C
crowcounty
Guest
acts2:11 glossais tongues does not appear in matt
luke1:42 haneiphoneisen she sounded/ exclaimed does not appear in matt or acts
matt 27:46 haneboeisen shouted doew not appear in luke or acts
- Status
luke1:42 haneiphoneisen she sounded/ exclaimed does not appear in matt or acts
matt 27:46 haneboeisen shouted doew not appear in luke or acts
G
geometer
Guest
I do agree that born of water means natural birth, but born of spirit is also physical birth. This is what is being described, that the physical body comes forth from the spirit. If this wasn’t the case there would be very little meaning in any of this.
Jesus is telling him that one must come forth from spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is why he says the being born again is to come and no one knows from where you have come, and to go and no one knows where you have gone. And then he brings up a very important point, that being born again is to descend from heaven. That even he had to descend from heaven to be born into Gods kingdom.
Then he mentions his name which must be believed. His name means that we are delivered by God. Elsewhere in John he speaks of this as being sent by Gods power. This power is the sovereignty of God, his power to anihilate and create.
Elsewhere I have quoted from the RSV, which seems more accurate than the translation that you quote from. The emphasis is on that which is born, not that which gives birth. If you have been born of spirit, you are spirit. This is the important realization, that everything comes forth from spirit. That which gives birth to flesh is a woman, but that is not the intent of the passage to point that out.
C
crowcounty
Guest
thy will be done on earth? matter can be holy.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Oh yes I can ignore it! Here’s why! John 16:13 states, “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” When I got born again on May 4, 1974, He, the Holy Spirit, not only changed my life but He has guided me all of these years. That’s why God gave us the bible.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Hi geometer, I agree with what you say, “water means natural birth” Without out going through much discussion, what I mean is John 3:5 has absolutely nothing to do with water baptism. Do you agree? If so, tell it to Nathan. ED O.
C
crowcounty
Guest
there are three baptisms recognized by the latin rite of the roman catholic church those are:
baptism by water
baptism by desire and of course
baptism by blood
baptism by water
baptism by desire and of course
baptism by blood
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
“I can’t believe that you are saying this since you had no idea that fathers misquoted Scripture by adding the word “again” until I brought it to your attention in a prior post.” Response: You seem to be implying that I believed you, which I did not and do not.
“If so, why does the Catholic church still use it?”
Response: Why do Protestants still use the King James?
“Nathan I shouted in capital letters to show me in SCRIPTURE not what you think!. You and I went around the wheel many times over yet to no avail. You very well know what my belief is about water baptism, that is, repentance PERIOD. I also know that the apostles baptized people. I say for repentance, you say “apparantly felt Spirit was involved” Sorry brother! Apparantly means nothing! Show me the Scripture. You can’t be because there aren’t any! Zero! Zilch!” Response: Ed, I use capital letters for emphasis, not to shout. John 3:5 says water and the Spirit. You have failed to demonstrate that water means anything other than water. You choose to ignore clear words and find a meaning for the text that doesn’t fit. Then you ignore early Christian witness. Whatever man.
"What are doing playing tricks? I’m not speaking of verse 7, the contention is in verse 5, Jesus said. “unless he is born of water” He did NOT say, “born AGAIN of water”. "
Response: The contention is that all early Christians understood the water baptism as referring to being born again. I’m sorry that annoys you. Verse 7 is a nice clarifier of verse 5, just in case you didn’t get it the first time.
“What do mean by let’s keep it civil? Was that necessary to say? The fact remains, the Duoay Catholic bible changed the words of Jesus. That’s a violation of Scripture per Prov 30:6.” Response: Yes it was necessary. You seem to be getting worked up, and are making pretty strong claims with fairly strong words. If you’re wrong, you could be guilty of blasphemy. Hence it is better to be cautious when making accusations.
You can’t show me ONE manuscipts that states in v 5 “born AGAIN of water”. Besides if there were such a manuscript, don’t you think that all the bible translators would have included the word “again” in all of the bible versions by now? Response: Ed, that’s ridiculous. We are not scholars and obviously dont have access to the Original manuscripts. You don’t think the fact that several early fathers quoted 3:5 the exact same way lends some support to this possibility?
“Nathan, did Jesus tell us to follow what the anti-nicene Christians believed ? NO WAY! In Mat 4:4, Jesus tells me 2,000 years later,” It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every Word that comes from the mouth of God’." That’s very understandable isn’t it?" Response: Jesus said those that accept the ones he sent accept him. And so I guess that means we were to accept the apostles, but not the bishops they historically ordained? But then we are supposed to listen to you? Get REAL Ed.
“Oh yes I can ignore it! Here’s why! John 16:13 states, “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” When I got born again on May 4, 1974, He, the Holy Spirit, not only changed my life but He has guided me all of these years. That’s why God gave us the bible.” Response: I find your method of subjectifying your salvation typical. Personal experience is not the criterion for salvation. And God didn’t give us the Bible Ed, he gave us the Church. The Church was inspired to write the Bible. The Church compiled the Bible. Sorry Ed.
“My belief is exactly what the bible teaches.” **Response: Thousands of denominations disagree with you. **
“If so, why does the Catholic church still use it?”
Response: Why do Protestants still use the King James?
“Nathan I shouted in capital letters to show me in SCRIPTURE not what you think!. You and I went around the wheel many times over yet to no avail. You very well know what my belief is about water baptism, that is, repentance PERIOD. I also know that the apostles baptized people. I say for repentance, you say “apparantly felt Spirit was involved” Sorry brother! Apparantly means nothing! Show me the Scripture. You can’t be because there aren’t any! Zero! Zilch!” Response: Ed, I use capital letters for emphasis, not to shout. John 3:5 says water and the Spirit. You have failed to demonstrate that water means anything other than water. You choose to ignore clear words and find a meaning for the text that doesn’t fit. Then you ignore early Christian witness. Whatever man.
"What are doing playing tricks? I’m not speaking of verse 7, the contention is in verse 5, Jesus said. “unless he is born of water” He did NOT say, “born AGAIN of water”. "
Response: The contention is that all early Christians understood the water baptism as referring to being born again. I’m sorry that annoys you. Verse 7 is a nice clarifier of verse 5, just in case you didn’t get it the first time.
“What do mean by let’s keep it civil? Was that necessary to say? The fact remains, the Duoay Catholic bible changed the words of Jesus. That’s a violation of Scripture per Prov 30:6.” Response: Yes it was necessary. You seem to be getting worked up, and are making pretty strong claims with fairly strong words. If you’re wrong, you could be guilty of blasphemy. Hence it is better to be cautious when making accusations.
You can’t show me ONE manuscipts that states in v 5 “born AGAIN of water”. Besides if there were such a manuscript, don’t you think that all the bible translators would have included the word “again” in all of the bible versions by now? Response: Ed, that’s ridiculous. We are not scholars and obviously dont have access to the Original manuscripts. You don’t think the fact that several early fathers quoted 3:5 the exact same way lends some support to this possibility?
“Nathan, did Jesus tell us to follow what the anti-nicene Christians believed ? NO WAY! In Mat 4:4, Jesus tells me 2,000 years later,” It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every Word that comes from the mouth of God’." That’s very understandable isn’t it?" Response: Jesus said those that accept the ones he sent accept him. And so I guess that means we were to accept the apostles, but not the bishops they historically ordained? But then we are supposed to listen to you? Get REAL Ed.
“Oh yes I can ignore it! Here’s why! John 16:13 states, “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” When I got born again on May 4, 1974, He, the Holy Spirit, not only changed my life but He has guided me all of these years. That’s why God gave us the bible.” Response: I find your method of subjectifying your salvation typical. Personal experience is not the criterion for salvation. And God didn’t give us the Bible Ed, he gave us the Church. The Church was inspired to write the Bible. The Church compiled the Bible. Sorry Ed.
“My belief is exactly what the bible teaches.” **Response: Thousands of denominations disagree with you. **
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
“I would advise you to go back and read Acts 9:17 again, I’ll paraphrase it for you, when Ananias laid hands and prayed for Saul/Paul, he was not only healed (scales fell off his eyes) but he was also FILLED with the HOLY SPIRIT. An unsaved person cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit. Light has no fellowship with darkness. Then he was water baptized for repentance. When a person repents, he’s aking God for forgiveness of his past life (sins) That’s what it means by washing sins away. Even if the sins could be washed away as you think by baptism, it’s not complete until the sins are atoned for and that is by Jesus’ Blood. Heb 9:22 very clearly states, " Without the shedding of Blood there is NO FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” Jesus in Mat 26:28, “This is my Blood of the new convenant for the forgiveness of sins.” He didn’t say also by water baptism will forgive your sins too!"
**Response: No Ed, let’s not paraphrase. Let’s look at the exact verse from the NIV:
Acts 9:17: “So Ananias left and entered the house. Then he placed his hands on him and said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road you were traveling, has sent me so you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ At once something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he got up and was baptized.”
Ananias did not specify the exact moment when he would get the Holy Spirit, only that he would get it. And doesn’t it seem to you that if Ananias was infusing the Holy Spirit at this point, Paul would have gotten it when his hands were still on him and not after he gets up? It says he got up and was baptized. Now lets look at another verse you are leaving out Ed. It helps clarify the situation a bit.
Acts 22:12-16: “Someone named Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good reputation with all the Jews residing there, came to me, stood by me, and said, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight.’ And in that very hour I looked up and saw him. Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of His voice. For you will be a witness for Him to all people of what you have seen and heard. And now, why delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name.”
So the above clarifies that Ananias was not infusing Paul with the Holy Spirit when his hands were laid on him; he was healing him. His sins weren’t washed away until he was baptized. And Paul already believed, so it’s obvious that the baptism was by water. Regardless of Paul’s belief, he was not forgiven of sins, he was not saved. Not until his baptism.
Also, you repeatedly state that blood is necessary. Nobody ever denied that Ed. What you deny is that Paul says that the baptism is what buries you into the sacrifice of his blood. Stop ignoring the Bible Ed.**
**Response: No Ed, let’s not paraphrase. Let’s look at the exact verse from the NIV:
Acts 9:17: “So Ananias left and entered the house. Then he placed his hands on him and said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road you were traveling, has sent me so you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ At once something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he got up and was baptized.”
Ananias did not specify the exact moment when he would get the Holy Spirit, only that he would get it. And doesn’t it seem to you that if Ananias was infusing the Holy Spirit at this point, Paul would have gotten it when his hands were still on him and not after he gets up? It says he got up and was baptized. Now lets look at another verse you are leaving out Ed. It helps clarify the situation a bit.
Acts 22:12-16: “Someone named Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good reputation with all the Jews residing there, came to me, stood by me, and said, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight.’ And in that very hour I looked up and saw him. Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of His voice. For you will be a witness for Him to all people of what you have seen and heard. And now, why delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name.”
So the above clarifies that Ananias was not infusing Paul with the Holy Spirit when his hands were laid on him; he was healing him. His sins weren’t washed away until he was baptized. And Paul already believed, so it’s obvious that the baptism was by water. Regardless of Paul’s belief, he was not forgiven of sins, he was not saved. Not until his baptism.
Also, you repeatedly state that blood is necessary. Nobody ever denied that Ed. What you deny is that Paul says that the baptism is what buries you into the sacrifice of his blood. Stop ignoring the Bible Ed.**
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Actually Ed it says in the very post of yours you just quoted that you were comparing them to birth: “water” here is a metaphor alluding to people’s natural/physical birth, supported by Scripture as per, PS 144:7, Is 8:6-7, Jer 47:2 and Rev. 17:15, which very clearly states, “ The waters you saw,---- are the people, ----- .“
Peter said it was baptism that saves you. Ananias agreed with him. You have ignored all the difficult arguments I made that don’t fit your theology. This is another gigantic example of me responding to every one of your points, and you avoiding mine. Good night Ed. Keep studying.
I encourage anybody reading this thread to pay very close attention to all these posts and make up your own minds as to who has made the better defense of the truth. If any of my posts challenge your beliefs and make you rethink things, then I have accomplished something.
Peter said it was baptism that saves you. Ananias agreed with him. You have ignored all the difficult arguments I made that don’t fit your theology. This is another gigantic example of me responding to every one of your points, and you avoiding mine. Good night Ed. Keep studying.
I encourage anybody reading this thread to pay very close attention to all these posts and make up your own minds as to who has made the better defense of the truth. If any of my posts challenge your beliefs and make you rethink things, then I have accomplished something.
C
chukm8
Guest
It seems strange to hear a person say that the words of Jesus were changed. Jesus never wrote anything down except a few scrawls in the sand. The bible was written by Catholics for Catholics and it remained that way for the first 1500 yrs. of Christianity. But then, you see, Luther…
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
To all who have been following Nathan and my posts. Please note the main point of contention between us is, he claims that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism.
Several times I’ve asked him to show me the Scripture reference that it says so. Not ONCE has he done so. The reason being because there is no such Scripture.
If there were, it would be a contradiction to Eph 1:13, which very cleary states,“And you also were included in Christ when you HEARD the word of TRUTH, the GOSPEL of your SALVATION. Having BELIEVED, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised HOLY SPIRIT, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession.”
In plain English, we get SAVED by responding to the gospel, by so doing, we receive the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is not mentioned here at all. ED O.
Several times I’ve asked him to show me the Scripture reference that it says so. Not ONCE has he done so. The reason being because there is no such Scripture.
If there were, it would be a contradiction to Eph 1:13, which very cleary states,“And you also were included in Christ when you HEARD the word of TRUTH, the GOSPEL of your SALVATION. Having BELIEVED, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised HOLY SPIRIT, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession.”
In plain English, we get SAVED by responding to the gospel, by so doing, we receive the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is not mentioned here at all. ED O.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
- Jesus says water and the Spirit.
- Peter talks about water and the spirit in the OT, and how this prefigured baptism, which saves in the same way.
- #2 clarifies #1.
- Ephesians 4:4 further clarifies #1.
- The messianic prophecy in Ezekial says that the God will sprinkle clean water that cleanses the soul. Obviously Ed, cleansing is from the Holy Spirit.
- Paul was not saved until he water baptized, not merely hearing the gospel.
- The eunuch was not “baptized” until they found water. He was not “baptized in the Spirit” upon hearing the gospel.
- John’s disciples had to be rebaptized.
- Cornelius was not saved until he heard Peter’s gospel of **baptism **and repentance.
- Paul says it is the baptism that lets us take part in Jesus’ death.
- The early Church fathers all attest to the same.
- Many Protestant denominations attest to the same.
- You want to hear the actual words “infusion” which is just a technical term. Much like “trinity” Ed. You ignore that water and the spirit are delivered at the same time. Argue with Peter all you want. Argue with Paul all you want. Argue with Jesus all you want. Argue with all the early Christians all you want. Keep separating water and Spirit in violation of Ephesians 4:4, and adding your words to Scripture. Go ahead and ask your Pastor for his version of the truth. Your arguments are increasingly ridiculous, and lead in circles, because you inevitably ignore the points I make that you can’t answer. That is recorded fact all through the thread. Don’t bother answering these points, because they are merely a summary. I have already discussed them above and you ignored them there too. Live in ignorance if you wish.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
To all who who have been watching Nathan’s and my posts. Please note, I’ve asked him several times to show me the Scripture that indicates water baptism infusions the Holy Spirit. He never does so.
One of his methods in debating is to produce many statements or verses which at times looses the point of contention. And by doing so, please note he failed to respond to Eph.1:13.
Since he can’t produce any one Scripture that indicates that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, I will ask him in this manner: Eph 1:13," And you also were included in Christ when you HEARD the word of TRUTH, the GOSPEL of your SALVATION. Having BELIEVED, you were marked in him with a SEAL the promised HOLY SPIRIT."
Nathan, please answer Yes or No, Am I saved here?
ED O.
One of his methods in debating is to produce many statements or verses which at times looses the point of contention. And by doing so, please note he failed to respond to Eph.1:13.
Since he can’t produce any one Scripture that indicates that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, I will ask him in this manner: Eph 1:13," And you also were included in Christ when you HEARD the word of TRUTH, the GOSPEL of your SALVATION. Having BELIEVED, you were marked in him with a SEAL the promised HOLY SPIRIT."
Nathan, please answer Yes or No, Am I saved here?
ED O.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
No. Because your definition of belief is mental assent to the gospel. Jesus’ definition of belief is obedience. Jesus said to be baptized, as did his apostles say to be baptized. You are not saved until you are baptized. The Holy Spirit never comes salvificly before water when it is a man administering the baptism. Even God only did it in a few cases for specific instances (thief on the cross, Mary); this option is not open to us.
All my verses are quoted fully and in context; yours frequently are only partially referenced and do not support your case. I pointed this out quite nicely earlier. My verses have direct bearing on my point. Saul had his sins washed away at baptism, not belief (as you define belief). Jesus said water and the spirit. Then I gave my interpretation: this means infusion. Then I showed how the apostles interpreted it. Then I gave examples of how passages in Acts support my interpretation, and specifically not yours (which you ignored). Then I showed the early fathers. You ignored them too. You ignored the Old Testament prophecies and typology, you ignored just about everything possible to ignore, Ed, and yet you want to make accusations that I have not stated my case? Maybe if you were a bit less preoccupied with your own response to what you think I’m saying, you would actually pay attention and allow the implications to sink in. Or worse, you are reading and understanding it, and merely ignoring it because it doesn’t fit your theology. Either way, Ed, very dishonest.
The simple fact is I respond to every one of your arguments Ed. You don’t do the same. You have no answers for crucial issues I have raised. Your theology ignores aspects of the Bible in favor of others, mine does not. I have proven this over and over through the thread, which remains largely ignored by you. This is an unproductive debate, and you need to work a bit harder at your efforts to construct a meaningful argument. I enjoy being challeneged, Ed, but you apparently aren’t the one to do that.
All my verses are quoted fully and in context; yours frequently are only partially referenced and do not support your case. I pointed this out quite nicely earlier. My verses have direct bearing on my point. Saul had his sins washed away at baptism, not belief (as you define belief). Jesus said water and the spirit. Then I gave my interpretation: this means infusion. Then I showed how the apostles interpreted it. Then I gave examples of how passages in Acts support my interpretation, and specifically not yours (which you ignored). Then I showed the early fathers. You ignored them too. You ignored the Old Testament prophecies and typology, you ignored just about everything possible to ignore, Ed, and yet you want to make accusations that I have not stated my case? Maybe if you were a bit less preoccupied with your own response to what you think I’m saying, you would actually pay attention and allow the implications to sink in. Or worse, you are reading and understanding it, and merely ignoring it because it doesn’t fit your theology. Either way, Ed, very dishonest.
The simple fact is I respond to every one of your arguments Ed. You don’t do the same. You have no answers for crucial issues I have raised. Your theology ignores aspects of the Bible in favor of others, mine does not. I have proven this over and over through the thread, which remains largely ignored by you. This is an unproductive debate, and you need to work a bit harder at your efforts to construct a meaningful argument. I enjoy being challeneged, Ed, but you apparently aren’t the one to do that.
C
crowcounty
Guest
infused by the holy spirit at baptism is trckery employeed by martin luther to denounce the need for bishops, the missouri synod sola scriptura lutheran church teaches two sacraments , baptism and non transubstantial eucharist because if you roll confirmation up in the sacrament of baptism and take the transubstantiation out of the eucharist you eliminate the need for apostolic succession, bishops and the church.
so the moral is…dont be a lutheran
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, but did not believe in infused grace. He believed in imputed grace.
C
crowcounty
Guest
whats imputed mean and missouri synod teaches what i reffered to
M
MariaG
Guest
I actually haven’t been following, I just jumped here to see what was being said. Really, Nathan has not provided one scripture? Or not one scripture whose interpretation you believe?
I have to be honest while I am interested in reading this entire thread, I found Nathan’s posts difficult to follow without proper quoting. But I do find it hard to believe that Nathan has not posted on piece of scripture, but rather you just choose to disagree as to the meaning of the scripture.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Maria,
I think if you read the entire thread, you will be pleasantly surprised by the amount of Scripture I quote in entirety
My arguments are probably hard to follow because I tend to repeat myself so often with Ed that I don’t bother to requote, because he already knows what I’m talking about.
God Bless
I think if you read the entire thread, you will be pleasantly surprised by the amount of Scripture I quote in entirety
My arguments are probably hard to follow because I tend to repeat myself so often with Ed that I don’t bother to requote, because he already knows what I’m talking about.
God Bless
- Status