. It’s on Earth. That was amajor part of Christ’s teaching. You are part of God’s kingdom, and that isn’t relegated to heaven, that’s merely a different part of it you go to when you die.

Your exegesis is “metaphysical” to the point of sounding whacked out and spacey. The only time I’ve heard anything even remotely like it is when my buddy wanted to discuss the Bible after getting out of a really smoky car. Your interpretation seems to misconstrue the essence of the trinity, the kingdom of heaven, the context of literal water, the entire New Testament regarding salvation, Old Testament typology, the relation of man’s body to his spirit, I mean Geez man the list goes on. Start small. Don’t get too lofty for your own good. When I have to sit at your post and stare at it for 10 minutes to figure out what it means, chances are you’re being a bit…“esoteric”…
 
Look the meaning of the text is in the text. You are to enter into the reign of God, by being born of spirit(wind). This the meaning of his name, his gospel.
Exactly. And all this is accomplished, by God’s grace, in the sacrament of Baptism according to Catholic teaching.
 
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!----Leviticus 17:11, “for the life of every creature is in the BLOOD. I have given you the BLOOD so you can make atonement for your sins. It is the BLOOD, representing life, that brings you atonement.”

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 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.

Nathan where does baptism fit in all of the above to forgive sins and that we are born again by it? Does water baptism represent life? ED O.
 
Ed. It looks like you just reposted the same information. Rest assured I have already read it. Unlike you, I read and respond to all of your posts. I think the very fact that you posted that again is insulting, and I imagine you did it because you don’t read peoples’ posts, so you assume they don’t read yours either.

Also, I do understand the nature of salvation just fine. I don’t think you do though, based off of a comment of yours earlier that Jesus “became sin.” I think I have an idea what you meant by that, but that isn’t the point of this thread. The point is that you ignore what’s right in front of your face. Paul links baptism with the cross. The effects of the blood are applied through baptism. You can’t wiggle out of my many arguments, especially the Ephesians argument.

Your theology accounts for only a very small part of the Bible. That’s not very systematic Ed. That isn’t comprehensive. Theology needs to take ALL the verses into account. Your baptismal theology can’t even withstand the scrutiny of one verse in Ephesians. Why should I bother with more? I’ll wait for you to debate your way out of that one verse before I go further with you.

I will not respond to you again until you critique my former posts. I am not going to copy and paste anymore, even though I know for a fact you selectively read my material.
 
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!----Leviticus 17:11, “for the life of every creature is in the BLOOD. I have given you the BLOOD so you can make atonement for your sins. It is the BLOOD, representing life, that brings you atonement.”

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 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.

Nathan where does baptism fit in all of the above to forgive sins and that we are born again by it? Does water baptism represent life? ED O.
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.

As you note.

Where is blood mentioned here?
 
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.

As you note.

Where is blood mentioned here?
I am surprised you ask this.

Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and **without shedding of blood is no remission. **

Act 20:28 … to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1Jo 1:7 …and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ,…washed us from our sins in his own blood,
 
Nathan, the “wind” you say is the same Greek word as spirit and Jesus is using a “wordplay”

I think you are mistaken. It is not Jesus who used a wordplay, but the translators.

The words spirit and wind are two different words, but Jesus only used the word for “spirit”.

Mat 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds (417) and the sea; and there was a great calm.

If Jesus were making a wordplay, he would have used the word “anemos”.

We do not need to replace “spirit” with “wind” to understand what Jesus is saying about the spirit.

So, I don’t understand what point you are making, Nathan. How does the translators play on words refute Geometer? (not that I agree with G’s assertion, just don’t know what your point is)
 
1 Peter 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 saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I am trying to understand why no appears to see the words I have bolded in Peter’s statement. Instead, everyone concentrates on the fact Peter is contrasting OT to NT Baptism, which we agree upon.

Peter is showing how the OT was “a shadow” of the things to come - Not the real deal.

If we were talking dentistry we might think of it as a temporary filling. Something we use while we wait for the appointment when the dentist replaces the temporary filling with a permanent gold filling.

In the OT water was used for ceremonial purification. It washed away the germs and dirt.

Hbr 9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, (the word used here is Baptismo) and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

So you can also see that Peter is contrasting the temporary substitute with the genuine.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body…

This water Baptism that now saves, saves because it has been made complete.

How has it been made complete so that it can save us?

1 Peter 3:21 It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Before the resurrection, Baptism was nothing more than a sign of repentance.

The physical is now reconciled to the spiritual.

Just like the blood of goats and bulls could never removed the guilt, water Baptism could never save our immortal souls before the resurrection made it complete.

Our physical act of being Baptized is …the pledge of a good conscience toward God. which, since the resurrection, is now able to save.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—**not the removal of dirt from the body (OT)**but the pledge of a good conscience toward God (NT)…

1 Peter 3:21 …It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Ginger
 
First off, in verse 12 he indicates that he just spoke to Nicodemus about earthly things in the verses prior, which covers a passage reeking of baptism, directly calling to mind OT passages also speaking of a messianic prophecy dealing with sprinkling clean water and giving the Spirit.

Your interpretation is way off here. AFTER verse 12, he ceases speaking of the “earthly things” he just spoke of, and begins speaking of himself. We can’t be “born from above” in the whacky way you mean. Jesus wasn’t born, first off, he was begotten. And he descended, not ascended then descended like the two examples you mentioned. For your interpretation to be even slightly correct, everybody would have to have assumed into heaven to see God. Jesus IS God, geometer. They saw him face to face in human flesh, and the only way to enter his kingdom is water and the Spirit. Every possible context sandwhiching the passage, including the OT allusions of the passage itself, refer to PHYSICAL WATER.

The kindom of heaven has come. It’s on Earth. That was amajor part of Christ’s teaching. You are part of God’s kingdom, and that isn’t relegated to heaven, that’s merely a different part of it you go to when you die.

Your exegesis is “metaphysical” to the point of sounding whacked out and spacey. The only time I’ve heard anything even remotely like it is when my buddy wanted to discuss the Bible after getting out of a really smoky car. Your interpretation seems to misconstrue the essence of the trinity, the kingdom of heaven, the context of literal water, the entire New Testament regarding salvation, Old Testament typology, the relation of man’s body to his spirit, I mean Geez man the list goes on. Start small. Don’t get too lofty for your own good. When I have to sit at your post and stare at it for 10 minutes to figure out what it means, chances are you’re being a bit…“esoteric”…
Your protest is so elaborate it could be called Shakespearian. You are still completely wrong. I know from experience, and you just can not know god as your father from playing with metaphors. You and the others are simply playing with metaphors, and that whole process is meaningless.

When I was ten years old I was taken up from existence by the spirit of God and then three hours later delivered back to the earth. And I descended, reborn of spirit. Since I exist my father in heaven does exist, I am physical evidence. And this is what you have been called to by the very name of Gods son.

Narrow is the way, baptism is much, much to broad a way. Getting to heaven is not like eating a hamburger at Mc Donalds, with one billion served…
 
Your protest is so elaborate it could be called Shakespearian. You are still completely wrong. I know from experience, and you just can not know god as your father from playing with metaphors. You and the others are simply playing with metaphors, and that whole process is meaningless.

When I was ten years old I was taken up from existence by the spirit of God and then three hours later delivered back to the earth. And I descended, reborn of spirit. Since I exist my father in heaven does exist, I am physical evidence. And this is what you have been called to by the very name of Gods son.

Narrow is the way, baptism is much, much to broad a way. Getting to heaven is not like eating a hamburger at Mc Donalds, with one billion served…
I’m not even going to dispute whether or not what you write is accurate. But I will say this

What you describe is not the typical Christian experience and it is not the system Christ left in place for us.
 
I’m not even going to dispute whether or not what you write is accurate. But I will say this

What you describe is not the typical Christian experience and it is not the system Christ left in place for us.
Well, I understand what you are telling me, and this is the same with everyone it seems. No one really believes that they can a actually know God through direct experience, but Jesus said you must. If christians do not get involved in the miraculus works of Christ, are they really christians?
 
Well, I understand what you are telling me, and this is the same with everyone it seems. No one really believes that they can a actually know God through direct experience, but Jesus said you must. If christians do not get involved in the miraculus works of Christ, are they really christians?
We do know God through direct experience with him, through the sacraments including baptism. When we are baptised, it is Jesus (through your priest) performing the Sacrament. The same can be said for every other Sacrament.

Trying to build a theology based upon the idea that we become members of the body of Christ through being assumed into heaven (temporarly), then returned to earth is highly problematic, and scriptually unsupportable.
 
We do know God through direct experience with him, through the sacraments including baptism. When we are baptised, it is Jesus (through your priest) performing the Sacrament. The same can be said for every other Sacrament.

Trying to build a theology based upon the idea that we become members of the body of Christ through being assumed into heaven (temporarly), then returned to earth is highly problematic, and scriptually unsupportable.
I don’t like theology, because I don’t think it works. Cerimonies are not miracles. if I should make any change in the way that people behave, it would simply be that they ask god for the miracles that they need.

Pray bigger!
 
I don’t like theology, because I don’t think it works. Cerimonies are not miracles. if I should make any change in the way that people behave, it would simply be that they ask god for the miracles that they need.

Pray bigger!
Would you agree that we need to know the truth in order to be saved? yes or no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top