"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tonks40
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The World as I See It

I could not find the quote in his essay.
As you could see if you scrolled down, this is a 128 page book. You don’t get the entire book in this preview, how could amazon make money if it just gave you the book online which is illegal anyway? This is not proof that the quote is not in there.
 
As you could see if you scrolled down, this is a 128 page book. You don’t get the entire book in this preview, how could amazon make money if it just gave you the book online which is illegal anyway? This is not proof that the quote is not in there.
Amazon search

Look at the last entry in this search of all Amazon books. It is Bernie Seigels book. It is the oldest book that they sell, that has that quote…
 
Ed.O.

I thought that was your concern.
I suggested it may be your concern in my untidy post #161

have been enjoying your discussion with Nathan.
You guys obviously don’t have young kids, to be able to spend this much time on this.
 
Acts 22:16 " Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptised, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
 
Amazon search

Look at the last entry in this search of all Amazon books. It is Bernie Seigels book. It is the oldest book that they sell, that has that quote…
For the sake of sparing valuable and limited thread postings, could you PM zach your Einstein academia issues? Or perhaps start a new thread that challenges his academic honesty, which btw is quite a shallow argument, for what it’s worth. Thanks.
 
For the sake of sparing valuable and limited thread postings, could you PM zach your Einstein academia issues? Or perhaps start a new thread that challenges his academic honesty, which btw is quite a shallow argument, for what it’s worth. Thanks.
Thanks for taking time to insult us.

Have a nice day!
 
Thanks for taking time to insult us.

Have a nice day!
Actually, it wasn’t targeted at zach at all…nor was it intended to be an insult to you personally…just to your challenge of such a tangential, inconsequential subject. I could easily have said many posts ago, thanks for wasting the OPs thread with post after post of irrelevant banter. But I thought I’d try to be more civil than that.

Anyway, no hard feelings intended. Just thought somebody should eventually tell you that your sidebar is distracting to the thread.

You have a nice day too.
 
Hi Nathan, I went back to post 153 and found some interesting remarks that you have made there. My mistake back there was, that is, I tried to answer too many people and missed some of what you said. Here’s what I have posted with your response:

“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.

Nathan would you please show me the Scripture for your above statement? ED O
 
Actually, it wasn’t targeted at zach at all…nor was it intended to be an insult to you personally…just to your challenge of such a tangential, inconsequential subject. I could easily have said many posts ago, thanks for wasting the OPs thread with post after post of irrelevant banter. But I thought I’d try to be more civil than that.

Anyway, no hard feelings intended. Just thought somebody should eventually tell you that your sidebar is distracting to the thread.

You have a nice day too.
If you had read the link that you quoted, you would know that the controversey was settled. You did not have to tell us to stop discussing the subject. Bernie Seigel was the first to say, “Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.”

I do not believe that what is said about God in public is shallow.

If you must respond to this use the private message feature…
 
Ed, I would focus on arguing yourself out of the last post first, then we can discuss that one. You never cleared up your contradictions with Saul’s baptism in Acts. One at a time, then we can move on.
 
Posted by panevino
I thought that was your concern.
I suggested it may be your concern in my untidy post #161
have been enjoying your discussion with Nathan.
You guys obviously don’t have young kids, to be able to spend this much time on this
Hi panevino, In John 3:5 “man born of water” refers to man’s physical birth. That’s why Jesus in v 6 refers back to v5 Flesh gives birth to flesh (physical birth) but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Just because the word water is mentioned there does not mean baptism. Nathan claims that we are saved, our sins are forgiven and we receive the Holy Spirit by water baptism. That can’t be true and here’s why,

The criteria, SET by GOD, for the forgiveness of sins for “ALL” mankind is twofold. RULE ( 1 ) Sin caused man to die but God in the O.T., allows a substitute, animals died in man’s place. In the N.T. the same theme carries through, Lamb/Jesus died in man’s place.

RULE ( 2 ) ONLY blood can forgive and atone for sins. Here’s why! God says in the O.T. Lev 17:11, “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that make atonement for one’s life.” and the same theme in the N.T. Mat 26:28, Jesus states, “This is my Blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Why ONLY Blood? Leviticus above states, Life is in the blood, so If we want life, it’s the Blood that gives it to us. In the O.T. it was animal’s blood, in the N.T. it’s Jesus’ Blood that gives us life eternal. That’s why when Adam/ Eve covered themselves with leaves, God had to recover them with animal’s skins, Animals, substitute, died in their place, and the blood restored them to life.

The first book in the N.T. Mat 26:28 Jesus states, He gives us His Blood for the forgiveness of sins, somewhere past the middle of the N.T. Heb 9:22, states, “Without the shedding of Blood there is NO forgiveness of sins” and in the last book of the Bible Rev 1:5, states, “To Him (Jesus) who loves us and freed us from our sins by His BLOOD.”

Does water baptism forgives sins ? NO! If it did, then Jesus died in VAIN. What does it then do? It does exactly what John Mat 3:11, says it does, that is, to show our repentance, turning to God, an example of that is per Mat 3:7-8, when John wouldn’t baptized the Pharisees/Sadducees v 8, he said, “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.” (show your turning to God)

Rom 6:4, states about baptism, “We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” We die to our old life and begin a new repentant life. Col 2:12 states the same.

Can water baptism forgive sins? NO! WHY? ----- RULE ( 1 ) Because there has to be a substitute to die in man’s place. ----- RULE ( 2 ) There has to be blood to give life. Water baptism cannot do either, God made the RULES for ALL mankind. The people in the O.T. had original sin too! Were they baptized ? NO! They were circumcised and related to the community, as we are baptized to enter the community of the church. It’s only a righteous act, exactly like Jesus says it is Mat 3:15.

Is the Holy Spirit received by water baptism? NO! ( a ) There’s no Scripture that supports that claim. ( b ) Acts 8:12 The people believed the gospel and were baptized. Did they received the Holy Spirit? NO! v16 very clearly states, “because the Holy Spirit had NOT yet come upon any of them. That’s proof that the Holy Spirit does not come by water baptism. Acts 19:2-6, Paul very clearly states that the Holy Spirit does not come by John’s water baptism. He states it’s a baptism of repentance. When he prayed and laid hands on them, they then received the Holy Spirit.

Think about this: At the Lord’s supper Jesus said,“This is my BlOOD of the new covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” He said NOTHING about water baptism going to forgive sins. ED O.
 
Posted by Nathan Wagar
Ed, I would focus on arguing yourself out of the last post first, then we can discuss that one. You never cleared up your contradictions with Saul’s baptism in Acts. One at a time, then we can move on
Hi Nathan, I didn’t think you were around tonight so I replied to panevino. But concerning our last post, you are wrong as you always are so I gave up ( just kidding!) When you bring up Eph 4:5 the ONLY ONE baptism, you prove yourself wrong by default. Here’s why: Mat 3:11 John speaks of two baptisms, Heb 6:2 Paul speaks about baptisms (plural) Jesus after the crucifixion and just prior to going to heaven speaks of two baptisms. So it’s the baptism of the Holy Spirit that unites us into the body of Christ. That’s the ONE baptism that Eph 4:5 speaks about. And it can’t be water baptism, because Jesus would have said so. He told his apostles to wait until He sends the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Proof of this is in Acts 8:12 All the people believed and were baptized, yet the Holy Spirit did not come upon them. v16 very clearly says so. The Holy Spirit came on them When Peter and John prayed for them. Any more questions about Eph 4:5, it proved you wrong. ED O.
 
It seems that Jesus is asking that a person be born a second time. There is no third birth. So born of water simply introduced being born of flesh. You can not avoid the first birth from flesh, but it has to be stated, because being born of spirit is a physical birth from the atmosphere, instead of the womb.

Again it is not to mean three births, flesh, water, spirit… There is a lot of water associated with natural birth, the element water. This helps him point to the element of wind in spiritual birth.

That which is born of spirit is spirit.
 
Ed I already dealt with that argument by explaining that it refers to salvific baptism. It has to, since as you put it, Paul refers to “baptisms.” But we agree that it is salvific baptism, yes? You never explained why Paul wasn’t saved upon belief.
 
Hi Nathan, I went back to post 153 and found some interesting remarks that you have made there. My mistake back there was, that is, I tried to answer too many people and missed some of what you said. Here’s what I have posted with your response:

“Hi Nathan, it doesn’t say Jesus was baptized with water and SPIRIT. John in Mat 3:11 states he (John) 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.

NATHAN WOULD YOU PLEASE SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURE FOR YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT? ED.O.
 
Ed. I will say this one final time. You did not answer the post about why Paul was not saved until he was baptized. Instead of beating around the bush, please develop a cogent argument and respond so we can continue this discussion point by point, in a productive manner.
 
Posted by Nathan Wagar
Ed I already dealt with that argument by explaining that it refers to salvific baptism. It has to, since as you put it, Paul refers to “baptisms.” But we agree that it is salvific baptism, yes? You never explained why Paul wasn’t saved upon belief
Hi Nathan, NO! We do not agree. Water baptism is not salvific, you try to present it as such but you have no Scripture proof. Paul was saved upon belief, it’s you that would believe Eph1:3, which very clearly 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.” So when Paul believed in Jesus he was sealed by the Holy Spirit. It also says the gospel of your salvation. That’s salvific. It’s you that won’t believe what it says here. I show you the Scripture why Paul was saved before he got baptized, yet you keep telling me he got saved when he was baptized but no Scripture to prove it. It’s only what you think. I say he got saved when he believed before he was baptized.ED O.
 
Fair enough Ed. He was saved but he wasn’t forgiven of his sins. That makes plenty of sense, right? You’re caught, Ed, because even if he received the Spirit when Ananias laid hands on him (which I have demonstrated he did not), that wouldn’t make sense, because he should have ALREADY received it upon believing. By your logic, he received the Holy Spirit upon believing, but apparently still didn’t have his sins forgiven? I mean come on Ed.

As for the Ephesians comment, I didn’t insert “water baptism” into there. I merely said we both agree that the “one baptism” referred to in Ephesians is salvific, whatever the baptism it refers to. What inserts the “water baptism” into the context quite effectively is Peter comparing it to water and spirit, and Saul not being saved until he was baptized, and Jesus mentioning water and the Spirit. This whole matrix of Scripture passages is interconnected, Ed. It’s similar to inferring the doctrine of the trinity, even though the words “trinity” are found nowhere. This is why your argument of “where is that in scripture” is so bankrupt, because it’s all over the place, and I am patiently showing you. You tend to ignore the hard arguments.

You want to say Paul was saved when he believed upon hearing the gospel from Jesus. That’s fine Ed, but I guess that means that somehow he was saved without having his sins forgiven, because that doesn’t happen until later. How do you explain this? You can’t Ed, because it’s the one domino that destroys your very unsystematic theology.
 
You want to know something else funny, Ed? I have a Protestant Apologetics Bible as well. Extensive apologetics notes on almost a verse-by-verse basis. Totally against Catholic beliefs. Guess what it has to say about this passage regarding Saul and Ananias? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Skips right over it, in fact. Similar to what you are doing. I’d love to hear your argument on this.

Just so you know, I can give you links to several intelligent Protestant web pages that are giving the exact same arguments I am about why baptism saves you, but I guess they are wrong too? I already know what you’re going to do. You’re going to pick a few sentences out of my posts and respond to them, without answering my main question: Why was Paul “saved” upon believing, but his sins weren’t forgiven? So what does “saved” mean to you, Ed?
 
Yeshuot are the salvations of God. Yeshua means that God has acted to help.

The scriptures do not say that Paul was saved do they? I couldn’t find that in the scripture.

Was his life in danger?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top